Talk:British Rail Class 395

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

Sources for Class 395 designation[edit]

The last two links above no longer work, I will remove them if no-one objects. Rayhol (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

This page now states that services will begin in 2009, and that they will begin after the 2012 Olympics. Which is correct? David Arthur 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good question. CTRL part 2 opens this November IIRC, but the stock (395's) for CTRL-DS are still being built. IIRC the new Integrated Kent Franchise timetable is coming in in 2009 so that would make sense, but how the new CTRL-DS services will work with the Olympic Javelin is a good question too. Pickle 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no scope for speculation on this one. The plans for a 2009 start are pretty much set in stone, the trains have been ordered, and special platforms at St Pancras built. The 2012 claim was added by an anonymous user who's never posted anywhere else, and I've removed it. --82.45.163.4 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on shinkansen technology?[edit]

I have removed the sentence which claims that the train is based on shinkansen technology as they are regular EMUs which are completely different from shinkansens. If anyone disagrees then please feel free to drop a comment.Tbo 157talk 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Early reports of the purchase suggested that they were Shinkansen-derived, but that may have been based simply on an assumption that all Japanese ‘high-speed trains’ were Shinkansens. David Arthur 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, two of the references cited in the article contain the word 'bullet', which seems to be interchangable with 'shinkansen,' including a BBC News item which must have been based on South Eastern press release material. Rayhol (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think we can rely on that; the media will often refer to any fast train as a ‘bullet train’, regardless of where it’s from. Since these ones are Japanese, I think many writers don’t bother to check their specific design lineage. David Arthur (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A search of the South Eastern website seems to show no reference to anything shinkansen related, so I would guess that South Eastern would like us to believe that the Class 395's are shinkansen derived when, actually, they're just ordinary trains given monkey gland treatment. Rayhol (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the train was based on the Hitachi "A-Train" concept. I am 99% sure that it is not based on "Shinkansen" technology ... which covers such a range of different trains, that it is a misnomer IMHO. Harry Holland (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's actually a bit of a non-issue; it was included in press releases to promote the train and Hitachi's first UK sale, but any relationship between this train and any Japanese model is familial at best. The 395 should be discussed on it's own merits, rather than relying on tenuous links with faster Japanese trains - or images of distantly related trains. It's a bit like comparing the new A4 steam loco with Stephenson's 'Rocket' - a valid comparison ... but so what? It's not a *useful* comparison.

Route the new trains will take[edit]

Does any one know if thes trains will run the entire length of the CTRL, say from Folkestone to St Pancras? Or will they run on the old exsisting tracks up until they join the CTRL at Ebbsfleet?Screen42 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One service will go from Rochester via the Chatham main Line, then North Kent line and join the CTRL at Ebbsfleet,
Another will start somewhere in Thanet(Ramsgate/Dumpton Park/Margate - i don't remember) and run the Chatham Main line to Chatham, and then go fast over the rest of the Chatham Main Line and North Kent Line to ebbsfleet and then CTRL.
The third service, as i understand it, will run from somewhere in Thanet (Ramsgate/Dumpton Park/Margate - i don't remember) and go down via Canterbury to Ashford and *i think* join (might be a separate fourth service) the Dover to Ashford bit (the domestic lines from Dover, through folkestone to Ashford - see SEML) and run up the CTRL from Ashford, to Ebbsfleet.
hope that explains it ;) Pickle 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I still think they will be slowed down some what using the old rail lines.Screen42 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Third rail technologically (as i understand) is limted to 100mph, and the electorstars (and maybe networkers) can reach that already. thus normal linespeed restrictions such as visibilty, signalling, etc will limit speeds when on the domestic network. even so the published times will offer a significant reduction in journey times to London, really opening up more parts of kent ot comuters. Pickle 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
And after all, we wouldn’t want them moving town-centre stations far out into the country just to keep on the high-speed line, as the French have done in some instances. David Arthur 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Trains from Folkestone and Dover will use the old line to Ashford, and transfer to the high speed line after leaving Ashford. The layout of the junction of the old line and the Channel Tunnel line outside Folkestone doesn't permit trains from the old line to access the new. The trains will, anyway, stop at Sandling and Folkestone West, and a speed of 100 mph is unlikely to be attainable for any length of time, given the short distances between stations, so journey times between most stations will be unchanged. The South Eastern Railway website has information about stopping patterns, etc., although the quoted journey time savings are a bit suspect. Rayhol (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Viability[edit]

"Many in the industry do not think this will be viable, especially for services which leave the CTRL at Ebbsfleet and travel via the North Kent Line, and so it is likely that some will be transferred to the East Coast Main Line at some point.[citation needed]" This has been added recently, without a source, as noted.

