Gaps in the locomotive class numbering scheme.

[Helvellyn]

Not relevant with the loco class scheme as this predated TOPS by several years.

Coaching stock could always be prefixed on TOPS and was with NPCCS, on TOPS way before passenger carrying stock was added. BR wagons were also prefixed.

Class 41 was reallocated to the prototype HST power cars, before they were reclassified as coaching stock.

What drove the 1984/85 renunbering of a large number of LHCS and NPCCs to avoid clashes with locos and EMU coaches, plus the 50xxx and 56xxx DMU coach renumberings if the system could handle duplicates?

 

[43096]

The Class 25 subclasses did not follow the rules, however.

Nor did the 24s and 26s.

 

[Taunton]

I suspect that the detailed renumbering schedules were worked on by more than one person, who each went their own way on certain aspects.

The Class 03 shunters had the same three ending digits as in their old scheme, despite there being large gaps, which none of the other classes did, This actually seemed a sensible thing to strive for, as it makes it easier to merge old and new technical records without errors. It's not as if there was any shortage of numbers within each class.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have seen it stated before that the "TOPS renumbering" wasn't actually for TOPS, but for the introduction of RAVERS.

If that had killed off the Class 38 project it reappeared in the 1980s. The six Class 37/9 conversions were for testing proposed power units for the Class 38. What finally killed Class 38 off was Railfreight changing their requirement to a Type 5 heavy haul loco - what we now know as Class 60.

Do you know if RAVERS is still used?
I remember going to a Railfreight meeting when two new systems for recording maintenance were mentioned; LOVERS (Local Vehicle Recording System, I think) and RAVERS (possibly Rail Vehicle Engineering Record System) but the difference between the two seems to be opaque, at least to me. Perhaps the two were merged.
As you say, the 'Class 38 project' continued to be mentioned in Trainload Freight's traction plans but I hadn't connected its demise with the 'Heavy Haul' project. I formed the opinion that both projects were business-led (certainly the class 60 was) possibly because of a lack of confidence, shall we say, in the CM&EE Derby organisation. Checking out the number of layers of paint actually applied to locos after overhaul vs the spec for instance.

 

[The exile]

What drove the 1984/85 renunbering of a large number of LHCS and NPCCs to avoid clashes with locos and EMU coaches, plus the 50xxx and 56xxx DMU coach renumberings if the system could handle duplicates?

There is presumably a difference between a system’s ability to cope with duplicates and the desireability of actually having lots of them. Also - the “system” is more than just a computer - it also includes humans and (no doubt for a long transition periods) paper lists etc.

 

[43096]

Do you know if RAVERS is still used?

It is no longer used and has been replaced by R2.

I remember going to a Railfreight meeting when two new systems for recording maintenance were mentioned; LOVERS (Local Vehicle Recording System, I think) and RAVERS (possibly Rail Vehicle Engineering Record System) but the difference between the two seems to be opaque, at least to me. Perhaps the two were merged.

RAVERS was Rail Vehicle Records System.

As you say, the 'Class 38 project' continued to be mentioned in Trainload Freight's traction plans but I hadn't connected its demise with the 'Heavy Haul' project. I formed the opinion that both projects were business-led (certainly the class 60 was) possibly because of a lack of confidence, shall we say, in the CM&EE Derby organisation. Checking out the number of layers of paint actually applied to locos after overhaul vs the spec for instance.

 

[thedbdiboy]

My understanding, although I can’t find the reference, is that they were allocated Class 41 in the early draft for the class numbers scheme, but were withdrawn before even the earliest use of the numbers. By ‘use’ I mean in paperwork, not painting on. However, they didn’t muck about with the draft scheme as there was then no need to free up a number in that area.

All five D600s were withdrawn on 31 December 1967. I can’t see BR keeping a class open just in case some preservationists might use it; in those days who preserved diesels? I believe that the only reason D601 lasted so long was that Woodhams found cutting up D600 such a heavy job that they moved to easier jobs, like lots and lots of wagons. There was apparently a proposal to preserve D601 in the late 1970s, but by then Class 41 had already been used.

The D600s were never 'Class 41'; they were all withdrawn before any class numbers were allocated in 1968, and retrospective myth-making has given them this title. Their BR classification was Class D20/2, using the BTC system that predated the 1968 one.

 

[Harlequinuk]

The D600s were never 'Class 41'; they were all withdrawn before any class numbers were allocated in 1968, and retrospective myth-making has given them this title. Their BR classification was Class D20/2, using the BTC system that predated the 1968 one.

Was the Bulleid Diesel, the 10203 given D20/3? Afetr all it was a 2000 hp version of the D 16/2

 

[Gloster]

The D600s were never 'Class 41'; they were all withdrawn before any class numbers were allocated in 1968, and retrospective myth-making has given them this title. Their BR classification was Class D20/2, using the BTC system that predated the 1968 one.

No, and that it was not what I meant. What I said was that in the very early drafts before any official class numbers were officially, or even semi-officially, allocated a space was left for them as Class 41. However, by the time that the first semi-official drafts were distributed, they had gone or were definitely going and 41 did not get allocated. As you note, I always refer to them as D600s.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Do you know if RAVERS is still used?
I remember going to a Railfreight meeting when two new systems for recording maintenance were mentioned; LOVERS (Local Vehicle Recording System, I think) and RAVERS (possibly Rail Vehicle Engineering Record System) but the difference between the two seems to be opaque, at least to me. Perhaps the two were merged.
As you say, the 'Class 38 project' continued to be mentioned in Trainload Freight's traction plans but I hadn't connected its demise with the 'Heavy Haul' project. I formed the opinion that both projects were business-led (certainly the class 60 was) possibly because of a lack of confidence, shall we say, in the CM&EE Derby organisation. Checking out the number of layers of paint actually applied to locos after overhaul vs the spec for instance.

As far as depots were concerned LVRS was introduced as a stand alone work recording system at each depot and it was eventually mainframed as RAVERS.

The move to class numbers was indeed with an eye to what eventually became RAVERS. The lack of money and resources for BR to computerise everything at once slowed the development process and PAMMS, the M&EE Plant and Machinery Maintenance System was also slow in being introduced.

When TOPS (POIS) for passenger coaching stock was being considered, the dropping of the regional prefix was seen as a good thing but with many depots now dealing with locos, coaches and multiple units, it was felt for TOPS, RAVERS and IMACS (the stores system) purposes that one common number series was desirable. So when a member of staff input a number, there was no chance of duplication.

Latterly on BR, a vehicle number being input into the various systems led not only to maintenance information being recorded but also financial information. A loco or coach or unit would have a job number automatically attached to it so when work done was booked or stores issued, it would lead to costs being allocated. BR’s AXIS II finance system was very sophisticated and it could be interrogated in detail at various BR management levels because of the coding structures associated with both locations and activities.

 

[Harlequinuk]

No, and that it was not what I meant. What I said was that in the very early drafts before any official class numbers were officially, or even semi-officially, allocated a space was left for them as Class 41. However, by the time that the first semi-official drafts were distributed, they had gone or were definitely going and 41 did not get allocated. As you note, I always refer to them as D600s.

What D7666 and others have said is, there`s no proof of that

 

[thedbdiboy]

Was the Bulleid Diesel, the 10203 given D20/3? After all it was a 2000 hp version of the D 16/2

According to the BR loco database it was grouped with 10201/2 as a D16/2. Whether that's correct or not I don't know.

 

[marsker]

Wasn't Class 41 used for the prototype HST power cars?

 

[Acathater]

According to the BR loco database it was grouped with 10201/2 as a D16/2. Whether that's correct or not I don't know.

Logically if 10201/2 were D16/2 then 10203 should have been D20/2
The /2 indicated the manufacturer

 

[norbitonflyer]

Wasn't Class 41 used for the prototype HST power cars?

It was, but they hadn't been thought of when the original classification list was published in 1968. The project was authorised in 1970 and the train was completed in 1972. Originally a test rig, but was used in passenger service from 1975.
(Why does it take so much longer to get from contract to in-service now?)

 

[Taunton]

The move to class numbers was indeed with an eye to what eventually became RAVERS. The lack of money and resources for BR to computerise everything at once slowed the development process and PAMMS, the M&EE Plant and Machinery Maintenance System was also slow in being introduced.

Which makes it surprising why the expensive TOPS system got priority. The main advantage of TOPS on Southern Pacific was in handling wagon logistics, locomotives just being a significant by-product. Yet in Britain wagonload was on the skids by 1970. SP had a few thousand diesel locos, but over 100,000 freight cars, and the run-through from other railroads, and the private lessors, was far more for freight cars than locos. When TOPS was introduced there were various ones never found again, and a couple SP didn't know they had !

 

[Magdalia]

The main advantage of TOPS on Southern Pacific was in handling wagon logistics, locomotives just being a significant by-product.

That was the same for BR. TOPS was first and foremost for wagons.

Yet in Britain wagonload was on the skids by 1970.

BR did not think that in 1970. It was still running wagonload class 8 freights between marshalling yards until the early 1980s, and used TOPS to develop the Speedlink service of air braked wagon load freight. Furthermore, the government was giving grant aid for sidings giving industrial companies access to the Speedlink operation. In the 1970s and 1980s the most important freights in East Anglia were the Speedlinks to and from Harwich not the intermodal traffic.

 

[Taunton]

That was the same for BR. TOPS was first and foremost for wagons.

