Talk:Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleKawasaki Heavy Industries C151 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 29, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
March 27, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 27, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that competition for the contract to build Singapore's first MRT trains (pictured) was so fierce that it involved last-minute discounts, offers of free parts, and allegations of sabotage?
Current status: Good article

Use Template:Rolling_stock

[edit]

Can we perhaps make use of the Template:Rolling_stock template? I've started on the following.. 

{{Rolling stock
|Name of train=Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151 cars
|Company color= red
|image_link=
|image_description=
|Quantity of car=
|Maximum speed= km/h or mph
|Maximum service speed= km/h or mph
|Acceleration= km/h/s or km/h²
|Deceleration (normal)= km/h/s
|Deceleration (emergency)= km/h/s
|Car configuration=
|Length= mm
|Width= mm
|Height= mm
|Tare= t
|Passenger capacity=
|Goods capacity=
|Rail gauge= mm
|Power supply= V, Hz
|Traction system=
|Power output=
|Electronic circuit=
|Brake=
|Protection system=
|Manufacturer=
|Note=
}}

Train formation

[edit]

A complete six-car trainset consists of an identical twin set of one driving trailer (DT) and two motor cars (M1 and M2) permanently coupled together.[1] The configuration of a C151 trainset in revenue service is DT–M1–M2–M2–M1–DT.[citation needed]

Cars of C151
car type Driver Cab Motor Collector Shoe car length Wheelchair Space
mm ft in
DT ✓ ✗ ✓ 23,650 77 ft 7.1 in ✗
M1 ✗ ✓ ✓ 22,800 74 ft 9.6 in ✗
M2 ✗ ✓ ✓ 22,800 74 ft 9.6 in ✓

The car numbers of the trains range from x001 to x132, where x depends on the carriage type. Individual cars are assigned a 4 digit serial number. A complete six-car trainset consists of an identical twin set of one driving trailer (DT) and two motor cars (M1 & M2) permanently coupled together. For example, set 009/010 consists of carriages 3009, 1009, 2009, 2010, 1010 and 3010.[citation needed]

  • The first digit identifies the car number, where the first car has a 3, the second has a 1 & the third has a 2.
  • The second digit is a 0 or 1, part of the identification numbers
  • The third digit and fourth digit are the train identification numbers. A full-length train of 6 cars have 2 different identification numbers. For example 001/002 (normal coupling) and 001/003 (cross coupling).

|}

References

  1. ^ Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Disruption of MRT Train Services on 15 and 17 December 2011, Ministry of Transport, pp. 32.

Dimensions sources

[edit]

I do not see a clear source for the dimensions of the train cars. We have no way of knowing where/how the measurements were taken --109.146.83.213 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of impending GAR

[edit]

I see numerous instances of uncited statements or citation needed tags, and the comment above from 2021 holds true today. I will be taking this article to good article reassessment in the near future (early to mid August) if no improvements are forthcoming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151

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

This article has numerous issues with uncited statements. Instances of overlinking are also present (the word green is wikilinked!) No improvements or commitments to improve the article have been forthcoming since I left a talk page message on July 27. Significant work would be needed to rescue this article from a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings Just to let you know, I've removed the "media appearances" and the train numbers given that the sources didn't even support it. I've also removed some of the overlinking. Anyways, I think it needs to be delisted. An insurmountable of work needs to be done before it can aptly be GA. Icepinner 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Icepinner, and for Trainsandotherthings for bringing the issues with this article up. Will work on it and see if I can get it back up to GA status, so kindly give me some time. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may also work on it, though perhaps not to the same extent as actuall. This would also depend on how much time I have. Icepinner 05:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks substantially cleaned up, though I am not particularly satisfied in how some notable and sourced details were removed in a rush to rescue this. Obviously the article has been a victim of trivia stuffing by enthusiasts over the years. While I still have access to certain databases to locate sources, are there any particular lines that needs addressing? - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the edits were quite rushed, and have expanded on other aspects of the article to remedy this. I have also attempted to add back some other statements, although most of it is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:OR by rail enthusiasts and I couldn't find sources for them. Does it look better now? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Which ones are still not sourced? - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Could you kindly take a second look at the article to see if there are still any issues? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has definitely been significantly improved since it was nominated. Sourcing and overlinking issues have been addressed and the excess railfan trivia has also been pared back and properly sourced. I'm still catching issues, however. For instance, "As of 18 August 2025, 46 of them have been scrapped or preserved, 9 trains are laid up awaiting scrapping, and only 11 trains remain in service." is sourced to a news article from June 2025 which couldn't possibly support a claim from two days ago. This is clearly an example of enthusiasts engaging in original research because they are unwilling to wait for reliable sources to confirm this information. Similarly, "106 R151 trains would subsequently replace all 66 C151 trains along with the 19 C651 and 21 C751B trains from 2023 onwards, while the C151 trains would be decommissioned." is supported by a source from 2018 which again couldn't possibly support a claim from 2023 (and misuses the word "would").
    I admittedly didn't check much for text-source integrity due to the more blatant problems initially present. Considering I found these in less than 5 minutes of checking, I'm concerned about the state of the entire article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing these out, I have removed all the unreferenced mentions of specific names of C151s. Other editors have also helped in removing all the specific number of trains that violated WP:OR. I hope this resolves the issues that you have pointed out. Would it be better to give this article some page protection in the long run to solve these unreferenced additions by rail enthusiasts? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with actuall on the protection proposal. This has been an issue for a long time. I know that they intend their contributions to be helpful but without prior reading of Wikipedia's policies, this leads to situations like this. Something similar could very well easily happen to North East MRT line or another FA. Icepinner 00:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]