Talk:British Rail Class 373

Requested move 24 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

British Rail Class 373 → TGV TMSTTGV TMST – I believe the TOPS classification is not very important considering that these trans don't cover that much territory on the UK network (London to Folkstone) before going through the Chunnel and into the continent where their French classification of TGV TMST is used officially. The TOPS classification may have been more important when the trains ran on classic lines to get to Waterloo before 2007 but after that and the trains started using HS1 the time TMSTs spend in the UK is less between terminus and tunnel portal. So I believe this article should instead use the TGV TMST name as the title for this article. Thoughts? Slender (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• oppose. Regardless of how little time the Class 373 spends on the UK rail network, I feel that due to the fact that the Class 373 operates in the UK rail network at all meens we should keep the TOPS classification on the page. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - didn't we just do this? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment - That’s different though. That move debate was to change this to e300 which is basically a retroactive marketing term made by Eurostar. Whilst TGV TMST has some significance since iirc thats how SNCF classify them as on the French network. Slender (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article states that there were two varieties, one of which (seven North of London trains) did not run in France, so should not be referred to as TGV TMSTs. The railway route from St Pancras to Folkestone is 70 miles (110 km) or so, Calais to Paris around 180 miles (290 km), so "not much territory" is questionable for that particular route. "SNCF classify them as on the French network" has an equally valid opposite for their classification as Class 373 on the British network. Bazza (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Just checked this and indeed this article is named "TGV TMST" on the French Wikipedia.Slender (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  And London is at fr:Londres, because that's the French name for it. This is not French wikipedia, and TGV TMST is not the English name for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - In essence the redirects cover different names and there's better things to than twinging and twanging over name moves. Give us a break after the 24 April 2021 no concensus approach. Leave the thing alone as it is.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple units or not

Recently there has been some disagreement as to whether the Class 373 are multiple units or not. I would have thought not, as I understand they are a set of non-powered carriages with a locomotive at either end, much like an InterCity 125. Pinging Stig124 and Murgatroyd49. 20vouch (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

They are still multiple units as they can operate in multiple. In fact each train consists of two half sets that have to operate in multiple to conform with Channel Tunnel regulations. The Intercity 125 sets are not designated as multiple units since they cannot operate in multiple as there is no provison for a second set of locos and trailers to be controlled from the leading cab of the train. Nothing to do with being separate locos and trailers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49 TGV trainsets are, structurally, locomotive-hauled carriages, like 20vouch says. Contrary to real EMUs like the BR374/e320, there are no power being pushed through the carriages, only through the front and the tail power cars, which is the exact opposite of the definition of a Electric multiple unit train. They can indeed operate as multiple units (i.e. two trains joined together) from an operational standpoint, but can not be qualified as EMUs. Stig124 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why can't they? you have just admitted they can work in multiple; therefore they are multiple unit trains. They are fixed formation sets and the power cars can't operate independently, there being traction motors on the leading bogie of the adjacent trailer. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

These two locomotives are coupled together in such a fashion that the cab of the leading locomotive controls both, although only one driver is necessary. It's multiple working, but is not a multiple unit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance to the current discussion? The train is not a fixed formation. You could remove both locos and substitute a completely different form of motive power, eg a steam engine. Also vary the number, type and formation of the trailers. You can't do that with a Class 373. What you can't do with that train is have a loco at each end controlled from the leading cab.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you can. You could take one, two or three Class 438 units (unpowered), top and tail these with a Class 73 one end and a Class 33/1 the other, and the cab of either loco could control both locos. This is because the Southern Region developed a control system based on (and compatible with) the blue star system used on diesel-electric locos; this system was used for all their electric multiple units built between 1963 and 1974, and was also applied to locomotives of classes 33/1, 73 and Class 74.

As regards relevance: you stated they can work in multiple; therefore they are multiple unit trains. A multiple unit is not a train that can be worked in multiple with another - it is a train comprising multiple vehicles, semi-permanently coupled, with a cab at each end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a cite for that definition. The 373s are fixed formation sets that cannot be reformed and various vehicles operated seperately. You can't mix and match power vehicles from different types of train. Each half unit is only divisble into component vehicles in especially equipped workshops. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

French spec sheet source

This source is used to back up the tractive effort and power output. However, the article is giving different values for tractive effort depending on the power system being used. Looking at the source, this doesn’t seem to be what the source says at all - is there someone that’s better with translating French than myself that can take a look?

References

Danners430 (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Spec sheet again

There's currently a dispute between myself and User:Jonesy790 regarding the power output of the units. The current cited source gives the power output for 25KV 50Hz, 3KV DC and 675V DC. This last figure is the contentious figure - given the UK third rail system uses a nominal voltage of 750V, this would appear to either be a mistake or an odd inclusion in the spec sheet. My view is that as long as the source says 675V, then that's the figure that should be in the infobox. What do others think... and does someone perhaps have any further information on this source? Danners430 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you're doing the right thing to include it as it illustrates the significant difference in power output at each voltage. The source gives 675 not 750 so that's what should be in the infobox. We can't interpolate. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. Not sure what more I can add than WP:SYNTH grounds. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

References