Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes)

message: *Pros:
**Technically correct as TOPS is the reason for the numbering scheme.
*Cons:
**TOPS isn't (or at least wasn't) exclusive to Great Britain.
**Doesn't make it immediately clear that it relates to (a) Trains, (b) Great Britain
**What about pre-TOPS classes?
:I support this option because it is technically correct, it is what the TOCs and planners use, and (consequently/also) it handles the cross-channel service, and
::I don't see how it matters that TOPS is not exclusive to GB, so long as there is no duplication.  We don't worry about ISBN.
:: (a) The designation will always be used in a train context and/or will be made clear within 5 seconds. (b) The articles are about trains, not about their livery. Is the Class 373 a British train or a French train? It is neither really.  But again the context (invocation and content) will always make clear whether we are talking about Cross Pennine services or Cross Apennine services.
:: Pre-TOPS classes can continue to use their original designation, there is no need for strait-jacket consistency. 
: --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw my vote in the light of debate on this option. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TOPS Class 185

message: *Pros:
**It clearly describes an article about a class of locomotive in Britain.
**It makes no reference to current or past organisations.
*Cons:
**Requires 'Rail' to be changed to 'Locomotive' on each page
*Also:
**Class 185 is a diesel multiple unit, NOT a locomotive! Our Phellap 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British Locomotive Class 185

message: :NB: "railways" with a l.c. "r"! "DMU" would be replaced by a specific designation like "locomotive" etc. for other classes
*Pros:
**It clearly describes an article about a class of DMU (locomotive, etc.) on British railways - pre or post British Rail(ways)
**It makes no reference to current or past organisations
*Cons:
**Requires several changes to the title of each page
--Ant 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British railways Class 185 DMU

message: The Class66 is a freight locomotive, that was developed from the Class59, and now has derivatives all over Europe
* It's a family - Class59 thru Class66
* It's not British - it was built in Canada by General Motors, first deployed in the UK, and now used all over Europe
* The manufacturer refers to it casually as a Series66, accepting there are differnet numbering schemes all over Europe. The full reference is JT42CWR and JT42CWRM for newer versions 
* The TOPS system is running out of numbers - so the entire class is unlikely to remain as Class66
Here's a dutch fan's website with all loco's listed: 
Thoughts? It could still be filed as the Class66, but with numerous re-direction pages (I think whatever the eventual Wiki designation, it will still end with numerous Redirection pages); use the manufactureres code which other Wiki editions could more easily tag into?
In this case, the later would be my preference. That way we could track different editions on one page, rather than numerous copies of the same information.
Some of the refered to "British" classes above also have a similar European-Derivative issue (in fact, some were first deployed in Europe rather than UK), now being used all over Europe.
Rgds, Trident13 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not correct to say "Class59 thru Class66" is a family - Class 60 is the only intermediate class which exists, and that's nothing to do with EM-GMD. I see someone's just deleted the information on non-British examples from British Rail Class 66; might I suggest putting it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro Derivatives - eg: Class66

message: There is something more than a bit weird about calling the cross-channel service British Rail Class 373, when it is used on both British and French railways.  This is certainly an argument for using the style "TOPS Class 373" as discussed above.  No doubt there are similar trains on the continent (though for example there is an 'all stations' service between Nice and Genoa via Monte Carlo which is very line one of our Trans-Pennine services) but I don't think they are so jingoistic about it.  (For example, the Nice-Genoa services are alternately hauled by SNCF and Trenitalia).  I shudder to think what must happen among the Benelux countries!  To summarise, I think we have to change the name of the Class 373 and have proposed as much at Talk:British Rail Class 373#Name of this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has to be changed.  Indeed, Wikipedia policies state that naming changes should not be made until something clearly better collectively presents itself.  The suggested alternatives do not appears to be better than leaving it as the status quo.  —Sladen (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that the status quo is clearly wrong (in that British Rail[ways] ceased to exist 12 years ago) and this train in particular exposes the error.  We should not use transient company names but rather use the neutral technical descriptor, TOPS, that the industry uses. This notation is clearly better than the status qou, especially when the latter is blatantly inaccurate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you got a citation for your claim that "TOPS Class" is the "neutral technical descriptor ... that the industry uses."? Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to be fair, the industry just uses "Class xxx" without any qualifier.  That said, I've gone off the idea and won't argue the point any longer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  The naming of the article is definitely wrong here. The trains are operated by Eurostar, not British Rail which has nothing to do in the title name (and isn't even named as such anymore anyway). The Status Quo is just completely wrong and can only justify itself jingoistic reasons. What about Eurostar Class 373 simply? I don't see the need to complicate it more, Eurostar describes the companies that operates it and class 373 is the model. 90.16.71.19 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Of course, you could always just decapitalise the R in Rail, in which case it would be semantically correct as it IS the British rail(ways) Class XYZ. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  International trains 

message: Similar matters were debated in:
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 14#Naming of British rolling stock articles
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention
– Certes (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussions