Talk:British Rail Class 378

Article naming and proposed deletion

Before anyone asks, the source of the number and the image is a TfL flyer advertising London Overground - the front of this flyer is an artist's impression of the new train which carries the number 378 000. Hammersfan 09/02/07, 11.05 GMT

If there's no explicit mention of the number in the flyer, then that's not really solid enough to state as fact. I think the language needs tweaking to reflect this (It's also possible that the two types will be different classes). And is there a cite for the ELL units being DC only? --88.111.177.208 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

While I have no wish to get into a slanging match, I would simply ask the question "why would TfL publish a CG picture of an artist's impression with the number 378 000 if they weren't actually going to be Class 378. Also, as regards the DC only thing, there are no overhead wires being installed as part of the ELL upgrades, and TfL have explicitly stated that the NLL units will be dual voltage, while saying no such thing about the ELL units. Hammersfan 08/03/07, 16.40 GMT

I've nuked the page and redirected to the main LO article. This page contained zero information that wasn't either unvarifiable conjecture on your part or a duplicate what's already there. Numbers found lurking in promotional images do not count as a verifiable source for anything. Sorry. --Dtcdthingy 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. Because one objection does not make a consensus. This page has been here for a month and no one else has objected. I repeat "why would TfL go to all the trouble of publishing an artist's impression of their new train with a number, then have a different number?". Do you think I would have actually written the thing unless I was confident of the veracity of what I was writing? As a consequence, I am reinstating this page from your "nuke" (what a very adult way of putting it by the way) unless or until more than one person raises a legitimate objection. Hammersfan, 10/03/07, 19.20 GMT

An equally likely explanation is they they told their graphics dept "Put 378 on there, it doesn't really matter". Because it doesn't. They have no obligation to get the number correct in such a context. I've formally nominated the page for deletion, since this talk page is very low traffic, so most people aren't even aware of the flimsiness of the sourcing. --Dtcdthingy 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you should see TfL Board Meeting, 25/10/06 Agenda Item 4, Page 5 "Following the announcement for 44 trains for London Overground services, Bombardier have started mobilisation at their Derby plant. The first trains will be delivered in late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378s." I believe that counts as verifible evidence. Large organisations don't add things to official images "because it doesn't really matter". Well, they certainly don't where I come from. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 12.45 GMT

[1] [2] Two seperate independent rail websites also list this as Class 378 Hammersfan 11/03/07, 13.30 GMT

As far as I see it, the discussion is now CLOSED. The Deletion notice will be removed in the next 24 hours. ALECTRIC451 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD's run for a time frame then someone in charge counts the votes (which are going towards keep now), don't jump the gun ;) Pickle 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the admin doesn't count the votes, its not that simple. They read through the whole AfD and make a judgement based upon the discussion. Adambro 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an article which is supposedly under a recognised Wikipedia Project can get proposed for deletion in this manner. What is the point of having the Wiki Trains Project if they do not have control/ownership of the pages related to their subject matter?? Surely, the Wiki Trains Project should have the ultimate say ... or am I being niaive. ALECTRIC451 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are being naive. Any article can be proposed for deletion, regardless of its significance, if an editor believes that it does not conform to the appropriate guidelines. Also, there is no such thing as ownership of articles on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Members of the Trains project have no higher status than any other editors. The idea of a project is merely to aid collaboration between editors with a common interest. The project "may develop guidelines, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed" (from What is a WikiProject?). As such, an article tagged as this one is, is not owned by or the responsibility of the project. It is just an article considered to be of relevance to the project and therefore likely to benefit from the support of other editors knowledgeable of that topic. Adambro 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FOI request from TfL

I've received the following reply from TfL regarding my Freedom of Information request about the designation of this class:

Thank you for your information access request dated 11 March, which was received by Transport for London (TfL) on the same day. You asked TfL to clarify information about the East London Line.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and I can confirm that TfL does hold the information you require.
I can confirm that the rolling stock for London Overground (built by Bombardier) is a customised Electrostar Class 378.
The Rolling Stock Library has allocated the following Class numbers for the new Electrostar-based trains for London Overground:

• Class 378/0 for the 3-Car Dual Voltage Units for North London Railway (Initial order - 24 Units)
• Class 378/1 for the 4-Car DC Units for East London Line (Initial order - 20 Units).

