A fact from British Rail Class 458 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in 2004 the British RailClass 458 trains were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they had become the most reliable fleet in Britain?
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 articles
Why "British Rail Class 458"? British Rail had nothing to do with these units. They were a product of the post-privatisation era.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.72.38 (talk • contribs) 11:21, November 30, 2005.
it's a common page name format for all TOPS numbered classes that run and have run on the UK mainland (and Isle of Wight) main rail network, whether pre-or-post privitisation. It ensures that, say, if there was a class 459 in the future, that the page name wouldn't have been taken by a class of boat, or a train class in another country, or whatever. Cambridge al (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it this is railway jargon for service patterns or something? Can someone clarify exactly what this phrase means to the layman, please. Jonobennett
Yes, a diagram is basically a service pattern. A working diagram could say, for example, waterloo to reading, then return, then to weymouth, then return etc. (That's not a real one, by the way). They're basically what services the trains run and in what order they do so. Hope this helps :-)
The article is all over the place re: when the trains have been used and/or withdrawn. Can someone rearrange it all into a coherent narrative? --Dtcdthingy22:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the information about their being withdrawn, they are definitely still in service. I saw one at work only this morning.HonestTom17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if there are any photos available online of the corridor connection in use? I am aware they are rarely used due to their complexity, but it would be interesting to see exactly how they work. 82.40.75.5511:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The corridor connection that joins two units together is only used by on board staff, such as the conductor/guard. There are plans (see Rail mag) to rebuild the cab ends with a similar end as the Desiro EMU trains. This rebuild will be carried out alongside the merging of Class 460 vehicles into Class 458. At the same time, the 2+3 Standard Class seating layout will be altered to 2+2 layout. --Peter Skuce (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If South West Trains plans to reform some Class 458s into 5-car formations, it can easily do that. But breaking up Class 460s and using carriages from those to add more carriages? That's pie in the sky! Pdiddyjr (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is happening. This was a scheme conceived by Porterbrook and has been fully covered in the railway press. See the references given in the article (currently footnotes 6 and 7). -- Alarics (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what they're doing is that South West Trains and Porterbrook plan to reform some class 458s into 5-car formations (Class 458/5) and will run those to more places than just Reading. The Class 460s will be operated separately with no date fixed. Pdiddyjr (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how are they going to make 30 x 4-car trains into 36 x 5-car trains, all to be in service by July 2014, other than by using carriages from the currently spare Class 460 fleet? -- Alarics (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the DfT press release is not very clear. But Rail Magazine no.687 (p.7) and no.688 (p.28) confirm that the class 460s are indeed to be broken up. These are currently 8 x 8-car trains making 64 vehicles total, of which 16 driving (i.e. with cab) and 48 without cab. Meanwhile the class 458s are currently 30 x 4-car trains, of which 60 with cab and 60 without. Total vehicles: 184, of which 76 with cab and 108 without.
After the work is done there will be 36 x 5-car trains making 180 vehicles, of which 72 with cab (60 from class 458 and 12 from class 460), and 108 without (60 from class 458 and 48 from class 460).
4 driving vehicles from class 460 will become redundant. All the other vehicles from the class 460s are to be incorporated into the new class 458/5 sets. Each "new" 5-car train will need 2 driving vehicles and 3 vehicles without cab. If you do the sums, it is apparent that you could (if, just for the sake of argument, you wanted to maximise the number of new trains made entirely out of one or other former class) make 6 new 5-car trains entirely out of 30 former class 460 vehicles, and 16 new 5-car trains entirely out of 80 former class 458 vehicles, but the other 14 new 5-car trains, totalling 60 vehicles, can only be a mixture of former class 458 and former class 460 vehicles.
