Jump to content

Talk:InterCity 125/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on InterCity 125. 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) 17:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on InterCity 125. 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) 17:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on InterCity 125. 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) 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on InterCity 125. 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 to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on InterCity 125. 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 to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on InterCity 125. 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) 13:42, 11 April 2017 (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/intercityexpress/
    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 NotifyOnline 10:42, 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 NotifyOnline 19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Liveries

I am dubious about the logo with the swift [*] ever being "unofficially known as 'Roderick'". The logo or the swift? And by whom? -- Picapica 09:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[*] And, by the way, it looks to me like a swallow, not a swift! See image here -- Picapica 10:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no reaction in the last 7 days, I have gone ahead and re-identified the bird in question (and removed "Roderick"). -- Picapica 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbering

I moved the Numbering section to near the end. It was out of place at the start (before there was even much explanation of the type), and is a bit overly trivial. I think further edits are necessary, and the "Formation" part can probably be merged in elsewhere too. Jpp42 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

High Speed Train / High speed train

Strange.
InterCity 125 (Redirected from High Speed Train) - "HST" in search & go
High-speed rail (Redirected from High speed train) - "high speed train" HST and high speed train are the same things... please do something :) Michu Neodiscussion17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should redirect High Speed Train to High-speed rail instead. It's quite a generic term. We can put a pointer at High-speed rail pointing here. Objections? --Apoc2400 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I object, and I've redirected it back here now. "High Speed Train" (with capitalisation) refers to the InterCity 125, "High speed train" is not the same thing. I've put a {{redirect3}} in the lead in case this confuses anyone. Lewis Collard! (when in doubt, move on) 10:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Can someone put on this site some references?
Site it really great and big, but without references we can't prove anything...
Michu Neodiscussion17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Might it be worth merging this article with the one on the Class 43, as there is some duplication of information?

Rewrite

I've re-formatted both British Rail Class 43 and Intercity 125 so that the former has primarily loco details, and the later has primarily DMU and working details.. The article still needs references as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Suggest merging British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 into this article

Reasoning - they're the same thing. Just requires a section explaining the numbering.

Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fleet list link appears to not work http://www.garyheelas.plus.com/fleetlist.pdf

There is a fleet list here http://www.125group.org.uk/fleetlist.pdf - however if it to keep changin it may not provide a good reference... Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged article

Does anyone have any opinion of where the merged article should actually go ie the title.

Also any views on whether British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 should exist on its own - I thought it was exactly the same thing - any comments? FengRail (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Part way there on references

Wanted to leave a note that I've made quite a few reference additions, and I had to do a bit of restructuring to the article. Please continue to make changes and improvements to the page as need be, we are still sorely in need of referencing here. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I mentioned nearly a month ago that we were part way there, this article just failed an assessment. This is still a critical problem, perticularly in the early history of the HST. This just needs to be sourced, that's pretty much about it. I'm running out of inventive tricks and techniques on my own steam, but if the people who actually wrote this article bothered to put thier sources in, we wouldn't be in this mess. Please try to find sources for statements that have been made.81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some technical clarification

I'm having some difficultly parsing some of the techno-speak in this article, and I was wondering if anyone might clean it up a little. In particular:

The concept of the HST dates from the late 1960s. British Rail's research division in Derby decided to pursue a parallel approach to future express trains. To complement the advanced technology tilting train project APT-E, it was decided in 1970 to build two lightweight 125 mph (201 km/h) capable Bo-Bo locomotives to top and tail a rake of the new 23-metre-long Mark 3 coaches.[1] These trains were intended as a stop-gap until the APT was proven: their special locomotives had conventional buffers at the driving end only, and an auxiliary cab at the other end to allow shunting.

