DRS Class 88 ?

[Bright Boy]

I note that the new dual powered loco's ordered by DRS are to be Class 88, shouldn't they be Class 78 ? I ask this because the Class 73's were electric with a diesel engine (dual powered) and 78 is the next number in order that has not been used.

 

[Boothby97]

Well the Class 73 is an Electo-Diesel capable of working off 3rd rail electric, whereas the Class 88 will be capable of working off overhead wires.

 

[Freightmaster]

I note that the new dual powered loco's ordered by DRS are to be Class 88, shouldn't they be Class 78 ? I ask this because the Class 73's were electric with a diesel engine (dual powered) and 78 is the next number in order that has not been used.

AFAIK, the 7x classes were for DC 3rd rail* electro-diesels,
whereas 88s will be 25Kv AC overhead locos.

* to be pedantic, there were also pantographs on some locos
for use in yards.



MARK

 

[swt_passenger]

I note that the new dual powered loco's ordered by DRS are to be Class 88, shouldn't they be Class 78 ? I ask this because the Class 73's were electric with a diesel engine (dual powered) and 78 is the next number in order that has not been used.

Future loco class number allocations were altered in the revised group standard issued a couple of years ago, at the same time as EMUs in the 700s, Fast MUs in the 800s and display of six digit carriage (vehicle) numbers were all introduced.

The revised 'loco' system has 10-79 for diesels, and 80 - 96 for electrics, with 73 remaining out of sequence for those already existing.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

Table A1 refers to loco classes.

 

[Bright Boy]

Well the Class 73 is an Electo-Diesel capable of working off 3rd rail electric, whereas the Class 88 will be capable of working off overhead wires.

Class 76 and 77 were powered from overhead wires.

Do you mean it is in the Class 80's because it's main power source is from the 25,000kv ac overhead wires and the Class 70's were because there main power source was from 7500v dc 3rd rail or 1500v dc overhead wires?

 

[455driver]

AFAIK, the 7x classes were for DC 3rd rail* electro-diesels,
whereas 88s will be 25Kv AC overhead locos.

* to be pedantic, there were also pantographs on some locos
for use in yards.



MARK

The 7x series was for DC locos, whether 3rd rail (73,74) or overhead (76,77).

 

[Bright Boy]

Future loco class number allocations were altered in the revised group standard issued a couple of years ago, at the same time as EMUs in the 700s, Fast MUs in the 800s and display of six digit carriage (vehicle) numbers were all introduced.

The revised 'loco' system has 10-79 for diesels, and 80 - 96 for electrics, with 73 remaining out of sequence for those already existing.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf

Table A1 refers to loco classes.

thanks swt_passenger, I just looked at that web address and you are correct, however it does not give a classification for new electro-diesels which is what the new loco's are, are they not? but it sheds more light on the matter, I suppose they are classifying them as an electric loco despite the fact they have a "last mile" diesel engine as well, and it explains the new Class 70's used by Freightliner and Colas, you have been most helpful, I had not seen this before, thanks very much.

 

[swt_passenger]

thanks swt_passenger, I just looked at that web address and you are correct, however it does not give a classification for new electro-diesels which is what the new loco's are, are they not? but it sheds more light on the matter, I suppose they are classifying them as an electric loco despite the fact they have a "last mile" diesel engine as well, and it explains the new Class 70's used by Freightliner and Colas, you have been most helpful, I had not seen this before, thanks very much.

I suspect that they don't see any likelihood of a brand new version of a 73, so they sort of only need two main types, diesel and electric; with the 88's 'last mile' diesel capability being a relatively minor detail.

 

[Bright Boy]

I suspect that they don't see any likelihood of a brand new version of a 73, so they sort of only need two main types, diesel and electric; with the 88's 'last mile' diesel capability being a relatively minor detail.

You are probably right, the classification of loco's as always fascinated and confused me at the same time!

I have been interested in finding out the "missing" older class numbers. in the same vein, I was wondering whether Class 72 was allocated to the first class 73's the "JA's"?

