Talk:British Rail Class 700

Name

Do we have a reference that these things are actually called NXEMU? All I can find online is Wikipedia and derivatives. Wheeltapper (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I think the name was raised when FCC and Crossrail were talking about a common design. The first (unsourced) revision of this page indicates this. [1] I couldn't think of an alternative, it's likely to be a Desiro design, but Bombardier are still in reserve. Edgepedia (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And should it be British Rail NXEMU anyway... :-) Wheeltapper (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Thameslink rolling stock programme for the moment? Edgepedia (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The only (reliable) refs I've found refering to NXEMU are the previous government one's:

• DfT Rolling Stock Plan shows Crossrail, Thameslink and NXEMU

I've found nothing that says that this train is NXEMU or a NXEMU. I therefore suggest it be moved as suggested above.Edgepedia (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And that is talking about something else anyway - I doubt anyone has proposed diesels for Thameslink (or Crossrail). Do the Thameslink units have a class number yet, in which case we can have a "British Rail" Class XXX article, and the problem is solved ? Crossrail has been reported to be class 345 [2], with nothing for Thameslink as of February. The impressions of the Desiro City just show "300000"[3]

Wheeltapper (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't heard of a class number yet, hence the suggestion for Thameslink rolling stock programme. Edgepedia (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wheeltapper (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The name NXEMU came from me as internally (FCC) the new Thameslink rolling stock is known as NXEMU stock. This is why you won't find any public mention of the stock as its industry term rather than the public name. Currently no number has been assigned to these units but Class 381 has been mentioned. Sparkyscrum (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (GMT)

Until something is published I guess the current name will have to do. I note that historically Class 371 was proposed. (although that paragraph is unreferenced) Edgepedia (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

just thought I'd explain where it comes from as it seems a few other people on here had asked where it came from. Sparkyscrum (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2011 (GMT)

The new Desiro City trains for Thameslink are now Class 700. As well as these links, its the classification being used internally.

• Today’s Railway - March 2013. Issue 135. Page 31. Article states the number are "provisionally allocated a completely new number series by the Rolling Stock Library: Class 700/0 (8-car sets) and 700/1 (12-car sets)".

• London Bridge works "New trains - Some actions are not within the direct control of the project team but are integrated into their plans. Enabling works are now underway to provide connections into the train depots required at Three Bridges on the Brighton line and Hornsey on the ECML in preparation for the arrival of the Class 700 although the DfT is responsible for providing the trains, the depot and of course, the Thameslink franchise itself."

• Linkin Profile"I am leading the project team that is responsible for developing and deliverying an Infrastructure that will support 24 tph operation throught the Thameslink Core. The Project team is developing ERTMS to deliver an ATO over ETCS infrastructure that will suport the new Thameslink Class 700 rolling stock operating on ETCS L2 from St Pancras to London Bridge, which will also operate in ATO from 2017."

• RSSB “The new Class 700 rolling stock for Thameslink was to have lower running boards than the Class 319 and 377 units to be replaced, meaning that their stepping distance was going to be much improved and possibly even compliant with the standard.”

This is enough to now start a Class 700 page and allow this page to talk about the fleet being arranged under the TLP banner including the 377/5, possibly the 377/7 dual voltage units, 377/2 transfers from Southern, new interim fleet to be ordered this summer (29 trains initially with option for 35 more later on) as well as the final fleet of Desiro Cities.

Sparkyscrum (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

Please remind me why we need two pages, one the trains and another for their procurement and manufacture? Page size isn't an issue, there's less than 1000 words on this page. Edgepedia (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that we should do nothing until the finance package has been agreed and the order finalised. Edgepedia (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible merge

After some work on the article (please check) it occurs to me that it could be merged into Thameslink_Programme#Rolling_stock. I'm assuming that the new trains would have a separate article. It's just a suggestion - see the talk page of the other page.Imgaril (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible withdraw of a Class 319 and Southern return class 377 5 "Electrostar"

Class 319 and Class 377 will remain in future? (83.67.147.66 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)).

According to British_Rail_Class_319#Plans, it is suggested that the Class 319 will be refurbished and cascaded to the surburban routes out of Paddington and Manchester to Liverpool services after these have been electrified. The British_Rail_Class_377s were I think meant to be going back to Southern. Edgepedia (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Class 700

Following the press release confirming details of the Class 700 procurement, my view is that this article should move across to that page. I created that page earlier today as it wasn't clear that this one existed (e.g. there was no existing redirect in place for Class 700), which is unfortunate as the optimum solution would have been a straight move of this page across, with a bit of a re-jig of the text. DJR (T) 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As 10 days have passed without objection to the above, I am going to proceed with a stage-by-stage shift of all content from this page onto the Class 700 page, as per the guidelines set out in WP:MERGE. DJR (T) 23:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Loading gauge?

