Talk:British Rail Class 313

/0 and /1

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)

There is new flooring and enhanced digital CCTV cameras provided aboard the First Capital Connect Class 313/0.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

313/1 had extra shoegear fitted for the Euston-Watford route. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tidy Up

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)

Image dispute

There is currently a dispute/edit-war over the article images between myself and Peter Skuce. The two main versions are:

• Mine
• Peter's

Mine reduces the gallery at the end (per WP:IG), changes the infobox image and adds intermediate images, which I believe is more in keeping with other BRC articles. A debate ended up on my User_talk:Mattbuck#British_Rail_Class_313 talk page, so I'd like to ask the other editors what their opinion is. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the two infobox images, File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg is "bright", whereas File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG seems dark. I would go with the brighter one for the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Side note as a potential COI, ENC01 was a photo I took last year. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's good that you should point that out, but you have independent editors supporting your choice, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be used. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the image File:Unit_313027_at_Grange_Park.JPG as it shows the platform better. This is a better one for the infobox. --Peter Skuce (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the infobox image, I would agree with Mattbuck that File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg is more suitable than File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG. The lighting is better and the image is less grainy. I'm unconvinced by Peter's suggestion that the image not having been changed for a while is justifies changing it. Peter has uploaded hundreds of valuable photos to Commons for which he deserves are great deal of respect, but does seem to have a habit of replacing images on Wikipedia with his own photos where in many instances doing so seems questionable in terms of the benefit to our readers. I note that Peter has suggested File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG. I still think that File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg is more suitable, I don't understand why showing the platform better is relevant, we are trying to show what the train looks like, not the platform, and that image isn't as sharp or as well lit. Adambro (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having not seen this article previously, and not knowing either of the editors, I would agree that the version in the 'Mine' link above is much better, with regard to images (I didn't look at the text). It is MUCH more important to show the running gear of a multiple unit than an acre of grey platform (I'm not sure I would chose that picture, given a choice, for any article in WP.) With regard to the gallery in the same version, we could easily lose the Silverlink and FCC images (whose liveries are already shown earlier in the article (and better)) since they don't add anything. These should be replaced by a better blue livery picture. (The existing 'blue' picture is interesting fot the juxtaposition of the HST and 313, and I would retain this even once a better blue pic was obtained.)

In the current article, the gallery selection is dire. I would delete all but the NSE and far-right Silverlink pictures. Pity there's such a poor selection at Commons to chose from.

EdJogg (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at the mentioned Talk page discussion. Peter's viewpoint is that the pictures should show each of the carriages (presumably to note the detail differences between them). I think this is a very valid viewpoint, and one which has not really been used in any WP article I have come across. I suspect the problem is that such differences would be fairly small, and the lack of suitable broadside pictures mean that the opportunity has not presented itself yet. Unfortunately, none of the 313 pictures on Commons would lend themselves to this use, so we may have to rely on textual description instead, until suitable photographs are obtained. Matt's version employs the more usual (and easier) approach of illustrating the different liveries seen on the class, and the result is an article hopefully pleasing to the eye of the average reader.

EdJogg (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a better image. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I find that one to be rather washed out and also showing lots of irrelevant station and track. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It could do to be cropped to make it more suitable for an Infobox, but otherwise it's pretty good. It is lighter than "ENC01" and more clearly shows the shape of the unit. It also has the benefit of only showing one 3-car unit. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

General photoshopping I think - increase the contrast, slight brightness drop, crop it, rotate slightly I expect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, done. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see both File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG and File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG as well as File:313_Original_NSE_livery.jpg, File:313101_at_Kilburn_High_Road.jpg and File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG - The latter clearly shows the underframe equipment, as well as 313101 at Kilburn High Road. Not only do these photographs show the underframe equipment, all of them clearly show how many carriages a Class 313 is, whereas a single front end and half a carriage does look a little amaterish. It's a shame that no-one likes my photographs or suggestions. With regards to the File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG - I can't see anything wrong with it - it is sharp, the image is bright enough and there is no camera shake, so what on Earth is wrong with it or the ones taken at Welwyn Garden City, especially File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG? It would also be a good idea if everyone communicated when they are going to change over the photographs and explain why they are doing it, instead of just taking them down five minutes after someone has uploaded them. Finally has anyone got a reasonable shot of the NSE/Silverlink interior that could feature on Wikipedia? --Peter Skuce (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "take them down five minutes after uploading", so please stop being so hyperbolic. File:313018_D_Welwyn_Garden_City.JPG File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG is very grainy, underexposed, and has way too much station in it. As for the first five you listed,

