Talk:British Rail Class 66

There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.

Before making such a request, please read the past discussions 
at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.
Biscuittin (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-British operation

I see the section on "Overseas operations" has just been deleted. Might I suggest it could be a good idea to put it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In the news

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6605713.stm "Boycott threat over 'dirty' locos"
  • Sladen 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• The new Class 66 CEMEX-liveried locomotive, The CEMEX Express - No. 66780 named 'The Locomotion'. https://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/business/what-s-all-the-locomotion-in-buxton-pete-waterman-dedicates-new-freight-locomotive-1-9822389 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.237.16 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames

"Sheds", AFAIK it's pretty obvious that this nickname comes from the look of the cab of the front... Sladen 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pages needed for every subclass?

Do we need seperate pages for each sub class?

In essence, they are the same, with minor differences and livery changes.

The main article, this one, has details on the subclasses anyway, so it seems pointless to duplicate them.

I am going to AfD them.

Thanks,

BG7 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean up - Info request

I tried to tidy up the article a bit - However it probably needs up to date information on numbers built for the subclasses table - if anyone has this info please leave some info and I will be able to update.Carrolljon (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DRS Class 66 locomotives

There is a comment in the main article that many DRS class 66s are used on nuclear flask trains for which they are overpowered....

There is also a relatively new service operated by DRS which apparently started on 4th November 2008 from Inverness southwards with (long) trains of containers for Tesco. (See also Railway Herald issue 162 page 3, www.railwayherald.com). This started when DRS advertised for experienced drivers in the Inverness area last summer. At the time DRS operated no services from Inverness - now we know why!

The containers all carry the "Stobart Rail" or "Tesco - Less CO2" branding. I've also seen trucks carrying Stobart Rail branded containers on trucks owned by J G Russell which are new to the Inverness area.

A good replacement for the cessation of the Safeway train movements when Morrisons took them over. Inverness is not known as Tesco-town for nothing :-) Soarhead77 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Greeting wikignome, not sure what to do with all that information, it would get a bit full covering every movement - there is however a section Eddie_Stobart_Ltd.#Rail_transport on another page - which might appreciate the info.

It seems that nowadays the main use of the railways is as moving billboards for the big supermarkets.. Good luckCarrolljon (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Soarhead77: just for clarity are the flasks travelling in the same train as the Tesco/Stobart containers? (I've only ever seen the flasks moving alone). —Sladen (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

living just near Inverness I can say there are no nuclear flasks going south from here - Dounreay was the only nuclear facility round here and that's being decommissioned. If they join them further South its out of my area.

I'm not trying to cover every movement - otherwise the talk page on the Class 158 or Class 170 pages would be full of my stuff, having said that I have had some debate elsewhere about the use of Class 158s on the Far North Line though. Read a little further into my talk page and you'll see I admit to being a trainspotter! I may well copy all this stuff (I gathered it from several places as you can imagine!) suitably modified to somewhere around Eddie_Stobart_Ltd. as you suggest. My motive was originally to show that DRS do more than pull flasks around with their class 66 locomotives, and hopefully to demonstrate that rail freight is still expanding its possibilities. Soarhead77 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

CD 66 EMD Series 66

For the record the two articles are up for a merge. I've already added the CD66 info to EMD 66 article but am delaying on making the redirect/delete on the CD 66 page.

In case anyone is interested.Carrolljon (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Name in continental Europe

Here in Germany this locomotive is known as EMD JT42CWR. EMD Class 66 may be common in the UK but not in continental Europe. --Ulenspiegel (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Remember that there is the EMD Series 66 which covers generic continental usage. When I was last in German, the (German speakers) around me referred to it was "Class 66". —Sladen (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Class 66 Sub-classes Class 66/5 Revision requested some information.

66,586, 583,582 Number exported to Poland, becoming both the active and Freightliner Poland, 66008,009,010 number was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.137.16.146 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Various

