Talk:British Rail Class 373

Untitled

I have separated the link to the Eurostar page as this is a description of the trains, rather than the Eurostar service/company and is the same format as the other unit pages I have created. (Our Phellap 16:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I've just noticed that the operators table has unit 373204 operated by both Eurostar and SNCF. I suspect that it it is the Eurostar that is incorrect (i.e. the range should start at 05 not 04), but I haven't changed it as I am not certain. Thryduulf 16:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)`

Yes you are right - i have corrected it Our Phellap 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

3733xx (NoL Sets) transfer to SNCF

Was in Paris yesterday. I saw 3301/02 at Gare du Nord (domestic platforms), stripped of Eurostar logos and reassigned to "Le Landy". Forgot to check for removed shoegear. Sladen 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rerouting to St Pancras : issues

The UK end of the Eurostar link will be moved to St Pancras on 14th November 2007. This has benefits for domestic rail operation in and out of Waterloo, as it will allow the current platforms to be reused for domestic services, will increase capacity into Waterloo, and may reduce delays as a result.

However, the relocation of the link may not have a totally beneficial effect. Passengers from the South of London may find that the additional journey time to St Pancras will offset the reduced journey time to the continent. Partly this could be offset by new and more frequent rail services towards St Pancras from South of London locations, but this does not seem to have been planned.

The proposed removal of the 3rd rail capability from existing Eurostar trains might also not be ideal. In the event of major failures or emergency situations, Eurostar trains can run on much of the rail network around London. This would become impossible if this feature is removed.

Is there ever going to be the possibility of journeys progressing beyond London, for example North or West, using high speed trains? This might only provide marginal advantages, though currently having to change trains in London in the UK, and in Paris in France is a significant barrier to some users switching to rail from other forms of transport such as air or car.

Are the railway operators seriously considering all of the issues which could arise out of the relocation of the cross channel service terminal to St Pancras? David Martland 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What has this go to do with the actual train this is to do with the Eurostar the service section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.220.2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the closure of Waterloo International Station in November 2007, and the transfer of all Eurostar services to St Pancras International, using HS1, it was in January 2008, that all of the third rail DC traction equipment on all of the Eurostar trainsets was removed. Furthermore no DC traction equipment has been retained on any Eurostar trainset for Emergencey use or other operational reasons on grounds of cost. Eurostar never had a policy of having two International Stations in London, inspite of press comments to that effect. Aquizard 00:30, 20 April 2009(UTC)

Incorrect train numbers?

The wiki page shows that only 37 sets were built, but site such as abrail.co.uk list many more than that- more like 57 (although of those one is only a power car on its own) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.150.66 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the numbers: 77 power cars. 76 half-sets of coaches. 62 full-length half-sets. 38 usable trains (2 power cars + 2 half-sets of coaches). 36 half-sets ordered by BR/EPS. 32 half-sets ordered by SNCF. 31 full-length usable 373/1 trains. 27 full-length trains in Eurostar International service today. 21 half-sets in SNCF domestic service today. 14 shorter "North of London" half-sets. 10.5 trains in SNCF domestic service today. 8 half-sets ordered by SNCB. 7 shorter "North of London". 4 complete trains ordered by SNCB. 3 trains previously painted (vinyl-wrapped) for GNER. 1 half-set used for spares. 1 spare power car. 0.5 trains used for spares. Of those, which do you feel could do with expanding/explaining more clearly in the article? —Sladen (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Safety systems

I updated datas on safetys systems. TBL is used on SNCB lines (TBL 1 for all lines but TBL2 for HS2 line). Memor is used on CFL lines. TBM 430 is also used for the chunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.119.159 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

TVM and KVB are also used on the British HS1, including St. Pancras, The British systems mentioned in the article are 'not' used, they were only required for the line to Waterloo Int'l. --L.Willms (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for when calling at Ashford International railway station! —Sladen (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Unit?

