Talk:British Rail Class 66

message: There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.  
 Before making such a request, please read the past discussions 
 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.
 Biscuittin (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: I see the section on "Overseas operations" has just been deleted. Might I suggest it could be a good idea to put it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-British operation

message: * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6605713.stm "Boycott threat over 'dirty' locos"
** Sladen 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news

message: "Sheds", AFAIK it's pretty obvious that this nickname comes from the look of the cab of the front... Sladen 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: Do we need seperate pages for each sub class?
In essence, they are the same, with minor differences and livery changes.
The main article, this one, has details on the subclasses anyway, so it seems pointless to duplicate them.
I am going to AfD them.
Thanks,
BG7 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages needed for every subclass? 

message: I tried to tidy up the article a bit - However it probably needs up to date information on numbers built for the subclasses table - if anyone has this info please leave some info and I will be able to update.Carrolljon (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up - Info request

message: For the record the two articles are up for a merge. I've already added the CD66 info to EMD 66 article but am delaying on making the redirect/delete on the CD 66 page. 
In case anyone is interested.Carrolljon (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CD 66]] [[EMD Series 66]]

message: Here in Germany this locomotive is known as EMD JT42CWR. EMD Class 66 may be common in the UK but not in continental Europe. --Ulenspiegel (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Remember that there is the EMD Series 66 which covers generic continental usage.  When I was last in German, the (German speakers) around me referred to it was "Class 66".  —Sladen (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in continental Europe 

message: 66,586, 583,582 Number exported to Poland, becoming both the active and Freightliner Poland, 66008,009,010 number was changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.137.16.146 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 66 ''Sub-classes'' Class 66/5 Revision requested some information. 

message: I wonder why the article is titled "British Rail Class 66"... these locos appeared after the demise of the state onwed corporation known as British Rail and the predecessor Class 59 was also not owned or operated by BR. 
Maybe someone with adequate technical knowledge of post-delivery modifications could tabulate the details of the subclasses and their numbering ranges. Seems to me that the subclasses are not really about technical differences (unlike the great variety of modified Class 47s), more a question of who's operating the loco.
It could be smarter to merge the article with the article about the EMD "Series 66", which is the marketing name generally for this vehicle. The technical designation JT42CWR means: J=double cab, T=turbocharged, 12+30=42=12cyl+710G engine, C=Co-Co wheel arrangement, W=traction motors for standard gauge, R=radial steering bogies. The M in the later series locos (known in Britain as T2) means simply "Modified" in terms of the cooling arrangements for reduced emissions. I have added details of the ETCS-equipped locos into the "EMD Series 66" page.(nick.cory@web.de, 2009-12-06)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.13.39 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been an extensive discussion about the use of the term "British Rail" but I'm not sure where. You are quite right that the locos were never used by British Rail but I think that, in Wikipedia, the term "British Rail" has come to mean "the rail network of Great Britain". Biscuittin (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled about the larger cooler group  of the Class 66/9. How does enlarging the cooler group reduce emissions? Biscuittin (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming convention discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Biscuittin (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various 

message: ...shouldn't really be there, in place of an absence of content, as we see here. Get rid of these sections for now? Orphan Wiki 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A string of question marks... 

message: 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.
:This debate was closed on 20 March 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But a separate debate about Class 66 and Class 67 is continuing. Biscuittin (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: UK RSL Class 66 seems concise and accurate, although I did vote for status quo when the wider debate took place. I doubt there's much support for moving away from the current convention until the UK railway operators adopt a new classification system. Which would need far to much co-operation than they can currently muster. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the discussion failed to reach consensus on what naming convention should apply (hence the existing one should continue to do so), there was a clear rejection of having no consensus at all. Per this I object to any renaming of articles until there is either consensus for a different naming convention or consensus for no naming convention. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A further complication for the Class 66 is that some of them are currently working abroad. According to my Ian Allan Rail Guide 2011, 66163 is in Poland and 66179 is in France. If there is to be a change, I now suggest Class 66 (British-based diesel locomotive). However, I think it would be better to leave the naming as it is. Biscuittin (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: So, can we stick with British Rail Class 66 and British Rail Class 67 ? Biscuittin (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with keeping "British Rail" in the name, as it brings consistency with the older trains, also if it didn't have "British Rail" in, it would perhaps seem to be a train that was used unofficially or by some very small company. "British Rail Class 66" looks far better than any of the proposed names as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible change to the title of this article

message: I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the  tag.  Whilst there may have been no consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, there has been no active discussion for over 2 months. Tim PF (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I propose to remove the "Citations" and "Cleanup" tags because there are no obvious reasons for them. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been almost no changes in the citations since the  tag was added in February, and very little cleanup has occurred since the  tag was added in March.  I think that there was justification both then and now for both, but I'll start new sub-sections so that they can be discussed separately. Tim PF (talk)
=== Refimprove tag (February 2011) ===
There are several sections, including the main infobox, with no citations, although other sections appear to be reasonably well cited.  If the infobox was well cited, I'd suggest replacing the global  with various  and  tags, but it isn't, so the tag should stay until there has been some improvement. Tim PF (talk)
* Retain for the reasons given above.
=== Cleanup tag (March 2011) ===
When  added the tag, he started a section with:
*Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(
*The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but ..
No-one replied to this (possibly because he then added the  tag, which swamped the discussion), but I think they are fair comments which should be discussed before the tag is removed (or not). Tim PF (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: When  added the tag, he started a section with:
*Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(
*The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but ..
No-one replied to this (possibly because he then added the  tag, which swamped the discussion), but I think they are fair comments which should be discussed before the tag is removed (or not). Tim PF (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag (March 2011) 

