Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes)

General discussion

Copied from User talk:Our Phellap —

Hi. I'm wondering how this article can be called "British Rail Class 185" when it concerns a class first built seven years after the privatization of British Rail? (This question also applies, of course, to other articles about post-BR classes.) I realize that there is an attempt here to apply a consistent style of title covering all classes, before and after privatization, but I think a different solution needs to be found as titles such as the present one are confusing / potentially misleading. -- Picapica 08:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Picapica —

The reason the title British Rail Class 185 was used is simply to make all articles consistent. If, for example the title was TransPennine Express Class 185 there is a strong possibility this would have to be changed if the franchise is renamed in the future. One argument for using "British Rail Class xxx" is because the BR numbering system is still used, even if BR did not build the classes. (Our Phellap 15:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I appreciate the consistency argument. However, I'm not suggesting replacing "British Rail" with any other builder/owner (besides, individual classes can have multiple owners); rather, that we dispense with the first part and use article titles like "Class 185 DMU", "Class 86 electric locomotive", "Class 222 DEMU", etc. These can all be brought together in a Category with a title like "British railway rolling-stock". -- Picapica 17:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Titles like Class 222 DEMU are potentially ambiguous, as other countries may use similar/the same numbers (I don't know anything about other numbering systems though). My suggestion is to use the naming convention TOPS class 185 or TOPS class 43 (should the C in class be capitalised or not?). Also, I think this discussion should be moved Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British locomotive and multiple unit classes). Thryduulf 18:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, that option had occurred to me too, but I don't like it because TOPS is not a uniquely British system; in fact, it comes from the United States. I don't see why the usual disambiguation strategies can't be used in the (unlikely) event of the need arising for an article about some other "Class 222 DEMU". I'd venture to say that, on past and present evidence, articles on locomotive and multiple-unit classes in the English-language Wikipedia are always likely to be predominantly about British classes in any case, so that on the principle of "most commonly used", it would be the "newcomer" which would appear under a title like "Class 222 DEMU (Taiwan)", with an appropriate pointer from the "British" page. Picapica 21:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point there, I knew TOPS wasn't British but the article seems to suggest it is only still in use here. I agree the newcommer disambig and redirect seems pretty good. Thryduulf 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not at all averse to moving this discussion as you suggest. But do you know how to do it neatly? (This wholesale moving is a bit beyond my present level of Wikspertise -- I was a bit nervous about copying the first two paragraphs on this page to their present position!) -- Picapica 21:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

for a wholesale move like that the Move option at the top of the page would (probably) be the best option. That will leave a 'hard' redirect here, which while apropriate in most cases wouldn't be here (as everyone viewing the talk page would be redirected there) and so it should be edited to add a sentence of context followed by a 'soft' redirect (one that requires a link to be clicked) to the disucssion. That will leave the talk page for any other issues about the Class 185 article anyone may have in future. For a much better explanation see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page and Help:Renaming (moving) a page. I wont move the page until tomorrow evening (UK time) to allow someone else to object if they wish. Thryduulf 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• I find the above discussion very interesting. Personally, I think whichever system is decided on will not be 100% appropriate for all pages. For example, what about the Pre-TOPS British Rail Class AM1 units? This article would make applying the TOPS Class xx rule to all pages difficult. Likewise, using the Class AM1 EMU doesn't make the it immediately obvious from the title as to what the article is about and that it refers to a British train. One possibility is to use the British Rail Class xx for all trains built up until 1996, and then a new naming policy for those built afterwards, but this will then lack consistency for page naming. I do think though that the article should hav the word Britain or UK in the title, as Class 185 doesn't mean much on its own.
• If it were up to me, I would probably favour using the current system as the numbering system is still that as used by BR, even the train was built after BR was privatised. In those cases it is still clear what the article is about. You could argue that British Rail now simply refers to the network of railways in Britain (much like the double-arrow logo is still used for station signs).
  • I have no objection myself to British Rail, but if others do then National Rail seems to be the generic term in use at the moment (e.g. http://www.nationalrail.com and (from memory) what the signs at London Underground stations say) - although something at the back of my mind says its just a brand name of Association of Train Operating Companies, who afaik don't have any control over the numbering (neither the ATOC nor National Rail articles are clear on the matter). Another potential problem is that National Rail sounds very ambiguous in the context of an international encyclopaedia (even if it isn't). The obvious answer to the that to me is British National Rail, British national rail or Bristish national railways. UK is out as that would imply inclusion of Northern Ireland, which is and always has been separate, and Network Rail isn't directly responsible for trains. Thryduulf 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A side point is that if wholesale renaming is to take place, then all the appropriate templates (Template:British Rail DMU etc.) will need to be suitably adjusted.
  • The template is a good point, but we shouldn't let it dictate the outcome of this debate - it may even be something that someone could set a bot to work on? Thryduulf 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Another side point is that it has already been discussed elsewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that Class xx is more accurate than class xx as I think this was the official BR policy (correct me if wrong).