The article says that the Class 373 is an electric multiple unit. Is this so? There's a comment in Talk:British Rail Class 390 that says that it isn't. I don't quite get the definition, so I'm not sure. Any views? --JCG33 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think his point is that, in order a train to be considered a multiple unit, it should have distributed traction with no locomotives. Eurostar doesn't have distributed traction other then two power bogies on trailers adjacent to the locomotives, instead it has two locomotives. Nevertheless I would still consider it as a multiple unit since it is a fixed - formation trainset. It cannot be considered as a true locomotive - hauled train since it is not possible to add or remove cars by simple coupling, uncoupling and shunting operations. Gokaydince (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurostar - Speeds?

Please look at that text below operators - Eurostar. "The trains can operate at up to 300 km/h (186 mph) on high-speed lines and 160 km/h (100 mph) in the Channel Tunnel. Since there is an automatic application of the brakes if the speed exceeds 315 km/h,[2] or 160 km/h when the pantograph is in the tunnel setting, the target speed is in fact 297 and 157 km/h respectively". Would it be conveient to replace the phrase "the target speed is in fact 297 and 157 km/h respectively" with "the cruise control is set to 297 and 157 km/h respectively"? I think it means that, the cruise control system, which enables the trains to travel at fairly constant speed, is set to those values. And the values are chosen somewhat below the speed limits in order to be on the safe side - i.e speed limits are not overshot. Gokaydince (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

BN

I came across a ref claiming that BN built the R9 and R10 vehicles, so I've added that in the article. Can anyone confirm this with a more authoritative ref? -- Timberframe (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article

Why is it not called simply "Class 373", in the same style as Class 395? And What's with the "British Rail" prefix anyway, given that British Rail no longer exists and that it is used for international services? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) hoping that it would throw some light on the subject, but that discussion just seems to have petered out inconclusively. And it didn't even begin to deal with international trains such as this one. How about "International railways Class 373"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose "International railways Class 373" as there is no organisation called "International railways" and there are several North American organisations with similar names (see International Railroad). I don't personally have a problem with TOPS Class 373 (as long as we retain a redirect) as the class number comes from TOPS. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading and editing the "Naming conventions" article, I agree and withdraw the "International railways" idea in favour of "TOPS Class 373". See that section for my reasoning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The name "British Rail Class 373" is accurate; "TGV TMST" would be accurate ...and "TGV 373000". The first—and current—of these has the advantage of being predictably guessable. There would be a non-benefit from changing the article from a consistently named, and accurate status-quo to one that is both inconsistent and not accurate. —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • How can you say that it is accurate when British Rail[ways] had ceased to exist? Indeed the status quo generally is no longer accurate generally, because it uses a transient company designation rather than a static and neutral numbering system such as TOPS is. (And we don't say SNCF TGV TMST). Do you seriously think that anyone in the industry still uses the term "British Railways Class"? The only neutral designation is 'TOPS Class 373' --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • To answer your points individually:
      1. Easily, there appear to be no grammatical errors. (BTW, last I heard, British Rail Residuary were still the ones paying the Minimum Usage Charge for these trains to transit the Chunnel—around £26 million/year...).
      2. It was accurate at the point when the units were ordered, and so indefinately remains so.
      3. [SNCF] TGV TMST is a widely used description, and not just in English, or French (see Dutch Wikipedia).
      4. "Class NNN" is used as a frequent operator-netural description; for Wikipedia we need to differentiate to avoid polluting the namespace.
      5. Yes, (I seriously think that) the initials "BR" are used across Europe as a designation of the standard gauge railway system in the United Kingdom primarily maintained (currently) by Network Rail. You can even find an example of this in the Class 373 cab, where the mode selector dial has:
         • BR AC (25kV: ECML, WCML, NLL)
         • BR HS AC (25kV: CTRL)
         • BR DC (750V: Southern third rail)
         • ET AC (25kV: Eurotunnel)
         • GV AC (25kV: LGV Nord/Interconnexion/PSE/Belgian LN1)
         • F AC (25kV: North France classique)
         • F DC (1500V: South France classique)
         • B DC (3kV: Belgium 3kV DC)
      6. "only" is a very strong word, and directly contradicts the list of multiple possibilities given in the preceding contribution to this discussion. TOPS is a system for writing systems for keeping track of rolling stock, it is not the particular schema in use. The schema in use is probably best described as "British Rail Classification".
    • —Sladen (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We are still left with the problem that British Rail is the name of a company that is defunct. Ok, I can see that there is a deep attachment to the past here, but nevertheless it does not describe the sutuation today for trains in current service [I'm not suggesting that laid up trains be renamed]. So how about "British railways Class"? It recognises the fact that they are British trains and that they run on British railway lines. It just doesn't pretend that Thatcher never privatised BR, as the current naming does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The class should be lower case. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't because that would not be continuous with hundreds of other articles on British rolling stock. Raywil (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Raywil, we cannot take this simply out of sync with hundreds and hundreds of other articles still using the "British Rail Class..." extension. I know it the namesake isn't still around, but it is still a formal and very real name, more correctly, a designation for this train. Inventing contrived names will only add to confusion, we should stick with real world, actual class designations. It may be a defunct company, but that doesn't change the fact that trains that have introduced post-BR have still been given TOPS numbers in exactly the same fashion, like the Pendalino, the Desiros, or the new Javelin; they're all given an allocation under the British Rail TOPS system, it may be a different set of operators, but there hasn't been any change to the system. And we cannot call it simply TOPS designation, because TOPS is a classification system, it just happened to be employed by British Rail for designating the trains. It's be like knocking the Supermarine off Supermarine Spitfire, there are Spitfires around today, no sign of the original company though. This isn't really a discussion to be taken on the talk page of a single article, it concerns hundreds within this naming scheme on Wikipedia, I'd dare say it needs to be turned over to the Wikitrains groupfor a large and public consensus if you really are serious about changing it. 86.138.49.24 (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is actually an ongoing larger debate regarding this, however I unfortunately can't find a link to it, and havn't contributed to it, or added it to my watchlist. I'm not sure if anyone else can find it... Raywil (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(British_railway_locomotive_and_multiple_unit_classes) Raywil (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead images

