Talk:British Rail Class 455

GA Reassessment

British Rail Class 455

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This article no longer meets the GA criteria. Its lead section of 2 sentences is laughably short, while several paragraphs in the body are uncited. Several sources appear to be unreliable, such as a self-published photography site and whatever "Southern E-Group" was (the link is dead). The article seems more concerned with paint schemes than substantial encyclopedic information on the trains. The infobox is also excessive in length. I posted a warning on the article's talk page last month, and no improvements have occurred between then and now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delist Significant improvements in coverage need to be made to this article for it to keep its GA status. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2025 (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.

2026

what if we added after 1983-present "the class are to be withdrawn March 2026" or something like that? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

My view is that the infobox parameter is for the current state of the class. I’m not going to reply any further - not because I want to avoid a discussion, but rather Brian Hawthorn and I have already thrashed this topic out on my talk page, and I’d rather other editors weighed in. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Simple answer, they may be they may not be so why do you keep being a nuisance? When it happens, it happens and then it can be added with a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 that's a simple answer, is it? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting. We are not soothsayers, prognosticators or time-travellers – when the train is finally withdrawn, the infobox can be updated with a reliable source. Turini2 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

On 22 December 2025 User:Brian Hawthorn made this edit to the British Rail Class 455 article with the edit summary "unfortunately the 455s are no longer in service". Over three weeks later at least four Class 455 units are still being used to carry passengers...

This is a perfect illustration of why it is best to wait until we have confirmation from a reliable source that the class has been withdrawn. The best sources to use in this instance are probably specialist magazines such as RAIL, Modern Railways etc. (It likely that at least one of these magazines will publish a detailed retrospective on these units when they do finally go for scrap, which will be very useful for improving this article.)

For the infobox, the wording "1983-present" with no further comment or qualification is best for now. ~2026-35334-9 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35334-9 I admit the sources of which I gained this information from were very much untrue. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Turini2 we're not time-travellers, but the last units will be going out of service, and this has been confirmed by many sources, after going to the talk page to investigate the possibility of adding additional information to the Infobox, others have disagreed with this idea. Apparently giving accurate information is the wrong thing to do. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be hyperbolic, but imagine that something catastrophic happens with the Arterios and they're withdrawn temporarily, and the remaining 455s have to be pressed back into service to cover the gap. (*cough* B23 *cough*) Ergo, 455s still end up being in service in 2027.

That's the point we're making, we can't predict what might happen and therefore "1983-present" is the correct information until they're actually fully withdrawn from service. Turini2 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Turini2 so we can't specify that the 455s are planned to be withdrawn in full in 2026? For example: 1983-present *to be withdrawn completely March 2026*. or something on the lines of that? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That's simple, what part are you having trouble with? Why are you so desperate to change the details? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 I'm not desperate to change the details, but seeing as the class are going out of service this year I thought it would be fine to at least specify that in the infobox. after going to this talk page to get the opinions of others it appears (as accurate as that information is) that is unfortunately not a favoured idea. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That would sound better if you hadn't already spent a lot of time trying to change it last year. It is not accurate information as it has already been changed several times and there is no guarantee that it won't be changed more times in the future. It is not even beyond the bounds of possibility, though unlikely, that the stock could last in nominal service into next year. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 I didn't spend alot of time trying to change it last year, I changed it once and after finding reliable sources I decided not to change it back after it was edited back to the current state. and sure the March date isn't inevitable, but I thought at least making it known that it is the current plan, while still keeping the 1983-present part until the untis eventually are all withdrawn (which could be later then March). Brian Hawthorn (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Just wanting to step back here and offer a solution and/or explain a little further.

Articles are made up of more than just the infobox. The infobox is, essentially, a very basic summary of the class, with basic facts (eg. build date, number etc.) and the current status listed in them. The body of the article is where we go into detail about the subject of the article.

As of right now, the class are still in passenger service - so the service history of the class, as of right now is 1983-present. As that is the current status, that's what belongs in the infobox.

