Talk:British Rail Class 313

message: Apart from seating, is there any difference between 313/0 and 313/1s? The article doesn't say. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 313/1 had extra shoegear fitted for the Euston-Watford route. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  /0 and /1 

message: I have removed some images to tidy up the article - there are photographs in the gallery at the foot of the page (this was added by request).
I have also placed a better image of the Class 313 on the inbox.
--Peter Skuce (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy Up 

message: I've returned the section titles to the operators, as this is how they are sorted in other similar articles. Similarly, 313102 has been renumbered 313202 and is in Southern livery, so stop reverting this. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed them to routes (should have removed the "current") as they seemed to be more historical than current anyway. Current imo would give just where they are now, not who had them post-privatisation and the other companies hands they went through. But OK. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current operations section 

message: As this appeared to have never been fixed, I have rephrased the opening paragraph, removing the contentious phrase "dual voltage", so that it now states:
They were also the first British Rail units fitted with both a pantograph for 25kV AC overhead lines and shoegear for 750V DC third rail supply [...]
Hopefully, this is now both factually accurate and relevant to the article, and is acceptable to everyone! --RFBailey (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrased

message: I'm unable to cite any sources for the information I've contributed under the Southern section because it is all first-hand information - I'm work as an engineer for Southern at Stewarts Lane TMD delivering the trains. Can I cite myself for this information? It's certainly true.
StotheH (Talk) 20:45, 08 March 2010 (GMT)
:True or not, you need WP:RELIABLE sources that can be verified; and you cannot add original research, so no. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that we have no way of knowing if your information is right unless it's sourced. Since you're clearly very knowledgeable about the topic and seem to know the locations of said photos, perhaps you could add them as sources? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please see WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes under Southern 

message: And we're back with another image dispute between myself and Peter Skuce. Peter has twice removed the image :File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg without reasoning, and then, after being twice reverted and told to give a reason, removed it again on the basis Delete image as it is of poor quality - I'm at Gordon Hill next Tuesday and will try to take some photographs there. I object to this for several reasons - first, my understanding of the last round of the image dispute was that we had consensus to keep this image in. Second, it's a lot better quality than several of the other images in the article, including the FCC image in the gallery, and the LO image directly below it. Thirdly, we don't remove stuff from an article because of hypothetical future happenings unless there's some valid reason such as replaceable fair use (which is clearly not the case here). I agree the image isn't the best photo I've ever taken - I probably sharpened it too much, but that doesn't even show up in thumbnail.
So... here we are again... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a strange one. I suppose the only 'problem' would be that it doesn't show the whole train, which I think was why it was removed from the Infobox, but it's clearly good enough to be an inline or gallery image. I fail to see Peter's reason for removing it - perhaps he could offer an explanation here? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree - it's not a fantastic photograph but not bad. If Peter can provide a better one: fine, but until a better image is uploaded, keep this one in. NRTurner (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt, please keep the personal insults out of edit summaries : it doesn't help the discussion.  I agree that the image isn't the world's best, but it's really not that bad.  If Peter can get a better one to replace it at some point in the future, then great; however, including the current image doesn't detract from the article in any way, as far as I can tell.  --RFBailey (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of 313027 present at the time of writing is the best by a considerable distance as far as I am concerned, so I would vote to keep it. I agree with Mattbuck's reasoning that unless Peter has a better image to hand, he should not replace what is currently present. L1v3rp00l (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to note that if people really think it is too dark, it wouldn't be hard to do a bit of photoshopping to lighten it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image dispute 

message: Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 313s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "Dynamic Blocks" to describe the FCC livery is new to me. I thought the 'official' name for it was "First Urban Lights", but I could be wrong. Is there somewhere that would confirm the official name of the livery. Also, the WAGN undercoat is more white than grey to me. I've heard it referred to as "Ghost White" many times. L1v3rp00l (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ghost White"... isn't that a shade of Citadel Miniatures paint (as sold at Games Workshop)? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read somewhere that the three First liveries now are Dynamic Lines, Dynamic Blocks and Dynamic Names (aka Local Lines). I have heard City Lights for FCC, The Platform 5 book refers to it as Urban Lights... I think it's all a mess. I can easily change it. As for the WAGN, to me it looked grey, but again, easy to change. And I think it was ghost grey paint and skull white. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons images

