![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.
Before making such a request, please read the past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see the section on "Overseas operations" has just been deleted. Might I suggest it could be a good idea to put it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel ( talk) 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"Sheds", AFAIK it's pretty obvious that this nickname comes from the look of the cab of the front... Sladen 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we need seperate pages for each sub class?
In essence, they are the same, with minor differences and livery changes.
The main article, this one, has details on the subclasses anyway, so it seems pointless to duplicate them.
I am going to AfD them.
Thanks,
BG 7 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to tidy up the article a bit - However it probably needs up to date information on numbers built for the subclasses table - if anyone has this info please leave some info and I will be able to update. Carrolljon ( talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a comment in the main article that many DRS class 66s are used on nuclear flask trains for which they are overpowered....
There is also a relatively new service operated by DRS which apparently started on 4th November 2008 from Inverness southwards with (long) trains of containers for Tesco. (See also Railway Herald issue 162 page 3, www.railwayherald.com). This started when DRS advertised for experienced drivers in the Inverness area last summer. At the time DRS operated no services from Inverness - now we know why!
The containers all carry the "Stobart Rail" or "Tesco - Less CO2" branding. I've also seen trucks carrying Stobart Rail branded containers on trucks owned by J G Russell which are new to the Inverness area.
A good replacement for the cessation of the Safeway train movements when Morrisons took them over. Inverness is not known as Tesco-town for nothing :-) Soarhead77 ( talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record the two articles are up for a merge. I've already added the CD66 info to EMD 66 article but am delaying on making the redirect/delete on the CD 66 page.
In case anyone is interested. Carrolljon ( talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here in Germany this locomotive is known as EMD JT42CWR. EMD Class 66 may be common in the UK but not in continental Europe. -- Ulenspiegel ( talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
66,586, 583,582 Number exported to Poland, becoming both the active and Freightliner Poland, 66008,009,010 number was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.137.16.146 ( talk) 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why the article is titled "British Rail Class 66"... these locos appeared after the demise of the state onwed corporation known as British Rail and the predecessor Class 59 was also not owned or operated by BR. Maybe someone with adequate technical knowledge of post-delivery modifications could tabulate the details of the subclasses and their numbering ranges. Seems to me that the subclasses are not really about technical differences (unlike the great variety of modified Class 47s), more a question of who's operating the loco. It could be smarter to merge the article with the article about the EMD "Series 66", which is the marketing name generally for this vehicle. The technical designation JT42CWR means: J=double cab, T=turbocharged, 12+30=42=12cyl+710G engine, C=Co-Co wheel arrangement, W=traction motors for standard gauge, R=radial steering bogies. The M in the later series locos (known in Britain as T2) means simply "Modified" in terms of the cooling arrangements for reduced emissions. I have added details of the ETCS-equipped locos into the "EMD Series 66" page.(nick.cory@web.de, 2009-12-06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.13.39 ( talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
...shouldn't really be there, in place of an absence of content, as we see here. Get rid of these sections for now? Orphan Wiki 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(
The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but .. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
also title - is anachronistic, - there are good alternatives but which to use? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (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.
Several British Rail classified locomotives have worked abroad (usually with some modifications) (or have very similar versions abroad); none have required a change in the name of the article:
I think that last case may rather prove the point (and I wish I noticed it ten minutes ago). Tim PF ( talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose to remove the "Citations" and "Cleanup" tags because there are no obvious reasons for them. Are there any objections? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several sections, including the main infobox, with no citations, although other sections appear to be reasonably well cited. If the infobox was well cited, I'd suggest replacing the global {{ refimprove}} with various {{ unreferenced section}} and {{ refimprove section}} tags, but it isn't, so the tag should stay until there has been some improvement. Tim PF ( talk)
When Sf5xeplus ( talk · contribs) added the tag, he started a section with:
No-one replied to this (possibly because he then added the {{ disputed title}} tag, which swamped the discussion), but I think they are fair comments which should be discussed before the tag is removed (or not). Tim PF ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Removal diff
At least one bit appears possibly wrong - the issue here is that the article over time is gaining more and more detail on the renumbering and paintings of (sometimes individual) locomotves - none of which has any link to verify.
Please don't add that much detail because it will not remain in the article in the long term. It would also be a big help if someone could provide usuable sources for the class historys. Imgaril ( talk) 09:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought.
I live in South Korea people.