I wonder why the article is titled "British Rail Class 66"... these locos appeared after the demise of the state onwed corporation known as British Rail and the predecessor Class 59 was also not owned or operated by BR. Maybe someone with adequate technical knowledge of post-delivery modifications could tabulate the details of the subclasses and their numbering ranges. Seems to me that the subclasses are not really about technical differences (unlike the great variety of modified Class 47s), more a question of who's operating the loco. It could be smarter to merge the article with the article about the EMD "Series 66", which is the marketing name generally for this vehicle. The technical designation JT42CWR means: J=double cab, T=turbocharged, 12+30=42=12cyl+710G engine, C=Co-Co wheel arrangement, W=traction motors for standard gauge, R=radial steering bogies. The M in the later series locos (known in Britain as T2) means simply "Modified" in terms of the cooling arrangements for reduced emissions. I have added details of the ETCS-equipped locos into the "EMD Series 66" page.(nick.cory@web.de, 2009-12-06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.13.39 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been an extensive discussion about the use of the term "British Rail" but I'm not sure where. You are quite right that the locos were never used by British Rail but I think that, in Wikipedia, the term "British Rail" has come to mean "the rail network of Great Britain". Biscuittin (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about the larger cooler group [1] of the Class 66/9. How does enlarging the cooler group reduce emissions? Biscuittin (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Biscuittin (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A string of question marks...

...shouldn't really be there, in place of an absence of content, as we see here. Get rid of these sections for now? Orphan Wiki 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(

The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but ..Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

also title - is anachronistic, - there are good alternatives but which to use?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The title refers to the numbering system established by British Rail, it will remain anachronistic until some other system is adopted by the UK Railway network. Sorry, that's just how it is. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not about the numbers - it is the use of the term "British rail" - eg in other cases terms such as "Hitachi Class 395", "Freightliner Class 70" are in common use. There are alternatives. The current title is not the common name - in fact it appears to be an invention almost exclusively used on wikipedia sites and mirrors. According to WP:Common name we should use the common name (specifically that used in reliable sources), and not a technically more correct title (ie JT42CWR is probably not the solution). Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The locomotives are class 66, in the T.O.P.S numbering system instigated by British Rail. The Hitachi units are also class 395 in the same system, as are the Frightliner class 70s. It would be similar to referring to a Ford 60 registration car. The 60 is part of the UK vehicle registration system and not something to do with Ford, even though the two have been conflated together. If you can find reliable sources to support a renaming—anything from the Rolling Stock Library should be sufficient—then go ahead. Perhaps UK Rolling Stock Library T.O.P.S. class 66 is where we are heading. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

exactly - reliable sources, or the lack of them is the problem - ie if you can find reliable sources using the term "British Rail Class 66" .. ok that's hypothetical - the term "British Rail Class 66" isn't in common use outside this website, or used by reliable sources. The issue is finding a good title, and not I would hope, defending one that isn't very good. Most reliable sources just use "class 66" eg [2] [3]

Wikipedia:Article titles generally suggests common names, not technically correct but obscure titles.

Are you going to ignore the reliable sources I just gave, and give some irrelevant counter argument or example now?? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Class 66 (British diesel locomotive) ? Biscuittin (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

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.

This debate was closed on 20 March 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But a separate debate about Class 66 and Class 67 is continuing. Biscuittin (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

UK RSL Class 66 seems concise and accurate, although I did vote for status quo when the wider debate took place. I doubt there's much support for moving away from the current convention until the UK railway operators adopt a new classification system. Which would need far to much co-operation than they can currently muster. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

While the discussion failed to reach consensus on what naming convention should apply (hence the existing one should continue to do so), there was a clear rejection of having no consensus at all. Per this I object to any renaming of articles until there is either consensus for a different naming convention or consensus for no naming convention. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A further complication for the Class 66 is that some of them are currently working abroad. According to my Ian Allan Rail Guide 2011, 66163 is in Poland and 66179 is in France. If there is to be a change, I now suggest Class 66 (British-based diesel locomotive). However, I think it would be better to leave the naming as it is. Biscuittin (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Several British Rail classified locomotives have worked abroad (usually with some modifications) (or have very similar versions abroad); none have required a change in the name of the article:

• Class 77 – has a separate NS Class 1500 article for their time in the Netherlands.
• Class 86 – many exported to Hungary (see also hu:British Rail Class 86).
• Electrostar – includes the version used by Gautrain.
• Class 66 – both exported and new versions are listed under EMD Series 66.

I think that last case may rather prove the point (and I wish I noticed it ten minutes ago). Tim PF (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, can we stick with British Rail Class 66 and British Rail Class 67 ? Biscuittin (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with keeping "British Rail" in the name, as it brings consistency with the older trains, also if it didn't have "British Rail" in, it would perhaps seem to be a train that was used unofficially or by some very small company. "British Rail Class 66" looks far better than any of the proposed names as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{disputed title}} tag. Whilst there may have been no consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, there has been no active discussion for over 2 months. Tim PF (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags

I propose to remove the "Citations" and "Cleanup" tags because there are no obvious reasons for them. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been almost no changes in the citations since the {{refimprove}} tag was added in February, and very little cleanup has occurred since the {{cleanup}} tag was added in March. I think that there was justification both then and now for both, but I'll start new sub-sections so that they can be discussed separately. Tim PF (talk)

Refimprove tag (February 2011)

There are several sections, including the main infobox, with no citations, although other sections appear to be reasonably well cited. If the infobox was well cited, I'd suggest replacing the global {{refimprove}} with various {{unreferenced section}} and {{refimprove section}} tags, but it isn't, so the tag should stay until there has been some improvement. Tim PF (talk)

• Retain for the reasons given above.

