Talk:British Rail Class 373

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK / Passenger trains (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I have separated the link to the Eurostar page as this is a description of the trains, rather than the Eurostar service/company and is the same format as the other unit pages I have created. (Our Phellap 16:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I've just noticed that the operators table has unit 373204 operated by both Eurostar and SNCF. I suspect that it it is the Eurostar that is incorrect (i.e. the range should start at 05 not 04), but I haven't changed it as I am not certain. Thryduulf 16:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)`

Yes you are right - i have corrected it Our Phellap 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

3733xx (NoL Sets) transfer to SNCF[edit]

Was in Paris yesterday. I saw 3301/02 at Gare du Nord (domestic platforms), stripped of Eurostar logos and reassigned to "Le Landy". Forgot to check for removed shoegear. Sladen 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rerouting to St Pancras : issues[edit]

The UK end of the Eurostar link will be moved to St Pancras on 14th November 2007. This has benefits for domestic rail operation in and out of Waterloo, as it will allow the current platforms to be reused for domestic services, will increase capacity into Waterloo, and may reduce delays as a result.

However, the relocation of the link may not have a totally beneficial effect. Passengers from the South of London may find that the additional journey time to St Pancras will offset the reduced journey time to the continent. Partly this could be offset by new and more frequent rail services towards St Pancras from South of London locations, but this does not seem to have been planned.

The proposed removal of the 3rd rail capability from existing Eurostar trains might also not be ideal. In the event of major failures or emergency situations, Eurostar trains can run on much of the rail network around London. This would become impossible if this feature is removed.

Is there ever going to be the possibility of journeys progressing beyond London, for example North or West, using high speed trains? This might only provide marginal advantages, though currently having to change trains in London in the UK, and in Paris in France is a significant barrier to some users switching to rail from other forms of transport such as air or car.

Are the railway operators seriously considering all of the issues which could arise out of the relocation of the cross channel service terminal to St Pancras? David Martland 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What has this go to do with the actual train this is to do with the Eurostar the service section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.220.2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the closure of Waterloo International Station in November 2007, and the transfer of all Eurostar services to St Pancras International, using HS1, it was in January 2008, that all of the third rail DC traction equipment on all of the Eurostar trainsets was removed. Furthermore no DC traction equipment has been retained on any Eurostar trainset for Emergencey use or other operational reasons on grounds of cost. Eurostar never had a policy of having two International Stations in London, inspite of press comments to that effect. Aquizard 00:30, 20 April 2009(UTC)

Incorrect train numbers?[edit]

The wiki page shows that only 37 sets were built, but site such as abrail.co.uk list many more than that- more like 57 (although of those one is only a power car on its own) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.150.66 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the numbers: 77 power cars. 76 half-sets of coaches. 62 full-length half-sets. 38 usable trains (2 power cars + 2 half-sets of coaches). 36 half-sets ordered by BR/EPS. 32 half-sets ordered by SNCF. 31 full-length usable 373/1 trains. 27 full-length trains in Eurostar International service today. 21 half-sets in SNCF domestic service today. 14 shorter "North of London" half-sets. 10.5 trains in SNCF domestic service today. 8 half-sets ordered by SNCB. 7 shorter "North of London". 4 complete trains ordered by SNCB. 3 trains previously painted (vinyl-wrapped) for GNER. 1 half-set used for spares. 1 spare power car. 0.5 trains used for spares. Of those, which do you feel could do with expanding/explaining more clearly in the article? —Sladen (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Safety systems[edit]

I updated datas on safetys systems. TBL is used on SNCB lines (TBL 1 for all lines but TBL2 for HS2 line). Memor is used on CFL lines. TBM 430 is also used for the chunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.119.159 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

TVM and KVB are also used on the British HS1, including St. Pancras, The British systems mentioned in the article are 'not' used, they were only required for the line to Waterloo Int'l. --L.Willms (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Except for when calling at Ashford International railway station! —Sladen (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Unit?[edit]

The article says that the Class 373 is an electric multiple unit. Is this so? There's a comment in Talk:British Rail Class 390 that says that it isn't. I don't quite get the definition, so I'm not sure. Any views? --JCG33 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think his point is that, in order a train to be considered a multiple unit, it should have distributed traction with no locomotives. Eurostar doesn't have distributed traction other then two power bogies on trailers adjacent to the locomotives, instead it has two locomotives. Nevertheless I would still consider it as a multiple unit since it is a fixed - formation trainset. It cannot be considered as a true locomotive - hauled train since it is not possible to add or remove cars by simple coupling, uncoupling and shunting operations. Gokaydince (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurostar - Speeds?[edit]

