Talk:British Rail Class 142

Nodding Donkeys?

Are these the type of trains named 'nodding donkeys' by rail staff? Magic Pickle 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently 142s, 143s and 144s are all known as 'nodding donkeys' due to how to jerk up and down on unven track Hstudent 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

yes some staff call them nodding donkeys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.64.164 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple operation?

Does anyone know if these units can couple together or are they stuck in 2 car formations? Just out of interest, GullibleKit 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They can. It's not exactly common, but I've seen trains formed of two Pacer sets coupled together. Only one set was in use, however, suggesting the other was broken-down. GBev1987 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

they are used with 150s, 143s, 153s and 158s in south wales. 82.3.16.210 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Rail use 142s attached to 142s, 150s and 156s. Sometimes one unit in operation (especially to transfer units around), sometimes both units in operation. On one occasion I saw a 142 attached to both a 156 and a 150, all in operation on a summer Blackpool service (the 142 being the front unit) 217.37.120.25 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

tidy

Minor tidy - rearanged operations to be by region. Added some reference tags. Hope I haven't spoilt it - nice article - enjoyed reading it.

Removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_142&diff=270884108&oldid=270804140

See edit summary, also please take into account the notabilty of the material you add. see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_of_article_content —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert war

Enotayokel and Peter Skuce, please stop reverting each other's edits. It isn't helping anyone. A similar series of events on British Rail Class 153 ended up on WP:LAME, and this could soon be joining it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does Enotayokel change the image without discussing it before hand? There is nothing wrong with File:142077_Penarth.JPG and I don't see how it can be too dark at all - the photograph is in broad daylight. Also this image matches the interior image. --Peter Skuce (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the train is a bit too dark against a light background. While I understand that it's nice to have the exterior and interior images matching it isn't as inportant as using the best picture we have in the infobox - and the best picture is File:142041 Northern Rail Castleton East Jcn.jpg. It's better on every count discussed at Talk:British Rail Class 153 and Talk:British Rail Class 313, including the ones you proposed. It may be worth using an interior shot of a Northern Rail unit to match the exterior one, but we shouldn't try to match the exterior shot to the existing interior one. While your picture certainly deserves a place in the gallery, it doesn't belong in the infobox. Also, a revert isn't a minor edit, so please don't mark it as one. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So should I put it back, I even tried a neutral BR pacer! - All I've been doing is going through the Commons and picking out clearer photos - I have noticed that Peter reverts any attempt to remove his picture of any class (See Class 455 for another example where a noisy picture keeps returning) --Enotayokel (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The BR picture wasn't appropriate as the infobox infobox should be up to date where this is possible, which is why I would suggest the Northern Rail one. Without wishing to get dragged into a debate about British Rail Class 455 which should be held on that article's talk page, I have to say that Peter's picture seems okay in that instance. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have placed both the Regional Railways and Greater Manchester 1980s images, next to each other, in the gallery - this has enhanced this article.--Peter Skuce (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I've found the photograph that I took of a refurbished Merseyrail Class 142 at Liverpool Lime Street and have uploaded this into the gallery - it does look better than the half cut image. I have placed the interior of an interior of a refreshed First Great Western Class 142 at the top of the page - if anyone ventures onto Northern area often and come across a Northern refreshed interior, then please upload it onto Wikipedia? --Peter Skuce (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I have just two suggestions: replace the gallery image of the FGW interior with the Arriva one that used to be in the infobox, and add a couple of inline images - while I like galleries it is worth having images in the article text as well. But generally we've got a good result out of this. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Have swapped the interior image - though I will point out that Northern units have three different types of seating (Original/West, East Side and Miseryrail) so matching to the unit is rather tricky unless you can ID what seating it has, have moved some images out from the gallery to inline, and also added a new BR era heading for expansion :) --Enotayokel (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and additionally, it might be nice to put the FGW interior under BR to show an original (but re-trimmed) interior --Enotayokel (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think my last post had an error in it. I was trying to say that we didn't need the FGW interior shot in both the infobox and the gallery. If the FGW interior is more like the Northern one as Peter said in the caption, it would be fine to use this in the infobox instead of the ATW one. I apologise if I've led you to make a pointless edit. Good work the inline images and BR stuff by the way. Alzarian16 (talk)

Thank you Enotayokel for re-arranging things when they were fine as they were - the page now looks a mess! Thanks for nothing! All that hard work by me to have as diverse collection of images has been wasted! --Peter Skuce (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you're blaming the wrong person. The infobox interior image was repalced by mistake because I accidentally made it sound like I wanted it, as I explained above. Enotayokel didn't remove any of the images you added, he simply moved from the gallery to the main body of the page. The use of inline images is encouraged for two reasons:

1. They help to break up large areas of text and make the page easier to read.
2. The size of the image as it appears on the page is larger for inline images than gallery ones.
I know you don't agree with these reasons (as you made clear on Talk:British Rail Class 313), but the consensus is that they shold be used. The gallery is designed for images which don't fit well into the text. Remember that our only Good Article on a UK train type, British Rail Class 47, uses this format. So we're going to use it here. I've admitted that I was wrong about the infobox interior image - now please admit that you're wrong about inline images and help to end this debate with an outcome we can agree on. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Alzarian, I will look into this tomorrow and see if I can get the images to match the areas that the train worked in. --Peter Skuce (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to do it today - does it look improved and to everyone's liking? --Peter Skuce (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it, and I hope everyone else does too. Alzarian16 (talk)

I might have another go at it, prune out some of the duplicated images. I do still think that the FGW interior should go under BR to show the original interior, with a different image at the top, also there are too many BR images for the size of the section an they are intruding down into Northern. Might be worth Gallerying them until the BR operations can be expanded. Might try and prune out some of the excessive ATW images in the gallery for a Swap with Northern Sprit, FNW and Valley Lines for a bit of varitity - Finally am tempted to rename "Current Operations" to "Post Privatisation" to allow more scope for the previous TOCs - any thoughts?--Enotayokel (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the section renaming for the reason you gave. The BR images should probably stay where they are, although one of the three could be put in the gallery (the brown and cream one may be most appropriate for this as it isn't really a Northern England livery). The images you suggested would be worth having but we would have to be careful not to remove too much existing content, although one ATW picture could be dropped. I'll leave it up to you as to which one. Also, we don't really need to have the FGW interior shot in the gallery as we've included it in the infobox. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Southern England

To avoid confusion with central Southern England - i.e. between Sussex and Dorset, I have changed the title to 'South West England' as it reflects the area correctly. Devon, Somerset and Cornwall are NOT in Southern England, they are in the South West. --Peter Skuce (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 142s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:38, 24 September 2010 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 142. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110904020800/http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datasheets/Detail.aspx?ID=26 to http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datasheets/Detail.aspx?ID=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 05:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 142. 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/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 142. 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/20140311194040/http://pacer-pete.webs.com/history.htm to http://pacer-pete.webs.com/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Tfw start of a new journey ads

Can someone get a better picture as I can not make it out on both Welsh and English one Metalhead11000 (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

First withdrawal

What's all this about 142005 being "the first unit to be retired"? As noted in the Accidents section, 142059 was withdrawn in 1991 and 142008 was withdrawn in 1999 (following the 1999 Winsford railway accident). These numbers have remained absent from the Platform 5 combined volume ever since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It says 142005 was the first Class 142 unit to be withdrawn from the current Northern franchise's allocation of the type - not the first one overall - Coradia175 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Unit 142069

I believe that the ATW unit pictured in the liveries section should be noteworthy due to its number having both 420 and 69 in it.These are significant numbers in internet culture and should be mentioned. Unit 142069 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:519a:9b00:a903:ba14:e651:4f02 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:V. You need to provide reliable independent third-party sources that describe this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

142012

Someone just moved this unit back to "scrapped" - any reason for this as on other lists it still exists...? Anamyd (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing 142011 and 142013 at Butterley

Your also missing 142011 and 142013 at Midland Rail Centre at Butterley nut 011 is being used for spares and 013 will run on the railway as well. Trooper201 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Last Northern pacer had been retired

Heads up the last Northern service operated by a pacer happened today, class 142004.

Sadly the only proof at the moment is via Northern on twitter should anybody have any reliable sources then please update the article.

Northern say the final service was 16:36 Kirbby to Manchester Victoria. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Maurice Oly - Twitter is reliable if its a verified account used as a primary source. I have added the info. SK2242 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: Ah right I thought Twitter was banned all together, many thanks for telling me about that and adding the information. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. SK2242 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Claas 142’s were retired from Northern on 27th of November 2020, 142s left Great western railway in 2011 and were never based at Laira Traction & Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot while with GWR instead they were based at Exeter TMD. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

And your source is? We can't simply take your word for it: may I remind you that WP:V is policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

142 we're used on Exeter branchline routes. Laira is a HST depot not a local unit depot. Hence why you will never find any pictures of a 142 at Laira but plenty at Exeter TMD. Speaking of 142029 is actually at the Plym Valley Railway not Chasewater.146.198.123.102 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some 142s were based at Exeter depot from 2007 until 2011, but that doesn't mean that they didn't visit Laira depot. Regardless of the classes actually allocated to a depot, most depots are capable of providing service for other classes - overnight stabling, fuelling and minor maintenance categories, such as the "A" and "B" exams. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncited tables

Seeing the edit-warring over the uncited tables is continuing unabated, both have have deleted. They were flagged as uncited 7 months ago and yet for all the toing and froing, remain uncited. Please do not reinstate until they can be cited in full. It will either need to be from a published work as sometimes appear in a magazine or in books such as the annual Platform 5 publication. Metro140 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wheel arrangement classification

Redrose64 I know that the source cite [1-A + A-1] as the wheel arrangement rather than [1'A' + A'1'], but this is the Commonwealth system, not the UIC one. contrary to the Template:Infobox locomotive, the Template:Infobox train does not have a Commonwealth system field. So I take the wheel arrangement and converted it to UIC. ChaseYUL99 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)