This passage raises several questions:

  1. What is "less advanced" about the HST in comparison to APT? Both articles make this statement, but there is no direct comparison of features. Is the HST a tilting train?
  2. What does "Bo-Bo" mean? I would rather not have to click out in the middle of a paragraph to find out.
  3. Does "top and tail" mean "front and rear"? Does "rake" mean "several cars in a train"?
  4. I cannot parse the last sentence. The statement could be read as referring to either the APT or HST. What is a "buffer", and what does that have to do with HST being a stop-gap solution?

Thanks!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The InterCity 125 is a diesel-powered and does not tilt. The prototype APT was electric, and did tilt – overall, a much more ambitious project.
2. 'Bo-Bo' is a way of describing the wheel configuration of a locomotive (similar to the 2-6-1 sorts of things used for steam engines). There's really no way of saying it that's any less technical.
3. Yes, 'top and tail' is a common way of describing a train with locomotives at both ends in Britain. A 'rake' is a set of carriages that are joined semi-permanently; 'trainset' is sometimes used in a similar sense.
4. The last sentence seems to cover two unrelated ideas at once. The InterCity 125 locomotives are very unusual in that they are designed for passenger use exclusively; they lack the buffers that are necessary for shunting freight. Normal locomotives in Britain have cabs on both ends, so they can change direction easily; the InterCity 125's locomotives do not, and so can only be used in a top-and-tail configuration, giving one cab on each end of the train. (I can't really see how any of this is related to the APT.) David Arthur (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a "double bit of the cherry". Similar comments in respect of 'less advanced technology (conventional technology, to be a bit more accurate)' have been made on the APT-E article's talk page.Pyrotec (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over 'Class 43' Classification

It has been disputed on the Class 43 (HST) Talk Page that the TOPS Classification 'Class 43' is incorrectly applied to HST Powercars - While many enthusiast-run websites refer to them as such, I've yet to see a single reference in any official documentation that this is infact the case. It seems to be a widespread misconception, and therefore ensuring that resources such as Wikipedia show the correct information is of the utmost priority in this case. I've put up a Citation Needed against the "reclassified as Class 43" sentence in the main article, which I will leave for 14 days. If anyone can produce an official (IE Industry-Provided not Enthusist) reference to corroborate this then it would be great, otherwise I will remove all Class 43 references from the article to tackle this inaccuracy. [James Nelhams] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.2.140 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Class 43 refers to the range of numbers in the BR rolling stock numbering scheme that was in use at that time. Diesel locomotives were numbered in the range 01 to 69. As a part of that scheme, Class 253 refers to the BR diesel-electric multiple unit range 200-299. Therefore Class 43 (and 44) does refer to the powercars which were and still are numbered 43000 onwards, whilst Class 253 eg 253001 refered to the unit, although unlike previous and and current units in which the individual coaches stay together, this has not been the case for HST units and as such this numbering scheme is no longer used. Sets in the Western Region for instance are now numbered as OC52 or LA05. [Ian Murray, 10 Jan 2010]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.27 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2010

Top speed?

The opening paragraph says the HST "is capable of 125 mph (201 km/h) in regular service."

The summary box says, "Top speed: 48 mph (77 km/h)"

Why the difference?

93.97.51.169 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this has now been corrected. Thanks whoever sorted that out.

93.97.51.169 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, somebody recently vandalised this page, and deleted the 1 off the 143 MPH speed, putting it down to 43. Very funny. All repaired now, stupid people being stupid.Kyteto (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Train length

Regarding this edit, well, I can state that HSTs have run as 9+2, but don't know of a source. As originally built, those for the Western Region and for North East-South West services were 7+2, and those for the East Coast Main Line were 8+2. Various reformations have occurred; most are now 8+2, with a few 7+2, but 9+2 do occasionally operate. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1984 electro-diesel hst

There was a reference to a possible electo-diesel HST in the Intercity Express Programme article, which has now rightly been removed. It may be more relevant here, but there is a question about it's reliability:

The idea of a bi-mode development of the InterCity 125 train was considered by British Rail as early as 1984. The book Intercity 125 contains a line-drawing of a "potential inter-city electro-diesel". It shows a pantograph added to the power car and one of the power bogies transferred to the adjacent car, as on the Blue Pullman.<ref>Tufnell, R.M., Intercity 125 Super Profile, page 49, Haynes Publishing Group, 1984, ISBN 0854294287</ref>

Does anyone have the book or can otherwise shed any light on it such that it could be added to the article? Tim PF (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How far have some of these engines gone?

