Talk:British Rail Class 458

message: Why "British Rail Class 458"? British Rail had nothing to do with these units. They were a product of the post-privatisation era.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.72.38 (talk • contribs) 11:21, November 30, 2005.
:it's a common page name format for all TOPS numbered classes that run and have run on the UK mainland (and Isle of Wight) main rail network, whether pre-or-post privitisation. It ensures that, say, if there was a class 459 in the future, that the page name wouldn't have been taken by a class of boat, or a train class in another country, or whatever. Cambridge al (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I take it this is railway jargon for service patterns or something? Can someone clarify exactly what this phrase means to the layman, please. Jonobennett
Yes, a diagram is basically a service pattern. A working diagram could say, for example, waterloo to reading, then return, then to weymouth, then return etc. (That's not a real one, by the way). They're basically what services the trains run and in what order they do so. Hope this helps :-)
82.40.75.55 11:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams? 

message: What do they currently run on?
:750V DC Third Rail Willkm 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to 25 kV AC 

message: The article is all over the place re: when the trains have been used and/or withdrawn. Can someone rearrange it all into a coherent narrative? --Dtcdthingy 22:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: Does anyone know if there are any photos available online of the corridor connection in use? I am aware they are rarely used due to their complexity, but it would be interesting to see exactly how they work. 82.40.75.55 11:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corridor connection

message: Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 458s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons images

message: Please read the talk page section "Future lengthening" above, and also review recent reverts on the article (all of which are on the topic of the future lengthening), and offer an opinion on some of these questions
# should Alarics' recent additions to the article be allowed to stand?
# should they be removed?
# should they be replaced with the additions suggested by Pjdiddyjr?
# some combination of the above?
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Actually going to wait rather longer, because the RFCbot is still sending out invitations to comment on this.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on inclusion of particular viewpoint on future lengthening of certain trainsets 

message: Separately, we should remember that Wikipedia benefits by the presence (and development) of editors who have an enthusiasm for the topics on which they edit. (Assuming that they edit according to consensus *sometime* eventually in their editing career). We can be pretty much assured that the article British Rail Class 458 will soon recover from any problems it may be undergoing right now, so we do not need to be afraid of that... although we do need to take the RfC seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article and any similar ones are certainly not going to "recover from problems" if editors who cite no sources at all are permitted to revert properly sourced text. -- Alarics (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, but I am sure that won't be the case for very long. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separately, we should remember that; 

message: The fleet details table has got a bit confused - e.g. it implies that some of the fleet are composed of 2000-2001 cars! (a train I wouldn't mind seeing!). I don't have time to fix it myself, and I'm not sure I have all the details to hand anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does  help? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does indeed thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet details 

message: How did they become more reliable? What was done to make them so? Seems like that would be pretty important to bring up since they went from junk to star of the fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.56.66 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: This page keeps getting vandalised can an admin copylock it? Metalhead11000 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very unlikely if an admin will put a lock on the page, its only happened twice, we can manage it ourselves. Nightfury 12:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

text: What exactly do you mean by "copylock"? Also, which particular edits are vandalism? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe they are referring to these two. I believe you rv'd the former. Nightfury 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Two cases in two weeks? Hardly "keeps getting vandalised". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalisim of a roblox group 

message: In this Rail News piece from 2013 I've found a claim that "the cab ends on both Class 458 and on Class 460 vehicles will be compatible with the Class 450 Desiro fleet. Although there are no plans for it to happen in normal operations, it will be technically possible for the Alstom and Siemens units to operate together". Since this predates the actual conversions occurring I'm not going to base a claim of multiple-working capability on it, but I am curious - has anybody come across a newer source backing this up?
Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of multiple working with Class 450 

message: Hello
Last year around Autumn, 458507/517 went to Long Marston, where their 460 carriage was removed, and they are now at Widnes off lease. Once refurbishment has been started and completed, a new lease will start with SWR.
458534 also went off lease and was handed back to Porterbrook formally. It will not return to SWR.
Are there any sources for this in any magazine or something because its driving me mad seeing the Wikipedia page as having all of them in service. Sootysuerickie (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off lease 

message: To keep the same format on the article, would it make sense to change the title of either "Return to 4 car formation" or 2013 Conversion to 458/5"? Hungryboat (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Return to 4 car formation" is changed to "2023 Conversion to 458/4"