Talk:Tyne and Wear Metrocar

Livery - fleet list excessive

I don't think the detailed list of which units carry which livery is really encyclopaedic information for a general purpose encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, particularly as it is not referenced. I'm tempted to just get rid of it, but if consensus disagrees with me about its merits it should be reformatted, probably into a table. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

I'm not sure I agree with the recent page move from 'Tyne and Wear rolling stock'. Firstly this covers more than just the Metrocars, e.g. the maintenance vehicles. Secondly, it also covers the soon to be new fleet, which may or may not be called 'Metrocars'. Thirdly the use of '&' instead of 'and' is not in line with the main article. It would be good to discuss a move like this. G-13114 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a pointless move to me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Article is specifically about only one class though. Maintenance vehicles are covered at Tyne and Wear Metro#Ancillary vehicles. The new fleet information is adequately covered at Tyne and Wear Metro#Replacement fleet although there is perhaps scope for a separate article on the Stadler stock once more details emerge, whatever they end up being called they won't be Metrocars. By way of comparison, in a similar light rail environment in the UK, Manchester Metrolink doesn't have a 'Manchester Metrolink rolling stock' article, but separate articles for AnsaldoBreda T-68 and Bombardier M5000. Seastidee (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Only because you've decided unilaterally to change the scope of the article without any discussion, and move things to the parent article without discussion. There is a London Underground rolling stock article and a West Midlands Metro rolling stock article, so this was consistent with those. Having the ancillary vehicles here was far more sensible than cluttering up the main article. G-13114 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again I have to say I am in agreement with G-13114 on this. I propose that the two articles are reverted to their former selves and a proper discussion is held about any proposed move. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with G-13114 and Murgatroyd49. Restore articles to their previous state and file a WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This would have to be done by an admin. G-13114 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@G-13114:All I have effectively done is structured it in the same way as the Manchester article, i.e. a high level section in the operator article and detailed articles for the individual tram types. As the most frequent editor of all three (Metrolink, AnsaldoBreda T-68 and Bombardier M5000), you presumably have no problem with the format?

Only because you've decided unilaterally to change the scope of the article without any discussion, and move things to the parent article without discussion. Per WP:BRD there is not a requirement to discuss changes before they are made, only to so if somebody has a problem with it as we are now. Before my first edit, 80% of the article was about the Metro-Cammell built stock, so thought is made more sense to use it as the basis of the article.

There is a London Underground rolling stock article and a West Midlands Metro rolling stock article True, but the London Underground article, it is an overview article for a couple of dozen classes that by and large have individual articles.

Having the ancillary vehicles here was far more sensible than cluttering up the main article. It added one sentence of 600 bytes to a 67,000 byte article, less than 1%. Not without precedent, again this is how it is dealt with at Manchester Metrolink. Presumably you didn't have a problem with it 'cluttering up' that article when you introduced the Ancillary sub-heading to that article?

Evidently there is some inconsistency in UK light articles, some only having the xx rolling stock articles covering all rolling stock such as West Midlands, while others have individual articles for each type of rolling stock, e.g. Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram and Tramlink. Perhaps worthy of a discussion at WP:WikiProject UK Railways to try and get a consistent format. Seastidee (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well you seem to be a minority in that view. If you go changing a long established format it's generally best to discuss it first. In any event if you insist on it, I'm pretty sure the correct place for this article would be British Rail Class 994, to be consistent with British Rail Class 399. G-13114 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious cites

