Talk:Sprinter (British Rail)

Trains: in UK Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

?

"The downside of the new units was the more restricted view through the windows. The Mk 3 bodyshell has a much higher window sill level than the first generation DMUs and moreover the alignment of the windows with the seating positions is poor, a problem common to much Mk 3 derived stock. The view is especially poor for passengers seated nearest to the doors, whose view is obscured by the pockets into which the doors slide when opened, or at the ends of the vehicle. Also unlike the first generation DMUs, the rear of the driver's cab was not glazed, so passengers in the front seats no longer had a view of the track ahead, which was regretted both by railfans and children."

Really, thanks - that's the best bit of downside I've ever seen. The last line should just read "bitter railfans". The positive points of the Sprinters are excellent examples, but these are rubbish...

Worley-d (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Did you build them or something?) Seriously it is a bit 'opinionated' - though the window/seat alignment issue is probably worth mentioning.

As to the second part - I basically agree - unless someone can show that this isn't just one persons opinion - I would suggest changing (or removing this).Carrolljon (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problem?

I'm bothered that only listing current operators is basically un-encyclopedic. I'm a bit busy at the moment - but would like to fix this (otherwise excellent) article later on. In respect of that - does anyone have suggestions as to a better way to do this? Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article

Since there are other trains called Sprinter, in California, the Netherlands, and Australia, perhaps we could name this page, "Sprinter (UK train)" and have the search Sprinter (train) redirect to Sprinter#trains. Narayansg

Prototypes

Why does the table in this section feature the very same image file both for Class 150/0 and for Class 154? Is it intentional? --Thrissel (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 problems

I noticed that in the section "Class 159" there's no information about the differences between the 158 and the 159. And why is 150/0 listed under prototypes when it's currently in service? 88.196.8.250 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]