Talk:British Rail Class 390

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: What is the weight of this train? Edward 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight 414t (8 car) or 457t (9 car). As the source is a Finnish website , I presume the unit 't' is Metric tonnes. Thryduulf 16:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight?

message: The Eurostar is not a multiple unit! But if you're including the Eurostar then you should also add the Class 91 which has a top speed of 140Mph!
:IIRC the pendolino in its original configuration was rated to do 140 but the track upgrades required to run at that speed were never made. Plugwash 09:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is a Eurostar not a multiple unit? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a locomotive and carriages, albeit in a fixed configuration. It is a grey area, if you had traction motors under more than two cars that are not at the ends it can't be push-pull... Wongm (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a multiple unit. If it were a loco hauled set the power cars would have their own classification in the AC electric section of TOPS. Patrick lovell (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the only fastest train in Britain 

message: Do you need further name plates of the Virgin Pendolino trains?  I have a picture of the nameplate of the Virgin Enterprise.  --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Pendolino nameplate 

message: I was editing the article removing and replacing dead links when I noticed the info given about the Pendolino window sizes and comparisons to the APT.  I have suggested that citation is needed on the figures stating the window size comparisons between the Pendolino and the APT, but also it was stated that "as many as 36% of the seats are parallel with either no window or only a limited portion of one".  I have done some calculations and found this to be more like 22.5% for the train as a whole (and not just Standard Class which works out to be 32.5%) and if someone would like to check my working out the please feel free:
Coach  	Total Seats	Restricted View Seats	Non Restricted View Seats
Coach A	46         	16                   	30
Coach B	62         	20                   	42
Coach C	48         	16                   	32
Coach D	62         	20                   	42
Coach E	76         	24                   	52
Coach G	46         	0                    	46
Coach H	44         	3                    	41
Coach J	37         	0                    	37
Coach K	18         	0                    	18
Feel free to confirm but this works out to be a percentage of 77.5% Unrestricted View seats? Geezertronic (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, what definition of "non restricted view" are you using to get the above quoted figures ? The reason I ask, having been on a few Pendolinos, is they seem rather more optimistac than I remember.--JustinSmith (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The figures above are taken by viewing the information contained in the Virgin Trains Pendolino seating plan http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf - you can make your own decision on what is Unrestricted or Restricted but the figures above are based on the seating plan issued by VirginTrains.  The best policy regarding posting technical information is to get valid references for your figures so if you could obtain technical data on both Pendolino and APT window sizes then that would help your information rather than relying on "simple arithmetic" - for example the Pendolino seating plan is a valid source.  Please feel to continue the discussion on the RailForums thread rather than here Geezertronic (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit reads like a point of view and you have not offered any links or refences to back up the supposed criticism regarding your comments about dark and claustraphobic interiors.  Also, you should try and get some official window sizing statistics from Alstom, Angel Trains or Virgin Trains themselves regarding the Class 390s and from a reliable source regarding the APT.  Failure to do so will always cause issues around your figures since they could easily contain mistakes.  And don't suggest that others could do the figures, if you want to include this you should do the official research --Geezertronic (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Justin, you have still not provided cited references for your evidence.  Without such evidence, your figures will always be disputed and classed as your own POV.  As mentioned many times, why don't you obtain official sources for your findings if you want the comments to remain on the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezertronic (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Good work, however a reference to this information that is not original research (i.e. your time with a tape measure), noting that the Virgin seating plans do not show the window sizes. --Stewart (talk | edits) 05:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I think Justin is missing the point (as he regularly does on RailForums).  Stating the windows are smaller is one thing (as it is fact) as is the seating layout (which has an official document to refer to) but anyone can go along with a tape measure and try and work out the sq m of the windows on the 390 or the APT and could invariably come back with differing figures from those stated by Justin due to the way they either measure the windows or the way they make their calculations.  Justin - by your own admission on RailForums, you measured the Pendolino windows whilst "skulking around New Street"  so your measurements can hardly be taken as fact, espeically since the nine vehicles that make up the 390 sets are not all the same (leading vehicles as an example).  As I have mentioned before, you could if you wanted find out if there is anything official with window sizes in which would bring credibility to your findings.  Without something official, your figures will always be your point of view and not fact --Geezertronic (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Currently sitting in K16 - K13 and K15 have no view, whilst K7 and K9 have limited view. Whilst I agree with the revised wording, I do not think the reference is valid. --Stewart (talk | edits) 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks Justin, you carry on publishing your own points of view on your own website (which you advertise so much) where you can write what you like.  As your comments on RailForums have shown, there is no middle ground with you and it is you that have the axe to grind as you always have to be right almost to the point of abusive at the expense of anyone else whose opinion differs from yours (even going to the extent of questioning how people had been killed by the 390 because they chose to go by car instead of use a 390!?!?!).  Please post on RailForums if you want to continue a civilised discussion - either that or open another pointless moan thread --Geezertronic (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pendolino Window size and comparisons to APT 

