Talk:British Rail Class 455

The recent accident at Oxshott involved two Class 455 units. Forum sources indicate that the units involved were 455 741 (undamaged) and 455 913 (damaged). The trailers from that unit likely to be scrapped. Now, can we definitively state that a Class 455 was involved from the quoted sources on the Oxshott article, and can we find reliable sources for the units involved, and add an accidents section to this article? Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

or should do (if the list has public archives). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RAIB confirms that Class 455 units were involved. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Whilst attempting a minor correction in the article, I was initially forced to use the new editor. While attempting to save the change, the new editor attempted to turn a list of class numbers into an external reference. It appeared to be interpreting the list as a telephone number. I do not know where to complain of this behaviour elsewhere. I eventually succeeded in making my edit with the old editor, but it took some effort to do so. 86.166.70.75 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please report all problems with the VisualEditor (that's the new one) at WP:VE/F. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Rail Class 455/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The dates of the references are presented in at least two different formats - they should be in agreement. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following references have apparently gone bad:

   Ref #24/raib.gov.uk is dead.

   Ref #2/surreymirror.co.uk is dead. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   I have no idea why the Checklinks tool is giving a false positive on Ref #2. All is well, moving on. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is well-referenced. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This is a straightforward, factual article that maintains a NPOV. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit-warring :). Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The photos all look fantastic! Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: Thanks for taking on the review. I have introduced a consistent date format in the references and also fixed the dead link in ref #24; however ref #2 (surreymirror) seems to be live for me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Jcc: I see that Ref 2 is fine. I am passing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to revert this page back to showing my images and the comparisons between Class 455/8, 455/7 and 455/9 both externally and internally. Also I thought that my photographs were clean and clearer than the ones currently used. For example my interior photographs feature equal amounts of flooring, seating, Passenger Information Displays, lighting and ceilings. I do not understand where my edit was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSkuce (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Jcc: as he was the one who reverted them Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeterSkuce: I believe it's due to the same reason as why your other ones were reverted, you need consensus from other editors. I'm sorry to have to put you through this again but can you please supply the images here and we can then form a consensus whether to implement them into the article. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not a problem and I do not honestly mind supplying the images here. The images are as follows:

As I previously mentioned, these photographs clearly show the detail differences between the sub classes and also, of course the difference between the South West Trains refurbishment and the Southern Railway refurbishment. My interior photograph of the South West Trains Class 455/8 is more clearer and shows more detial than the one currently/presently used.

Any time to help out.

PeterSkuce (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeterSkuce: Peter, per WP:BRD, I have reverted your second attempt to change the infobox photo to one that you took, as I disagree with the need for a change. Per Class455, we'll now need to discuss to see what the consensus is- it may be the case that I am in the minority. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The interior image/photograph used on the infobox is not as clear as the image that I took and chosen to use on the page. Please can we use a different image for the interior image featured on the infobox?

PeterSkuce (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeterSkuce: Both seem equally as clear to me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have yet again decided to bypass the "discuss" part and unilaterally implemented a different image. Whilst I am happy with the new interior image you have chosen, I shall note that your imposing of photographs that you have taken yourself onto articles and editwarring to keep them there, will lead you to AN before too long. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Description" section currently reads:

The Class 455 was originally to be classified as the Class 510, at which point they were planned as a 750 V DC version of the Class 317. However, as the chopper control system at the time was not considered robust enough for the electrically rougher third rail Southern Region, they were fitted with second-hand camshaft control systems and thus classified as the 455 class.

Without disputing either that chopper control was considered and rejected for the reason given, or that they were originally intended to be Class 510, it is implied that this amounts to cause and effect. This doesn't sound right to me. I didn't think that chopper control was a defining feature of 5xx classes. Indeed, the Class 501 article explicitly states that they had camshaft control; whereas the above paragraph implies that the 455s could not take a 5xx class number because they had camshaft control.

Does anyone have the exact wording of the source available, so as to ascertain whether or not it supports this assertion being worded in this way?

