Talk:British Rail Class 69

Horsepower

Horsepower is not stated but I assume it will be 3,300 bhp like the British Rail Class 66. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Emission compliance

I'm puzzled about this. Emission compliance for the Class 69 is said to be EU Stage IIIA but I thought this was no longer good enough and was preventing the building of more Class 66s. Perhaps, as the Class 69s will be rebuilds from Class 56, they have grandfather rights. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Numbering - 16 or 15 locos?

I'm a bit puzzled as the proposed numbering is listed as 69001 to 69016; I see they have purchased 16 units, but one of the purchased locos is listed as apparently to be stripped for spares. Does this mean it won't be rebuilt (and therefore not enter the fleet?). So maybe the numbering should rather be up to 69015? Andywebby (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/02/what-next-for-class-69-locomotives-69001-and-69002-mid-march-stay-at-the-severn-valley-railway.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SK2242 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

69 005

Apparently the info for 69 005 refers to the former 56 128. Can we please double check and amend if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Was hunting for citations for 69005's livery and I've found a link to a website with some images on it - would this be usable as a temporary citation until better ones are avaliable? https://www.47soton.co.uk/2022/04/69005-eastleigh-leaves-eastleigh-works.html MajorScafellPike (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that’s a personal blog which isn’t a reliable source. Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Railways Illustrated, 69006 was the former 56128.

References

Reengining?

The second para states that the conversion would be akin to the reengining of the Class 47 into the Class 57. But the 57's were more than just a re-engining. I would suggest re-engineering? I'm okay with being wrong, but it just looks odd in its current state. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Even the word looks odd. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A number of other diesel loco classes had their old engines removed and replaced by one of a different make or model, bringing about a change to the TOPS class. Those that I can think of are:

• Class 21 (MAN L12V18/21S) → Class 29 (Paxman 12YJXL): 1963-67
• Class 30 (Mirrlees JVS12T) → Class 31 (English Electric 12SVT): 1964-69
• Class 48 (Sulzer 12LVA24) → Class 47 (Sulzer 12LDA28C):1969-71

The amount of additional work that was necessary will have varied, anything from a repositioning of pipes and cables to a full replacement of electrical equipment. Perhaps the steam-era term "rebuilt" may be appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rebuilt works for me. Thanks Redrose64; any objections from others? The joy of all things (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

First run dates

Do we need the first run dates of every locomotive? Seems a bit fancrufty to me. If we extend that to the class 47, we have 512 first run dates. Surely just the first one, which was eventful enough for the class and that's it? Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to it here and for other small classes, but agree that it would very quickly become unwieldy at scale. To an extent we already have a sort of natural equilibrium along these lines – articles for larger classes simply don't have individual loco/unit-level records like this, with the general exception of those class members that have been named and/or preserved.
I do however dislike the use of the term "fancruft" in discussions like this; it's confrontational and needlessly derisive. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response XAM2175; being an avid railway enthusiast myself, I respectfully disagree - it is there to stop my excitement spilling over into the encyclopedia and making it quite unattractive to non-afficionadoes. The titular article describes it as fancruft - perhaps try for a name change there? However, my argument stands whether or not anyone agrees; isn't it just a random set of dates that do not need to be stated? Where do we draw the line? There's potentially 16 here, 30 Class 93's to come, and the Class 88's do not have a first run listing for each loco, and there is only ten in that class. The joy of all things (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:The joy of all things, it's excessive detail in this case. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that @Redrose64 has rendered this moot resolved the issue, such as it was.
As to the term "fancruft", no, I'm not going to try to change the name of a long-standing and well-known essay. I'm simply expressing my opinion that the term – as the essay itself notes – can be seen as insulting to well-meaning contributors and that it would be more civil to use terms like "unencyclopedic" or "excessively detailed" that have their basis in policy. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the column before I became aware of this thread. But the information is of limited interest, and is the kind of fine detail that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

BTW, please don't describe a matter as "moot", the word has very different (and nearly opposite) meanings in British and American English, see Collins Dictionary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that you were aware. And thank you for your second point; that's a new piece of information for me. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

seems a bit overly precious and use of derogartary language. The class is attracting considerable interest. Dates required research to collate, something an encyclopedia is supposed to provide. Whats further upsetting is the user in question seems to lack relevent knowledge and is acting in a more dominating position to what is supposed to be public domain work.. The 56/3’s were not built as 56/3.. they were original series, then rebuilt. This data is being lost to history and is pertinent as its the locomotives own identity, yet because the user didnt know this it was arbitrarily removed, sadly, for the rest of us. 86.15.93.137 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for using the term and upsetting you and XAM2175. XAM2175 Has advised alternatives to use. The joy of all things (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

...Interestingly, 86.15.93.137 arbitrarily removed the UIC data from the Class 69 article page with this edit summary removed European numbers, the locos do not carry them, do not work in Europe and are not considered for UIC, much like most of the rest of the UK fleet and is not relevent or mentioned in those articles either. and was reverted. I raised a suggestion here that the first-run data was not perhaps appropriate or unencylopedic, and looked for either support or to be informed it was worthwhile. You decided that the UIC data was not work retaining, even though it was cited, over the first-run data, which was uncited. Would you like to look at your comment above and show me what you did was any better than what I only suggested? You accused me of having a "dominating position" and being ignorant about the locomotives identity. That's not either correct, or fair, given your removal without consent. The joy of all things (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

UIC is a work of fiction.

It has no citations.

It is highly unusual for any locomotive of any class in the UK to carry a UIC number. It is not in common use in the UK, as side of a few bespoke examples (such as Rail adventure HST cars, or a few repatriated class 66’s).

No class 69 carries a UIC number and no evidence to suggest they will ever work in Europe or carry that number.

The system of numbering in the UK for locomotives is TOPS.

why is it therefore included in this class of locomotive, but no other UK class listed on wiki ? 86.15.93.137 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that you continue to refer to as concerning UIC numbers actually concerns European Vehicle Numbers. There is a citation present at the end of that sentence, which I reproduce here for your convenience:

It is correct to say that it is highly unusual for any locomotive of any class in the UK to carry [an EVN], but incorrect to say [it] is not in common use in the UK, because Regulation 36 of the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011 No. 3066) mandates the establishment and upkeep of a National Vehicle Register for the UK, and that a European Vehicle Number be assigned to every vehicle so entered on the register. This applies to every mainline-registered vehicle in Great Britain, including those that entered service prior to the regulations taking effect, and regardless of whether or not the vehicle will ever be used outside of Great Britain.

In 2017, Rail Industry Standard RIS-2453-RST introduced the requirement that the EVN be externally displayed on all new rail vehicles receiving authorisation to enter service in Britain after 1 January 2018 even when said vehicle was only going to be used in domestic service, but Class 69 locos do not – as far as I understand it – count as "new" for this purpose and so display of the EVN remains optional for them.

It is also incorrect to say [the] system of numbering in the UK for locomotives is TOPS; rather, RIS-2453-RST provides the ranges from which "GB operational numbers" are drawn. For convenience, these broadly continue the TOPS conventions and embed them inside EVNs – hence, for example, GB number 69002 appears inside EVN 92 70 0069 002-8.

Information on EVN allocations for other classes will appear in articles as and when it can be sourced. At present it comes mainly from ORR Letters of Authorisation, which have only been consistently published since the beginning of 2019; thus you'll find it mostly in articles on newer multiple units (such as classes 231, 397, 720, and 755), but when some new locomotives are approved (Class 93 should be next, and I'm expecting to see something about Class 18 eventually) they'll be covered too. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And i’m the one being called fancrufty…

your kidding me, very few (maybe less than 10 of the hundreds of thousands of engines built in the UK ever have carried a UIC number)… just a hand full of people will ever know what you described….

yet its listed here, without citation, and against no other Uk class on wikipedia… please justify why it should be here, and why you are dictating what is supposed to be an open and community run page on this site ? 86.15.93.137 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@XAM2175 isn’t “dictating” - they’re describing long-standing community consensus. Just because one person doesn’t see any point in information being on a page, doesn’t mean it should be removed - especially if multiple other people prefer it remain. As for sources, it is fully cited - see cite 4 Danners430 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

But its not relevent or consistent with both real life, or every other page on wikipedia.

it may not be a work of fiction, but its 1 step removed from fiction. 86.15.93.137 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Its also unproven….unsubstantiated. 86.15.93.137 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Unproven implies that there's nothing to back it up. I once again refer you to the source which was posted days ago at this point, where the ORR specify those numbers. It is NOT a work of fiction, it is fact, and it is not being removed from the article. Danners430 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you the owner of this page ?

i thought wiki had guidelines.

(At least when this site first started it was open source for anyone tomedit).

Trying to be a self appointed King of a wiki page is hardly an impressive standing in life, especially a train one. 86.15.93.137 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody owns any page. Pages are written by everyone, within the guidelines set out by Wikipedia policy. In this case it would appear there’s a strong community consensus to keep the UIC class in the article, and it would appear you are the only voice asking for it to be removed. Think of Wikipedia more as a democracy - one where everyone has a say, but if controversy comes to the fore then it’s community consensus which paves the way. Danners430 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Recovery Trial on the Elizabeth Line

Would it be useful to add to the article that Class 69 trains have gone under trial on the Elizabeth Line as a recovery train for stuck Class 345 trains in tunnels 154.61.128.137 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@154.61.128.137 Whoops, I wasn't logged in. Please reply to me about this 😅 Godhatessonny (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reference to prove it, then yes... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic is a LinkedIn in post from an Elizabeth Line Control Room Operator with photos and videos enough? :) Godhatessonny (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No - WP:LINKEDIN. We need a reliable, published source: for example, a railway magazine, etc. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

How is a published photograph, from someone who was a verifiable employee who not an original source ?, just because its on linkedin ?

(personally where a 69 goes isnt that important imo), i’m just challenging this dictatorial narrative thats pervading this page. 86.15.93.137 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on reliabe sources, as user generated content with no moderation, Linkedin is not a reliable source. Nothing to do with being dictatorial. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If the picture was put on a different site then it would be ok ? 86.15.93.137 (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If the picture was picked up by a news outlet or a magazine and published, then it would be OK. Until then, it falls under WP:UGC. Danners430 (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Class 69 Elizabeth trial run was for haulage of engineering trains, not for unit recovery during 'regular' service. DAB (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Class 56 'donor' locomotives

Could somebody please keep an eye out for if/when GBRf announces a change to the 'donor' vehicles for the additional Class 69s. I have been informed internally that the donor vehicles for 015 and 016 will be changing, but as usual this can't make its way onto Wikipedia until we see a press release. DAB (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)