Talk:British Rail Class 89

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑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 articles

Low

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

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

split into two articles[edit]

Should this article be split into two articles, one on the electric (keeping the current title) and one for mainline-registered modern traction (with a new title)? Our Phellap 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, although it might also work as a section on the British Rail locomotive and multiple unit numbering and classification article. The list of Class 89 numbers needs to be converted to a table. Thryduulf 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build date[edit]

Info box states 1989, text in first paragraph states 1986. Any clarification? Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article[edit]

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.

Split Feb 2012[edit]

I am removing the split tag. No one has discussed this (I am taking it that the split discussion is 5 years old and unrelated) and I can see no reason to split the article. There has only been 1 locomotive of this class and hence there is no obvious reason to split. If the tagger re-instates the tag then can a bit of explanation as to what and why be added below then it can be discussed further. Op47 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]