Talk:British Rail Class 345

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible change to the title of this article[edit]

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

Delay and procurement review[edit]

Re: the Thameslink rolling stock programme debacle which caused a review of procurement, which in turns relates to a delay in the Crossrail procurement.. if anyone want to write/cite more about it there are ready made references at the thameslink article see this edit difference Imgaril (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Conditioned?[edit]

will these trains be air conditioned? I have read tube trains dont have air conditioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.151.152 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This are not tube trains, that are normal (for the UK) sized trains. According to the crossrail website, yes they will be air-conditioned. Edgepedia (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the strict definition of "tube", i.e. circular tunnels of small diameter (approximately 12 feet (3.7 m), as found on the Bakerloo, Central, Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria and Waterloo & City lines), then no, there are no air-conditioned tube trains; but by the same definition, Class 345 will not be tube trains because they're too big to fit through tube tunnels.
If you use the layman's definition of "tube", i.e. the London Underground as a whole, then the London Underground S Stock is air-conditioned; but Class 345 will not belong to the London Underground, so even by that definition they aren't "tube" either. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdates[edit]

See Template:Citation#URL quote Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date.

This applies to just about all dated news stories (sources will note if they modify the text) 95% of sources are already dated - accessdates are not needed. Same goes for archived pages, books, journals etc.

There are limited examples of when it is needed - one such is http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/new-trains - based on past experience of the crossrail website this is liable to change, as well as being undated.

Very common mistake - you just don't need to add them in many cases.Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 345. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, because three sources were removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 345. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class 345s are on test, currently.[edit]

There is a video and many pictures of the unveiling of the class 345s. They are currently on test. Londonist published an image which I will link below.

https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/07/i875/cross.jpg

I thought it would be interesting to add to the article that they are in production, and maybe replace the image with one of the real models.

88.109.223.131 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Yuks[reply]

I don't know which specific page you found this on, but since the note
© 2016 Londonist, All rights reserved. All material on this site is the property of Londonist Ltd.
appears at the bottom of every page, we almost certainly cannot use that image. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Lengths[edit]

Hi, i have a diagram of the class 345 that shows the seating plan and total length along with individual coaches with the DMS as a length of 23.6 meters (23615mm to be exact) and the trailers as 22.5 meters (22500mm), should i had this to main page? WestRail642fan (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is listing two operators correct?[edit]

Tfl rail and Elizabeth line are technically and legally the same operator it's just a rebrand, so is listing them both the correct approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imanautie (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing them both is correct - London Overground has had two operators (LOROL and Arriva Rail London) but we don't list those on the train operators. Turini2 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Built date[edit]

The Class 345s entered service on 22 June 2017 if you want to know and they replaced the Class 315s about 3 weeks ago 2A01:4B00:854C:2A00:DF3:A71B:AC35:B0D6 (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know. Please update the article with supporting references. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Does the class 720 really qualify as being similar considering it has a totally different seating layout, has bathrooms, and is used for a different type of train service. EJD799 (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree, the relevant train for the see also section is the British Rail Class 700, given the broadly similar specification. Turini2 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_345&oldid=1200287560"