Talk:British Rail Class 720

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Class 720 Derby.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Class 720 at Old Dalby test track.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RM-Oct-p101.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Start date

Can someone bring up a reliable source for it? SK2242 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple working allowed

The article states "multiple working within class but not allowed" with footnote 2 from 2020. This is wrong as the other day (April 2022) I was riding the train and have seen them connected together. I was able to Google an image of the class connected together https://www.flickr.com/photos/keith-v/50040690441 Jaffacakemonster53 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

As wikipedia is based on verifiable references from reliable sources WP:V & WP:RS we need to find a new source that contradicts the original source to show that it was wrong or the situation has changed. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Class 720/1

720105 entered service today on 0523 London Liverpool Street to Clacton-on-Sea. This is the first scheduled working of a Class 720/1 in passenger service, but I will wait until a credible source reports on this before editing the page. Just letting everyone know. (9/5/2022) 131.251.33.166 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Subclasses

I've been looking a little closer since the earlier edit removing subclass /1 and I'm now curious if there's anything supporting the fact that it exists after GA changed their order to be all 5-car. A number of sources - Rail Advent Oct 2020, Rail Engineer Feb 2021, and the ORR's authorisation - describe the 101-144 range quite clearly as being extensions or enlargements of the 720/5 order.

I am also unsure about the /6 subclass, as the line in the body "They will be classified as the Class 720/6, having originally been designated as the Class 711" actually only has cites supporting the "previously 711" bit, and the c2c-relevant cites elsewhere in the article are to physical magazines I can't access.

Knowing that subclass designations can easily be different from what the unit number would suggest (e.g. Classes 158 and 317), is anybody able to come up with any clarity? XAM2175 ^(T) 16:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The ORR authorisation for the c2c units was issued last week confirming them to be Class 720/6, but I've still not seen anything either way on 720/1. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Bombardier/Alstom

Anyone know what the difference is here - Bombardier Aventra and Alstom Aventra? When did this split/merge become more apparent? Personally I thought it was just Bombardier... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the boundary is "who owned the company when they were built"? Turini2 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur with @Turini2. Alstom completed their acquisition of Bombardier on 29 January 2021. There doesn't need to be a big deal made about it; all they've done is the equivalent of walking in and starting to slap "Alstom" stickers over things that used to say "Bombardier". XAM2175 ^(T) 13:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Is/was

Should say c2c's fleet was due to be introduced in 2022. It's 2023 now. I altered it, but someone altered it back. Cardinal 1962 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see your edit in the page history… Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My London source

Courtesy pinging @10mmsocket and @Arjayay

Should the typo in the source title be corrected or left with a sic label? I’d be of the opinion that Arjayay was correct in correcting the obvious typo… having a read through WP:SIC, I stumble across the remark “… insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically).” Since the typo isn’t materially significant to the cite, shouldn’t we just correct the obvious typo and leave be? Danners430 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I initially changed the spelling, assuming it was as per the correctly spelled URL, which I have to admit, I did not check. If there was an archived version of the reference, I would fully agree with correcting the spelling. However, as there is not, if the spelling is "silently corrected", and the current source becomes a deadlink, anyone trying to find a copy would be searching for the text under the corrected, rather than the actual, title. In these circumstances, I think the [sic] is useful, as it alerts any searchers that the misspelled title is the one it originally appeared under. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

But we're not correcting the URL - only the title… that doesn't create a dead link Danners430 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My point is if "the current source becomes a deadlink" - Arjayay (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, misread it. I mean, adding an archive link takes no time at all… Danners430 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

… and done Danners430 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've had trouble trying to create archive links in the past, or I would have done so. However, if you add an archived link, I fully agree to the spelling being "silently corrected" - Arjayay (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at Internet Archive Bot, which is what I used to generate the archive link Danners430 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - my problem was about 12 years ago - I'm sure things have got better, but "once bitten, twice shy" - I think this is now resolved - Arjayay (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No strong opinion either way! No issues with what you've done. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll set it back to the corrected title then, if Arjayay hasn't already done so :) Danners430 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)