message: This article says that the Pendolino has a maximum design speed of 140 mph, but according to the speed dial the speed goes up 160 mph, so shouldn't this article have the maximum speed saying 160 mph? --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The speed dial on my car goes up to 160mph not that I would ever get that out of it (it's restricted to 155mph anyway) and the speed dial on my friends car goes up to 120mph which would be quite an achievement out of a small car.  There are probably issues with the tilt mechanism at speeds above 140mph which is why the 390s have an official top speed of 140mph.  Stating anything different just because the speed dial goes higher would not be accurate --Geezertronic (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Could be a standard part, designed for trains which are capable of 160mph. But as we now they would only ever do 140mph in the UK and are limited to 125mph at present. If someone can find a source that confirms they're definitely capable of 160mph then that would make an interesting addition, and make them potentially usable on High Speed 1/2... NRTurner (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUKHDga4Mys&feature=related Watch it and look at the speed dial. --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point above and beyond what has been explained above is....?  A Ford Fiesta 1.25 Edge has 130mph on the clock but the Ford stats for the model give a top speed of 94mph, by your reckoning should Ford change the top speed to be 130mph since that is what the speedo goes up to (not that the car would ever go that fast)? --Geezertronic (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The point is that the speed dial in the video clearly shows it has a top speed of 160 mph. I just think the article should mention it's top speed of 160 mph. --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. The speedo could have 250mph on it for all it really matters but regardless of what the speedo says the manufacturers top speed of the 390 is 140mph with it currently software restricted to 125mph.  The manufacturer makes no mention of a top speed of 160mph in the same way Ford make no mention of a Fiesta 1.25 Edge having a top speed of 130mph  --Geezertronic (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the speed dial is graded in 20s, you'd make it go to the next tick above 140 anyway, for accuracy in speeds. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

text: And we're saying that speed dials really have no relevance to how fast something can actually go. If you wanted you could fit your car with a speedo that went up to the speed of light, but it wouldn't have any relevance to the actual speed of the vehicle. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pendolino top speed 

message: The article says that the 11-car sets are in storage, but when I look out of my office window immediately north of Crewe station (next to the junction with the Manchester line and opposite the old Crewe North signal box) every day I see trains going past with Alstom branding rather than Virgin and proudly saying "11 car Pendolino" on the end vehicles. Something needs updating. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the infobox, one 11-car set is on test runs. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could swear there's more than one of them - I'll have to see if I notice the set number(s) next week. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  I saw 390 107 Virgin Lady running as 11 car set at Wigan North Western on the Euston - Preston and return 9th May 2012.
([Steve Wigan])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Wigan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  11-car sets 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/Tilting/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: So I read through the citation provided for future Class 390 operation by the GNWR, and it does not actually seem to suggest that the trains that the TOC will receive will actually be Class 390s; just that they will be trains of the Pendolino family. LostCause231 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I will change it now. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNWR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Rail Class 390. 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/20100331143850/http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf to http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111003455/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_390.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_390.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324002432/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/rail/pi/pendolinolengthening/ to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/pendolinolengthening/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028025543/http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/pendolino-makes-historic-east-coast-run to http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/pendolino-makes-historic-east-coast-run
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331143850/http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf to http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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/20110715151837/http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue244.pdf to http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue244.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316102254/http://www.rharchive.info/Issue250HIGH.pdf to http://www.rharchive.info/Issue250HIGH.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124171109/http://hornby.com/sets-123/r1134/product.html to http://www.hornby.com/sets-123/r1134/product.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) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It should be mentioned that the following information should be added in the relevant part of the page:
390 115 is now named " Crewe - All Change", following the All Change railway event that took place at Crewe Diesel Depot on June 8th, 2019 - the day the unit was named.
It also now bears the name "Alison" on the front and rear ends of the train. 80.1.250.122 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019 

