Talk:British Rail Class 168

How about some non-techy info?

The great majority of this article is about the 168's technical details. Nothing wrong with that, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a rail-buff's fansite, and as such there should be more info about the interior, passenger reception etc. 86.136.251.6 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tidy

Tidied up a bit - more operations details possibly are needed.

Also really needs more info on difference between sub classes.

Removed drawings of train liveries - as far as I now they are neither official, nor can be considered accuract - in terms of colour or dimension... Please don't add them - they are effectively "drawings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Class 168 and Turbostars

I have improved the article with information stating that Classes 168/1 and 168/2 are essentially Turbostars. The Class 168/0 could probably be best described as the prototype Turbostar. --Peter Skuce (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 168s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 168. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705034433/http://rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp to http://www.rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 168. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703123005/http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk:80/about-us/our-train-fleet/ to http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/about-us/our-train-fleet/

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)

Orphaned references in British Rail Class 168

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Rail Class 168's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TRC1":

• From British Rail Class 143: "Class 143". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 128: "Class 128". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 129: "Class 129". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 150: "Class 150". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 158: "Mechanical And Electrical Coupling Index". Rail Safety and Standards Board. Archived from the original on 21 December 2013. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
• From British Rail Class 153: "Class 153". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 156: "Class 156". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 142: "Class 142". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 151: "Class 151". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 8 November 2005. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 124: "Class 124, 180, 181". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 120: "Class 120, 179". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 141: "Class 141". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 144: "Class 144". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 155: "Class 155". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 121: "Class 121, 149". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Hi all,

Recently the image of the 168 was changed (I have no complaints about this!), but the image that it was changed to was of a /0 wearing the former Chiltern livery - so some years ago at this point!

I just wondered if we could come to an agreement that any infobox images should be mostly up-to-date with the new livery just to ensure those reading have an idea of what the train currently looks like? I've reverted the image back to the previous image (which happens to be mine), as it is far more recent (which I believe is quite important in these things!). I have no complaints regarding changing the image if need be, but perhaps a more modern image would be more suitable?

Thanks Vanmanyo (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your image is not a good representation of the current livery. In fact I couldn't find a suitable recent image on commons at all and I went through all the permutations of categories. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. It's definitely not a bad representation. The livery aspects are still visible including the style of the livery & the Chiltern logo. I still think it's better than an outdated image from over 8 years ago. The previous image has been on the page for several months with no complaints. Regardless of whether it's a better angle than the updated one, it's still a better representation of the current fleet, thus I would keep it (my one) as interim whilst I or someone else can perhaps achieve a better image. Vanmanyo (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Also perhaps one of these two would be better?

c:File:168-109_Chiltern_Banbury_14-03-17_(34752669050).jpg

c:File:DMU_168_001.jpg Vanmanyo (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with the second one, 168 001 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections so I've used it in the infobox. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections after seventeen hours. Some of us log in for just three hours a day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to change it if you don't like it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)