Jump to content

Talk:British Rail Class 165

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar units

[edit]

The same bodywork was used for Connex's 'Networker' 3rd rail powered trains operating out of London Victoria and for a 25kv OHLE WAGN service from King's Cross, called 'Networker Express'.

Image of Chiltern Railways Class 165?

[edit]

Any chance of any Wikipedians uploading an image of a Chiltern Railways British Class 165 Turbo train? This is because there are, IMO, too many FGW trains there. Thanks. Manm hk (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph.

[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph, in accordance with WP:CBALL.

It is now rumoured that when Crossrail opens in 2017, some Class 165s will transfer to operate the Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour services, to help strengthen services. This will also be possible because the local services to Greenford, the Slough to Windsor branch will be replaced by new build of DMU likely to be Class 172s.

JameiLei (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class 165 or 166?

[edit]

I have a photo of either a class 165 or 166 at Reading station, but I can't tell which it is. It might end in 215, which would make it a 166 - is there any way to tell them apart other than number? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a class 166 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.144 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite and removals

[edit]

I did a 'very minor' rewrite so that operations are now grouped under region, and the 'description' section now only coveres fleet specs, tech specs etc.. Have a look at the article - I'm sure it's ok/

Removed fleet details table - two reasons here - 1. The table probably isn't necessary - it's small and all the info is accessible from the text 2. More importantly - the table only covered current details which is not good - even if the table did cover all historical details - I would see a problem - in terms of it's complexity (especially with larger classes) - as well as possibly notabilty/

Other removal from intro section

"The Class 165 units were built under British Rail's modernisation plans of the 1980s for the Marylebone lines and the local lines out of Paddington, making these lines suitable for privatisation."

I don't accept that the units were built as some sort of sweetener for privatisation- such a claim would definately need very reliable references to get past this editor.

I hope I haven't spoilt the article.FengRail (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple working

[edit]

I've removed the paragraph:

The Class 165 Turbo trains can only be worked in multiple with Class 166 Turbo Express and Class 168 Clubman trains, as these three DMU classes have a different pattern of electrical studs on their coupler faces to other units.

From System Data for Mechanical and Electrical Coupling of Rail Vehicles you can see that a lot of DMU classes use the same Davies & Metcalf 0.00.193 electric coupler head. The 165/166/168 do seem to be wired a little differently to the rest, but there's not enough data there to prove or disprove exactly which units are compatible. Certainly though it's not related to the stud pattern.

(The 168 though uses Sab Wabco and D & M Products electric heads, though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a Chiltern Railways Class 165/0 Turbo can couple upto a Class 168 Clubman, note then that the train would then be limited to the Class 165/0 top speed of 75mph. However I am unsure if a Class 165 would be able to work in multiple with a Class 170. I'm not sure if Classes 165/1 and 166 would be able to couple with a Class 168, although in theory, it should work - however in an emergency only! --Peter Skuce (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London and Thames Valley Refresh

[edit]

I will take some photographs of First Great Western refreshed Class 165/1 DMU trains in May and will also add more information on the refresh. --Peter Skuce (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New images

[edit]

I have added some interior photographs of First Great Western Class 165/1 Turbos - the seats have been retrimmed into new moquette, however this was only a minor refresh. A more extensive refresh to also involve new flooring, repainted sanchlions & hand grabs, retrimmed seats in navy blue trim, new side panels, wall end coverings and revamped toilets is currently underway at Reading Depot. --Peter Skuce (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, they're nice pictures which definitely help the article. However, I have reservations about the complete removal of the Thams Trains liveried exterior shot. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images

[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 165s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

[edit]

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.

Route restrictions - clarification needed

[edit]

The passage "The fleet is wide-bodied to take advantage of the gauges of the former Great Western Railway and Great Central Railway on whose lines it runs. As a result, it is restricted to these routes" has been marked "Citation required" but the reason has not been given. Also a route restriction my occur because of the lenghth of the vehicles. Can we have some clarification? 86.141.233.185 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 165. 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) 22:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 165. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

[edit]

There are a lot of unexplained abbreviations on this page e.g. DMCL, DMOSL and DMOCL. These need to be explained/linked as otherwise parts of the article are inaccessible to the general reader. GBM (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The letters have the following meanings:
  • C - Composite (i.e. first and standard class accommodation)
  • D - Driving
  • L - Lavatory
  • M - Motor
  • O - Open (i.e. no internal partitions)
  • S - Standard class
The letter O is redundant (and was officially discontinued in the early 1980s, well before these trains were introduced), since compartment carriages (other than sleeping cars) haven't been built since the early 1970s. So a DMCL and DMOCL are the same, being Driving Motor Composite with Lavatory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_165&oldid=1200369036"