Talk:British Rail Class 33

Trains: in UK / Locomotives 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 the Locomotives task force.

REPS and TC's

According to [1] and http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition%20Tech%20Data%20EMU/EMU_430.html there was 1 Tractor and one or two trailer units in the formation. The tractor units did have two motor coaches unlike other units of the time, giving 3000hp, they were more then capable of hauling two trailer setsEnotayokel 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation

There are a few blanks in the preservation list. If you can fill them, please do. Biscuittin (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

Please see Template_talk:British_Rail_Locomotives#Pre_TOPS_numbers - the basic problem is that the template is linking via codes which aren't described or explained in the article, (as well as having codes that were never actually used).

Apart from being confusing there's the issue of reliability. If anyone can fix with reliable sources please..Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 33 102 at Weymouth

The image is captioned "33102 propelling a 3rd rail EMU from Weymouth, 1987". Wouldn't it be more likely to be propelling an unpowered 4-TC set even in 1987? I seem to remember the Weymouth trains were still 4-REP+4-TC+4-TC at that time with the leading 4-TC taken on by the Class 33 from Bournemouth. NB I've removed the ^[which?] template from the caption; realistically there is little chance of it being answered. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were already using whatever was available, as in 1986 the 4 REPS started to go to Chart Leacon so the motors could be refurbished for the 442's. Anyway, it could be argued that a 4-TC is a multiple unit, third rail or otherwise. Britmax (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For that shape of cab, there are six choices: 3-TC, 4-TC, 4-REP, 4-BIG, 4-CIG or 4-VEP. It's not a 3-TC because there are too many coaches; it's not a 4-VEP because there aren't enough doors; for the others, we look at the passenger accommodation. Here are the formations for all six:

3-TC: DTSO-TBSK-DTSO
4-TC: DTSO-TFK-TBSK-DTSO
4-REP: MSO-TRB-TBFK-MSO
4-BIG: DTCsoL-TSRB-NDMBSO-DTCsoL
4-CIG: DTCsoL-TSO-NDMBSO-DTCsoL
4-VEP: DTCsoL-NDMBSO-TSO-DTCsoL

The driving coach closest to the loco is all second class (no yellow or red stripe below the cantrail), so that knocks out the three with a DTCsoL at each end; the next coach along has a full-length yellow stripe at the cantrail, so is all first-class; and the one beyond that has a portion with narrow windows suggesting brake accommodation, and I can't see a red stripe for a refreshment car. It's a 4-TC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

I've moved the distribution map to where it seems more logical. If you don't agree just uncomment the table style. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used those two declarations (clear:right;float:right;) because that's how I did it at other articles in order to optimise space. See for example British Rail Class 20#British Rail where it sits nicely below the infobox at most screen resolutions. If the clear:right; were omitted, then on some setups its right edge would sit to the left of the infobox, with its top edge just below the "British Rail" heading. See this version, and if your screen is less than 1280px wide, try zooming out with Ctrl+- to see the problem - a big white gap to its right, and below the infobox. If float:right; were omitted, it would sit on the left with a big white gap to the right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are getting at but in the class 20 article it sits nicely in the operation section, here it is more awkward because there isn't the same amount of information so it pushes into the discussion of sub-classes. I'll uncomment my changes and ponder. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in several articles I was unsure as to the best section for the table. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

The image in the infobox has been tagged with a when? query. In reality this is never going to be answered so is there in point in having the tag? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered it (roughly) from the image source information. But if we didn't know this otherwise, I'd agree your point that the tag is pointless. We would neither know, nor greatly care. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed that, assumed that whoever put the tag up had looked first! Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawals?

Does anyone have the withdrawal dates? Not the individuals and accidents, just a general range for the class. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Committee meetings

Do we really need all this stuff about meetings of the Electrification and Traction Committees? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Definitely TLDR.2A02:C7F:6A56:9D00:214B:110A:3D88:6C3A (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful Bo-Bo

The class 33 first para says it is the most powerful Bo-Bo. This is incorrect. The Hymek class 35 is a Bo-Bo and is more powerful than a class 33. Compare Hp and tractive effort on wiki pages for classes 33 & 35.Also observers book of locomotives confirms same. I do not need a reply, just the text in the first para of class 33 wiki changed. 2A02:C7C:8B2E:5F00:49B8:ECED:942D:B181 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check on a couple of old Ian Allan ABCs, Class 33 TE: 45,000 lb, 1550 hp; Class 35 TE: 49,700 lb, 1700 hp. So yes the statement isn't true, I will delete it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belay that, Murgatroyd49: Class 35 isn't Bo-Bo - it's B-B. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid boy, I hadn't spotted that! Of course they are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]