message: In the Pendolino names table;
390015 (390115) in column 2; insert new name Crewe - All Change Chris M 390141 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019 

message: The anon is now making accusations that :File:390 Rugeley 2010-06-22.JPG is "photoshopped".  If it has been photoshopped, then it shouldn't be used.  For me, it is not obviously photoshopped, though some detail may have been changed without my noticing.  The exif data seem straight out of the camera without modification  - that is evidence (though not conclusive) against modification.  If anyone can show it is photoshopped, please say, otherwise we have to WP:AGF that it is genuine, I think. Tony May (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photoshopped?

message: Hello
The table of Pendolino names "needs additional citations" for verification but I have two large problems with this. Firstly, over the last 20 months there have been over 40 changes to the table, either names removed at repaint or new names applied. It's impossible to cite a source when a set appears minus its old name, do they really want a picture of a blank bit of bodyside for all of these and how would they know it was the right bit of empty bodyside?! Secondly, when they do apply a new name sometimes the "additional citation" is so hilariously poor that it adds no value. Someone has (correctly) added a citation from a local newspaper report into the naming of 390039 Lady Godiva and doubtless there will be someone who knows nothing about the topic at Wiki who will be delighted by this. Read the article though and the journalism is useless, most of their facts are wrong - they think its a new train (17 years old this year), they think it will do 30,000 miles this year (try 300,000, they think that the one named City of Coventry is an old train (same age as Lady Godiva), they think it's visiting Coventry for the first time (apart from the previous few thousand times)- the list of errors goes on. So do we just know that we know better than Wiki on this and update the names table when a change happens and trust that enough people will spot an error if one gets put there (I've put one or two right when this has happened) and forget trying to "additional citation" each time?!
Chris M 390141 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not backed up by a reliable source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

text: You should not need to use local newspapers if they are unreliable. Are you familiar with the British railway press? There are magazines which give rolling stock updates including new, altered and removed names, such as Modern Railways, Rail, Rail Express, The Railway Magazine, and Today's Railways. These are published twelve or more times a year. See also WP:DAW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So if they change a name you want us to wait between six and ten weeks for it to get mentioned in a railway magazine, scan in that page of the railway magazine and then update the name table with a link to the relevant page in the railway magazine? The Wiki page will be far poorer as a result. The railway magazines are reliant on people sending in news and as such are not materially more reliable than a logged in user updating here. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to create or add to a fan website, then feel free to do so. As we have tried to explain to you, Wikipedia is for content which is backed up by verifiable sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can verify the info by standing on any station along the line of route. You are trying to apply something which is unrealistic and in doing so ultimately seeking to remove useful info about the train fleet from Wiki. It would be like saying that the page on Manchester United football club cannot say they play home games in red shirts unless a verifiable source or a fan site says so!! Chris M 390141 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: At least two of the magazines that I named obtain their rolling stock information from official records; all employ professional journalists and are not "reliant on people sending in news". The delay is not "between six and ten weeks" - the June 2019 issue of The Railway Magazine, which was published on 5 June 2019, includes in its first few pages information about events that took place on 9 May, 11 May, 15 May, 16 May, 17 May, 19 May, 22 May, 23 May, and 28 May - this last being eight days before publication. We are not asking you to scan in pages, that is not how referencing is done. See WP:REFBEGIN: use  tags and in between these provide the name of magazine, cover date, and page number as a minimum. Use  if you like. Please see WP:NOR and WP:V - these are core content policies. Please also see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE - it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything. Manchester United have not always played in red shirts, either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you have answered the question in your line "it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything". So Wiki (in this context) doesn't aspire or require to have accurate or current info, it just seeks to be an echo chamber for other sources regardless of their provenance (see the Coventry newspaper hyperlink which prompted my original comment). The railway press has a small number of professionals but rolling stock records wouldn't show detail such as repaints or names being applied, or more crucially removed (these are far harder to "additionally citation"), and so reports of these will be drawn from 'platform enders' who are thanked/acknowledged but NOT paid/employed. Wiki should just come out and say its not an online encyclopedia and that all readers should refer to other sources for more up-to-date or accurate info. Chris M 390141 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  We can never remove the "cite sources" box from the names section! 