Hammersfan 27/03/07, 10.00 BST

Good work with that, FOIA really does work ;) Pickle 12:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 issue of the "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock" book by Platform  Publishing confirms the above (see Page 279). Miner2049er 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train Internal.JPG

Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train Internal.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Pickle 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ELL DC only

I don't think there's a solid source stating the ELL units will be DC only - I don't think it's appeared in anything from TfL. Part of the stabling plan in the latest ORR application includes sending ELL units to Stratford, so there's a direct contradiction of the idea. I've therefore replaced the info with an uncontroversial statement that only mentions the possibility of them being DC only, though it still needs a source. --Mr Thant (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The unveiling of the first Class 378/0 unit at Derby has been widely reported in the railway press. The coverage in Railway Magazine includes a note to say that the Class 378/1 sub-class will be DC only. I have included this in the article text. Hammersfan 02/10/08, 10.58 BST

Capitalstar

What infomation says that the train is called Capitalstar.Likelife (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched around when that was first posted, and found some information suggesting that employees at the Bombardier plant had nicknamed the trains ‘Capitalstar’, but I haven't yet come across any official documents referring to it as anything other than Electrostar. David Arthur (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions that Bombardier are supplying "Capitalstar" trains to TfL, and that Capitalstar is a trademark of Bombardier Inc. I have seen this article on many different financial websites. Hammersfan 09/10/08, 22.29 BST

Storage

Would there be any need to put where these are currently being stored in the article?

Today i saw a three car one of these being pulled by a First Class 66 (or similar) on c2c towards London and could only assume it had come from Pigs Bay MOD in Shoeburyness. On further investigation by myself there are a few down at Pigs Bay. Would this be useful in the article? Thanks. Dr Jimi Ibett (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

378/2

I saw 378225 at Haggerston this morning. This is a new-build four-car dual voltage unit I take it? [3] best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate 'WikiProject Trains'

At the header, there are two boxes telling you the article is in WikiProject Trains. However, one of them rates the article as low/stub and the other rates them Unknown/Unknown. Suggestion to pull the second box thingy? 94.8.82.204 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Front door?

Is that a door on the front? Can they form longer trains with a walkway between them? 82.46.109.233 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a door on the front, but no they cannot form longer trains with a walkway between them. The door is primarily for emergency evacuation in a tunnel, although it might also be usable by staff in the depot (I don't know). There is no corridor connection and these doors cannot be used to form one.

The trains can of course be coupled together and run as a longer train, however this is not done as none of the platforms are long enough and chances are they would foul junctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/london-overground/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not acceptable - vanity photographs

this from user:Hammersfan is not acceptable.

Users should not replace a photograph that is good quality with one that is low quality. I realise that not everyone is a skilled photographer, but a basic level of WP:COMPETENCE is required. If you cannot see how the first photograph is significantly better than the second, I would be lost for words.

• 
  Sunshine, blue skies, no shadows. This (or something very similar) is exactly what we need.
• 
  this is beyond awful. It is backlit, overexposed, small, and badly composed (the subject is too centred). It's bad.
• 
  This doesn't show a whole unit, there's a platform obscuring the underframe, and the sky is overexposed. It's bad.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

While I disagree with the way this was phrased, I do agree with the content. The Crystal Palace image is far superior to either of the others, and, given the majority of the fleet carries this livery, should remain the main image. Unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of high-quality revised livery images on Commons (and god that's an awful livery), but I would recommend that File:378150 at Canonbury.jpg be added to the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

THanks user:Mattbuck - your photographs are nearly always great, so I respect your view. If this is the best we have, I think it can go in, but not as the prominent main image. Tony May (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted abuse

Whilst I am willing to accept criticism, I am not willing to accept random abuse, nor questions about my motives for adding images. In case you weren't aware (which I'm assuming you aren't), London Overground is refurbishing its Class 378s with a new livery. Now, I was under the impression that Wikipedia for supposed to be an information source, showing people the correct information, and not a gallery for the display of pretty pictures. So EXCUSE ME for seeking to show the correct information whilst not being able to take pictures that come up to the exacting standards that are apparently a requirement for images to be displayed. Hammersfan (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about the images, user:Hammersfan. Railway photography is not hard. Wait for a sunny day, and with the sun behind you, take a photo of a whole unit, from a good location where you can see the whole unit, such as the opposite platform. If the train is stationary, you don't have to worry about things like shutter speed (and motion blur) because it's not moving. Honestly, I have seen your images on Commons, and they are not exactly magazine quality, and that's probably the understatement of the year. Magazine quality images is what we want. Uploading rubbish photos is like writing badly-punctuated text, it isn't generally helpful to everyone. Getting precious when this is pointed out to you isn't helpful either. Take the criticism like a man. I called you out. You deserved to be called out. Look at the good side - if you follow my instructions, you will actually get usable photographs, and that's a win-win for everyone, especially you.