 

[apk55]

If we made any more 3rd rail locos they would probably be dual voltage units with 25KV so they would 80 to 90 clasification.

 

[Bright Boy]

If we made any more 3rd rail locos they would probably be dual voltage units with 25KV so they would 80 to 90 clasification.

like the 92's?

 

[themiller]

I note that the new dual powered loco's ordered by DRS are to be Class 88, shouldn't they be Class 78 ? I ask this because the Class 73's were electric with a diesel engine (dual powered) and 78 is the next number in order that has not been used.

Sorry to disagree but the 78xxx number series has been used - for vehicles in various EMU classes! This would rule out any chance of locos being numbered in that series without a big renumbering project which would probably not be worth the money, even if the locos were DC + diesel.

 

[Bright Boy]

Sorry to disagree but the 78xxx number series has been used - for vehicles in various EMU classes! This would rule out any chance of locos being numbered in that series without a big renumbering project which would probably not be worth the money, even if the locos were DC + diesel.

I'm not sure that is the case ?, they are vehicle no.s of EMU classes, such as Class 321, there have been several DMU, DEMU & EMU vehicles/cars numbered in same way as locomotive classes, e.g. 55xxx, 56xxx, 59xxx, 60xxx (just some of the ones I can think of at the top of my head), they were numbered such despite having Class 55 Deltics, and subsequent Class 56 Grids and 60 Tugs.

If that were the case the Grids and Tugs would surely not have received the Class no. allocation that they did.

I can see that there might be some confusion with the car numbers of DMU's and the numbers of loco's on paper or in a computer system so I understand where you are coming from, so why did the above have similar vehicle no.s ?

Are car/vehicle no.s on DMU/EMU's used in a different way ? and if so does the confusion therefore not apply ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a slightly different tack, does anyone know if the 78 Class was allocated, but to a loco planned but not built, such as the proposed Class 38's and 88's in the 80's

 

[contrex]

I have been interested in finding out the "missing" older class numbers. in the same vein, I was wondering whether Class 72 was allocated to the first class 73's the "JA's"?

The JAs were initially going to have class 72 when TOPS came in, but in the end the JAs became class 73/0 and the JBs became class 73/1. There was a class 75 reserved for a never-built "super electro-diesel". If you are interested in the "missing" class numbers you may wish to look at this Wikipedia list of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Rail_unbuilt_locomotive_classes

 

[Bright Boy]

The JAs were initially going to have class 72 when TOPS came in, but in the end the JAs became class 73/0 and the JBs became class 73/1. There was a class 75 reserved for a never-built "super electro-diesel". If you are interested in the "missing" class numbers you may wish to look at this Wikipedia list of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Rail_unbuilt_locomotive_classes

Thanks contrex, that's most helpful, I have seen that Wikipedia article before, but I had forgotten about it, I tend to avoid Wikipedia as the information on it is sometimes in error, but I will look at this again

 

[Boothby97]

I'm not sure that is the case ?, they are vehicle no.s of EMU classes, such as Class 321, there have been several DMU, DEMU & EMU vehicles/cars numbered in same way as locomotive classes, e.g. 55xxx, 56xxx, 59xxx, 60xxx (just some of the ones I can think of at the top of my head), they were numbered such despite having Class 55 Deltics, and subsequent Class 56 Grids and 60 Tugs.



If that were the case the Grids and Tugs would surely not have received the Class no. allocation that they did.



I can see that there might be some confusion with the car numbers of DMU's and the numbers of loco's on paper or in a computer system so I understand where you are coming from, so why did the above have similar vehicle no.s ?



Are car/vehicle no.s on DMU/EMU's used in a different way ? and if so does the confusion therefore not apply ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a slightly different tack, does anyone know if the 78 Class was allocated, but to a loco planned but not built, such as the proposed Class 38's and 88's in the 80's

I have just dug through the latest Platform 5 books to find this.
First of all, an example of new locos being numbered to avoid clashes with Multiple Unit coaches is the Colas Rail 70s. Freightliner 70s were already in the 700xx series, and with the 701xx, 702xx, 703xx, 704xx, 705xx, 706xx and 707xx series all used for vehicles in the 377/6s and 377/7s, they had to use the 708xx series.