Cleanup tag (March 2011)

When Sf5xeplus (talk · contribs) added the tag, he started a section with:

• Can I put this blunty - parts of the article are starting to look like a trainspotters handbook = except that unlike a trainspotters note book it lacks dates to actually verify what was where, doing what and when ... :(
• The locations and operations of individual locomotives is/are probably not notable or suitable content - It needs pruning, then tidying - an overall view that is verifyable would be enough - there are actually links to some good sources on the classes work history, (and design) in the external links section. There is no rush , but ..

No-one replied to this (possibly because he then added the {{disputed title}} tag, which swamped the discussion), but I think they are fair comments which should be discussed before the tag is removed (or not). Tim PF (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Intricated detail unreferenced

Removal diff

At least one bit appears possibly wrong - the issue here is that the article over time is gaining more and more detail on the renumbering and paintings of (sometimes individual) locomotves - none of which has any link to verify.

Please don't add that much detail because it will not remain in the article in the long term. It would also be a big help if someone could provide usuable sources for the class historys.Imgaril (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought.

Looking to read about the "operational" paragraph is the latest information I'm afraid this is not such a thought.

• Freightliner fleet, which is exported to Poland, the content is delivered to the old information. And some fleet GBRf, Colas Rail was transferred, not the content.
• DB Schenker in Poland, France and operates a fleet of vehicles, but the contents are not registered. DB Schenker's red color was completed, adding 66097 and 66152 have hope.
• GBRf Europorte fleet Colas Rail and Freightliner recently been transferred to the information available. And even though the fleet GBRf Europorte uniforms are not the contents.
• Colas Rail GBRf transferred to the fleet has become the 66841 to 66845. Freightliner 66573-66577 to replace the fleet is replaced with a fleet of some fleets are re-painted.
• Direct Rail Services is currently operating a fleet of 66301 to 66305 cases, so please add content.

I live in South Korea people.

Railway Herald Issue 274 side of the site to see, the class 66 locomotives for the content of Wikipedia and hope that the latest update. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yh00157 (talk • contribs)

Hello Yh00157. I've read the above a few times, and Railway Herald 274, but I'm still unsure what you're requesting/suggesting. Would you be able to phrase it differently (it might be easier to write in Korean and we can try and to translate it again). —Sladen (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_66&action=historysubmit&diff=440179264&oldid=440178676 for what it's worth I think the freightliner image was better, additionally I was thinking of saying that the 'lead' image should actually be an EWS loco - because a. they've got 250 of them, b. they introduced them, and c. they were responsible for the specs (along with GM obviously)..

I don't really like the foreshortening in the GBRf image - looks like a fisheye lens, and I think the contrast was too high for the camera because the wheels are 'in shadow' ie cant see them well, but.. what about [4] or [5]or this one is foreshortened too. There are thousands to choose from on commons... Imgaril (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'Dingwall_Nth_Junction.jpg' of 66113 is tolerable if it really needs changing: it's also taken at a sensible distance to the target, from eye-level (allowing a view of the running-gear and the front) and it's reasonably well light. This and the current images are a far-better illustrations of the locomotive than the dozens of "shot high up from a bridge parapet with a 200 mm telephoto-lens" jobs that litter the commons, where the object of the image is occupying about 5% of the pixels. It's also good if the images are full resolution as they scale a bit better.

Sadly all of the EWS-livery locos are a bit grubby which probably detracts from the "opening gambit" aspect for the top of the article—although I do appreciate that the maroon livery is still on about one-third of the total Class 66 pool. Perhaps there's a picture of a clean one somewhere? —Sladen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed title

The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 66", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on British railways, but Wikipedia frequently uses the railway company name before "Class XX" as a disambiguator because there may be several Class XX from different countries. I notice that the dab page "Class 66" has been turned into a redirect to this page, even though this is probably no more notable than the other Class 66's. We need to be careful here. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect; it now points to Class 66 (disambiguation), which should (nay, must!) be moved back tithe unadorned title quickly. There's no evidence that this is the actual primary topic for the term "Class 66" worldwide.

