TOPS renumbering process

[Davester50]

Other than taking off the old stickers and putting on new ones, what was involved in the renumbering scheme, and why did it take so long to renumber classes?
And secondly, why did some classes never get renumbered to TOPS?
I'm aware TOPS was the backend system and the number was just the asset number at the end of the day.

 

[The exile]

Westerns never carried them because of the cast number plates (and they were on the way out). Class 45 was complicated because of the eth-fitting programme which was under way at the time (guessing that various factors that only became apparent once shopped determined which got eth and were therefore 45/1, and which didn’t and were therefor 45/0, meaning that they were the only class with no meaningful correlation between old and new number). Everything else with a future got them, though speed of application of the actual numbers probably depended on multiple factors.

 

[Davester50]

though speed of application of the actual numbers probably depended on multiple factors.

That's those factors I'm asking about. Was it performed at a certain level of depot overhaul, or when it went to works?
The other is what the process was. What information went from what I presume was a card/paper based system to a computer database.

Westerns never carried them because of the cast number plates

On some(all?) survivors the D was painted over, so it wouldn't have been beyond the realms of painting over the rest, and applying the new stickers below. In the simple like for like numbering of the Westerns (and the Western Region being the Western Region) what would be gained? Not very much. I don't think cast numbers is reason alone. Age and future obviously, but to last a further 4 years after the scheme started intimates that it wasn't just a simple stroke of a keyboard, and it was converted.

However were they input in to the TOPS system but never carried the bodyside number?

 

[The exile]

I don't think cast numbers is reason alone. Age and future obviously, but to last a further 4 years after the scheme started intimates that it wasn't just a simple stroke of a keyboard,

The scheme was intended to have a 4 year implementation period AIUI - quite possibly the Westerns were (Like the other hydraulics) due to be gone before full implementation so excluded. After all, system capacity didn’t come cheap, so savings were to be made by excluding an entire class with limited life (if they did). No other diesel class that got tops numbers was slated for such early withdrawal.

 

[randyrippley]

That's those factors I'm asking about. Was it performed at a certain level of depot overhaul, or when it went to works?
The other is what the process was. What information went from what I presume was a card/paper based system to a computer database.

At the time there seemed little logic to where they were done, and it seemed to vary with time and class.
Initially it seemed to just be a works-only thing, but later it was done on-shed, sometimes quite primitively.

Some classes would have been easy with 1:1 correlation of numbers, so easy to decide what got what and could be done on shed.
Others like the 45 and 47 were allocated as they went through works as boilers were removed / ETH fitted making no correlation between old and new

 

[Magdalia]

When TOPS was first rolled out it was primarily for freight wagons.

The locomotive fleet continued to be managed with paper based systems for a while after the locomotives were renumbered.

It would be interesting to know when locomotives were first loaded onto the TOPS database, in particular whether it happened before all of the Westerns were withdrawn. My impression is that it took quite a while for the TOPS locomotive records to be regarded as more reliable than the paper based records. Part of the delay was caused by a classic 1970s industrial relations demarcation dispute about whose job it was to do various bits of data entry.

Locomotive renumbering started in late 1971 with 76050, but TOPS numbers were only applied to electric locomotives until 45101 in March 1973. Most repaints of diesel locomotives on works visits continued to use the old numbers until autumn 1973, and at start of 1974 it was still quite rare to see a TOPS numbered diesel locomotive. Most diesel locomotives were renumbered at depots in the first half of 1974, usually by painting out the old numbers and then adding stencils of the new numbers on top. With depot renumberings it was usually possible on close examination to make out the old number underneath the paint.

All of classes 27/31/45/47 had renumbering complications as a consequence of the ETH programme.

 

[Western 52]

There were still some class 35 Hymeks around after 1973 which were never given TOPS numbers.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That's those factors I'm asking about. Was it performed at a certain level of depot overhaul, or when it went to works?
The other is what the process was. What information went from what I presume was a card/paper based system to a computer database.



On some(all?) survivors the D was painted over, so it wouldn't have been beyond the realms of painting over the rest, and applying the new stickers below. In the simple like for like numbering of the Westerns (and the Western Region being the Western Region) what would be gained? Not very much. I don't think cast numbers is reason alone. Age and future obviously, but to last a further 4 years after the scheme started intimates that it wasn't just a simple stroke of a keyboard, and it was converted.

However were they input in to the TOPS system but never carried the bodyside number?