Associated with TOPS on SP was a USA supposedly-national system to identify passing freight cars, called KarTrak, which came along in the 1960s, using coloured bar codes on the side of vehicles, and trackside readers. That's been replaced more than once with better technology but you still see old KarTrak barcodes on a few older vehicles. Knowing what was where was a key issue, a junior clerical grade there was the 'Number taker', at marshalling yards etc, just noting the numbers on what was passing in and out, though inevitably by the time it was collated in any meaningful way things had moved on and the freight car was hopefully hundreds of miles further on. Its main use was in following up cars which were 'lost'. TOPS on SP was designed to interface with KarTrak, and probably still does with the replacement systems, I understand they now use RFID tags.

Described further here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KarTrak

Knowing what was coming into a marshalling yard ("Classification Yard") was key information for working out what to hump where, and the formation of onward outgoing trains, where TOPS really scored. Early BR TOPS lists of freight train formations I once noticed were called "Consists", a USA expression not I think used in the UK beforehand.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I suspect that the detailed renumbering schedules were worked on by more than one person, who each went their own way on certain aspects.

The Class 03 shunters had the same three ending digits as in their old scheme, despite there being large gaps, which none of the other classes did, This actually seemed a sensible thing to strive for, as it makes it easier to merge old and new technical records without errors. It's not as if there was any shortage of numbers within each class.

There werer very few classes with large gaps in 1973.
Class 03 followed the usual pattern of preserving the last two digits (three in the cases of classes 03, 20, 24 and 55), with only the class leader given an out of sequence number - not needed in the case of class 03 as D2000 had already been withdrawn.
Other classes, especially those where the class leader's number did not end in 00 or 01, were generally numbered in sequence from 001 (eg classes 01, 31/0, 46), with any gaps closed up (eg Class 09, 31/1, 47/0, 81). This pattern was also used for Class 08, in order to fit them all in
Classes with more-or-less random subclasses also had the gaps closed up, with newly converted examples added on the end as they were converted,, eg classes 31/4, 45/1, 47/4, 86/2 (which of course left gaps in the subclass from which they ahd been converted)

 

[Helvellyn]

Yhank

As far as depots were concerned LVRS was introduced as a stand alone work recording system at each depot and it was eventually mainframed as RAVERS.

The move to class numbers was indeed with an eye to what eventually became RAVERS. The lack of money and resources for BR to computerise everything at once slowed the development process and PAMMS, the M&EE Plant and Machinery Maintenance System was also slow in being introduced.

When TOPS (POIS) for passenger coaching stock was being considered, the dropping of the regional prefix was seen as a good thing but with many depots now dealing with locos, coaches and multiple units, it was felt for TOPS, RAVERS and IMACS (the stores system) purposes that one common number series was desirable. So when a member of staff input a number, there was no chance of duplication.

Latterly on BR, a vehicle number being input into the various systems led not only to maintenance information being recorded but also financial information. A loco or coach or unit would have a job number automatically attached to it so when work done was booked or stores issued, it would lead to costs being allocated. BR’s AXIS II finance system was very sophisticated and it could be interrogated in detail at various BR management levels because of the coding structures associated with both locations and activities.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of all those systems but the explanation now makes sense of the 1984/85 renumberings that cleared whole number ranges, whilst by the late 1980s it was acceptable just to be much narrower - a couple of Class 101 trailers were renumbered from 5910x to 5911x to allow for the ARC Class 59s (59101-59104), or the BGs in the 920xx range being renumbered to 929xx to cater for the Class 92s.

What I don't understand is the rules over number re-use. I have seen it stated several times that seven years was needed, but in the two cases above for Class 59/1 and 92 that clearly wasn't the case. Yet in the second batch of Mk 2F RFB conversions 1257 was supposedly not used because a 1257 had existed in the last seven years (I can only presume the original being an ex-SR Parcels Van). There were also gaps in the Mk 3 RFM conversions (10239, 10243, 10244) which might have been ex 4-SUB vehicle numbers deemed too soon to re-use?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What I don't understand is the rules over number re-use. I have seen it stated several times that seven years was needed, but in the two cases above for Class 59/1 and 92 that clearly wasn't the case. Yet in the second batch of Mk 2F RFB conversions 1257 was supposedly not used because a 1257 had existed in the last seven years (I can only presume the original being an ex-SR Parcels Van). There were also gaps in the Mk 3 RFM conversions (10239, 10243, 10244) which might have been ex 4-SUB vehicle numbers deemed too soon to re-use?

In the case of clearing a range to avoid an existing duplicate, the seven year rule wouldn't need to apply as both numbers already existed therefore one would still exist - or in the examples you have quoted, would be deemed to already exist. they probably had some variation of the rule to allow for that based on how logical the new class number is for the locomotives.

