Talk:British Rail Class 442

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

Refs[edit]

Some of these should provide refrences for this article:

Table colours[edit]

The table of fleet locations is very brightly coloured. Do these colours have any significance? If not, I'd say they should be toned down a bit. Firstly because the contrast with black text, especially on the orange and green, is not good and this may impair the ability of some people to read them. The other reasons are less important: secondly because the orange and yellow are a bit close, functionally, and imply a connection between the statuses; and thirdly because there may be green-orange colour-blindness problems. Basically, using colour to convey information on the web isn't a great idea when good layout and text can do it. – Kieran T (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compartments[edit]

I've seen people say that these were the last British trains to be built with compartments. Is that true? If so, it seems significant enough for at least a passing mention. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms[edit]

The acronyms for the vehicle formations are used but never explained - this is bad. My guess at their meaning is:

  • DTF - Driving Trailer First (class)
  • TSO - Trailer Standard (class) Open [what does "open" mean here?]
  • MBRSM - Motor Buffet R? Standard (class) M?
  • MBLS - Motor Buffet Lounge Standard (class)
  • TSW - Trailer Standard (class) W?
  • DTSO - Driving Trailer Standard (class) Open

Is their really only one motor coach per set? Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Acronyms[edit]

I was looking at the acronyms for the class 442 and the British Rail coach designations, the acronyms posted on the class 442 page do not make sense.

Below is how they look now:

  • DTF - Driving Trailer First
  • TSO - Trailer Standard Open
  • MBRSM - Motor Buffet Resturant Standard Modular
  • MBLS - Motor Buffet Lounge Standard
  • TSW - Trailer Standard Wheelchair
  • DTSO - Driving Trailer Standard Open

I believe theyy should be something like this:

  • DTFo - Driving Trailer First semi-open
  • TSO - Trailer Standard Open
  • MBLSB - Motor Brake Lounge Standard Buffet
  • TSD - Trailer Standard Disabled
  • DTS - Driving Trailer Standard

What does everyone else think?

Ashley.f5 (talk) 11.30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The leasing company uses DTF-TS-MBLS-TSW-DTS on their website. I would suggest using those abbreviations as at least they can be cited as a reference. DrFrench (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Problem is that Angel Trains have got it wrong. It has always officially been known as DTF-TSO-MBLS-TSW-DTS but that isn't entirely correct. What should I go with, what is right or what I can reference to?
Ashley.f5 (talk) 18.12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The latter. See WP:Verify, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". So you'd have to find a source than can be deemed 'better' than the leasing company to 'trump' it. (Some might also argue that as Angel Trains own them, they can call them what they wish!) DrFrench (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers Walk for Mileage Accumulation[edit]

In the location key, it says in yellow Lovers Walk for Mileage Accumulation - what does this mean? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before a train comes into service, it needs to accumulate some miles to make sure the train is in working order. I feel this description is not needed as it is not in line with the complexity of the article and I have therefore removed it. Ashley.f5 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 442s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, I reckon we could do with a flat category with all the 442 images sorted by number. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 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.

Airport rail links[edit]

The lead says that using the trains for an airport rail link was controversial as they were "not designed for airport rail links". Could we have some clarification on what this means? What is different about a railway that goes to an airport and why does it require a different train? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trains used on airport services typically have extra luggage space at the expense of passenger seating. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the Class 442s were extensively refurbished before being introduced on Gatwick Express. Surely this involved the provision of large luggage racks? I think the article may be wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have added a BBC article that says exactly this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you didn't cite the source correctly. I've done it now, but please note that news citations must include name of source and date of publication. -- Alarics (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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: 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) 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox picture[edit]

I've updated the picture in the infobox to reflect the fleet's current operator and moved the previous pic of the GX unit to the article body --- I understand that the picture is lower quality compared to the previous one, so it is hoped that a new, better quality picture will be used once the trains re-enter revenue service. Feel free to roll back this change if the quality is considered too poor compared to the rest. Supchppt (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the picture a bit, hopefully an improvement. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By all means update this if you have a photo of an entire unit, but this picture you uploaded only shows the first carriage. Per WP:RECENTISM - we don't need the most up-to-date photograph (otherwise we would be continually updating the pictures!) - what we do need is the most illustrative photograph. A key technical point is that this is a 5 car unit, so we need to show that. is good because it shows an entire unit, there isn't a platform in the way, the lighting could be sunnier but it's not bad. A better photo is possible though. Commons, as usual is a source of mostly crap pictures with a few useful ones. Tony May (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see the relevance of WP:RECENT in this context. I do agree with the full-length point, but what I do not see is the necessity to pull another image from Commons as opposed to simply reverting the changes. In addition, many other infobox pictures do not follow this, such as the 377, the 378 and the 717. Lastly, I cannot help but feel the last sentence regarding Commons has no bearing on the issue being raised and is a thinly-veiled introduction of personal bias. Supchppt (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Supchppt - I'll get round to fixing the others such as 377, the 378 and the 717 when I get a chance. If you can find a better picture than the existing one, please use it. Tony May (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 378 had been vanitised by someone with a phone camera. I'll sort the others later. Tony May (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have some better photos available now including of the new livery. This guy really knows what he's doing: [1] Tony May (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Include in Article RE: Delays[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48295838Guyb123321 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly turning signals to danger after passing them[edit]

