Talk:British Rail Mark 1

message: The image :Image:Glasgow-Bellgrove-crash-1989.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Glasgow-Bellgrove-crash-1989.jpg

message: The "Future" section could do with a cleanup by someone with the appropriate knowledge, as it's not at all clear. For example, "However, another railcar (in both cases a Class 121) has subsequently entered service on the Cardiff Bay branch" makes no sense, as only one railcar is mentioned! Also, there's little consistency in the article between "Mk 1", "Mark 1", "mark 1" and "Mark I". Loganberry (Talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing section 

message: In safety section of this article there is a picture of a class 303 with the caption "The Glasgow Bellgrove rail crash in 1989 involved Class 303 EMUs based on the Mark 1 carriage design" but there is no indication on how this accident related to anything to do with the Mark 1 design (primary cause was driver error).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.38.228 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Besides which, the class 303 did not use the Mark 1 bodyshell. Whilst it did have a separate underframe and body, so did almost everything else built up to about 1965, so the separate u/f does not make it Mk. 1. Have removed the image. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture relevance 

message: This article contains a lot of "Safety" stuff that is really specific to Mk1-based EMUs.  Plus the "Future" section contains now out of date speculation and inaccurate information.  The main article appears to be about Mk1 locomotive hauled coaches, if Mk1-based EMUs are to be mentioned they should be in their own (possibly significant) subsection, or a separate article.  The final withdrawal dates are incorrect as they refer to the EMUs, not the hauled coaches.  Mk1s are still in use and very popular with passengers on railtour duties, and replacement with Mk2 or Mk3 coaches, especially on steam hauled tours, would be unwelcome to many people.
There's also a lot of repetition of comments about central door locking, this could probably be reduced somewhat.  CDL is a recent development, Mk2s and Mk3s didn't have it either, nor did any slam-door multiple unit, until the 1990s.  83.136.121.65 (talk)
:Agreed. This article was suffering from input by an anon editor who had a bee in their bonnet over the supposed Mk 1 withdrawal as a result of Clapham, which I think we've cleaned up now, but related issues still remain, as you have pointed out. Needs an editor with reference material who can apply corrected information. (Incidentally, if you register for an account here it will be easier for us to know we're talking to the same editor rather than just 'some anon person'...) - EdJogg (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety sections - lack of clarity 

message: "The Mk 1 coaches were built in two distinct tranches: the early vehicles (1951-60) and the 'Commonwealth' stock (named from the type of bogie used) from 1961 onwards."
Where does this notion come from? True the later  Mark 1s were built with CW bogies but how does that justify the view that it makes them "two distinct tranches" rather than the many other distinguishing differences?
I think this is misleading as, with the right adjustments, a carriage can run on any suitable bogies. Mark 1s did have bogies switched around beneath them - some later got B4s, some that went to the southern got placed back on standard bogies! Bogies should not be used to distinguish versions of a carriage, in my view.
TJ (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with this: and besides the bogies, other design changes came in from time to time - such as fluorescent lighting instead of tungsten, or melamine interior panelling instead of wood. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Tranches? 

message: Regarding : there are two main candidates, the ex-LMS units and ex-SR units.
Of the ex-LMS units, the  stock was built in 1939, and the last was withdrawn in November 1980 so only just scraped into the 1980s. Some of the  stock was built in 1938, and most lasted until 1984-85; again, this had all gone by Clapham.
But the largest and longest lasting (and also the most complicated) group is the units of Southern Railway design: if we ignore the 4-SUB units, which didn't last beyond 1983, these formed parts of  (4-EPB units 5001-53 and 5101-5260),  (2-HAP units 5601-36) and  (2-EPB units 5651-84). In all cases the bodies were post-war, some from as late as 1959; but quite a few of these were built on pre-war underframes. As an example, when the 2-NOL units (pre-grouping bodies on 1934-36 frames) were withdrawn in the 1950s, the bodies were scrapped but the underframes were given new bodies and formed into 4-EPB, 2-HAP and 2-EPB units. For instance, unit 1813 was delivered in November 1934; it was formed of cars 9861 and 9940. When withdrawn in February 1959, the underframe of 9861 was used to build 14585, formed in 2-EPB unit 5679; and the underframe of 9940 was used to build 16111, formed in 2-EPB unit 5661. Both of these cars were withdrawn in 1994, their final units being 6326 (car 14585) and 6325 (car 16111). --Redrose64 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Info from Cannon Street station rail crash indicates safety of the pre-war under-frames (dating from 1934 & 1928) on Class 415 and 416 were a feature of that accident.  The original comment on this page, of the priority of replacing older stock before the Mk 1 coaches, seems valid.  This accident occurred in 1991.  2ghoti (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have added back text now naming 2 classes of MU that were involved in a subsequent accident.  2ghoti (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-war underframes 

message: I propose that British Railways Mark 1 sleeping car should be merged with this article because they are from the same family of loco-hauled carriages and I personally believe that a seperate article isn't necessary to describe the sleepers. Slender (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: British Railways Mark 1 →  – Name change in order to align with other British rolling stock articles, which mostly use "British Rail" instead of "British Railways" in the title. Danners430 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 December 2023