message: I removed the "Fleet liveries and names" section, given that it was completely unsourced. It was restored by Chris M 390141, who said "ATTENTION. This page was locked for a week owing to "vandalism". Then less than 24hr after it was re-opened someone was allowed to rip an entire section out totally unchallenged. Wiki needs to sort this out. I've re-written as well as possible." but did not add a source. I don't want to edit war here, but could all editors please have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and remove the unsourced content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: None of it is sourced: I . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There had been a paragraph in there explaining the names and summarizing the livery change (not written by me) from circa 2009 until Sunday- someone ripped that out, it had the same level of provenance as the rest of the article. If you want me to "source" it I can fill your inbox up with over 100 photos which show each of the 57 trains in the original silver livery and the 42 trains in the new livery. Just post an e-mail address. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  A photo of a train is not a reliable source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is a reliable source?! The original livery and the change of livery to current, along with the original nameplate format and change to current should really not be in dispute, all are factual. To omit them from Wiki is to exclude the most obvious visible feature of the trains as they would be seen. Chris M 390141 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:IRS. You could use the abc Rail Guide (Ian Allan) or British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock (Platform 5) - these are published annually. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They do, but they only list the current info at time of going to print. This means someone wishing to gain an understanding, for example, of the British Rail Class 390 fleet only gets a snapshot of that moment in time and cannot otherwise see a very brief history/summary of the significant developments. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced content

message: Add Category:Train-related introductions in 2002 Buttons0603 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 November 2019 

message: 390055(390155) Chris M 390141 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 24 November 2019 

message: The current photograph is outdated and of low quality. I have a much higher quality photo of one such trainset at Manchester Piccadilly to upload, with a cleaner look, higher pixel count and also demonstrating a more up-to-date livery (despite Virgin Trains going out of business on the WCML recently).
The picture can be found here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ovTG2qr2MGV5JIwEpZtgxxdYgjmgko0yKMLZuyHzrQh8751JIoadTynZsqMSnuYuNeELaeZTdYxblMV5tilQprWS03zKYt4JgQdewVu1jZgcLvyJ3fTJj_peaq8-eu3LZ9Zh7duV5z1CcMv9UkM2v4hvGwlpdQaKYEUzM7OMJsv0S6VklfJrLpuPHQeO2pX3b17BUydXyb0cXQziNh_HERhivGcL0tg2kbOWL3v4FfVni2VafbTVhs5ATSdiJ0UAqCQiwV4I6qI_jsjAZLhzeaAR-g2l9PMDrJRA_bvBGo3rPgXX-KfY7DS7BYsuuzwL7J4otltkxNANHsthaf_5KxvpYEf-R-gJtb5zHWMpxGUQMxP_k25s8TLIUZDNWWH2NkB2QrYn4052ZjT43ANYrh5fy4UYM8TDYN3HJSBVI7glCIe8TFW5j4r0mTqKmpCT0tmtgsjYZEkXveojYlT4DqMxJBD8NhF_Uuvroq6HyGBBHYLqxb5iuVAsGyiFyFEjLoL8q0t_DzttXtBPZ0njS9hRD-RxpC_HuIDM7QWCWIOJyzaURh2QCsH6pVmDgPpKME98_K5HyHJ_iPCKrinEVypwdB0kl0yuD19bNHcLXYpx6JUA12SgGueTtOL_qfTdvjJdE8NVa3yKPNonA87JLD4IScemeH1QR8RsJ4b8WafCHw427i2XvpX3=w1951-h1300-no
Thanks for considering the image. Tbarnes5 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Images used on Wikipedia must be properly licensed for use here; see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019 