Railway Herald Issue 274 side of the site to see, the class 66 locomotives for the content of Wikipedia and hope that the latest update. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yh00157 ( talk • contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=British_Rail_Class_66&action=historysubmit&diff=440179264&oldid=440178676 for what it's worth I think the freightliner image was better, additionally I was thinking of saying that the 'lead' image should actually be an EWS loco - because a. they've got 250 of them, b. they introduced them, and c. they were responsible for the specs (along with GM obviously)..
I don't really like the foreshortening in the GBRf image - looks like a fisheye lens, and I think the contrast was too high for the camera because the wheels are 'in shadow' ie cant see them well, but.. what about [4] or [5]or this one is foreshortened too. There are thousands to choose from on commons... Imgaril ( talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 66", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
revert diff - I'm not keen on this addition which seems to be a bit WP:OR and possibly pont of view pushing (66 bad?) - however the fire extinguisher thing could be noted - I found this http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Deviations/Derogation/00-089-DGN.pdf if anyone needs a source - though a better one is probably out there somewhere. Mddkpp ( talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The latest edition of Rail magazine is reporting that 66 734 (when did we lose the space between class and individual loco number?) is likely to be scrapped as recovery is too difficult. Spotted this in newsagents today. Mjroots ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a OR tag in the silencer section — there's an uncited claim in the first-person, "we have found that the actual primary silencer…", which very strongly sounds like original research. On the other hand, if this has been investigated by many, as is said, then there should presumably be some citation allowing this to be rephrased into the passive and cited. Gsnedders ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Revamped the top "History" section with more detail/refs, and then cut through the "this one went there" operational details (we REALLY can't keep up with that, plus its NOT our purpose). I hence removed the tags. Rgds -- Trident13 ( talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the difference between EU stage 3a and 3b? Is it about particulates? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 66. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 66. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not add that a 66 was involved in the Llangennech derailment? I know that the BBC article shows a 66, but that is the loco that was sent to rescue the underailed wagons at the rear of the train. Forum talk is that the train in question was hauled by a Class 60. When that info is published by a reliable source, it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
66 708 has been named. Not sure whether this tweet by The Railway Magazine is good enough to use as a source. No doubt it will be reported in the railway press in due course. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.
Before making such a request, please read the past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see the section on "Overseas operations" has just been deleted. Might I suggest it could be a good idea to put it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel ( talk) 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"Sheds", AFAIK it's pretty obvious that this nickname comes from the look of the cab of the front... Sladen 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we need seperate pages for each sub class?
In essence, they are the same, with minor differences and livery changes.
The main article, this one, has details on the subclasses anyway, so it seems pointless to duplicate them.
I am going to AfD them.
Thanks,
BG 7 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to tidy up the article a bit - However it probably needs up to date information on numbers built for the subclasses table - if anyone has this info please leave some info and I will be able to update. Carrolljon ( talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a comment in the main article that many DRS class 66s are used on nuclear flask trains for which they are overpowered....
There is also a relatively new service operated by DRS which apparently started on 4th November 2008 from Inverness southwards with (long) trains of containers for Tesco. (See also Railway Herald issue 162 page 3, www.railwayherald.com). This started when DRS advertised for experienced drivers in the Inverness area last summer. At the time DRS operated no services from Inverness - now we know why!
The containers all carry the "Stobart Rail" or "Tesco - Less CO2" branding. I've also seen trucks carrying Stobart Rail branded containers on trucks owned by J G Russell which are new to the Inverness area.
A good replacement for the cessation of the Safeway train movements when Morrisons took them over. Inverness is not known as Tesco-town for nothing :-) Soarhead77 ( talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record the two articles are up for a merge. I've already added the CD66 info to EMD 66 article but am delaying on making the redirect/delete on the CD 66 page.