As for the new livery, it's not super important to have the latest photograph - calm down dear, it's only a livery. Tony May (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tony May, stop attacking other users, especially using sexist terms. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I cannot stop doing something I haven't been doing, mattbuck - get a grip man. Tony May (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been attacking Hammersfan, repeatedly, and terms such as "calm down dear" and "like a man" are inappropriate and patronising. Stop it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerns

@Hammersfan: I am very concerned in the manner in which Tony May has interacted which may amount to a WP:WPA and may risk consequences. However I am of opinion the he does have some valid good faith concerns about the quality of the images being replaced and in general I tend to broadly agree with at least 80%+ on his opinions on composition/quality etc (and I'm not particularly an expert ... very far from it). In general here I can see you are trying to add images of the new livery on class 378. Unfortunately the images available in the category can probably be described as currently as all or mostly having issues in some form or other. Sometimes these can be alleviated by cropping or even photo-editing but the latter may be a little frowned on (I don't know) however even with that it might be hard to get an acceptable image from the current set. It is possible if the centre image above didn't have exposure/light issues it could be cropped to the first coach and might show the livery well ... I would even consider cropping the image on the left. In this article the train is the star and it probably needs to dominate any image as most people are viewing it as thumbnail (On a station or other article it is the subject that is the star and I get annoyed when a train dominates centre stage!). Finally there is always a possible COI interest when adding your own image and it is best avoided when possible and its probably best not to push an image that doesn't unabiguously improve the article in every way. The commons certainly seems to need a couple of really top notch images of 378's in the new livery ... actually I've just taken the liberty of grabbing a file from Flickr which is almost but not quite probably ok: . Of course Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is also important. I'm sure I've digressed down a siding. Tony's style of interaction remains concerning though. I need to WP:DISENGAGE to let others sort this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

Djm-leighpark did you really mean to link WP:WPA Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war? I also have had concerns about Tony May interactions related to image choice.SovalValtos (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies ... over confident in my memory of acronyms ... and a bad place to make the mistake ... I meant Wikipedia:No personal attacks/WP:NPA. Thankyou for pointing that out and sincere apologies to all.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

So you agree with me, but I'm not being nice enough about it. Let's talk about the images. We can include a relatively poorly illustrative photo of the new livery if and until we don't have any better ones. Tony May (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Candidates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

option 3

---

Candidate Images: 378 New Livery Beauty Parade

• 
  (1) 378150 at Canonbury (The number of pixels in the image isnt great, and needs a crop, but is it OK for a thumbnail? or are reflections and exposure an issue?)
• 
  (2) alternative candidate (copied from Flickr using the tool)
• 
  (3) This, though not great, is a better photo of the new livery.

Please select the preferred image for insertion to the page. You may also validity select none or that none are good enough to warrant inclusion or that the new livery is not important enough to warrant inclusion. The article is currently likely at above the maximum number of images that can be comfortably supported by the text and you may need to agree which image can be replaced. If you really feel an image can be improved by cropping and you would be prepared to support a cropped version of that image to win then please create a cropped version (or ping me if you can't). Try to avoid creating cropped versions that do not have a very good change of being used on Wikipedia (I would personally be unhappy if less than 33% of mine should be used on Wikipedia for a sustained period and I know 25% of the time after doing a crop the result turns out to be unfit for purpose and unusable ... I'm only giving my personal targets to avoid crop-mania on the commons). Please assume I have some COI on image (2) having copied it from flickr thought I'm probably in favour of not using any. For the record (3) might need cropping and might have issue with light reflections which afflicts so many pictures of shiny trains. I really want to duck out at this point and let consensus decide (hopefully).Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I observe unilaterally (3) seems to have been selected without adding to this discussion. While its probably not good practice to ignore a discussion the selection of that particular option is probably not particularly contentious so my intention is to let it stand and close discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.