From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

first photo

At- [1].


I've seen it, it's great!-- 86.25.5.226 ( talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Class 68 or 70

"It was originally expected that these locomotives would receive the TOPS classification class 68, although it is now clear that they will be designated class 70."

Can we have a working reference for this? Patrick lovell ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

http://www.rail-magazine.com/news/default.asp?storyID=25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That reference may have been usable at the time, but it is for a 'current news' page, which is not (obviously) archived, and hence is now useless as a reference. I have replaced it with a {{fact|class=redirect}} tag. Since the article name depends on this, it is a fairly significant 'fact'!!
-- EdJogg ( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

first photo

At- [1].


I've seen it, it's great!-- 86.25.5.226 ( talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Class 68 or 70

"It was originally expected that these locomotives would receive the TOPS classification class 68, although it is now clear that they will be designated class 70."

Can we have a working reference for this? Patrick lovell ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

http://www.rail-magazine.com/news/default.asp?storyID=25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That reference may have been usable at the time, but it is for a 'current news' page, which is not (obviously) archived, and hence is now useless as a reference. I have replaced it with a {{fact|class=redirect}} tag. Since the article name depends on this, it is a fairly significant 'fact'!!
-- EdJogg ( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook