 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
I have restored the Mark 2 BFO to the template and present the following evidence for its existence:
- A stock list including Mark 2 BFO numbers
- Photo of a Mark 2 BFO
- Model of a Mark 2 BFO
- Trainsim screenshot of a Mark 2 BFO
I still can't find any evidence of a Mark 1 BFO, maybe I was having an off day when I added it?
- -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The BFO is a conversion of 1 or 2 coaches, from BSO. The coaches number place them in the BSO series - 95XX. I do not think that the inclusion of type is neccesary, unless they have a different TOPS code.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the origin (converted rather than built) should be enough to automatically exclude this type. After all we have
DBSO and
BSOT which both started out as
BSO. -=#
Amos E Wolfe
talk #=- 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I quantified, if the TOPS code has changed, then fair enough. Thats what happened to the DBSO and BSO(T). If it has not, then all the other non-standard conversions that preserved railways have carried out to their fleets of Mark 1 and 2 vehicles should have articles created.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the origin (converted rather than built) should be enough to automatically exclude this type. After all we have
DBSO and
BSOT which both started out as
BSO. -=#
Amos E Wolfe
talk #=- 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Model of a Mark 2 BFO It is not unknown for manufacturers to invent types non-prototypical. Due to blurred image, it is impossible to say for definate if it is a BFO, although there is less light through the windows, compared with the TSO, making it look more like a BFK to me.
- Trainsim screenshot of a Mark 2 BFO Image is of a BFK. Check the coach end data. Incorrectly labeled image. -- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I present Interior of suggested BFO Those appear to be 2+2 seats to me. i.e. Standard class seats.
- Data panel stating TOPS code AE2F The TOPS code states its a standard class vehicle. I feel this is enough evidence to refute the claim that there is such a vehicle as a Mark 1 or 2 BFO.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
where ? / should ? Nightstar (train) coaching stock be added to this template? 91.109.223.12 ( talk) 21:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Should the British Rail Mark 5 be included in this template?
| This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
I have restored the Mark 2 BFO to the template and present the following evidence for its existence:
- A stock list including Mark 2 BFO numbers
- Photo of a Mark 2 BFO
- Model of a Mark 2 BFO
- Trainsim screenshot of a Mark 2 BFO
I still can't find any evidence of a Mark 1 BFO, maybe I was having an off day when I added it?
- -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The BFO is a conversion of 1 or 2 coaches, from BSO. The coaches number place them in the BSO series - 95XX. I do not think that the inclusion of type is neccesary, unless they have a different TOPS code.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the origin (converted rather than built) should be enough to automatically exclude this type. After all we have
DBSO and
BSOT which both started out as
BSO. -=#
Amos E Wolfe
talk #=- 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I quantified, if the TOPS code has changed, then fair enough. Thats what happened to the DBSO and BSO(T). If it has not, then all the other non-standard conversions that preserved railways have carried out to their fleets of Mark 1 and 2 vehicles should have articles created.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the origin (converted rather than built) should be enough to automatically exclude this type. After all we have
DBSO and
BSOT which both started out as
BSO. -=#
Amos E Wolfe
talk #=- 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Model of a Mark 2 BFO It is not unknown for manufacturers to invent types non-prototypical. Due to blurred image, it is impossible to say for definate if it is a BFO, although there is less light through the windows, compared with the TSO, making it look more like a BFK to me.
- Trainsim screenshot of a Mark 2 BFO Image is of a BFK. Check the coach end data. Incorrectly labeled image. -- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I present Interior of suggested BFO Those appear to be 2+2 seats to me. i.e. Standard class seats.
- Data panel stating TOPS code AE2F The TOPS code states its a standard class vehicle. I feel this is enough evidence to refute the claim that there is such a vehicle as a Mark 1 or 2 BFO.-- 81.159.10.178 ( talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
where ? / should ? Nightstar (train) coaching stock be added to this template? 91.109.223.12 ( talk) 21:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Should the British Rail Mark 5 be included in this template?