I went to Melbury Terrace (where the TOPS mainframe was) in the mid 1970’s and the Westerns were on TOPS - I made a point of testing that one out! However, TOPS maintenance for locos didn’t come in until the late 1970’s iirc when we (on ER, at least) switched from days in traffic to TOPS hours maintenance periodicities. Works overhauls (GEN, INT and LGT) were still done on years between overhauls at this stage.

 

[Gloster]

You also had the Class 33, where only 003-010 corellated: two withdrawn, nineteen reclassified as 33/1 and twelve as 33/2.

There was also Class 53 1200 (ex-D0280) which lasted until mid 1975 with its old number.

 

[Davester50]

I went to Melbury Terrace (where the TOPS mainframe was) in the mid 1970’s and the Westerns were on TOPS - I made a point of testing that one out! However, TOPS maintenance for locos didn’t come in until the late 1970’s iirc when we (on ER, at least) switched from days in traffic to TOPS hours maintenance periodicities. Works overhauls (GEN, INT and LGT) were still done on years between overhauls at this stage.

Interesting, and thanks to you and the others for some insight.
I'm guessing a lot of the ins and outs of the project will be lost to time, but it's good to find out these snippets of what happened. Thanks again.

 

[Taunton]

I long thought that a little more effort to make the last two or three numbers correlate with the old ones would have helped, instead of strict starting everything at 1. Ironically the 03 class did exactly this, and didn't get upset about the gaps. I suspect different clerks working different ways (something I later came across in my professional life, integrating computers with what the HM Tax Office had done).

It wouldn't have been the end of the world to cast new plates for the Westerns, with the same dimensions and fixing holes. Swindon still had both brass and steel foundries, it would be a day or two's work and the old ones would go back in the pot as scrap - or even sold to enthusiasts for a profit.. Possibly, as they were commonly known as "Thousands" rather than "Westerns" by the staff, it was a standardisation too far ...

 

[43096]

Locomotive renumbering started in late 1971 with 76050, but TOPS numbers were only applied to electric locomotives until 45101 in March 1973.

So the first use of TOPS numbers on diesel locos was when 41001 was outshopped new from Crewe Works in 1972x

 

[Davester50]

I long thought that a little more effort to make the last two or three numbers correlate with the old ones would have helped, instead of strict starting everything at 1. Ironically the 03 class did exactly this, and didn't get upset about the gaps. I suspect different clerks working different ways (something I later came across in my professional life, integrating computers with what the HM Tax Office had done).

I would not be surprised. Interpretation of rules and regional variations would possibly be at work in the change?

It wouldn't have been the end of the world to cast new plates for the Westerns, with the same dimensions and fixing holes. Swindon still had both brass and steel foundries, it would be a day or two's work and the old ones would go back in the pot as scrap - or even sold to enthusiasts for a profit.. Possibly, as they were commonly known as "Thousands" rather than "Westerns" by the staff, it was a standardisation too far ...

I think the plates preventing change is a red herring. The AC electrics with similar but different castings were changed by 1975 if this picture of the then E3012 is anything to go by.
That change was a bit more complex, (I really must pick up an Ian Allen ABC from the early 1970s to have a look at the changes), while the Westerns was a simple last two digits equals new number, so why bother.
As @Clarence Yard has posted, they were included in TOPS to some degree anyway.

 

[Gloster]

I would not be surprised. Interpretation of rules and regional variations would possibly be at work in the change?

I doubt that regional variations had anything to do with it: if you are having a national system you do it centrally. At most, it might be that the workshops responsible for different classes had slightly different interpretations of the outline rules.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I would not be surprised. Interpretation of rules and regional variations would possibly be at work in the change?

Absolutely not. The renumbering process was strictly controlled by the CM&EE BRB - the Regions worked under their instructions and in those days you followed BRB orders, to the number in this case!

 

[Davester50]

Absolutely not. The renumbering process was strictly controlled by the CM&EE BRB - the Regions worked under their instructions and in those days you followed BRB orders, to the number in this case!

Hah, brilliant. Thanks again.
I like how TOPS always seems to be a bit of a mystery, from the original renumbering to the way the IET/Azuma/Hitachi A-Train have been allocated class and subclass numbers.

 

[Taunton]

Absolutely not. The renumbering process was strictly controlled by the CM&EE BRB

I wonder who selected TOPS in the first place. Well known it was bought from Southern Pacific in the USA. Their key issue was keeping up with the whereabouts of their freight cars, and indeed other railroad cars run onto their system. If my memory serves me there were thus possibly about 2 million cars from the USA to keep track of, and in the 1960s, when it was written, most were handled by the carload in mixed freights. This was just the business that BR were getting out of in 1970; sure missing wagons were a bit of an issue, but nothing on the scale that led to the US system.

