Class 700 getting confused with Class 70 (700001 vs 70001)

[Condor7]

I have just been looking at photos of the new Thameslink 700, numbered 700001.

Does that not seem very similar to the class 70's i.e. 70001 etc and could this lead to confusion or errors within the rail industry?

 

[bolli]

I have just been looking at photos of the new Thameslink 700, numbered 700001.

Does that not seem very similar to the class 70's i.e. 70001 etc and could this lead to confusion or errors within the rail industry?

Surely no different to something along the lines of the 31 vs 310?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have just been looking at photos of the new Thameslink 700, numbered 700001.

Does that not seem very similar to the class 70's i.e. 70001 etc and could this lead to confusion or errors within the rail industry?

The numbers are properly 70 001 and 700 001, so quite different.
The two numbers should not be run together (in an ideal world...).
Life was easier when we had D and E prefixes to loco numbers.

 

[Loki]

Shouldn't newly produced units also have their UIC numbers printed? I though all traction needs to have it since 2007?

 

[D7666]

Shouldn't newly produced units also have their UIC numbers printed? I though all traction needs to have it since 2007?

No.

There is no UIC requirement for pure domestic traction to display full UIC numbers.

Here domestic means the stock of any railway captive with any one land.

--
Nick

 

[swt_passenger]

Shouldn't newly produced units also have their UIC numbers printed? I though all traction needs to have it since 2007?

The 2011 version of the group standard on rolling stock registration and identification is fairly complex but AFAICT does still allow that what is now known as the full EVN (European Vehicle Number) doesn't have to be externally or internally displayed if a unit, coach or loco is not intended for international use. Basically the front part and check digit can be left off what is displayed, leaving a '7 digit' number for each vehicle. MU set numbers remain as a 6 digit number with 3 for the class and 3 for the number.

Here's a link: http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

D7666 had already said as much, but I'll leave this in case anyone wants to follow the link...

 

[dosxuk]

What sort of confusion and errors? If it's on paper, the difference should be obvious, and if it's identifying them in real life, even more obvious - if it's belching smoke and flames, it's a 70, otherwise it's a 700.

 

[eastwestdivide]

You could equally well argue that 70001 and 70011 are very similar and could lead to confusion or errors. The possibility of human error being the driving factor behind the UIC check digit I suppose.
I say print a barcode on all rolling stock and give all staff a barcode reader! That'll fool those pesky trainspotters. Could lead to some interesting accidental transactions in the station cafe bar too - two cappuccinos and a line of coal hoppers, that'll be £££ - cash or card?

 

[ash39]

As long as you can correctly identify the difference between three zeros and four zeros, or a bright green and yellow diesel loco vs a passenger EMU, it should be fine.

If not, I think it's the least of your worries!

 

[D7666]

375301 375701 etc meeting 377301 377501 etc, or 377601 meeting 376001, all of which cross each other paths, and so on, seems to go OK, potentially several times an hour, every day.



--
Nick

 

[table38]

Surely you could solve the problem by adding an md5 hash to all TOPS numbers, ie:

700018456555f62f58c0e43c8f45d52b3e4b3
700001c543e78865002ff0471267d0cf4dfac2

An obvious solution which I can't see any problems with at all

 

[jopsuk]

struggling to imagine what possible situation there could be any confusion and what possible consequences it could have.

 

[route:oxford]

I have just been looking at photos of the new Thameslink 700, numbered 700001.

Does that not seem very similar to the class 70's i.e. 70001 etc and could this lead to confusion or errors within the rail industry?

Don't ever apply for a job where you need to manage a budget.

 

[ash39]

Haha! Or in payroll

 

[samuelmorris]

He's right, in the sense that someone's bound to get that wrong on numerous occasions. The vast majority of the time though, it will be abundantly obvious what is meant.

 

[tjlrailblue]

Didn't BR try out bar codes on locos?

 

[bolli]

Didn't BR try out bar codes on locos?

Thats sure to please people in possession of a red pen...

 

[Yew]

He's right, in the sense that someone's bound to get that wrong on numerous occasions. The vast majority of the time though, it will be abundantly obvious what is meant.

Maybe there will be an occasion where 70001 is running thunderbird for 700001? Then it wont matter

 

[33056]

Then you can have 70013:



or 70013



Also 60009:



or 60009!



(I know the kettles have different TOPS numbers )

 

[Lockwood]

And both 70013s are likely to contain fire?

 

[AndyNLondon]

What sort of confusion and errors? If it's on paper, the difference should be obvious, and if it's identifying them in real life, even more obvious - if it's belching smoke and flames, it's a 70, otherwise it's a 700.

I'm sure there have been occasions when EMUs have been belching smoke & flames, although in that case the number should be the least of anyone's worries...

 

[dosxuk]

although in that case the number should be the least of anyone's worries...

But it'll probably start with 442

 

[D7666]

Then you can have 70013:
or 70013

Also 60009:
or 60009!


(I know the kettles have different TOPS numbers )

Indeed, but, as I'm sure commented before, it is interesting how some kettle numbers coincide with kettles e.g.

SR Q1 and BR SR D6500 - 33001 etc

BR 9F and BR 92 - 92001 etc

--
Nick

 

[zn1]

RSL will if the have any sense allocate unit numbers as a subclass 700 that they cannot be mixed up with locos, the old demu fleet Motor coaches were renumbered so that they couldnt be confused with class 60's

why they cannot reuse the 302-312's im not sure...it would certainly make more sense