This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Rail Class 390 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
British Rail Class 390 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
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)
What is the weight of this train? Edward 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Eurostar is not a multiple unit! But if you're including the Eurostar then you should also add the Class 91 which has a top speed of 140Mph!
The Pendolino uses a different (more advanced) tilting technology to the APT. The tilting technology in the Pendolino was developed by FIAT in the early 70s independently of the APT project. In the Pendolino, each coach can tilt independently; in the APT the whole train tilts. This can cause some passengers motion sickness, and is one of the reasons why the APT was abandoned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.136 ( talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, both the above comments are incorrect in different areas. While the Pendolino does indeed use different tilt technology to the APT's system, who is to say that it's more advanced? It's just different.
For sure the APT tilt system does NOT tilt the whole train in piece, as the second comment points out. If it did only one vehicle would have zero cant deficiency on any given curve. Thus it had NOTHING to do with the APT project being abandoned.
With respect to the second comment, the APT tilt technology was NOT sold to FIAT, they had already developed their own technology as mentioned above. The whole situation vis a vis who got what when BR was privatized is very complex indeed and I've fully explained this in my lengthy comment in the 'Talk' section on the Wikipedia Tilting Trains page at Talk:Tilting_train.
The Class 221 Super Voyagers DO use APT type tilt technology though, sourced via ABB and subsequently Bombardier, and the Virgin Class 221s still use it, although Cross Country have ceased operating the tilt systems on their 221s.
I hope I can write with some authority on these matters as I was the Tilt System Development Engineer on the original gas turbine powered APT-E and carried out some work on the APT-P systems as well. Regards, Kit Spackman ( talk) 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you need further name plates of the Virgin Pendolino trains? I have a picture of the nameplate of the Virgin Enterprise. -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was editing the article removing and replacing dead links when I noticed the info given about the Pendolino window sizes and comparisons to the APT. I have suggested that citation is needed on the figures stating the window size comparisons between the Pendolino and the APT, but also it was stated that "as many as 36% of the seats are parallel with either no window or only a limited portion of one". I have done some calculations and found this to be more like 22.5% for the train as a whole (and not just Standard Class which works out to be 32.5%) and if someone would like to check my working out the please feel free:
Coach | Total Seats | Restricted View Seats | Non Restricted View Seats |
---|---|---|---|
Coach A | 46 | 16 | 30 |
Coach B | 62 | 20 | 42 |
Coach C | 48 | 16 | 32 |
Coach D | 62 | 20 | 42 |
Coach E | 76 | 24 | 52 |
Coach G | 46 | 0 | 46 |
Coach H | 44 | 3 | 41 |
Coach J | 37 | 0 | 37 |
Coach K | 18 | 0 | 18 |
Feel free to confirm but this works out to be a percentage of 77.5% Unrestricted View seats? Geezertronic ( talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I got The Railway Age at Crewe to check the size of the APT`s windows. Then, and it took some nerve, I went to Birmingham New St and measured the size of the Pendolinos windows. Simple arithmetic gives the ratio of window area per coach. I must confess I can`t find the original data now but if anyone doubts the facts they can check for themselves, it`s not difficult. Actually anyone can look at a picture of the interior of an APT (here : http://www.traintesting.com/images/interior.jpg ) and compare it with the picture in the main article, the conclusion is obvious. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The statistics on the relative window sizes on the Pendolino and the APT do not need a citation as they are can be easily proved, like what is the capital of Paris in the Wikipedia page on this subject. Quite apart from anything else if all the facts and statements on Wikipedia which have no citation were removed most of its content would disappear, at least this fact is provable. The Crewe Heritage Centre - where the APT P is preserved - did the research for these for the measurements. Anyone doubting the accuracy of them can make the same call, or, better still, visit the place for themselves. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not a point of view, they are objective figures which I got from The Railway Age, now called Crewe Heritage Centre. They have the original APT there, they are the custodians of it, they gave me the figures. Why would I not trust them ? I make no mention of claustrophobia or any subjective factors. You are deleting objective facts from this atricle for some reason I cannot fathom. Please leave them alone. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahh I see now. It wasn`t actually me who put that comment about the intereriors being clausrophobic ! I do actually think they are, and so would most people, but I never put it in because, as you say, it is subjective and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we establish that dimensions are not a P.O.V. The APT-P is actually preserved at the Crewe Heritage Centre -- JustinSmith ( talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten this disputed section to reflect (just) the facts. Saying the window size on Pendolinos has attracted comment is a fact, it is not a point of view. Putting "Pendolino small windows into Google brings up 145 000 matches, including mentions on any number of forums (e.g. 1, 2, 3, [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-622933.html 4], 5). It is even mentioned in this Times article "The small windows, which have been criticised by passengers for reducing the breadth of the view". I do not know of any other train that has had this reaction. Similarly Virgin officially recognise that there is an issue with the size of the windows/view out by even including a plan on their website indicating which seats have a restricted view, no other train has this, again, this is a fact. On the relative sizes of the windows that again is a fact and was sourced from the Crewe Heritage centre. I have no reason to doubt them and, in fact, looking at pictures of Pendolinos and the APT it actually looks about right. The fact it is not on their website is irrelevant in that if all facts on Wikipedia which didn`t have mentions on other websites were removed there`d be hardly any of it left. If you wish to remove this again please be consistent and remove every other non website linked fact on this page. If you persist in just singling out this section I consider this vandalism. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Crewe Heritage Centre got me the dimensions of the APT-P windows. The interesting thing is does that then constitute "original research". Does such a fine distinction actually matter ? As it happens I have been back on to them to check an exact equivalent vehicle, a trailer second. Mike the menager is away for a while but one of the lads who work on the APT will be getting back to me. If there is any difference in the stated figures then I will obviously change them. I would add, again, that deleting anything, unless you know it to be factually incorrect, just because there`s no official citation would result in half of the Pendolino page, and half of Wikipedia in fact, being deleted. If that`s what you want then fine, but it must be consistent. You can`t just use that as an excuse to just delete something you don`t like, and leave everything else. That said, what is there not to like about an objective fact fact ? The article said before that Pendolinos were claustrophobic (interestingly, it wasn`t actually me who put that on, as far as I can remember anyway) and that is not a fact, so I can put up with its deletion, even if I actually agree with it.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What wording could be used to describe the difference in window area between the Pendolino and the APT/most other trains ? How about "significantly smaller" ? I can`t personally think of wording which is objective and accurate, but at the same time tells the story as it were. It rather goes against the grain to get rid of objective and accurate figures (just because Alstom or Virgin haven`t published them) and replace them with words like "significantly smaller". However if something that conveys the same message can be found, use that instead. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
How about, "The smaller size of the Pendolino windows has attracted comment, the size of the windows being unprecedented for rolling stock in this country" ? I still think it`s a poor option compared to just objectively giving the sizes of the windows. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting all the dimensions and calculations for these window size statistics, in an article on my website then linking to that as a source. Then I thought, forget it someone will just say that`s not "official" and therefore invalid (even though it`s provably correct). So I still put on the statistics but went for the satirical angle instead so as to make it more readable, I`ve also put some revealing pictures in the article. Consequently I have deleted these spurious and dangerously unofficial dimensions from this article and replaced them with a less exacting comment. I have used the term unprecedented because its definition (i.e. having no previous example) is perfect in this instance.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with more expertise in lateral thinking than my goodself please explain to me how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Answers on a postcard to Wikipedia. I can`t be bothered with all this, getting into revision wars is so immature. I think someone has an axe to grind, facts are not relevant here, as far as the Pendolino goes I`ll just sort my own website out.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 07:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we`re suffering from a breakdown in communication here. I said how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Not only is that not personal, I`d have thought it fundamentally correct. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This article states the Grayrigg set has been written off. This [4] would appear to suggest otherwise... anybody know anything? Tom walker ( talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This article says that the Pendolino has a maximum design speed of 140 mph, but according to the speed dial the speed goes up 160 mph, so shouldn't this article have the maximum speed saying 160 mph? -- 390VirginPendolino390 ( talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
All's I'm trying to point out is that the Pendolino speed dial clearly shows it having a top speed of 160 mph. It's goes 130, 140, 150 then 160 in miles per hour.-- 390VirginPendolino390 ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The article says that the 11-car sets are in storage, but when I look out of my office window immediately north of Crewe station (next to the junction with the Manchester line and opposite the old Crewe North signal box) every day I see trains going past with Alstom branding rather than Virgin and proudly saying "11 car Pendolino" on the end vehicles. Something needs updating. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
([Steve Wigan]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Wigan ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (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.
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So I read through the citation provided for future Class 390 operation by the GNWR, and it does not actually seem to suggest that the trains that the TOC will receive will actually be Class 390s; just that they will be trains of the Pendolino family. LostCause231 ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should be mentioned that the following information should be added in the relevant part of the page:
390 115 is now named " Crewe - All Change", following the All Change railway event that took place at Crewe Diesel Depot on June 8th, 2019 - the day the unit was named.
