Talk:British Rail Class 321

message: Does this mean that LM are keeping a few units? Tom walker (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Midland retaining? 

message: Please note that construction of the Class 321 EMU commenced in 1988 and NOT in 1986 - the Class 317 second batch were constructed during 1986 though, are you being confused with the Class 317 and Class 321 build dates?
--Peter Skuce (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 321 Build Dates 

message: Please do NOT alter what I wrote as I have included accurate information on EXACTLY which Class 321/3 EMU trains have been reliveried.--Peter Skuce (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 321/3 Repaint into National Express 'connextions' Livery

message: Please note that I have spotted user 84.13.49.166 has been vandalising the article by placing incorrect data regarding train relivery, placed a large image on the page when this image already existed as a thumbnail in the gallery near the foot of the page. This user has also removed some of my work from the page without any note or reason at all. Their information is incorrect and it has affected the article as they have also used sentances with poor English and grammer. --Peter Skuce (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is in desperate need of more citations of reliable sources. Without such sources, it is hard to judge what information is or isn't correct. If sources aren't available to confirm particular information then it should be considered for removal. A few IPs have made a large number of edits recently and it would take too long for me to review them individually. I've compared the article before and after their batch of edits and it would seems most of the edits were reversed so the actuall differences were minor. Adambro (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The current title image is of a Northern Class 321/9, of which there are only three. The picture is also nearly eight years old and is well overdue a replacement. Should I replace it with a newer photo - namely, this one:
And for the interior:
Does anyone else have any suggestions for a replacement?
GammaRadiator (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to replace the title image? 

message: Due to the number of unsourced edits to this page in the last 24 hours I have asked for this page to be auto confirmed user protected. Maurice Oly (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look on youtube, thats where we got the edit from. 2 321s have gone to scrap. 321446, 321357  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BEB1:2200:88E:6B0D:AAE8:39FA (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that’s exactly why the page is semi protected. Have a good read of WP:RS and WP:RSP. SK2242 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: As the project to convert some Class 321s to Class 600s has been abandoned without even a prototype completed, should the Class 600 article be merged into the Hydrogen conversion section of this one? Colwest (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from British Rail Class 600 

message: I see the recent discussion about merging British Rail Class 600 into this article, but I completely disagree with the reasoning. The other cancelled classes referenced in the discussion, frankly, should not have their own articles (although I see some merit in the British Rail Class 316 (Picc-Vic) as it relates to a wider scheme with more available information). The linked article to the proposed British Rail Class 300 is an unsourced, unreferenced stub and should be no more than a section in the British Rail Class 307 article. There is precedent for this too - the article on the British Rail Class 614 was merged into the article on its parent class, the British Rail Class 314, despite there actually being an example of this conversion having been carried out and under test as we speak. Why do some proposed and cancelled types have their own article, while an actually existing type is relegated to a section of an article? It's just very inconsistent. Eilidhmax (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the notability in and of itself. The Class 316 has a good number of sources to support a standalone article, whereas the Class 614 page - well, it just isn't that necessary for just a single unit! The Class 600 is in the same boat as the 316 - IMO it has a sufficient number of reliable sources - i.e., good independent coverage - to show notability for itself to give it its own article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Class 600 merge discussion 

message: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/electric-zeroemission-freight-train-service-varamis-rail-b1054402.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevin  (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 January 2023 (GMT) (UTC)
:What is this comment and what is it doing on a talk page? See WP:NOTFORUM. Danners430 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry @Danners430, but your comment is unnecessarily snappy. It would have been better if Chevin had supplied a context for their post, yes, but assuming good faith would say that it plausibly could have been for the purpose of improving the article as required by WP:NOTFORUMas indeed it was, because another editor used the source to update the article shortly after the link was posted here. XAM2175 (T) 11:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, and apologies to @Chevin for coming across so snippy… it’s been a tough week, but that of course does not constitute an excuse. Danners430 (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I was concentrating on @something else when I saw that item but didnt want to forget it. Sorry I didnt give more explanation 16:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Parcel Train 

message: As Vivarail is now defunct, I assume this project is now abandoned? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a safe assumption. I doubt many people even remember it being on the drawing board (I certainly didn't). XAM2175 (T) 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future battery version