Talk:British Rail Class 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Trains / in UK / in Scotland / Locomotives (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Inconsistent Production Numbers[edit]

Im no rail buff but there appears to be an inconsistency in the production numbers of the class 37. The artocle's preamble and description both state that 309 locomotices were built however in the 'Fleet Details' section it states 308 Class 37/0s were built and all later 37/3 and /4s were retrofits on the original /0 builds ie no new builds and there is nothing in the text to show where this extra loco comes from to make the number up to 309. I would guess it might be a pre production prototype that did not go into service, but the article is not clear on this. It would be good if someone who knows a bit about the loco if they could clarify this in the article. Dondilly 12:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Loco D6983 was withdrawn and scrapped before renumbering into the TOPs scheme took place. In general all locos were numbered from D6701-999/600-608 to 37001-308 in order, except D6819 which was renumbered to 37283, and D6700 which was renumbered 37119. Our Phellap 16:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention[edit]

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The EWS section of the article needs to be rewritten to avoid or explain the jargon contained in it. I'm a rail fan and so am more knowledgeable about railway terminology than the average reader, and I don't understand all of it. Thryduulf 09:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

TMD = Traction Motive Depot. We do need an article explaining the Route Availability numbers. — Dunc| 13:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Was thinking that myself - I would do it but no idea about them
--wozza 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Will try and bring up an article on Route Availability numbers and such. If there are any other things like that that people aren't clear on, please post them to my talk page and I'll try my best to the best of my knowledge with info available to produce articles for them, or amend current articles (I'm a rather bookish railfan as opposed to a 'bashing' railfan!

Alspittle 14:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

TMD = Traction maintenance depot. Biscuittin (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical Info[edit]

Not really sure if this should be here but hey, the Class 37 appears to have bonnets, like cars, at either end - i'm pretty sure its not got anything to do with the main engine so could somebody clarify what exactly is underneath it that needs the ventilation at the sides --wozza 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in there at all but some wiring circuits and other nicknacks. Nothing substantial at any rate. Alspittle 14:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, on the 37 the noses contain the traction motor cooling blowers and fire extinguishers, and various brake components (air compressors and exhausters). FiggyBee 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
also some early ones had a gangway to get from loco to loco with double doors - these were welded over later 37 509 is such an example I think.Carrolljon (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Working[edit]

I'm a bit of a railfan, but I've no idea what multipleworking system the 37s use. Perhaps a section explaining would be useful? 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

37s were electro-pneumatic blue star, the same as almost all BR diesel electric locomotives of the time (20, 23, 24/25, 31, 33, 37, 40, 44/45/46, 47). FiggyBee 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See Multiple working. Biscuittin (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

There are to many references to 'train spotting' jargon, nicknames are not encyclopedic, they are meaningless to many, even to people who may well have once been enthusiasts, also nicknames change and can be very regional in use. The other issue is that there is far to much information on who and were the locomotives operate (or used to) and not enough about the differences between sub classes, what is present is buried rather than being concise. SouthernElectric 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the knicknames are relevent - there's even a place in the loco info box for that info - it's 'trivia' but the usage is common enough (in the related press) to make it notable/verifyable.
I do agree that there is too much emphasis on where individual locos are at a given instance - I was going to bring this point up in general - I think it's best avoided since it makes the page too much like a 'recent news page'
I'm awaiting the outcome of the merge proposal, then perhaps I could attempt to bring the balance you suggest into the article, provided no one else has objections.Carrolljon (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Classes (merge proposal)[edit]

I think all the sub-classes need their own pages. I have already created two, British Rail Class 37/7 and British Rail Class 37/9, we need to create articles on the other sub-classes. --Dennisman (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't particularly clear why multiple articles are required to describe this class. All are fundementally very similar. I am therefore proposing that the multiple sub class article, which actually seem to be simply a copy of information in this article, are merged (as appropriate) and redirected here. Adambro (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the main page, there dosen't seem to be any info on several of the sub-classes I.E history and current future. --Dennisman (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly all the sub classes need to be covered.
I agree with the merge proposal, (an volunteer to do the merging unless someone more expert on the class wants to do it)
It seems to be usual practice to deal with subclasses on the same page.
I'll wait a week in case there are any objections, and if no one else has done the merge by then, I will perform it myselfCarrolljon (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On thinking about it, I have decided that really the sub-classes should be covered on detail on the main page, but a new page should be set up as a fleet summary, I.E British Rail Class 37 fleet summary, or something like that. Reply here and on my talk page with your views. Dennisman (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to have a separate page for that, though the article may start to become very long.
Could you expand on what you would want to put in a fleet summary - I'm not sure about having historys of each of the 309 locos would be justifiable to the average reader - a link to one of the websites covering 37's might be better.
Also what about the table in the section "Future" - could that be used as the basis of a fleet summary subsection?
Please don't make a sub-page at the moment - sub-pages have a tendency to get deleted - which could mean any would you have done would be in vane.
Another suggestion - why not take a look at non BR pages for locos that have a lot of numbers in the class to see how they have done it eg EMD SD70 series or
Also how about British Rail Class 47 - I'd say that this article is currently in better shape than the 37. In fact I'd suggest the format it uses as one to follow for the 37 article, note also the gallery is of the different liverys - that seems like a good idea.
There's a couple of other points (especially important as the article is getting long) - though these don't affect you.
The gallery should probably go - and be replaced by a link to wikimedia - in general I'd suggest only using images to illustrate a point, or to give a definative view of the object in question. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Placement - (other BR articles probably should have there galleries replaced with links).
Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images - Quote: "Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.." - these can be just guidlines - but I think it makes good sense.
The section "Current Operations" needs cutting (effectively) - the encycopedia is not current events - I can see the point of keeping records on number of units in operation (and operators) on year by year basis - but not day by day - If any one can create such a list or section - that would be great.
The section "Fleet details" has similar problems - it tells me what the situation is like today - but not 2 years ago.
So I suggest a change away from covering current status - to one giving historical (yearly) perspective.

