TOPS Class Number Allocation today

[StephenHunter]

Why does this not seem to be done in any logical order now?

 

[ainsworth74]

You're going to have to clarify what you mean?

 

[StephenHunter]

You're going to have to clarify what you mean?

Yes, when they were originally created, you had the classes go up in number order: 313, 314, 315 etc. Now you have the Javelin getting 395, the new Crossrail trains getting 345... but 326-330 are unused.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I certainly can't quote chapter and verse but I would suggest it's due to the decentralisation of train ordering. Essentially the TOCs now make their own decisions on what to order without reference to a central authority whereas in BR days all such orders went through an office in Derby (CME?). The only obvious flaw with what happens now is that dual-voltage/system EMUs do not have a distinct class number series. Ultimately does any of it actually matter?

 

[southern442]

I don't believe there is any actual logic or algorithm to numbering new train classes. Obviously there are some patterns that are very easy to spot, but quite often the way the patterns are begun and the way individual classes are chosen is more or less random. I also don't think there's any real reason why some new EMU classes are 3xx when most should be 7xx.

 

[D7666]

I certainly can't quote chapter and verse but I would suggest it's due to the decentralisation of train ordering. Essentially the TOCs now make their own decisions on what to order without reference to a central authority whereas in BR days all such orders went through an office in Derby (CME?). The only obvious flaw with what happens now is that dual-voltage/system EMUs do not have a distinct class number series. Ultimately does any of it actually matter?

Sorry thats completely wrong class numbers are centrally allocated and it's not up to TOCs. A TOC might for some reason wnat a particular class number but it might not be granted.

The overall numbering system is given in a document you can download from RSSB site standards library.

The reason for the gaps between classes is that the number blocks /may/ be occupied by wagons.

A six digit (say) EMU number is not allowed to clash with a six digit wagon number. If there is even only a handful of wagons, a whole 000-999 block won't be issued. Don't forget the 300-399 range is quite old now and comes from an era of many many more wagons hence a lot of the earlier EMU class gaps.

700-799 has been taken up is a system that itself is now about 10 years old (but none were assigned until class 700 itself) becuase of running out of free number blocks in 300-399.

You the spotter can tell the difference between EMU number 345678 and wagon 345678 but a computer can not. Hence don't duplicate.

It's the same underlying reason why various 1st gen DMU in the 50xxx and 56xxx were renumbered to not duplicate 50s and 56s when DMU cars were added to national computer systems, and why some SR DEMU 60xxxx cars renumbered to avoid 60s, and why some l/h carriages were renumbered.

No way is it random or not centrally coordinated or at TOCs whims.

--
Nick

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I didn't actually say that TOCs pick their own class numbers. But the Rolling Stock Library now has to make allowances for TOCs having a choice of manufacturer, for example, so there are advantages to leaving gaps to allow for some grouping of class numbers by manufacturer. What is more difficult to discern is how the decision is made to designate a new class number of a long production run such as Electrostars. The real issue is that in this country we have tried hard to prevent having to use overly long individual vehicle numbers while still using unit numbers. Unfortunately the European EVN system does not really help in this regard but then again we have very little by way of international operations so can largely opt out of its full implementation.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I agree that to the untrained (or even the trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be much logic to numbers, despite the post by D7666... However, this isn't a new thing- there have always been anomalies and exceptions to whatever the "rules" were.

 

[dp21]

I've posted quite a lengthy reply in another thread about this.

There is a standard which dictates where your TOPS number will sit however I believe it is purely up to the manufacturer/procuring rosco/company to decide on the exact number dependent on what's available in the rolling stock library.

 

[D7666]

I didn't actually say that TOCs pick their own class numbers. But the Rolling Stock Library now has to make allowances for TOCs having a choice of manufacturer, for example, so there are advantages to leaving gaps to allow for some grouping of class numbers by manufacturer. What is more difficult to discern is how the decision is made to designate a new class number of a long production run such as Electrostars. The real issue is that in this country we have tried hard to prevent having to use overly long individual vehicle numbers while still using unit numbers. Unfortunately the European EVN system does not really help in this regard but then again we have very little by way of international operations so can largely opt out of its full implementation.

Even thats not right is it.


345 was allocated to Crossrail stock years ago. It was allocated even before the builders were invited to pre-qualify, even before the requirements were drawn up. No way was the builder or model type known.

ITYF the same applied to 385 and (I think) 700 both were allocted before maker selected and model identified so grouping by type in advance is not right.

What the roscos / tocs / franchise bidding teams do do is assign project numbers that are not classes. If you look at the current SWR franchise agreement - which was written before stock was ordered, before the maker was announced, before even SWR got the franchise, it refers to clases 705 and 711 for the 5car and 10car new units respectively I .suggest thats where the idea ofTOC numbers come from.

The actual allocation was neither 705 or 711.

The is no reason whatsover to group Desiros or Electrostars or Whatnots together. Only anorak OCD think that way.


Providing a unique number is all that is necessary.

--
Nick

 

[Domh245]

What the roscos / tocs / franchise bidding teams do do is assign project numbers that are not classes. If you look at the current SWR franchise agreement - which was written before stock was ordered, before the maker was announced, before even SWR got the franchise, it refers to clases 705 and 711 for the 5car and 10car new units respectively I .suggest thats where the idea ofTOC numbers come from.

The actual allocation was neither 705 or 711.

Just going to point out that the franchise agreement as released was written once SWR had been awarded the franchise, it refers to "the Bombardier solution" and also says:

""New EMU MSA" means the manufacture and supply agreement in respect of the fleet of 60 x 10 car electric multiple units and 30 x 5 car electric multiple units and associated equipment dated 19 June 2017 and entered into between Bombardier Transportation UK Limited, Rock Rail South Western PLC and the Franchisee."

Indeed, the only references to them being numbered 701 that I can see are through RAIL magazine and ABRAIL, neither of which are necessarily known for absolute accuracy, unless you are privy to information that we aren't?

 

[SEClass375]

The is no reason whatsover to group Desiros or Electrostars or Whatnots together.

It's funny how all Electrostars have a number 7 in them:
357, 375, 376, 377, (378), 379, 387

 

[southern442]

It's funny how all Electrostars have a number 7 in them:
357, 375, 376, 377, (378), 379, 387

I believe that the reason 387's are called 387's is because they were initially going to be 377/8's, so when the decision was made to separate the classes, 378 was already taken so it would be 387.

 

[xotGD]

At least we haven't got to the stage of the aircraft industry with everything having to have an 8 in the number because it is supposedly lucky.

 

[southern442]

At least we haven't got to the stage of the aircraft industry with everything having to have an 8 in the number because it is supposedly lucky.

nice to know they have faith in their products!

 

[D365]

Indeed, the only references to them being numbered 701 that I can see are through RAIL magazine and ABRAIL, neither of which are necessarily known for absolute accuracy, unless you are privy to information that we aren't?

Class 701 is what I've seen internally, so I think that's pretty safe.

The only fleets off the top of my head without a confirmed classification at this time are WMT (Aventra and Civity).

 

[MichaelWells]

Network Rails TRU 950001 was originally a class 180. (never has been a 150) with car numbers 999600 999601. when the Adelantes were designed it was changed to 950 to comply with departmental stock and not to clash