Hi,

Is there anybody, who has more details about the outer dimensions of the car bodies? It looks like it is smaller than the usual W6 gauge.

Thanks a lot

DA --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Given they haven't been built yet, I don't think we can judge anything by looks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the original specification published in 2008 [4] (section 6), gauge should be 'optimised' and the kinematic envelope of the current Class 319 trains would have been available to those tendering. I'm reading this paragraph as saying similar to the Class 319. Edgepedia (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also see my reply at Talk:British Rail Class 319#Loading gauge? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I already thought that is has to be similar to the 319 gauge, but I didnt know anything about the 319's gauge either. However, I now found a great source, stating that the 319 uses C1 Appendix A gauge:

Quote: "Historically, two families of vehicle have been built to C1 (Appendix A) gauge; the PEP derived stock (Classes 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508), and the Mark III multiple unit stock (Classes 150, 210, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 455 and 456)."

Link

So now I am settled 100%, thanks to everybody! --Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully verbose answer from Network Rail/dft in the "Train Infrastructure Interface Specification" (TIIS) (and not the Thameslink Infrastructure Train Specification ..sorry ..)

try here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/thameslinkrollingstock/itt/specification.pdf

see section 2.1 Gauge

Because the Siemens vehicles are 20m they should (probably) be to drawing BBRT-9372-E-003 (diagram given in the appendix of document linked above.)

I can't comment on how close that is to C1 gauge .. though that is available elsewhere for your own original research and calculations eg http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Guidance%20Notes/GEGN8573%20Iss%201.pdf p.73 has the C1 diagram (drawing CCE 891-61 Issue D)

Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

GEGN8573 issue 1 is superseded. Here's a better link to GEGN8573 Guidance on Gauging. This lists all current versions, regardless of issue number: normally there'll be just one, but when an issue is about to be replaced, they show current and next; and when an issue was replaced recently, they show current and previous. Other docs of relevance include: GERT8073 Requirements for the Application of Standard Vehicle Gauges; GERT8270 Assessment of Compatibility of Rolling Stock and Infrastructure. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, both of you. I will use the the data from Prof. Haddock's PDF, it's the best guess. Strangely, the gauge is a bit wider than Standard C1, but I dont care. It's the Thameslink specification they should know what they talk of.

To Redrose64: I guess it doesnt matter much. The PDF might be superseded, but the C1-gauge should still be the same.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dimensions of rolling stock sometimes give the impression that the profile is foul of the loading gauge. But the rolling stock dimensions are normally extreme measures, including projecting fittings such as door handles; whereas the C1 envelope concerns the dimensions of the actual body shell, excluding projections. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Depots

I will probably split the depot sections to new articles (or merge one into Hornsey rolling stock depots) later - probably best to wait until the things are completed and operational so that there is sufficient coverage/justification for separate article. Please bear this in mind if editing these sections.

..or any other suggestions.. ? Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actual start of production

These are good sources

But what they don't say is when production started. They do show that it a train had been made by 2014. It could have easily been 2013 since the contract was signed 2013, and the order was known long before that.Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact the first bogie was made 2011. [5] "Siemens has manufactured the first SF7000 bogie for the Desiro City Thameslink train on schedule" Dec 2011 -?? Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Railway Gazette

The citations use for citing Railway Gazette International are inconsistent.. If somebody can pick the right style please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiophen (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 February 2016

@Xiiophen: Why have you altered all the references to WP:LDR? This goes against WP:CITEVAR#To be avoided, third bullet. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that guideline

I had- two reasons - 1. article with lots of inline citation text is difficult to read/edit in the editor, 2. it enables the consistency of citation style to be easily managed - as per my original point above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiophen (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 February 2016

@Xiiophen: See WP:LDRHOW#Usage notes, paragraph beginning "A drawback of the approach ...". Please change the references back to how they were, and per WP:CITEVAR, seek consensus before imposing a different method (in this case WP:LDR). Finally, please sign your posts on talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Go and find someone else to harass with your pointless "point of order" contributions. The changes are positive. Xiiophen (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not a fact. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a fact - I wrote 95% of the article and added 95% of the references - In reality I am the one who maintains it not you. Your contribution here is not helpful and it is not appreciated. My edits will make the article easier to maintain - it is time wasting on a obscure guideline (not rule). What will your contribution here achieve -except wasting my time and annoying another editor ? Xiiophen (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)