I noticed on this page that in 1982 the HST power cars were averaging 220,000 miles a year. At that rate some of them must now have travelled on the order of 6 million miles. How close is that to the record for land traction of any kind in the UK - and, perhaps, further afield? Jheald (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

I've removed the following sentence from #Background:

The APT project produced a small fleet of advanced-prototype trains that entered service on the West Coast Mainline.

This sentence is followed by one which refers to delays in the APT project (true) and gives the year 1970. The problem is that the only APT which existed in 1970 was the solitary four-car prototype, which was never intended to carry passengers. The link following the term "small fleet" goes to Class 370, which wasn't even on the drawing board in 1970 - six units were delivered nine years later, in 1979. Although intended to enter service that year, they never did, and the only passengers that they carried were journalists. By this time, there were over fifty HST sets (power cars up to 43108 had been delivered by end 1978) which were operating on both the Western Region and the ECML.

Also: where does this term "advanced-prototype trains" come from? I've never encountered it before. APT stands for Advanced Passenger Train. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To take your second point first if I may, I took the term from one of the books I'm using for my research—I believe it's accurate that they were advanced prototypes of the Advanced Passenger Train (and were presumably trains). As to your first, the most likely explanation is that I wrote one sentence without reading the other but I'll check the book when I can. I'd like to get this to FA eventually, and it might seem that I'm making a mess now, but I plan to develop the article and the pieces will start falling onto place as I progress (which hopefully will be over the coming weeks). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fastest diesel train in the world?

I have easily found two other diesel trains that make the same top speed: The British Rail Class 221 and the ICE TD. The statement is not correct, and it doesn't help to list all trains here that are as fast either. --178.7.199.183 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Class 221 is diesel-electric and the ICE TD is a multiple unit according to its article. If the ICE TD article is accurate (and I don't see why it wouldn't be, but neither source on the article mentions its top speed an on looks like an enthusiast's website rather than a reliable source; and of two external links, one is broken, the other is a fan site), then the 125 would be the fastest locomotive-hauled diesel train in the world. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Either way, both of those other trains are much more recent. As far as I know, for many years the HST was indeed alone the fastest diesel train. Maybe the text needs rewording to make that clearer. -- Alarics (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was the fastest diesel train in the world when it was originally built (and for 30-odd years after), so that's certainly worth a mention if the ICE TD article is proven accurate, but I'd be reluctant to do anything without solid sourcing—there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of potential sources for the HST's 125 mph capability, so I would expect something more than enthusiast websites for another train. It's far from the end of the world, though—the HST is much more notable for its role in British railway history than for a fairly obscure world record (there have been faster electric trains in existence for a long time, including the InterCity 225). Something I hope to address in my ongoing (albeit slow) overhaul of the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have recast the sentence in the lead so that it just says what we are all agreed upon. I am not sure that we need mention the other two trains in this article, actually. -- Alarics (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The comment about Class 221 being diesel-electric is irrelevant: the HST is also diesel-electric. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Power

On the infobox it states that the power output of HST's is "2,250 bhp (1,678 kW)". That is only the output for one power car. Surely as this article is about the entire trainsets it should read 4,500 bhp? G-13114 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Caps (and hyphen)