• File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG - that's fine, but not really infobox material. Could be used as illustration of FCC in a gallery.
• File:313018 D Welwyn Garden City.JPG - could do with the top cropping off, and some LHS, if it were to be used in the infobox
• File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg - great for showing an old livery, but terrible for infobox.
• File:313101 at Kilburn High Road.jpg - very overexposed
• File:313114 arriving at Clapham Junction.JPG - would need the top cropped a bit if it was used in an infobox.

I'm not saying I don't like any of your photos, I just think that a lot could do with fixing and aren't necessarily good as infobox images. Infobox images, imo, should be the train and little else. Other shots in the article can show context. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am tending to Mattbuck's viewpoint, albeit with slightly more pictures in the gallery. Having two images alongside the Current operations section as utilised previously is more appealing than just the plain text that Peter prefers. Certainly, Mattbuck's choice of infobox image (313046) is superior with a far clearer view of the livery and less irrelevant platform space. I have an image of the Silverlink interior that I will upload ASAP, but I should make it clear that the NSE and Silverlink interiors are not the same thing. The NSE style was very similar to the original interior save for the change of seat covers. The handrails are grey in the original style, repainted yellow for Silverlink. There are several other minor differences. L1v3rp00l (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the infobox image - all suggested seem excellent candidates.

However I would favour having images alongside the text as given in one of the links - showing relevent liveries for the operators.

I also agree with P.Skuce's point that showing the full length of the train is important.

I also think that there should be an example of each well used livery in the article. Also the NSE livery should be given much more prominence - being the original livery - perhaps being a side image to the description section.

As ever I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of the drawn image.

Note File:313018 D Welwyn Garden City.JPG I think is a good photograph and don't particularily agree with "grainy underexposed" at all. However the brickwork in the photo is very succeptable to moire interference at various scalings - you might not see it - but given the right sized monitor it is very pronounced - for that reason I'd avoid it's prominent use.Shortfatlad (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The NSE livery was not the original livery. These units were introduced in 1976, and painted corporate blue and grey from new. The first change from this came in 1986, when 313 001 was painted in the NSE livery as seen in File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg (sometimes known as "toothpaste"). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea they were so old, they certainly have aged (design wise) tremendously well.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both L1v3rp00l and Shortfatlad - I agree that File:313018 D Welwyn Garden City.JPG is not 'grainy underexposed' at all - in fact, apart from the brickwork of the building (The Howard Centre), the image is very clear indeed. I do not see any problem with the image File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg to use as it really does show the first viarant of the Network SouthEast livery well. --Peter Skuce (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right Peter, and I'm sorry, I pasted the wrong image name, I meant File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG was grainy and underexposed. Furthermore, I included File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg in my edits to the article, as I think it's good to show it in NSE livery. But again, it's not a particularly good photo for the infobox - that ought to be something more up to date imo. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree regarding the image in the infobox ideally being relatively recent, or at least recent enough that it shows a current livery. The point being that readers will more easily be able to recognise the subject of the article from what they may have seen in real life. That is why I would prefer File:313046 030 ENC 01.jpg or similar, rather than older images which show previous liveries. There are a few options that would fit that criteria, from both Matt, Peter, and other contributors, but I would maintain that File:313058 D Hatfield.JPG isn't the best of any of them as has already been explained. Adambro (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg is not a particularly good photo for the infobox? I would like to see it in the gallery. It does not suffer from camera shake and is very clear, not over or under exposed and it does show where it is.--Peter Skuce (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a really old photo. We want a modern photo for the infobox where possible. It should be in the article as part of the class's history, just not the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An alternative I would propose would be two images in the infobox - one of original livery, and one of a current livery - both clearly labelled - with the interior image moved further down the article or into the gallery.

Talking of really old photos does anyone have an image of a BR blue liveried image they could upload.? All I could find in commons was File:Resting at King's Cross station - geograph.org.uk - 1427194.jpg which although an excellent example of lens flair does not show as much as I might hope.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the original livery alright - blue, with grey in the window area, and white line separating blue from grey. Note the mountain of parcels and mailbags at right - strange as it may seem, the class 313 units were used to carry such items in earlier years, on non-passenger workings. These duties were lost in the general rundown of parcels during the sectorisation era.

To show the units as originally built, we need something showing the door handles. Handles? Yes, these preceded the guard's control, which itself preceded the push buttons. See my recently-added paragraph. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the intital dispute: use Matt's pic in the infobox and Peter's in the gallery. Regarding older images: use File:313 Original NSE livery.jpg in the gallery until someone uploads a better one, and try to find a blue and grey somewhere as this would add to the article. Hope this helps. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I quite like how the gallery is now and do not see the need to change any of the images in it. I would still like to see File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG as the top image, as it clearly shows a three carriage train and the underframe equipment. Please can we use it - I did not take this photograph! If File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG is chosen for the top image, then I would like to see File:313114_arriving_at_Clapham_Junction.JPG placed in the gallery box - please note that I have slightly moved the London Overground interior shot to be in between two Silverlink liveried Class 313/1 images. --Peter Skuce (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ok i've WP:BOLD and done that - it is (as far as I can tell) a better illustration. I haven't added anything to the gallery - please feel free to do so.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently there are duplicate images in the gallery, and several of the ones there are either redundant or at least bad photos. Per WP:IG, galleries should generally be on Commons, unless there is a good reason for their inclusion. I'm happy to accept that a gallery showing 313s through the years is warranted here, but not that it needs several photos of LO/Silverlink trains. This would be especially true if we did have side images.

Oh, and would anyone object to me photoshopping File:Unit 313027 at Grange Park.JPG - just a bit of cropping so that there's more train and less station for the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of side-text illustrations still remains - I mildly support their addition.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does this term "refreshed" come from (see diff)? I have heard of "refurbished" for trains, but not "refreshed". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its to do with the amount of work done and if it invokes the disability regulations. Basically if you do a big job then it is assumed that you will be making the train compliant with the RVAR regs, for some stock the cost of this is prohibitive so by doing a 'refresh' (less work then a refurb) the company can avoid (in worst case) having to cut new holes in the bodyshell. In the case of FCC's 313s they don't have that long left before the new Thameslink EMUs come on stream to replace them --Enotayokel (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spoken to First Capital Connect management today at St. Albans during a 'Meet The Managers' session and have learnt that because of the low height of the ceiling of the twin Moorgate Tunnels, the Class 313 EMU trains will be retained and NOT replaced by new build trains. This would mean that the trains would receive a proper refurbishment (2+2 seat layout replacing the existing 2+3 layout and improved interior saloon lighting diffusers) - I will clarify this matter with the Head of Fleet during next week. --Peter Skuce (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That would qualify as original research I think, so we couldn't actually include it. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well no, not if it was confirmed by the Head of Fleet. The brutal truth by your logic is that much of the Class 313 article is 'original research' anyway, especially the Southern section. So, should we remove the vast majority of the article? L1v3rp00l (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stick it in, but shove an uncited tag at the top of the article I guess. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in answer to L1v3rp00l's question, if a reliable source isn't cited then the content should be removed. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to cover every minute detail about a particular class of train, they are meant to be reliable. Unfortunately unsourced content is endemic in UK rail articles, presumably as many rail enthusiasts will read something on a forum then add it to an article here without any regard for our policies and guidelines. Adambro (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A {{refimprove}} would be better than an {{uncited}} - the latter is intended to be put on one statement, whereas a {{refimprove}} applies to one section, or to the whole article (depending upon position and whether or not you use it in the form {{refimprove|section}}). Perhaps you were thinking of {{unreferenced}} - but that is for where there are no refs at all, and this article has some. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can never remember which of the myriad templates it is, I'm more of a commons person... One which says that some things may need better references anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

Was there ever a verdict on inline pictures? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I would say add them and keep the gallery as well, but that's just my view. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason to ignore WP:IG so images should be "interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text", only having images in a gallery section "where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". The images in the gallery should be spread through the article and similar images which add very little should be removed. Adambro (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems very clear - I added some relevant inline images from the gallery.

At the same time I:

• Removed similar images from the gallery
• Added an early image to the gallery
• Dated the images in the gallery (please check)
• Removed the drawn livery picture.

