Talk:British Rail Class 153

message: I have edited the page to remove a few of the worst photographs - the top image was off the edge of the frame and completely failed to illustrate that the the units were single-car. There is a good selection of 153 images in Wikimedia Commons which might be even better and I will put up the best images when I get time. Not sure the lengthy details about each unit on the image captions are to necessary either so I will reduce these. R-T-C (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some pretty awful photos in this piece 

message: This is not an acceptable section for an encyclopedia.
The absence of historical context (ie full work history) is the problem - does anyone have any such information or links to such information. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Current operations

message: I would agree with CrossHouses that :File:153328 Doncaster.JPG is a better image than :File:153329 and 142 Paignton.JPG for the infobox since it shows more of the train, is easier to understand because the Class 153 unit isn't coupled to anything else, and the angle, more side on than front on, is better. I note that Peter has reinstated the other image, commenting that "exterior image matches interior image", but I don't see why it would be necessary for both images to show the same unit. Adambro (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Adambro - the :File:153328 Doncaster.JPG image is clearer to those unfamiliar with the class. As the class is almost unique (amongst trains in revenue service) in that the trains consist of only one carriage I think it's best to use an image which demonstrates this best. The descriptions for each image can state that the interior shown is for a FGW unit and the exterior is a Northern unit. NRTurner (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a third option. :File:153368 C Bristol Temple Meads.JPG, currently used in the Operations:South West section, shows that the train is one carriage long AND matches the interior image. Its place in the South West section could be taken by  :File:153329 and 142 Paignton.JPG so that it isn't removed from the article altogether. With a bit of luck this should be acceptable to both editors. What does anyone else think? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the Doncaster one - frankly I think the Bristol shot is rather grainy, not to mention that the sky is very overexposed. Or how about this one I took up at  a few years back? May need a bit of cropping. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The Doncaster one shows the length perfectly well, and is a better photo. It really doesn't matter if the carpet matches the drapes in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, and side note, I cropped the Temple Meads one, it really had way too much sky. It's still very noisy though - despeckle just made it look worse. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I preferred the FGW interior shot, but ok. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good solution. The only problem is that the Northern England section now has just one picture when it previously had three. Perhaps it's worth adding one more from Commons. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I just added :File:153304 at Doncaster.JPG from Commons to the article as I feel this makes it look better. Hope everyone is OK with this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox exterior photo 

message: Isn't a "Single Car Diesel Multiple Unit" a contradiction in terms? Wouldn't this actually be considered a Railcar or Railbus? --66.149.58.8 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a way I suppose, but I always figured that the multiple part referred to the ability to work in tandem with other units. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Multiple Unit just meant that all the power units were held within the passenger cars rather than in a separate locomotive, which is why fixed-formation locomotive/carriage combinations such as the British Rail Class 43 don't qualify. "Single Car Multiple Unit" does sound a bit weird but it appears to be a widely used term. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Multiple unit.  David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The definition seems to make it clear that the class 153 is a Multiple Unit, as per what Mattbuck said. Thanks for clearing that up. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Am tempted to add "or Railcar" since it meets that definition aswell Enotayokel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A what? 

message: OK can we try to keep a hat on the images. Using too many in the body of the article causes them to cascade down - these are called "stack ups" and believe me they look a mess :)
See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Avoiding_stack-ups
What I've done is collect as many livery images into a gallery to avoid this. This leaves a fair amount of space for interior images. So that is good yes. Please avoid "stack ups" though. Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IMAGES!

message: Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 153s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons images

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Rail Class 153. 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/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx
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) 22:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 153. 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/20141103010722/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_155.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_155.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) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear redrose64.
I am a novice at trying to make corrections on Wikipedia, so please bear with me. In respect of the class 153, I was the Factory manager, Project Manager and Works Manager for the conversion.
I guess that makes me the ultimate authority on the subject. How can I establish myself as the authority on the 153s?
Any assistance much appreciated.
Regards
John
Jwoch (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be wise of you to remind yourself of the previous conversation at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17#British Rail Class 153. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't see the "vile callousness" to which you refer.  It has been explained to him very politely by more than one editor why he couldn't do what he wanted to do without reliable sources, but sadly he didn't seem to understand what he was told, and he has persisted in the same attempt both under his registered username and under a variety of IPs.  Sympathy wears a little thin in such situations. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He has also posted virtually the same comments at least four times in at least two different venues, to which we have replied every time; but he has clearly not been reading those replies. If he had, he would not have asked the same question again, but would have asked supplementary questions pertaining to the previous replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I didn't understand the extent of the issue, sorry. I thought it was just a poor chap trying to correct a page. htchngs (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington  NOT Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock 

message: There are two other Wikipedia references which are CORRECT, vis
1) Wikipedia "talk" page on 'British Rail Class 153'
2) Porterbrook leasing Class 153 Data Sheet. See also the Porterbrook website.
regards
JW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting tired of you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington  NOT Hunslet Barclay 

message: The vehicles owner is Porterbrook Leasing. The Class 153 data sheet on their website gives the correct details.
Jwoch (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly ignoring the many replies that I have left previously. There is therefore no reason for me to offer you any more advice. Please stay off this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

text: You have been testing my patience for several years. Henceforth, you will discuss the matter here and nowhere else, certainly not at User talk:Redrose64. If you post there again, your edits will be reverted without comment, and without even the courtesy of being transferred here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 153  

message: There appears to be an ongoing dispute as to whether the conversion work was performed by Hunslet-Barclay at Kilmarnock or Leyland Bus at Workington. Three independent publications (Railway Gazette International, The Railway Magazine and Today's Railways) have stated it was performed at the former. Maybe this is incorrect, but per WP:VNT, the article should reflect this until reliable sources can be produced to contradict this. Meinpein (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for finding the extra references.  I have reinstated the earlier reference from the ROSCO which confirms the same information. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person trying to expunge Hunslet-Barclay is  (and their various IP addresses). Their  to my user talk page illustrates, in conjunction with the thread directly above it, that they are unwilling to read any of my replies, instead preferring to start a new section as if it is an entirely fresh dispute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the conversions were performed 

message: The paragraph starting "The new is smaller than the original Leyland cab" looks to me that it would read better as "The new cab is smaller than the original Leyland cab" (insert word 'cab').
Ta  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.186.162 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, , so  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested minor change 

message: The article currently claims there are 24 class 153s, however according to the Transport for Wales website, they have 22. Also, the article is worded as if all of these units were converted to comply with accessibility standards, however, as of writing the TfW website says eight have been converted. The sources in the article are from a magazine so I can't personally verify them. This article may also be useful. Not sure how best to update this so thought it would be useful to others if I left this note. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport for Wales 153s and accesibility 

message: Is anybody able to provide more information on what's meant by the "stored (allocated)" and "stored (unallocated)" rows in the fleet details table? Cheers XAM2175 (T) 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stored allocated/unallocated