It also now bears the name "Alison" on the front and rear ends of the train. 80.1.250.122 ( talk) 10:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Pendolino names table; 390015 (390115) in column 2; insert new name Crewe - All Change Chris M 390141 ( talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Link to a photo
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmostrainadventures/48031963686/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris M 390141 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to do this, but an anon is pushing this photo onto the article. For this or other trains, we do not need the latest livery, we need a good photograph, preferably an example of a typical unit. Other photos may be available, but the side-by-side comparison below should be enough:
Now that it is summer, there shouldn't be any excuses for accepting photos taken in foggy conditions anyway. Tony May ( talk) 16:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree 100%- the fact that the dull new livery one had the wrong set number in its caption should have excluded its use anyway. Chris M 390141 ( talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Here are some more alternatives, if anyone really wants to look:
I recognise that taking photos of these things is difficult because of their length. The main photo should be of a whole unit. Tony May ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The third one of that trio is more than fine, it shows what most of them look like now (at time of writing only 10 sets remain silver) and given the length of a set I think we shouldn't be stressing about getting a full train in shot, I'd rather show the driving car to good effect and the first few coaches giving a clear idea what the train looks like. Chris M 390141 ( talk) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The anon is now making accusations that File:390 Rugeley 2010-06-22.JPG is "photoshopped". If it has been photoshopped, then it shouldn't be used. For me, it is not obviously photoshopped, though some detail may have been changed without my noticing. The exif data seem straight out of the camera without modification - that is evidence (though not conclusive) against modification. If anyone can show it is photoshopped, please say, otherwise we have to WP:AGF that it is genuine, I think. Tony May ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello
The table of Pendolino names "needs additional citations" for verification but I have two large problems with this. Firstly, over the last 20 months there have been over 40 changes to the table, either names removed at repaint or new names applied. It's impossible to cite a source when a set appears minus its old name, do they really want a picture of a blank bit of bodyside for all of these and how would they know it was the right bit of empty bodyside?! Secondly, when they do apply a new name sometimes the "additional citation" is so hilariously poor that it adds no value. Someone has (correctly) added a citation from a local newspaper report into the naming of 390039 Lady Godiva and doubtless there will be someone who knows nothing about the topic at Wiki who will be delighted by this. Read the article though and the journalism is useless, most of their facts are wrong - they think its a new train (17 years old this year), they think it will do 30,000 miles this year (try 300,000, they think that the one named City of Coventry is an old train (same age as Lady Godiva), they think it's visiting Coventry for the first time (apart from the previous few thousand times)- the list of errors goes on. So do we just know that we know better than Wiki on this and update the names table when a change happens and trust that enough people will spot an error if one gets put there (I've put one or two right when this has happened) and forget trying to "additional citation" each time?!
Chris M 390141 ( talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags and in between these provide the name of magazine, cover date, and page number as a minimum. Use {{
cite magazine}}
if you like. Please see
WP:NOR and
WP:V - these are core content policies. Please also see
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:DEADLINE - it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything. Manchester United have
not always played in red shirts, either. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the "Fleet liveries and names" section, given that it was completely unsourced. It was restored by Chris M 390141, who said "ATTENTION. This page was locked for a week owing to "vandalism". Then less than 24hr after it was re-opened someone was allowed to rip an entire section out totally unchallenged. Wiki needs to sort this out. I've re-written as well as possible." but did not add a source. I don't want to edit war here, but could all editors please have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and remove the unsourced content. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have made one edit to number scrapped section in the British Rail Class 390 article. Please do not revert it, I need that edit!!! Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made another edit to British Rail Class 390. Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to put for British Rail Class 390's number scrapped section to '1 trainset (due to the Grayrigg derailment)'. And also, for the fleet details section, I put '390033 written off in the Grayrigg derailment'. Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has requested assistance at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#British Rail Class 390 This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
I noticed that many of the citations references) on this page were messy and/or incomplate. They also used a mixture of templates, free text and simple links - some of them using the incorrect template. To improve the article, I have gone through all the citations and updated/expanded/corrected them using the current citation syntax - adding extra information wherever possible. As part of this work, I have standardised all the dates in the 'edit view' so they use YYYY-MM-DD format, as there was no consistency beforehand. However, I have also added the df=dmy-all tag to ensure that when reading the article, the actual date is dispalyed in standard UK dmy format.
-- DrFrench ( talk) 10:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
DMY
format.
MOS:DATEFORMAT specifically excludes citations from its requirements.
WP:CITESTYLE doesn't mandate a date format, other than to require consistency in citation styles overall. In fact,
WP:CS1 specifically states that the |access-date=
and |archive-date=
formats can be YYYY-MM-DD
irrespective of the format of the |date=
parameter.{{
cite web}}
and {{
cite news}}
) are
CS1 templates. These templates will automatically format the dates used in the ciatation templates according to the {{
use dmy dates}}
template at the top of the page. For example:
{{cite web |title=Example Webpage |url=//example.com |website=Example |date=2019-11-21|access-date=2019-11-21}}
|df=dmy-all
parameter, although it is not actually required in this instance.)|access-date=
and |archive-date=
parameters can use a YYYY-MM-DD format even if the |date=
parameter uses a different date format. As you and I both noted, there is no change in the way that the date is displayed to users. So your reversion of my edits was simply to force your own preferred style on the page - there was no actual valid reason to revert my edits. Thank you. --
DrFrench (
talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
and |archive-date=
prior to me making edits to this article. It's really not relevant.I don't care what MOS says - If the article was and still is all in the DMY format then that's how it can continue staying,. It suggests to me that you don't care what the 'rules' are, you simply want to have your own way.
