|
Post by d7666 on Jul 27, 2013 12:16:48 GMT
d7666 - thank you for the full and courteous answer. [It's a pity that the opportunity wasn't taken to tidy the whole thing up, as the Swiss did about 20 years ago to conform with UIC requirements, but I dare say cost is the determining factor]. GH Can you imagine trying to get all the different TOCs, FOCs and ROSCOs to agree on something like that!? I highly doubt that we'll see any renumbering this side of a renationalisation. Fleetline - thanks - posted the link I had tried to post before. UK does comply with UIC - thats what the linked document shows. Numbering is controlled by NR it is not a toc / foc / rosco thing. There is no need to renumber or tidy up anything. UIC is not really about forcing on to operators a fixed numbering system, it is about devising a unique system so number do not clash anywhere, 11 digits is more than enough to do this and fit existing number systems. All UK renumbering that was needed was done eons ago e.g. the 56000 and 50000 number series I mentioned up thread. Citing SBB is an example but not a full one - SBB (and MAV, NSB, etc) all had alpha numeric systems which do not fit UIC. So SBB renumbered Re4/4 to 420. But they are not required to do that renumber. So long as a UIC number like aa bb c420xyx - d appears it could still have been Re4/4 vwxyz. If you loom at all the small open access operators in Germany, they all carry UIC 11 digit numbers but the short form number may be completely different and have nothing in common. Think of UIC as an additional system that may or may not contain some or all of the short form number. BR could still have carried old D series numbers for diesel locos - there is no reason why aa bb cc50050 - d couldn't be the UIC number and D400 the short form number. -- Nick
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,246
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 27, 2013 13:02:46 GMT
I'm reminded at this point of steam locos on the mainline, all painted up with their heritage number, but somewhere on the footplate is a number registered on TOPS (class 98 I think) that is their official number.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2013 14:34:19 GMT
d7666 and others - just to be clear, then, the 700 numbers are the UIC numbers. My initial query really related to TOPS, and I'm sorry not to have explained that. So, does anyone know what the TOPS numbers will be? Or is TOPS to be abandoned? [ rincew1nd -yes, the steam locos are indeed in the 98 series - not sure what the VoR locos were classified before their sale -. 97 was reserved for ships...]
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jul 27, 2013 17:14:35 GMT
As far as I know the new Thameslink stock will be 700 under TOPS.
They have expanded TOPS number range so new DMUs could be classified as classes 600-699; new EMUs could be classified as classes 700-799; new high speed DMUs/EMUs/fixed formations could be classified as classes 800-899.
Btw I thought TOPS 97 was for departmental use and TOPS 99 for ships?
====
So if I have done this correctly TOPS number Class 700 001 would be
UIC number 94 70 0700001 5 TLK
94 = (Non high speed) EMU
70 = Great Britain
0700001 = National number (TOPS 700001)
5 = Check number [(9*2)+4+(7*2)+0+(0*2)+7+(0*2)+0+(0*2)+0+(1*2)] = 45. Round up 45 to nearest multiple of 10 = 50. Subtract difference (50 - 45) = 5
TLK = Owner code (Assuming Thameslink is the owner)
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2013 17:29:54 GMT
metrailway - thank you for that! [Not sure I yet understand why, if these are new TOPS number ranges, there should be any existing kit already occupying the range, but there you are]. A propos the boats, they had long disappeared by the time I joined the Board and I was relying on "oldest inhabitant" recollections (which may well be wrong!) - as all the boating people left with their boats, the railway side of the business had very little reason to know too much about them.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 27, 2013 18:53:24 GMT
d7666 and others - just to be clear, then, the 700 numbers are the UIC numbers. My initial query really related to TOPS, and I'm sorry not to have explained that. So, does anyone know what the TOPS numbers will be? Or is TOPS to be abandoned? My understanding from previous posts is that the NR rolling stock library, which issues the numbers, has chosen to use TOPS numbers which are compatible with UIC numbers (just as it was convenient, but not necessary, for ac emus to take the old "AM" classifications and add 300, even though that left a gap, and continue with the old regional three digit individual numbers rather than start at 001 (so the AM9s, numbered in the 600s, became 309601 etc) The need to avoid duplication of numbers was what led to dmu cars in the 50xxx, and 56xxx series being renumbered in the 53xx and 54xxx series (and a few 59xxx cars were also renumbered) and why there has never been a class 61, 62, 63 or 64 (emu cars), and why many hauled stock carriages were also renumbered to avoid clashes with locos or between BR and ex-SR cars (still around in 4EPB units in the mid '80s) As I understand it, the available emu class numbers are running out because a large number of wagons are numbered in the 3xxxxx series, so many apparently unused 3xx--- blocks are unavailable for use as emus. A new Railway group standard www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Rolling%20Stock/Railway%20Group%20Standards/GMRT2453%20Iss%202.pdf has been issued opening up new number blocks: 7x for diesels (regularising Class 70, and essentially reclassifying Class 73s as diesels with an electric capability rather than vice versa!) 6xx for dmus, 7xx for emus, 8xx for high speed units. Strangely, the Thameslink units will be Class 700, but the Crossrail units which will come later will be 345. rincew1nd -yes, the steam locos are indeed in the 98 series - not sure what the VoR locos were classified before their sale -. 97 was reserved for ships...] 97 is departmental diesels, 98 is steam (and included the VoR stock), 99 was train ferries. The official TOPS number a steam locomotive usually uses the old power classification (first used by the Midland Railway) for the third digit, so a Black Five is a 985xx in the same way, class 97 numbers usually use the pilot scheme type number as the third digit, so a departmental Class 25 would be 972xx. As far as I am aware no diesel has been used on National Rail which was not calssified on TOPS, although some, like the Westerns, never got their 52xxx numbers in normal use. There is potential for duplication - for example Deltic Royal Scots Grey shares a number with Chiltern's route-learning "bubble car" Class 122
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2013 20:05:21 GMT
norbitonflyer - as I recollect it, 345 was reserved for the XR stock as early as 1992 - I believe Chris Green thought it a good publicity point. Again, thanks for a clear expo
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 27, 2013 21:12:52 GMT
metrailway - thank you for that! [Not sure I yet understand why, if these are new TOPS number ranges, there should be any existing kit already occupying the range, but there you are]. The series are not vacant, but there are useful holes. As seen in this very helpful site , most wagon numbers are in the so-called "air braked" series introduced in the 1960s, in which , numbers were allocated in blocks. 1xxxxx was for general-purpose open and flat wagons, 2xxxxx for vans, 3xxxxx for hoppers, 4xxxxx for 2-axle steel wagons, 5xxxxx for 2-axle container flats and bogie special wagons (nuclear flask carriers). 6xxxxx for bogie container flats 9xxxxx for bogie steel wagons. This left gaps for the main remaining number blocks still in use from the previous "B" series numbers allocated to BR-built wagons since nationalisation - (wagons inherited from the pre-1948 companies had appropriate prefixes, just as carriages had suffixes e.g SC1234E would be a former LNER carriage now allocated to the Scottish Region). The B series numbers were assigned in blocks, e.g up to B279999 16ton minerals, B280000 to B319999 for larger minerals, B333000 to B349999 for hoppers, B500xxx: passed for use on the continent B55xxxx 16 ton minerals (overflow series) B749xxx tank wagons B950000 to B964121 brake vans DB965000 upwards: departmental (i.e non-revenue earning), including 96xxxx for track machines, snowploughs etc, 975xxx and 977xxx for coaching stock). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 1:42:22 GMT
norbitonflyer - as I recollect it, 345 was reserved for the XR stock as early as 1992 - I believe Chris Green thought it a good publicity point. Again, thanks for a clear expo Crossrail stock under would have been 341 had it been built under NSE
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 28, 2013 11:18:13 GMT
Minor point, but I think missed a bit
94 70 0700001 5 GB TLK
(or is it UK).
At least all the mainland European stock I have seen has the country code, which is NOT the 2 letter ISO code (i.e. used by internet domains) but a unique series (more like road vehicles use).
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 28, 2013 11:26:08 GMT
Yes, and Crossrail as a plan is so old when NSE were supporting it the rolling stock then would have been a Networker variation, some sets made by converting 16x Turbos to EMU trailers working with new motor cars, as well as new complete EMU.
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 28, 2013 11:37:47 GMT
A good while back someone who worked on TOPS operation at the data centre told me that while 97 meant ship, enthusiasts interpretation of 97 has been consistently wrong.
Each item of rail rolling stock had a 5 digit number. Also each physical location on the railway where stock may be assigned in TOPS also has a 5 digit number of a completely different series. TOPS locations are in geographical groups - memory 65xxx is all Birmingham area for example, broken down into yards and sidings and stations and other locations.
BR had to assign a TOPS location to Train Ferries, for each ferry as well as their ports. 97xxx was supposed to be the TOPS location not the vehicle class, then, having started with part of the fleet they continued with the non train ferries. Enthusiasts made the mistake, or assumed, or someone gave a misleading explanation at some point, that ferries were Class 97, and the myth has been perpetuated ever since.
I have no idea if this is right or wrong, but it is plausible, and I'm sure I was not being wound up at the time.
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jul 28, 2013 14:09:49 GMT
Minor point, but I think missed a bit 94 70 0700001 5 GB TLK (or is it UK). At least all the mainland European stock I have seen has the country code, which is NOT the 2 letter ISO code (i.e. used by internet domains) but a unique series (more like road vehicles use). -- Nick Yes you are correct - I knew I forgot something! It is GB not UK. Always found it strange that there are two sections indicating the country of registration/origin.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2013 14:54:25 GMT
@manchester77 - yes, in 1991, the XR stock was supposed to be cl341 as a Networker derivative. Do you happen to know whether the mockup was numbered like that? d7666- interesting; by the time I was working in BRHQ, the ships had long sailed away but the folk memory then was that they were numbered 01 to 06 which wouldn't square, of course, with either the rolling stock or the geographical TOPS formats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 16:06:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2013 17:40:22 GMT
@manchester 77 - thanks for that. By way of a related anecdote, we used the mockup to test boarding times (this was in the days before Legion or anything like that). The trial consisted of one of my managers (now himself about to retire from a senior ORR job) directing a squad of about 70 retired railwaymen* to exit and board at the sound of a whistle and timing them with a stopwatch.
*These were the same teams as we used for the annual cordon loading counts.
|
|