Talk:British Rail Class 508

SET / Connex South Eastern

The SET (south eastern trains) section of "Current Operations" needs some clarification as some of the lines listed don't make sense. I've replaced the Strood reference with eh Medway valley line. this service extend (occasional) to tonbrdige and even rarely to three bridges, but is it really a "line" ??? as for services out of London bridge down to Strood via Dartford, there are names (one of the three loops in Bexley / Greenwich i assume) on the SET page --Pickle 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to scrap the mention of 508s from this article (from "Current Operations") and the SET article as the SET magazine achieve doesn't mention them and i haven't seen them, so i assume they have been withdrawn [1]. Someone with more info on 508s might want in work out a past operation section detailing their service with SET / Connex. Pickle 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The 508/2s are still in use with SET, particular on the Medway Valley Line, around Strood and Gillingham. Our Phellap 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough, modified to suit. Only thing is i don't see any mention of it in the SET magazines (not that I'm doubting they are actually there!), as on the the other hand there is no details of their withdrawal. Pickle 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK saw one (Well it wasn't an electrostar, networker or slam door) last month (April) at Aylseford level crossing, i really do believe you now! Pickle 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

507/508

Apart from the fact that the 508s were originally in four-car sets, can anybody please clarify what distinguishes the 507 from the 508? Now that the latter are in three-car sets, is there a good reason why they're not reclassified to all be the same class? The articles don't appear to list any other technical difference such as voltage etc. (I don't know the rules for reclassification, but precedent seems to perhaps exist with the 375/377 classes, where 375s were renumbered after the couplers were changed.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:508136 Nameplate.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Developed for Merseyside? Really?

Do we have a source for this? There's a discussion on the uk.railway Usenet group at the moment which doubts our explanation. Quote:

No they were built new for SR, that was where they were always intended to go when new.

Southern Region just did not like the complexity of 8 motors and two motor coaches and (to them) non standard equipment c.f. single motor coach with 4 x EE507 standardised for all EMU since 1963.

The 500 EMU series is what confuses: the orginal use was ex-LMS / LMR specfici DC EMU *and* then added BR universal DC EMU built to a design for all regions. I think that gen is found in a contemporary RCTS RO.

510/512 were also assigned to SR - DC only 317-types pencilled in for various projects - none using SR standard kit - but one was the 75 mph version before 455 plan (i.e. before the SR CM&EE influcenced it), the other was 100 mph - one of the options considered for Rep replacements - and way before 442 were thought of.

And further down that same discussion:

I've read so many versions of the story - all written way after the event.

IIRC in real time events were something like definitely ordered for SR and intended as the new SR suburban EMU for all future builds from that time. But even before 508 delivery it had already been decided they would move on to LMR; thus they were perceived by many and hence written into myth they were only ever temporary. And wiki has a lot of myths.

Part of the problem really comes down to SR CM&EE continuing to reject BRB standards; they didn't like the PEP, they didn't like the 455, and so on. Set back SR suburban EMU development a decade.

Both quotes are from a pseudonymous contributor who writes under the name "D7666", so is clearly no use as a source for us, but does seem to know what s/he is talking about. D7666's explanation doesn't fit with ours. Either way, we really need sources and citations (we currently have one, and that for a specific incident!) for this page. 86.132.139.119 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Southeastern

Southeastern no longer operate Class 508s any more and the Southeastern (Train Operating Company) article correctly states them as "Past fleet" and I know for a fact that they are definatley withdrawn from service by Southeastern. Could someone please carry out whatever neccessary edits to the article to remove any reference to Southeastern currently operating these units (of course if applicable, add that they used to operate them). Many Thanks!

TXC (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Age

32 years is not particularly old for an electric vehicle; cf with age of earlier EMU vehicle classes when they were retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.221.185 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

shepperton crash

not confident to add myself but this 1982 crash might be worth a mention https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkHE_FnLb_k cheers 95.147.145.159 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It was covered in Railway Magazine at the time, and IIRC also made the cover of Private Eye with some suitably witty caption and speech bubbles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

508301

508301 is pictured in the "Liveries" section but 301 isn't in the list of fleet numbers. Does anyone know if it has an alternative designation? Alanbatty (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

508301 was originally 508102, being renumbered in 2002 or 2003 following facelifting/refurbishment tor Euston-Watford Junction services. It was withdrawn in about 2013. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Number built

So according to the infobox and unit numbers in the fleet details table 43 units were built, however the number of units in the fleet details table only adds up to 40.

Anybody able to help explain how 43 units can have been built, yet the total in the fleet details table only adds up to 40? Because I can’t make sense of it.

Edit1: Just figured it out the maths is wrong in regards to the number of scrapped 508/2s.

Edit 2:Maths has now been corrected.

Maurice Oly (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)