Talk:British Rail Class 153

Interior photos

Would be nice with an interior image too, not only exteriors. Also, the capasity of 75, is that seated passengers, or does this include standing passengers? Greswik (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

75 refers to the number of seats. There is no set limit on the number of standing passengers allowed, though health & safety, and passengers' unwillingness to travel in cramped conditions usually means that the physical capacity is never reached in service.

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah right, about the last one - the 1559 to Peterborough at Lincoln is so crammed, passengers have to stand in the back cab. ACBestDog and Bone 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

153s only have 72 seats according to railfaneurope.net 94.192.241.209 (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some pretty awful photos in this piece

I have edited the page to remove a few of the worst photographs - the top image was off the edge of the frame and completely failed to illustrate that the the units were single-car. There is a good selection of 153 images in Wikimedia Commons which might be even better and I will put up the best images when I get time. Not sure the lengthy details about each unit on the image captions are to necessary either so I will reduce these. R-T-C (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 153s look that dreadful that you can't get good images of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.77.135 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Current operations

This is not an acceptable section for an encyclopedia.

The absence of historical context (ie full work history) is the problem - does anyone have any such information or links to such information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox exterior photo

I would agree with CrossHouses that File:153328 Doncaster.JPG is a better image than File:153329 and 142 Paignton.JPG for the infobox since it shows more of the train, is easier to understand because the Class 153 unit isn't coupled to anything else, and the angle, more side on than front on, is better. I note that Peter has reinstated the other image, commenting that "exterior image matches interior image", but I don't see why it would be necessary for both images to show the same unit. Adambro (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Adambro - the File:153328 Doncaster.JPG image is clearer to those unfamiliar with the class. As the class is almost unique (amongst trains in revenue service) in that the trains consist of only one carriage I think it's best to use an image which demonstrates this best. The descriptions for each image can state that the interior shown is for a FGW unit and the exterior is a Northern unit. NRTurner (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a third option. File:153368 C Bristol Temple Meads.JPG, currently used in the Operations:South West section, shows that the train is one carriage long AND matches the interior image. Its place in the South West section could be taken by File:153329 and 142 Paignton.JPG so that it isn't removed from the article altogether. With a bit of luck this should be acceptable to both editors. What does anyone else think? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the Doncaster one - frankly I think the Bristol shot is rather grainy, not to mention that the sky is very overexposed. Or how about this one I took up at Blaenau Ffestiniog a few years back? May need a bit of cropping. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer File:153368 C Bristol Temple Meads.JPG option, as then the exterior shot will match with the interior shot, as well as showing the fact that it is one carriage long. --Peter Skuce (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Doncaster one shows the length perfectly well, and is a better photo. It really doesn't matter if the carpet matches the drapes in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and side note, I cropped the Temple Meads one, it really had way too much sky. It's still very noisy though - despeckle just made it look worse. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the interior shot for Northern Rail Class 153 in the infobox and placed the First Great Western interior on the webpage. I hope and trust that all parties agree with this. --Peter Skuce (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the FGW interior shot, but ok. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a good solution. The only problem is that the Northern England section now has just one picture when it previously had three. Perhaps it's worth adding one more from Commons. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added File:153304 at Doncaster.JPG from Commons to the article as I feel this makes it look better. Hope everyone is OK with this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A what?

Isn't a "Single Car Diesel Multiple Unit" a contradiction in terms? Wouldn't this actually be considered a Railcar or Railbus? --66.149.58.8 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a way I suppose, but I always figured that the multiple part referred to the ability to work in tandem with other units. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Multiple Unit just meant that all the power units were held within the passenger cars rather than in a separate locomotive, which is why fixed-formation locomotive/carriage combinations such as the British Rail Class 43 don't qualify. "Single Car Multiple Unit" does sound a bit weird but it appears to be a widely used term. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See Multiple unit. David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The definition seems to make it clear that the class 153 is a Multiple Unit, as per what Mattbuck said. Thanks for clearing that up. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read Multiple unit (thanks David) I stand corrected.and withdraw my objection! --66.149.58.8 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Am tempted to add "or Railcar" since it meets that definition aswell Enotayokel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IMAGES!

OK can we try to keep a hat on the images. Using too many in the body of the article causes them to cascade down - these are called "stack ups" and believe me they look a mess :)

See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Avoiding_stack-ups

What I've done is collect as many livery images into a gallery to avoid this. This leaves a fair amount of space for interior images. So that is good yes. Please avoid "stack ups" though. Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 153s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 153. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 153. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103010722/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_155.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_155.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Class 153 conversion

Dear Redrose 64 I'm completely baffled by the editing rules and hope you might be able to help. My problem is on the Class 153 Trains. The webpage information is incorrect and I cannot figure out a way of correcting it. My specific issue is that the builder and location of the Class 153 build are incorrect. (It states that Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock did the conversion). I know thats wrong because it was me personally who was the Works Manager and the Project Manager. Thus there can be no higher authority on the subject than me. The work was done by Leyland Bus (Rail Service dept.) at Workington. Could you offer any suggestions on how I might make the correction. Yours sincerely John Wood (jwoch on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jwoch: As I am sure you recall, you have brought this matter up on several previous occasions, and I refer you to the replies at: User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17#British Rail Class 153; User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19#Class 153 DMU; User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 20#Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington NOT Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock; and Wikipedia:Teahouse#Incorrect personal information. It is also on record at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources.

In short: you must follow the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington NOT Hunslet Barclay

There are two other Wikipedia references which are CORRECT, vis

1) Wikipedia "talk" page on 'British Rail Class 153' 2) Porterbrook leasing Class 153 Data Sheet. See also the Porterbrook website.

regards JW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Class 153

The vehicles owner is Porterbrook Leasing. The Class 153 data sheet on their website gives the correct details. Jwoch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jwoch: You are clearly ignoring the many replies that I have left previously. There is therefore no reason for me to offer you any more advice. Please stay off this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I beg your continued attention. The correct information is contained in two sources: 1) Porterbrook.co.uk - their internet page 2) Porterbrook leasing Class 153 Data Sheet. (on their website) Would somebody, who knows how, make the corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Regards JW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jwoch: You have been testing my patience for several years. Henceforth, you will discuss the matter here and nowhere else, certainly not at User talk:Redrose64. If you post there again, your edits will be reverted without comment, and without even the courtesy of being transferred here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Where the conversions were performed

There appears to be an ongoing dispute as to whether the conversion work was performed by Hunslet-Barclay at Kilmarnock or Leyland Bus at Workington. Three independent publications (Railway Gazette International, The Railway Magazine and Today's Railways) have stated it was performed at the former. Maybe this is incorrect, but per WP:VNT, the article should reflect this until reliable sources can be produced to contradict this. Meinpein (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done for finding the extra references. I have reinstated the earlier reference from the ROSCO which confirms the same information. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The only person trying to expunge Hunslet-Barclay is Jwoch (talk · contribs) (and their various IP addresses). Their latest post to my user talk page illustrates, in conjunction with the thread directly above it, that they are unwilling to read any of my replies, instead preferring to start a new section as if it is an entirely fresh dispute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)