Talk:British Rail Class 450

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Low‑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

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

450/5 HC

What does the "HC" on the 450/5s actually mean? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"HC" stands for High Capacity. -Jrhilton (Talk) 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pantographs

Why does someone think a citation is needed for the units not having pantographs fitted? Not only is it a nonsense, it's absolutely certain that you wouldn't find such a citation, so it just disfigures the article for no benefit. HH 2A00:23C5:4029:9600:A8F1:67C8:C5D9:4FF7 (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily the short phrase "no trains have been fitted with a pantograph", more likely the longer phrase "provision has been made for future conversion to 25 kV AC overhead supply or dual voltage although, at present, no trains have been fitted with a pantograph" or even the whole sentence "In standing with requirements of all new rolling stock for the South East region, provision has been made for future conversion to 25 kV AC overhead supply or dual voltage although, at present, no trains have been fitted with a pantograph." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formation code following 2017 refurb

Now that the first class mini-section now sits at the cab end in one unit of each set, shouldn't the formation code now be:

DCMO+TSO+TSO+DMSO ? --Matt Whyndham (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the operators' codes for the cars do not take physical location into account - the letters always occur in the same order:

D or none for driving or non-driving
M or T for motor or trailer
B or none for brake or non-brake
C, F or S for composite, first-only or standard-only
K or O for corridor or open

So DCMO is an invalid code, driving motor composites are DMCO regardless of where the first-class is actually positioned. In any case, you would need a WP:RS for the purposes of WP:V. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring.

It's against Wikipedia rules to revert any edits made by oneself because you think it's "right". Please stop, user:WestRail642fan. Disagreement here is obvious and you risk getting the page and yourself edit-locked. I'm also mentioning user:PennCentral9 here, as he is also relevant.

GWR 2019 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of Wikipedia is user contributions. If someone wants to add their work to Wikipedia in an attempt to provide better resources, unless the contributions are infactual, offensive, or remove an abundance of context--none of which are true in this scenario--why should the edit be reverted? More directly, the proportions and curving of the older diagrams are quite off compared to real life, whereas the newer diagrams better resemble real life. I will acknowledge that it is petty to keep going back and forth, but it's also petty to revert an edit because you don't like how it looks when there is nothing actually wrong with it. I'm starting to think most of Wikipedia is just gatekeeping--if you can prove me wrong, then go ahead. PennCentral9 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]