And SP never had to renumber their randomly-numbered loco classes! Which, I seem to recall and without getting out all my old Extra 2200 South magazines from the attic, started at 1 but were commonly 4 digit - they had several thousand of them.

 

[Merle Haggard]

When I worked at Paddington Regional HQ in the early 80s the (freight marketing) office had a TOPS machine. I discovered the E3 1 1 enquiry (I think that was the one) and I could certainly find 'Westerns' under the 1000 numbers. The ominous message - I think on next working maybe - was TOBESCRAPPED.
In the first days of TOPS,c 1971 when a train (only freight, obviously then) arrived at its destination station, as well as a consist printout a punch card was produced for each wagon and, when the wagon was consigned on an outward train, the punch card was then put into the card reader; the mainframe did not have the memory capacity. I don't remember a card for the loco being produced, but equally I thought the consist had a loco number on it, to check that the weight was less than the loco's load limit for the route. (and as a further confusion, the load limit for a loco included the loco's own weight, but I digress). That was over 50 years ago, though, so I think it's permissible for memory to be a bit hazy

 

[Magdalia]

I went to Melbury Terrace (where the TOPS mainframe was) in the mid 1970’s and the Westerns were on TOPS - I made a point of testing that one out! However, TOPS maintenance for locos didn’t come in until the late 1970’s iirc when we (on ER, at least) switched from days in traffic to TOPS hours maintenance periodicities. Works overhauls (GEN, INT and LGT) were still done on years between overhauls at this stage.

Thanks for this.

It wouldn't have been the end of the world to cast new plates for the Westerns, with the same dimensions and fixing holes. Swindon still had both brass and steel foundries, it would be a day or two's work and the old ones would go back in the pot as scrap - or even sold to enthusiasts for a profit.. Possibly, as they were commonly known as "Thousands" rather than "Westerns" by the staff, it was a standardisation too far ...

TOPS renumbering was mostly in the 1973-74 winter. There was the oil crisis, a miners' overtime ban then strike, power cuts and the 3 day week. Casting new number plates would not have been a priority!

I wonder who selected TOPS in the first place. Well known it was bought from Southern Pacific in the USA. Their key issue was keeping up with the whereabouts of their freight cars, and indeed other railroad cars run onto their system.

At the time BR still had quite a lot of wagon load freight. TOPS is an interesting (and fairly unusual) example of the UK public sector acquiring a computer system developed by someone else, and not trying to "reinvent the wheel".

 

[Gloster]

At the time BR still had quite a lot of wagon load freight. TOPS is an interesting (and fairly unusual) example of the UK public sector acquiring a computer system developed by someone else, and not trying to "reinvent the wheel".

This is very much my understanding of the situation. Of the various computer programmes that were in use around the world, the SP’s system was the most suitable proven one that could be used by BR with the least tweaks.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I wonder who selected TOPS in the first place. Well known it was bought from Southern Pacific in the USA. Their key issue was keeping up with the whereabouts of their freight cars, and indeed other railroad cars run onto their system. If my memory serves me there were thus possibly about 2 million cars from the USA to keep track of, and in the 1960s, when it was written, most were handled by the carload in mixed freights. This was just the business that BR were getting out of in 1970; sure missing wagons were a bit of an issue, but nothing on the scale that led to the US system.

And SP never had to renumber their randomly-numbered loco classes! Which, I seem to recall and without getting out all my old Extra 2200 South magazines from the attic, started at 1 but were commonly 4 digit - they had several thousand of them.

Well B.R. had built half a million wagons by 1970 and there were still plenty of pre-Nationalisation ones about. I spent a short period as a wagon distributor in Control obviously before TOPS and can say from experience that one benefit of it was to considerably reduce the wagon fleet. Consider a flow of limestone to a steelworks (basic oxygen steel manufacture). On the old system each morning the customer would order locally how many wagons he required for loading. To make sure that he was never unable to provide the required number of wagons the supervisor at the local yard would always have some undeclared empty hoppers sitting around. When he requested empty wagons (on an arcane form that no-one really understood - column b minus column a what's that all about???>) to replace those sent for loading the distributor would request the next yard along in the transit to provide the required number of wagons. But that yardmaster, similarly, always kept wagons 'up his sleeve' to avoid being short. And so it went on back to the steelworks, where the wagons actually unloaded were probably under-declared. So each location probably carried 50% more empty wagons than they really required. And when, in my commute into work, I passed yards and sidings full of empty wagons, but each location would only declare penny numbers to me that afternoon.