So what I would suggest is that the subclasses are merged, and then the article is given a spring clean. As for the subpage I'm not sure - but if there's a web page that covers the whole class I'd use that as a link instead. (I could do the rewrite sometime)

I have found a link, which is already on the main page. It contains the fleet histoty and current numbers. This is the link. [1] Dennisman (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'll complete the merge and maybe tidy a bit. Question - for the subclasses - would a table be a good way to present the information?Carrolljon (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge done[edit]

I've done the merge, and a lot of other stuff - shuffled the section so that the might be in a a more sensible order hopefully, added some more references, and data. Removed the images.

I intend to add images that hopefully match the sections - eg an image of a 37/4 next to the section about 37/4s etc.(Will take a while - please be patient..)

I think that the article probably still could do with some more work - it seems to be a question of how much detail to include - I think it could be shortened a bit with relevent references telling the story to those who want to know more....Carrolljon (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Finished re-adding images (see above).Carrolljon (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Class 37/3[edit]

Carrolljon, you have done a exceedingly good job on this article, and I comend you on that. However, you missed out the Class 37/3. Do you know any info about these locos, apart from the obvious I.E they were rebogied. This is also on your talk page. Dennisman (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not a lot - they also got the increase fuel tanks (doubled the capacity) and there's a mention here but the info is a bit vague. I can't really find anything else to say - I've added a section stub. Hopefully it can be expanded in the future.Carrolljon (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. See you on other articles. Dennisman (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

east african railways[edit]

this page suggests that the design was based on an english electric design already in use in east africa - this seems suitable for the introduction, or as a pre-amble to the section about the design - does anyone know more about these east african machines - as I've only got the one source.

An EE building name or similar would be useful so I can at least try to find out about them. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they were single cab 1Co-Co1s of class 87 [2] or 90 [3]. Biscuittin (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronologically biased section[edit]

The excess (unreferenced as well) detail in British_Rail_Class_37#Post_Privatisation - is a but ridiculous - hence the bias tag at the top of the section.

The locos spent the vast majority of their working lifes under BR, and the article should reflect that.

It definately needs some work to get it better. If nothing is done it is practically certain that the sections will have a lot of unreferenced stuff cut.

If that didn't make much sense please read the essay at Wikipedia:Recentism. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs) 04:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirrlees Pioneer[edit]

In the table in the Preservation section both 37901 and 37905 have the name Mirrlees Pioneer, despite the latter being reported as being rebuilt with a Ruston engine. That doesn't seem right to me. (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No can't be right in all likely hood.
I've removed this

|- |align=center|D6836 |align=center|37136 |align=center|'''37905''' |Mirrlees Pioneer |Railfreight Metals |[[Battlefield Line Railway]] |Rebuilt with [[Ruston (engine builder)|Ruston]] engine |-

I looked on the battlefield line website, and they list, Class 37 37227, (via [4])

I can't find 37905 on there, so I've removed it for now.

This would be a lot simpler if people referenced the information they added, when they added it, to be honest.23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs)

In fact 37 901 also isn't listed on the llangollen railway website, on 37 240 is as far as I can tell.[5]

So I've removed this:|- |align=center|D6850 |align=center|37150 |align=center|'''37901''' |Mirrlees Pioneer |Railfreight Grey |[[Llangollen Railway]] |Rebuilt with [[Mirrlees Blackstone|Mirrlees]] engine


To summarise 37 901 and 37 905 have been removed (possibly temporarily) from the list of preserved locomotives. It looks like the data needs correcting for each of them.FengRail (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Current location[edit]

37901 (Mirrlees Pioneer) is currently at the East Lancashire Railway, having left the Llangollen Railway during 2008. Whether the ELR will be its new permanent home is unclear, but information elsewhere on the net suggests that it will not be returning to Llangollen. (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it as yet, but there is a 37 109 listed

FengRail (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

901 is not listed on the site, presumably because it is still considered a 'visiting' loco, although it's been there for several months now, but it is definitely there and is booked to run at the Diesel Event in a couple of weeks. (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who the owners are? If they have a website that could be useful.FengRail (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the owner, but I do know one of the people involved slightly, though I am not in regular contact. It is privately owned by one person, as far as I know. There used to be a detailed website hosted as part of the Llangollen Diesel Group site. This covered the history, restoration etc, but this disappeared around the time the loco left Llangollen. I have searched for anything more recent, without success. The former pages are available from the Internet Archive. Most of the links seem to work OK. If I get a chance I'll try to find out if there is (or is going to be) a new site. -- (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no rush (I hope) - the info will be available eventually. I'd like to go through the list of preserved locos and try to get a reference for each of them, or at least most of them, so people can go straight to the website or whatever.
That's just one more or an ever increasing list of things to do. I'll try to get around to it soon - that should show which locos are currently 'loose ends'.FengRail (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Preserved Locos - summary[edit]

I've been referencing the preserved locos (slowly), a few I can't find references for: I list them below to draw attention to them:

Apart from those the rest of the list is (mostly) fine. (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I also have edited Class 37 number 6968 / 37401 / Privately owned, at the Scottish Railway Preservation Socitey (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DB Schenker locos[edit]

removed this "As of current 37406 and 37670 have been reinstated." - according to the rest of the section they only have one - can someone put the correct info in, with references.FengRail (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd. - contradiction[edit]

The section mentions several locos, but begins by saying only one loco is still owned, also the section calls 37401 the "most reliable" just after saying it had been in service?

What exactly is the situation?FengRail (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Preservation section[edit]

I am thinking of moving this to a separate article to match List of preserved British Rail Class 08 locomotives and List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Network Rail Locos[edit]

I thought I'd post this picture for possible inclusion in the article. I think it would be better placed than the photo of the dilapidated loco and possibly update the article stating the Network Rail Locos are back on in service

Proposed Addition - 97302 at Barmouth

David James White (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Category:British Rail Class 97s in Network Rail livery -mattbuck (Talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Talsarnau railway station MMB 07 97303.jpg? Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Class 37219, 37421 and 37175 out of preservation[edit]

I have to tell you this, both these engines 37219 37421 and 37175 are now owned by Colas Rail, so can you update this, with Class 37 37401 Mary Queen of Scots she's should be on the list why isn't she on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Rail Class 37. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cumbrian Coast Line Comment[edit]

The first up-train Mondays to Fridays on this line (Carlisle to Preston) departing 0515 from Carlisle changes from 75-37D14 to 150 - now as I know its a loco hauled train which will be the 37 but what does the rest mean? (Bottom of page 2) 1701Will (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction page 19 but similar version on page 2 (2C33: Timing Load Change from 75-37D14 to 153 at Whitehaven) 1701Will (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Will1701: For any given WTT section (in this case CE05), the explanations of various codes are given in the 00 section of the same book (in this case CE). Have a look at Here, on p. 6 we find that the timing load 75-37D14 indicates a train timed at a maximum speed of 75 mph, hauled by one (or more) Class 37 locomotive. D14 isn't clear. As for 150, that's simply a Class 150, 155 or 156 DMU. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I got the answer on Facebook - yes max 75mph and class 37 but the D14 is "D"iesel hauling 140 tons (or tonnes) 1701Will (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on British Rail Class 37. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 37. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Invalid tags in infoboxes[edit]

The replacement of the parameter |whytetype = with |Britishclass= is pointless as it is not supported by the {{Infobox Locomotive}} syntax. Therefore you get no entry. If you wish to replace Whyte = with anything else you will have to get agreement to edit the Infobox configuration. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes

In the meantime I have reverted the last edit to get a meaningful display. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

After complaining about syntax, I got the syntax wrong in this section| Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Murgatroyd49: The parameter |Britishclass= most definitely is supported, and it is displayed after the word "Commonwealth". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, still looks wrong to me but there you go Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
So what's "wrong" with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You've lost the AAR notation Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not American. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Though potential viwers are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Photos in this article.[edit]

Just a quick note on photos:

WE should try to get (1) good quality photos, (2) those which show a variety of locomotive styles (headboxes, buffers, etc), (3) photos from a variety of time periods, but biased towards when they were doing most of their work. Some of these requirements might clash in which case a compromise will have to be found. Finally, please keep preservation era photos to the preservation section. Tony May (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)