Jump to content

Talk:British Rail Class 555

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

Article name

[edit]

Another editor has (rightly in my opinion) requested a citation for the TOPS Class 555 numbering. At the moment there is only one single reference " ("New Metro trains to be known as Class 555s". Today's Railways UK. No. 232. Sheffield: Platform 5. June 2021. p. 19.) and that cannot be verified online. As I'm not a subscriber I can't verify it myself. However, by now, six months after that I would expect more than one reliable source (WP:RS) to be confirming the same claim as fact. There is nothing. In the absence of anything other than the one source I would suggest that we drop the 555 numbering and propose a new name for the article. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superalbs: - you put the citation request in the article. What are your thoughts? --10mmsocket (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I had not seen that source there, as it was not next to when this number was first mentioned. I for one have never heard of such a classification before seeing this Wiki article. Superalbs (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most respondents on this page feel that the current status quo is satisfactory. (closed by non-admin page mover) About me, talk to me; to notify me, type [[User|Mattdaviesfsic]]. Thanks! 07:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Chris j wood as courtesy

Such a move really needs to be discussed before such a drastic change is made, and it has not been - kicking off the discussion here. Personally I am against such a move, as it goes against established project consensus. Danners430 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I don't think it does go against the project consensus. The article on the trains these trains are replacing is called Tyne and Wear Metrocar, not British Rail Class 599, despite having that TOPS classification for precisely the same reason that the new Class 555s have their TOPS classification. The Tyne and Wear Metro is not part of the National Rail network, so the precedents that apply to new trains built for operators that are part of that network do not apply here.
Secondly I can find no references to these trains as British Rail Class 555 on any reputable source anywhere on the web, other than in Wikimedia projects. Their owners (Nexus) tend to call them the New metro fleet. The rail press tends to call them either Tyne and Wear Class 555 or Stadler Class 555, or some variant thereof.
Thirdly it seems to be obscurist in the extreme to name an article after a administrative TOPS class that the trains only have because of the vagaries of operating for a very small portion of their route over a piece of railway track borrowed from Network Rail. Rather than, say, after the name of their owners or the name of the network they run on.
Fourthly, it is hardly a radical change to rename an article on a train fleet that has not yet carried any passengers. I'd be interested in why you seem intent on making these trains seem to be something they are not. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as incorrect. Tyne and Wear Metro don't have a classification scheme in which these units are Class 555. Presumably Nexus do have a way of distinguishing them from the original units, but what that is is not mentioned in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are opposing here. My move to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 or Danners430's reversion to British Rail Class 555. Your text seems to suggest you think the name shouldn't have Class 555 in at all. I can see some rationale behind that (I too cannot find anywhere where Nexus uses that designation), but on the other hand most of the rail press does use that name, they just don't prepend British Rail. I'm certainly open to other suggestions. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. I oppose your proposed article name for the reasons I stated (i.e. it is incorrect). In the absence of any verifiable alternative name the current article name is correct, per the very longstanding (and repeatedly endorsed) convention that articles about British railway rolling stock named for the TOPS class should be at "British Rail Class xxx", because they are Class xxx in the British Rail classification scheme. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a reference to Class 555 from Nexus themselves - https://www.nexus.org.uk/news/item/new-metro-trains-take-strain-during-traction-power-testing 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more
    Bottom line - Class 555 is used extensively by Nexus. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555, for reasons I have stated above. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the classification was not assigned by Tyne & Wear Metro, it was assigned by ONR ORR as it is a train class that is used on main lines. The prefix "British Rail Class xxx" is used on every single Wikipedia article so I see no reason why this article should defy convention. We don't have LNER Class 800, or TransPennine Express Class 185, so it's no to Tyne & Wear Metro Class 555 10mmsocket (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just as British Rail Class 599 was assigned to the trains we, and pretty well everybody else, calls the Tyne and Wear Metrocar. So no, the "British Rail Class xxx" is not used on every single Wikipedia article. It is used on every new train introduced by post-BR national rail operators, but Nexus and the Tyne and Wear Metro is not one of them. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "British Rail Class..." is a Wikipedia naming convention for trains & locomotives that run on British railway tracks. As you know, Tyne & Wear Metro track towards Sunderland is shared with other rail operators and is not Nexus-owned track. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyne and Wear Metrocar is the WP:COMMONNAME for those trains, partly because they were not allocated a BR class number until late in their life (no need until the Sunderland connection opened). The Class 555 designation is, per 10msocket, the COMMONNAME for these trains. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that 'Class 555' is the common name. That is precisely why my (now reverted) change was from British Rail Class 555 to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555. I assumed that just Class 555 would be ambiguous, but surprisingly it isn't (yes, mea culpa, I know what assume does to U and I). So given that you all seem happy that Class 555 meets WP:COMMONNAME, is there any objection to me renaming it thus?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I object to "Class 555" due to the naming conventions explained previously ("Class xxx" is the common name for the majority of 1960s and later British mainline rolling stock, but all are named "British Rail Class xxx" for consistency as many are ambiguous and not all are the primary topic). "Class 555" also is ambiguous (with, at least, a type of Czech steam locomotive) although this article is the primary topic. Another factor is that these are mainline units that happen to mostly work on a light rail network (although the T&W Metro does blur the line between light and heavy rail), while the original trains are light rail vehicles that happen to also run on the mainline, so they should be named in the same way as other mainline EMUs. tl;dr the current article title is the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename and leave as British Rail Class 555 - c.f. British Rail Class 399. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ooh. There is a precedent I hadn't noticed. The main reason I made the change is the dissonance between the two generations of Tyne and Wear trains created an unwritten expectation that the status of the Tyne and Wear Metro had somehow changed, and it had just become another National Rail branch. As the consensus seems to be developing that *all* trains should be called 'British Rail Class nnn', what do people think about me resolving this issue the other way round, and renaming the Tyne and Wear Metrocar article to British Rail Class 599. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with that at all. It's how Merseyrail train articles are named here. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I'll sleep on it. Although the pedant in me forces me to point out that Merseyrail offers no help here. Unlike the Tyne and Wear Metro, but like the London Overground, Merseyrail is just another National Rail franchise. The (T&W) Metro's status is more akin to the London Underground, whose District and Bakerloo lines do run on Network Rail tracks (although I've no idea if the S and 1972 stock have TOPS designations). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further update. They do. The 1972 Stock is TOPS Class 499/2, whilst the S Stock is TOPS Class 499/5. Both numbers issued by the ORR. Should they be renamed in line with convention too?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And with the name for the new Piccadilly line, it was initially called the New Tube for London, then it was suddenly renamed to London Underground 2024 Stock. I'm not sure if the renaming was appropriate because although deep-level tubes are in that format, it was kept as NTfL for a while before adopting the current name. JuniperChill (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about Merseyrail - I hadn't realised that the two Merseyrail-only lines were actually owned and maintained by Network Rail (unlike Nexus who do own their rail - other than the shared bits). 10mmsocket (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having thought about it, it's illogical and misleading to call this 'British Rail XX' when it will spend the majority of its time running on TWM tracks, which is a separate system. If so we would have to rename every item of rolling stock which has a TOPS number allocated to it, away from a more logical name to the 'British Rail' format, and that's not something I would support. G-13114 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's illogical and misleading to call this 'British Rail XX' Why is it "illogical and misleading" to name the article for a designation it does (Class 555 in the British Rail classification scheme) have but not to name the article for a designation it does not have (there is no Tyne and Wear Metro classification scheme)?
    we would have to rename every item of rolling stock which has a TOPS number allocated to it, away from a more logical name to the 'British Rail' format Why? The argument for using the British Rail Class 555 designation here is because that is the designation most commonly used to refer to these trains. It is not the most common way to refer to e.g. steam locomotives or London Underground EMUs that run on the mainline so the argument wouldn't hold there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename

[edit]

As the discussion above has become a little 'thready', I'd thought I'd summarise my current proposal here.