Please look at that text below operators - Eurostar. "The trains can operate at up to 300 km/h (186 mph) on high-speed lines and 160 km/h (100 mph) in the Channel Tunnel. Since there is an automatic application of the brakes if the speed exceeds 315 km/h,[2] or 160 km/h when the pantograph is in the tunnel setting, the target speed is in fact 297 and 157 km/h respectively". Would it be conveient to replace the phrase "the target speed is in fact 297 and 157 km/h respectively" with "the cruise control is set to 297 and 157 km/h respectively"? I think it means that, the cruise control system, which enables the trains to travel at fairly constant speed, is set to those values. And the values are chosen somewhat below the speed limits in order to be on the safe side - i.e speed limits are not overshot. Gokaydince (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

BN[edit]

I came across a ref claiming that BN built the R9 and R10 vehicles, so I've added that in the article. Can anyone confirm this with a more authoritative ref? -- Timberframe (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article[edit]

Why is it not called simply "Class 373", in the same style as Class 395? And What's with the "British Rail" prefix anyway, given that British Rail no longer exists and that it is used for international services? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) hoping that it would throw some light on the subject, but that discussion just seems to have petered out inconclusively. And it didn't even begin to deal with international trains such as this one. How about "International railways Class 373"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose "International railways Class 373" as there is no organisation called "International railways" and there are several North American organisations with similar names (see International Railroad). I don't personally have a problem with TOPS Class 373 (as long as we retain a redirect) as the class number comes from TOPS. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
After reading and editing the "Naming conventions" article, I agree and withdraw the "International railways" idea in favour of "TOPS Class 373". See that section for my reasoning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The name "British Rail Class 373" is accurate; "TGV TMST" would be accurate ...and "TGV 373000". The first—and current—of these has the advantage of being predictably guessable. There would be a non-benefit from changing the article from a consistently named, and accurate status-quo to one that is both inconsistent and not accurate. —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • How can you say that it is accurate when British Rail[ways] had ceased to exist? Indeed the status quo generally is no longer accurate generally, because it uses a transient company designation rather than a static and neutral numbering system such as TOPS is. (And we don't say SNCF TGV TMST). Do you seriously think that anyone in the industry still uses the term "British Railways Class"? The only neutral designation is 'TOPS Class 373' --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • To answer your points individually:
        1. Easily, there appear to be no grammatical errors. (BTW, last I heard, British Rail Residuary were still the ones paying the Minimum Usage Charge for these trains to transit the Chunnel—around £26 million/year...).
        2. It was accurate at the point when the units were ordered, and so indefinately remains so.
        3. [SNCF] TGV TMST is a widely used description, and not just in English, or French (see Dutch Wikipedia).
        4. "Class NNN" is used as a frequent operator-netural description; for Wikipedia we need to differentiate to avoid polluting the namespace.
        5. Yes, (I seriously think that) the initials "BR" are used across Europe as a designation of the standard gauge railway system in the United Kingdom primarily maintained (currently) by Network Rail. You can even find an example of this in the Class 373 cab, where the mode selector dial has:
          • BR AC (25kV: ECML, WCML, NLL)
          • BR HS AC (25kV: CTRL)
          • BR DC (750V: Southern third rail)
          • ET AC (25kV: Eurotunnel)
          • GV AC (25kV: LGV Nord/Interconnexion/PSE/Belgian LN1)
          • F AC (25kV: North France classique)
          • F DC (1500V: South France classique)
          • B DC (3kV: Belgium 3kV DC)
        6. "only" is a very strong word, and directly contradicts the list of multiple possibilities given in the preceding contribution to this discussion. TOPS is a system for writing systems for keeping track of rolling stock, it is not the particular schema in use. The schema in use is probably best described as "British Rail Classification".
      • Sladen (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We are still left with the problem that British Rail is the name of a company that is defunct. Ok, I can see that there is a deep attachment to the past here, but nevertheless it does not describe the sutuation today for trains in current service [I'm not suggesting that laid up trains be renamed]. So how about "British railways Class"? It recognises the fact that they are British trains and that they run on British railway lines. It just doesn't pretend that Thatcher never privatised BR, as the current naming does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The class should be lower case. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No it shouldn't because that would not be continuous with hundreds of other articles on British rolling stock. Raywil (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Raywil, we cannot take this simply out of sync with hundreds and hundreds of other articles still using the "British Rail Class..." extension. I know it the namesake isn't still around, but it is still a formal and very real name, more correctly, a designation for this train. Inventing contrived names will only add to confusion, we should stick with real world, actual class designations. It may be a defunct company, but that doesn't change the fact that trains that have introduced post-BR have still been given TOPS numbers in exactly the same fashion, like the Pendalino, the Desiros, or the new Javelin; they're all given an allocation under the British Rail TOPS system, it may be a different set of operators, but there hasn't been any change to the system. And we cannot call it simply TOPS designation, because TOPS is a classification system, it just happened to be employed by British Rail for designating the trains. It's be like knocking the Supermarine off Supermarine Spitfire, there are Spitfires around today, no sign of the original company though. This isn't really a discussion to be taken on the talk page of a single article, it concerns hundreds within this naming scheme on Wikipedia, I'd dare say it needs to be turned over to the Wikitrains groupfor a large and public consensus if you really are serious about changing it. 86.138.49.24 (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There is actually an ongoing larger debate regarding this, however I unfortunately can't find a link to it, and havn't contributed to it, or added it to my watchlist. I'm not sure if anyone else can find it... Raywil (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Found it: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(British_railway_locomotive_and_multiple_unit_classes) Raywil (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead images[edit]