Please feel free to alter or change - I didn't attempt to make a final choice on the image selection in the gallery or inline - but would prefer to see one of each livery/modification and not too much duplication.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed a few, and modified the descriptions. Also cropped the infobox image and darkened the LO internal picture. I rather liked the diagrammatic 313, why did you remove it? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for fixing the filename for me Adam. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was debatably unencylcopedic, - being 'made art' for the article. I'm not against drawings - but I think they need to be better - specifically able to demonstrate accuracy. Someone will probably just put it back in anyway :)

Shortfatlad (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better than it did. I might try to get a better picture for the infobox next time I'm in London: I'm sure we can get a clearer image of the bodyside than the one we have now. L1v3rp00l (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have further cleared up the gallery - I do not agree with the inline images - I feel that the wrong ones were chosen and that the interior of the London Overground one should be in the gallery, as it is more important. I hope people agree with me why I did this - the webpage actually looks more clearer now. --Peter Skuce (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reverted that lot. Let me explain why...

1. Only you seem to want inline images removed.
2. You removed the BR blue from the image gallery when the gallery was meant to showcase different liveries and BR blue is rather an important one, even if it isn't a great photo.
3. You re-added several over- or under-exposed images to the gallery when better ones of the same livery were available.

I personally don't see why we need more than 1 interior photo - I'd just put the LO one in the infobox and remove the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the page should feature both interior types - then the viewer knows that each refurbishment style is vastly different from each other. The infobox exterior image should match the interior image. I still do not like the images showing a half cut vehicle - it looks wrong and it's not the type of photograph I would want to show. --Peter Skuce (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your edit as it goes completely against the consensus that has been established here. I will continue to do so unless your opinion gathers some support - currently it has none. The presence of clearer photos and the blue and grey livery, as well as the inline images combine to improve the image of the article. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand how anyone can approve of the image showing only half a vehicle from a three carriage train, especially a plain white one! Some of my shots and most other people can do better than this - what a waste! --Peter Skuce (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Were you not arguing earlier that we should show all liveries? Yes, the WAGN is a horribly boring livery, but to not include it when we include every other one seems a bit ridiculous. If there's a reason for including both interiors, then ok. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The official livery for the Wagn Class 313 was the metallic purple scheme that was also carried on Classes 315 and 317 - I'm sure that there is a good one featuring a complete train taken by someone. --Peter Skuce (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The WAGN image was rather poor, so I've replaced it with File:313064 at London Kings Cross.jpg, which I found in Commons. Although this is in a non-standard advertising livery it is a better picure of a WAGN unit, and the advertising is based on their undercoat. I hope this is acceptable, at least until someone uploads a decent one of WAGN's purple livery. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have got images of Class 313 in Wagn purple livery, however they have First Capital Connect branding instead of 'wagn' branding - would people wish me to upload these onto Wikimedia Commons? --Peter Skuce (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as it's a livery we don't cover in any form at present. However I think this would have to be additional to rather than a replacement for the current image. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as an additional image it would be great to have. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found File:100 2557.JPG on Commons, which depicts a 313 in WAGN purple with FCC branding. It isn't the best, but it would do if we can't get a better one. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Current operations section

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)

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)

Lead: dual voltage

The lead claims that "They were also the first dual-voltage units to be built in the UK"; not true. Classes 302, 303, 305, 308, 309 and 312/1 (and possibly 311) were dual voltage (25 kV / 6.25 kV) from new; as were classes 306 and 307 as converted for AC operation in the late 1950s. On the Eastern Region, dual-voltage operation began in 1960, and the 6.25 kV sections were: Liverpool Street - Southend Victoria (November 1960 to October 1980); Fenchurch St - East Ham/Barking; Leigh-on-Sea/Chalkwell - Shoeburyness (both November 1961 - May 1989). On the Scottish Region, the dual-voltage area was central Glasgow, including the underground lines. It began in 1960, but I don't have a date for when dual-voltage operation ended in Scotland. So, the class 313 were not the first. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The following page at the well-trusted site The Railway Centre says different: Class 313 Technical Data. Many of the classes listed above were not actually dual voltage, and others received it in later life, well after the Class 313s were introduced. Sources across the internet agree that the 313s were the first dual voltage EMUs to be built in the UK. L1v3rp00l (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Were they the first dual-AC/DC units (equipped with both pantograph and shoegear), though? If the answer is yes, then I suspect that is what the claim is referring to. --RFBailey (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is appears to be referring to. "Dual voltage" in the sense that they can use both overhead and third rail. Not two differing voltage levels from one power source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L1v3rp00l (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2010

In which case, that needs to be clarified, to prevent further pedantry. --RFBailey (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The source mentioned above states "The sets were of novel design when introduced as they could operate from both ac and dc power supply from either the overhead connection at 25kV ac or a third rail in the tunnel sections at 750V dc"; it is the dual-supply feature, not the dual-voltage feature which is novel. Note also the lack of the significant word "first". The classes which I listed (302 etc.) were definitely dual voltage from new, albeit two different voltages from one supply method. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the term "Dual-voltage" is correct, we must remove the word "first", because the statement is incorrect when both are present. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we just say that they were "the first units capable of running on both AC and DC power"? Accurate, easy to source and not exactly contentious. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the term 'dual voltage' is used to refer to the ability to pick up power from two different sources - i.e. AC and DC - not two voltage levels of the same source. I imagine 'multiple voltages' is a better term in this instance. I still believe 'dual voltage' should be used. The Class 302s, for instance, are not normally considered 'dual voltage', while the likes of the 313, 319 and 378 are. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is actually correct to state that the Class 313 is the first EMU type of train to collect power from THREE different systems: 25Kv AC OHLE &/or 750V DC Third Rail on Network Rail and 630 - 660V DC Fourth Rail on LUL in the case of running on the same line as the Bakerloo line between Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone inclusive and District line between Gunnersbury - Richmond inclusive - no-one else picked up on that one! --Peter Skuce (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, in areas where LUL and "Overground" trains share tracks (such as the ones you mention), the tracks are electrified on the 4-rail system but the centre negative rail is electrically bonded to the running rails, so there is no need for a centre shoe on Overground trains. Further, these trains are capable of working from either 750 V or 630-660 V indiscriminately: the same equipment is used, and can cope with a 20% voltage swing quite easily. Two, not three, systems.

That aside, I notice that the lead now states "They were also the first British dual-voltage units, i.e. they were capable of drawing power from both 25kV AC overhead or 750V DC third-rail supplies", and while I have no problem with the part after the comma, I would like to see a source for this which uses the word "first", or equivalent, in direct relation to the words "dual-voltage". I have now found sources which explicitly refer to both the Great Eastern electrified lines, and some of the stock which worked them (such as Class 306) as "dual voltage" after conversion from 1500 V DC to 6.25 kV/25 kV AC operation in 1960. The Class 313 units were, after all, introduced some sixteen years after the date given by at least one of my sources (Boddy, M.G.; Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, K.; Mallaband, P.; Neve, E.; Price, J.H.; Proud, P.; Yeadon, W.B. (1990). "Electric Traction - a survery: Liverpool Street - Shenfield Route Stock". In Fry, E.V. (ed.). Part 10B: Railcars and Electric Stock. Locomotives of the L.N.E.R. Lincoln: RCTS. p. 139. ISBN 0 901115 66 5. This d.c. system on the G.E. Section was converted to dual voltage a.c. supply during the period 4th to 6th November 1960 {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rephrased

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)

Changes under Southern

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)

This page is a joke. Every contribution is marked "citation needed". You can't provide references for everything, but you certainly can't deny fact. Do a search - look at the photos that have come out of 313206 with its Coastway branding. Link to them as sources if necessary. Don't just mark it "citation needed". L1v3rp00l (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Also please see WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New image dispute

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)

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)

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)

Matt, please keep the personal insults out of edit summaries [1]: 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)

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)

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)

Commons images

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)

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)

"Ghost White"... isn't that a shade of Citadel Miniatures paint (as sold at Games Workshop)? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Seating capacities and 313121

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)

Replacement on Moorgate services

Class 313 and 377 side-by-side

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)

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)

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)

313122 naming

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://keithsrailwaypictures.fotopic.net/p64494495.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://aa.photosnaps.org.uk/p64888738.html
• Added {{dead link}} 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Family name

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)

British Rail Class 313201

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)

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)

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)

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)

It won't, a source will be needed to move it either way. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)