message: Removal diff
At least one bit appears possibly wrong - the issue here is that the article over time is gaining more and more detail on the renumbering and paintings of (sometimes individual) locomotves - none of which has any link to verify. 
Please don't add that much detail because it will not remain in the article in the long term. It would also be a big help if someone could provide usuable sources for the class historys.Imgaril (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intricated detail unreferenced

message: Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought. 
* Freightliner fleet, which is exported to Poland, the content is delivered to the old information. And some fleet GBRf, Colas Rail was transferred, not the content. 
* DB Schenker in Poland, France and operates a fleet of vehicles, but the contents are not registered. DB Schenker's red color was completed, adding 66097 and 66152 have hope. 
* GBRf Europorte fleet Colas Rail and Freightliner recently been transferred to the information available. And even though the fleet GBRf Europorte uniforms are not the contents. 
* Colas Rail GBRf transferred to the fleet has become the 66841 to 66845. Freightliner 66573-66577 to replace the fleet is replaced with a fleet of some fleets are re-painted. 
* Direct Rail Services is currently operating a fleet of 66301 to 66305 cases, so please add content. 
I live in South Korea people. 
Railway Herald Issue 274 side of the site to see, the class 66 locomotives for the content of Wikipedia and hope that the latest update.
—— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yh00157 (talk • contribs) 
:Hello Yh00157. I've read the above a few times, and Railway Herald 274, but I'm still unsure what you're requesting/suggesting.  Would you be able to phrase it differently (it might be easier to write in Korean and we can try and to translate it again).  —Sladen (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought. 

message: revert diff - I'm not keen on this addition which seems to be a bit WP:OR and possibly pont of view pushing (66 bad?) - however the fire extinguisher thing could be noted - I found this http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Deviations/Derogation/00-089-DGN.pdf if anyone needs a source - though a better one is probably out there somewhere.Mddkpp (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire

message: The latest edition of Rail magazine is reporting that 66 734 (when did we lose the space between class and individual loco number?) is likely to be scrapped as recovery is too difficult. Spotted this in newsagents today. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the latest?  Do you have an publication date, issue number, article name, article author, page number? —Sladen (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the August 2012 issue (Rail is monthly, isn't it?). Mentioned on front cover so should be easy to spot. Noticed it whilst looking to see if Heritage Railway was out (due out on 2 Aug but sometimes can get it a day or two early). Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was. It's the September 2012 issue of The Railway Magazine that has the story. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm out of the UK at the moment).  Ah ha!   does not call it out in the content list, but there's a thumbnail of the cover, upon which is a half-page piccy and text "Crash 66 to be cut up on site?".  I'll try and have a lookie when I'm back. Thank you for highlighting it. —Sladen (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an image on Geograph which is on a Wikipedia-compatible licence. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Write-off of 66 734

message: I've added a OR tag in the silencer section — there's an uncited claim in the first-person, "we have found that the actual primary silencer…", which very strongly sounds like original research. On the other hand, if this has been investigated by many, as is said, then there should presumably be some citation allowing this to be rephrased into the passive and cited. Gsnedders (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised about the noise claim. From the outside, the Class 66 is, in my opinion, the quietest diesel loco in Britain.  Obviously, this is subjective but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions. Biscuittin (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 66s may sound quiet on the outside, but they sure as hell aren't on the inside. I'm told that GM locos in North America are not unpleasant to work. GM offered several "comfort levels" during the build, but not surprisingly UK freight operating companies chose the cheapest options, so that the engine/alternator pack has the minimum isolation from the chasis - as do the cab & driver's seats. Consequently, sometimes the noise, vibration, resonance and heat make driving a 66 extremely unpleasant and tiring. Dr Sludge (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silencer claim uses first-person 

message: Revamped the top "History" section with more detail/refs, and then cut through the "this one went there" operational details (we REALLY can't keep up with that, plus its NOT our purpose). I hence removed the tags. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs added, details removed = tags removed 

message: What is the difference between EU stage 3a and 3b?  Is it about particulates? Biscuittin (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Class 66/9 is described as a "lower emission variant". Does this mean that the other sub-classes do not comply with Stage 3a of the European emission standards ? Biscuittin (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Or does Class 66/9 comply with Stage 3b? Biscuittin (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is now out of date and needs a re-write. We might also include information about idle reduction.  Roberttherambler (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emission compliance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British Rail Class 66. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101113040407/http://www.wnxx.com:80/loco/class66.htm to http://www.wnxx.com/loco/class66.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 66. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928222250/http://www.lokmann.no/aktu04/041005cnenighet.htm to http://www.lokmann.no/aktu04/041005cnenighet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010083606/http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/class66/class66.html to http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/class66/class66.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can we please not add that a 66 was involved in the Llangennech derailment? I know that the BBC article shows a 66, but that is the loco that was sent to rescue the underailed wagons at the rear of the train. Forum talk is that the train in question was hauled by a Class 60. When that info is published by a reliable source, it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Llangennech derailment

message: 66 708 has been named. Not sure whether this tweet by The Railway Magazine is good enough to use as a source. No doubt it will be reported in the railway press in due course. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested we will need to wait for a reliable source on this - even though there is a photo, Twitter is not counted as a reliable source (see WP:TRUTH. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Named locomotives