Jump to content

Talk:British Rail Class 180

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBritish Rail Class 180 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
January 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Naming convention[edit]

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


What needs to be done to clean up this article? --Fuelboy 13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future operations[edit]

Regarding use on TransPennine Express Manchester to Scotland services - the units will not be able to run at 125mph on this route, as non-tilt rolling stock on the WCML is limited to 110mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future operations[edit]

Regarding Northern, they currently have 2 units and will get a 3rd. The quote that Northern is currently training its driver trainers is pretty common sense really and does not require citation in my opinion. Who else will train the drivers to drive the trains apart from the driver trainers? I added the "Northern" bit on. This was purely fact based and was edited by someone with relevant citation. Since then, things have been edited again and items deleted for no reason. ( (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

So, are any 180s actually in use right now?[edit]

The article doesn't tell me. All we have are statements that trains "were to be used" or are proposed to be used. As I write this, are any 180s in regular passenger-carrying service? (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3 with FGW. These will go once a EMT HST arrives. Btline (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And will there be any in service anywhere once that HST arrives? Basically, what I'm asking for is something a bit more concrete than proposals. If there isn't anything more concrete, then that should be said. I ought to be able to look at this article at any time and get an idea of where this train is being used right now. (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states (or at least did once) that all Adelantes will be withdrawn from FGW once the EMT HST arrives later this year. To be honest, nothing much has been confirmed so it is all speculation anyway! Btline (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now 2 with Hull Trains, 3 with First Great Western and two driver training at Northern.-- (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

northern rail[edit]

northern has 4 class 180 in warm storage at present with a viev to using them on services to huddersfield, manchester airport and blackpool they will operate from the manchester and liverpools depots if they come into service, at present they are being held back as they are in discussions with aslef over training and safety issues of the units. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've reorganised the article, addding some stuff and also removing some stuff to. Operations are now by region, there are new sections for technical stuff.

Some of the links are problematic and have gone dead - Train operating companies tend to spring clean their websites it seems...

The article probably needs more references (it does).

Hope the tidy meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section makes some claims regarding reliability of the units, as well as other uncited info. such as what FGW planned to do.

It would be helpful if whoever added it could provide references - as we can't just write what companies intentions were without references - as far as I know all this could have been made up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 FGW units[edit]

removed this from the end of British_Rail_Class_180#South-West_England ie http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_180&diff=280116275&oldid=280105482

"The final 3 units went off-lease on 27th March 2009."

I understand this must be about the 3 FGW western units - but what exactly does 'off lease mean' does it mean they are inactive, or moved somewhere else - also references please ..FengRail (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Inaccuracy[edit]

The figures in the section titled 'Fleet Details' (between 'Future Operations' and 'References') is, I believe, inaccurate.

I added up the number of Class 180s listed (6 + 3 + 2 + 2) which only came to 13 yet the 'information pane' on the fleet says there are 14 Class 180s, not 13.

I'm not a total expert on Wikipedia but I'm certain that I haven't missed anything in the article to say that 1 isn't around or anything.

Any chance someone could please look into this?

Many Thanks!

TXC (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that trainset number 180101 is unaccounted for. NRTurner (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Rail Class 180/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • The "Coradia (train)" link at the top is not appropriate; it is fine to say that this class is derived from Coradia, but not formatted like this.
  • The first sentence is far too long, and doesn't even have a comma. At minimum, move the location of production somewhere else.
  • The second sentence makes it seem like the class is no longer in use.
  • "Adelante" and "Zephyrs" should be in boldface, in addition to being in italics
  • The lead is very short, and does not summarize the article. Among other things, it completely lacks technical details (that it is fair to allow a disproportional amount of the lead space, in relation to the relative space in the body).
  • Ranges need to be specified with an endash (–), not a hyphen (-).
  • The specifications lacks a number of information I am expecting. In particular, there is no mention of the unit being five-car. Other information lacking in the body—it is not sufficient that it is also found in the infobox—is number of bogies (particularly now that Jacobs bogie have become popular, this is critical information), the number of powered axles (is there one motor per axle or is there one motor that drives both axles on the same bogie), the power output of each motor, maximum speed and safety systems. Acceleration would be nice, as would information on running in multiple, but this information is not always easy to get, so it is not necessary if not available.
  • "hydrodynamic braking" should link to "dynamic braking"
  • The table under fleet should be converted to prose. I am uncertain what is meant by driving motor and intermediate motor. These should not be capitalized.
  • The "fleet" section is very short; I would personally have merged "description" into just one header, but I'll leave this up to the authors. In general, I feel there is a more than ideal number of sections.
  • After fragments indicating dates, such as "In 2008," always end with a comma.
  • "high speed trains" currently redirect to "high-speed rail". Make this dab to the right place.
  • Numbers from ten (optionally twelve) and down should always be written out, unless to avid style mix with larger digital numbers.
  • "10 car" should have a hyphen (10-car).
  • If "Grand Northern" has never been used as a brand name, I don't think it is likely there will ever be an article about it, so delink it.
  • The information under "fleet details" shouldn't be in parenthesis.
  • The article lacks background information on how the class came to be and was ordered, and how it related to the other Coradia trains.
  • Large parts of the article are unreferenced.
  • Ref 10, 16, 17 and 18 are dead.

There is fair amount to work on here; once this is done I will take a final look at it, and it should then be pretty close to passing GAN. Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been on hold for five weeks, and several significant issues have yet to be addressed (although the article is better now than before the review). Since there are no comments here and still unresolved issues (most importantly unreferenced claims), I am failing the article. Feel free to renominate after all issues have been seen too. Arsenikk (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of references have been added since you reviewed the article. Which claims in particular would you say still need some? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular the last part of "First Hull Trains", the first two paragraphs under "Grand Central" and most of "First Great Western". There is also the issue of dashes and a table which should be converted to prose (along with an explanation of "intermediate motor"). It is normal during a GAN that if the author disagrees or wants to comment any of the aspects of the reviewers comments (reviewers aren't perfect either) that notes are made in the /GA1 talk page. Similarly a note there (and/or at the reviewers talk page) when the article is "finished" with respect to changed related to the review. It is generally courteous to make a note on the talk page if the nominator will be prohibited from working on the article within the first week of the review. If you are new to the process, you may not have realized this, so keep it in mind to the next time. Otherwise, fixed up the article following all the points above and renominate it at GAN, and someone will look at it again, because it is close to being passed now. Arsenikk (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know any of this until you mentioned it here. It sounds like I messed up pretty badly - sorry about that. Regarding the missing references, I can see your point regarding Grand Central and Hull Trains, but I don't agree with you about First Great Western. The main body of text in the section has plenty of references, and it's debatable whether a list of routes operated really needs them. It could be possible to reference some of the points in the other sections to back issues of RAIL magazine, as I did for the Background section, but this could prove difficult for FGW, and reliable web-based sources are almost non-existent. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The article says

"Grand Central renamed their units as Zephyrs leading some enthusiasts to nickname the units A to Z.[5]"

However this statement doesn't seem to be consistent with the only reference to Zephyr I can find on the Grand Central web site, which in the launch edition of the Grand Central Magazine says quite clearly that Zephyr is a named train (the 0641 departure from Sunderland).


"Grand Central runs two named trains. The Zephyr leaves from Sunderland on Monday-Friday mornings at 06:41. The northbound departure at 16.50 runs as The 21st Century Limited. The naming is a homage to the American 20th Century Limited, now run as the Lake Shore Limited by Amtrak between New York and Chicago."

I would simply have removed the claim, but it is supported by a reference so I'm reluncant to do so immediately. Is anyone here in a position to verify the reference to Today's Railway? Roy Badami (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen Today's Railways but I see other railway magazines and I don't think I have seen any suggestion there or anywhere else that these trains are now being called Zephyrs. As you say, it seems to be a confusion with one of Grand Central's named trains. I am inclined to delete the sentence altogether unless somebody comes up with an authoritative quote. Alarics (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I was reluctant to delete this straight off is that a reference was given, which I haven't had the opportunity to check. I am highly skeptical of the claim, though, even if it was reported in the railway press. Given the Grand Central literature I cite above that clearly identifies Zephyr as a named train, and given no one has expressed an opinion to the contrary, I'm going to remove this claim from the article.Roy Badami (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can always re-insert later it if it turns out to be true after all. Alarics (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably the right approach. Even if it's true it shouldn't be in the lead anyway, but under "Grand Central". Alzarian16 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 180s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article[edit]