In case anyone is interested. Carrolljon ( talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here in Germany this locomotive is known as EMD JT42CWR. EMD Class 66 may be common in the UK but not in continental Europe. -- Ulenspiegel ( talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
66,586, 583,582 Number exported to Poland, becoming both the active and Freightliner Poland, 66008,009,010 number was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.137.16.146 ( talk) 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why the article is titled "British Rail Class 66"... these locos appeared after the demise of the state onwed corporation known as British Rail and the predecessor Class 59 was also not owned or operated by BR. Maybe someone with adequate technical knowledge of post-delivery modifications could tabulate the details of the subclasses and their numbering ranges. Seems to me that the subclasses are not really about technical differences (unlike the great variety of modified Class 47s), more a question of who's operating the loco. It could be smarter to merge the article with the article about the EMD "Series 66", which is the marketing name generally for this vehicle. The technical designation JT42CWR means: J=double cab, T=turbocharged, 12+30=42=12cyl+710G engine, C=Co-Co wheel arrangement, W=traction motors for standard gauge, R=radial steering bogies. The M in the later series locos (known in Britain as T2) means simply "Modified" in terms of the cooling arrangements for reduced emissions. I have added details of the ETCS-equipped locos into the "EMD Series 66" page.(nick.cory@web.de, 2009-12-06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.13.39 ( talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
...shouldn't really be there, in place of an absence of content, as we see here. Get rid of these sections for now? Orphan Wiki 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(
The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but .. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
also title - is anachronistic, - there are good alternatives but which to use? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (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.
Several British Rail classified locomotives have worked abroad (usually with some modifications) (or have very similar versions abroad); none have required a change in the name of the article:
I think that last case may rather prove the point (and I wish I noticed it ten minutes ago). Tim PF ( talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose to remove the "Citations" and "Cleanup" tags because there are no obvious reasons for them. Are there any objections? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several sections, including the main infobox, with no citations, although other sections appear to be reasonably well cited. If the infobox was well cited, I'd suggest replacing the global {{ refimprove}} with various {{ unreferenced section}} and {{ refimprove section}} tags, but it isn't, so the tag should stay until there has been some improvement. Tim PF ( talk)
When Sf5xeplus ( talk · contribs) added the tag, he started a section with:
No-one replied to this (possibly because he then added the {{ disputed title}} tag, which swamped the discussion), but I think they are fair comments which should be discussed before the tag is removed (or not). Tim PF ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Removal diff
At least one bit appears possibly wrong - the issue here is that the article over time is gaining more and more detail on the renumbering and paintings of (sometimes individual) locomotves - none of which has any link to verify.
Please don't add that much detail because it will not remain in the article in the long term. It would also be a big help if someone could provide usuable sources for the class historys. Imgaril ( talk) 09:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought.
I live in South Korea people.
Railway Herald Issue 274 side of the site to see, the class 66 locomotives for the content of Wikipedia and hope that the latest update. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yh00157 ( talk • contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=British_Rail_Class_66&action=historysubmit&diff=440179264&oldid=440178676 for what it's worth I think the freightliner image was better, additionally I was thinking of saying that the 'lead' image should actually be an EWS loco - because a. they've got 250 of them, b. they introduced them, and c. they were responsible for the specs (along with GM obviously)..
I don't really like the foreshortening in the GBRf image - looks like a fisheye lens, and I think the contrast was too high for the camera because the wheels are 'in shadow' ie cant see them well, but.. what about [4] or [5]or this one is foreshortened too. There are thousands to choose from on commons... Imgaril ( talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 66", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
revert diff - I'm not keen on this addition which seems to be a bit WP:OR and possibly pont of view pushing (66 bad?) - however the fire extinguisher thing could be noted - I found this http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Deviations/Derogation/00-089-DGN.pdf if anyone needs a source - though a better one is probably out there somewhere. Mddkpp ( talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The latest edition of Rail magazine is reporting that 66 734 (when did we lose the space between class and individual loco number?) is likely to be scrapped as recovery is too difficult. Spotted this in newsagents today. Mjroots ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a OR tag in the silencer section — there's an uncited claim in the first-person, "we have found that the actual primary silencer…", which very strongly sounds like original research. On the other hand, if this has been investigated by many, as is said, then there should presumably be some citation allowing this to be rephrased into the passive and cited. Gsnedders ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Revamped the top "History" section with more detail/refs, and then cut through the "this one went there" operational details (we REALLY can't keep up with that, plus its NOT our purpose). I hence removed the tags. Rgds -- Trident13 ( talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the difference between EU stage 3a and 3b? Is it about particulates? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 66. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 66. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not add that a 66 was involved in the Llangennech derailment? I know that the BBC article shows a 66, but that is the loco that was sent to rescue the underailed wagons at the rear of the train. Forum talk is that the train in question was hauled by a Class 60. When that info is published by a reliable source, it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
66 708 has been named. Not sure whether this tweet by The Railway Magazine is good enough to use as a source. No doubt it will be reported in the railway press in due course. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)