Talk:British Rail Class 37

message: Im no rail buff but there appears to be an inconsistency in the production numbers of the class 37.
The artocle's preamble and description both state that 309 locomotices were built however in the 'Fleet Details' section it states 308 Class 37/0s were built and all later 37/3 and /4s were retrofits on the original /0 builds  ie no new builds and there is nothing in the text to show where this extra loco comes from to make the number up to 309. I would guess it might be a pre production prototype that did not go into service, but the article is not clear on this. It would be good if someone who knows a bit about the loco if they could clarify this in the article. 
Dondilly 12:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Loco D6983 was withdrawn and scrapped before renumbering into the TOPs scheme took place. In general all locos were numbered from D6701-999/600-608 to 37001-308 in order, except D6819 which was renumbered to 37283, and D6700 which was renumbered 37119. Our Phellap 16:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent Production Numbers

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: The EWS section of the article needs to be rewritten to avoid or explain the jargon contained in it. I'm a rail fan and so am more knowledgeable about railway terminology than the average reader, and I don't understand all of it. Thryduulf 09:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TMD = Traction Motive Depot.  We do need an article explaining the Route Availability numbers. — Dunc|☺ 13:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was thinking that myself - I would do it but no idea about them
 --wozza 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will try and bring up an article on Route Availability numbers and such. If there are any other things like that that people aren't clear on, please post them to my talk page and I'll try my best to the best of my knowledge with info available to produce articles for them, or amend current articles (I'm a rather bookish railfan as opposed to a 'bashing' railfan!
Alspittle 14:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: TMD = Traction maintenance depot. Biscuittin (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: I'm a bit of a railfan, but I've no idea what multipleworking system the 37s use. Perhaps a section explaining would be useful?212.84.108.39 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 37s were electro-pneumatic blue star, the same as almost all BR diesel electric locomotives of the time (20, 23, 24/25, 31, 33, 37, 40, 44/45/46, 47). FiggyBee 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Multiple working. Biscuittin (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Working

message: I've done the merge, and a lot of other stuff - shuffled the section so that the might be in a a more sensible order hopefully, added some more references, and data. Removed the images.
I intend to add images that hopefully match the sections - eg an image of a 37/4 next to the section about 37/4s etc.(Will take a while - please be patient..)
I think that the article probably still could do with some more work - it seems to be a question of how much detail to include - I think it could be shortened a bit with relevent references telling the story to those who want to know more....Carrolljon (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge done

message: Finished re-adding images (see above).Carrolljon (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Carrolljon, you have done a exceedingly good job on this article, and I comend you on that. However, you missed out the Class 37/3. Do you know any info about these locos, apart from the obvious I.E they were rebogied. This is also on your talk page. Dennisman (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not a lot  - they also got the increase fuel tanks (doubled the capacity) http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class37.html and there's a mention here http://www.fortunecity.com/business/director/1255/37xxxtech.html but the info is a bit vague. I can't really find anything else to say - I've added a section stub. Hopefully it can be expanded in the future.Carrolljon (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 37/3

message: this page http://www.kentrail.co.uk/Class%2037.htm suggests that the design was based on an english electric design already in use in east africa - this seems suitable for the introduction, or as a pre-amble to the section about the design - does anyone know more about these east african machines - as I've only got the one source.
An EE building name or similar would be useful so I can at least try to find out about them. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were single cab 1Co-Co1s of class 87  or 90 . Biscuittin (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: east african railways

message: The excess (unreferenced as well) detail in British_Rail_Class_37#Post_Privatisation - is a but ridiculous - hence the bias tag at the top of the section.
The locos spent the vast majority of their working lifes under BR, and the article should reflect that.
It definately needs some work to get it better. If nothing is done it is practically certain that the sections will have a lot of unreferenced stuff cut.
If that didn't make much sense please read the essay at Wikipedia:Recentism.
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronologically biased section

