Another thread about TOPS...

[TRAX]

This time it's a bit different... my question is simple -- why is it that nowadays, subclasses seem to be used much less (if at all) than they used to be ?

It seems today every variant of a train is its own class, even when the differences are minor enough to have been considered subclasses 20 years ago.
An example (among many) is the Civity range. 20 years ago, wouldn't the 196s and 197s have both been classified as the same class but as different subclasses ? Indeed the Class 172 does integrate two versions which have more differences than the two mentioned Civity classes have.

Now everytime an operator orders a train, it's got its own number. The AT300s are another quite obvious example.

 

[Spartacus]

Tell me about it. Did the 'rot' set in in the early 90s with 158/159 (a 159 essentially being a 158 with a retention tank, so really should all 158s now be 159s?) and some of the Networker types, though given the number of engine types some classes have had, making the 48s a separate class and not a subclass of 47s was maybe a marginal call.

 

[RUK]

I suppose it’ll revert back to how it used to be fairly soon, with re-nationalisation, with the exception of the open access and non-English operators.

 

[TRAX]

I suppose it’ll revert back to how it used to be fairly soon, with re-nationalisation, with the exception of the open access and non-English operators.

Is the switch to GBR going to change anything in the TOPS numbering system ?

 

[RUK]

Presumably it was the operators who wanted a new class number each time to make their trains seem different from the others, so now there will be a single operator, there won’t be that motivation.

 

[D365]

An example (among many) is the Civity range. 20 years ago, wouldn't the 196s and 197s have both been classified as the same class but as different subclasses ? Indeed the Class 172 does integrate two versions which have more differences than the two mentioned Civity classes have.

Now everytime an operator orders a train, it's got its own number. The AT300s are another quite obvious example.

The Class 172s can, and do, operate in multiple. I recall reading that Class 196 and Class 197 are not compatible, therefore it wouldn't make operational sense to have them as the same class.