I don't care what MOS says) and use of personal insults is 'why I'd continue this'. I don't believe that people should be allowed to bully others simply to get their own way. -- DrFrench ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
My "opinion" is backed up by policy fact- you have asserted this repeatedly, but with no evidence. I have given a detailed explanation above as to why I believe your view is wrong. I note that you haven't explained why you think my analysis is incorrect.
I don't care what MOS says. So which is it?
the dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first)(note the emphasis on "text").
|access-date=
is the preferred parameter name, but the older |accessdate=
parameter name still (currently) works as an alias.{{
use dmy dates}}
template makes certain that all dates used within the citation templates are displayed to readers in DMY format.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Train-related introductions in 2002 Buttons0603 ( talk) 22:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
390055
(390155)
Chris M 390141 (
talk) 23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, the Wiki software is such garbage that it wiped the edit out- not your fault.
It was in the Pendolino names table, entry for 390055
existing is...
| 390055
(390155)
|
X-Men: Days of Future Past
| Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name
needs to become...
| 390055
(390155)
|
| Formerly
X-Men: Days of Future Past. Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name
Hope that comes out clearer, stupidy stupid software!! (Oh, reason for edit- name removed during repaint).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current photograph is outdated and of low quality. I have a much higher quality photo of one such trainset at Manchester Piccadilly to upload, with a cleaner look, higher pixel count and also demonstrating a more up-to-date livery (despite Virgin Trains going out of business on the WCML recently).
Thanks for considering the image. Tbarnes5 ( talk) 22:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed a "new" image that appears to have been taken from here: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-premium-economy-class-launched-17388056. It has no camera information, only photoshop metadata, suggesting it has been a straight screenshot edit and should be deleted. Would appreciate someone marking the original image for deletion as I can't seem to get the template to work correctly.
During the edits there was also a second image that while correctly licenced, has not been talked about on here first. Personally I think it's not a great photo, but I'm no expert in the matter. Quinny899 ( talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A replacement image is now in place. The new photo is up to date. Under GDPR, it is required to have up to date and correct information on file, therefore, this image needs updating to one that is up to date. There are no moderators of this page and any attempt to remove it, will be reported to Wikipedia. Joshualowe1002 ( talk) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know what each of the bracketed words next to the fleet numbers stand for? AGAR-05 ( talk) 14:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor, 2A00:23C4:8C83:8001:45EA:5180:DBCE:7383, has replaced the image in the infobox which got me thinking, it should be updated to show the 390 in Avanti livery as the Virgin livery is no longer used. I'll have a look and see if there are any good photographs of the 390 in Avanti livery. NemesisAT ( talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The following two images look good:
The first one is my preference, I propose the image in the infobox is replaced with the first image above. NemesisAT ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
There's been some new images uploaded, and I think any of them would make a better lead image then the present one. I personally think 4 is by far the best one. Any thoughts? (P.s. I took the two at the top, and I think the one chosen is technically quite poor, I uploaded it for posterity, and because there were few images of 390s in Avanti livery at the time) G-13114 ( talk) 08:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Some 8-car units definitely ran early on, before the rest were built as 9-car units and then the 8s were extended to 9s by 2004 I think. -- 51.7.117.138 ( talk) 03:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Could this article be improved with more details about the braking system? How are the brakes cooled? How is the regenerative braking used? Is it the default option for light braking, with the disks coming on for heavier braking? ENSOsurfer ( talk) 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Why has City Of Edinburgh been removed from the named trains list? The train 130, recently completed her refit and returned to service, her name still very much in place.
Can City Of Edinburgh be reinstated please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.38.91 ( talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to say that I have nothing against the current image (I think it's framed very nicely actually), although having said that the image is technically outdated; without the full livery present, hence why I believe perhaps it's time for a new image. I have one that I have taken that could be of use (390Tamworth c:File:390Tamworth.jpg), hopefully it loads as I'm currently writing this on my mobile. If you have any disagreements with the idea of a new photo or want to send other photo ideas then of course do say. I won't change the image until several people have said to change, and won't change it with my image if people believe it is not an improvement, but, after all, Wikipedia is meant to be about giving the public the most up to date information as possible! Vanmanyo ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
How does anyone have a source for 390039 be refurbished? Tbrookes.23 ( talk) 13:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Rail Class 390 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
British Rail Class 390 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
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)
What is the weight of this train? Edward 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Eurostar is not a multiple unit! But if you're including the Eurostar then you should also add the Class 91 which has a top speed of 140Mph!
