Talk:British Rail Class 377

message: Surely the Gatwick-Watford service doesn't use the WCML? Or am I a silly old fool? Dyakson 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses the slow lines from Wilsdeen Junction to Watford Junction as i understand, although they use the bay platforms at Watford Junction. They run route training further up the WCML incase of the bay platforms being unavailable. Its the curtailment of an earlier service that used to run all the way up to the bay platforms at Rugby. Pickle 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WCML to Watford? 

message: "Note: units 377472 and 377474 have 'speed run' branding in reference to these units forming the record breaking London to Brighton run."
Might be an idea actually to explain in the article what that was! 86.143.48.85 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed run? 

message: Why does the title include "British Rail" (capital B, capital R) - when the Class 377 was ordered after the break-up of British Rail which was completed in 1997?  I would agree that "Class 377" on its own as an article title could do with some qualification to associate it with British rolling stock, but naming it after a defunct organisation seems to lack rationale, other than backwards compatability with pre-privatisation rolling stock articles. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you raise this at the UK talk page as it affects other articles. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Though with all due respect this has been talked to death and the general consensus is that the current naming convention is the least of several evils. NRTurner (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Rail? 

message: This states "Southern's 375s were all converted to Class 377 when their Tightlock couplers became redundant after the retirement of the "slam-door" stock such as the Class 421."
This doesn't make sense since "slam door" stock from the 1960s (and beyond) didn't have Tightlocks, they were fitted with the earlier Buckeye couplers which needed the units to "ease up" and the manual intervention of a shunter to get them apart. Automatic Tightlocks weren't available until later stock such as Classes 319 & 465, and in any case these were not directly compatible with Buckeyes; an adaptor set consisting of 'Mushroom & Pin' was required to compensate for the geometry and height differences.
Also it should be understood that the main reason for removing Tightlock couplings from the 375 fleet was reliability and maintenance issues. There were some embarrassing instances of 375s coming apart in the early years, and the decision was taken to modify the 375s and abandon Tightlocks on future EMU stock. Ivor the driver (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Any chance you could find some sources that state this? If so, feel free to rewrite it. NRTurner (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coupler Section is muddled

message: Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 377s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons images

message: Perhaps someone knowledgable should write an entry on the technical reasons why Class 377's seem to drop like flys following the first fleck of snow? I spent 10 hours sleeping in one on 02-Dec-2010 following multiple failures of 377's across the Southern Network. Much the same happened the previous year. Davagh (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed it was just a third rail problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance in the Snow

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/contractors/brakes/dellner/
*: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 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: There were media reports that this class would require a GPS signal to know whether it's in a station for the doors to be unlocked. Should this be added in the article or is this normal in britain? If the latter: How is this system called/where ist the article about it? (please ping me for answers, I'm normally not on this language) --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 21:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not normal; in fact I don't know of any class that does this. But to add it in, we would need a reliable source, per WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, here it is. I just forgot to link it due to tiredness, sorry. --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 11:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed it is already mentioned in the article, but much shorter than I would have expected: "In conjunction with the onboard GPS receiver, Mitrac controls Selective Door Operation (SDO) […]". So maybe someone (with better english and better knowledge of british railways than mine) could add the criticism over there or something? --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 12:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is a late reply, but there seems to be some confusion that needs clearing up. This is not limited to Class 377s. AFAIAA all recently manufactured trains using Selective Door Operation need to have a GPS fix. To my knowledge the Bombardier & Siemens fleets in the UK do. SDO is intended to ensure that only those doors which are over a platform can be 'released'. So for example, a 12 car train could stop at a 4 car platform and the system would only allow 4 carriages to release when the driver gave a door open command - the other 8 carriages would remain locked. The data for each station is programmed into the SDO. Obviously the train needs to know where it is and which direction it is travelling in (because different platforms at a station aren't always the same length!). If the GPS loses its fix, the SDO won't respond to the door open command from the driver. This can happen whenever the view of the sky is obstructed and not enough satellites can be 'seen'. Without being specific, using MITRAC it's necessary to scroll through a list of locations where a release is allowed, pick the one you're at, confirm that you are really there and you really want to do it (as you are over riding a safety system), and select a manual release. It's not a problem, but it does tend to waste time and frustrate the passengers as they have to wait for the doors to be released. Personally speaking I didn't feel the urge to put this on Wiki as I don't think it's a big deal, and it's already touched upon in Selective door operation#Control by GPS, HTH, Dr Sludge (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPS for passenger doors? 

message: I would like to update the main image with a photo of Class 377/6 No. 377622 at London Bridge and the interior of the Class 377/6. In addition to this, I would like to add a couple of interior shots from Class 377/4 to the article, these being of a First Class cabin and a Standard Class saloon. talk 17:40, 16 February 2017 (GMT)
PeterSkuce (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of the 377/6 at Clapham Junction looks good, but I'm slightly worried that it might be a copyright violation as it was taken from someone's Flickr. However, I have seen the same person's work on other Wiki pages, so I'm not sure about that. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  22:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was flickr reviewed, and in fact is still CC-BY-SA on Flickr, so there's no copyright issue. I don't believe it's truly necessary to show the same subclass interior as exterior in the infobox. I'm not sold on the Au Morandarte pic, but the best other /6 I can find is :File:Battersea Park railway station MMB 30 377605.jpg and that's rather too head-on I feel. The subclasses look pretty much identical bar number of carriages, just find the best outside view of any Southern 377. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great shot there! I think thats a good image as well we could use for the infobox. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm fine with that too, as well as your interior images. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update main image and add interior images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 377. 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/20130223073203/http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/index.html to http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/index.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) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For some time now, I have thought that the interior image of a class 377/6 is not as representative of the fleet as it could be. That is because out of the 216 class 377 units operated by souther, class 377/6s and class 377/7s only make up 15% of the fleet. I believe it should be changed to instead show an image inside a class 377/1, 377/2 or 377/4 (although not a 377/3, which has a different layout), which collectively make up 71% of the southern class 377 fleet (higher if southeastern's class 377/5s with largely the same layout are added). A suggestion of what could be used instead, from wikimedia commons is shown right next to this text in the reference. If the image is changed, then the old image could still be included in the article, just lower down. Lawrence 979 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update interior image