Jump to content

Talk:British Rail Class 332

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

Class 331

[edit]

Can anyone shed some light on when/why the class number was changed from 331 to 332? Thanks --Enotayokel (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it ever did - the 1996 Platform 5 combined volume doesn't list the Heathrow Express units at all, whilst the 1997 edition has Class 332 "New units under construction" and no mention of any previous class number.
  • Fox, Peter (1996). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 1996. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. ISBN 1 872524 83 4.
  • Fox, Peter (1997). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 1997. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 235–6. ISBN 1 872524 97 4.
Perhaps Cl. 331 was allotted at the planning stage, but never used officially? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 332. 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) 22:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 332. 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) 04:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number scrapped reference

[edit]

The reference for number scraped is only temporary and I will change it the second a railway magazine or railway news site covers it. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boats get scraped, when they are covered in barnacles. When, and only when, you have a reputable reliable source (which Twitter is not), the information may be added. Until then, it stays out, because WP:V is a core content policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: very well, I had hoped that since it was the head of rail who tweeted that it might have been let slide for a few hours until we had a news site had covered the scraping of 332014.
I’ll start looking for a news site talking about it. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh come on, you're telling me the head of the UK's leading railway magazine tweeting about it isn't proof enough. Why? because it was a tweet and not an article? the moment Richard Clinnick writes an article about it I suppose then it's a proper source then? stuff like this really pisses me off, Wikipedia needs to get its act together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ9674 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MJ9674 that is correct. Twitter is not a reputable source. I follow @RAIL, and he does not just tweet railway facts. Wait until it's in the magazine. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough then, but it annoys me when wikipedia pages fall out of date because facts aren't presented the right way. MJ9674 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image of a 332 that was scrapped too Metalhead11000 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, scrapped, not "scraped" at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{Ping|Redrose64}} thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake I always seem to make that mistake no matter how hard I try. my bad. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ment scrapped not scraped folks.

Sadly still no reliable sources talking about the scrapped 332s yet, only sites talking about the scrapped 332s that I can find are unreliable sources e.g. Twitter, youtube etc. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: sorry failed to fully put the ping command in to ping you before.

My bad. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be cleared up: has any reliable sources stated the 332s have been withdrawn? SK2242 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is one incorrect reference, cited in the article, that the whole fleet was withdrawn on December the 12th. This is not correct, and is due to the lag between that publication going to press and developments along the withdrawal timeline that has put their replacements' introduction back several weeks. Unfortunately I haven't got any publish-able proof that would meet Wikipedia's verification standards. But there's plenty of current media out there with photographs and video of them working since that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:300E:7300:20BE:610C:7290:F30 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love how we have people who complain that wikipedia is out of date and yet we can't add sources that the people who complain about use. If people use sources such as Clinnick's Twitter and people want to follow that we can't we add it? I love also the fact how Wikipedia needs to advertise to people to get people to use it except that no one will use it because it is out of date. Either have a section that shows how many are scrapped/stored accurately or just remove the status column because it seems to the average reader that we have multiple sources with different answers and they will only go to the sources that they know who to trust. In this case it is people who either work for a magazine company or seen it with their own eyes. Wouldn't a person who saw a train with a new livery e.g. a 332 at Goole think that it is real? Again, how can you say it isn't real? Maxopolitan (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a reliable source is not hard. If you want to discuss/complain about source reliability further do it at WP:RSN and you will be told exactly why you cannot use some random guy on twitter as a source. SK2242 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously expecting me to read 77 thousand words to get an answer? Do you seriously think I have nothing better to do in my life? I'm not complaining about finding "official sources", I'm criticising how people who aren't random but part of a leading company post facts before it is published and yet that seems to be not allowed even though it is the same piece of information. Has there been a time where Mr Clinnick has posted on Twitter that is the opposite from when it is published in RAIL? Yes or No? If there has fine, he's not entirely reliable but if its exactly the same I don't understand how its a problem. If Wikipedia will refuse to use sources that are 'hot off the press' I will not be surprised why people will stop using Wikipedia. Simple.Maxopolitan (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about Clinnick, I’m talking about the other Twitter user you cited, which you know (I’ll be shocked if you somehow don’t at this point) is not reliable. SK2242 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, they aren't as reliable as Clinnick due to the fact that they aren't as well known and that they don't tweet as much however regardless of how reliable a Twitter user is, apparently we can't use it. My point is, if we have evidence that is on Twitter of news before it goes in magazines for example, why can't we use it? Yes, this person is not as reliable but what if he was more well-known? Regardless of how reliable this user is, the photo in that tweet is of a Class 332 (not of the user) in a livery that has never been seen before, surely that is something worth mentioning? Maxopolitan (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGC. SK2242 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 13th January 2021

[edit]

Very sorry for the number of edits I had to make today, tried to fix the page myself via individual edits and failed so had to roll the page back.

I should have rolled the page back the first time my bad. Maurice Oly (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, sorry for not giving a clear reason as to my revert my keyboard on my phone is not the best at working at times.