Couple of forum and social cites that are not WP:RS. Anybody have any published works to help comply? Seastidee (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Preserve Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock. No consensus to move away from long-standing title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Tyne & Wear Metrocars → Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock – Per the long term stable name of this page, which was moved without any discussion on the 1 February and has been disputed by editors. Failing that this should be moved to British Rail Class 994, to be consistent with British Rail Class 399. Either way the current title is wrong with its ampersand, and should be moved somewhere away from its current title. G-13114 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. G-13114 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock would be appropriate where there were multiple types are covered, e.g. West Midlands Metro rolling stock, however as the article is solely about one type of rolling stock, don't see a need. Don't agree with renaming British Rail Class 994 either, as they primarily operate on the Tyne and Wear network with only 20% being on shared Network Rail infrastructure. Some are also classified as Class 599s.[1] Worth noting similar examples, e.g. the London Underground S7 and S8 Stock is classified on TOPS as the British Rail Class 499 for the same reason, yet the London Underground name prevails. Ayewintip (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to clarify, seeing the article was unhelpfully renamed mid-discussion, my preference is Tyne & Wear Metrocars Ayewintip (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Having a generically-titled article when there's effectively only one class to write about seems counter-productive. Once there's a second class of vehicles, then a "rolling stock" article (including maintenance-of-way), and individual articles about the classes, would seem to make sense. That said, the ampersand needs to go. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support - Information about the specific class of unit should be kept at Tyne & Wear Metrocars, if this is indeed the correct title (seems a bit generic to me - isn't there some sort of Tyne & Wear Metro Type 95A or something?). Information about the history of the T&WM fleet - all classes - should be at Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Page moved while under discussion at 13:32, 20 April 2020‎ C2A moved page Tyne & Wear Metrocars to Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock over redirect: Page was moved by User:Seastidee on 1 February 2020 without any discussion nor edit summary, and several editors are wanting the article to be moved back to its previous name. See #Undiscussed move. — wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Had a look at some of the trade magazines from the late 70s / early 80s, they are interchangeably referred to as Metrocars, Supertrams and trains, but no specific mention of a class designation which would be the preferred name, much like we the M5000s in Manchester. @Mattbuck: No mention of Tyne & Wear Metro Type 95As, only that it was originally planned to order 95. Metrocars does appear the most commonly used term by Nexus and industry publications (although often they are referred to as just 'cars' or 'trains') so while Metrocars is a bit clunky, in the absence of a verifiable class number probably the most appropriate. Ayewintip (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move as proposed. Evidence that British Rail Class 994 is a subtopic of the article and too specific to be the article title. Any user is free to replace the redirect at the old title with a broad article generally addressing all related topics. (non-admin closure) Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock → Tyne and Wear Metrocar – An article has now been created at British Rail Class 555 about the new rolling stock that will replace the existing fleet. This page should therefore be moved to a more specific title, perhaps with a new general page replacing it at this title (akin to London Underground rolling stock), which includes reference not just to the passenger fleets, but also the engineering and ancilliary vehicles as well. Hammersfan (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, makes perfect sense. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, explicitly including writing a general article at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good idea 10mmsocket (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't it make more sense to move it to British Rail Class 994 for consistency’s sake? G-13114 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Is it still the case that all are Metrocars, but four of them are not TOPS Class 994 due to the difference in their disability modifications (and in fact have a separate TOPS class? TBH I would say WP:COMMONNAME applies - google separately Class 994 and Tyne & Wear Metrocar and you'll see the latter gets way more hits; furthermore the TOPS class number only applies for the short section of the network between Pelaw and Sunderland, not the rest of the track. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Further comment - original metrocars were class 599, became 994 once modified. Unmodified four units stayed as 599. Not sure if that changed subsequently. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Class 599 vs Class 994

I've made some edits to the Tyne and Wear Metrocar page to reflect the correct TOPS classification of Class 599. I've sourced and provided citations from the DfT and Stadler who both consider the entire fleet to be Class 599s. This also corresponds with the old x99 numbering scheme for non-National Rail stock (399 for Sheffield Supertram, 499 for London Underground and 599 for Tyne and Wear Metro).

Of course, the TOPS numbers for the Metrocars are 9940xx as most will know, but the usual way of identifying a class through its number isn't always reliable - for example, 82225 would be a Mark 4 driving van trailer and not a Class 82. This is where a lot of people have understandably got confused and edited Wikipedia to show this, which is probably how the 994 classification got ingrained into most people.

Metro wanted to keep their 4000 numbering series when adopting the TOPS numbers, so it was agreed that the last two digits of 599 and Metro's numbering of 40xx would be used for the TOPS numbering, to create 9940xx.

In regards to RVAR/DDA modifications, this hasn't had any change on the classification. I think the confusion around this was caused by the DfT referring to four unrefurbished Metrocars as 599s without any reference at the time to the refurbished ones, with readers assuming that the rest were 994s. The DfT and Stadler have since released further documents confirming the whole fleet to be 599s. I've also had it confirmed in person by employees of Metro and Stadler that the 994 classification was incorrect.

Hopefully this clears up years of confusion! 142rrdhthms (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tyne and wear metrocars scrapping

Why is it still showing as 1 metrocar being scrapped (4022) when another 2 (4055, 4062) have been scrapped? The only source is a private facebook group but there are pictures of them being hauled away through the tyne tunnel Traingoodcarbad (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I assume that the pictures you refer to are in forums or facebook? In which case they class as self-published sources or user generate content WP:SPS / WP:UGC and are not usable as references. You need to give a reliable source - WP:RS. If you have any doubts then bring the source here and someone can tell you. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The original poster decided to remove their own talk post, for anyone wondering why 10mmsocket is replying to a brick wall. Fork99 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's appreciated. I actually reinstated the deleted because he/she can't simply flounce and delete everything - all contributions are made in perpetuity AFAIK. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)