When TOPS cutover at a yard, the credibility of the new system was challenged because quite often there were orders to move empty wagons against the flow. But the reason for this was that TOPS could tell how many, in this example, hopper wagons were on hand in the yard, and move the surplus out, against the flow to make sure there weren't even more buildings up 'downstream'. And then the condemnations could begin! Obvious cost saving in wagon maintenance if the fleet was reduced.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2023 ==

This is very much my understanding of the situation. Of the various computer programmes that were in use around the world, the SP’s system was the most suitable proven one that could be used by BR with the least tweaks.

And it gave us the wagon type code for a brake van CAboose (I think that the original code might have been CAB regardless of brake type).

 

[Helvellyn]

A few people have said renumbering the Westerns would have been a straight swap of D1 for 52 - except D1000 would have likely become 52074.

The Class 86s were another class randomly renumbered, and that was based on traction motors (and by association the fitment of flexicoil suspension) that determined the initial 86/0 or 86/2 renumbering. Even then I have never understood how locos at random seemed to have ended to with which traction motors, whether Vulcan or BR built.

 

[Magdalia]

The renumbering process was strictly controlled by the CM&EE BRB - the Regions worked under their instructions and in those days you followed BRB orders, to the number in this case!

The Class 86s were another class randomly renumbered, and that was based on traction motors (and by association the fitment of flexicoil suspension) that determined the initial 86/0 or 86/2 renumbering. Even then I have never understood how locos at random seemed to have ended to with which traction motors, whether Vulcan or BR built.

Locomotive modification programmes were also strictly controlled by the BRB CM&EE. Modifications were ranked according to priority, the lowest of which was for the modification to be done at next classified repair. For example, fitting of dual auto air brake was usually done this way. Modifications being done at next classified repair was preferable on cost and fleet availability grounds because the locomotive was going to be stopped anyway.

As a result, where the budget was only for a specified number of locomotives to be modified, which locomotives were done was determined by when the modification started to be implemented and the order that subsequent locomotives got called for classified repair. There may also have been other criteria which affected whether any particular locomotive was in scope for receiving the modification.

However, TOPS maintenance for locos didn’t come in until the late 1970’s iirc when we (on ER, at least) switched from days in traffic to TOPS hours maintenance periodicities. Works overhauls (GEN, INT and LGT) were still done on years between overhauls at this stage.

The mystery is how, given that works overhaul intervals were still based on elapsed time, the order of classified repairs departed so much from sequential order of construction. Part of it would have been to manage workload and budgets. Collision and fire damage sometimes intervened, but I haven't identified a consistent rule for how those damage repairs impacted on classified overhaul intervals.

The class 86s are complicated because they were built on two separate construction lines at Doncaster and Vulcan Foundry, so delivery dates were not in fleet number sequence and subsequent classified repair dates would have reflected that. Doncaster were turning out E3101-40 at roughly the same time that Vulcan Foundry were turning out E3161-3200, and the E3141-60 batch were built last (by Vulcan Foundry).

 

[Falcon1200]

I recall, on visiting Hitchin for a day's spotting in March 1974, that the ER seemed well ahead of my native WR on loco renumbering, although no doubt the fact that Hymeks and Westerns were still about then would have influenced that impression!

 

[43096]

The Class 86s were another class randomly renumbered, and that was based on traction motors (and by association the fitment of flexicoil suspension) that determined the initial 86/0 or 86/2 renumbering. Even then I have never understood how locos at random seemed to have ended to with which traction motors, whether Vulcan or BR built.

Presumably through bogie and/or traction motor swaps either on depot or as they went through works before the flexicoil mods started.

 

[Davester50]

So the first use of TOPS numbers on diesel locos was when 41001 was outshopped new from Crewe Works in 1972x

In the multiple unit numbering scheme

 

[43096]

In the multiple unit numbering scheme

No. They were locos when built.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In the multiple unit numbering scheme

This was in the coaching stock numbering scheme, surely? The HST power cars were originally regarded as such weren't they?

 

[Davester50]

This was in the coaching stock numbering scheme, surely? The HST power cars were originally regarded as such weren't they?

I'd forgotten that the prototype mark 3s were renumbered very early in the career.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The prototype HST power cars were locos first - Class 41, 41001/2. The trailers were originally classed as ordinary LHCS.