Talk:British Rail Class 379

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

train lenght[edit]

20m or 23m long? - 20m are all others electrostars (not sure about gautrain) 91.109.207.160 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The new image can't be right it will be mk2 and look a bit like the 222's this looks a 377 and 375! Likelife (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEMU trial[edit]

Any news of a third-rail version for the North Downs Line? Biscuittin (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 379. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal[edit]

Hello, Greater Anglia officially stopped allocating Class 379 trains to passenger services last week, but I shall wait for an official source to report on this so I can cite it before editing the page. Sootysuerickie (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They tweeted from their official account that they have been withdrawn, is that good enough? https://twitter.com/greateranglia/status/1489954159235379200 Qazwsx777 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it’s not good enough as it just says “that is correct” it does not specifically mention the Class 379. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in direct response to a tweet specifically asking about the 379s, though. Are you concerned about the original tweet going missing at some point? XAM2175 (T) 11:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original Tweet getting deleted is a concern yes, which is why along with the fact social media teams can be wrong the Greater Anglia tweet should not be used. There is also this problem, this tweet is dated 8 February 2022 and shows a 379 in service, if the photos in this tweet are truly from 8 February 2022 then this contradicts the withdrawal date of 5 February 2022 given the by Greater Anglia social media team. https://twitter.com/midland__london/status/1491138191285714945?s=21 Maurice Oly (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to argue that WP:VNT alongside WP:TWITTER allowed the use of the GA tweet (longevity issues aside) on the grounds that GA's social media can speak authoritatively to the company's activities even if they are, in fact, wrong - but yes those photographs do weaken it. I notice thought that a reply to the 08/02 photo tweet by the photographer says "even this one wasn’t meant to be out today" so we're in the grey area where the fleet isn't scheduled to be used, but it is being used on an ad-hoc basis. I'm not particularly fussed either way because ultimately it'll sort itself out, but I can sympathise with the position that describing them as being "in service" is no longer wholly accurate. XAM2175 (T) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that given the 379s are being used if only ad-hoc means we should keep “17 March 2011 – present” as the 379s are still in service. I agree with you this grey area will sort itself out at some point, but for now I feel we should leave things as they are. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problems with that. Hopefully one of the magazines will publish something reliable before the page protection runs out :P XAM2175 (T) 18:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I was holding off on this hopping one of this months Railway magazines would give a precise date for when the Class 379 was withdrawn. The bad news is that has not happened, so I want to check if everybody would be ok with just 2022 being used in the Infobox for years service. As Railways illustrated issue 230 does say the 379s have been withdrawn[1] but it does not give a precise date as to when the Class 379 was withdrawn.

I think February or March 2022 would be fine. Certainly the latter, as the referenced article indicates there will be no further service from now. Sootysuerickie (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say go with February 2022 as the issue will have been written during February 2022 containing events that happened in February 2022.
Update we don’t need to do that anymore as Today’s Railways UK issue 242 says the Class 379 was withdrawn in febuary. Maurice Oly (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Class 379s stood down". Railways Illustrated. No. 230. April 2022. p. 18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_379&oldid=1200369253"