I've looked at all the images involved in today's backwards and forwards, and would like to suggest a compromise. For the exterior image, I think that File:Rame Eurostar en Savoie.JPG ("Exterior 1" in the gallery below) is the better image. However the interior image File:2nd class Eurostar coach interior.jpg ("Interior 2") preferred by Peter Skuce is more illustrative than the existing image. I will not implement this until there is consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Exterior 1
• 
  Exterior 2
• 
  Interior 1
• 
  Interior 2

Pressure sealed?

Are Eurostar trains pressure-sealed like Shinkansen and ICE? (To prevent the uncomfortable feeling in passengers' ears caused by the pressure wave created when a train enters a tunnel.) KarenSutherland (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. The windows are all sealed, of course, and the passenger loading doors are fitted with inflatable seals which inflate when the door is closed. But the air conditioning isn't a closed system; it draws a proportion of its air from the external environment to maintain oxygen levels inside the vehicle. Having said that, the ducting, dampers and impellors in the air con system probably all help to reduce pressure impulses that arise from entering tunnels or passing other trains.

I can confirm that pressure changes are experienced when travelling on Eurostar, quite frequently too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GNER - speeds

The reference didn't match the text - specifically it said that the locos were limited to 110mph. Was this true? reference?Shortfatlad (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] found a vague reference - still looking.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know its a long way after the event, but if anyone is still interested, I can answer this point. The trains were limited to 110 mph on the ex GNER lines because British railway operating regulations require two men to occupy the driving cab of any train exceeding 110 mph. Both men must have a view if the line ahead and both must be able to bring the train to a halt. The layout of the driving cab and the narrow forward windscreen of the class 373 prevents two men from occupying the cab. The English based Eurostar high speed lines are exempt from this requirement because the in cab signalling used has a number of safety features built into it that renders the second man unnecessary.