I've looked at all the images involved in today's backwards and forwards, and would like to suggest a compromise. For the exterior image, I think that File:Rame Eurostar en Savoie.JPG ("Exterior 1" in the gallery below) is the better image. However the interior image File:2nd class Eurostar coach interior.jpg ("Interior 2") preferred by Peter Skuce is more illustrative than the existing image. I will not implement this until there is consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pressure sealed?[edit]

Are Eurostar trains pressure-sealed like Shinkansen and ICE? (To prevent the uncomfortable feeling in passengers' ears caused by the pressure wave created when a train enters a tunnel.) KarenSutherland (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. The windows are all sealed, of course, and the passenger loading doors are fitted with inflatable seals which inflate when the door is closed. But the air conditioning isn't a closed system; it draws a proportion of its air from the external environment to maintain oxygen levels inside the vehicle. Having said that, the ducting, dampers and impellors in the air con system probably all help to reduce pressure impulses that arise from entering tunnels or passing other trains.
I can confirm that pressure changes are experienced when travelling on Eurostar, quite frequently too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GNER - speeds[edit]

The reference didn't match the text - specifically it said that the locos were limited to 110mph. Was this true? reference?Shortfatlad (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] found a vague reference - still looking.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I know its a long way after the event, but if anyone is still interested, I can answer this point. The trains were limited to 110 mph on the ex GNER lines because British railway operating regulations require two men to occupy the driving cab of any train exceeding 110 mph. Both men must have a view if the line ahead and both must be able to bring the train to a halt. The layout of the driving cab and the narrow forward windscreen of the class 373 prevents two men from occupying the cab. The English based Eurostar high speed lines are exempt from this requirement because the in cab signalling used has a number of safety features built into it that renders the second man unnecessary.
Also of note: is that a part of the GNER line (as was) is built and signalled for 140 mph operation (for trial use) using five aspect signalling. Once again, railway regulations get in the way, and only permit such speeds on lines that have no level crossings. The 140 mph stretch of line in question does have level crossings and consequently when 140 mph trials are carried out, the crossings have to be closed to road traffic for the duration. 86.180.163.237 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Purchase price[edit]

Myddelton, D. R. (2007). They Met Well: Government Project Disasters. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. p. 141. ISBN 978 0 255 36601 4. The initial estimate for fourteen Eurostar Class 373 train sets was £230 million; but in December 1989 BR authorised spending of £356 million, an increase of 55 per cent. ; Although the fourteen doesn't match up unless it's two times seven NoL half-sets. —Sladen (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Exhibitions[edit]

For reference, the following used to appear in the page, detailing which particular units had attended which particular exhibitions:

On several occasions, Class 373 power cars and sets have appeared at special events and displays on behalf of Eurostar; such as at Rotterdam Centraal Station on 6 April 1996 (full set 3309/3310), Berlin-Grunewald station for Eurailspeed 1998 (full set 3303/3304), Madrid Chamartín railway station for Eurorailspeed 2002 (half-set 3212) and at the York National Railway Museum for the Railfest 200 celebrations in 2004 (power car 3313 + simulator).[ex 1]

Sladen (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what value the model numbers themselves to an encyclopedic article on the trains, is it particularly important or noteworthy in any manner that these particular units were used to demonstrate the train? I removed them because I don't see any use for them, beyond the train enthusiasts who like to track their activities, but that isn't really the job of what we're doing here. And for four seperate events, only one reference to one of the events can be found; there isn't any evidence that Class 373 sets even appeared at these events, it was simply so unnoteworthy not even the media bothered to keep a record of them in my searches to reference them. If it is that unnoteworthy that it can't be cited, it is likely that it is because this information is unremarkable and essentially trivia. I certainly see no case for the model numbers, but listing fact that it has been put on display at X, Y and X special events seems to be excessive as well, unless they were truely unique and special situations in and of themselves. For instance, over on the Concorde article there is no need to mention anything but a scant reference to a few of the thousands of airshows that the Concorde was displayed at momentarily, simply because it wasn't noteworthy or important. The operation down the Thames, that was something pretty original. I won't delete this, but I am not keen on it either. Kyteto (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Source 43 regarding the postponing of the floatation of a power car down the Thames does not corroborate the statement it is used as a source for. There is nothing within the source indicating that the accident was fatal, or that the floatation was postponed for 24 hours. 87.194.40.167 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

4-system trainsets numbers[edit]

Did know anyone 4-system trainsets numbers ?