I may have been wrong to downcase high speed train (strangely missing the hyphen that all major style guides require). Could someone clarify whether this is a unique, and not generic, class of trains? It should not otherwise be capped. Tony (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were wrong to downcase it. "High Speed Train", usually abbreviated to HST, was the official name of this specific kind of train in British Rail days, at a time when it was the only train in Britain that could be so described. (I think this is analagous with the TGV in France, which is not just any old train à grande vitesse but a specific SNCF series of designs.) That usage remains current to a certain degree, even though now there are several other trains in Britain that can be described generically as "high-speed". I completely agree with you about the hyphen, but British officialdom is hopelessly illiterate on that issue. -- Alarics (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
High Speed Train (title case, no hyphen) was BR's official name of a particular type of train, that being the train which was formed of a rake of Mark 3 coaches between two Class 43 power cars. The marketing people used the term "InterCity 125" for the same thing. The lay public tend to follow the marketing people not the engineers. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

There are plenty of books written about the HST, so why is it necessary for this article to rely on news articles, interspersed with assorted web sources, YouTube videos (!), press releases, and similarly dubious sources? The article at present gets plenty of edits but mostly quibbling over minor details or changes to style rather than substance. It currently looks very shabby and could do with a major overhaul by somebody who really knows the subject. The article as it is does us and our readers a disservice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotrail

There should be some mention of the planned move of refurbished Western Regiuon HSTs to the Scotrail Franchise once Abeillio take over.

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2014/12/abellio-won-scotrail-on-quality-not-price/ 89.241.166.196 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Exceptionally spoddy question about the spec...

Was it originally specified for "125mph" (thus, 201km/h)... or actually "200km/h" (and so 124mph)? Earlier UK trains were all specified in mph, as are some more recent, but slower ones. The later experimental types of HST, including the actual HS1/HS2 trains, seem to be specced in km/h with non-round-number mph top speeds. The IC225 confuses the matter still further seeing as it's supposedly specced for 140, but is called 225, and 140mph = 225km/h to within a couple of tenths in either system...

It's only a small difference, but it'd be interesting to know if it was the one last bastion of imperial figures in rail engineering (other than rods and chains), or if the "125" name was a quiet bit of PR spin ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

125mph. UK railways have always been specified in miles per hour as has the rolling stock. The situation has become slightly more complicated in recent years with the introduction of the HS1 line between St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel where speed limits and operation is in kilometres per hour (Primarily because the TVM-430 in cab signalling operates in kph). This will extend to HS2 (and any future such lines). Thus high speed rolling stock and track is specified in kph. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it's km/h, not kph. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
km/h means 'kilometres per hour'. By a strange coincidence kph is a recognised abbreviation for 'kilometres per hour'. Your point is? –LiveRail < Talk > 22:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Cascading down

Does anyone know what will happen to these trains once the Class 800s have come in to replace them? Will they be cascaded down to other operators or taken out of service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that they will be removed from service. Having said that, the accountants that drive the economics of the rolling stock leasing companies may have other ideas given that at least one company has plans to acquire and refurbish the stock. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Scotrail wants some of them for long-distance services within Scotland. See Abellio ScotRail#Future. -- Alarics (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC):
Scotrail was the '... at least one company ...' that I was referring to. –LiveRail < Talk > 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Until the HST's introduction, the maximum speed of British trains was limited to 100 miles per hour (161 km/h).

This line contradicts no end of articles on wikipedia, not least the Deltic/class 55 ones78.148.199.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) l

Thank you for pointing this out. The cited source is a dead link and I agree the statement is dubious, so I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So where's the sourced evidence for >100mph speeds before the 125s? Yes, of course the Deltics were capable of more than this, but there has always been a difference between diagrammed speeds, limited speeds on a line and exceptional speeds achieved down banks. After all, there are all those stories of 1950's A4s doing over 130mph! I cannot think of any trains that were timetabled or intended to do 100mph speeds, neither the Flying Scotsman, the Blue Pullmans, nor the 50s. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Then surely there are sources for that fact beyond a single dead link? I'm not saying you're wrong, Andy, but if 100mph was the maximum operational speed pre-HST, there must be more and better sources for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not dead (it's a journal, pick it up from any decent library), although it does discuss 100mph as a regular civil engineering design limit, rather than an achieved speed for particular trains. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the sentence in question is ambiguous. It's not that there was no rolling stock that was physically capable of travelling at over 100mph, it's that none of it ever did so in regular service because 100mph was the maximum line speed for all BR lines. This was changed with the arrival of the HSTs, and that change is the process described in the document referenced.
I don't understand why HJ Mitchell is describing the reference as a dead link. The link works fine. It's just that you have to pay for access to the whole paper, or find it in a physical library. That doesn't stop it from being referenced in Wikipedia. -- Alarics (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:InterCity 125/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I beleive that it is, curretly, correctly assessed as a C-class mid/high importance article. It has the makings of a B-class article, but it currently lacks WP:verify in many of the sections. There is (also) a {flag} to that effect at the top of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is This Train A Joke