That would have to mean 14 trains all with class 458 driving cab vehicles (28 of them in total) but with the 42 non-driving vehicles coming 30 from class 460 and 12 from class 458. In practice of course the mix could be more complicated than that, because there is probably no reason why they would want to maximise the number of new trains made entirely out of one or other former class. I just quoted those figures to show that there is no way you could get 36 x 5-car trains out of the present combined stock without breaking up the class 460s and ending up with at least some trains that are a mixture of the two kinds. -- Alarics (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found a fuller and more technical explanation by Ian Walmsley of Porterbrook in Modern Railways February 2012, "Junipers United: Darth Vader goes suburban", pp.40-43. -- Alarics (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Pdiddyjr's second removal of this sourced information. Pdiddjr, you need to be aware, as I've told you before, that Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Specifically, "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Now, you have a strong belief that these changes to these trains are being done in a particular way. But for that to go on Wikipedia, you need to specify which reliable source that belief comes from. Magazine name and issue number and page number, or book ISBN name and page number, or website link. Where is it from? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pdiddyjr has reverted again, and requires that we have broad consensus before making a change of which he does not approve. In an attempt to find such a consensus, I will shortly initiate an RfC on this subject. Pdiddyjr, if you feel on balance that an RfC is not necessary, then you should self-revert your removal of the sourced information that Alarics added. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on inclusion of particular viewpoint on future lengthening of certain trainsets
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please read the talk page section "Future lengthening" above, and also review recent reverts on the article (all of which are on the topic of the future lengthening), and offer an opinion on some of these questions
should Alarics' recent additions to the article be allowed to stand?
should they be removed?
should they be replaced with the additions suggested by Pjdiddyjr?
I'm going for option 1, on the grounds that I can't see any problem with the sources cited by Alarics, no sources have been cited for the alternative theory, and I also don't see any inconsistency (mathematical or otherwise) with the information Alarics has provided as based on those sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I'm going to request closure of this RfC by an uninvolved editor long before the standard 30 days is up, on the basis that consensus seems rather clear already. However, I'm holding off for the moment because PDiddyjr may wish to comment further, and he hasn't been editing since before the RfC was put up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Separately, we should remember that Wikipedia benefits by the presence (and development) of editors who have an enthusiasm for the topics on which they edit. (Assuming that they edit according to consensus *sometime* eventually in their editing career). We can be pretty much assured that the article British Rail Class 458 will soon recover from any problems it may be undergoing right now, so we do not need to be afraid of that... although we do need to take the RfC seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article and any similar ones are certainly not going to "recover from problems" if editors who cite no sources at all are permitted to revert properly sourced text. -- Alarics (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fleet details table has got a bit confused - e.g. it implies that some of the fleet are composed of 2000-2001 cars! (a train I wouldn't mind seeing!). I don't have time to fix it myself, and I'm not sure I have all the details to hand anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that, because of my interest in history, I'm a steam enthusiast in railway terms and take little notice of disiesels or electrics. Even so, I do understand everything that this article is saying. I make that point because many people, especially if non-British, will not readily understand it. My interpretation of the GA/FA criteria is that a good article is just that and doesn't have to be brilliant, but a featured article is a brilliant one. This isn't brilliant by any means but it is unquestionably good. I could make some minor adjustments here and there in terms of wording and grammar but they would only amount to personal preference so, given that there are no actual mistakes, I'm leaving well alone.
If there is an intention to nominate the article for feature status eventually, I'd say there is a lot of work to be done and the priority must be to express things in layman's terms. The article is currently just over 21kb and I think it would no harm at all if that size was doubled in order to provide more background and explanation. At present, it's a good article for those who know the subject and are familiar with the British railway system but it doesn't really help the uninitiated.
That said, it is a good article and it ticks all the boxes in the GA criteria. It's well-written, it doesn't say "awesome", the intro is fit for purpose, it's well structured, I see no problems or issues arising from the sources or illustrations and the latter are very good indeed. As a result, therefore, I think the article definitely qualifies for GA status and I'm passing it. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the article ticks all the GA criteria boxes. At the risk of being pedantic, I'll list these with appropriate comments:
Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. No problems at all. It is very well written albeit too technical for the uninitiated.
Well written: it complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Given that the article is only 21kb, a three paragraph introduction suffices and it summarises the narrative quite well. The layout and structure of the article are fine. There are no "words to watch". It is non-fiction and there are no lists, unless the small Fleet details table is considered one and that is well-constructed.
Verifiable with no original research: contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is a two-column reflist in which every reference is meaningful and standard.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. I do not see a problem with any of the sources used, though I have to assume good faith in some cases which I either cannot check or know little about. They are all informative and clearly serious about their subject-matter. There is no reason, in my opinion, to challenge any of the information in the article.