Now to the 78xxx series.
78049-162 Class 321 Driving Cars (DTCO)
78163-167 Class 322 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78201-230 Class 375/8 Trailer Car (TSO)
78250-273 Class 456 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78274-311 Class 321 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78312-354 Class 466 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78400-427 Class 332 Driving Cars (DMSO/DMFO)
78431-435 Class 360/2 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78441-445 Class 360/2 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78451-482 Class 333 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78501-564 Class 377/1 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78571-585 Class 377/2 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78601-675 Class 377/4 Trailer Cars (TSO)
78701-764 Class 377/1 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78771-785 Class 377/2 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78801-875 Class 377/4 Motor Cars (MSO)
78901-964 Class 377/1 Trailer Cars (TSO)
78971-985 Class 377/2 Trailer Cars (PTSO)

Don't know how it worked when we had 550xx DMU Cars (121s) and the Deltics in 550xx series. Today there are 562xx, 563xx, 564xx, 566xx, 567xx, 568xx and 569xx series DMU vehicles, that don't class with 56s. There are also Voyager/Meridians vehicles in the 60xxx series, but none that clash with 60001-100 (or 60500 which was renumbered from 60016).

 

[contrex]

I tend to avoid Wikipedia as the information on it is sometimes in error

I agree, but then so is the information in printed material such as books and magazines, sometimes wildly so, but at least on line sources can be corrected. An example is the urban myth that the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification rated voltage is 850 volts to the west of Pirbright Junction, which (I think) arose from an error in a magazine article.

 

[Defiance149]

IDon't know how it worked when we had 550xx DMU Cars (121s) and the Deltics in 550xx series.

Class 121/122 weren't registered on TOPS until after the Deltics were withdrawn so there was no clash as far as the system was concerned.

 

[Bright Boy]

I have just dug through the latest Platform 5 books to find this.
First of all, an example of new locos being numbered to avoid clashes with Multiple Unit coaches is the Colas Rail 70s. Freightliner 70s were already in the 700xx series, and with the 701xx, 702xx, 703xx, 704xx, 705xx, 706xx and 707xx series all used for vehicles in the 377/6s and 377/7s, they had to use the 708xx series.

Now to the 78xxx series.
78049-162 Class 321 Driving Cars (DTCO)
78163-167 Class 322 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78201-230 Class 375/8 Trailer Car (TSO)
78250-273 Class 456 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78274-311 Class 321 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78312-354 Class 466 Driving Cars (DTSO)
78400-427 Class 332 Driving Cars (DMSO/DMFO)
78431-435 Class 360/2 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78441-445 Class 360/2 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78451-482 Class 333 Driving Cars (DMSO)
78501-564 Class 377/1 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78571-585 Class 377/2 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78601-675 Class 377/4 Trailer Cars (TSO)
78701-764 Class 377/1 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78771-785 Class 377/2 Driving Cars (DMCO)
78801-875 Class 377/4 Motor Cars (MSO)
78901-964 Class 377/1 Trailer Cars (TSO)
78971-985 Class 377/2 Trailer Cars (PTSO)

Don't know how it worked when we had 550xx DMU Cars (121s) and the Deltics in 550xx series. Today there are 562xx, 563xx, 564xx, 566xx, 567xx, 568xx and 569xx series DMU vehicles, that don't class with 56s. There are also Voyager/Meridians vehicles in the 60xxx series, but none that clash with 60001-100 (or 60500 which was renumbered from 60016).

I see your point, the Class No.s (i.e. 56) are the same as the first two no's as the DMU car no., but the last three numbers are different to avoid conflict, like you say about the Class 70's and 377 EMU's.

It has not always been a perfect system though, just a brief glance at the Class 56"grids" shows that there is a 56201 (or was until recently) renumbered from 56009, and yet Turbostar 170201 has middle car 56201. Last I heard the Grid was in store at Booths for parts removal and scrapping so it is no longer in Capital Stock, but it was for a while ?

