Reuse of class numbers

[Inversnecky]

Is there any case of a class number of a retired loco/unit ever being reused?

No doubt this will eventually become necessary, or is there a policy never to duplicate, so another digit will be added?

 

[StephenHunter]

The North British-built Warships were allocated Class 43 before their withdrawal, although none of the Warships carried any actual TOPS numbers before withdrawal. The 43xxx numbering was used for HST power cars, but that didn't become a "Class" straight away because of the initial allocation of 25x numbers to the entire "unit".

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there any case of a class number of a retired loco/unit ever being reused?

No doubt this will eventually become necessary, or is there a policy never to duplicate, so another digit will be added?

There is no policy against reuse. There’s something in the rail group standard (on identification of stock) about when it can be done, but without a login I cannot link to it.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Class 01 was a class of Andrew Barclay shunter.

It is also used for a range of different industrial shunters which need registering on TOPS

 

[Beebman]

The Bulleid Co-Co electric locos were allocated Class 70 before their withdrawal although none of them carried TOPS numbers. The class number has been re-used more recently for the GE diesel locos belonging to Freightliner and Colas.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just did a forum search and a few years ago someone reckoned there should be a 7 year gap between reuse of a class.

 

[hexagon789]

The First Gen DMUs originally different TOPS Class numbers for power cars and trailers of the same design. Many of the class numbers the trailers were originally designated have been reused.

168 was originally given to 101 TBSL vehicles, 171 was given to 101 TCL vvehicles etc

 

[randyrippley]

Just did a forum search and a few years ago someone reckoned there should be a 7 year gap between reuse of a class.

Quoting from memory, but 30-odd years ago one of the journals claimed it was ten years from the total eradication of a class including all preserved examples - even if only static or not main line compatible. So 41/43 could be reused, 42 couldn't

 

[O L Leigh]

The North British-built Warships were allocated Class 43 before their withdrawal, although none of the Warships carried any actual TOPS numbers before withdrawal. The 43xxx numbering was used for HST power cars, but that didn't become a "Class" straight away because of the initial allocation of 25x numbers to the entire "unit".

At the risk of reigniting a long-dormant argument, HST powercars were not originally called Cl43s because they were numbered as coaches, which is why the numbering series starts at 43000 not 43001. (Yes I know that the prototype powercars were originally 41001 and 41002, but that was prior to them receiving DEMU classifications.)

 

[Springs Branch]

The First Gen DMUs originally different TOPS Class numbers for power cars and trailers of the same design. Many of the class numbers the trailers were originally designated have been reused.

168 was originally given to 101 TBSL vehicles, 171 was given to 101 TCL vvehicles etc

The early (and quickly superseded) TOPS numbering scheme for 1st Generation DMU trailer cars - which resulted in Classes 140 through to 190 being assigned for a short time in the mid-1970s - is in this Wiki page.

More details on exactly what classes of trailer went into which sets can be found on the excellent Railcar.co.uk website: https://www.railcar.co.uk/numbering/tops/

TOPS Codes
To aid identification purposes on the introduction of the TOPS computer system in 1973, each type of unit was given a "class" number. Within each class, as with locomotives, there were often sub classes.

Initially power cars were given numbers from 100 to 131, driving trailers from 140 to 150, and centre cars from 160 to 190. In 1979 all driving trailers and centre cars received the same class numbers as their power cars, and sub classes were dropped. Also, where a class had been split only because of engine differences were amalgamated, such as the 101/2s and 105/6s.

 

[Neptune]

I can’t really see a need to reuse class numbers for a long time (probably long after we’re all worm food). So many class numbers never used all the way from 0-999. Even with the modern fad for giving every possible sub class a different classification for no reason they aren’t running out anytime soon.

 

[pdeaves]

Class 22 was originally a North British diesel hydraulic type. The number was later reused for French locos that arrived at Dollands Moor via the Channel Tunnel. Admittedly, it was just a convenient number as the French machines were already numbered in the 22000 series, but still the 'class number' was reused.

 

[Kingston Flyer]

I know this may be slightly outside of the original question, which seems to be more whole classes, but 70013 Oliver Cromwell (Brittania class steam loco) & 70013 (Freighliner class 70 diesel) both currently exist, and were both operational on the mainline at the same time for a while.

(Not necessarily) Obviously the steam loco is not that number on TOPS, using to the best of my knowledge 98713.