Quackdave (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that it's anything to do with the control system. At that time, the Southern Region (SR) had more EMUs than all the other regions put together, even if AC be included; so DC EMUs were classified in the 400s if based on the SR, and in the 500s if not based on the SR. Class 508 was something of an anomaly (SR unit classified in the 500s), and at the time I assumed that it was simply because of their great similarity to class 507; then the proposed class 510 was announced, and I remember thinking "what about 509?". The subsequent redesignation of 510 as 455 I always understood was to bring them into line with the rest of the SR, and 508 were not reclassified because it had already been decided to transfer those to the LMR. On the SR, the last digit indicated the type of stock - so we had Class 405, Class 415, Class 445, Class 455 and Class 485, all being 4-car suburban; subsequently Class 465 was added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I have reverted the removals you made from the infobox in the Class 455 article. I don't believe that the level of detail provided contravenes either of WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:EXCESSDETAIL, noting that both of those pages appear to be directed primarily at the text within the body article). Indeed, presenting that sort of technical data in the infobox would arguably satisfy the direction in WP:INDISCRIMINATE that ... Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability ....

I understand that the Class 455 infobox could appear to be particularly unwieldy, and would note that that's the case because it is a complicated class for which to provide information - it includes significant components taken from an entirely different class of units, and has further undergone a number of changes over its time in service. If that wasn't the case, then the infobox would look much like one in an article for a simple class - the parameters used to construct the infobox are all standard and the information contained in them is also provided for many other BR classes when it is available.

Thank you for your understanding.
— User:XAM2175 11:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(the above was posted on my talk page) Replying on this talk page, given we're discussing this article. I've reverted your changes - and I think we should seek consensus first. The infobox following your edits does appear particularly unwieldy - in fact, I'd argue that it starts to become unhelpful when it's overloaded with information. Not every single fact needs to be included - especially when some of the information is already contained/explained in the article. That's what I mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Excessive listings of unexplained statistics - the article should be about the train, not a reproduction of every known technical detail about the train. Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Turini2 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I feel that you should seek consensus before making such a major content removal. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with OP; I've seen a lot of articles where the infobox is packed to the brim with intricate (and often trivial) details about its subject (or a single aspect thereof), but the rest of the article is sorely lacking in comparison. I don't think adding details about something is inherently bad, but niche aspects should be added in moderation. XtraJovial (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you feel that that is a problem specifically affecting this article, though? My decision to populate this selection of infobox parameters is based on the fact they have been populated with similar information in many other British train articles without any apparent controversy, and it's my intention to standardise the presentation of this information across the topic. I stress again that a cause for the complexity of this infobox in particular is the fact that a significant proportion of the train has notably different characteristics to the rest of it, and further that the composite train has undergone a number of modifications and upgrades over the course of its service life. Both of these facts are discussed in the article body, so - in the wording of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - they're not "unexplained". XAM2175 ^(T) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all; the problem I mentioned mainly affects short articles, something this article is not. XtraJovial (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:CAPTION, the header image caption should be succinct and clearly identify the subject of the picture. For example, South West Trains Class 455 at Station XYZ. Examples of information that would be superfluous and unnecessary to include in a caption - the time/date/year that the photo was taken, the drivers name, the train number, the age of the train at the time the photo was taken, the fact that the train was refurbished or not, the platform that the train is at etc. If readers are interested, they can click through to the image description page to find out further details - in this case, the train number, the fact the train has been refurbished and the time/date/year the photo was taken. Some would even argue that 455/9 is too much detail in a caption compared to just 455! Turini2 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Skuce hey just drawing your attention to this post with regard to captions. Turini2 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So the Rail issue 964 has an article on page 26 titled "More classes head for scrap as EMU clearout continues" in the article is the following sentence "Class 455/8 was rended extinct on August 16, when the final two sets (455804/819) were towed away to the breakers." ("More classes head for scrap as EMU clearout continues". Rail. No. 964. 24 August 2022. p. 26.)