(Our Phellap 01:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• • if Class was policy then they should be at Class rather than class. Thryduulf 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Under my proposal, "Class" would be the first word of the name and therefore necessarily capitalized. -- Picapica 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The present convention seems quite workable to me - it makes clear that the subject of the article is both British and a train. It's not as if the privatisation of British Rail resulted in any significant changes to the class-numbering system, and in any case the phrase works equally well to refer simply to the fact that they are part of the British rail system. I suppose the 'R' of 'Rail' could be made lower-case to signify that it does not refer specifically to the previous company, but I don't think there's any need for a change. I don't think it's a good idea to change it to simply 'Class 185 DMU', as that title doesn't really convey any useful information about the subject-matter of the article, and 'TOPS Class 185' requires more specialist knowledge to understand than does 'British Rail Class 185'. DavidArthur 23:17, 12 March 2005 (UTC)
  • • The subject of an article named, as I propose, "Class 92 electric locomotive" would not be a "train" but a locomotive - an electric locomotive. I'd be quite happy, though, for articles about DMUs etc. (which can be trains or parts of trains) to be named e.g. "Class 180 diesel multiple unit" rather than "Class 180 DMU". I ask again why we need the builder, the owner, or the operator in the name of the article. Should the article Bainbridge class destroyer be renamed "United States Navy Bainbridge class destroyer"? Should Havock class destroyer be "Royal Navy Havock class destroyer", or even "British Royal Navy Havock class destroyer" to pack even more information into the subject name? And what about Kongo class destroyer as "Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force Kongo class destroyer"? -- Picapica 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DMU redirects to Diesel Multiple Unit, with no other uses of the acronym apparently having wp articles. EMU is a different mater, it is a disambig page between eight articles (one is a red link) that could potentially be at the acronym location, plus the article about the large flightless bird. This suggests that EMU is not the shortest unambiguous name, as is convention to use. I think it important that we use either DMU and EMU or Diesel Multiple Unit and Electric Multiple Unit Thryduulf 14:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • Agreed (as "diesel/electric multiple unit" -- DMU, etc. are not proper names, so no need for capitals). -- Picapica 19:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The current convention has the least ambiguity, and is accurate if we don't take "British Rail" as a literal organisation. It's a British topic, and about the railways. Tis a bit awkward, but I don't see reason to change. BesigedB ^(talk) 22:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the technical term for this kind of decision is "bastard".  ;-) Looking at the options, they've all got their flaws, so it makes sense to apply the status quo rule - i.e. if you can't make up your mind, what you've got is probably better than nothing. Since the "Class" forms part of the proper name, it needs to be in caps. Besides, "British Rail class X" just looks somehow wrong. Perhaps it should also be worth noting that maybe units should be consistently known by their TOPS numbers, rather than any markings that are on them. SR units dropping the first two digits from the visible number doesn't mean those two digits aren't there, 55 022 being repainted in green with D9000 doesn't mean it's no longer 55 022. Chris talk back 06:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current suggestions

Please add any new suggestions and/or short comments you have as apropriate. Please put longer comments and debate above. If you are commenting on a pro or a con, please place it immediately after the relevant entry and indent it one level further. Thryduulf 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

British Rail Class 185

• Pros:
  • Least amount of work as it is the current situation.
  • Correct for the majority of classes running today and all retired post 1960s classes.
• Cons:
  • British Rail ceased to exist in 1997, so can classes designed and built after then be correctly called British Rail Class xx?

TOPS Class 185

• Pros:
  • Technically correct as TOPS is the reason for the numbering scheme.
• Cons:
  • TOPS isn't (or at least wasn't) exclusive to Great Britain.
  • Doesn't make it immediately clear that it relates to (a) Trains, (b) Great Britain
  • What about pre-TOPS classes?

:I support this option because it is technically correct, it is what the TOCs and planners use, and (consequently/also) it handles the cross-channel service, and

I don't see how it matters that TOPS is not exclusive to GB, so long as there is no duplication. We don't worry about ISBN.

(a) The designation will always be used in a train context and/or will be made clear within 5 seconds. (b) The articles are about trains, not about their livery. Is the Class 373 a British train or a French train? It is neither really. But again the context (invocation and content) will always make clear whether we are talking about Cross Pennine services or Cross Apennine services.

Pre-TOPS classes can continue to use their original designation, there is no need for strait-jacket consistency.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote in the light of debate on this option. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Class 185 DMU

• Pros:
  • No dispute over or name of numbering scheme.
  • An article name like "Class 66 diesel locomotive" would be as informative as "British Rail Class 66" (more so, in fact) while losing the technical inaccuracy. (Picapica)
• Cons:
  • Potentially ambiguous (although disambig could be done, e.g. Class 185 DMU (Taiwan), if needed)
  • Doesn't make it immediately clear it relates to (a) Trains, (b) Great Britain.
    • But do article names have to make so many things clear in any case? Isn't that the job of the first sentence of the article? Compare IE 201 Class (Picapica)
    • Of the options here, this one seems preferable.