Not that logic and numbering always go together... as we have often seen!

...and yes, the 10xxx carriage numbers would have matched some of the longer lived 4-SUB carriages.

 

[The exile]

Yhank

Thank you. I wasn't aware of all those systems but the explanation now makes sense of the 1984/85 renumberings that cleared whole number ranges, whilst by the late 1980s it was acceptable just to be much narrower - a couple of Class 101 trailers were renumbered from 5910x to 5911x to allow for the ARC Class 59s (59101-59104), or the BGs in the 920xx range being renumbered to 929xx to cater for the Class 92s.

What I don't understand is the rules over number re-use. I have seen it stated several times that seven years was needed, but in the two cases above for Class 59/1 and 92 that clearly wasn't the case. Yet in the second batch of Mk 2F RFB conversions 1257 was supposedly not used because a 1257 had existed in the last seven years (I can only presume the original being an ex-SR Parcels Van). There were also gaps in the Mk 3 RFM conversions (10239, 10243, 10244) which might have been ex 4-SUB vehicle numbers deemed too soon to re-use?

Was there a difference in terms of whether the reuse was in a different category (Loco vs NPCCS for example) or two “similar” vehicles (emu car vs hauled stock)?

 

[Taunton]

There were very few classes with large gaps in 1973.
Class 03 followed the usual pattern of preserving the last two digits (three in the cases of classes 03, 20, 24 and 55), with only the class leader given an out of sequence number - not needed in the case of class 03 as D2000 had already been withdrawn.
Other classes, especially those where the class leader's number did not end in 00 or 01, were generally numbered in sequence from 001 (eg classes 01, 31/0, 46), with any gaps closed up (eg Class 09, 31/1, 47/0, 81). This pattern was also used for Class 08, in order to fit them all in
Classes with more-or-less random subclasses also had the gaps closed up, with newly converted examples added on the end as they were converted,, eg classes 31/4, 45/1, 47/4, 86/2 (which of course left gaps in the subclass from which they had been converted)

I wouldn't say it was a policy to preserve the las 2/3 digits, that just happened by chance because each class started at 001, it was just a chance if the old numbers of a class did the same.

Taking the class leader previously ending 000 and putting it on the end was likewise a personal preference. TOPS had no issue with loco numbers ending in 000. I've posted here before a photo of Southern Pacific Class SD9 No 3000, which the system happily handled. One of the features of original TOPS was it had to handle many vehicles, locos, freight cars etc, running through onto the Southern Pacific from other systems; they couldn't insist on a standardised numbering scheme because unlike BR they didn't control many of them. If Union Pacific sent through their number 3000 as well it was entered as UP3000.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Was there a difference in terms of whether the reuse was in a different category (Loco vs NPCCS for example) or two “similar” vehicles (emu car vs hauled stock)?

It was to put all vehicles in a common number range with locos not being altered. So passenger stock had to fit around the locos.

The pre-nationalisation coaching stock existing in around 1983 gives you the guide as to what numbers were left blank for the subsequent issue of numbers. Reuse was done under common rules for all types of stock.

 

[Helvellyn]

It was to put all vehicles in a common number range with locos not being altered. So passenger stock had to fit around the locos.

It would appear the whole range clearance only applied in the early 1980s when the hauled and multiple unit stock renunberings happened though.

Class 59s appeared mid-1980s and 59001-59004 being locos didn't need the entire load of 59xxx DMU centre trailer cars to be renumbered into a new range.

 

[Grumpy]

Why was there no D6000?
We had D1000, D2000 etc up to D9000 but no D6000. Was this intended for a class that was cancelled?

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

My copy of the 1974 Ian Allan "British Railways Locomotives and other Motive Power" lists class 41 as the prototype HST power cars and class 53 as Falcon, 1200.

 

[Falcon1200]

Taking the class leader previously ending 000 and putting it on the end was likewise a personal preference. TOPS had no issue with loco numbers ending in 000. I've posted here before a photo of Southern Pacific Class SD9 No 3000, which the system happily handled.

Is there not a slight difference in the meaning of the numbering systems though? The SP loco mentioned is number 3000, as was the first Class 08 before renumbering, and although it did not apply to that particular loco, 08000 would actually have been Class 08 number 000, which might be why such numbers were not used.

 

[xotGD]

Is there not a slight difference in the meaning of the numbering systems though? The SP loco mentioned is number 3000, as was the first Class 08 before renumbering, and although it did not apply to that particular loco, 08000 would actually have been Class 08 number 000, which might be why such numbers were not used.

I've always thought it was strange that in pre-TOPS days class numbering always started with number zero.

 

[Harpo]

On class 41 for the prototype power cars and 43 for production, in day-to-day ops throughout the BR years they were only ever referred to as plain ‘HST’ or class 252/3/4, the set designations.