Template talk:British Rail EMU

message: What is the source for South Eastern’s high-speed trains being designated Class 395? David Arthur 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This news page  on Southeastern's offical site is the only reference to 395 I've found so far. Thryduulf 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also this page advertising for a Depot manager, and this PDF (second last bullet on PDF page 18/document page 16) on Network Rail's site also mention them as Class 395. Thryduulf 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitachi trains 

message: I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page. 
I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other. 
I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here. 
--Jorvik 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign proposal 

message: Per my recent edit summary, I'll be adding  to each page individually. I can't do this at the moment as Commons is down so I can't check the categories. I'll sort it soon. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonscat 

message: Should these two be combined into one page? They are almost word-for-word identical descriptions, for the most part. Useddenim (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged in 2011. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classes 485 & 486 (IOW 4Vec + 3Tis) 

message: Class 707 is listed among the AC units, but it is for SWT, so DC.  Perhaps someone could think about how the template ought to be rearranged? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed for now, no bias on further work Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though you corrected it, someone reverted your correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  707 not AC 

message: Why are the DC-only 375 and 376 in the AC section? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because under TOPS, the 300-399 block was designated for AC and dual-system stock. As regards  and , not all of these are DC-only - some are dual-system (25 kV AC/750 V DC), and those that are DC have the provision for fitting the absent AC equipment later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC units in AC section 

message: you reverted my removal of the 705 link from this template. Why do we need to keep this link in there, when the Class 701 was not well-known by this name and it must be very confusing for readers, especially when there is no explanation as to why Class 705 directs to the Class 701? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said - the Class 701 was previously known as Class 705 (5-car) and Class 711 (10-car). There is a reference which supports this in the Class 701 article. There are other former class designations included in this and the DMU template so I don't see why these can't be included as well - Coradia175 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we should have any former class designations, unless those classes are well known by their former names - I don't think many people will be looking for the Class 705 without knowing what the Class 701 is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it matters if they're well known or not to be honest. If a former class number is mentioned in a multiple unit's article then in my opinion it should be included in the template as well as its current designation - Coradia175 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

text: That would be fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think that's a good idea - Coradia175 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! If one of you does the edit, we can mark this closed.  Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made the edit. I think we should also note that Dbmchart made a similar edit to me, so presumably is in favour of removing the former class designations. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  , it's a good idea to include the notes that you added, but can I suggest you revert your edit as per the consensus here that we shouldn't list classes as their former designations as it causes confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with original suggestion that this template should only reflect what stock was classified as when in service, not what it was planned to but changed before it rolled out of the factory. Allourian (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange class designations