That said, for this article, I'm thinking EMD Class 66 is probably the best tile. It's pretty common to name a model of a vehicle with the manufacturer first, as is the case with other EMD locomotives (like the EMD GP40). The "British Rail Class XX" naming system may have made sense for when British Rail actually existed, and when they sourced locomotives from different manufacturers that were otherwise in the same class, but that doesn't hold anymore, and this locomotive is not from such an era.oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The British Rail Classification system is the numbering scheme, and not a manufacturer or operator. —Sladen (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please let's not reopen this can of worms - we decided generally to keep the BRC system, so if you wish to dispute it please do so at WT:UKRAIL, not here. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire

revert diff - I'm not keen on this addition which seems to be a bit WP:OR and possibly pont of view pushing (66 bad?) - however the fire extinguisher thing could be noted - I found this http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Deviations/Derogation/00-089-DGN.pdf if anyone needs a source - though a better one is probably out there somewhere.Mddkpp (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Write-off of 66 734

The latest edition of Rail magazine is reporting that 66 734 (when did we lose the space between class and individual loco number?) is likely to be scrapped as recovery is too difficult. Spotted this in newsagents today. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is the latest? Do you have an publication date, issue number, article name, article author, page number? —Sladen (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the August 2012 issue (Rail is monthly, isn't it?). Mentioned on front cover so should be easy to spot. Noticed it whilst looking to see if Heritage Railway was out (due out on 2 Aug but sometimes can get it a day or two early). Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was. It's the September 2012 issue of The Railway Magazine that has the story. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(I'm out of the UK at the moment). Ah ha! [6] does not call it out in the content list, but there's a thumbnail of the cover[7], upon which is a half-page piccy and text "Crash 66 to be cut up on site?". I'll try and have a lookie when I'm back. Thank you for highlighting it. —Sladen (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC) It does: "Sept 2012 - Issue 1337 … Headline News …  Class 66 to be written off after landslide derailment; …"

There's an image on Geograph which is on a Wikipedia-compatible licence. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Silencer claim uses first-person

I've added a OR tag in the silencer section — there's an uncited claim in the first-person, "we have found that the actual primary silencer…", which very strongly sounds like original research. On the other hand, if this has been investigated by many, as is said, then there should presumably be some citation allowing this to be rephrased into the passive and cited. Gsnedders (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the noise claim. From the outside, the Class 66 is, in my opinion, the quietest diesel loco in Britain. Obviously, this is subjective but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions. Biscuittin (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

66s may sound quiet on the outside, but they sure as hell aren't on the inside. I'm told that GM locos in North America are not unpleasant to work. GM offered several "comfort levels" during the build, but not surprisingly UK freight operating companies chose the cheapest options, so that the engine/alternator pack has the minimum isolation from the chasis - as do the cab & driver's seats. Consequently, sometimes the noise, vibration, resonance and heat make driving a 66 extremely unpleasant and tiring. Dr Sludge (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Refs added, details removed = tags removed

Revamped the top "History" section with more detail/refs, and then cut through the "this one went there" operational details (we REALLY can't keep up with that, plus its NOT our purpose). I hence removed the tags. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Emission compliance

What is the difference between EU stage 3a and 3b? Is it about particulates? Biscuittin (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Class 66/9 is described as a "lower emission variant". Does this mean that the other sub-classes do not comply with Stage 3a of the European emission standards ? Biscuittin (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or does Class 66/9 comply with Stage 3b? Biscuittin (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This section is now out of date and needs a re-write. We might also include information about idle reduction. [8] Roberttherambler (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 66. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101113040407/http://www.wnxx.com:80/loco/class66.htm to http://www.wnxx.com/loco/class66.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 66. 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/20070928222250/http://www.lokmann.no/aktu04/041005cnenighet.htm to http://www.lokmann.no/aktu04/041005cnenighet.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010083606/http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/class66/class66.html to http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/class66/class66.html

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) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Llangennech derailment

Can we please not add that a 66 was involved in the Llangennech derailment? I know that the BBC article shows a 66, but that is the loco that was sent to rescue the underailed wagons at the rear of the train. Forum talk is that the train in question was hauled by a Class 60. When that info is published by a reliable source, it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Named locomotives

66 708 has been named. Not sure whether this tweet by The Railway Magazine is good enough to use as a source. No doubt it will be reported in the railway press in due course. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As suggested we will need to wait for a reliable source on this - even though there is a photo, Twitter is not counted as a reliable source (see WP:TRUTH. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)