Talk:British Rail Class 97

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 Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Penrhyndeudraeth rail crash[edit]

A few days ago, a Network Rail loco, 9730 something, hit an elderly woman on a level crossing at Penrhyndeudraeth (Pen-rin-dee-drai-th) in North Wales.

I was in the area the day previous, and saw 97303 going past Talsarnau, a little south of the area, heading north to Penrhyndeudraeth. Can anyone make out/does anyone know which locomotive was involved in the crash? I can't tell if it was 303 or 302.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8233778.stm

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/09/03/north-wales-woman-killed-yards-from-home-as-train-hits-car-55578-24595845/

Thanks for your help. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:37, 5 September 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 97. 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/20090213002015/http://www.wnxx.net/fleetstatus/Fleet_files/sheet010.htm to http://www.wnxx.net/fleetstatus/Fleet_files/sheet010.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

97 747[edit]

The article mentions 97 747 when referring to accidents but makes no other reference to that number range. Should this section be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.124.212 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a digit missing. Sandite DMUs usually had six-figure numbers, in the series for departmental coaches (blocks 975000-975999 and 977000-977999), so it could be 975747, 977747, 977047, 977147, 977247 etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation suggests the vehicle involved was not 97747 but 977747 (see http://www.railcar.co.uk/topic/accidents/?era=90s). This is a DMU vehicle and not a 'class 97' locomotive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.124.212 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

97 205[edit]

Nothing in the article about 97205 ... seen at 14:40 in this video ... https://youtube.com/watch?v=1wl_NDdDM4M -- 92.5.179.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]