This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apart from seating, is there any difference between 313/0 and 313/1s? The article doesn't say. - mattbuck ( Talk) 12:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is new flooring and enhanced digital CCTV cameras provided aboard the First Capital Connect Class 313/0.
-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some images to tidy up the article - there are photographs in the gallery at the foot of the page (this was added by request).
I have also placed a better image of the Class 313 on the inbox.
-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute/edit-war over the article images between myself and Peter Skuce. The two main versions are:
Mine reduces the gallery at the end (per WP:IG), changes the infobox image and adds intermediate images, which I believe is more in keeping with other BRC articles. A debate ended up on my User_talk:Mattbuck#British_Rail_Class_313 talk page, so I'd like to ask the other editors what their opinion is. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I quite like the image File:Unit_313027_at_Grange_Park.JPG as it shows the platform better. This is a better one for the infobox. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see both File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG and File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG as well as File:313_Original_NSE_livery.jpg, File:313101_at_Kilburn_High_Road.jpg and File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG - The latter clearly shows the underframe equipment, as well as 313101 at Kilburn High Road. Not only do these photographs show the underframe equipment, all of them clearly show how many carriages a Class 313 is, whereas a single front end and half a carriage does look a little amaterish. It's a shame that no-one likes my photographs or suggestions. With regards to the File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG - I can't see anything wrong with it - it is sharp, the image is bright enough and there is no camera shake, so what on Earth is wrong with it or the ones taken at Welwyn Garden City, especially File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG? It would also be a good idea if everyone communicated when they are going to change over the photographs and explain why they are doing it, instead of just taking them down five minutes after someone has uploaded them. Finally has anyone got a reasonable shot of the NSE/Silverlink interior that could feature on Wikipedia? -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both L1v3rp00l and Shortfatlad - I agree that File:313018 D Welwyn Garden City.JPG is not 'grainy underexposed' at all - in fact, apart from the brickwork of the building (The Howard Centre), the image is very clear indeed. I do not see any problem with the image File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg to use as it really does show the first viarant of the Network SouthEast livery well. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say that File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg is not a particularly good photo for the infobox? I would like to see it in the gallery. It does not suffer from camera shake and is very clear, not over or under exposed and it does show where it is.-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I quite like how the gallery is now and do not see the need to change any of the images in it. I would still like to see File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG as the top image, as it clearly shows a three carriage train and the underframe equipment. Please can we use it - I did not take this photograph! If File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG is chosen for the top image, then I would like to see File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG placed in the gallery box - please note that I have slightly moved the London Overground interior shot to be in between two Silverlink liveried Class 313/1 images. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken to First Capital Connect management today at St. Albans during a 'Meet The Managers' session and have learnt that because of the low height of the ceiling of the twin Moorgate Tunnels, the Class 313 EMU trains will be retained and NOT replaced by new build trains. This would mean that the trains would receive a proper refurbishment (2+2 seat layout replacing the existing 2+3 layout and improved interior saloon lighting diffusers) - I will clarify this matter with the Head of Fleet during next week. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
would be better than an {{
uncited}}
- the latter is intended to be put on one statement, whereas a {{
refimprove}}
applies to one section, or to the whole article (depending upon position and whether or not you use it in the form {{
refimprove|section}}
). Perhaps you were thinking of {{
unreferenced}}
- but that is for where there are no refs at all, and this article has some. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever a verdict on inline pictures? - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have further cleared up the gallery - I do not agree with the inline images - I feel that the wrong ones were chosen and that the interior of the London Overground one should be in the gallery, as it is more important. I hope people agree with me why I did this - the webpage actually looks more clearer now. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the page should feature both interior types - then the viewer knows that each refurbishment style is vastly different from each other. The infobox exterior image should match the interior image. I still do not like the images showing a half cut vehicle - it looks wrong and it's not the type of photograph I would want to show. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I really do not understand how anyone can approve of the image showing only half a vehicle from a three carriage train, especially a plain white one! Some of my shots and most other people can do better than this - what a waste! -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The official livery for the Wagn Class 313 was the metallic purple scheme that was also carried on Classes 315 and 317 - I'm sure that there is a good one featuring a complete train taken by someone. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have got images of Class 313 in Wagn purple livery, however they have First Capital Connect branding instead of 'wagn' branding - would people wish me to upload these onto Wikimedia Commons? -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've returned the section titles to the operators, as this is how they are sorted in other similar articles. Similarly, 313102 has been renumbered 313202 and is in Southern livery, so stop reverting this. L1v3rp00l ( talk) 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The lead claims that "They were also the first dual-voltage units to be built in the UK"; not true. Classes 302, 303, 305, 308, 309 and 312/1 (and possibly 311) were dual voltage (25 kV / 6.25 kV) from new; as were classes 306 and 307 as converted for AC operation in the late 1950s. On the Eastern Region, dual-voltage operation began in 1960, and the 6.25 kV sections were: Liverpool Street - Southend Victoria (November 1960 to October 1980); Fenchurch St - East Ham/Barking; Leigh-on-Sea/Chalkwell - Shoeburyness (both November 1961 - May 1989). On the Scottish Region, the dual-voltage area was central Glasgow, including the underground lines. It began in 1960, but I don't have a date for when dual-voltage operation ended in Scotland. So, the class 313 were not the first. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If the term "Dual-voltage" is correct, we must remove the word "first", because the statement is incorrect when both are present. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It is actually correct to state that the Class 313 is the first EMU type of train to collect power from THREE different systems: 25Kv AC OHLE &/or 750V DC Third Rail on Network Rail and 630 - 660V DC Fourth Rail on LUL in the case of running on the same line as the Bakerloo line between Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone inclusive and District line between Gunnersbury - Richmond inclusive - no-one else picked up on that one! -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This d.c. system on the G.E. Section was converted to dual voltage a.c. supply during the period 4th to 6th November 1960
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)As this appeared to have never been fixed, I have rephrased the opening paragraph, removing the contentious phrase "dual voltage", so that it now states:
They were also the first British Rail units fitted with both a pantograph for 25kV AC overhead lines and shoegear for 750V DC third rail supply [...]
Hopefully, this is now both factually accurate and relevant to the article, and is acceptable to everyone! -- RFBailey ( talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm unable to cite any sources for the information I've contributed under the Southern section because it is all first-hand information - I'm work as an engineer for Southern at Stewarts Lane TMD delivering the trains. Can I cite myself for this information? It's certainly true. StotheH ( Talk) 20:45, 08 March 2010 (GMT)
This page is a joke. Every contribution is marked "citation needed". You can't provide references for everything, but you certainly can't deny fact. Do a search - look at the photos that have come out of 313206 with its Coastway branding. Link to them as sources if necessary. Don't just mark it "citation needed". L1v3rp00l ( talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And we're back with another image dispute between myself and Peter Skuce. Peter has twice removed the image File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg without reasoning, and then, after being twice reverted and told to give a reason, removed it again on the basis Delete image as it is of poor quality - I'm at Gordon Hill next Tuesday and will try to take some photographs there. I object to this for several reasons - first, my understanding of the last round of the image dispute was that we had consensus to keep this image in. Second, it's a lot better quality than several of the other images in the article, including the FCC image in the gallery, and the LO image directly below it. Thirdly, we don't remove stuff from an article because of hypothetical future happenings unless there's some valid reason such as replaceable fair use (which is clearly not the case here). I agree the image isn't the best photo I've ever taken - I probably sharpened it too much, but that doesn't even show up in thumbnail.
So... here we are again... - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 313s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. - mattbuck ( Talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of edits and reverts to both the seating capacities and the situation of 313121 recently, so thought I'd clarify the situation. The First Capital Connect 313/0 units seat 231. This has been altered (and rightly reverted) at least once. They have the same seating layout as when built, except for one bay of seats in the centre car. Here, one seat has been removed and the remaining three made tip-up to accommodate wheelchairs, bicycles etc. Southern's seat 194 as I have counted the full set of seats in one train (yes, I need to get out more). Neither of these can currently be attributed to a source as it seems no one else has picked up on it. I will endeavour to correct this when a source becomes available.