Have there been more exceptions to this rule ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, but then so is the information in printed material such as books and magazines, sometimes wildly so, but at least on line sources can be corrected. An example is the urban myth that the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification rated voltage is 850 volts to the west of Pirbright Junction, which (I think) arose from an error in a magazine article.

I have been studying Railway History for several years now, particularly about Railway companies pre-grouping, I have looked at Wikipedia on several occasions, they have some very interesting and informative sections in this matter, they have Railway Clearing House diagrams which is particularly useful, however some of the information in the text is incorrect, particularly opening/closing dates of line/stations I have also found some locomotive names/numbers that were incorrect.

It all depends on the source.

When I look at books, I tend to find the information more accurate, when I've checked them with official sources, basically an author tends to spend more time in sourcing the truth, where computer in-putters tend not to.

I have found some books that are in error, or factually incomplete, which is all down to a poor author, and I have found some more specialized or localised web-sites that are very good and really accurate.

Generally I find that apart from official sources (i.e. Records Offices) on the whole, Books tend to be more accurate, Magazines less so, and the internet coming in last for accuracy/truth, particularly Wikipedia

 

[DownSouth]

I have been studying Railway History for several years now, particularly about Railway companies pre-grouping, I have looked at Wikipedia on several occasions, they have some very interesting and informative sections in this matter, they have Railway Clearing House diagrams which is particularly useful, however some of the information in the text is incorrect, particularly opening/closing dates of line/stations I have also found some locomotive names/numbers that were incorrect.

It all depends on the source.

When I look at books, I tend to find the information more accurate, when I've checked them with official sources, basically an author tends to spend more time in sourcing the truth, where computer in-putters tend not to.

I have found some books that are in error, or factually incomplete, which is all down to a poor author, and I have found some more specialized or localised web-sites that are very good and really accurate.

Generally I find that apart from official sources (i.e. Records Offices) on the whole, Books tend to be more accurate, Magazines less so, and the internet coming in last for accuracy/truth, particularly Wikipedia

If you find something on Wikipedia which needs to be corrected, and where you can provide a citation for a third-party source (i.e. not other articles on Wikipedia or in any other encyclopaedia, and not yourself as a primary source) in making your correction, then perhaps you should consider making an edit instead of just moaning about its accuracy.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which exists to summarise existing knowledge, not a reference source in its own right. While in my opinion it has lost its way a bit with lots of pages containing overly detailed trivia (for example lists of named locomotives which have little significance to any historical events) that should not be contained in an encyclopaedia, that ship has already sailed and detailed information may as well be corrected.

You conceded yourself that books are not free of errors, and in many fields there was previously very little to prevent publishers perpetuating those errors. The beauty of information being democratised with open platforms such as Wikipedia is that it means control of information is no longer locked up in the hands of publishing companies, and all the best sources can now be aggregated and compared openly instead of that process being done behind closed doors by faceless editors. Where an error in a book or a printed encyclopaedia might go uncorrected for years if the original source was also incorrect, an open encyclopaedia like Wikipedia allows you to challenge it with a better original source.

Indeed, there is a case to be made that all 'proper' books and commercial encylopaediae are to be regarded as suspect until supported by a better source - when there's publishing revenue on the line and a deadline to meet there's a very real temptation to cut corners. With an open platform where contributions are made without commercial incentives and must include citations, this is not a problem.

One thing that many of the best Wikipedia editors do is focus on one page and make a concerted effort to bring that page up to the point where they can be proud of it. Maybe next time you see a page on there with gaps or errors that you know you could correct, why not set yourself the challenge of gradually working away at it to improve it using better sources? The internet is about give and take - its quality is exclusively dependent on the quality of the people who are contributing.

 

[Boothby97]

I see your point, the Class No.s (i.e. 56) are the same as the first two no's as the DMU car no., but the last three numbers are different to avoid conflict, like you say about the Class 70's and 377 EMU's.

