Template talk:British Rail EMU

TFD
This template was nominated for deletion, but did not have consensus to delete. Thus it is kept. See Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005. However, given its sheer size it may be worth considering to split it or convert it to a list. Radiant_* 09:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hitachi trains
What is the source for South Eastern’s high-speed trains being designated Class 395? David Arthur 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This news page on Southeastern's offical site is the only reference to 395 I've found so far. Thryduulf 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also this page advertising for a Depot manager, and this PDF (second last bullet on PDF page 18/document page 16) on Network Rail's site also mention them as Class 395. Thryduulf 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Redesign proposal
I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page.

I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other.

I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here.

--Jorvik 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have implemented the design proposal following no objections. --Jorvik 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

--AlbanScot 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I note the intention above to redesign and the comment that it has been implemented. My comment is that the current version on the main page has errors in all the links for the DC Units (original TOPS).  For example 411 clicks through to 415. I am unsure whether to change the text or change the link and in light of the intention to redesign I have not corrected it.

SR designations
Any particular reasons why these are lowercased? I've only ever seen them uppercased, and for the most part they make more sense in uppercase, as abbreviated designators rather than "words". 90.203.45.143 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the Southern Electric Group about this and been informed that the correct way of writing SR designations is   , with the exception of EPB which should be all uppercase. Hammersfan 02/03/08, 21.36 GMT
 * I have a number of objections to the above:
 * All the literature, by authors such as Marsden, Glover and publishing houses like Ian Allan and OPC that I've seen has all codes in uppercase
 * Acronyms should be written in capitals (see: WP:MOS)
 * Acronyms should also be consistent (see above) - having EPB in capitals and all others not, is not consistent!
 * best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your literature is not definitive, the correct literature to refer to is the Southern Railway & Southern Region internal documentation, which is what the SEG have done. The SR does not subscribe to the Wikipedia manual of style, having been destroyed somewhat prior to the creation of Wikipedia. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, WP:MOS might be irrelevant, but any references to this documentation in the literature anywhere? Reliable sources and stuff (see WP:RS). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Manual of Style section about acronyms may not be relevant here as they are not all acronyms - for example 4Sub is an abbreviation. It also says "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" - were they ever referred to as e.g. "Hal electro-Pneumatic Brake Stock" or was "2Hap" etc the official name? The difference in capitalisation (e.g. 4EPB) may reflect differences in the names of different classes. One thing that should be consistent is the naming in different articles e.g. "2Hap" (in British Rail Class 414), "2 Hap" (in Template:British Rail EMU) or "2HAP" (in SR multiple unit numbering and classification). It probably depends on how they are usually referred to. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think it weird that most of these acronyms should be in small case, especially given that EPB, MLV and GLV (also the trailer control sets 4TC) are in capitals! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It merits a page in it's own right... See the SEG Website for more info. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still see no direct references to the original SR documentation you mentioned. How come all the other literature has had all-capitals for so many years? WP:RS best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW User:Hammersfan's correspondence above seems to contradict the webpage itself. The email mentions "Number space capital small case", but the webpage has "Number capital small case". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SEMG adds more. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As to whether the letter abbreviation is all capitals or mixed case there does not appear to be a consistent convention, and the case used is what was decided by officialdom at the time. BTW I have thoroughly perused my 1986 copy of Motive Power Recognition 2: EMUs and I notice that there are frontal shots of at least 3 classes 4CIG, 4REP, 2HAP and these designations are shown as capitals on the front of the train, beneath the class/specs patch (black). Can't confirm the others since close-ups aren't available, but it's certainly not just the EPBs! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why Southern Railway designations are here at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbw2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Commonscat
Per my recent edit summary, I'll be adding commonscat to each page individually. I can't do this at the moment as Commons is down so I can't check the categories. I'll sort it soon. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Classes 485 & 486 (IOW 4Vec + 3Tis)
Should these two be combined into one page? They are almost word-for-word identical descriptions, for the most part. Useddenim (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merged in 2011. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

707 not AC
Class 707 is listed among the AC units, but it is for SWT, so DC. Perhaps someone could think about how the template ought to be rearranged? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed for now, no bias on further work Snöggletög   Nightfury  Happy Christmas!! 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Though you corrected it, someone reverted your correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DC units in AC section
Why are the DC-only 375 and 376 in the AC section? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because under TOPS, the 300-399 block was designated for AC and dual-system stock. As regards and, not all of these are DC-only - some are dual-system (25 kV AC/750 V DC), and those that are DC have the provision for fitting the absent AC equipment later. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Strange class designations
you reverted my removal of the 705 link from this template. Why do we need to keep this link in there, when the Class 701 was not well-known by this name and it must be very confusing for readers, especially when there is no explanation as to why Class 705 directs to the Class 701? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said - the Class 701 was previously known as Class 705 (5-car) and Class 711 (10-car). There is a reference which supports this in the Class 701 article. There are other former class designations included in this and the DMU template so I don't see why these can't be included as well - Coradia175 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have any former class designations, unless those classes are well known by their former names - I don't think many people will be looking for the Class 705 without knowing what the Class 701 is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters if they're well known or not to be honest. If a former class number is mentioned in a multiple unit's article then in my opinion it should be included in the template as well as its current designation - Coradia175 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Can I suggest a compromise? Linking to the same page three times is not good practice, especially in a template; on the other hand, these designations existed on paper and are mentioned in the 701 article. So how about 701 (originally 705 and 711), and then 711 ? Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea - Coradia175 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! If one of you does the edit, we can mark this closed. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit. I think we should also note that Dbmchart made a similar edit to me, so presumably is in favour of removing the former class designations. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's a good idea to include the notes that you added, but can I suggest you revert your edit as per the consensus here that we shouldn't list classes as their former designations as it causes confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with original suggestion that this template should only reflect what stock was classified as when in service, not what it was planned to but changed before it rolled out of the factory. Allourian (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)