National Rail Class 185

• Pros:
  • National Rail is the current brand name of the former British Rail network.
• Cons:
  • Doesn't make it imediately clear it relates to Great Britain.
  • "National Rail" and "National Rail Network" refer to the passenger railway only. (Picapica)

Network Rail Class 185

• Pros:
  • Network Rail is the legal name of the current sucessor organisation to British Rail.
• Cons:
  • Network Rail doesn't have responsibility for rolling stock.

British Locomotive Class 185

• Pros:
  • It clearly describes an article about a class of locomotive in Britain.
  • It makes no reference to current or past organisations.
• Cons:
  • Requires 'Rail' to be changed to 'Locomotive' on each page
• Also:
  • Class 185 is a diesel multiple unit, NOT a locomotive! Our Phellap 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

British railways Class 185 DMU

NB: "railways" with a l.c. "r"! "DMU" would be replaced by a specific designation like "locomotive" etc. for other classes

• Pros:
  • It clearly describes an article about a class of DMU (locomotive, etc.) on British railways - pre or post British Rail(ways)
  • It makes no reference to current or past organisations
• Cons:
  • Requires several changes to the title of each page

--Ant 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If it comes to a vote, this gets mine.

-- Beardo 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Add my suport to this one too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (After writing about International services, I've changed my vote to favour TOPS Class). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reading the debate at talk:British Rail Class 373, I returned to favouring this option. It would be a notation that is recognised internationally, it nods to the [pre-privatisation past, and would be easy to make a robot to correct any articles for trains that bear the name of a defunct company). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Class 185 Desiro

• • Pros
  • Cons

Class 185 Pennine

• • Pros
  • Cons

Euro Derivatives - eg: Class66

The Class66 is a freight locomotive, that was developed from the Class59, and now has derivatives all over Europe

• It's a family - Class59 thru Class66
• It's not British - it was built in Canada by General Motors, first deployed in the UK, and now used all over Europe
• The manufacturer refers to it casually as a Series66, accepting there are differnet numbering schemes all over Europe. The full reference is JT42CWR and JT42CWRM for newer versions [1]
• The TOPS system is running out of numbers - so the entire class is unlikely to remain as Class66

Here's a dutch fan's website with all loco's listed: [2]

Thoughts? It could still be filed as the Class66, but with numerous re-direction pages (I think whatever the eventual Wiki designation, it will still end with numerous Redirection pages); use the manufactureres code which other Wiki editions could more easily tag into?

In this case, the later would be my preference. That way we could track different editions on one page, rather than numerous copies of the same information.

Some of the refered to "British" classes above also have a similar European-Derivative issue (in fact, some were first deployed in Europe rather than UK), now being used all over Europe.

Rgds, Trident13 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not correct to say "Class59 thru Class66" is a family - Class 60 is the only intermediate class which exists, and that's nothing to do with EM-GMD. I see someone's just deleted the information on non-British examples from British Rail Class 66; might I suggest putting it in EMD Series 66? -- Arwel (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We could use Class 142 Pacer/Class 150 Sprinter/Class 170 Turbostar/Class 175 Coradia etc. I'm surprised that has not already been suggested. 217.37.120.25 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

International trains

There is something more than a bit weird about calling the cross-channel service British Rail Class 373, when it is used on both British and French railways. This is certainly an argument for using the style "TOPS Class 373" as discussed above. No doubt there are similar trains on the continent (though for example there is an 'all stations' service between Nice and Genoa via Monte Carlo which is very line one of our Trans-Pennine services) but I don't think they are so jingoistic about it. (For example, the Nice-Genoa services are alternately hauled by SNCF and Trenitalia). I shudder to think what must happen among the Benelux countries! To summarise, I think we have to change the name of the Class 373 and have proposed as much at Talk:British Rail Class 373#Name of this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has to be changed. Indeed, Wikipedia policies state that naming changes should not be made until something clearly better collectively presents itself. The suggested alternatives do not appears to be better than leaving it as the status quo. —Sladen (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the status quo is clearly wrong (in that British Rail[ways] ceased to exist 12 years ago) and this train in particular exposes the error. We should not use transient company names but rather use the neutral technical descriptor, TOPS, that the industry uses. This notation is clearly better than the status qou, especially when the latter is blatantly inaccurate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a citation for your claim that "TOPS Class" is the "neutral technical descriptor ... that the industry uses."? Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair, the industry just uses "Class xxx" without any qualifier. That said, I've gone off the idea and won't argue the point any longer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The naming of the article is definitely wrong here. The trains are operated by Eurostar, not British Rail which has nothing to do in the title name (and isn't even named as such anymore anyway). The Status Quo is just completely wrong and can only justify itself jingoistic reasons. What about Eurostar Class 373 simply? I don't see the need to complicate it more, Eurostar describes the companies that operates it and class 373 is the model. 90.16.71.19 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you could always just decapitalise the R in Rail, in which case it would be semantically correct as it IS the British rail(ways) Class XYZ. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Related discussions

Similar matters were debated in:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 14#Naming of British rolling stock articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention

– Certes (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)