Talk:InterCity 225

Untitled
I think on British Rail Class 91 we need more obvious links to Intercity 225. Nickg1980

Wrong, unsourced length
Length: 451m? I don't think so... removed. 77.97.28.34 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Image
The image captioned "InterCity 225 set in original InterCity livery" ( Class_91_Peterborough_-_late_1980_s.jpg ) does not actually show an InterCity 225 set. It shows a class 91 locomotive pulling a British Rail Mk3 coach, not a Mk4 (the body shape and bogies are different). This was probably a temporary set formed before Mk4 coaches were available in sufficient numbers.

The British Rail Class 91 page however has two images that do show actual 225 formations in original livery ( Doncaster_Ron_Hann.jpg and Brclass91iclivery.jpg ). Maybe one of these should be used instead?

mallardtheduck (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

#Options and Selection section leaves me confused
The article keeps jumping around time wise, and in one case suggests the cancellation of the APT project in 1989 ("However, due to various factors including technical issues, the APT programme was curtailed during the summer of 1989") impacted BR's decision making, but later it's implied most technical decisions were made in the mid-1980s, and the next section makes it clear the train itself entered operations in 1989. (Also I can't find anything that confirms the "curtailing of the APT programme" in 1989, it's possible, the APT-P trains were withdrawn two years prior, but the APT article itself makes no mention it and the statement as written isn't sourced.)

Other articles both in Wikipedia and outside suggest anything from the IC225 being the next APT (the "APT-U" according to Advanced Passenger Train and some external websites, after the planned follow up to the APT-P, the APT-S was cancelled) while others seem to imply it is only tenuously linked, a trainset that was largely outsourced and built with the benefit of knowledge gained through the APT project. I have no idea, but it's clear Wikipedia isn't being consistent and the current version of the article looks like it's trying to weave a story that fits everything together but in the end avoids telling a story at all, bombarding the reader with random decisions and dates but not really linking these together.

Can someone who knows the subject maybe have a look over it and see if there's a way to write it in a way that makes everything clearer, including how it's linked to APT if it genuinely is?

2601:584:300:345E:2E3C:3B8F:F355:A362 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Transport for Wales 225 sets
The 225 Group lists Transport for Wales as one of their operators on their website. The train is not a "pure" 225, being pulled by a British Rail Class 67 diesel locomotive rather than a Driving Van Trailer, but I don't know what else you would call it. For simplicity's sake, should we not just call it a 225, given that possibly the most authoritative source does? Editor510 drop us a line, mate  17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a to be regarded as a proper 225. G-13114 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)