Are there any instances where the unit number doesn't match sub class?

[YorksLad12]

This website - dated 1999, and somehow still online - states that the 321/9s were under WYPTE ownership in the early days of privatisation:

Interesting! I honestly have no recollection of that. WYPTE did fund half of the fourth carriages on the class 333s, the DfT the other half... which they then threatened to pull funding for. It might have been that they were paid for by WTPTE but immediately handed over to Regional Railways. Slightly before my time, but I never heard mention.

 

[Phil R]

I think with class 73, you only have subclasses 73/0 and 73/1, and 73212/73213 obviously fall under either the /0 or /1 subclass rather than a /2 subclass.

Are there any instances with multiple units where this happens?

Eg 377201 (the original sub class of units with pantographs) is part of 377/2.

Are there any multiple unit numbers that don't have a number part of their unit sub class?

Interesting to know.

And bonus points if anyone can tell me why Electeostars didn't get a /0 sub class designation (be it 377 through to 377/7 and 387), eg no 377001, no 387001, but there is for 357001

Further to the three digit shorthand discussed above, Electrostar numbering may have some roots in the erstwhile 4 digit shorthand used on the Southern and which still sweetly continues in some cases and conversations today, e.g. 375601 is 5601, 377601 is 7601.

 

[tfw756rider]

The 172/2s start at 211 because the carriage numbers 502xx / 792xx ending with 01-08 are taken by 170201-170208.

However, the carriage numbers for 172001-008 and 172101-172104 are in a completely different sequence.

Oh wow, many thanks for this!

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I think in cases like this we really do need someone to have a close look at the relevant data panels and reporting back on this thread.

I've just looked at EMR 158889 at Sheffield and can confirm it is marked up as just a class 158.

Photo shows the TOPS data panel of vehicle 57808 from unit 158889 showing "class 158" designation

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've just looked at EMR 158889 at Sheffield and can confirm it is marked up as just a class 158.

Photo shows the TOPS data panel of vehicle 57808 from unit 158889 showing "class 158" designation

Thank you; hopefully some of the other queries will get looked at by a few people similarly as well, and we can solve some more of this.

 

[tfw756rider]

I've just looked at EMR 158889 at Sheffield and can confirm it is marked up as just a class 158.

Photo shows the TOPS data panel of vehicle 57808 from unit 158889 showing "class 158" designation

Is there another "Class 158" data panel in addition to the
"158___DMS"
one?

I'm sure I've seen seperate "unit" and "vehicle" data panels before.

 

[Spartacus]

Technically shouldn't all 158s be now 159s? The 158s that went from TPE to SWTs and were converted to 159s by fitting them with toilet retention tanks (apparently no drawings could be found so a 159 tank had to be removed, disassembled and reverse engineered; pleasant job....) seemingly confirmed the difference between the two WAS just the tanks, and now they all have tanks, soooooo......

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I stumbled across Network Rail's 153311 at Cleethorpes earlier, and found that it is classed as a 153/2!

Photo shows the TOPS data panel on the front of 153311

 

[D365]

I stumbled across Network Rail's 153311 at Cleethorpes earlier, and found that it is classed as a 153/2!

Photo shows the TOPS data panel on the front of 153311

A majority of the Class 15x subclasses do not align with the TOPS numbering. Class 158 being a notorious example where, for example, all of the Angel owned units are subclass /0 despite not being numbered as such.

 

[LowLevel]

A majority of the Class 15x subclasses do not align with the TOPS numbering. Class 158 being a notorious example where, for example, all of the Angel owned units are subclass /0 despite not being numbered as such.

153/2 is the Network Rail track recording 153s and indicates they've had the door steps removed to ease the usual gauge route restrictions.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Aren't the 66s the ultimate example of this? There are physical differences (e.g. between the original design and the lower-emissions later builds), but the only difference actually reflected in numbering is that the higher tractive effort ones are numbered in the 666xx range. Other than that the numbering is all over the place.

 

[tfw756rider]

A majority of the Class 15x subclasses do not align with the TOPS numbering. Class 158 being a notorious example where, for example, all of the Angel owned units are subclass /0 despite not being numbered as such.

Yes, and again, this is because the Sprinter family classes (from 150/1 onwards) share the same vehicle numbering system (such as the 52xxx and 57xxx numbers of the driving vehicles), which is why, with the unit numbers, after the 150/1s being 1501xx and the 150/2s being 1502xx, the 155s are 1553xx (most of which were converted to 153s of course, hence 1533xx), the 156s are 1564xx and 1565xx (4xx into 5xx due to more than 99 units, so also doing the thing the 450s do, which go from 0xx into 1xx) and the 158/0s are 1587xx and 1588xx (again, also doing the "450 thing").