The Pendolino uses a different (more advanced) tilting technology to the APT. The tilting technology in the Pendolino was developed by FIAT in the early 70s independently of the APT project. In the Pendolino, each coach can tilt independently; in the APT the whole train tilts. This can cause some passengers motion sickness, and is one of the reasons why the APT was abandoned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.136 ( talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, both the above comments are incorrect in different areas. While the Pendolino does indeed use different tilt technology to the APT's system, who is to say that it's more advanced? It's just different.
For sure the APT tilt system does NOT tilt the whole train in piece, as the second comment points out. If it did only one vehicle would have zero cant deficiency on any given curve. Thus it had NOTHING to do with the APT project being abandoned.
With respect to the second comment, the APT tilt technology was NOT sold to FIAT, they had already developed their own technology as mentioned above. The whole situation vis a vis who got what when BR was privatized is very complex indeed and I've fully explained this in my lengthy comment in the 'Talk' section on the Wikipedia Tilting Trains page at Talk:Tilting_train.
The Class 221 Super Voyagers DO use APT type tilt technology though, sourced via ABB and subsequently Bombardier, and the Virgin Class 221s still use it, although Cross Country have ceased operating the tilt systems on their 221s.
I hope I can write with some authority on these matters as I was the Tilt System Development Engineer on the original gas turbine powered APT-E and carried out some work on the APT-P systems as well. Regards, Kit Spackman ( talk) 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you need further name plates of the Virgin Pendolino trains? I have a picture of the nameplate of the Virgin Enterprise. -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was editing the article removing and replacing dead links when I noticed the info given about the Pendolino window sizes and comparisons to the APT. I have suggested that citation is needed on the figures stating the window size comparisons between the Pendolino and the APT, but also it was stated that "as many as 36% of the seats are parallel with either no window or only a limited portion of one". I have done some calculations and found this to be more like 22.5% for the train as a whole (and not just Standard Class which works out to be 32.5%) and if someone would like to check my working out the please feel free:
Coach | Total Seats | Restricted View Seats | Non Restricted View Seats |
---|---|---|---|
Coach A | 46 | 16 | 30 |
Coach B | 62 | 20 | 42 |
Coach C | 48 | 16 | 32 |
Coach D | 62 | 20 | 42 |
Coach E | 76 | 24 | 52 |
Coach G | 46 | 0 | 46 |
Coach H | 44 | 3 | 41 |
Coach J | 37 | 0 | 37 |
Coach K | 18 | 0 | 18 |
Feel free to confirm but this works out to be a percentage of 77.5% Unrestricted View seats? Geezertronic ( talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I got The Railway Age at Crewe to check the size of the APT`s windows. Then, and it took some nerve, I went to Birmingham New St and measured the size of the Pendolinos windows. Simple arithmetic gives the ratio of window area per coach. I must confess I can`t find the original data now but if anyone doubts the facts they can check for themselves, it`s not difficult. Actually anyone can look at a picture of the interior of an APT (here : http://www.traintesting.com/images/interior.jpg ) and compare it with the picture in the main article, the conclusion is obvious. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The statistics on the relative window sizes on the Pendolino and the APT do not need a citation as they are can be easily proved, like what is the capital of Paris in the Wikipedia page on this subject. Quite apart from anything else if all the facts and statements on Wikipedia which have no citation were removed most of its content would disappear, at least this fact is provable. The Crewe Heritage Centre - where the APT P is preserved - did the research for these for the measurements. Anyone doubting the accuracy of them can make the same call, or, better still, visit the place for themselves. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not a point of view, they are objective figures which I got from The Railway Age, now called Crewe Heritage Centre. They have the original APT there, they are the custodians of it, they gave me the figures. Why would I not trust them ? I make no mention of claustrophobia or any subjective factors. You are deleting objective facts from this atricle for some reason I cannot fathom. Please leave them alone. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahh I see now. It wasn`t actually me who put that comment about the intereriors being clausrophobic ! I do actually think they are, and so would most people, but I never put it in because, as you say, it is subjective and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we establish that dimensions are not a P.O.V. The APT-P is actually preserved at the Crewe Heritage Centre -- JustinSmith ( talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten this disputed section to reflect (just) the facts. Saying the window size on Pendolinos has attracted comment is a fact, it is not a point of view. Putting "Pendolino small windows into Google brings up 145 000 matches, including mentions on any number of forums (e.g. 1, 2, 3, [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-622933.html 4], 5). It is even mentioned in this Times article "The small windows, which have been criticised by passengers for reducing the breadth of the view". I do not know of any other train that has had this reaction. Similarly Virgin officially recognise that there is an issue with the size of the windows/view out by even including a plan on their website indicating which seats have a restricted view, no other train has this, again, this is a fact. On the relative sizes of the windows that again is a fact and was sourced from the Crewe Heritage centre. I have no reason to doubt them and, in fact, looking at pictures of Pendolinos and the APT it actually looks about right. The fact it is not on their website is irrelevant in that if all facts on Wikipedia which didn`t have mentions on other websites were removed there`d be hardly any of it left. If you wish to remove this again please be consistent and remove every other non website linked fact on this page. If you persist in just singling out this section I consider this vandalism. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Crewe Heritage Centre got me the dimensions of the APT-P windows. The interesting thing is does that then constitute "original research". Does such a fine distinction actually matter ? As it happens I have been back on to them to check an exact equivalent vehicle, a trailer second. Mike the menager is away for a while but one of the lads who work on the APT will be getting back to me. If there is any difference in the stated figures then I will obviously change them. I would add, again, that deleting anything, unless you know it to be factually incorrect, just because there`s no official citation would result in half of the Pendolino page, and half of Wikipedia in fact, being deleted. If that`s what you want then fine, but it must be consistent. You can`t just use that as an excuse to just delete something you don`t like, and leave everything else. That said, what is there not to like about an objective fact fact ? The article said before that Pendolinos were claustrophobic (interestingly, it wasn`t actually me who put that on, as far as I can remember anyway) and that is not a fact, so I can put up with its deletion, even if I actually agree with it.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What wording could be used to describe the difference in window area between the Pendolino and the APT/most other trains ? How about "significantly smaller" ? I can`t personally think of wording which is objective and accurate, but at the same time tells the story as it were. It rather goes against the grain to get rid of objective and accurate figures (just because Alstom or Virgin haven`t published them) and replace them with words like "significantly smaller". However if something that conveys the same message can be found, use that instead. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
How about, "The smaller size of the Pendolino windows has attracted comment, the size of the windows being unprecedented for rolling stock in this country" ? I still think it`s a poor option compared to just objectively giving the sizes of the windows. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting all the dimensions and calculations for these window size statistics, in an article on my website then linking to that as a source. Then I thought, forget it someone will just say that`s not "official" and therefore invalid (even though it`s provably correct). So I still put on the statistics but went for the satirical angle instead so as to make it more readable, I`ve also put some revealing pictures in the article. Consequently I have deleted these spurious and dangerously unofficial dimensions from this article and replaced them with a less exacting comment. I have used the term unprecedented because its definition (i.e. having no previous example) is perfect in this instance.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with more expertise in lateral thinking than my goodself please explain to me how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Answers on a postcard to Wikipedia. I can`t be bothered with all this, getting into revision wars is so immature. I think someone has an axe to grind, facts are not relevant here, as far as the Pendolino goes I`ll just sort my own website out.-- JustinSmith ( talk) 07:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we`re suffering from a breakdown in communication here. I said how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Not only is that not personal, I`d have thought it fundamentally correct. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This article states the Grayrigg set has been written off. This [4] would appear to suggest otherwise... anybody know anything? Tom walker ( talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This article says that the Pendolino has a maximum design speed of 140 mph, but according to the speed dial the speed goes up 160 mph, so shouldn't this article have the maximum speed saying 160 mph? -- 390VirginPendolino390 ( talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
All's I'm trying to point out is that the Pendolino speed dial clearly shows it having a top speed of 160 mph. It's goes 130, 140, 150 then 160 in miles per hour.-- 390VirginPendolino390 ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The article says that the 11-car sets are in storage, but when I look out of my office window immediately north of Crewe station (next to the junction with the Manchester line and opposite the old Crewe North signal box) every day I see trains going past with Alstom branding rather than Virgin and proudly saying "11 car Pendolino" on the end vehicles. Something needs updating. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
([Steve Wigan]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Wigan ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (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.
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So I read through the citation provided for future Class 390 operation by the GNWR, and it does not actually seem to suggest that the trains that the TOC will receive will actually be Class 390s; just that they will be trains of the Pendolino family. LostCause231 ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should be mentioned that the following information should be added in the relevant part of the page:
390 115 is now named " Crewe - All Change", following the All Change railway event that took place at Crewe Diesel Depot on June 8th, 2019 - the day the unit was named.
