Talk:British Rail Class 507

507/508

Apart from the fact that the 508s were originally in four-car sets, can anybody please clarify what distinguishes the 507 from the 508? Now that the latter are in three-car sets, is there a good reason why they're not reclassified to all be the same class? The articles don't appear to list any other technical difference such as voltage etc. (I don't know the rules for reclassification, but precedent seems to perhaps exist with the 375/377 classes, where 375s were renumbered after the couplers were changed.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it that the 508s were first fitted with passenger operated buttons to open the doors, which were never fitted to 507s? Soarhead77 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:507026 Centralb.jpg and also Image:507033 HamiltonSquare.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirkby

The Liverpool Echo source does not identify the unit involved in the accident at Kirkby. I've removed the alleged number twice per the policy WP:V. The number of the unit(s) involved may be given, iff a reliable source can be found. Forums are not reliable sources, so don't go there. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a twitter post with an image of the front of the unit, the number is clearly visble. WestRail642fan (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@WestRail642fan: See WP:TWITTER (part of WP:V). There are issues with using that particular tweet. Now, a tweet from Merseyrail, Network Rail, RAIB or RSSB would be a much better one to pick. I'm not against the inclusion of the information, but it needs to be properly sourced. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The RAIB have finally announced an investigation, and confirmed 507 006 was involved. Patience is a virtue. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

507 006 scrapping

Following a request at WP:RFPP, I've semi-protected the article for three weeks. That should be enough time for RSs to catch up with the scrapping of 507 006. Rail is published fortnightly, and is likely to be a good source for this info. Once we have sourced info re the scrapping, the article can be unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Fleet details table

For thouse good with editing tables could you please add a row called “scrapped” to the fleet details table as the following unit has been scrapped: 507006

Source for all of this is

Kind Regards Maurice Oly (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a row called Scrapped with that number but I'm not sure if the no. built, no. in service, years built or cars per set are accurate. ButterCashier (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved your "Scrapped" cell out of the "Operator" header, and I've added a new header called "Status" Currently in service units have an "In service" cell and scrapped ones have a "Scrapped" cell. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted that part of your edit as that is not how fleet details tables are formated. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Which doesn't really make any sense at all. For example, if you look at this table, you can clearly see that, when the 508 was in service, there were several different operators that ran the trains. "Scrapped" isn't a train operator, and I don't think that just because we have a set way of doing things, that we should prioritise that over supplying 100% accurate and clear information. Nothing is set in stone, I think we should prioritise what makes sense in the article for readers.

In my example table I linked, it would make no sense to lable "Scrapped" as an operator - then there wouldn't be any place in the article for users to see the details for each operator's fleet. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Still don't agree with your revert, and would like a response when possible - as editors, we should be focused on what gives the most encyclopedic value, and BE BOLD in our edits. It doesn't add any encyclopedic value to remove information on which operator used which units. I'm going to add my edit back because it offers the best reading experience. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References