Talk:InterCity 125

Voyagers

CrossCountry has decided to reintroduce 5 HSTs to supplement the Voyagers. The Voyagers are too unpopular, and there are not enough seats or luggage space.[citation needed]

This is a bit dubious. Voyagers are generally liked by pax, but should have been lengthened. Its been reported on uk.railway that Virgin were going to order more Voyagers and lengthen existing, but the DfT favoured Arriva's cheaper High Density Voyagers plus a couple of HSTs plan

Merge

British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 has been merged. The Class 252 still has its own article.

Merge proposal I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An alternate proposal for restructuring coverage of HSTs is already under discussion at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)#NOT a merge proposal.... XAM2175 ^(T) 10:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 is content forking of this article, being class numbers applied to some members for short periods. Propose merging that article into this one. ~~~~ Nukerstt (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds of the existing discussion at the Class 43 talk page - see the section DIRECTLY above this one. Danners430 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Premature. See discussion above. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2023 (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.

Merge proposal II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 is content forking of this article, being class numbers applied to some members for short periods. Propose merging that article into this one. A previous merge proposal was closed on the basis that this discussion, that did gather some support for a merge, was still active. Seven days after the last post, that discussion has gone cold. Nukerstt (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Now the discussion has taken place and gone cold. I support the idea. :10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Tbf69 11:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Do not Support Since it would make the other articles far to long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom Hoekiema (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose unique content, which might not fit anywhere else very well. G-13114 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (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.

Merger proposal issue

the Merger proposal was closed when it was still very much active. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposal directly above was started 3 months ago? Hardly "active". Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

But the last two votes happened on the same day. Also it is missing some votes. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I only closed it because I was reminded of it when I saw those comments. If people wanted they had 3 months to make any comments on it. Consensus there supported it, so it was thus closed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

there was a comment which did not support it and it made in the same time and it did not show up in the comment box. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the page history. No one made any comment outside those that are there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the instructions, closure can be made 7 days after the discussion is initiated. At no point was the oppose vote ever ahead, so regardless of when the discussion was closed, the redirect proposal was going to be successful. I have gone ahead and redirected. Much of the content already appears to already be in the InterCity 125 article, and that that isn't, is uncited. Walisnyx (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Mexico

We have "Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec" in the infobox, with a paywalled citation, but nothing about this in the body of the article. Can someone add some suitable content, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)