It also now bears the name "Alison" on the front and rear ends of the train. 80.1.250.122 ( talk) 10:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Pendolino names table; 390015 (390115) in column 2; insert new name Crewe - All Change Chris M 390141 ( talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Link to a photo
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmostrainadventures/48031963686/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris M 390141 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to do this, but an anon is pushing this photo onto the article. For this or other trains, we do not need the latest livery, we need a good photograph, preferably an example of a typical unit. Other photos may be available, but the side-by-side comparison below should be enough:
Now that it is summer, there shouldn't be any excuses for accepting photos taken in foggy conditions anyway. Tony May ( talk) 16:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree 100%- the fact that the dull new livery one had the wrong set number in its caption should have excluded its use anyway. Chris M 390141 ( talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Here are some more alternatives, if anyone really wants to look:
I recognise that taking photos of these things is difficult because of their length. The main photo should be of a whole unit. Tony May ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The third one of that trio is more than fine, it shows what most of them look like now (at time of writing only 10 sets remain silver) and given the length of a set I think we shouldn't be stressing about getting a full train in shot, I'd rather show the driving car to good effect and the first few coaches giving a clear idea what the train looks like. Chris M 390141 ( talk) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The anon is now making accusations that File:390 Rugeley 2010-06-22.JPG is "photoshopped". If it has been photoshopped, then it shouldn't be used. For me, it is not obviously photoshopped, though some detail may have been changed without my noticing. The exif data seem straight out of the camera without modification - that is evidence (though not conclusive) against modification. If anyone can show it is photoshopped, please say, otherwise we have to WP:AGF that it is genuine, I think. Tony May ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello
The table of Pendolino names "needs additional citations" for verification but I have two large problems with this. Firstly, over the last 20 months there have been over 40 changes to the table, either names removed at repaint or new names applied. It's impossible to cite a source when a set appears minus its old name, do they really want a picture of a blank bit of bodyside for all of these and how would they know it was the right bit of empty bodyside?! Secondly, when they do apply a new name sometimes the "additional citation" is so hilariously poor that it adds no value. Someone has (correctly) added a citation from a local newspaper report into the naming of 390039 Lady Godiva and doubtless there will be someone who knows nothing about the topic at Wiki who will be delighted by this. Read the article though and the journalism is useless, most of their facts are wrong - they think its a new train (17 years old this year), they think it will do 30,000 miles this year (try 300,000, they think that the one named City of Coventry is an old train (same age as Lady Godiva), they think it's visiting Coventry for the first time (apart from the previous few thousand times)- the list of errors goes on. So do we just know that we know better than Wiki on this and update the names table when a change happens and trust that enough people will spot an error if one gets put there (I've put one or two right when this has happened) and forget trying to "additional citation" each time?!
Chris M 390141 ( talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags and in between these provide the name of magazine, cover date, and page number as a minimum. Use {{
cite magazine}}
if you like. Please see
WP:NOR and
WP:V - these are core content policies. Please also see
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:DEADLINE - it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything. Manchester United have
not always played in red shirts, either. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the "Fleet liveries and names" section, given that it was completely unsourced. It was restored by Chris M 390141, who said "ATTENTION. This page was locked for a week owing to "vandalism". Then less than 24hr after it was re-opened someone was allowed to rip an entire section out totally unchallenged. Wiki needs to sort this out. I've re-written as well as possible." but did not add a source. I don't want to edit war here, but could all editors please have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and remove the unsourced content. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have made one edit to number scrapped section in the British Rail Class 390 article. Please do not revert it, I need that edit!!! Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made another edit to British Rail Class 390. Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to put for British Rail Class 390's number scrapped section to '1 trainset (due to the Grayrigg derailment)'. And also, for the fleet details section, I put '390033 written off in the Grayrigg derailment'. Northernrailwaysfan ( talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has requested assistance at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#British Rail Class 390 This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
I noticed that many of the citations references) on this page were messy and/or incomplate. They also used a mixture of templates, free text and simple links - some of them using the incorrect template. To improve the article, I have gone through all the citations and updated/expanded/corrected them using the current citation syntax - adding extra information wherever possible. As part of this work, I have standardised all the dates in the 'edit view' so they use YYYY-MM-DD format, as there was no consistency beforehand. However, I have also added the df=dmy-all tag to ensure that when reading the article, the actual date is dispalyed in standard UK dmy format.
-- DrFrench ( talk) 10:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
DMY
format.
MOS:DATEFORMAT specifically excludes citations from its requirements.
WP:CITESTYLE doesn't mandate a date format, other than to require consistency in citation styles overall. In fact,
WP:CS1 specifically states that the |access-date=
and |archive-date=
formats can be YYYY-MM-DD
irrespective of the format of the |date=
parameter.{{
cite web}}
and {{
cite news}}
) are
CS1 templates. These templates will automatically format the dates used in the ciatation templates according to the {{
use dmy dates}}
template at the top of the page. For example:
{{cite web |title=Example Webpage |url=//example.com |website=Example |date=2019-11-21|access-date=2019-11-21}}
|df=dmy-all
parameter, although it is not actually required in this instance.)|access-date=
and |archive-date=
parameters can use a YYYY-MM-DD format even if the |date=
parameter uses a different date format. As you and I both noted, there is no change in the way that the date is displayed to users. So your reversion of my edits was simply to force your own preferred style on the page - there was no actual valid reason to revert my edits. Thank you. --
DrFrench (
talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
and |archive-date=
prior to me making edits to this article. It's really not relevant.I don't care what MOS says - If the article was and still is all in the DMY format then that's how it can continue staying,. It suggests to me that you don't care what the 'rules' are, you simply want to have your own way.