 

[D6968]

I know this may be slightly outside of the original question, which seems to be more whole classes, but 70013 Oliver Cromwell (Brittania class steam loco) & 70013 (Freighliner class 70 diesel) both currently exist, and were both operational on the mainline at the same time for a while.

(Not necessarily) Obviously the steam loco is not that number on TOPS, using to the best of my knowledge 98713.

Don’t forget 60009! There was a photo of both of them in one of the mags when both were on test in 1990.

 

[Kingston Flyer]

Don’t forget 60009! There was a photo of both of them in one of the mags when both were on test in 1990.

Of course, same principle (98809 in TOPS)

 

[Rescars]

Don’t forget 60009! There was a photo of both of them in one of the mags when both were on test in 1990.

I also recall seeing Hymek D7029 on the Cotswold Line in the early 1970s, whilst 7029 Clun Castle was starting being cared for at Tyseley.

 

[172007]

Quoting from memory, but 30-odd years ago one of the journals claimed it was ten years from the total eradication of a class including all preserved examples - even if only static or not main line compatible. So 41/43 could be reused, 42 couldn't

So, hypothetically a class 42 was built from scratch including the engine and transmission like for like (re-informing this is hypothetical rather than theasible) then mainline registered should it be a Class 43 under TOPS.

I immagine at the end of Steam no one dreamt that Tornado or Patriot et-al would be built.

 

[pdeaves]

So, hypothetically a class 42 was built from scratch including the engine and transmission like for like (re-informing this is hypothetical rather than theasible) then mainline registered should it be a Class 43 under TOPS.

Hypothetically, it could be another 42. You wouldn't be reusing a class number for something else, you would be building another (original) 42.

 

[47296lastduff]

Straying slightly off theme, there was an occasion while class 46s ruled on the Trans Pennines, and a friendly member of staff at Stalybridge informed the local lads that a new 46 was due through that day. They were already on the lookout for this, but knew that the loco was actually kettle 46201 Princess Elizabeth and not a diesel as expected by the railman.

 

[Rescars]

In a related theme to that of reusing numbers is the question of what to do if there are too many units to fit the class number sequence in the first place. Thus all the permutations by the GWR in numbering their 57xx class pannier tanks not only as 57xx, but also as 37xx, 67xx, 77xx, 87xx and 97xx plus all the x6xx series as well. You have to get creative if you have only 100 numbers to share between 863 locomotives!

 

[Fleetwood Boy]

In a related theme to that of reusing numbers is the question of what to do if there are too many units to fit the class number sequence in the first place. Thus all the permutations by the GWR in numbering their 57xx class pannier tanks not only as 57xx, but also as 37xx, 67xx, 77xx, 87xx and 97xx plus all the x6xx series as well. You have to get creative if you have only 100 numbers to share between 863 locomotives!

Of course we can close to finding out if there had been a few more 08s.

 

[47296lastduff]

The only reason that there were enough 08 numbers was that quite a lot of locos had been withdrawn before TOPS renumbering started.

 

[delt1c]

The only reason that there were enough 08 numbers was that quite a lot of locos had been withdrawn before TOPS renumbering started

996 08's built so enough numbers, the others were 09 , 10 and non classified with other engines

 

[Harvester]

996 08's built so enough numbers, the others were 09 , 10 and non classified with other engines

Did the 6 used to form the three Class 13s come from these 996, or was the overall total 1002?

 

[pdeaves]

Did the 6 used to form the three Class 13s come from these 996, or was the overall total 1002?

They were converted from six of the 996.

 

[Speed43125]

Class 22 was originally a North British diesel hydraulic type. The number was later reused for French locos that arrived at Dollands Moor via the Channel Tunnel. Admittedly, it was just a convenient number as the French machines were already numbered in the 22000 series, but still the 'class number' was reused.

Could you be referring to Class 21? I'm not aware of '22' being reused in a similar manner.

 

[Inversnecky]

21 and 29 were the NB classes iirc.

 

[pdeaves]

Could you be referring to Class 21? I'm not aware of '22' being reused in a similar manner.

21 and 29 were the NB classes iirc.

21/29 were Scottish based diesel electrics. 22 was Western based diesel hydraulic. Visually very similar, the 22 was a little shorter.

 

[Strathclyder]

21/29 were Scottish based diesel electrics. 22 was Western based diesel hydraulic. Visually very similar, the 22 was a little shorter.

And had different bogies to boot; the 21s/29s had Commonwealth bogies while the 22s had (I think; willing to be corrected here) bogies of NBL design.

21/29


22


(all copyrights of attached images remain with their authors)