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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Apparently 142s, 143s and 144s are all known as 'nodding donkeys' due to how to jerk up and down on unven track Hstudent08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can. It's not exactly common, but I've seen trains formed of two Pacer sets coupled together. Only one set was in use, however, suggesting the other was broken-down. GBev1987 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Rail use 142s attached to 142s, 150s and 156s. Sometimes one unit in operation (especially to transfer units around), sometimes both units in operation. On one occasion I saw a 142 attached to both a 156 and a 150, all in operation on a summer Blackpool service (the 142 being the front unit) 217.37.120.25 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Enotayokel change the image without discussing it before hand? There is nothing wrong with File:142077_Penarth.JPG and I don't see how it can be too dark at all - the photograph is in broad daylight. Also this image matches the interior image.
--Peter Skuce (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the train is a bit too dark against a light background. While I understand that it's nice to have the exterior and interior images matching it isn't as inportant as using the best picture we have in the infobox - and the best picture is File:142041 Northern Rail Castleton East Jcn.jpg. It's better on every count discussed at Talk:British Rail Class 153 and Talk:British Rail Class 313, including the ones you proposed. It may be worth using an interior shot of a Northern Rail unit to match the exterior one, but we shouldn't try to match the exterior shot to the existing interior one. While your picture certainly deserves a place in the gallery, it doesn't belong in the infobox. Also, a revert isn't a minor edit, so please don't mark it as one. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should I put it back, I even tried a neutral BR pacer! - All I've been doing is going through the Commons and picking out clearer photos - I have noticed that Peter reverts any attempt to remove his picture of any class (See Class 455 for another example where a noisy picture keeps returning) --Enotayokel (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BR picture wasn't appropriate as the infobox infobox should be up to date where this is possible, which is why I would suggest the Northern Rail one. Without wishing to get dragged into a debate about British Rail Class 455 which should be held on that article's talk page, I have to say that Peter's picture seems okay in that instance. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed both the Regional Railways and Greater Manchester 1980s images, next to each other, in the gallery - this has enhanced this article.--Peter Skuce (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've found the photograph that I took of a refurbished Merseyrail Class 142 at Liverpool Lime Street and have uploaded this into the gallery - it does look better than the half cut image. I have placed the interior of an interior of a refreshed First Great Western Class 142 at the top of the page - if anyone ventures onto Northern area often and come across a Northern refreshed interior, then please upload it onto Wikipedia? --Peter Skuce (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I have just two suggestions: replace the gallery image of the FGW interior with the Arriva one that used to be in the infobox, and add a couple of inline images - while I like galleries it is worth having images in the article text as well. But generally we've got a good result out of this. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have swapped the interior image - though I will point out that Northern units have three different types of seating (Original/West, East Side and Miseryrail) so matching to the unit is rather tricky unless you can ID what seating it has, have moved some images out from the gallery to inline, and also added a new BR era heading for expansion :) --Enotayokel (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think my last post had an error in it. I was trying to say that we didn't need the FGW interior shot in both the infobox and the gallery. If the FGW interior is more like the Northern one as Peter said in the caption, it would be fine to use this in the infobox instead of the ATW one. I apologise if I've led you to make a pointless edit. Good work the inline images and BR stuff by the way. Alzarian16 (talk)
Thank you Enotayokel for re-arranging things when they were fine as they were - the page now looks a mess! Thanks for nothing! All that hard work by me to have as diverse collection of images has been wasted! --Peter Skuce (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you're blaming the wrong person. The infobox interior image was repalced by mistake because I accidentally made it sound like I wanted it, as I explained above. Enotayokel didn't remove any of the images you added, he simply moved from the gallery to the main body of the page. The use of inline images is encouraged for two reasons:
1. They help to break up large areas of text and make the page easier to read.
2. The size of the image as it appears on the page is larger for inline images than gallery ones.
I know you don't agree with these reasons (as you made clear on Talk:British Rail Class 313), but the consensus is that they shold be used. The gallery is designed for images which don't fit well into the text. Remember that our only Good Article on a UK train type, British Rail Class 47, uses this format. So we're going to use it here. I've admitted that I was wrong about the infobox interior image - now please admit that you're wrong about inline images and help to end this debate with an outcome we can agree on. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, and I hope everyone else does too. Alzarian16 (talk)
I might have another go at it, prune out some of the duplicated images. I do still think that the FGW interior should go under BR to show the original interior, with a different image at the top, also there are too many BR images for the size of the section an they are intruding down into Northern. Might be worth Gallerying them until the BR operations can be expanded. Might try and prune out some of the excessive ATW images in the gallery for a Swap with Northern Sprit, FNW and Valley Lines for a bit of varitity - Finally am tempted to rename "Current Operations" to "Post Privatisation" to allow more scope for the previous TOCs - any thoughts?--Enotayokel (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the section renaming for the reason you gave. The BR images should probably stay where they are, although one of the three could be put in the gallery (the brown and cream one may be most appropriate for this as it isn't really a Northern England livery). The images you suggested would be worth having but we would have to be careful not to remove too much existing content, although one ATW picture could be dropped. I'll leave it up to you as to which one. Also, we don't really need to have the FGW interior shot in the gallery as we've included it in the infobox. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion with central Southern England - i.e. between Sussex and Dorset, I have changed the title to 'South West England' as it reflects the area correctly. Devon, Somerset and Cornwall are NOT in Southern England, they are in the South West. --Peter Skuce (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 142. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true 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.
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 142. 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.
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 142. 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: 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.
What's all this about 142005 being "the first unit to be retired"? As noted in the Accidents section, 142059 was withdrawn in 1991 and 142008 was withdrawn in 1999 (following the 1999 Winsford railway accident). These numbers have remained absent from the Platform 5 combined volume ever since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says 142005 was the first Class 142 unit to be withdrawn from the current Northern franchise's allocation of the type - not the first one overall - Coradia175 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your also missing 142011 and 142013 at Midland Rail Centre at Butterley nut 011 is being used for spares and 013 will run on the railway as well. Trooper201 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claas 142’s were retired from Northern on 27th of November 2020, 142s left Great western railway in 2011 and were never based at Laira Traction & Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot while with GWR instead they were based at Exeter TMD. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
142 we're used on Exeter branchline routes. Laira is a HST depot not a local unit depot. Hence why you will never find any pictures of a 142 at Laira but plenty at Exeter TMD. Speaking of 142029 is actually at the Plym Valley Railway not Chasewater.146.198.123.102 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some 142s were based at Exeter depot from 2007 until 2011, but that doesn't mean that they didn't visit Laira depot. Regardless of the classes actually allocated to a depot, most depots are capable of providing service for other classes - overnight stabling, fuelling and minor maintenance categories, such as the "A" and "B" exams. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the edit-warring over the uncited tables is continuing unabated, both have have deleted. They were flagged as uncited 7 months ago and yet for all the toing and froing, remain uncited. Please do not reinstate until they can be cited in full. It will either need to be from a published work as sometimes appear in a magazine or in books such as the annual Platform 5 publication. Metro140 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
_Stogi_Plaza.JPG)
.jpg)