While I agree with the contributor that many in the industry do think the service won't be an economic success and will be unpopular with passengers, I don't know of anyone who has gone as record as saying so. I doubt, anyway, that the trains would be redeployed, I suspect it's more likely that South Eastern will seek a renegotiation of the franchise to cover the extra costs of running the service at a loss. I think the comment should be removed until we can find something to back it up. Any objections? Rayhol (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s unsourced speculation; unless we can turn this ‘many in the industry’ into a specific person or article, it doesn’t belong in Wikipedia. David Arthur (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Doors[edit]

It is actually very unusual to find a modern mainline train with internally fitted sliding doors; plug doors, with a flush finish are the norm, especially on high speed trains, as they improve aerodynamics and reduce noise, especially when passing other trains (they avoid the suction effect).

Whatever the Bullet has done for 40 years does not concern us here; plug doors are not 'notoriously unreliable' - though initial installations were - and many UK trains have very high miles per casualty despite having plug doors.

If Hitachi were unhappy with the UK doors, there's plenty of European versions with about forty years experience and development of plug doors, and I'd b surprised if an advanced engineering nation like Japan has no version of their own - though I have no knowledge of their other train designs.

The truth is almost certainly a cost issue, not a reliability one, and it's a shame to criticise UK engineering with no evidence to back it up. Heenan73 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "unusual for high-speed trains" statement, as it is clearly not true from a global perspective. Unfortunately, I don't have any references to hand to back this up, but I suspect the reason is indeed reliability based - not cost. Flush plug doors were introduced on some Japanese shinkansen trains delivered in the late 1990s, but these were indeed unreliable in service (as I believe are plug doors in the UK), which resulted in later trains reverting to conventional (non-flush) doors. I don't know how much this increases exterior (and interior) noise, but environmental noise is a serious problem for Japanese shinkansen trains (preventing speed increases on some lines), so this wouldn't have been a decision made lightly. Also, reliability of doors is not something that would be revealed by "miles per casualty" figures unless door failures actually take trains out of service. In Japan, any failure that causes a delay of even 30 seconds is unacceptable, which is why plug doors were deemed insufficiently reliable for use on shinkansen trains and hence the class 395 products. I hope this provides some background to the situation. --DAJF (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of seats[edit]

Regarding this edit, I note that the number of seats is given as 354 and 348 in a few different places, both appear on southeastern's website. I've contacted southeastern asking that they attempt to clarify this issue and so hopefully, as a result, the southeastern website will soon have the correct information but there will be other sources which differ. I wonder if the discrepancy might have occurred as the design of the trains has altered slightly over time. Adambro (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Today's Railways UK February 2009 says that some seats have been replaced with luggage stacks. The total number of seats, orginal in () are:

DTSO(A) 28 (28) + 12 tip up (13) 1TD 2W
MSO 66 (68)
DTSO(B) 48 (48) 1T

which gives 348 + 13 tip up in the orginal and 340 + 12 tip in the new. Don't know how you get 354 out of these numbers though. Edgepedia (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Javelin Nickname[edit]

This does seem to be persistent. I added the Railway Herald and Modern Railways a about a week ago. I now notice that 31 December edition of Rail Magazine has it on the front cover. A google of javelin train gives the following recent news items:

and a website [Javelin Train]. I will wait and see if the British Olympic Association moves to protect its trademark. Edgepedia (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not SE are allowed to call the trains Javelins or not, they are known by most people as Javelins. This should be indicated near the start of the article in bold. Btline (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I did have a comment near the top about the name, but it was reverted out[1]. Because of the trademark issue, I do think it needs to be treated differently to say the Class 442 Wessex Electric, and not be in the header. I was going to see what happened over the year in the local press and railway press with this name before suggesting it went back in. Edgepedia (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect a lot of the coverage will be suspiciously similar to whatever Wikipedia says! There does seem a strong chance of "Javelin" becoming like hoover and sellotape etc. That Javelin Train website looks very unofficial, and at least some of its text appears to be taken from Wikipedia. Statements like "The new fleet of Hitachi Class 395 Javelin Trains will be able to accelerate rapidly to 140mph as part of the Eurostar service through the tunnel" don't inspire confidence. Wheeltapper (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would most definitely agree that this name should be mentioned prominently in the opening sentence of the article. As Btline has said, whether or not Southeastern can legally call these trains Javelins is completely irrelevant and so this edit puzzles me, particularly since it being trademarked by the Olympic organisers doesn't mean that Southeastern couldn't have been granted a license to use it. It looks certain that Southeastern's services for the games will be branded the Javelin and so it would seem pretty likely that they are going to or already have some kind of permission to use the name. The term Javelin has been used very widely now across numerous media articles and so it is appropriate to mention this as an alternative name for the class. When I attended the Hitachi depot at Ashford early last year on a visit to look at these new trains, a question was asked about the Javelin name and it was explained that this has no official standing from Hitachi's point of view. Adambro (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Adambro ... it was you that removed my edit explaining that these trains are sometimes called Javelins. [2]. I agree with Wheeltapper that Javelin does at the moment seem to be the same as sellotape and hoover. My thought is that if we refer to this train as a Javelin ... which we have enough reliable sources to do so (even the BBC gets it 'wrong'!), for balance we need to mention on this page that Javelin is a trademark of the BDA ... who speak in latest publications about the JavelinTM service taking people from Central London to Stratford. Edgepedia (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have to mentioned that the BDA have trademarked Javelin if we note that is a name often used to describe the trains? You suggest we do but I don't see why. I reverted that edit for that reason and also because it was already mentioned that Southeastern were going to operate the trains on HS1 and you had also added a circular link back to this page. It is right, perhaps not in the opening sentence though, to mention that the Javelin name comes from the service of that name they will operate but it seems unnecessary to say that Javelin is trademarked by the BDA. That doesn't suddenly mean that Javelin isn't a name used to refer to the trains themselves. Adambro (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of Wiki is to use common names.

In which case, Javelin should be near the top of the article. Legal or not, trademarked or not - people and articles call them Javelins.

If people are not happy, I am sure a note could be put at the bottom. Besides, Joe Bloggs who visits the page, won't bat an eyelid if the name is "not proper". Regards, Btline (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general principle, but I’m sceptical that a train which hasn’t even entered service actually has a common name. For a name to be common enough to justify giving it precedence over official ones, it needs to be known to more than just a couple of forums or the trainspotter community – otherwise, we’d quickly find ourselves with articles that said thinks like ‘A Shed is a type of locomotive…’. David Arthur (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be too concerned, I don't think anyone is suggesting with elevate "Javelin" to the same level as its official designation, the Class 395, rather simply mentioning it more prominently than it perhaps was. The "Javelin" name is much more significant than just being known within the rail trainspotter community, numerous media articles use it. Adambro (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just think it’s a bit early to be drawing conclusions about what the train’s common name is – to endorse one at this stage would potentially influence rather than just reflect people’s mode of discussing it. David Arthur (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
When this train was first announced back in 2007(?) I seem to remember Hitachi called it the Javlin. (note the spelling). 86.141.117.162 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I work alongside Hitachi engineers who maintain this stock, and it is only ever referred to as the 395, either in conversation, or in documentation. Southeastern do likewise. 2p0rk (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an interview with Keith Ludeman, chairman of Govia and Southeastern, in the October 2009 issue of The Railway Magazine, p23: "The 395s are branded and marketed as 'Southeastern High Speed' and Keith says the Olympic Delivery Authority gets a little upset if people call them 'Javelins' as that's the name the ODA will be using for the St Pancras-Stratford shuttle service during the Olympics. "However," he says, "we're going to name the sets after Olympians and one will be a javelin thrower, so I'm not sure what the public will call them!" He ruled out the possibility of South Eastern adopting its own catchy generic name for the class." Wheeltapper (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Miles per hour[edit]

Please remember that within Britain, by law, miles per hour is the primary measurement that the railways are measured by. Not Kilometers as one user is insisting. We've had this discussion over on the High Speed One talkpage, which is the only current exception. Kilometers are to be included obviously, but as the secondary measurement, not the primary, just like every other article regarding British-focused trains. While there may be some crying for a 'metricisation' or some such ideals, the primary measurements it was built by are the most accurate to use, it seems silly to put the kilometers first and then watch the covert code switch it back over (sometimes slightly inaccurately at that, making the statistics less accurate through needless extra conversion exercises). This shouldn't still be such a mystery to (re)solve. Kyteto (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (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.