message: To summarise 37 901 and 37 905 have been removed (possibly temporarily) from the list of preserved locomotives. It looks like the data needs correcting for each of them.FengRail (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I've been referencing the preserved locos (slowly), a few I can't find references for: I list them below to draw attention to them:
*D6890 / 37190 /37314 / Dalzell / Midland Railway Butterley / BR Blue Large Logo :Note can't find a reference http://www.wnxx.net/fleetstatus/Fleet.htm gives different details. ie at Great Central Railway (preserved)
*D6901 / 37201 / Barrow Hill Engine Shed / Civil Engineers :Note http://www.wnxx.net/fleetstatus/Fleet.htm says it was scrapped
*also D6700  / 37119 / 37350 / National Railway Museum / North Yorkshire Moors Railway / First locomotive of class built. / BR Green  - can't find anything to say its at North York Moors
*also can't find any evidence of D6971 / 37271 / 37418 / at East Lancashire Railway (UPDATE) http://www.wnxx.net/fleetstatus/Fleet.htm marks unit as scrapped.? 
*and no evidence for D6976 / 37276 / 37413 / Privately owned, for restoration at Bo'ness / Bo'ness & Kinneil Railway
*and no evidence for D6607 / 37307 / 37403 / Bo'ness & Kinneil Railway / For restoration at Bo'ness, BR Green
Apart from those the rest of the list is (mostly) fine.
213.249.232.187 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Preserved Locos - summary

message: removed this "As of current 37406 and 37670 have been reinstated." - according to the rest of the section they only have one - can someone put the correct info in, with references.FengRail (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DB Schenker locos

message: The section mentions several locos, but begins by saying only one loco is still owned, also the section calls 37401 the "most reliable" just after saying it had been in service?
What exactly is the situation?FengRail (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd. - contradiction

message: I am thinking of moving this to a separate article to match List of preserved British Rail Class 08 locomotives and List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss at Talk:List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation section 

message: I thought I'd post this picture for possible inclusion in the article. I think it would be better placed than the photo of the dilapidated loco and possibly update the article stating the Network Rail Locos are back on in service
Proposed Addition - 97302 at Barmouth
David James White (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons:Category:British Rail Class 97s in Network Rail livery -mattbuck (Talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: File:Talsarnau railway station MMB 07 97303.jpg? Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Rail Locos 

message: I have to tell you this, both these engines 37219 37421 and 37175 are now owned by Colas Rail, so can you update this, with Class 37 37401 Mary Queen of Scots she's should be on the list why isn't she on the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.114.146 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 37219, 37421 and 37175 out of preservation

message: The first up-train Mondays to Fridays on this line (Carlisle to Preston) departing 0515 from Carlisle changes from 75-37D14 to 150 - now as I know its a loco hauled train which will be the 37 but what does the rest mean? http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/timetables/working%20timetable%20(wtt)/2%20%20-%20may%202016%20-%20december%202016/ce/ce05.pdf (Bottom of page 2)  1701Will (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For any given WTT section (in this case CE05), the explanations of various codes are given in the 00 section of the same book (in this case CE). Have a look at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/timetables/working%20timetable%20(wtt)/2%20%20-%20may%202016%20-%20december%202016/ce/ce00.pdf Here, on p. 6 we find that the timing load 75-37D14 indicates a train timed at a maximum speed of 75 mph, hauled by one (or more) Class 37 locomotive. D14 isn't clear. As for 150, that's simply a Class 150, 155 or 156 DMU. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got the answer on Facebook - yes max 75mph and class 37 but the D14 is "D"iesel hauling 140 tons (or tonnes) 1701Will (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbrian Coast Line Comment 

message: The replacement of  the parameter |whytetype = with |Britishclass= is pointless as it is not supported by the  syntax.  Therefore you get no entry.  If you wish to replace Whyte = with anything else you will have to get agreement to edit the Infobox configuration.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes
In the meantime I have reverted the last edit to get a meaningful display. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After complaining about syntax, I got the syntax wrong in this section| Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parameter  most definitely is supported, and it is displayed after the word "Commonwealth". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, still looks wrong to me but there you go Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what's "wrong" with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've lost the AAR notation Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not American. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Though potential viwers are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid tags in infoboxes 

message: Just a quick note on photos:
WE should try to get (1) good quality photos, (2) those which show a variety of locomotive styles (headboxes, buffers, etc), (3) photos from a variety of time periods, but biased towards when they were doing most of their work.  Some of these requirements might clash in which case a compromise will have to be found.  Finally, please keep preservation era photos to the preservation section.  Tony May (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has contributed more photos to this article than most (10 out of 19), I have tried to do exactly that. At a quick glance I can't see any preservation era photos other than that of 37901 which is in, wait for it, the preservation section. Admittedy could do with more than one split-headbox example, I'll have a search through my collection and commons. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having looked properly there are 3 split-headbox images in the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for Mr May, I've added an image of a split headbox loco, with round buffers, in BR blue, which I suspect is what he wanted! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos in this article.