Talk:British Rail Class 91

message: I'm pretty sure I have seen at least one Class 91 painted in the new "Silver Link" livery along with it's Coaches and DVT. I'm afraid I don't know which one it is because I was riding a Bus through Doncaster Interchange at the time and only glanced the top of it. I just wondered if anyone else had any information on this and whether East Coast is planning to re-livery all it's 225 sets. Xeon63 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: East Coast Livery

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 22:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: In reference to this image, how is it incorrect? The number is on the DVT (the trailer end) which is in fact a class 82.
--Dean Earley 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter, its been picked up and corretced in other places --Dean Earley 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captioned "Incorrect numbering to a GNER Class 91" 

message: In the Gallery there is an image titled "Class 91 in NXEC livery south of York". I wonder if this is not actually a DVT since I can't see any pantograph on this image.
Soarhead77 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image question 

message: Has now become the first of the class to receive NXEC livery. It still has the mouse. What is the mouse? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  91111 

message: Have adjusted the 1989 speed record from 162.8mph to 162mph. All the references I can find agree on this figure and one states that the Class 91 narrowly missed beating the APT-P record. The APT-P is widely regarded as retaining the ultimate speed record of 162.2mph from 1979 until the Eurostar run of 2003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdef123456 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locomotive Speed Record 

message: It seems to think there's 1.64 kilometres to the mile, not 1.61...
As stated in the text, and proved by my own calculations (using a calculator and rule-of-thumb 5sf figure of 1609.3 metres/mile), the train was CALLED (!) the "225" because it was planned to do 225km/h, or 140mph... more accurately 225.302km/h. Not "230km/h", aka 142.9mph (don't have me for pedantry over 2.9 little mph's / 4.7 km/h's, not when i'm in the midst of trainspotterville, and speed records, nay, speeding tickets have been won and lost by much smaller margins).
I opened up the editor to correct this "typo", as I've had to on a couple other pages (they seem rife - someone on wiki has some very odd rough imperial <--> metric conversions in their head), and found it's actually the output of the auto-convert thing! The strange thing is, it's got the 125 figure right (201km/h - or 201.163) even after the automatic rounding-off, so what gives?
I'm going to try and effect a seamless manual edit to that, because it's not as if the data is ever going to change. Wish me luck. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  there's something wrong with the speed units auto-converter.... 

message: I have removed the 40kN tractive effort as it is clearly too low: not enough to use their full power (40kN at 140mph is about 2.5MW) and giving much less acceleration than observed (which would suggest somewhere near 150kN).--QuantumEngineer (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tractive effort

message: Can somebody please cleanup this article - specifically sort out the sources, and remove the per locomotive trivia about when the last exam was.Mddkpp (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: With the exception of test units and special runs, is the Class 91 ever used with anything else than an InterCity 225? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sleeping car trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting thought - when the 225 is superseded by the 800 or 801, will the Class 91s be used as an electric locomotive for other applications (i.e. on the Great Eastern Mainline), or will they be withdrawn with the MKIV stock? Bob talk 18:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 91. 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/20110715151659/http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue233.pdf to http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue233.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927103135/http://www.traintesting.com/images/91101%20EC%20livery%20Leeds.jpg to http://www.traintesting.com/images/91101%20EC%20livery%20Leeds.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219213121/http://www.mediacentre.eastcoast.co.uk/News/EAST-COAST-UNVEILS-MOVING-TRIBUTE-FOR-THE-FALLEN-48d.aspx to http://www.mediacentre.eastcoast.co.uk/News/EAST-COAST-UNVEILS-MOVING-TRIBUTE-FOR-THE-FALLEN-48d.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/Press-Release/2011/EAST-COAST-NAMES-TRAIN-SIR-BOBBY-ROBSON/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051115101437/http://www.traintesting.com/IC225.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/IC225.htm
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) 04:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This appears on the sidebar and claims to be equal to 240km/h or 149mph, cited from a very ratty PDF of a (xeroxed? mimeographed?) photocopy of a French-language spec sheet for the loco, which simply has that speed listed as "Vitesse maximale" (and also shows that the tractive force is stepped down considerably after 200km/h up to 240). It doesn't include, much less explain that same term, or show any sign that the speed claim is anything other than a historic typo, maybe a confusion between 140mph and 240km/h. Can anyone clarify this bit of weirdness? 46.208.118.147 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it lists 149 rather than 161 mph, since that's the speed the locomotive can potentially achieve. Bob talk 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lok (Overspeed)", qu'est-que c'est? 