I'm wondering if this train's acceleration rate really is a joke. If it is, then the train will never come close to 125 mph especially given the speed limits of the tracks it runs on. Is this a government project which was designed simply to pad to egos of the British Public? Seriously, is there a rail engineer who can tell us if this thing is actually fast or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.73.108 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is the actual statement that you disagree with? I have often timed these trains at ~125 mph. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Without a doubt, these trains travel at 125 mph on fast sections of the East Coast Main Line and the Great Western Main Line. These are the two main UK routes with long stretches of straight-ish, flat-ish line suitable for high-speed running. I believe they don't reach that speed on the Midland Main Line or on Cross-country services. I travelled on one from Aberdeen last week. It went from Edinburgh to London in 4 hours 20 minutes, which is at least an hour faster than the previous (1970s) diesel trains, which were restricted to, IIRC, 110 mph. Alarics (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Both the Deltics and the Mark 2E stock which they hauled were restricted to 100 mph. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected! But the main point is, why does 74.14.73.108 not believe the HST 125 trains will go at 125? The thing has been well enough documented over many years, and I should have thought the sources given in the article itself showed that clearly enough. Alarics (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
*scans through article* ... er, there isn't an acceleration figure given anywhere in the text. What part of it are you particularly taking issue with? Seeing as they have to be limited to 125mph (from an achievable speed north of 140), they likely don't have any trouble attaining it.


'On 5 February 1990 a run with the down "Torbay Express" from Paddington to Reading was completed in 21min 27sec against a schedule of 23min, with 125mph by West Drayton in 9min 21sec. The top speed was a shade under 129mph. The train was booked for a remarkable net time of 38min to Bath, plus 3min recovery time. Despite reaching 127mph at Cholsey and averaging 126mph for the 23 miles from Didcot to Shrivenham, passing Swindon at 97mph, reaching 128mph at Dauntsey and entering Box at 115mph, the run took 38min 41sec.' (John Heaton FCIT, Railway Performance Society, 'HST Performance: On the Road with the Class 43s', in Colin J. Marsden ed, HST Silver Jubilee, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Hersham, 2001, p.98.)

West Drayton is 12 miles from Paddington and Cholsey is 12 miles from Reading. So in normal traffic conditions the train was taking about that distance to hit 125mph in 9min 20sec. This was after the addition of an eighth coach to Western Region sets, making about 430 tonnes, which reduced acceleration. The original seven-coach sets would get away faster. Since those days, ATP has restricted the trains to 128mph. 'The result is that it is now commonplace for GW HSTs not to reach even 125mph. On the RPS mass timing day on 17 September 1988, 15 down HSTs were timed between Paddington and Reading. Only two failed to reach 125mph. In contrast, a recent sample of 15 down non-stop runs over the same section yielded only six 125mph maxima.' (Ibid.)

