![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believed that the original 4 car class 222s were barred from the Matlock branch line when introduced because they were too heavy. This was at the time when Class 170 DMUs were operating the route which I would guess are no lighter than a 158, therefore the 222s should be higher than RA2. Does anyone have any further information on this? Maybe this wasn't the real reason they weren't allowed on the line!
195.137.3.245 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two articles with heavy overlap. The present Network Rail system of classifying locomotives by route availability is a direct descendant of the LNER system (see Route Availability), and there is little need to have them in separate articles. I suggest merging them at Route availability. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
While it may seem obvious to most, perhaps a sentence lining out exactly WHY things like axle load and spacing are important, and why rails and embankments and infrastructure must be separated into classes, would be nice? All it says is that A: they are divided into classes, and B: that axle load (and spacing) is important in figuring out which class is to be assigned. Explaining that exceeding the load on any given axle, or a load over a certain distance of track can cause damage wouldn't be out of the scope of the article, would it? It only infers this information as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The loading gauge of a particular route may be the cause of a lower Route Availablity. One case in point was the Hastings Line pre-1986, where the restricted bores of the tunnels restricted stock to no more than 8' 0¼" width. This meant that dedicated rolling stock had to be used, such as the Schools class, The Hastings Units ( 6S, 6L and 6L) and the Class 33/2 locomotives. This should really be mentioned. Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Route availability. 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 03:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believed that the original 4 car class 222s were barred from the Matlock branch line when introduced because they were too heavy. This was at the time when Class 170 DMUs were operating the route which I would guess are no lighter than a 158, therefore the 222s should be higher than RA2. Does anyone have any further information on this? Maybe this wasn't the real reason they weren't allowed on the line!
195.137.3.245 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two articles with heavy overlap. The present Network Rail system of classifying locomotives by route availability is a direct descendant of the LNER system (see Route Availability), and there is little need to have them in separate articles. I suggest merging them at Route availability. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
While it may seem obvious to most, perhaps a sentence lining out exactly WHY things like axle load and spacing are important, and why rails and embankments and infrastructure must be separated into classes, would be nice? All it says is that A: they are divided into classes, and B: that axle load (and spacing) is important in figuring out which class is to be assigned. Explaining that exceeding the load on any given axle, or a load over a certain distance of track can cause damage wouldn't be out of the scope of the article, would it? It only infers this information as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The loading gauge of a particular route may be the cause of a lower Route Availablity. One case in point was the Hastings Line pre-1986, where the restricted bores of the tunnels restricted stock to no more than 8' 0¼" width. This meant that dedicated rolling stock had to be used, such as the Schools class, The Hastings Units ( 6S, 6L and 6L) and the Class 33/2 locomotives. This should really be mentioned. Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Route availability. 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 03:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)