message: Is there a better image of a Class 91 that we can use for the main infobox available? The current one looks terrible! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it with one that also can be found further down the article, it'll do for now I guess but if anyone can replace it with a better image then feel free. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  23:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main infobox image 

message: For the benefit of the editor who insists the cite on 91131 being nominated for preservation by the Railway Heritage Committee is invalid, sometimes you actually need to read the article to gain a proper understanding rather than relying on a seven-word heading. To quote the relevant paragraph from the cite provided:
: Jaraween22 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you for providing this. This wasn't a web based source for a start so I couldn't check that the information was mentioned in there. In addition to this there's been numerous amounts of speculation doing the rounds about which, if any Class 91's are going to preservation. I must  remind you however to assume good faith when referring to other editors, even when you disagree with them. Thank you Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  91131 Railway Heritage Committee nomination 

message: "Although Class 370s, Class 373s and Class 374s have run faster, all are EMUs which means that the Electra is officially the fastest locomotive in Britain."
I was under the impression that the 373 has a power car at each end - and passenger coaches in-between, like the TGV. Sure, "it always runs as one combined EMU", but, if that's the case, then the InterCity 225 also fails this test, given that the 91's have pulled Mark 4 carriages throughout their life. Thoughts?Turini2 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the difference is in classification - the class 91 is classified as an electric locomotive, and runs as such (you detach the loco from one rake of carriages and put it on another). The 373/374s are classified as EMUs (though yes the 373 is technically a top and tailed train, they work as fixed-formation units). However, this is not really our distinction to make, we are not making judgments about it, we report what other people say, and if they say it is the fastest electric loco then it's the fastest electric loco. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locomotive speed record 

message: in the page it says "The British Rail Class 91 is a class of high-speed, 4,830 kW (6,480 hp) electric locomotive ordered as a component of the East Coast Main Line modernisation and electrification programme of the late 1980s" i have never heard anyone say is a British train referred as a class in the the class 801 page that im going to use as a example it says "The British Rail Class 801 Azuma is a type of electric multiple unit (EMU) built by Hitachi for London North Eastern Railway." which is better as to appose saying its a class its a emu but you might say that comparing to a page about a train built in 2017 so i may ask why is the Class 314 page say this "The British Rail Class 314 was a class of alternating current electric multiple unit (EMU) trains built by British Rail Engineering Limited's Holgate Road carriage works in 1979. They were the third class of units derived from British Rail's 1971 prototype suburban EMU design, which as the BREL 1972 family eventually encompassed 755 vehicles over five production classes (313, 314, 315, 507, and 508)." its built around the same time so i will edit the page until the criteria is matched TheScottish801 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh 

message: LNER recently unveiled a new livery for their nine sets remaining in service, as seen in this promotional video released by the operator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRVdq5BOBA
How should the livery described in the relevant table? Intercity Swallow with LNER oxblood red? And when would it be appropriate to make this change in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.246.30 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New LNER Livery 

message: Did the Electra name ever catch on or was it abandoned at project stage? I only remember promotional materials with the Intercity 225 name. 92.192.209.0 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electra name 

message: The current version of the article states that 91110 and 91111 are designated for preservation, but the citation given is still the original one referring to 91131.  The current version of RHDAB's designations list appears to indicate that whilst their nameplates, plaques, numbers, and artwork are designated, the complete locomotives themselves are not.  In both cases, the second column (Asset Type) states "Nameplates", not "Rail Vehicles".
Admittedly, the wordings in the fifth column (Description) are poor, and I can see why they might have been taken ambiguously; but there is no apparent reason why RHDAB would nominate further complete locos of the same class, when the one they originally nominated has already been preserved.
Any views? Quackdave (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RHDAB designations