There is also the issue of 313121. At least twice this has been changed from "unallocated" in the fleet table to part of First Capital Connect's fleet. At least for the time being, it is definitely still with the leasing company. To my knowledge, it is in warm storage at Wolverton and has been since September last year. It remains to be seen whether FCC take it on for May 2011, but the recently added (and sourced) update of it being used for Hertford Loop resignalling trials is interesting. I would like to know more about this, if anyone can help (please use my user talk page). L1v3rp00l ( talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
These trains are 35 years old, some of the oldest commuter trains still running in Britain. Is there any mention of replacements for the Moorgate route? They were originally built for the restricted height Moorgate tunnels. AC / DC is these days no problem, but the loading gauge restriction means AFAIK they are the only trains allowed. When you are in one the low roof height is noticable (see image), especially under the pantograph housing. TiffaF ( talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't find anything on the Internet regarding this "The Flying Nottsman" name supposedly given to 313122. Does anyone have a source for this or has seen 313122 recently to confirm? L1v3rp00l ( talk) 03:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 313. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 313. 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.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/2010/over-6500-more-seats-added-london-commuter-routes{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://keithsrailwaypictures.fotopic.net/p64494495.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aa.photosnaps.org.uk/p64888738.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://icrs.fotopic.net/p67310729.htmlWhen 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) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The use of the abbreviation 'PEP' to refer to the 313/314/315/507/508 stock is not accurate as it stands for 'Prototype Electro-Pneumatic'. This term has always been used to refer only to the Class 445 and 446 stock from which the 313s etc. were derived so it clearly doesn't work to describe the production run classes as 'PEP' stock. There has never really been a family name for this type of train, so perhaps even 'BREL 1972' isn't suitable. I corrected this yesterday but all edits were reverted as of this morning. I don't want an edit war, so I've again removed the term 'PEP' with an explanation. L1v3rp00l ( talk) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
British Rail Class 313201 has been preserved for preservation according to this website and this link. I know it is probably not a reliable enough source but I thought anyway I might as well say it so that people know not to put it in the scrap section. http://www.400series.co.uk/?page_id=413 Peter Spokes on Twitter: "Detailed discussions have been opened with Beacon Rail Leasing and Arlington Fleet Services to secure the first built Class 313 unit for preservation. It is hoped that an agreement will be reached in order for the unit to be kept at Eastleigh Works in operational condition. https://t.co/YLZrDo4CrZ" / Twitter I Like The british Rail Class 483 ( talk) 18:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apart from seating, is there any difference between 313/0 and 313/1s? The article doesn't say. - mattbuck ( Talk) 12:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is new flooring and enhanced digital CCTV cameras provided aboard the First Capital Connect Class 313/0.
-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some images to tidy up the article - there are photographs in the gallery at the foot of the page (this was added by request).
I have also placed a better image of the Class 313 on the inbox.
-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute/edit-war over the article images between myself and Peter Skuce. The two main versions are:
Mine reduces the gallery at the end (per WP:IG), changes the infobox image and adds intermediate images, which I believe is more in keeping with other BRC articles. A debate ended up on my User_talk:Mattbuck#British_Rail_Class_313 talk page, so I'd like to ask the other editors what their opinion is. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I quite like the image File:Unit_313027_at_Grange_Park.JPG as it shows the platform better. This is a better one for the infobox. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see both File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG and File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG as well as File:313_Original_NSE_livery.jpg, File:313101_at_Kilburn_High_Road.jpg and File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG - The latter clearly shows the underframe equipment, as well as 313101 at Kilburn High Road. Not only do these photographs show the underframe equipment, all of them clearly show how many carriages a Class 313 is, whereas a single front end and half a carriage does look a little amaterish. It's a shame that no-one likes my photographs or suggestions. With regards to the File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG - I can't see anything wrong with it - it is sharp, the image is bright enough and there is no camera shake, so what on Earth is wrong with it or the ones taken at Welwyn Garden City, especially File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG? It would also be a good idea if everyone communicated when they are going to change over the photographs and explain why they are doing it, instead of just taking them down five minutes after someone has uploaded them. Finally has anyone got a reasonable shot of the NSE/Silverlink interior that could feature on Wikipedia? -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both L1v3rp00l and Shortfatlad - I agree that File:313018 D Welwyn Garden City.JPG is not 'grainy underexposed' at all - in fact, apart from the brickwork of the building (The Howard Centre), the image is very clear indeed. I do not see any problem with the image File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg to use as it really does show the first viarant of the Network SouthEast livery well. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say that File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg is not a particularly good photo for the infobox? I would like to see it in the gallery. It does not suffer from camera shake and is very clear, not over or under exposed and it does show where it is.-- Peter Skuce ( talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I quite like how the gallery is now and do not see the need to change any of the images in it. I would still like to see File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG as the top image, as it clearly shows a three carriage train and the underframe equipment. Please can we use it - I did not take this photograph! If File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG is chosen for the top image, then I would like to see File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG placed in the gallery box - please note that I have slightly moved the London Overground interior shot to be in between two Silverlink liveried Class 313/1 images. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken to First Capital Connect management today at St. Albans during a 'Meet The Managers' session and have learnt that because of the low height of the ceiling of the twin Moorgate Tunnels, the Class 313 EMU trains will be retained and NOT replaced by new build trains. This would mean that the trains would receive a proper refurbishment (2+2 seat layout replacing the existing 2+3 layout and improved interior saloon lighting diffusers) - I will clarify this matter with the Head of Fleet during next week. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
would be better than an {{
uncited}}
- the latter is intended to be put on one statement, whereas a {{
refimprove}}
applies to one section, or to the whole article (depending upon position and whether or not you use it in the form {{
refimprove|section}}
). Perhaps you were thinking of {{
unreferenced}}
- but that is for where there are no refs at all, and this article has some. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever a verdict on inline pictures? - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have further cleared up the gallery - I do not agree with the inline images - I feel that the wrong ones were chosen and that the interior of the London Overground one should be in the gallery, as it is more important. I hope people agree with me why I did this - the webpage actually looks more clearer now. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the page should feature both interior types - then the viewer knows that each refurbishment style is vastly different from each other. The infobox exterior image should match the interior image. I still do not like the images showing a half cut vehicle - it looks wrong and it's not the type of photograph I would want to show. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I really do not understand how anyone can approve of the image showing only half a vehicle from a three carriage train, especially a plain white one! Some of my shots and most other people can do better than this - what a waste! -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The official livery for the Wagn Class 313 was the metallic purple scheme that was also carried on Classes 315 and 317 - I'm sure that there is a good one featuring a complete train taken by someone. -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have got images of Class 313 in Wagn purple livery, however they have First Capital Connect branding instead of 'wagn' branding - would people wish me to upload these onto Wikimedia Commons? -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've returned the section titles to the operators, as this is how they are sorted in other similar articles. Similarly, 313102 has been renumbered 313202 and is in Southern livery, so stop reverting this. L1v3rp00l ( talk) 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The lead claims that "They were also the first dual-voltage units to be built in the UK"; not true. Classes 302, 303, 305, 308, 309 and 312/1 (and possibly 311) were dual voltage (25 kV / 6.25 kV) from new; as were classes 306 and 307 as converted for AC operation in the late 1950s. On the Eastern Region, dual-voltage operation began in 1960, and the 6.25 kV sections were: Liverpool Street - Southend Victoria (November 1960 to October 1980); Fenchurch St - East Ham/Barking; Leigh-on-Sea/Chalkwell - Shoeburyness (both November 1961 - May 1989). On the Scottish Region, the dual-voltage area was central Glasgow, including the underground lines. It began in 1960, but I don't have a date for when dual-voltage operation ended in Scotland. So, the class 313 were not the first. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If the term "Dual-voltage" is correct, we must remove the word "first", because the statement is incorrect when both are present. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It is actually correct to state that the Class 313 is the first EMU type of train to collect power from THREE different systems: 25Kv AC OHLE &/or 750V DC Third Rail on Network Rail and 630 - 660V DC Fourth Rail on LUL in the case of running on the same line as the Bakerloo line between Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone inclusive and District line between Gunnersbury - Richmond inclusive - no-one else picked up on that one! -- Peter Skuce ( talk) 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This d.c. system on the G.E. Section was converted to dual voltage a.c. supply during the period 4th to 6th November 1960
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)As this appeared to have never been fixed, I have rephrased the opening paragraph, removing the contentious phrase "dual voltage", so that it now states:
They were also the first British Rail units fitted with both a pantograph for 25kV AC overhead lines and shoegear for 750V DC third rail supply [...]