So my question is this, what do we do with the Southwestern Railway 455/8s listed in the fleet details table? Given that a reliable source is saying the 455/8 subclass no longer exists. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Class 455 unit 455913 reentered traffic some time ago, as noted on RealTimeTrains, https://web.archive.org/web/20240105122700/https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:Y02480/2024-01-05/detailed#allox_id=0 therefore the original subcategory of it going to be stored is irrelevant. Grandtubetrains (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As you've already been told, RTT is not a reliable source. Until there is a reliable source to state that it has re-entered traffic, it should stay as is - as the information about it being stored is sourced. Danners430 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Who has determined that RTT is not a reliable source? It’s not as if most magazine articles are more reliable, given that the information stating unit 5913 had been stored is currently incorrect. Grandtubetrains (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Grandtubetrains WP:REALTIMETRAINS Turini2 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf put it best - "anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source."

We can wait until there's a valid, reliable source - there is no deadline. Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So my edit using a veteran railway reporter's YouTube video as a source has been reverted twice. I don't quite understand the issue, in the linked video he directly shows the train unit in question and, while riding it, interviews a representative of SWR on the subject matter directly. Please explain to me how this does not qualify as a reliable source. Radagast (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The policy at play here would be WP:VIDEOREF - having read through the section on Use as References - I think this would count as a valid reference for what it's being used as a source for - while it technically is WP:UGC, the first paragraph reads "YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content, so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. Editors should also attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately." - I think we can agree that Geoff Marshall is generally reliable for information such as what is being sourced here, and it's not inaccurate or out of context. It's not promotional, and he makes sure to name dates and times of what is happening.

I would be interested to hear other thoughts on this however - I'd hold off on adding the info back in for a little while yet, let's have a broader discussion about it. Danners430 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Separately… here’s a perfectly acceptable and arguably much better source - https://www.southwesternrailway.com/other/news-and-media/news/2024/march/south-western-railway-and-francis-bourgeois-reveal-retro-british-rail-look-for-class-455-train Danners430 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to VIDEOREF, I'd never been directed to it previously despite using various YouTube sources over the years. I'm always careful with using such sources and only linking creators with solid reputations like Mr. Marshall.

That said, it's clear that this, more technical, side of the wiki is not as accustomed to such sources so I'll step more carefully in future. Radagast (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've looked over the article to see if it still meets GA status. The 2 sentence long lead is clearly too short, and I've dropped a tag to that effect. There are also several uncited statements in the body and frequent one sentence paragraphs. There's also a valid page needed tag in the references section. These problems are significant enough to merit a trip to GAR if not addressed. I intend to come back to this in a month or so and evaluate again, and proceed to GAR at that time if there's no improvement. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

according to this article the last time these trains will be used in regular service will be the 23rd December

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/watch-a-mainline-train-run-along-part-of-the-london-underground-86043/ Guyb123321 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

ianvisits is a self-published source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

BBC News - Farewell tour for 40-year-old Surrey train fleet

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm280xzdeymo

In this BBC news article there's a section that says:

"The fleet runs through Surrey, Berkshire and south-west London into Waterloo Station, and will be retired by the end of the year, the rail company said."

Is this not enough evidence to change the "in service" section of the Infobox to reflect it's last month in service is December 2025 (IanVisits says today, the 23rd is the last day in service but I appreciate this is a self published source) Guyb123321 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No, because it assumes everything goes to plan, there are already rumours that a few units may remain in service a little longer to cover ongoing problems with the 701s. Let's wait for an authorative pronouncement before dashing in to make un-substantiated changes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Quote from Rail about the 455s, "The final turns for ‘455s’ are expected to end on December 23 and a farewell tour has been arranged for the preceding Sunday (December 21). A handful of ‘455s’ are expected to be kept in warm short-term store for cover should there be any issues with the new trains, but it is hoped these will not be retained beyond January.". This confirms that the 455s are being retained past the 23rd for cover workings. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

what if we added after 1983-present "the class are to be withdrawn March 2026" or something like that? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

My view is that the infobox parameter is for the current state of the class. I’m not going to reply any further - not because I want to avoid a discussion, but rather Brian Hawthorn and I have already thrashed this topic out on my talk page, and I’d rather other editors weighed in. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Simple answer, they may be they may not be so why do you keep being a nuisance? When it happens, it happens and then it can be added with a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 that's a simple answer, is it? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting. We are not soothsayers, prognosticators or time-travellers – when the train is finally withdrawn, the infobox can be updated with a reliable source. Turini2 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

On 22 December 2025 User:Brian Hawthorn made this edit to the British Rail Class 455 article with the edit summary "unfortunately the 455s are no longer in service". Over three weeks later at least four Class 455 units are still being used to carry passengers...