message: I removed a  that appears to have been taken from here: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-premium-economy-class-launched-17388056. It has no camera information, only photoshop metadata, suggesting it has been a straight screenshot edit and should be deleted. Would appreciate someone marking the original image for deletion as I can't seem to get the template to work correctly.
During the edits there was also a  that while correctly licenced, has not been talked about on here first. Personally I think it's not a great photo, but I'm no expert in the matter. Quinny899 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'ts a much better image than the one that was on the page. Poorly shot and has is outdated. Wikipedia is meant to be an up to date source and by using an old image this doesn't follow the spirit of the site Joshualowe1002 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a whole section of discussion on which image to use above this. If you want to suggest the image be used, suggest it first. Just changing the page will get it reverted, as I've just done again. Quinny899 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Commons has a template, c:Template:Copyvio. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, I was trying to use the Wikipedia template which obviously didn't work - now I know why 😀 Quinny899 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Pages are not "assigned" moderators/admins; there is at least one who has this page on their watchlist (ahem).  You don't get to unilaterally decide what is the best image for the lede; as suggested above, you'll need a consensus. I'm not going to revert the image back, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to weigh in, but I will intercede if there is a dispute or edit warring. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have . Now, please explain what GDPR is and why we should be bound by it --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  GDPR is why we have to spend half of our time on the Internet clicking buttons to accept cookies. As you've probably surmised, it has absolutely no bearing on Wikipedia images, unless you're prone to making stuff up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've blocked User:77.97.179.254 for likely sockpupettry/editing while logged out. An WP:SPI might be warranted by interested parties. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement images 

message: Does anybody know what each of the bracketed words next to the fleet numbers stand for? AGAR-05 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Please give examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: DMS, MS, DMRF etc I think they correspond to carriage types but am not fully sure and would like to know AGAR-05 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Not sure if the message went through already. DMS, DMRF etc these two are on the driving coaches  AGAR-05 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not in brackets, and they are explained: after "DMRF" we find "Driving motor: first class open with kitchen". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet numbers 

message: An anonymous editor, , has replaced the image in the infobox which got me thinking, it should be updated to show the 390 in Avanti livery as the Virgin livery is no longer used. I'll have a look and see if there are any good photographs of the 390 in Avanti livery. NemesisAT (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I like both of the photos they are both good choices for a new infobox photo. If I had to pick one however I would also pick the the same photo as you. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Maurice Oly. I've gone ahead and changed the image. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image for infobox? 

message: Could this article be improved with more details about the braking system?
How are the brakes cooled?
How is the regenerative braking used? Is it the default option for light braking, with the disks coming on for heavier braking?  ENSOsurfer (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be useful. The Pendolino brake system is not unusual for an intercity EMU. (And to answer the questions, the brake discs are air-cooled, the electric brake is used in preference to the friction brake, but when heavier braking is required the two brakes are blended to give the required braking effort). Spookster67 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braking 

message: Why has City Of Edinburgh been removed from the named trains list? The train 130, recently completed her refit and returned to service, her name still very much in place. 
Can City Of Edinburgh be reinstated please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.38.91 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Edinburgh

message: Hi all, just wanted to say that I have nothing against the current image (I think it's framed very nicely actually), although having said that the image is technically outdated; without the full livery present, hence why I believe perhaps it's time for a new image. I have one that I have taken that could be of use (390Tamworth 
), hopefully it loads as I'm currently writing this on my mobile. If you have any disagreements with the idea of a new photo or want to send other photo ideas then of course do say. I won't change the image until several people have said to change, and won't change it with my image if people believe it is not an improvement, but, after all, Wikipedia is meant to be about giving the public the most up to date information as possible! Vanmanyo (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, it is a bit dark. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do see your point, I didn't want to edit it, and won't. I do have this image which is a lot brighter but in my opinion perhaps is a worse angle  Vanmanyo (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly better overall. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Murgatroyd49 yes I think I have to agree, I would say we do need a new image though but perhaps we wait for anyone else to contribute a better image with a full livery? Vanmanyo (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this image:  Vanmanyo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a fan personally - while it's great from the front, you can barely see the side/livery as it's so much darker... sorry! Danners430 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image with full livery 

message: How does anyone have a source for 390039 be refurbished? Tbrookes.23 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Railways Illustrated have a semi-regular column on which units have been refurbished - and I'm sure much of the railway press will also publish information in due course. Danners430 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 390039