Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Docklands Light Railway rolling stock 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

Archives: 1: 90 days

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Trains Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Transport High‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

P86/P89 stock retirement reasons?

Can you tell me the P86/P89 retirement reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clrichey: Contained in the article - P86 because they weren't fireproofed (and therefore couldn't go to Bank), P89 because they were unsuitable for the higher demand of the system (they had slow opening doors). Easier to replace them with a complete new fleet - the B90/B92/B2K trains. Please remember to sign your comments WP:SIG Turini2 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was GEC-General Signal project engineer for the DLR technical systems 1985 - 1991. The P86 were built to the fire safety standards current for surface operation at the time. They were not capable of multiple-unit operation, but fully in line with the capacity required (1500 pax/dir/h) by the original specifications of the DLR. For the extension to Bank and the 8-fold increase in capacity required by the 1987 upgrade contract, vehicles capable of running as 2-unit trains were necessary. These also had to comply with the new fire safety standards for tunnel operations that came into force as a consequence of the King's Cross underground station fire. These standards were implemented in the P89 stock that was built by BREL under licence from and using components supplied by LHB. Retrofitting the P86 stock was carefully considered but found to be prohibitively expensive. The internal trims would have had to be completely renewed. Therefore, the P86 stock was confined to Tower Gateway services until such time as new stock could be obtained while P89 was used on the Bank extension. A further consideration leading to the withdrawal of P86 and P89 stock was the decision to convert the entire DLR to the high-capacity SELTRAC moving block signalling system.

The "B" builds of DLR stock have an evacuation ramp built into their ends, allowing their use in tunnels that do not have a side walkway at vehicle floor height. 2003:E9:F73D:8300:D9A3:288F:21A5:6DA8 (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(fyi we can't use this information in the article as per Wikipedia:No original research) Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery?

Having just removed an image from the gallery that was already used to illustrate the prose, I'm actually wondering what benefit the gallery itself is bringing to this article? What are we illustrating there that is both encyclopaedic and not illustrated elsewhere? Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you - in terms of retaining the photos

"P86 stock fitted with pantograph" is interesting but probably more relevant in a Manchester Metrolink article
Probably don't need both Essen photos in the article - and replace one of them with one of the shots of B90/B92/B2K.
the shot of the B09 is better than the B07 in the gallery
Poplar depot shot better in the Poplar DLR depot

Turini2 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 30 timestamp wrong

Source 30 is linked in section "Problems experienced" for hunting issues. It has the wrong timestamp. The link to the external video contains a timestamp to second 600, but the hunting issue is mentioned starting from second 398 --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfQEyU75wNQ&t=398s 129.247.247.239 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual operation

In the lead we currently have the wording "The automation system is a GoA3 driverless system, which requires a Passenger Service Agent (PSA) to operate the doors and, when necessary, manually drive the train." which is more accurate than the old version "[...] which allows a Passenger Service Agent (PSA) to operate the doors and manually drive the train when required." but rather clumsy. The wording needs to convey that:

Door operation is always manual
Driving the train is normally automatic, but can be done manually when required. "When required" is all the time in depots, and can be at any time elsewhere (e.g. first trains of the day, during high winds, when staff are working alongside the track) but that's too much detail for the lead.

Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]