TOPS numbering system

[tadhatter]

Going to run out of classes soon surely - especially for locomotives and in particular diesels.

Is anything new in the pipeline or are we all plodding on aimlessly into oblivion...!??!?

 

[Buttsy]

Going to run out of classes soon surely - especially for locomotives and in particular diesels.

Is anything new in the pipeline or are we all plodding on aimlessly into oblivion...!??!?

I would expect some to be re-used for example class 43 has been used twice...

 

[Lampshade]

For DMUs we've still got 160 - 164, 167, 169, 173, 174, 176 - 179, 181 - 184, 186 - 199 left. Are there really going to be another 30 classes of DMU before the whole network is electrified?

For locos I imagine defunct ones will be reused.

 

[158801]

But each DMU car also uses a 5 digit code.

The original class 56 had 131 loco's but there are DMU vehicles that are 56234 or 56331 etc

The new Government info on IEP shows the train as Class 800 !

 

[D6975]

IEP are going to be 800 and 801, one for electric, one for bi-mode, I forget which way round.
Diesels have the spare slots between 71 and 79 (except 73) now as well don't forget.(unit numbers permitting) These were re-designated as diesel codes a few years ago.

 

[67018]

For DMUs we've still got 160 - 164, 167, 169, 173, 174, 176 - 179, 181 - 184, 186 - 199 left.

169 is already being used by Chiltern at Marylebone, although it looks like it's mis-classified since it's an electric unit

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephencannon/9633372128/

 

[TrainBoy98]

169 is already being used by Chiltern at Marylebone, although it looks like it's mis-classified since it's an electric unit

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephencannon/9633372128/

Haha, great

 

[swt_passenger]

Going to run out of classes soon surely - especially for locomotives and in particular diesels.

Is anything new in the pipeline or are we all plodding on aimlessly into oblivion...!??!?

The relevant Rail Group Standard has been considerably re-written within the last couple of years, which is why Thameslink will be using class 700, and IEP classes 800 and 801:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

So it's been sorted out well in advance of ever becoming being an issue...

 

[Boothby97]

The original class 56 had 131 loco's

They actually went up to 135 locos (56001-135). Infact, until last year 56133 was still intact.

Thanks, Sam

 

[Peter Mugridge]

169 is already being used by Chiltern at Marylebone, although it looks like it's mis-classified since it's an electric unit

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephencannon/9633372128/

They've numbered two of those; there is a 169 002 there as well...


( I assume they are not really on the TOPS system?! )

 

[mackeral1234]

The relevant Rail Group Standard has been considerably re-written within the last couple of years, which is why Thameslink will be using class 700, and IEP classes 800 and 801:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

So it's been sorted out well in advance of ever becoming being an issue...

I have spotted a problems with the RGS -

Class 374 - new Eurostar e20 is listed in the EMU (not high speed) vehicles not within EMU (high speed) vehicles (700-800)

Thameslink - listed as class 700 - top speed of 100mph doesnt really meet the EMU (high speed) numbers

 

[IanXC]

I have spotted a problems with the RGS -

Class 374 - new Eurostar e20 is listed in the EMU (not high speed) vehicles not within EMU (high speed) vehicles (700-800)

Thameslink - listed as class 700 - top speed of 100mph doesnt really meet the EMU (high speed) numbers

Class 374 has long been earmarked for Eurostar, principally because series 374 is also available in the French numbering system.

Isn't class 700(-799) just assigned to "a.c. and a.c./d.c. electric multiple units"?

 

[MK Tom]

The relevant Rail Group Standard has been considerably re-written within the last couple of years, which is why Thameslink will be using class 700, and IEP classes 800 and 801:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

So it's been sorted out well in advance of ever becoming being an issue...

According to that, the new Desiros for Thameslink operate above 190mph and the Pendolinos and Javelins operate below that speed.

Perhaps it's changed a bit since they wrote that.

 

[Eagle]

For DMUs we've still got 160 - 164, 167, 169, 173, 174, 176 - 179, 181 - 184, 186 - 199 left. Are there really going to be another 30 classes of DMU before the whole network is electrified?

Those probably won't end up being used, as there seems to be a rule of not using consecutive numbers for different DMU designs. We'll probably see a 190 and a 195, and then move straight onto class 600, the new DMU range.

