Talk:British Rail Class 104

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Abbreviations

Could somebody explain why some abbreviations (those ending LC) are -LC and not CL? They are described as "... Lavatory Composite", so shouldn't the abbreviation be ...LC, not CL?

E.g. current listing for

"30291 Driving Motor Lavatory Composite (DMCL) 4 50424–50427 L.M.R. three car sets".

Which is wrong, the abbreviation or the description? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I reckon none of them are quite right.

Checking references

(i) Brian Haresnape (Fleet Survey no. 8): the nomenclature used is, eg, DMBC(L) for "Driving Motor Brake Composite, Lavatory", although he does mention at the end of the introduction that certain types had one of their two engines removed (including some 104s) and were correspondingly reclassified as DHMCL (no brackets), where H stood for Half.

(ii) Kevin Robertson "First Generation DMUs" uses '(L)' in the type table, but dispenses with the brackets in the photo captions.

(iii) But what did BR use? The nearest I can immediately lay my hands on is, wait for it, a souvenir programme for Reading Maintenance Depot Open Day (01/06/1985 -- part of GW150). It's very amateurish compared with today's publications, but clearly written and published by BR, and Reading Depot was (and still is) a DMU depot, so they ought to know what they're talking about... At the back is the shed allocation for 1985 and this lists the individual and set running numbers for 25 Class 117s (DMBS + TC(L)+DMS) and 19 Class 119s (DMBC + TS(L)+DMS(L)), plus two prototype Class 210 (DMBSO+TSO+TCO(L)+DTSO).

Hence, I would say, 'Lavatory' is always last, and I would place the L in brackets too.

EdJogg (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the 104s... I commuted on those between Blackburn and Bolton, circa 1983-8. I always tried to make for the DMCL, because the first-class sections had been declassified to second by the simple means of removing the markings. The comfy seats were left as they were - with the bonus that in four of the twelve seats, you could see through the driving cab to where you were going - or had been, because the nice drivers at Newton Heath usually pulled up the blinds. The trains may have been old, but gave a much better ride than the cl. 142 Pacers that replaced them, and which had no forward view. Anyway. DMC(L) was the earlier code, changed to DMCL circa 1980. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the order of the words in the description doesn't necessarily match the order of the letters in the code. Consider hauled stock, where the code SK is generally described as "Corridor Second". Regarding the order of letters in the code, I did see the rule written down, but can't remember where. The codes are based on the old LNER system, and for hauled stock, the letter for the class (C, F, S, T, U) is preceded by information on the major facilities (B=Brake, R=Refreshment) and followed by the style of accommodation (K=corridor with lavatory, L=Lavatory, non-gangwayed, O=Open). For multiple-unit stock these are slightly different, and the whole code is preceded by M or T for motor or trailer, and further preceded by D for Driving. At some point in the 1980s they decided to restrict the number of letters to four. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a choice, and I would suggest that the correct choice is to use the nomenclature used when the units were built (or later modified) since this is a fairly easy rule to apply. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 104. 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]