It has not always been a perfect system though, just a brief glance at the Class 56"grids" shows that there is a 56201 (or was until recently) renumbered from 56009, and yet Turbostar 170201 has middle car 56201. Last I heard the Grid was in store at Booths for parts removal and scrapping so it is no longer in Capital Stock, but it was for a while ?

Have there been more exceptions to this rule ?

I don't recall 56009 ever being registered on TOPS as 56201. It did end up going to Booths, but has since passed onto UK Rail Leasing who, I assume, may be using it for spares.

 

[Bright Boy]

I don't recall 56009 ever being registered on TOPS as 56201. It did end up going to Booths, but has since passed onto UK Rail Leasing who, I assume, may be using it for spares.

Maybe I am mistaken, I have 56009 as renumbered to 56201, but I am not sure when, possibly this was an unofficial renumbering? Perhaps someone on here maybe has some info on that ?

I have seen a photo of this loco wearing 56201.

You are correct about UK Rail Leasing having it now, (having read your post I decided to check up!), the latest I have is that it is currently at the Battlefield Line in store, but owned by UKRL

 

[Boothby97]

Maybe I am mistaken, I have 56009 as renumbered to 56201, but I am not sure when, possibly this was an unofficial renumbering? Perhaps someone on here maybe has some info on that ?

I have seen a photo of this loco wearing 56201.

You are correct about UK Rail Leasing having it now, (having read your post I decided to check up!), the latest I have is that it is currently at the Battlefield Line in store, but owned by UKRL

Well it was stored at Brush, Loughborough for a number of years, think it was numbered (unofficially) whilst it was there.
Where do you have it numbered as 56201?

 

[Bright Boy]

Well it was stored at Brush, Loughborough for a number of years, think it was numbered (unofficially) whilst it was there.
Where do you have it numbered as 56201?

Since about 2011, it was renumbered before this but I don't know when, I started a database with all the BR locos still around in 2011 and it was listed as 56201 then, but I believe it was de-numbered back to 56009 sometime, but I'm not sure when, possibly after removal from capital stock, I have updated this database from time to time, when information as come to hand, but I don't know when I last updated 56009, when I looked at this yesterday I still had it as in store at Booth's as 56009, but with 56201 as its previous no.

With your help and info I have now updated it!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I am fairly sure that originally there was no issue with locomotive numbers matching carriage numbers ( whether in units or not ) and that this rule of no duplication was only introduced in the mid 1980s, i.e. more than a decade after TOPS itself was created.

From memory, when the rule was introduced there was a lot of renumbering of DMU cars in order to avoid clashes with locomotives in the 5xxxx sequences.

They also had a rule, which might still apply ( anyone know? ), that a number could only be re-used after seven years had elapsed since the original item of rolling stock had been scrapped.

 

[Boothby97]

Since about 2011, it was renumbered before this but I don't know when, I started a database with all the BR locos still around in 2011 and it was listed as 56201 then, but I believe it was de-numbered back to 56009 sometime, but I'm not sure when, possibly after removal from capital stock, I have updated this database from time to time, when information as come to hand, but I don't know when I last updated 56009, when I looked at this yesterday I still had it as in store at Booth's as 56009, but with 56201 as its previous no.



With your help and info I have now updated it!

I did a google search on this subject, not much came up. A Wikipedia article on departmental series brought up this,

Brush Traction, Loughborough were using a British Rail Class 56 locomotive, 56009 in their works as a power unit transporter and test bed. It is not registered on the TOPS system, but Brush have given it the painted TOPS-like number 56201.

Couldn't find a source for the information, but a photo on flickr also backs the above. As far as I was aware, 56009 was just unofficially renumbered 56201, and wasn't registered on TOPS.

 

[Bright Boy]

I did a google search on this subject, not much came up. A Wikipedia article on departmental series brought up this,


Couldn't find a source for the information, but a photo on flickr also backs the above. As far as I was aware, 56009 was just unofficially renumbered 56201, and wasn't registered on TOPS.

Ok, Cheers