I ment to put no reliable source has been given to back up that 7 332 sets have been scrapped and since the entire fleet as not been scrapped yet is not were is to be used. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at some words and their meanings.
  • Stored - the unit is out of use (long term) but may be brought back into service at some point. It may or may not still be leased to a TOC.
  • Off lease - the unit is no longer required by the TOC, who have returned it to the leasing company. It is probably stored, but may be brought back into use at any time, usually if leased to a different TOC
  • Withdrawn - the unit is out of use permanently and is unlikely to be used again. It is still the property of the leasing company, but is not leased to any TOC. It is held somewhere on the tracks of Network Rail, perhaps at one of the depots.
  • Sold for further use - the leasing company has sold the unit to some other organisation, possibly a foreign railway.
  • Sold for scrap - the leasing company has removed useful components for use as spare parts, and sold the remainder of the unit to a company specialising in the breaking up of old vehicles
  • Scrapped - the unit has been broken up into small pieces for recycling or other disposal
It is clear that units no longer in service with Heathrow Express are not necessarily "scrapped". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok then, if you really want to get technical they've been "sold for scrap". But how the hell will anyone know when exactly they've been properly scrapped? it's a whole lot easier to just log them as scrapped as soon as they head to scrap, as there's no way of knowing when they'll be scrapped unless you work there. And for the record, the whole fleet will definitely not get used again. they're in incredibly poor condition, unable to operate coupled to any other units and (if I remember correctly but I very well could not) can't even operate outside of the heathrow-london stretch anyway due to special equipment on board, not to mention all the 365s literally sat in fields unused which are in much better shape, recently refurbished and only slightly older. MJ9674 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a good idea to describe the units as "withdrawn" and wait for (if you'll pardon the pun) an actual cast-iron reference regarding the completion of the scrapping of the units to come along. Turini2 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Turini2: I will forgive the pun, while using “withdrawn” would solve this issue it can’t be used as it is not a box option on the infobox.
If “Withdrawn” were to be added it would make the infobox on this page different to other pages and so for the sake of having the same infobox on each page and keep to the template “withdrawn” can’t be used. Maurice Oly (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UK Rail log is not a reliable source as it appears to be self published and acknowledges that it uses Wikipedia and forums as sources. Forums, social media etc are not reliable sources and considered to be original research, as discussed previously cites need to be from reputable sources.
Once again editors seem to be editing under the assumption that Wikipedia is a newspaper. It's not, it is an encyclopedia built up on what reliable sources state. I think we all acknowledge that the 332s are in the process of being disposed of, but the article should only be updated as and when reported by reliable sources. If that means it is not up to the minute accurate, so be it. Metro140 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MJ9674: Please see post by Metro140. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Metro140: then what the hell am I supposed to find? the only reliable sources (according to wikipedia at least) are magazines that are wrong half the time anyway, not to mention the time delay on them. Once again another frustrating rule getting in the way of factual accuracy. MJ9674 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So don't use the unreliable magazines. Use the reliable ones, such as Modern Railways, Rail, The Railway Magazine, Today's Railways UK. Several of these report on trains being cut up for scrap. Remember, there is no deadline, it is better to wait a couple of weeks for a reliable source than spread misinformation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't update wikipedia pages if I didn't know for certain that the update was correct. Unfortunately the sources I use, despite being completely accurate, aren't accepted by wikipedia, although I do understand why internet forums aren't accepted as verifiable. MJ9674 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know they're "completely accurate", as you claim? Some of these forums fall foul of WP:CIRCULAR which says do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
because they are often backed up by photos and real time data from websites like real time trains. When people do make mistakes (accidentally or deliberately) people pick them up on it. Just because they don't conform to wikipedia rules doesn't mean they aren't accurate and reliable. And anyway, usually wikipedia is used to back up what's happened, usually better proof than a wikipedia article that waits a month or two before being made up to date is available. MJ9674 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MJ9674:Clearly you don't like the policies, but they do exist for valid reasons, not to make life difficult. While the published sources do no doubt from time to time contain errors, there is at least a degree of editorial control that will reduce it, in a nutshell it is WP:VNT. The policy isn't going to change as a result of this discussion, so if you still feel strongly enough about it, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Verifiability would be a better place if you want to take it further. Metro140 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJ9674: Here's an example of a reliable source:

  • Milner, Chris, ed. (January 2021). "First 'Heathrow Express' units sent for scrap". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 167, no. 1438. Horncastle: Mortons Media Group. p. 9. ISSN 0033-8923.

It's in the newsagents right now, and will be available until 2 February, because the next issue is published on 3 February. If you miss out, you can order one from the publishers whose phone number is 01507 529529. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: ok thanks, i'm aware that magazines are counted as reliable sources.

Sets preserved

[edit]

Ok going to go into a bit of detail here.

Rail magazine issue 925 February 24 2021 says that 3 cars of a 332 that are Siemens‘s site in goole are to be used as temporary classrooms so that’s why I put 3 cars as preserved as for now there are 3 cars from a 332 preserved.

Rail magazine issue 925 February 24 2021 does not say how long the 3 cars will be kept by Siemens or what will happen to those 3 sets once Siemens no longer needs them.

Rail Rail magazine issue 925 February 24 2021 does mention in a photo caption bellow the article that one of the cars is Driving motor standard (DMS) 78400 from 332001. It does not say which set the other 2 cars are from or what cars those are.

Just thought I’d leave this here so editors can know what Rail magazine issue 925 February 24 2021 says about the 3 persevered cars. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preserved? Really? They've been diverted from the scrapyard, but I wouldn't call them "preserved" just yet. Sold on for private use, if you ask me.

AFAIK all three carriages are from unit 001.

DAB (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DAB: On wikiapeda any sets from any train that are saved from scrap by being bought by 3rd parties are considered “preserved” as far I know. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i've heard that the front and rear cars of 332001 have been saved and are at Siemens Goole, but for display not (to my knowledge at least) for use as classrooms. they've been repainted too. And yes I agree, i'd say sold for private use. MJ9674 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_332&oldid=1200369123"