![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that this article has been rated as low importance. Given that this is the first time that a radical new train technology has been tried on the National Rail network for a long time I think this could do with a bump upwards. This is not just a small DMU. If it works out well then it will be the start of something big. Even if it doesn't work out it is an important experiment. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A multiple unit is a modular train which can be coupled together as a multiple and the resulting train driven from a single cab. The reference I have deleted from this article did not suggest that the Parry unit has this function, or that it has been placed (however inaccurately) in this group for administrative convenience. Not all railcars are equipped for multiple unit operation. One unit pulling the other without connection to allow both to be operated from one cab (usually at the front) is not multiple unit operation. Britmax ( talk) 12:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
Okay, that tells us what is going on, but not why the companies concerned have failed to meet their target dates. They knew when they had to be ready: why aren't they? Is there a proper reason, or simply excuses? That sort of thing. (Why yes, I am a regular traveller with LM...) It would also be useful if someone could add the currently expected date for start of service: a coach driver mentioned March, but that's not really a suitable source for WP! Loganberry ( Talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As of June the 22nd, 139001 is in full service on the Stourbridge Town Branch line.
-- 92.3.202.125 ( talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
People movers are automated systems using guideways, often implemented using moving sidewalks or cable-drawn cars. Is the 139 really a people mover? It looks fairly conventional to me, and it appears to have a driver cab at the front. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of those are people movers either, not by modern terminology. So the question is whether or not the 139 is more like this or more like this. I would argue is is much much more like the later. Can anyone offer any reason not to classify this as anything other than a tram? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO I have temporarily restored [6] the original mentions of the prototype that lived on the branchline for several years, and operated the Sunday service and added the mention of "Class 999" to the WP:LEAD per WP:BOLDTITLE as it appears to have been an incoming redirect since August 2009 [7].
As it stands the table clearly shows the registered class in the first column; removing that column then creates the possibility for ambiguity. To on that basis remove the mention of the previously in-service prototype is further misleading and removes the opportunity for side-by-side comparison (which is really what the table is for!). Whilst I'm sure the presentation can be improved, hopefully this can be done in a manner that does not remove existing good material. — Sladen ( talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
After I flagged the use of the term 'lightweight', someone added a citation from the supplier, which uses that term (and gives a weight of 12 tonnes - for a shorter model).
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM50-60-spec.htm states that seating is typically 20-25.
If a vehicle has only a few seats, that obviously gives a weight advantage over a vehicle having a lot of seats.
It would be better to provide a numerical weight for the vehicle. On a weight-per-passenger basis, the PPM vehicles aren't particularly lightweight.
Haskanik (
talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I was disputing your quality assessment of this article by providing a reference I know you frequent, but in regards to the Metro that stuff should be on generic transport or environmental pages otherwise it will be repeated ad infinitum, whereas information specific or unique to a an article topic belongs on its page. WatcherZero ( talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Parry People Movers ... based in Cradley Heath, supplies lightweight rail and tram vehicles.
However, problems introducing the new lightweight railcars,
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 139s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. - mattbuck ( Talk) 04:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.
Is the 2.3 L meant to be the engine displacement or the fuel capacity? Peter Horn User talk 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/111When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that this article has been rated as low importance. Given that this is the first time that a radical new train technology has been tried on the National Rail network for a long time I think this could do with a bump upwards. This is not just a small DMU. If it works out well then it will be the start of something big. Even if it doesn't work out it is an important experiment. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A multiple unit is a modular train which can be coupled together as a multiple and the resulting train driven from a single cab. The reference I have deleted from this article did not suggest that the Parry unit has this function, or that it has been placed (however inaccurately) in this group for administrative convenience. Not all railcars are equipped for multiple unit operation. One unit pulling the other without connection to allow both to be operated from one cab (usually at the front) is not multiple unit operation. Britmax ( talk) 12:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
Okay, that tells us what is going on, but not why the companies concerned have failed to meet their target dates. They knew when they had to be ready: why aren't they? Is there a proper reason, or simply excuses? That sort of thing. (Why yes, I am a regular traveller with LM...) It would also be useful if someone could add the currently expected date for start of service: a coach driver mentioned March, but that's not really a suitable source for WP! Loganberry ( Talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As of June the 22nd, 139001 is in full service on the Stourbridge Town Branch line.
-- 92.3.202.125 ( talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
People movers are automated systems using guideways, often implemented using moving sidewalks or cable-drawn cars. Is the 139 really a people mover? It looks fairly conventional to me, and it appears to have a driver cab at the front. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of those are people movers either, not by modern terminology. So the question is whether or not the 139 is more like this or more like this. I would argue is is much much more like the later. Can anyone offer any reason not to classify this as anything other than a tram? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO I have temporarily restored [6] the original mentions of the prototype that lived on the branchline for several years, and operated the Sunday service and added the mention of "Class 999" to the WP:LEAD per WP:BOLDTITLE as it appears to have been an incoming redirect since August 2009 [7].
As it stands the table clearly shows the registered class in the first column; removing that column then creates the possibility for ambiguity. To on that basis remove the mention of the previously in-service prototype is further misleading and removes the opportunity for side-by-side comparison (which is really what the table is for!). Whilst I'm sure the presentation can be improved, hopefully this can be done in a manner that does not remove existing good material. — Sladen ( talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
After I flagged the use of the term 'lightweight', someone added a citation from the supplier, which uses that term (and gives a weight of 12 tonnes - for a shorter model).
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM50-60-spec.htm states that seating is typically 20-25.
If a vehicle has only a few seats, that obviously gives a weight advantage over a vehicle having a lot of seats.
It would be better to provide a numerical weight for the vehicle. On a weight-per-passenger basis, the PPM vehicles aren't particularly lightweight.
Haskanik (
talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I was disputing your quality assessment of this article by providing a reference I know you frequent, but in regards to the Metro that stuff should be on generic transport or environmental pages otherwise it will be repeated ad infinitum, whereas information specific or unique to a an article topic belongs on its page. WatcherZero ( talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Parry People Movers ... based in Cradley Heath, supplies lightweight rail and tram vehicles.
However, problems introducing the new lightweight railcars,
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 139s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. - mattbuck ( Talk) 04:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.
Is the 2.3 L meant to be the engine displacement or the fuel capacity? Peter Horn User talk 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/111When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)