No original research. None that is in any way evident given the extensive use of sources.
No copyright violations or plagiarism. Again, no evidence of anything untoward.
Broad in its coverage. Although it is a relatively short article, it covers considerable ground in summary form without delving into minutiae, and it is entirely within scope. In terms of coverage, the article scores very highly.
Neutral. Entirely so and there is no problem with the NPOV requirement.
Stable. There was no evidence of dispute when the review was performed and the recent storm in a teacup is minor with no significant changes being done.
Illustrated, if possible. The images are one of the best features as they are both striking and relevant. All captions are appropriate and provide useful information. I am not aware of any copyright infringements and the images are all fair use at least.
I can only repeat that, while the article is by no means a feature candidate, in my opinion it is most certainly a good article and that is why I have passed it. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How did they become more reliable? What was done to make them so? Seems like that would be pretty important to bring up since they went from junk to star of the fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.56.66 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this Rail News piece from 2013 I've found a claim that "the cab ends on both Class 458 and on Class 460 vehicles will be compatible with the Class 450 Desiro fleet. Although there are no plans for it to happen in normal operations, it will be technically possible for the Alstom and Siemens units to operate together". Since this predates the actual conversions occurring I'm not going to base a claim of multiple-working capability on it, but I am curious - has anybody come across a newer source backing this up?
Hello
Last year around Autumn, 458507/517 went to Long Marston, where their 460 carriage was removed, and they are now at Widnes off lease. Once refurbishment has been started and completed, a new lease will start with SWR.
458534 also went off lease and was handed back to Porterbrook formally. It will not return to SWR.
Are there any sources for this in any magazine or something because its driving me mad seeing the Wikipedia page as having all of them in service. Sootysuerickie (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference between someone taking a photo that is clearly of a 458/4 and a magazine to use the same picture for their article. Are we really saying the number that is printed on the train (ie the unit number) is not a reliable source? Seems odd to me. Maxopolitan (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:UGC, as I linked in my original reply. Also, as a note - just because the third-last digit is a 4, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s classed as a /4 - there have been occasions where that number differs from the actual subclass. So quite aside from the image not being a reliable source, until we have confirmation that it is indeed an actual subclass, we can’t just take the number to mean the subclass. Danners430 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a reputable news outlet makes a mistake, they issue a correction. If they don’t, then they’re not a reputable news outlet, and they’d likely be noted as such under the list of reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number on the front of the train can't be wrong since that is the number it is officially. Also you really think that it would disagree with the unit number when the ORR says it has to be the unit number. Also according to this website [1] the 458/4s exist and there is two of them. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was definitely a case that I know of elsewhere in the UK Railways wikiproject relatively recently where it was discovered that the first digit of the unit ID didn’t match the official subclass designation… I would have to look out specifics. That still doesn’t take away from the requirement for such additions to be cited with reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I’m having to look it out - I sent that at 9pm last night on a night when I have to be up early the next morning. Danners430 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add - it’s not other wikipedian’s responsibility to source your edits… I’m working today so have almost no time. End of the day, this discussion comes down to unreliable sources being used. Danners430 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information panel of a Class 31/4 For all diesel and electric multiple units, on the non-driving ends of driving cars and both ends of non-driving cars, there is a rectangular information panel (similar to this one from a locomotive) giving dimensions and tare weight; the top line of this panel shows the class or subclass, if one exists. I shall try and find a photo of one.
Anyway, looking through all editions of British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock from
Pritchard, Robert; Hall, Peter (2013). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2013. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 333–4. ISBN978-1-909431-02-7. to
Pritchard, Robert (2023). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2023. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 330–1. ISBN978-1-909431-99-7.
I find that for Class 458, there is no mention of subclasses at all, unlike e.g. Class 455 or Class 465 which do describe subclasses. This is a strong indication that Class 458 was not divided into subclasses, even during the period where not all units had been reformed from 4 to 5 cars. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the same format on the article, would it make sense to change the title of either "Return to 4 car formation" or 2013 Conversion to 458/5"? Hungryboat (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