Also of note: is that a part of the GNER line (as was) is built and signalled for 140 mph operation (for trial use) using five aspect signalling. Once again, railway regulations get in the way, and only permit such speeds on lines that have no level crossings. The 140 mph stretch of line in question does have level crossings and consequently when 140 mph trials are carried out, the crossings have to be closed to road traffic for the duration. 86.180.163.237 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Purchase price

Myddelton, D. R. (2007). They Met Well: Government Project Disasters. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. p. 141. ISBN 978 0 255 36601 4. The initial estimate for fourteen Eurostar Class 373 train sets was £230 million; but in December 1989 BR authorised spending of £356 million, an increase of 55 per cent.; Although the fourteen doesn't match up unless it's two times seven NoL half-sets. —Sladen (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Exhibitions

For reference, the following used to appear in the page, detailing which particular units had attended which particular exhibitions:

On several occasions, Class 373 power cars and sets have appeared at special events and displays on behalf of Eurostar; such as at Rotterdam Centraal Station on 6 April 1996 (full set 3309/3310), Berlin-Grunewald station for Eurailspeed 1998 (full set 3303/3304), Madrid Chamartín railway station for Eurorailspeed 2002 (half-set 3212) and at the York National Railway Museum for the Railfest 200 celebrations in 2004 (power car 3313 + simulator).

—Sladen (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what value the model numbers themselves to an encyclopedic article on the trains, is it particularly important or noteworthy in any manner that these particular units were used to demonstrate the train? I removed them because I don't see any use for them, beyond the train enthusiasts who like to track their activities, but that isn't really the job of what we're doing here. And for four seperate events, only one reference to one of the events can be found; there isn't any evidence that Class 373 sets even appeared at these events, it was simply so unnoteworthy not even the media bothered to keep a record of them in my searches to reference them. If it is that unnoteworthy that it can't be cited, it is likely that it is because this information is unremarkable and essentially trivia. I certainly see no case for the model numbers, but listing fact that it has been put on display at X, Y and X special events seems to be excessive as well, unless they were truely unique and special situations in and of themselves. For instance, over on the Concorde article there is no need to mention anything but a scant reference to a few of the thousands of airshows that the Concorde was displayed at momentarily, simply because it wasn't noteworthy or important. The operation down the Thames, that was something pretty original. I won't delete this, but I am not keen on it either. Kyteto (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Source 43 regarding the postponing of the floatation of a power car down the Thames does not corroborate the statement it is used as a source for. There is nothing within the source indicating that the accident was fatal, or that the floatation was postponed for 24 hours. 87.194.40.167 (talk) 12:47, 18 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/Archive 20#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

4-system trainsets numbers

Did know anyone 4-system trainsets numbers ?

SNCF now own some of these trains.

yes yes its true as they are replacing them with new ones. Wkc19 :) (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Own ≠ lease. —Sladen (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 373. 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/20081125022335/http://www.eurotunnel.com/NR/rdonlyres/116B61C1-A669-4503-872C-FA1356B38F1F/0/DRR_NS_2008_EN_Final.pdf to http://www.eurotunnel.com/NR/rdonlyres/116B61C1-A669-4503-872C-FA1356B38F1F/0/DRR_NS_2008_EN_Final.pdf

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) 22:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 373. 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/20110706133819/http://www.abvv-bombardier.dommel.be/ to http://www.abvv-bombardier.dommel.be/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019082643/http://www.eurostar.com/pdf/timetables/timetables_english.pdf to http://www.eurostar.com/pdf/timetables/timetables_english.pdf

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) 04:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Configuration

Is there a reason why Eurostars don't have a configuration? Is it because of their optional number of carriages that they carry? Does that make it impractical to have a configuration? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Engine 3018 found abandoned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2B8WzmrZTk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.63.110 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Overcoloured