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 180. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 180. 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:

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) 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast services[edit]

I removed some content from the East Coast section because the sentence was not supported by the given reference. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The you'll be going nowhere meme[edit]

On social media platforms, there is a meme about the Class 180 called 'You'll be going nowhere'. This meme originated from the Class 180 Faults and Failures video made by Spa Films in 2003, presented by Paul Tyreman. Since it was on UTube, people started using the you'll be going nowhere meme. Should this be a section for this page? 2A00:23C7:8D0E:1001:4C85:5A3C:4B77:B1A6 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It could be placed into an “In popular culture” section of the article. Slender (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've now twice removed the claims of unit 180110 being shortened to 4 cars as both instances of these claims being added were unsourced. I don't care that the claim is included, as long as a reliable source is provided. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 21:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that @Mattdaviesfsic‎ has located a reliable source in a Railways Illustrated article, that doesn't go against WP:UGC. Danners430 (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Recently the article was the subject of a heavy edit that introduced 10k of text. While much of it was good, it also did introduce some text that was excessive, notably to the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the section should summarize the main points not get bogged down in detail. That is what the body is for. Other examples are verbosity, e.g. prefacing train operators with train operating company, open-access operator etc, not necessary when there is a linked article. Not suggesting my edits are by any means the finished article, but there was (and remains) some editing required. Iemeer18 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things are better in your second go through, though I strongly would have encouraged (as per WP:BRD) that when reverted, a discussion (e.g. involving more than just one person) should have taken place on the article talk page before shoving almost all of the same content back in, as that's dangerously close to edit warring. Try to be careful on this point.
The original lead you advocated for was positively anorexic - it completely avoided many key points (not an word on the unreliability issues that saw multiple operators troubled or even outright reject the type, for one). WP:LEAD, which you've already raised, recommends that an article with more than 30,000 characters (which this is) should have lead of three to four paragraphs - you were originally pushing for one paragraph for the lead, which is way too tiny by the very guidance you've raised but seemingly have overlooked. My version, in comparison, was three paragraphs (on the smaller side of the '3 to 4' guidance) and was modelled on that of the Class 158's lead of a similar size and scope. And I will dispute that proposed operators should never be mentioned, as per one of your edit reasons - there are plenty of other articles where this is the case.
We shouldn't have to open up other articles, even linked ones, to understand something as basic as what an organisation does. It takes one to two words to mention that Angel Trains isn't an operator, but a leasor, while Hull Trains (identical name styling, so one could easily think they're another leasor) is a train operator. If that's verbosity, I'm guilty and won't deny that.
I'd really appreciate it if, when adding new cites, there was an attempt to keep the style consistent, as per WP:CITEVAR. Before it was a random mashing of various styles, every cite was consistently redone into the majority styling - and you've proceeded to break that uniformity against policy. Please try to keep this consistency, it is policy.
I'm not understanding some of the removals (not 'copyediting', outright removal), for instance, the background section no longer had a word about that sister company just so happening to order closely relate, near identical units around the exact same time - it was good for contrast as to what was similar, and different between the two types; particularly its higher speed - it also made for an interesting contrast as the class 175, until the Class 180, hasn't suffered such underwhelmingly terrible reliability. The 'background' section is positively anemic - compare that against that of the class 175's background section, or many other rolling stock articles. There was more detail, its been removed, and that's not just copyediting, and the edit summaries don't explain this. It really should have been explained before edit warring. Kyteto (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By reinstating the lead as it was, multiple errors have been reinstated, e.g. Starting in 2009, Grand Central also leased several Class 180s to replace its Intercity 125s, incorrect as Grand Central operated InterCity 125s until 2017. There are numerous others.
Some of the text is padded out with no benefit. It should be concise and to the point. Examples are:
  • produced by the French transportation company Alstom. The fleet was manufactured at Alstom's facility in Washwood Heath, Birmingham, between 2000 and 2001 on behalf of the train operating company First Great Western. This can be written more tightly as produced by Alstom at its Washwood Heath factory in 2000/01 for First Great Western.
  • In October 1997, it was announced that FGW had placed an order, this can be written more tightly as In October 1997, FGW placed an order