This edit by SavageKieran (talk · contribs) - and its sourcing - reads as if some journalist doesn't know how railway signalling works. The signals are supposed to turn red as the train passes, any other colour is asking for trouble. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on a rail techie forum the issue seems to be that the return current through the third rail is tripping signal relays before the train reaches the signal causing the driver to see a signal go green to red ahead of him and therefore having to slam the anchors on. I'm looking through the railway press to see if any have a sensible article about the incidents. Nthep (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a failsafe. Interesting discussion here, not a RS of course. ——SN54129 10:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can understand, the units were turning the signals to danger as they approached them. The media doesn’t mention the detailing this far by the look of it. SavageKieran (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successors[edit]

Re-added information on successors as even though the Class 444 and Class 450 are already with South Western Railway, the Class 444 and Class 450 are replacing the Class 442 on all routes the Class 442s operated on. Thus the Class 444 and Class 450 are the successors to the Class 442. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't follow, the 442s were to provide extra services that won't now operate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right ok, I was under the assumption that we counted successor what replaced a Class of train once it left a TOC, I did not know about the has to follow bit. My bad. In that case my edit adding in successors may be removed if that is the right thing to do. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With stock that has moved from TOC to TOC several times, as in this case, that would just get confusing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that SWR purchased the units in order to scrap them?[edit]

According to 3 separate publications, yes.

  • Rail 21 April 2021 issue states: The Wessex Electrics were owned by Angel Trains. SWR will now take ownership before removing any parts it requires and sending the vehicles for disposal.
  • The Railway Magazine May 2021 issue states: A £45 million plan by South Western Railway to refurbish Class 442 EMUs has been abandoned. The five-car sets are owned by SWR, and not leased.
  • Railways Illustrated June 2021 issue states: With much of the work on the 442s already complete it is to buy them off the lessor, Angel Trains, and scrap them.

Was done as part of the deal to terminate the lease that was to run until 2024 early. I would put more faith in what reliable publications state in articles published sometime after the event having had time to drill down on the details, than an online source that was published on the day of the announcement. Customreed (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Railway Magazine doesn't actually state when the trains were bought by SWR, it says The five-car sets are owned by SWR, not leased. (paragraph 1) and as the units are owned by SWR and not leased (para. 10). They could have been bought several years ago, and nowhere does the article state that the units were bought with the intention of scrapping without further use. The impression given by the rest of the article is that SWR, being in possession of these units, intended to refurbish them at its own expense; but then COVID put these plans on hold. Any business should be prepared to revise their future plans in light of major events, so if SWR have decided that in the long term it is more cost-effective to scrap, rather than laying out more money for a refurbishment that may never recoup its costs, we can hardly blame them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were still on Angel Trains' books in June 2020. The Rail and Railways Illustrated articles make it clear that the change in ownership occurred as a result of the March 2021 decision to terminate the lease. At the time of the decision to not return them to service, the refurbishment program was almost complete, all had received new interiors and 14 of the 18 had new traction equipment. Customreed (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet details[edit]

Can somebody please update the fleet detail table to change all the colours to grey as all Class 442 units have been scrapped.

Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that reference 36 states, given the information it is backing up. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Rohr Aerotrain the fastest third-rail vehicle?[edit]

The Rohr Aerotrain never entered service, but the speed record for this one was prior to entering service as well. The Rohr was a frictionless tracked air cushion vehicle that reached speeds of 145 MPH on a third rail, with a linear induction motor.

It seems like a more accurate description would be that this is the fastest third rail vehicle to enter service, or the fastest wheel-driven third rail vehicle? 24.6.208.246 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where do you get the third rail from? It appears to straddle a concrete guide beam like a conventional monorail. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_442&oldid=1200368905"