TOPS Number Categories

[Wyrleybart]

Only the train ferries would ever need to be reportable to TOPS, though?

Exactly
The principle of TOPS was to replicate in the system, what was happening in the real world. So if the Chartres conveyed 20 wagons from Dover to Calais then TOPS would need to transfer those 20 wagons from "Dover" to "Calais" in TOPS. So this could be achieved by using 99012 to "haul" those 20 wagons in TOPS.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The GWR one (purely battery).

I'm not really sure why the TfW ones and GWR ones are Class 230 when they're not purely diesel.

They are self powered though. Just that the power comes from an on board battery rather than a tank of diesel (or hydrogen)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

Then the 700-799 section has since been split at the 50 point, resulting in 777 being in the wrong place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

Likewise, the batteries make them bi-mode

 

[tfw756rider]

Worth noting that there are 3 different types of Class 230
The LNWR ones (purely Diesel)
The TfW ones (Diesel/battery similar to a hybrid car)
The GWR one (purely battery).

I'm not really sure why the TfW ones and GWR ones are Class 230 when they're not purely diesel.

Yeah, it's an odd one. It does make me wonder (and I'm intentionally talking about a totally different unit with similar class number to the 230, which is a thing in itself), if the 231s were converted to bi-mode, could they actually stay as 231s rather than "754s" or "757s" or whatever?

 

[wickham]

Only the train ferries would ever need to be reportable to TOPS, though?

On TOPS train ferries were consisted as the train ferry number 990XX in place of the locomotive and all the wagons listed as on a train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

I don't think 7xx is dedicated exclusively to "walk-through" - it is just that most units (I think class 397 and the 8xx units are the only exceptions) built since the 7xx block was allocated to EMUs have been of that type. Classes 345, 378, 398 and 399 are all walk-through. The 397 is in a 39x group, with the Pendolinos and Javelins

Surely Class 345 and 378 were designated before the policy change (345 certainly was) while 398 and 399 are Tram Trains, a completely different kind of unit. I still think 700 series is for "walk through" emus (or possibly even "walk through" surburban emus).

 

[norbitonflyer]

if the 231s were converted to bi-mode, could they actually stay as 231s rather than "754s" or "757s" or whatever?

Couldnt they be more 756s?

 

[tfw756rider]

Couldnt they be more 756s?

In terms of converting to tri-mode rather than bi-mode? Or are you saying that they could just become a 756 subclass that's bi-mode rather than tri-mode, rather than a different class to 756?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Only the train ferries would ever need to be reportable to TOPS, though?

Yes, that's logical. I was certain that the train ferries were on TOPS but no knowledge about the others.
Presumably the train ferries must have been on TOPS from the start, would be interesting to know the numbers of the older boats.

 

[Gloster]

Yes, that's logical. I was certain that the train ferries were on TOPS but no knowledge about the others.
Presumably the train ferries must have been on TOPS from the start, would be interesting to know the numbers of the older boats.

They are listed on Wikipedia under British Rail Class 99 (ships) . It looks as though all were allocated a number: these were unique at the time but 99 001 was reused.

 

[Merle Haggard]

They are listed on Wikipedia under British Rail Class 99 (ships) . It looks as though all were allocated a number: these were unique at the time but 99 001 was reused.

Thanks for that. Time flies - nearly forty years since the introduction of the NPdC and the linkspans.
The information other than the TOPS numbers might be a bit doubtful. For instance the operation did not remain with Sealink when that organisation was privatised but became 'Railfreight International' as a subsector of Railfreight, probably to the latters' disappointment. .

 

[norbitonflyer]

In terms of converting to tri-mode rather than bi-mode? Or are you saying that they could just become a 756 subclass that's bi-mode rather than tri-mode, rather than a different class to 756?

I maent if they were to be converted to trimode, which I assume is possible - I believe the reverse is possible as well, should enough electric-only work ever be available to justify removing the diesel power packs from 755s or 756s.

 

[Scotrail344Lad]

Good point on the Class 230. Just probably easier to call it a variant.