  • undertook the replacement of, a long winded way of saying replaced
There is no need to preface every company that has a linked article with 'train operating company' etc or what country it is headquartered in, much like there is no need to preface every mention of ExxonMobil with 'American oil corporation' or Tesco with 'supermarket'. A reader who is unsure will be able to find out what the company does by hovering over the article without opening it.
There is no need to cite anything in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, as it is (or should be) cited in the body.
The comparison with the 175s is of limited value, not as if they were part of the same order or have ever operated together, FirstGroup just happened to place two orders with the same manufacturer.
Kyteto, for all of your complaining about lack of information in edit summaries, you continue to make massive edits with one word summaries of 'redraft'. Do as I say and not as I do? Iemeer18 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note again that the talk page should have been engaged before edit warring against the consensus of multiple editors at this point.
Starting in 2009, Grand Central also leased several Class 180s to replace its Intercity 125s, incorrect" From my perspective, you're incorrect on it being incorrect. GC operated 125s, started bringing in 180s, the 125s went away, the 180s took on all the routes that the 125s did - the 180s, in the very definition of the word 'replace', replaced the 125s. Just because it wasn't instantaneous and there was a period of side-by-side running doesn't change that, gradually, GC got in 180s and dumped their 125s to exclusively use those 180s to do everything the 125s did. You're claiming the lead is asserting the transition happened the millisecond that the first 180 arrived, which is a strawman exaggeration - many transitions take years to execute, how many years did it take for the GWR's SuperExpresses to replace (most of, a portion of the fleet is still running!) the 125s? Or, are you arguing that that this replacement programme wasn't a replacement at all as there was so many years between the first arrival and today with GWR 125s still rolling around? This argument is pedantic and disingenuous.
"In October 1997, it was announced that FGW had placed an order, this can be written more tightly as In October 1997, FGW placed an order" Sure, if we ignore the need to cite that to be true. These kind of contracts are commonly negotiated for months, or even years. Are we certain that the order was placed at the same time as its announcement to the public? It might sound asinine, but yes - this happens, I can give examples of planes and trains where the announcement of the order came a long time, even years, after the actual placement. Some customers don't want to be quick to shout out the deal until the project's sufficiently advanced and shown itself to be working to schedule. So, if we're to go beyond the evidence to say something simpler that the cite doesn't support, we're going to need new material that supports that. Kyteto (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"such like there is no need to preface every mention of ExxonMobil with 'American oil corporation' or Tesco with 'supermarket'" That's a bit of a strawman argument - I wasn't prefacing this on every mention, just the first mention. Please don't exaggerate. And ExxonMobile and Tesco are far more well known and obvious as to who they are. Is it as obvious that Angel Trains is a leasor, or that Hull Trains (same naming convention) is not a fellow leasor but a train operator? One shouldn't have to open up other articles to establish something so basic that can be qualified in one or two words on the first mention. Kyteto (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The comparison with the 175s is of limited value" In your opinion, yes. My opinion is different. Why did they bother ordering the 180, and not just more 175s? Developing a separate design, with an entirely different powerplant, and waste millions on separately certifying it? And why when they were so closely related did the performance one stink to high heaven while the other sailed by relatively unscathed? The two have been inherently compared and contrasted between. On the matter of its inclusion, I'm happy to leave it to a matter of consensus (which is what this whole matter should be more or less settled by, not edit wars and explaination-free reverts), which is currently leaning in favour of keeping it by my count. Kyteto (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" you continue to make massive edits with one word summaries of 'redraft'. Do as I say and not as I do?" Yep, you got that right. Because of context. A non-controversial edit on a completely unrelated article is completely uncomparable with say, an editor reverting recently added content with exactly zero words in their reasoning. Something as controversial as outright contradiction should have an explanation. Not every edit holds that controversy, or the expectation of a decent explanation. Or to simply put it, I'll take my one word edits over your zero word edits any day. In one sentence: Reverting other editors, especially multiple, ought to be explained in length, while many non-controversial edits don't need a lengthy explanation - you surely know this yourself. Kyteto (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Midlands??[edit]

On EMR’s website they have the 180 listed under their fleet, do they need to be added here as an operator? >> https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity RJ2677 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, somebody at EMR needs to remember to take it off their website. XAM2175 (T) 19:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]