Good evening, I have thought that it may be possible to replace colour marking (which is criticised by Template:Overcoloured, to a colums status. As Davey2010 suggested, I am waiting for consensus for my edits (which have bee cancelled), to avoid an edit conflict.<Thank you for your cooperation and good evening,
--Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous colours were terrible, but the current colours appear to be quite functional/useful. Perhaps add a column and keep the colours? —Sladen (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, no problem --Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

My reasons for objecting were that I felt the table colours helped the reader understand what is inuse, scrapped etc etc, The changed table imho looked more confusing than of help, The now added column certainly does help, I would say the now current table looks fine, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your objection.--Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Scrapping

I'm pretty sure only 8 373s still exist, except the one owned by Izy. On the article it states only 16 have been scrapped. I find this hardly believable, so I think this will need changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomotron (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Revised interior of a Class 373

The second photo is labelled as. "revised" interior but depicts the second/standard class as it was when the trains entered service. IMHO revised would either be the refurb with the brown headrests supposedly by Philippe Starck or the E300 design.--92.200.31.16 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 09:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• British Rail Class 373 → Eurostar e300
• British Rail Class 374 → Eurostar e320

– The trains have absolutely nothing to do with Britain and the article names are just obscuring and distorting the facts, reality and history. Neither of the trains are British nor are they made by a British company. One is made by the French TGV and the other by the German Siemens. That alone is sufficient to have the articles use the naming convention of their respective manufacturer. However, both manufacturers refer to them as e300 and e320 because they're made and used exclusively for and by Eurostar. The majority of the train operations are in Belgium, France and the Netherlands and yet this article uses a British Rail company call sign, which ceased to exist 20 years ago. The trains literally have painted on them "Eurostar 320", Siemens naming (manufacturer), Pininfarina naming (designer of the train). The name is not used anywhere outside of English wikipedia and it's plain inaccurate and wrong.