Incidentally, while the '85 record-breaker set 144mph with a specially-shortened five-coach train and the '87 record-breaker set 148mph with a mere three-coach test train, a standard Western Region HST in normal passenger service with seven coaches grossing 405 tonnes -- the 11.52 Newport-Paddington on 23 May 1977 -- hit 138mph at Slough, recorded by the RPS. This, along with 133mph maxima recorded at Hullavington and Goring, was done to make up time due to a 7min delayed departure and multiple temporary speed restrictions and signal checks en route. The train reached Paddington only half a minute late, just after 13.25, having made 86min 43sec against a booked timing of 93min. (Ibid.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Extremely confused about these two articles

Hello,

Why is there this article and than the article British Rail Class 43 (HST)? To me it seems very confusing, as they seem to be very much the same. Should they be merged or integrated? As far as I can tell, the other article is simply the power car while this article covers the whole train. Why are both of two articles existent? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Trainsandtech: There are several threads on this matter, both on this page and at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST). But the general scope is that InterCity 125 is about the train as a whole (locomotives and coaches considered together), their formations and areas of use; whereas British Rail Class 43 (HST) is solely about the locomotives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your comment. To me it just sent confusing that the power cars need their own page if they are part of the HST. in addition, HST is in that article's name. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's only in the article name as a disambiguator - see British Rail Class 43. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in InterCity 125

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of InterCity 125's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dunn":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

why does High speed train redirects here?

I just wrote "high speed train" and came here. I am astonished!! a "high speed train" is a generic definition, and when we write it we expect to get a page with information about HSTs (history of HSTs, countries using them, examples of HSTs: Shinkansen, TGV, ICE, AVE...). Instead, the english wikipedia page redirects here, to this Intercity 125 that is not even a high speed train. It is like if I write "sports car" and it redirects to a Peugeot 306 page instead of a page with Ferraris, Porsches, Lambos, etc. Let's correct this error, please!!79.144.129.171 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The link high speed train (lowercase throughout) is a redirect to High-speed rail. However, High Speed Train (note capitals) is the official name used by BR Technical; InterCity 125 is a name used in marketing slogans. Saying "InterCity 125" is like saying "the mint with the hole" when you really mean Polo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Does it still hold the record?

It seems the record for fastest diesel train is contested. It seems the IC125 still holds the record in most books, even though a Russian locomotive has shattered this record in 1993 (with a top-speed of 273 km/h). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanderv (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Speed unit conversion

In the introductory text, 125 mph is translated with 201 km/h. In the part about the Australien XPT, 120 mph is translated with 200 km/h. This is inconsistent. True would be that 120mph is more like 193 km/h. I did not correct this because I do not understand the syntax used in the post and I did not want to damage things, but I urge to make it consistent. Felixbecker2 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Felixbecker2: It's to do with the measuring unit that is used by the source, together with the number of significant figures (sig figs): the conversion cannot have more sig figs than the figure being converted, as this would imply false accuracy.
For the first case, the source shows 125 mph (which has 3 sig figs) so we convert that to metric: {{convert|125|mi/h|km/h|abbr=on}} → 125 mph (201 km/h).
For the second case, the source shows 200 km/h because Australia went completely metric, so we have {{convert|200|km/h|mph|abbr=on}} → 200 km/h (120 mph).
We could force the second one to 3 sig figs thus: {{convert|200|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3}} → 200 km/h (124 mph). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

APT a failure? Eh?

The article states: "The HSTs were originally developed by British Rail (BR) in the early 1970s to be used as a stopgap, whilst it developed the tilting Advanced Passenger Train (APT). In the event, the APT project was a failure, and the HSTs became a big success." Who says the APT was a failure? It was canceled. That decision was taken by a contravercial government and much of APT technology is embedded in advanced trains today. The above is not from an Neutural point of view. This should be changed to "The HSTs were originally developed by British Rail (BR) in the early 1970s to be used as a stopgap, whilst it developed the tilting Advanced Passenger Train (APT). In the event, the APT project was cancelled by the encumbement government. The HSTs became a big success. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyBasher (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notice which affects this page

I've started a discussion which affects this page, over at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)#NOT a merge proposal.... Please do come over if you have any thoughts about the three articles mentioned there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:InterCity_125/Archive_1&oldid=1190080746"