Hopefully, this is now both factually accurate and relevant to the article, and is acceptable to everyone! -- RFBailey ( talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm unable to cite any sources for the information I've contributed under the Southern section because it is all first-hand information - I'm work as an engineer for Southern at Stewarts Lane TMD delivering the trains. Can I cite myself for this information? It's certainly true. StotheH ( Talk) 20:45, 08 March 2010 (GMT)
This page is a joke. Every contribution is marked "citation needed". You can't provide references for everything, but you certainly can't deny fact. Do a search - look at the photos that have come out of 313206 with its Coastway branding. Link to them as sources if necessary. Don't just mark it "citation needed". L1v3rp00l ( talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And we're back with another image dispute between myself and Peter Skuce. Peter has twice removed the image File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg without reasoning, and then, after being twice reverted and told to give a reason, removed it again on the basis Delete image as it is of poor quality - I'm at Gordon Hill next Tuesday and will try to take some photographs there. I object to this for several reasons - first, my understanding of the last round of the image dispute was that we had consensus to keep this image in. Second, it's a lot better quality than several of the other images in the article, including the FCC image in the gallery, and the LO image directly below it. Thirdly, we don't remove stuff from an article because of hypothetical future happenings unless there's some valid reason such as replaceable fair use (which is clearly not the case here). I agree the image isn't the best photo I've ever taken - I probably sharpened it too much, but that doesn't even show up in thumbnail.
So... here we are again... - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 313s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. - mattbuck ( Talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of edits and reverts to both the seating capacities and the situation of 313121 recently, so thought I'd clarify the situation. The First Capital Connect 313/0 units seat 231. This has been altered (and rightly reverted) at least once. They have the same seating layout as when built, except for one bay of seats in the centre car. Here, one seat has been removed and the remaining three made tip-up to accommodate wheelchairs, bicycles etc. Southern's seat 194 as I have counted the full set of seats in one train (yes, I need to get out more). Neither of these can currently be attributed to a source as it seems no one else has picked up on it. I will endeavour to correct this when a source becomes available.
There is also the issue of 313121. At least twice this has been changed from "unallocated" in the fleet table to part of First Capital Connect's fleet. At least for the time being, it is definitely still with the leasing company. To my knowledge, it is in warm storage at Wolverton and has been since September last year. It remains to be seen whether FCC take it on for May 2011, but the recently added (and sourced) update of it being used for Hertford Loop resignalling trials is interesting. I would like to know more about this, if anyone can help (please use my user talk page). L1v3rp00l ( talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
These trains are 35 years old, some of the oldest commuter trains still running in Britain. Is there any mention of replacements for the Moorgate route? They were originally built for the restricted height Moorgate tunnels. AC / DC is these days no problem, but the loading gauge restriction means AFAIK they are the only trains allowed. When you are in one the low roof height is noticable (see image), especially under the pantograph housing. TiffaF ( talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't find anything on the Internet regarding this "The Flying Nottsman" name supposedly given to 313122. Does anyone have a source for this or has seen 313122 recently to confirm? L1v3rp00l ( talk) 03:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 313. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 313. 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.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/2010/over-6500-more-seats-added-london-commuter-routes{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://keithsrailwaypictures.fotopic.net/p64494495.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aa.photosnaps.org.uk/p64888738.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://icrs.fotopic.net/p67310729.htmlWhen 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) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The use of the abbreviation 'PEP' to refer to the 313/314/315/507/508 stock is not accurate as it stands for 'Prototype Electro-Pneumatic'. This term has always been used to refer only to the Class 445 and 446 stock from which the 313s etc. were derived so it clearly doesn't work to describe the production run classes as 'PEP' stock. There has never really been a family name for this type of train, so perhaps even 'BREL 1972' isn't suitable. I corrected this yesterday but all edits were reverted as of this morning. I don't want an edit war, so I've again removed the term 'PEP' with an explanation. L1v3rp00l ( talk) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
British Rail Class 313201 has been preserved for preservation according to this website and this link. I know it is probably not a reliable enough source but I thought anyway I might as well say it so that people know not to put it in the scrap section. http://www.400series.co.uk/?page_id=413 Peter Spokes on Twitter: "Detailed discussions have been opened with Beacon Rail Leasing and Arlington Fleet Services to secure the first built Class 313 unit for preservation. It is hoped that an agreement will be reached in order for the unit to be kept at Eastleigh Works in operational condition. https://t.co/YLZrDo4CrZ" / Twitter I Like The british Rail Class 483 ( talk) 18:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)