This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Trains:in UK /Passenger trainsLow‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide torail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. See also:WikiProject Trains to do list and theTrains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported byWikiProject UK Railways (assessed asLow-importance). This article is supported bythe Passenger trains task force.

Was it really cheaper to develop the REP and 3/4TC units, and operate push-pull with class 73 & 74 , whcih sounds like a massive level of development and capital investment, together with high operational costs and reliability problems, instead of just electrifying a few miles of track to enable the use of conventional EMU's on Waterloo-Weymouth trains? This looks like a classic example of a false economy. Are contemporary cost data available to assess these decisions?Barney Bruchstein (talk)08:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The West Coast Main Line was being electrified at the same time, and that was a very expensive project. The whole of the track - right down to the bottom of the ballast - was renewed, and several stations (like Euston, Coventry and Birmingham New Street) were completely rebuilt; others (like Manchester Piccadilly) were partially rebuilt. It was also given a new fleet of rolling stock: 100 electric locos (Class 86), approximately 300 loco-hauled Mark 2 coaches and 200 EMU cars (Class 310). Money for other projects - including the Bournemouth electrification - was very limited, which is why all of the 3/4-TC units and half of the 4-REP cars were converted from existing Mark 1 stock rather than being built new. None of the locos were new:Class 73 already existed, andClass 33/1 were converted from existingClass 33/0 locos. The only all-new rolling stock was the 4-VEP units (80 cars) and 4-REP motor coaches (22 in 1966-67). --Redrose64 (talk)11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"They were classed as a locomotive because they were designed as a tractor unit to pull trailer cars 4TC. As the TC sets are not motored they are effectively coaching stock and require a locomotive to pull them. There is no technical reason the 4REP couldn’t have run at MU speeds, it was purely a rule book requirement as the units were classed as locos. It’s very strange, but that’s just how it goes sometimes. In practice drivers rarely ran them at light engine speeds, and it was rare for them to run on their own" From an Ex SWT Manager. I thought people might be interested in why, there might be a website which I can link which says, if there is I will provide a link. In the meantime, this is just to help people who don't understand why and would like some information which is probably correct.I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk)19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class rail transport articles
• Low-importance rail transport articles
• Start-Class UK Railways articles
• Low-importance UK Railways articles
• Passenger trains task force articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages