 Archives ( Index) |
|
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apart from the fact that the 508s were originally in four-car sets, can anybody please clarify what distinguishes the 507 from the 508? Now that the latter are in three-car sets, is there a good reason why they're not reclassified to all be the same class? The articles don't appear to list any other technical difference such as voltage etc. (I don't know the rules for reclassification, but precedent seems to perhaps exist with the 375/377 classes, where 375s were renumbered after the couplers were changed.) – Kieran T ( talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a question I think you will find an answer to on the talk page, though there's potential to make a section or at least paragraph on this. Wikipedia obviously does not decide how trains are classified, and there is a lot of different history between the two trains that means there is no point in merging them into one article. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we have a source for this? There's a discussion on the uk.railway Usenet group at the moment which doubts our explanation. Quote:
- No they were built new for SR, that was where they were always intended to go when new.
- Southern Region just did not like the complexity of 8 motors and two motor coaches and (to them) non standard equipment c.f. single motor coach with 4 x EE507 standardised for all EMU since 1963.
- The 500 EMU series is what confuses: the orginal use was ex-LMS / LMR specfici DC EMU *and* then added BR universal DC EMU built to a design for all regions. I think that gen is found in a contemporary RCTS RO.
- 510/512 were also assigned to SR - DC only 317-types pencilled in for various projects - none using SR standard kit - but one was the 75 mph version before 455 plan (i.e. before the SR CM&EE influcenced it), the other was 100 mph - one of the options considered for Rep replacements - and way before 442 were thought of.
And further down that same discussion:
- I've read so many versions of the story - all written way after the event.
- IIRC in real time events were something like definitely ordered for SR and intended as the new SR suburban EMU for all future builds from that time. But even before 508 delivery it had already been decided they would move on to LMR; thus they were perceived by many and hence written into myth they were only ever temporary. And wiki has a lot of myths.
- Part of the problem really comes down to SR CM&EE continuing to reject BRB standards; they didn't like the PEP, they didn't like the 455, and so on. Set back SR suburban EMU development a decade.
Both quotes are from a pseudonymous contributor who writes under the name "D7666", so is clearly no use as a source for us, but does seem to know what s/he is talking about. D7666's explanation doesn't fit with ours. Either way, we really need sources and citations (we currently have one, and that for a specific incident!) for this page. 86.132.139.119 ( talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue if necroposting is a problem on wikipedia, sorry I'm relatively new. Either way, the IP that this comment was posted under is most likely dead now - I'd be very surprised if not!
- https://www.railsistem.com/blog/2020/03/18/from-the-archive-first-batch-of-class-508-electric-multiple-units-in-service/ This seems to answer the question ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 03:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
So according to the infobox and unit numbers in the fleet details table 43 units were built, however the number of units in the fleet details table only adds up to 40.
Anybody able to help explain how 43 units can have been built, yet the total in the fleet details table only adds up to 40? Because I can’t make sense of it.
Edit1: Just figured it out the maths is wrong in regards to the number of scrapped 508/2s.
Edit 2:Maths has now been corrected.
Maurice Oly ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The table in general is a huge mess. The "Operator" header describes whether or not the vehicle is scrapped. I'm going to sort out this table myself, please tell me what you think. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Since the first source in the footnotes states "Final Merseyrail Class 508 withdrawn," I'm tempted to make the bold edit of replacing the long, hard to read and frankly excessive number of sources in the Fleet Details table just refer to that single source. The fact that the source states the last 508 has been taken out of service and scrapped is enough information to state that all other units were also taken out of service and scrapped.
If somebody is able to find a source in an article that mentions something along the lines of "It's disappointing that no Merseyrail 508 Units have been preserved," This would be a gold mine of a source.
The Unit Number Column for Merseyrail is difficult to read, so if someone is able to improve the reading experience that would be amazing. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Archives ( Index) |
|
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apart from the fact that the 508s were originally in four-car sets, can anybody please clarify what distinguishes the 507 from the 508? Now that the latter are in three-car sets, is there a good reason why they're not reclassified to all be the same class? The articles don't appear to list any other technical difference such as voltage etc. (I don't know the rules for reclassification, but precedent seems to perhaps exist with the 375/377 classes, where 375s were renumbered after the couplers were changed.) – Kieran T ( talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a question I think you will find an answer to on the talk page, though there's potential to make a section or at least paragraph on this. Wikipedia obviously does not decide how trains are classified, and there is a lot of different history between the two trains that means there is no point in merging them into one article. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we have a source for this? There's a discussion on the uk.railway Usenet group at the moment which doubts our explanation. Quote:
- No they were built new for SR, that was where they were always intended to go when new.
- Southern Region just did not like the complexity of 8 motors and two motor coaches and (to them) non standard equipment c.f. single motor coach with 4 x EE507 standardised for all EMU since 1963.
- The 500 EMU series is what confuses: the orginal use was ex-LMS / LMR specfici DC EMU *and* then added BR universal DC EMU built to a design for all regions. I think that gen is found in a contemporary RCTS RO.
- 510/512 were also assigned to SR - DC only 317-types pencilled in for various projects - none using SR standard kit - but one was the 75 mph version before 455 plan (i.e. before the SR CM&EE influcenced it), the other was 100 mph - one of the options considered for Rep replacements - and way before 442 were thought of.
And further down that same discussion:
- I've read so many versions of the story - all written way after the event.
- IIRC in real time events were something like definitely ordered for SR and intended as the new SR suburban EMU for all future builds from that time. But even before 508 delivery it had already been decided they would move on to LMR; thus they were perceived by many and hence written into myth they were only ever temporary. And wiki has a lot of myths.
- Part of the problem really comes down to SR CM&EE continuing to reject BRB standards; they didn't like the PEP, they didn't like the 455, and so on. Set back SR suburban EMU development a decade.
Both quotes are from a pseudonymous contributor who writes under the name "D7666", so is clearly no use as a source for us, but does seem to know what s/he is talking about. D7666's explanation doesn't fit with ours. Either way, we really need sources and citations (we currently have one, and that for a specific incident!) for this page. 86.132.139.119 ( talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue if necroposting is a problem on wikipedia, sorry I'm relatively new. Either way, the IP that this comment was posted under is most likely dead now - I'd be very surprised if not!
- https://www.railsistem.com/blog/2020/03/18/from-the-archive-first-batch-of-class-508-electric-multiple-units-in-service/ This seems to answer the question ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 03:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
So according to the infobox and unit numbers in the fleet details table 43 units were built, however the number of units in the fleet details table only adds up to 40.
Anybody able to help explain how 43 units can have been built, yet the total in the fleet details table only adds up to 40? Because I can’t make sense of it.
Edit1: Just figured it out the maths is wrong in regards to the number of scrapped 508/2s.
Edit 2:Maths has now been corrected.
Maurice Oly ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The table in general is a huge mess. The "Operator" header describes whether or not the vehicle is scrapped. I'm going to sort out this table myself, please tell me what you think. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Since the first source in the footnotes states "Final Merseyrail Class 508 withdrawn," I'm tempted to make the bold edit of replacing the long, hard to read and frankly excessive number of sources in the Fleet Details table just refer to that single source. The fact that the source states the last 508 has been taken out of service and scrapped is enough information to state that all other units were also taken out of service and scrapped.
If somebody is able to find a source in an article that mentions something along the lines of "It's disappointing that no Merseyrail 508 Units have been preserved," This would be a gold mine of a source.
The Unit Number Column for Merseyrail is difficult to read, so if someone is able to improve the reading experience that would be amazing. ChillyDude153198 ( talk) 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)