Talk:British Rail Class 156

Trains: in UK / in Scotland / Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

This article lacks references.

Image placement[edit]

can someone who knows how make all these images hug the right side of the page? Kingturtle 08:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link[edit]

Fixed the broken link leading to "Metro-Cammel Class 156" page.130.209.74.218 (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changes[edit]

Changed sections to operations by regions.

Article still needs references - and still requires info on past operations - hence the various 'tags' on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history some 4000 bytes were removed from the article, what happened?--Commander Keane (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did some rewriting that will have compressed it a bit - also removed stuff like " On the former First North Western units the seating is in good condition, although the carpets are in a very poor state. " because.. well.

Also the current operators table was removed for the reasons given in the summary - ie that it's not encyclopedic to just cover current events.

Don;t know how that adds up to 4000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I actually removed any real notable information - some of the previous writing may have been a bit verbose and repetive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for improving the article :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Citations[edit]

I can't find any hint of a source for the Class 152, or for the 90mph speed record. If someone knows where these can be found (old issues of railway magazines perrhaps?) could they please add them soon, or the text will be deleted. The wheel lathe stuff in the Scotland section is a bit dodgy too, but should be possible to confirm, while the note on Central Trains units moving to First North Western is clearly wrong, so will be removed. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wales[edit]

I found this photo on Commons, which appears to show a 156 at Barmouth in 2001. Can anyone tell me what company ran this service, what company the train was owned by, and whether 156s often visited Wales? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is (almost) a duplicate posting of that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#156s in Wales. Per WP:MULTI, let's discuss it on one place: the discussion at WT:UKRAIL is already under way. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article[edit]

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

File:Class 156 - DMU - (2).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Class 156 - DMU - (2).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 156. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falls of Cruachan derailment[edit]

@94.196.101.173: re your edit, the RAIB report, para 24 definitely says two units were involved, neither of which was '499. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

A citation is needed for the statement "A total of 114 sets were built between 1987 and 1989 for British Rail by Metro-Cammell's Washwood Heath works." This fact is given without reveal of the source behind it. They obviously don't own this statistic, so its source needs to be listed. I added a "citation needed" following this, this can be seen in the edit history of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbas6059 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbas6059: There are sources in the Description section; sources are not needed in the lead as well. That aside, which part of the sentence are you objecting to? For instance, it is demonstrably true that a total of 114 sets were built between 1987 and 1989. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

Firstly, I've noticed the Twitter citation for the off lease 156s was recently removed. I'm just wondering why as Wikipedia as an exception for Twitter citations if published a "subject-matter expert", "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As Richard Clinnick is the editor of Rail Express magazine I think he can be considered a "subject-matter expert" so the citation should be put back? The unit numbers for the "stored" section in the table are also strangely formatted and again, I'm just wondering why they aren't just written as normal text as they were previously? Pulsarnix (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about the Twitter source (IMO, there's just better sources out there, and the dispute about Clinnick being a "subject-matter expert" can continue forever!). Regarding the table, that's a template called {{citation needed span}}. It basically emphasises that the grey ones only are unsourced. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a lot, thanks. I did look for a better source but haven't found one yet. I'd have thought the Twitter cite should have stayed until a better one was found and then it could be replaced? However as you say it isn't the biggest deal.
Thanks for clearing up the formatting with the text as well. Pulsarnix (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus, as far as I understand it, is to require that Tweets cited as reliable self-published sources be sent from verified accounts (specifically, the pre-Elon person-is-really-who-they-claim-to-be style of verification). Clinnick is ruled out by this qualification. Personally I'd be prepared to be flexible on this point for him, as he easily meets the self-published expert rule and I don't believe there's any doubt that it's actually him posting his Tweets. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]