My previous move of the article was reverted by User:Redrose64 citing consensus "which has been in place for 10 years". The one on the naming convention was held on WikiProject_UK_Railway (completely irrelevant to the train) and even that barely passed the straw poll. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention Just because it has been in place for 10 years, doesn't make it right. Julius503 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Names are consistent with other classes of train which operate in Great Britain. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Except that is completely irrelevant because they don't operate exclusively in Britain and even if they were, they still aren't British trains. Julius503 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  What is a "British train" anyway? All the erstwhile British-based train manufacturers are now either foreign-owned (by the likes of ABB, Alstom, Siemens etc.) or closed completely. If it comes down to country of origin, Class 800 are made in Japan by Hitachi. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  A British train is one that operates on the British rail network irrespective of where is was manufactured or the manufacturer headquartered. If there were no other similarly numbered classes in other countries, the BR prefix could probably be dropped and the article named Class 800, but there are others, hence the BR prefix is need to qualify. 20vouch (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support They're not really British trains. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was going to support, but found that Julius503's statement that these are nothing to do with "Britain" is not supported by either article. They both run, or have run, on tracks in the UK. In particular, 374s contain the statement The carriages are given a UIC identification marking in half-sets of eight-vehicles as 93 70 3740 NNN-X GB-EIL, where 93 denotes high-speed EMU, 70 denotes Great Britain, 374 is the class, 40NN (sharing the 4 from the class 374) is the unit number followed by a single digit for each carriage counting from the driving car towards the centre, a check digit (X), GB for Great Britain and EIL for Eurostar International Limited.. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  I fail to see how your point is relevant, I was referring to the trains, which are not made, designed, owned or operated by any British company. What do UIC marking have to do with this? Apples and oranges. You're saying that the article should be called "British Rail Class 373" just because it operates or has operated a small part in the UK and not the standard train manufacturer naming convention. What about the majority part that operates in continental Europe which you conveniently left out? Julius503 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Julius503:Please remember the instruction at the top of this page to "keep discussion succinct and civil." You have suggested a move and invited comments, which you should take as made in good faith, even if you disagree with what other people think. You stated in your initial argument that these trains have "absolutely nothing to do with Britain", which, as they are used to run services from London, is obviously not true. You have also stated that the "standard train manufacturer naming convention" should be used, which for these two articles would not be the Eurostar names you are proposing (Eurostar is not a manufacturer); so 374 would become Siemens Velaro e320. Bazza (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Your point would make sense if it was another train that Siemens was selling to everyone, but it's exclusively made for Eurostar and the name "Eurostar e3200" is used even by Siemens, which I've linked above, can you read?Julius503 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Not British train or related to British Rail, doesn't make sense to use the current naming style.Blackbirdxd (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the units have TOPS numbers. TOPS was a British Rail invention. Many post-BR classes have articles at "British Rail Class nnn" titles, these should be no exception. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Splitting hairs, but TOPS was developed in the USA and sold to BR. 20vouch (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The trains are registered in the United Kingdom so they are British trains, not e.g. French ones. There are actually many trains that were built outside the United Kingdom but haven't been in operation anywhere outside the UK and because of that have a British number. But then I'm wondering why we call them British Rail classes. British Rail ceased to exist in 1997, they have nothing to do with these trains (and many other trains in Britain as well). What is the reason behind this? --PhiH (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's long-established (over ten years), see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention; there are also the more specific discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes)#International trains and further up this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cautious support. The current convention has been developed for the purpose of naming the UK rolling stock. There were times when these trains were indeed UK trains. This is no longer the case - nowadays, French-operated Eurostar trains only venture into the UK using a short dedicated track that does not overlap with the rest of the UK network; whereas across the Channel, Eurostar is increasingly part of the French rail network. It makes less and less sense these days to pretend they are "British Railways trains". Also, e300 and e320 are far more popular terms than BR-373 and BR-374. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: The track used by Eurostar in the UK is also used by other international and UK-domestic services. Bazza (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Redrose64 and Mjroots, etc. If we want to discuss changing our long-standing naming convention (although personally I think we have discussed it enough in the past), let us discuss that and potentially change the name of dozens of articles. Just changing classes 373 and 374 because you don't think the trains are sufficiently "British" doesn't make any sense. It's nothing to do with where the trains are manufactured, it's to do with being in the TOPS system. Also, when the 373s were built in 1992 and indeed when they began service in 1994, British Rail did indeed still exist. -- Alarics (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: and in practice I'd simply prefer the thing alone as there is a redirect. The units operate internationally and I was on very weak support until I noticed 373/374 is embedded in the unit number in each case.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support at least for e320 series Per WP:COMMONNAME, a Google News search gave me the following:

 * eurostar "class 373" - 253 results
 * eurostar "e300" - 136 results
 * eurostar "class 374" - 62 results
 * eurostar "e320" - 1440 results

For the e320's at least, there is a clear winner. Also, as per the nom Eurostar refers to their fleet as the e300/e320s. Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support as e300/e320 are very clearly the common names. SK2242 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Julius503 British Rail classification is the numbering system—like IEC 61375 where "IEC" is the numbering system rather than the International Electrotechnical Commission per se. —Sladen (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose firstly the nomination statement that they "have absolutely nothing to do with Britain" is so completely wrong as to make me wonder whether they nominator has even read the article, secondly they are classified under the British Rail TOPS classification scheme as classes 373 and 374 so there is no "obscuring or distorting of the facts" happening. Thirdly, they are registered in Britain (not France or Belgium) so they should be named in the same format as every other modern British EMU in the absence of any compelling reason why they should not be, and nobody has presented any such reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for 373; Neutral on 374. In the first case the proposed name seems to be some sort of retroactive marketing title. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral whilst e300 and particularly e320 seem to be the common name, I'm worried that these seem to be branding/marketing names which could change in the future. Elshad (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, can see the argument both ways, and would be inclined to support if the trains were used by multiple operators with different class designations, but as they aren't think it is ok as it is. 20vouch (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

