Talk:British Rail Class 769

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

Engine quantity[edit]

I'm not clear from this article whether each unit has 4 engines (2 engines underneath each trailer vehicle) or 2 engines (1 engine underneath each trailer vehicle). Please can someone clear this up! Anamyd (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved, it's the latter. Off to word it clearly...--91.125.45.53 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-tri mode[edit]

Ok so I just made an edit to this page stating the Class 769 is tri-mode I just want to check with editors here that my edit is correct.

My edit is based on AC and DC being separate modes if this is not the case then please feel free to revoke my edit.

I know that the Class 769 is bi-mode due to electric and diesel being two separate modes. This just comes down to wether editors feel that AC and DC are separate modes. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it only the GWR units which are tri-mode, the other operators' units being bi-mode? David Biddulph (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we go down the route of calling these 'tri-mode', then we will need to update articles such as Class 313, Class 319, Class 325, Class 350, Class 373, Class 375, Class 377, Class 378, Class 387, and no doubt countless more, to be described as bi-mode. Quite obviously, as these are not bi-mode trains, it's wrong to assume that single mode (electric) trains like a 319, become a tri-mode with the addition of a diesel engine. Even the page that the text 'tri-mode multiple unit' links to explains this concept clearly, so I don't see why the Class 769 page has unilaterally redefined this previously well established term. Superalbs (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious at all. The question is this: what do reliable sources say? We do have a policy on verifiability, after all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're looking for here? Almost any source you could find (eg. Porterbrook) would describe the 319s as 'dual-voltage', and the addition of one more mode (diesel) couldn't possibly make them a tri-mode, as one plus one does not equal three. Superalbs (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm looking for is a source which explicitly describes these trains either as bi-mode or tri-mode, I don't mind which. If a given source describes another class of train as "dual-voltage" (without mentioning class 769), we cannot use that same source to draw our own conclusions about how class 769 might be described, since that is WP:SYNTH. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GWR explicitly described their 769s as tri-mode when they were introduced into service a few days ago. They have been using the term for some time, including https://www.gwr.com/~/media/gwr/pdfs/about-us/annual-stakeholder-report-2017-to-2018-web-low-res.pdf?la=en, https://www.gwr.com/~/media/gwr/pdfs/about-us/gwr-annual-stakeholder-report-2019.pdf?la=en, and most recently https://www.gwr.com/~/media/gwr/pdfs/plan-journey/passenger-assist/facilities-guide-april-2021-low-res.pdf?la=en . --David Biddulph (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I’ve found this article from railway gazette which seems to talk about the GWR 769s, it’s over 2 years old and is only about the GWR order of the Class 769 so not sure how much it will help

Can anybody who is subscribed to Railway Gazette tell us if this helps in anyway. https://www.railwaygazette.com/traction-and-rolling-stock/gwr-to-lease-class-769-flex-trimode-trainsets/46334.article Maurice Oly (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes 'tri-mode' in the title, but then goes on to refer to them correctly as 'electro-diesel' in the article. I think calling them 'electro-diesel' is a reasonable compromise for the article, as it avoids the misleading marketing dross, whilst still conveying the bi-mode capabilities. Superalbs (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Due to the recent edits adding in unreliable sources and sources that do not back up what was added I have asked for this page to have pending changes protection. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection has been requested again this time due to Vandalism and this time extended confirmed user protection has been requested. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in British Rail Class 769[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Rail Class 769's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Rail929":

  • From British Rail Class 317: "Class 317s reach Wales... for scrap". Rail. No. 929. 21 April 2021. p. 26.
  • From British Rail Class 321: "News In Brief". Rail. No. 929. 21 April 2021. p. 28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GWR non-use of 769[edit]

185.81.254.225 can you find a ref for the statement about GWR stopping the rollout because of low pass numbers? The December issue of The Railway Magazine only states that the units had not yet been introduced, being expected in 2021.[1] Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Butlin, Ashley (December 2022). "Operations Track Record". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 168, no. 1, 461. Horncastle: Mortons Media. p. 94. ISSN 0033-8923.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_769&oldid=1200369321"