Talk:British Rail Class 455

message: The recent accident at  involved two Class 455 units. Forum sources indicate that the units involved were 455 741 (undamaged) and 455 913 (damaged). The trailers from that unit likely to be scrapped.
Now, can we definitively state that a Class 455 was involved from the quoted sources on the Oxshott article, and can we find reliable sources for the units involved, and add an accidents section to this article? Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: or  should do (if the list has public archives). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RAIB confirms that Class 455 units were involved. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents

message: Whilst attempting a minor correction in the article, I was initially forced to use the new editor.  While attempting to save the change, the new editor attempted to turn a list of class numbers into an external reference.  It appeared to be interpreting the list as a telephone number.  I do not know where to complain of this behaviour elsewhere.  I eventually succeeded in making my edit with the old editor, but it took some effort to do so.  86.166.70.75 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with new editor. 

message: I would like to revert this page back to showing my images and the comparisons between Class 455/8, 455/7 and 455/9 both externally and internally. Also I thought that my photographs were clean and clearer than the ones currently used. For example my interior photographs feature equal amounts of flooring, seating, Passenger Information Displays, lighting and ceilings. I do not understand where my edit was wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSkuce (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy pinging  as he was the one who reverted them Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I believe it's due to the same reason as why your other ones were reverted, you need consensus  from other editors. I'm sorry to have to put you through this again but can you please supply the images here and we can then form a consensus whether to implement them into the article. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Peter, per WP:BRD, I have reverted your second attempt to change the infobox photo to one that you took, as I disagree with the need for a change. Per Class455, we'll now need to discuss to see what the consensus is- it may be the case that I am in the minority. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Both seem equally as clear to me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I see that you have yet again decided to bypass the "discuss" part and unilaterally implemented a different image. Whilst I am happy with the new interior image you have chosen, I shall note that your imposing of photographs that you have taken yourself onto articles and editwarring to keep them there, will lead you to AN before too long. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Would Like to Revert The Images 

message: The first paragraph of the "Description" section currently reads:
:The Class 455 was originally to be classified as the Class 510, at which point they were planned as a 750 V DC version of the Class 317. However, as the chopper control system at the time was not considered robust enough for the electrically rougher third rail Southern Region, they were fitted with second-hand camshaft control systems and thus classified as the 455 class.
Without disputing either that chopper control was considered and rejected for the reason given, or that they were originally intended to be Class 510, it is implied that this amounts to cause and effect.  This doesn't sound right to me.  I didn't think that chopper control was a defining feature of 5xx classes.  Indeed, the Class 501 article explicitly states that they had camshaft control; whereas the above paragraph implies that the 455s could not take a 5xx class number because they had camshaft control.
Does anyone have the exact wording of the source available, so as to ascertain whether or not it supports this assertion being worded in this way?
Quackdave (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it's anything to do with the control system. At that time, the Southern Region (SR) had more EMUs than all the other regions put together, even if AC be included; so DC EMUs were classified in the 400s if based on the SR, and in the 500s if not based on the SR.  was something of an anomaly (SR unit classified in the 500s), and at the time I assumed that it was simply because of their great similarity to class 507; then the proposed class 510 was announced, and I remember thinking "what about 509?". The subsequent redesignation of 510 as 455 I always understood was to bring them into line with the rest of the SR, and 508 were not reclassified because it had already been decided to transfer those to the LMR. On the SR, the last digit indicated the type of stock - so we had , , ,  and , all being 4-car suburban; subsequently  was added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification / control system 

message: : (the above was posted on my talk page) Replying on this talk page, given we're discussing this article. I've reverted your changes - and I think we should seek consensus first. The infobox following your edits does appear particularly unwieldy - in fact, I'd argue that it starts to become unhelpful when it's overloaded with information. Not every single fact needs to be included - especially when some of the information is already contained/explained in the article. That's what I mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Excessive listings of unexplained statistics - the article should be about the train, not a reproduction of every known technical detail about the train. Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Turini2 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I feel that you should seek consensus before making such a major content removal. XAM2175 (T) 13:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Do you feel that that is a problem specifically affecting this article, though? My decision to populate this selection of infobox parameters is based on the fact they have been populated with similar information in many other British train articles without any apparent controversy, and it's my intention to standardise the presentation of this information across the topic. I stress again that a cause for the complexity of this infobox in particular is the fact that a significant proportion of the train has notably different characteristics to the rest of it, and further that the composite train has undergone a number of modifications and upgrades over the course of its service life. Both of these facts are discussed in the article body, so - in the wording of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - they're not "unexplained". XAM2175 (T) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all; the problem I mentioned mainly affects short articles, something this article is not. XtraJovial (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly detailed infobox 

message: As per WP:CAPTION, the header image caption should be succinct and clearly identify the subject of the picture. For example, South West Trains Class 455 at Station XYZ. Examples of information that would be superfluous and unnecessary to include in a caption - the time/date/year that the photo was taken, the drivers name, the train number, the age of the train at the time the photo was taken, the fact that the train was refurbished or not, the platform that the train is at etc. If readers are interested, they can click through to the image description page to find out further details - in this case, the train number, the fact the train has been refurbished and the time/date/year the photo was taken. Some would even argue that 455/9 is too much detail in a caption compared to just 455! Turini2 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Peter Skuce hey just drawing your attention to this post with regard to captions. Turini2 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succinct caption 

message: So the Rail issue 964 has an article on page 26 titled "More classes head for scrap as EMU clearout continues" in the article is the following sentence "Class 455/8 was rended extinct on August 16, when the final two sets (455804/819) were towed away to the breakers." ()
So my question is this, what do we do with the Southwestern Railway 455/8s listed in the fleet details table? Given that a reliable source is saying the 455/8 subclass no longer exists. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 455/8