British Rail Class 373 → TGV TMST – I believe the TOPS classification is not very important considering that these trans don't cover that much territory on the UK network (London to Folkstone) before going through the Chunnel and into the continent where their French classification of TGV TMST is used officially. The TOPS classification may have been more important when the trains ran on classic lines to get to Waterloo before 2007 but after that and the trains started using HS1 the time TMSTs spend in the UK is less between terminus and tunnel portal. So I believe this article should instead use the TGV TMST name as the title for this article. Thoughts? Slender (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• oppose. Regardless of how little time the Class 373 spends on the UK rail network, I feel that due to the fact that the Class 373 operates in the UK rail network at all meens we should keep the TOPS classification on the page. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - didn't we just do this? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment - That’s different though. That move debate was to change this to e300 which is basically a retroactive marketing term made by Eurostar. Whilst TGV TMST has some significance since iirc thats how SNCF classify them as on the French network. Slender (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article states that there were two varieties, one of which (seven North of London trains) did not run in France, so should not be referred to as TGV TMSTs. The railway route from St Pancras to Folkestone is 70 miles (110 km) or so, Calais to Paris around 180 miles (290 km), so "not much territory" is questionable for that particular route. "SNCF classify them as on the French network" has an equally valid opposite for their classification as Class 373 on the British network. Bazza (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Just checked this and indeed this article is named "TGV TMST" on the French Wikipedia.Slender (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  And London is at fr:Londres, because that's the French name for it. This is not French wikipedia, and TGV TMST is not the English name for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - In essence the redirects cover different names and there's better things to than twinging and twanging over name moves. Give us a break after the 24 April 2021 no concensus approach. Leave the thing alone as it is.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple units or not

Recently there has been some disagreement as to whether the Class 373 are multiple units or not. I would have thought not, as I understand they are a set of non-powered carriages with a locomotive at either end, much like an InterCity 125. Pinging Stig124 and Murgatroyd49. 20vouch (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

They are still multiple units as they can operate in multiple. In fact each train consists of two half sets that have to operate in multiple to conform with Channel Tunnel regulations. The Intercity 125 sets are not designated as multiple units since they cannot operate in multiple as there is no provison for a second set of locos and trailers to be controlled from the leading cab of the train. Nothing to do with being separate locos and trailers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49 TGV trainsets are, structurally, locomotive-hauled carriages, like 20vouch says. Contrary to real EMUs like the BR374/e320, there are no power being pushed through the carriages, only through the front and the tail power cars, which is the exact opposite of the definition of a Electric multiple unit train. They can indeed operate as multiple units (i.e. two trains joined together) from an operational standpoint, but can not be qualified as EMUs. Stig124 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why can't they? you have just admitted they can work in multiple; therefore they are multiple unit trains. They are fixed formation sets and the power cars can't operate independently, there being traction motors on the leading bogie of the adjacent trailer. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

These two locomotives are coupled together in such a fashion that the cab of the leading locomotive controls both, although only one driver is necessary. It's multiple working, but is not a multiple unit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance to the current discussion? The train is not a fixed formation. You could remove both locos and substitute a completely different form of motive power, eg a steam engine. Also vary the number, type and formation of the trailers. You can't do that with a Class 373. What you can't do with that train is have a loco at each end controlled from the leading cab.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you can. You could take one, two or three Class 438 units (unpowered), top and tail these with a Class 73 one end and a Class 33/1 the other, and the cab of either loco could control both locos. This is because the Southern Region developed a control system based on (and compatible with) the blue star system used on diesel-electric locos; this system was used for all their electric multiple units built between 1963 and 1974, and was also applied to locomotives of classes 33/1, 73 and Class 74.

As regards relevance: you stated they can work in multiple; therefore they are multiple unit trains. A multiple unit is not a train that can be worked in multiple with another - it is a train comprising multiple vehicles, semi-permanently coupled, with a cab at each end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a cite for that definition. The 373s are fixed formation sets that cannot be reformed and various vehicles operated seperately. You can't mix and match power vehicles from different types of train. Each half unit is only divisble into component vehicles in especially equipped workshops. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)