PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Trains Portal

This template 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This template is supported by the Locomotives task force.

United Kingdom

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom

TFD

This template was nominated for deletion, but did not have consensus to delete. Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005. However, given its sheer size it may be worth considering to split it or convert it to a list. R adiant _* 09:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there any reason this template doesn't make use of the Navigation template? --Dean Earley 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign proposal

I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page.

I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other.

I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here.

--Jorvik 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the change in layout is a good plan. However, I've taken the liberty of using more "standard" colours... the cyan was a bright and intrusive IMO. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tompw about the colours, the DMU/EMU templates should be changed to match this one. Have also taken the liberty of adding non-breaking spaces, so that links do not appear across a line break. EdJogg 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have implemented the redesign following no objections --Jorvik 09:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change the colouring of the British Rail related templates to Rail Blue?

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to change the template's colour scheme to BR's Rail Blue (#0B4559) or a relevant variation thereof? The current wikipedia standard is acceptable, but a change may increase identifiablilty, whilst also (if done to all BR-related templates) unifying the templates under one theme. GARETHenterprises© 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class 41 warship

The template lists two class 41 articles, one for the HST prototype and one for the unbuilt class. What about the early warship design? They were withdrawn long before the 42s and never carried TOPS numbers. Some info and a picture are here [1] (just under the Hymeks). Tom walker (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early Warship design were never assigned a TOPS class. According to the TOPS article BR was introduced to TOPS in a 1968 presentation, the five early Warships were withdrawn in late 1967. Therefore to call them class 41 is not accurate. 68.147.37.149 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you at Talk:British Rail Class 41 (Warship Class)#Correct Page Title. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre TOPS numbers

Could somoene add the relavent info to the articles (which are mostly by TOPS number) giving the previous BR code.

eg BR Class 33 is linked to by D15/1 and D15/2 , but there is no mention of this in the artilce. I didn't find an explanation in British Rail locomotive and multiple unit numbering and classification either. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not pre-TOPS numbers, but pre-TOPS classifications devised by the Eastern & North Eastern Regions. They are listed in most editions of the Ian Allan "abc of Diesel Locomotives" (and the Combined Volume near the end of the Diesel locos section) from about 1960 until 1968. From 1969, the table was dropped, and TOPS classifications were given at the head of each class; prior to 1959/60, only shunting locos were classified (codes begin "DY", "DJ" or "DEJ"); again, Ian Allan showed them at the head of each class.

The codes beginning "D" (and not DY, DJ or DEJ) were introduced some time between February 1959 and March 1960. For the BRCW Type 3, latterly known as Class 33, these classifications were D15/1 for the standard locos D6500-85), and D15/2 for the narrow-body locos D6586-97. The "15" prior to the stroke denoted a loco of engine power between 1500 and 1599 bhp; the "1" and "2" merely variants. These codes were superseded some time between September 1961 and August 1962 by codes which did not begin "D". These locos became 15/6 (standard) 15/6A (narrow); again, the "15" indicated the power range, but the "6" meant that the main contractor was BRCW, and the letter "A" indicates the variant. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary: the initial TOPS classification was Class 33 for the unmodified locos (whether normal or narrow), and Class 34 for those push-pull fitted. By early 1970 these had been revised to 33/1 (normal), 33/2 (push-pull), 33/3 (narrow), before being revised again to the familiar 33/0 (normal), 33/1 (push-pull), 33/2 (narrow) round about the time of the start of TOPS renumbering (1973). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locos

If this is a navigation guide to British railway locomotives built after nationalisation, where are all the steam locos, especially the BR standards? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]