British Rail Class 395[edit]

The name "Hitachi Class 395" is verifyable, and plain "Class 395" is also very common. I haven't got any reliable sources using "British Rail Class 395"

eg:

Use of "Hitachi Class 395" is not universal but used by many reliable sources, "Class 395 Javelin" and other names are also used, network rail seems to use just "Class 395" - is that what it should be called? I also found some uses of "Southeastern Class 395" Mddkpp (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The name is per the WP:UKRAIL naming convention - as the above section says, there was an attempt to change it but it never went anywhere. The general consensus was that it was the lesser of two evils to have an unverified naming system than to have a naming system which was frankly incoherent (find a Alstom Class 390, Bombardier Class 172, etc) or required annoying disambiguation (eg this may be Class 395, but the the 66 would be "Class 66 (British locomotive)", etc). The current system is in no way perfect, but it is at least easy to work out. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Further, if you wish to argue this - a change which will affect pretty much every UK railway article, do so at WT:UKRAIL. That is the place to suggest a new naming scheme, not here. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand there is some convention for the article names, I don't object to removing the disputed tag - but the article text must be correct - eg verifyable. I dont see any need to extend the odd naming into the text - it's misleading at least.
If the article text is left as "Class 395" that is correct and shouldn't be problematic either way. The actual title can be worked out later. Is that ok? (I've leaving it to you to remove the disputed tag)Mddkpp (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You want to call it "Class 395" within the article main body, fine, that's simply normal because the BR prefix is cumbersome for continued use. But given the title of the page is BRC, the and infobox should also say BRC - see also British Rail Class 60, British Rail Class 90, British Rail Class 158, British Rail Class 159, British Rail Class 165, British Rail Class 166, British Rail Class 168, British Rail Class 170, British Rail Class 171, British Rail Class 172, British Rail Class 175, British Rail Class 180, British Rail Class 220, British Rail Class 221, British Rail Class 222, British Rail Class 313, British Rail Class 314, British Rail Class 315, British Rail Class 316, British Rail Class 317, British Rail Class 318, British Rail Class 319, British Rail Class 320, British Rail Class 321, British Rail Class 322, British Rail Class 323, British Rail Class 332, British Rail Class 333, British Rail Class 334, British Rail Class 350, British Rail Class 377, British Rail Class 390, British Rail Class 458, British Rail Class 465, British Rail Class 466, British Rail Class 950, etc. There does seem to be some difference in whether to include BR in the lead descriptor. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not my problem that those might fail WP:VERIFY too - many wrongs doesn't make a right. I don't see how you can justify changing accurate information in the text to innnacurate information. Please change it back. Thank you.Mddkpp (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It was by concensus decided that while it wasnt perfect it was the best way to disambiguate from foreign classes with identical numbers, feel free to take the BR as short for British railways as many who accept that the BR class system has lost its namesake and is now an orphan system still used but without a universally agreed name choose to do. For consistency article title and infobox title should be the same but theres no requirement for its use in the text. Hitachi dont choose the class number its assigned to them, they refer to it as an A-train while the Javelin name comes from TfL. WatcherZero (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention. There is a discussion on the Javelin nickname above. Edgepedia (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't understand watcherzero's commet about BR - also Hitachi call it "Class 395" as to others eg - see links above. "A train" is just a brand name for a set of technologies - just about every train Hitachi makes is a "A train"
What name should be used in the text.?Mddkpp (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Within the next, call it Class 395. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reduction in journey times[edit]

