Talk:British Rail Class 77

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Rail Class 77 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks references.

Article split

Copied from Dunc|☺'s talk:

Thanks for writing the article on British Rail Class 77. I noticed you also incorporated the NS 1500 Class as well. I would probably be tempted to write separate articles, as this will allow more detail on each of their respecitive careers to be added without confusion, and also allow the correct categorisation. What do you think? As a note, 1501/E27003 (in Holland) and 1502/E27000 (in UK) have also been preserved. I will upload a photo of E27000 later tonight. Our Phellap 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally opposed to a split, but I think that there are benefits in having an artice of the current length as one, and the article must organically grow until such point that it is too big to be one until it becomes two. Dunc|☺ 11:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the separate articles are a good idea as they're in service with different companies. However, the categories, since the Class 77 were never as such in NS stock, and similarly the 1500 Class were never as such in BR stock. A parent category could be created I suppose. --Tony May (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible table colour scheme

I put the colour scheme in the table to make it immediately more obvious which locos have been scrapped and which preserved. It is the standard as used in other articles, e.g. Class 73, 86, 87.... Our Phellap 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're ghastly too and should go (atleast there isn't the yellows and reds as used there). The standard table colour looks much more professional, and the horrid colours are distracting rather than informative. — Dunc|☺ 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are not a visual learner then? Colour coding usually helps to make information more accessible. Feel free to make the colours paler (pastel shades perhaps) but I would not advocate removing them. Our Phellap 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motors

I believe that the Class 76 had conventional series-wound motors but the Class 77 had separately-excited (sepex) motors with the field current supplied by a motor-generator. This was probably the first use of sepex motors on a British locomotive. Sepex (with computer control) was later used on diesel-electrics, such as British Rail Class 60. I have not been able to find a reference to sepex for the Class 77. Can anyone help? Biscuittin (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I have read that these locomotives had bogies (trucks) identical (|or nearly so) to those of the LMS diesel Co-Co locos 10000 & 10001. Is this true? Were the names removed before or after sale to NS? Livery changes could be added to the table. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]