Several of the participants above appear to agree with me that the WP:COMMONNAME for the trains discussed in this article is Class 555. This is used in various forms by the trains owners and operators (Nexus) and by the railway press. Sometimes the name is prefixed Stadler or Tyne and Wear Metro, but the common part is Class 555. Several examples of this are linked in the section above.

Standard WP conventions therefore suggest that the article should be named Class 555 provided that is not ambiguous. I have checked and there is no article, dab page or redirect page named Class 555. I therefore propose to rename the article to that name.

I am aware that there is a local convention that most UK rolling stock is name British Rail Class nnn (where nnn is the TOPS classification). However this convention is not universal (see below) and, in any case, can be construed as unnecessary detail (see WP:TITLEDAB) in the case of the Class 555. Examples of rolling stock that do not follow the local convention include:

All of these are relevant, as they are all, like the Class 555, trains that are owned and operated outside the British Rail/National Rail/Network Rail ecosystem, but need TOPS numbers as they do run across Network Rail tracks for a small proportion of their journeys. Giving them such a prominent British Rail name would tend to mislead the general reader into miscategorising them. In fairness, one example of the opposite approach does exist, with the Sheffield Supertram tram-trains named British Rail Class 399. On the whole I think that was a mistake, but not one for this thread.

What do you think -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename - I remain of the opinion that the established naming convention should remain. I would suggest bringing the discussion to a wider forum, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, for a broader discussion about the naming convention, specifically for the exceptions brought up by yourself. I would support renaming them to British Rail etc. but that’s not a discussion for here. Danners430 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to bring this up at WikiProject UK Railways for a broader discussion about the naming convention, when I'm not proposing any changes to the naming convention. I note that you have already alerted that community, which is fine. But if you really think I'm proposing changes to the naming convention, then I suggest either I'm not explaining myself well, or you are mis-reading my writings. I'll add more below. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - like all UK train articles the naming convention should remain. I do not see any compelling reason to change this single article without broader consensus on the convention for "British Rail Class..." changing. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as I've said several times now, the convention does not apply to all UK train articles. See more below. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Current name is consistent with how other similar items of rolling stock, e.g. British Rail Class 398, British Rail Class 399, are named. See no benefit in renaming. Grenfruy (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point as far as Class 399 is concerned. I think that is probably a mistake too, but I'll leave it to others to discuss and decide that. I think Class 398 is correctly named as it is built for use by Transport for Wales Rail on the Network Rail network rather for a use that principally operates off the network but sometimes on it. And Transport for Wales Rail is a post-privatisation company (albeit one all of whose shares are owned by the government of Wales) so it meets the criteria below. I might revise that opinion if and when somebody gets round to building a tramway to run these so-called tram-trains on, but I'm not holding my breath. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an example of how the name is misleading us, let alone the general reader, I have just noticed that British Rail Class 555 is a member of Category:British Rail electric multiple units. Fair enough you might say, but the definition of that category is declared at the top of the category as This category contains articles about electric multiple units built for British Rail, its predecessors, and the post-privatisation companies. As class 555 was built for Nexus, who are not British Rail, not a predecessor of British Rail, nor a post-privatisation company, it doesn't belong in this category. The Tyne and Wear Metro was never involved in the privatisation, having been set up twenty years before. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All that notwithstanding, I do get the distinct impression that I am in a minority of one here. So for now I'll concentrate on updating the article to mitigate the misleading impression I believe the article title gives the reader. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's info, I have started a Move Request for Tyne and Wear Metrocar, since it has been mentioned repeatedly here. I only mildly support the move, but felt the discussion should take place either way, since it has been (tangentially) discussed here. Danners430 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_555&oldid=1255502442"