Although the Southeastern website ("High Speeding To Success", www.southeasternrailway.co.uk, Southeastern, 14 Jun 2010 ) shows a saving of 47 minutes via HS1, this is not the reduction in time when the service was introduced, but a comparison with the (then) current timetable. Before December 2009, Ashford trains would reach Waterloo East in 57 minutes, with a stop at Tonbridge (this an small improvement from the early eighties where the schedule was 60 minutes non-stop), see any timetable of the period. The saving to a London terminus is therefore 20 minutes. However, We need be aware of WP:SYNTH before introducing such calculations. Edgepedia (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I completely accept what you say (I have put the info back in but in the clearer form you give above). I see that Southeastern's figures are going to be rose tinted, but the other "criticism" info after is a little negatively biased in the other direction - I think. Are the Southeastern figures very heavily massaged?
It would be better with a more balanced analysis of the real world benefits - from a independent source. If you can suggest one I am willing to add the text, but I'm not familiar enough to find one - publications from a genuine passenger user group would be helpful here - is there such a thing in Kent? Mddkpp (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Top speed[edit]

If you look at the sources for the top speed in the infobox one states 160km/h on "existing line" the other 160km/h on "third rail" whilst one states 225 for "new line", the other for "25kV overhead"

The question is : can/do the trains go faster than 160km/h outside the third rail zone, when on 25kV AC but not on HS1- does this ever happen?Oranjblud (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Afaict at least in normal service these trains only run on 25KV when they are running on HS1, all the "existing lines" they operate on are third rail.
I also find the 99 mph figure in the infobox highly suspiscious, I suspect it was really meant to be 100mph and got corrupted by rounding errors through multiple unit conversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5C0:1400:A:0:0:0:5D9 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The only line in the UK cleared for faster speeds than 125 mph is HS1. Speeds and distances in Great Britain are still largely in imperial units, expect for some lines such as HS1 where it is metric. The max speed of the Class 395 in DC mode is given as 160 km/h and this converts to 99.4 mph. Edgepedia (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The rounding 'error' can be fixed if you really want - eg see Template:convert for details, either use sigfig=2, or disp=5 . 160km/h is (obviously) not 100mph by definition, but by chance - it is just a common convention (and minor conceit) to equate the two. Some people are bothered by it and expect to see 160km/h,100mph, whilst others take an opposite view...Oranjblud (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Names[edit]

I added the a list of the names of the named trains, and removed the list, which was unreferenced.

Number Name
395 001 Dame Kelly Holmes Double Olympic Champion
395 002 Sebastian Coe Double Olympic Gold Medallist
395 003 Sir Steve Redgrave Five Time Olympic Gold Medallist
395 004 Sir Chris Hoy Triple Olympic Gold Medallist Beijing 2008
395 005 Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson 11 Paralympic Gold Medallist
395 006 Daley Thompson Double Olympic Gold Medallist
395 007 Steve Backley Double Silver Olympic Medallist
395 008 Ben Ainslie Triple Olympic Gold and Silver Medallist
395 009 Rebecca Adlington Double Olympic Gold Medallist Beijing 2008
395 010 Duncan Goodhew Olympic Gold Medallist and Bronze Medallist
395 011 Katherine Grainger Olympic Gold Medallist and Three Time Silver Medallist
395 012
395 013
395 014
395 015
395 016 Jamie Staff Olympic Champion Men's Team Sprint Beijing 2008
395 017 Dame Sarah Storey 22 Time Paralympic Medallist
395 018 Mo Farah Double Olympic Gold Medallist 5,000–m and 10,000–m'
395 019 Jessica Ennis Olympic Gold Medallist
395 020 Jason Kenny Triple Olympic Gold Medallist
395 021 Ed Clancy MBE Double Olympic Gold Medallist and Bronze Medallist
395 022 Alistair Brownlee Olympic Gold Medallist
395 023 Ellie Simmonds Four Time Paralympic Gold Medallist
395 024 Jonnie Peacock Paralympic Gold Medallist
395 025 Victoria Pendleton Two Time Olympic Gold Medallist and Silver Medallist
395 026 Marc Woods Four Time Paralympic Gold Medallist
395 027 Hannah Cockroft Double Paralympic Gold Medallist
395 028 Laura Trott Double Olympic Gold Medallist
395 029 David Weir Ten Time Paralympic Medallist

Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Original name[edit]

The links below have been added by someone anonymous. Hitachi called their new train "Javlin" without the 'e' when it was first introduced. As a spelling obsessive, I remember it particularly, and references can still be found using Google.

new --> bbc news article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/5108088.stm --> video - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

2.31.7.177 (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They were added with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 395. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 395. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)