I don't care what MOS says) and use of personal insults is 'why I'd continue this'. I don't believe that people should be allowed to bully others simply to get their own way. -- DrFrench ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
My "opinion" is backed up by policy fact- you have asserted this repeatedly, but with no evidence. I have given a detailed explanation above as to why I believe your view is wrong. I note that you haven't explained why you think my analysis is incorrect.
I don't care what MOS says. So which is it?
the dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first)(note the emphasis on "text").
|access-date=
is the preferred parameter name, but the older |accessdate=
parameter name still (currently) works as an alias.{{
use dmy dates}}
template makes certain that all dates used within the citation templates are displayed to readers in DMY format.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Train-related introductions in 2002 Buttons0603 ( talk) 22:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
390055
(390155)
Chris M 390141 (
talk) 23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, the Wiki software is such garbage that it wiped the edit out- not your fault.
It was in the Pendolino names table, entry for 390055
existing is...
| 390055
(390155)
|
X-Men: Days of Future Past
| Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name
needs to become...
| 390055
(390155)
|
| Formerly
X-Men: Days of Future Past. Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name
Hope that comes out clearer, stupidy stupid software!! (Oh, reason for edit- name removed during repaint).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current photograph is outdated and of low quality. I have a much higher quality photo of one such trainset at Manchester Piccadilly to upload, with a cleaner look, higher pixel count and also demonstrating a more up-to-date livery (despite Virgin Trains going out of business on the WCML recently).
Thanks for considering the image. Tbarnes5 ( talk) 22:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed a "new" image that appears to have been taken from here: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-premium-economy-class-launched-17388056. It has no camera information, only photoshop metadata, suggesting it has been a straight screenshot edit and should be deleted. Would appreciate someone marking the original image for deletion as I can't seem to get the template to work correctly.
During the edits there was also a second image that while correctly licenced, has not been talked about on here first. Personally I think it's not a great photo, but I'm no expert in the matter. Quinny899 ( talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A replacement image is now in place. The new photo is up to date. Under GDPR, it is required to have up to date and correct information on file, therefore, this image needs updating to one that is up to date. There are no moderators of this page and any attempt to remove it, will be reported to Wikipedia. Joshualowe1002 ( talk) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know what each of the bracketed words next to the fleet numbers stand for? AGAR-05 ( talk) 14:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor, 2A00:23C4:8C83:8001:45EA:5180:DBCE:7383, has replaced the image in the infobox which got me thinking, it should be updated to show the 390 in Avanti livery as the Virgin livery is no longer used. I'll have a look and see if there are any good photographs of the 390 in Avanti livery. NemesisAT ( talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The following two images look good:
The first one is my preference, I propose the image in the infobox is replaced with the first image above. NemesisAT ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
There's been some new images uploaded, and I think any of them would make a better lead image then the present one. I personally think 4 is by far the best one. Any thoughts? (P.s. I took the two at the top, and I think the one chosen is technically quite poor, I uploaded it for posterity, and because there were few images of 390s in Avanti livery at the time) G-13114 ( talk) 08:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Some 8-car units definitely ran early on, before the rest were built as 9-car units and then the 8s were extended to 9s by 2004 I think. -- 51.7.117.138 ( talk) 03:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Could this article be improved with more details about the braking system? How are the brakes cooled? How is the regenerative braking used? Is it the default option for light braking, with the disks coming on for heavier braking? ENSOsurfer ( talk) 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Why has City Of Edinburgh been removed from the named trains list? The train 130, recently completed her refit and returned to service, her name still very much in place.
Can City Of Edinburgh be reinstated please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.38.91 ( talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to say that I have nothing against the current image (I think it's framed very nicely actually), although having said that the image is technically outdated; without the full livery present, hence why I believe perhaps it's time for a new image. I have one that I have taken that could be of use (390Tamworth c:File:390Tamworth.jpg), hopefully it loads as I'm currently writing this on my mobile. If you have any disagreements with the idea of a new photo or want to send other photo ideas then of course do say. I won't change the image until several people have said to change, and won't change it with my image if people believe it is not an improvement, but, after all, Wikipedia is meant to be about giving the public the most up to date information as possible! Vanmanyo ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
How does anyone have a source for 390039 be refurbished? Tbrookes.23 ( talk) 13:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)