This is a perfect illustration of why it is best to wait until we have confirmation from a reliable source that the class has been withdrawn. The best sources to use in this instance are probably specialist magazines such as RAIL, Modern Railways etc. (It likely that at least one of these magazines will publish a detailed retrospective on these units when they do finally go for scrap, which will be very useful for improving this article.)

For the infobox, the wording "1983-present" with no further comment or qualification is best for now. ~2026-35334-9 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35334-9 I admit the sources of which I gained this information from were very much untrue. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Turini2 we're not time-travellers, but the last units will be going out of service, and this has been confirmed by many sources, after going to the talk page to investigate the possibility of adding additional information to the Infobox, others have disagreed with this idea. Apparently giving accurate information is the wrong thing to do. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be hyperbolic, but imagine that something catastrophic happens with the Arterios and they're withdrawn temporarily, and the remaining 455s have to be pressed back into service to cover the gap. (*cough* B23 *cough*) Ergo, 455s still end up being in service in 2027.

That's the point we're making, we can't predict what might happen and therefore "1983-present" is the correct information until they're actually fully withdrawn from service. Turini2 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Turini2 so we can't specify that the 455s are planned to be withdrawn in full in 2026? For example: 1983-present *to be withdrawn completely March 2026*. or something on the lines of that? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That's simple, what part are you having trouble with? Why are you so desperate to change the details? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 I'm not desperate to change the details, but seeing as the class are going out of service this year I thought it would be fine to at least specify that in the infobox. after going to this talk page to get the opinions of others it appears (as accurate as that information is) that is unfortunately not a favoured idea. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That would sound better if you hadn't already spent a lot of time trying to change it last year. It is not accurate information as it has already been changed several times and there is no guarantee that it won't be changed more times in the future. It is not even beyond the bounds of possibility, though unlikely, that the stock could last in nominal service into next year. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 I didn't spend alot of time trying to change it last year, I changed it once and after finding reliable sources I decided not to change it back after it was edited back to the current state. and sure the March date isn't inevitable, but I thought at least making it known that it is the current plan, while still keeping the 1983-present part until the untis eventually are all withdrawn (which could be later then March). Brian Hawthorn (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Just wanting to step back here and offer a solution and/or explain a little further.

Articles are made up of more than just the infobox. The infobox is, essentially, a very basic summary of the class, with basic facts (eg. build date, number etc.) and the current status listed in them. The body of the article is where we go into detail about the subject of the article.

As of right now, the class are still in passenger service - so the service history of the class, as of right now is 1983-present. As that is the current status, that's what belongs in the infobox.

South West Trains' intention to withdraw the class from passenger service is part of the history of the class, and if there's a reliable source that describes SWT's intent to withdraw them, beyond the fact a farewell tour was operated, then that would go in the "Operations" section. The phrasing could be something along the lines of SWT have announced their intention to withdraw the class during 2026, although {{as of}} January 2026 the class remain in service. Then, when the class are actually withdrawn, and there's a reliable source stating this, we can put that in the Operations section and update the infobox. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 and I think that's a good resolution right there. let's Just leave the Infobox alone until the whole class go, because I don't want to ever do this again. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I know it's not a reliable source (RailUK forums and some chap on Facebook) but the last 455's were officially stood down after 25 February 2026.~2026-10093-82 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

We do still need to wait for reliable sources though Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Some ran in service today (Tuesday 10 March) lol - this is why we have to wait until the withdrawal is officially official with decent sources to back it up! Turini2 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Seen on Facebook, posted by the Southern Electric Group:

"The very first Class 455 operated passenger train on the Central Division ran on Monday 25 February 1985. It is seen here at Clapham Junction with units 5801 + 5802 working the 06.30 Victoria to Epsom Downs."

If anyone can provide a reliable source to back this up, that would be great. (Also posted at Talk:Epsom Downs Branch.)
Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)