message: I've seen a couple of edits and reverts to both the seating capacities and the situation of 313121 recently, so thought I'd clarify the situation. The First Capital Connect 313/0 units seat 231. This has been altered (and rightly reverted) at least once. They have the same seating layout as when built, except for one bay of seats in the centre car. Here, one seat has been removed and the remaining three made tip-up to accommodate wheelchairs, bicycles etc. Southern's seat 194 as I have counted the full set of seats in one train (yes, I need to get out more). Neither of these can currently be attributed to a source as it seems no one else has picked up on it. I will endeavour to correct this when a source becomes available.
There is also the issue of 313121. At least twice this has been changed from "unallocated" in the fleet table to part of First Capital Connect's fleet. At least for the time being, it is definitely still with the leasing company. To my knowledge, it is in warm storage at Wolverton and has been since September last year. It remains to be seen whether FCC take it on for May 2011, but the recently added (and sourced) update of it being used for Hertford Loop resignalling trials is interesting. I would like to know more about this, if anyone can help (please use my user talk page). L1v3rp00l (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seating capacities and 313121 

message: These trains are 35 years old, some of the oldest commuter trains still running in Britain. Is there any mention of replacements for the Moorgate route?  They were originally built for the restricted height Moorgate tunnels. AC / DC is these days no problem, but the loading gauge restriction means AFAIK they are the only trains allowed. When you are in one the low roof height is noticable (see image), especially under the pantograph housing. TiffaF (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard anything about it, they were refreshed fairly recently, and afaik they comply with disability access regs. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: There don't appear to be any current plans to replace the 313s: in fact FCC have said a few times in their online passenger forums that they don't intend to replace them in the near future. As for their compliance with DDA, they will need a few modifications first such as  the addition of a door release sound, modifications to the door controls, better external door treads, clearer priotity seating and the fitting of an internal PIS system. In short, they're nearly there, but not quite. L1v3rp00l (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement on Moorgate services 

message: I can't find anything on the Internet regarding this "The Flying Nottsman" name supposedly given to 313122. Does anyone have a source for this or has seen 313122 recently to confirm? L1v3rp00l (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to this, it's now been confirmed on a gen list that 313122 has indeed been named, but FCC seem to have been particularly quiet on this so no source yet.L1v3rp00l (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  313122 naming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Rail Class 313. 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/20131111064013/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Network-Rail-s-newest-train-takes-to-the-rails-1de3.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Network-Rail-s-newest-train-takes-to-the-rails-1de3.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) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 313. 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  tag to http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/2010/over-6500-more-seats-added-london-commuter-routes
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130202194132/http://southernrailway.com/313s to http://southernrailway.com/313s
*Added  tag to http://keithsrailwaypictures.fotopic.net/p64494495.html
*Added  tag to http://aa.photosnaps.org.uk/p64888738.html
*Added  tag to http://icrs.fotopic.net/p67310729.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111064147/http://www.riagb.org.uk/data/files/update/RIA%20Update%2052.pdf to http://www.riagb.org.uk/data/files/update/RIA%20Update%2052.pdf
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) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The use of the abbreviation 'PEP' to refer to the 313/314/315/507/508 stock is not accurate as it stands for 'Prototype Electro-Pneumatic'. This term has always been used to refer only to the Class 445 and 446 stock from which the 313s etc. were derived so it clearly doesn't work to describe the production run classes as 'PEP' stock. There has never really been a family name for this type of train, so perhaps even 'BREL 1972' isn't suitable. I corrected this yesterday but all edits were reverted as of this morning. I don't want an edit war, so I've again removed the term 'PEP' with an explanation. L1v3rp00l (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family name 

message: British Rail Class 313201 has been preserved for preservation according to this website and this link. I know it is probably not a reliable enough source but I thought anyway I might as well say it so that people know not to put it in the scrap section. http://www.400series.co.uk/?page_id=413 Peter Spokes on Twitter: "Detailed discussions have been opened with Beacon Rail Leasing and Arlington Fleet Services to secure the first built Class 313 unit for preservation. It is hoped that an agreement will be reached in order for the unit to be kept at Eastleigh Works in operational condition. https://t.co/YLZrDo4CrZ" / Twitter I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in saying that (neither) are reliable, so until a reliable source can be found it will stay in the "Stored" section. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

text: That says they're discussing the possibility of preserving it, not that it's definitely happening, so even if the source was reliable it would still be too early to make any change. XAM2175 (T) 22:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't want it to be put in the scrapped area by mistake. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't, a source will be needed to move it either way. XAM2175 (T) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a reliable enough source for 313201s safe keeping but I will let other people choice where or not it is reliable enough. Donations for Southern Railway class 313 to be preserved | The Argus I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not state that 313201 is safe, the article says "A rail enthusiast and train driver is leading a scheme to prevent a commuter train from going to scrap - but he needs your help."Leading a scheme to preserve 313201 is not the same as the unit is safe. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

text: As of yesterday (October 19th) It was announced by Arlington Fleet Services on their Facebook page that 313201 will now be owned by the 400 Series Preservation Group based at the East Kent Railway, although the unit will remain at Eastleigh Works for the immediate future where it can be kept operational on the onsite 3rd rail system. WestRail642fan (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Rail Class 313201