Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)

Why is this a separate article from "Intercity 125"?

It’s the same train PixelatedVolume (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I now see one is about the power cars and one is about the train. Still feels like an unnecessary duplication to me. PixelatedVolume (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would agree they should be merged - as you say, unnecessary duplication. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree. Be bold. Merge them. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree - Intercity 125 is about the development and service of the train and concept, and how it changed British Rail intercity services. British Rail Class 43 (HST) is specifically about the class of locomotive which powers the IC125, which is worthy of a separate article. As an example, see British Rail Class 91 and Intercity 225. Danners430 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Great point. I wonder therefore if the confusion comes about because some articles link to Class 43 when they should be linking to Intercity 125 and vice versa. I'll do some digging. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We actually have three articles that overlap significantly, and there have been sseveral merger proposals in the past. Have a look at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)/Archive 1, Talk:British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 and Talk:InterCity 125. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think all three should be merged, same with the 91 and 225 articles. If they don't get merged, the information in both should be revised so that the 125 article is specifically about the intercity service and train formations, and the 43 article should be revised so that it is only about the class 43 power cars. The class 253, 254 and 255 page could be merged with the intercity 125 page, as much of the information about passenger cars is fairly similar. Butler2679 (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think they should not be merged since the Intercity 125 is more of branding, where as the Class 253, 254 & 255 is more history and formations. And If the Island Line gets three different articles for then the HST should keep its Intercity 125 and Class 253, 254 & 255 articles separate and also Intercity 125 does not really refer to the Castle sets or Inter7cites which the Class 253, 254 & 255s refer to.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

NOT a merge proposal...

So, this article clearly overlaps with InterCity 125 and British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255. This is not a merge proposal but - in a way - a more general discussion about the purposes and focuses of these three articles. This article (which is probably the most watched/searched for/read out of the three - I'm not too bothered about the stats in all fairness!) and the third deal with TOPS classifications, while the second deals with the IC125 more broadly (from what I can gather). All three list various accidents/incidents, some of which cross over.

I just want to get some ideas for how we can sort this out, whether it needs sorting out, or if indeed there is some consensus for a significant merge of the three (or of any given combination).

As I say this isn't a merge proposal, but as Redrose64 says above, there have been sseveral [sic] merger proposals in the past..

Please do reply with any general comments/questions you have about the three articles to gauge ideas if anything needs to be done. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I just check that the three articles you're talking about are InterCity 125, British Rail Class 43 (HST) and British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I'll edit my wording. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Three is too many. I think it would be reasonable to merge British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 into InterCity 125 then create redirects for each individual class. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The IC125 article should (to my mind) be about the concept and the history of a rake of Mk3s sandwiched between two power cars (the 43s), especially as an alternative to the kind of route modernisation that was out of the question in the 70s. There's no shortage of material on that. In fact, quite possibly enough for a spin-off "history of" or "background to" article. Then we have separate articles on the locomotives and carriages which cover the mechanical engineering and what history they have independent of the HST concept. This, in my opinion, is where write-offs/scrappings/stock movements should be documented. There's necessarily some overlap but the 43/Mk3 articles should just contain a brief summary of the HST as it relates to their specification and direct readers to the main article if they want to know more. I've never been entirely sure what the purpose of the separate article on British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 is; HSTs were briefly treated as fixed formations (like multiple units) early in their lives but that can easily be documented in the main article on the HST. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is how I'd view it. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like the most logical proposal, although the previous designation as multiple units probably also warrants a 1-2 sentence mention at the Class 43 article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We can even have a "nomenclature" section in the IC125 article that explains all the different names and directs readers elsewhere as appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely with HJ Mitchell. Regarding 253/254/255, my 1977 Ian Allen does list the HSTs under those class numbers, and in the DMU section. My 1988 platform 5 book says this: These trains run in formations of 7 (class 253) or 8 (class 254) trailer cars with a driving motor brake (power car) at each end. They are marketed by BR as 'Inter-City 125'. That work does not list the 253XXX formations. My 1996 edition says this about the Class 43: Formerly numbered as coaching stock but now classified as locomotives. The Class 253/254 concept lasted longer than I'd realized, but it's a historical concept and I don't see a need for a separate article. Trailers are covered under British Rail Mark 3? Mackensen (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with classes 253/254/255 is that their meanings are unclear. When first ordered, the trains for the Western Region had seven passenger cars and were given unit numbers 253001 upwards, and those for the Eastern and Scottish Regions had eight passenger cars and were 254001 upwards. As ordered, the formations were basically the same - the only difference was that class 254 had four TS instead of three. So far, so good.

This rapidly changed when the Western Region decided that two refreshment cars per train (one TRUK and one TRSB) was one too many and what with various reformations connected with this, the provision of TGS cars, the introduction of the North East-South West trains (only one TF but an extra TS), ECML trains that were seven or nine cars instead of eight, Western Region trains that were eight cars instead of seven, the allocation of some units to the Midland Main Line, etc. etc., the situation became confused.

Unit numbers were initially applied to the lower front of all power cars except the seven designated as "spare" cars, so two power cars bore the same unit numbers. This was fine so long as two bearing the same numbers were at each end of the same train, but power car failures resulted in the substitution for one of the spares. After repair, the Western Region depots returned the repaired power car to its original train, whilst the East Coast depots did not; worse, they did not alter the unit numbers on the power cars that were no longer in their intended formations. There was a photo in one of the railway magazines in about 1980 or 1981 showing two HSTs side by side at Kings Cross, both bearing the same unit number. Eventually, the situation was appreciated and the unit numbers removed from all power cars, and since all 197 power cars were interchangeable, the concept of 253 and 254 as two separate classes became completely meaningless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the question this provokes is; will sufficiently-detailed (but still encyclopaedic) coverage all that chopping and changing be too much for a section in the IC225 article? XAM2175 ^(T) 14:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Seven days after the last post, this discussion has gone cold. Having gained some support to merge British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 into InterCity 125, a merge discussion has been initiated. Nukerstt (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it would make the other articles far to long, if they were merged.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the source for the power at rail?

I've had my edit reverted for trying to make the units consistent in the infobox (where, currently, the ordering is easily misread to imply a very low efficiency between engine and rail power) on the basis that the source supposed gives units in kW, but... it has no reference link to say what the source actually is, I can't find a reference in any of the linked references, and in trying to trace it back, the first time that figure appears on this page seems to be this edit back in 2009 that did not add or include any reference: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_43_(HST)&oldid=270115985 (Comparison to the edit before: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_43_%28HST%29&diff=270115985&oldid=269021841). Which rules out two of the books listed in further reading, as they're more recent publications than this edit (and admittedly, I don't have the others on hand). So do we actually have a reference for that, because right now it's looking to me like it should be removed entirely? (There's plenty of references to their engine power, but I can't make out any of these references giving an at-rail power, and trying to google search it just comes up with a whole load of things that appear to be referencing the Wikipedia page) 82.16.137.43 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to reverse the order of presentation, simply add |order=flip. Compare these:

• {{convert|1320|kW|bhp|abbr=on}} → 1,320 kW (1,770 bhp)
• {{convert|1320|kW|bhp|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 1,770 bhp (1,320 kW)

The sourced figure should always be the one fed into the {{convert}} template, regardless of the desired output order. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

While that would solve the inconsistent ordering if the source gives the figure in kW, the problem I'm currently raising is that there is no clear source for this figure; the figure was added in an old edit that did not include a citation, and the current version of the page has no obvious citation for the figure. (In short, I think it needs to be flagged as "Citation Needed", but I'm asking for a second opinion before I do). 92.40.104.215 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)