(Also 167 has been used before; it was reserved for a Networker-style DMU for Scotland in the early 1990s. Due to privatization it got subsumed into ABB's Turbostar project.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

According to that, the new Desiros for Thameslink operate above 190mph and the Pendolinos and Javelins operate below that speed.

Perhaps it's changed a bit since they wrote that.

That seems to be quite a considerable speed for the new Desiros for Thameslink. What will be the maximum allowed speed be ?

 

[alex17595]

Class 99 is already used! (but basically defunct)

 

[swt_passenger]

Class 374 has long been earmarked for Eurostar, principally because series 374 is also available in the French numbering system.

Isn't class 700(-799) just assigned to "a.c. and a.c./d.c. electric multiple units"?

Yes it is, as per table A.5. I think the point made by the earlier poster is wrongly interpreting table A.2 which is referring to individual vehicle number ranges, and as we know from current practice the vehicle number ranges are not tied directly to the unit class numbers. Also, the boundary for 'high speed' is 190 km/h, not mph.

AIUI from reading the two sections, it follows that a class 700 EMU should therefore have individual vehicles in the 0300000 – 0499999 range.

Of course the new system is not retrospective, hence if Class 374 appears wrongly chosen in hindsight, then there's nothing to stop them changing it as far as I can see, but why bother - there's no benefit to be gained.

As an aside the GB 'unit number' is not part of the TSI, and is not the primary data on the RSL in any case. That's why vehicles always keep their individual RSL number (with very rare exceptions such as complete rebuild), but complete units can be renumbered purely for operating convenience. A good example of that is SWT renumbering their random 158s into 158880-890 just for neatness...

 

[Eagle]

Also, the boundary for 'high speed' is 190 km/h, not mph.

Which is 118 mph, for the less metrically-minded.

 

[MK Tom]

Sorry I did mean to write km/h. Which as said above is just under 120mph.

That seems to be quite a considerable speed for the new Desiros for Thameslink. What will be the maximum allowed speed be ?

I wasn't suggesting that's actually the case, I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of the document! I'm pretty sure the 700s will be 100mph units.

 

[starrymarkb]

According to that, the new Desiros for Thameslink operate above 190mph and the Pendolinos and Javelins operate below that speed.

Perhaps it's changed a bit since they wrote that.

Sure it's not in km/h? With ETCS rolling out expect more of the railway to go metric.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hang on - I think I know what you might be reading as I made same the mistake. There is also a new 7 digit vehicle numbering scheme to avoid new MU designs clashing with locomotives (as happens with the current 5 digit vehicle numbers - hence all the jumps in Class 57 subtypes to avoid Sprinter vehicles)

 

[D365]

If we need more AC loco classes, after 93-96 have been allocated, we could always reuse 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85, with 82/0 reassigned as a 'lump class' for ACLG. Other near-extinct classes could also be re-used as needed.

I still reckon we've got enough classes free to avoid the 6xx-8xx ranges, but if we're going to do so, I'd hope numbers are assigned in good order, as how the previous ranges used to be...

Page 18 is the important one in the RGS document. I don't know where on earth mackeral1234 got the 7xx range being 'high-speed' from; that would be 8xx.

 

[deltic1989]

They've numbered two of those; there is a 169 002 there as well...


( I assume they are not really on the TOPS system?! )

Anything is possible, there were 14 Ships given TOPS numbers.
Class 99 rings a bell.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wasn't suggesting that's actually the case, I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of the document! I'm pretty sure the 700s will be 100mph units.

...I've tried to explain earlier (post #17) that 700 series UNITS (table A.5) will not consist of 700000 series high speed VEHICLES (table A.2). Which would mean there is no inaccuracy at all...

 

[MK Tom]

Oh right. So do the numbering of individual Pendo and Javelin vehicles fit this system? I know the TOPS classes backwards but I've never bothered learning carriage numbers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh right. So do the numbering of individual Pendo and Javelin vehicles fit this system? I know the TOPS classes backwards but I've never bothered learning carriage numbers.

The new system isn't retrospective, and was only in force from Dec 2011, so I'd expect, given the fact they reserve numbers well ahead of delivery, the Pendolinos probably won't fit the system and the older Javelins definitely won't.

 

[breadfan]

This thread has me wondering how TOPS copes with track machines. For example there is a 73109 existing in both locomotive and track machine.

 

[MK Tom]

Duplication isn't a new problem though. Bubble cars and Deltics for example.

 

[ffm]

32, 36, 38, 39, 49, 51, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 69 ..............should keep the diesel market happy for many a decade