South West Trains' intention to withdraw the class from passenger service is part of the history of the class, and if there's a reliable source that describes SWT's intent to withdraw them, beyond the fact a farewell tour was operated, then that would go in the "Operations" section. The phrasing could be something along the lines of SWT have announced their intention to withdraw the class during 2026, although {{as of}} January 2026 the class remain in service. Then, when the class are actually withdrawn, and there's a reliable source stating this, we can put that in the Operations section and update the infobox. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 and I think that's a good resolution right there. let's Just leave the Infobox alone until the whole class go, because I don't want to ever do this again. Brian Hawthorn (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I know it's not a reliable source (RailUK forums and some chap on Facebook) but the last 455's were officially stood down after 25 February 2026.~2026-10093-82 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

We do still need to wait for reliable sources though Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Some ran in service today (Tuesday 10 March) lol - this is why we have to wait until the withdrawal is officially official with decent sources to back it up! Turini2 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

People (on rail forums and Facebook) are now saying 20 March (yesterday) was definitively the final day of scheduled 455 service. Obviously they can't be cited, and there's a chance they may still run next week, but when the last two 455s do depart for scrap, it's unlikely that any official news source will cite its last working day, or even the fact that the remaining units had run minimal scheduled diagrams to cover for other unavailable units.~2026-16469-37 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Specialist railway media not having extensive detail about the last actual working day of a train?! Pigs will fly. We can wait for a decent source for their withdrawal, most likely in next month's Modern Railways. Turini2 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

And this morning, BBC News posted that they have been withdrawn. Article has been updated. Turini2 (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There we go - patience is a virtue and it pays off in the end of a well-sourced article :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 is there anyway to stop getting notifications from this talk page? Brian Hawthorn (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Only if you remove the article from your watch list. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 cheers Brian Hawthorn (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

At the top of this thread, there's a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" link/button. Make sure you're not subscribed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

First Class 455 units to run on the BR Southern Region Central Division

Seen on Facebook, posted by the Southern Electric Group:

"The very first Class 455 operated passenger train on the Central Division ran on Monday 25 February 1985. It is seen here at Clapham Junction with units 5801 + 5802 working the 06.30 Victoria to Epsom Downs."

If anyone can provide a reliable source to back this up, that would be great. (Also posted at Talk:Epsom Downs Branch.)
Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced fleet edits

@Quackdave if you can point us at the source that’s in the article and that verifies 708 being stored, that would be great. But as of right now, neither I nor @Maurice Oly can see sources to verify this. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Source #2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c393n4k1rvko says that the whole fleet has been withdrawn. There's no need for it to specifically mention 5707 for it to count as a valid source for that unit having been withdrawn. And, in the absence of a reliable source to confirm that it has yet been scrapped, that makes it no different from the 22 other units where there is confirmation of their withdrawal, but not of their scrapping. Quackdave (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn can mean stored, it can mean scraped, it can mean cannibalised for parts, it can mean it's at the back of Wimbledon depot being used for driver training. Inferring that it's stored from that is pure WP:SYNTH. That is why it was labelled as TBC. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It isn't WP:SYNTH, because that refers to combining two or more statements from one or more sources to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion. My reasoning is based on a single statement from a single source.

Semantically, being cannibalised for parts is a subset of "Stored" – removing parts from a stored unit doesn't mean that it is no longer stored – and any unsourced suggestions that it's being used for training or anything else are sufficiently far-fetched to be dismissed – so your argument boils down to "how do we know it hasn't been scrapped?" The answer is, we don't, until it is reported as such in something that WP considers a "reliable source". So yes, on that basis, it's TBC. But my point is, if you apply that logic to 455707, then why not to all of the units that are listed as "Stored"? How do we know that they haven't been scrapped? Answer: we don't, until something that WP considers a reliable source reports them as such.

I think you've actually presented a good case as to why all of the units that aren't confirmed as either "Preserved" or "Scrapped" ought to be listed as "TBC". But I don't see that you've justified why 455707 should be singled out as "TBC" on the basis of an argument that applies equally to 28 other units? Quackdave (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact there are already a lot of sources in the article - all of the previous edits that I can see were verified by the inclusion of a source. As they're offline, I personally can't verify them. However your edit explicitly did not add, remove or change any sources - and the source you're now citing, which by the way is in a completely different part of the article, doesn't explicitly verify the change you're making.

It may well be that the offline sources also warrant those that are listed as stored being moved to TBC - but unless someone has access to them to verify the contents, we don't know.

At the end of the day, it's your responsibility to source your edits per WP:BURDEN - three times you didn't provide any sources, and now via a talk page you're citing a source that doesn't verify the change. Sorry, but I'm unconvinced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my edit also corrected several other more important things, including the mythical 455782 – unsourced information which you have repeatedly re-added to the article :-) – plus some minor, but jarring, alignment inconsistencies, hyphens vs. dashes, etc. I will therefore re-apply these separately. Quackdave (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)