Tyne & Wear Metro rolling stock TOPS classification.

[stadler]

Does anyone know what is the TOPS classification for the Metro Cammell current Tyne & Wear Metro units? I am not sure whether Class 599 or Class 994 is the correct TOPS number? Looking online half the sources seem to say Class 599 and half the sources seem to say Class 994 so it is difficult to know what is correct? I am presuming the number changed at some point? Could it be to do with when they were refurbished? If so which is the old and which is the new? If anyone knows anything about this that would be very helpful to know. Thank you in advance for any help.

 

[Tramfan]

Not sure of the specifics, but they're certainly all known as 599s now

 

[hexagon789]

Does anyone know what is the TOPS classification for the Metro Cammell current Tyne & Wear Metro units? I am not sure whether Class 599 or Class 994 is the correct TOPS number? Looking online half the sources seem to say Class 599 and half the sources seem to say Class 994 so it is difficult to know what is correct? I am presuming the number changed at some point? Could it be to do with when they were refurbished? If so which is the old and which is the new? If anyone knows anything about this that would be very helpful to know. Thank you in advance for any help.

Not sure of the specifics, but they're certainly all known as 599s now

They've definitely been 599 on TOPS since at least 2002, when the Sunderland extension commenced running. Before that I can't find anything about use of a 994 class designation.

 

[swt_passenger]

They've definitely been 599 on TOPS since at least 2002, when the Sunderland extension commenced running. Before that I can't find anything about use of a 994 class designation.

This has come up numerous times if you search the forum for threads containing “Class 994”. I believe from a search through most of the threads a few years ago that 994 would have most likely been a temporary class number used on the documentation when they were towed on the national network on first delivery. But it wouldn’t have needed to be permanent.

I think similar temporary class numbers have been used for LU stock deliveries over the national network.

 

[hexagon789]

This has come up numerous times if you search the forum for threads containing “Class 994”. I believe from a search through most of the threads a few years ago that 994 would have most likely been a temporary class number used on the documentation when they were towed on the national network on first delivery. But it wouldn’t have needed to be permanent.

I think similar temporary class numbers have been used for LU stock deliveries over the national network.

I could understand that; so really they've always been 599 when in service?

 

[swt_passenger]

I could understand that; so really they've always been 599 when in service?

It’s hard to know exactly when it would have been formally changed, I suspect before the Sunderland extension there’d be no need. But there are a few posts about 599 first being heard of in 2002.

 

[hexagon789]

It’s hard to know exactly when it would have been formally changed, I suspect before the Sunderland extension there’d be no need. But there are a few posts about 599 first being heard of in 2002.

I must look out one of my 1990s Platform 5 Combineds to see if the Metrocars are accorded a TOPS number pre-2002.

 

[D7666]

This has come up numerous times if you search the forum for threads containing “Class 994”. I believe from a search through most of the threads a few years ago that 994 would have most likely been a temporary class number used on the documentation when they were towed on the national network on first delivery. But it wouldn’t have needed to be permanent.

I think similar temporary class numbers have been used for LU stock deliveries over the national network.

That is exactly now I understand the difference between 994 and 599.

AIUI 994 is (was?) for documenting on main line -likewise recently LU S-stock is/was class ummm errr 499 ? 490 ? when the 20s were towing S stock to/from Derby; class number only, the units were not individually numbered.

And AIUI 599 came about with starting, as you say, Sunderland services and needing main line radios ? Something of that ilk.

Their battery locos are apparently 97901-97903 in TOPS again presumably for running to Sunderland.

 

[hacman]

I can't remember where, but I am sure I read something about it being that their numbers are effectively "5994001" and so on, but due to how data is shown on various systems it sometimes got truncated and shown in the format of "994001". With the mish-mash of 70's era tech that sits behind various railway systems this sort of thing would be very possible.

All the paperwork certainly says 599 for them.

I'm not sure if they'd have needed TOPS numbers before 2001 when Sunderland Direct opened, as when they were towed from the factory to Tyneside they would have just been classed as whichever locos plus barrier wagons were used, along with "other unbraked load". Possibly as D7666 says above with just a placeholder number of some sort.

 

[D7666]

I can't remember where, but I am sure I read something about it being that their numbers are effectively "5994001" and so on, but due to how data is shown on various systems it sometimes got truncated and shown in the format of "994001". With the mish-mash of 70's era tech that sits behind various railway systems this sort of thing would be very possible.

All the paperwork certainly says 599 for them.

I'm not sure if they'd have needed TOPS numbers before 2001 when Sunderland Direct opened, as when they were towed from the factory to Tyneside they would have just been classed as whichever locos plus barrier wagons were used, along with "other unbraked load". Possibly as D7666 says above with just a placeholder number of some sort.

Actually now you mention that about 5994001 I have seen this i.e. class 599 no, 4001 etc, proposed before on a forum*** somewhere but it was long after both the 994 and 599 so called 'classes' were known and was dismissed as a retro explanation (like how a backronym works) and not correct. Who knows though.

I do suggest the thing here is understanding there are grey areas between the blacks and whites of what is a class, what is a set of vehicles, and what is a vehicle number, and why or how certain non standard movements or traffic need to be input to systems maybe with work arounds - and trying to fit EVERY example into neat trainspotter type OCD categories for one's P5 ABC Book Of Numbers will fail.

Besides, we need anomalies like this to generate web wibble and support internet bandwidth consumption this sustaining the ISP and IT industries.


I am pretty sure the same thread had someone suggesting that Eurotunnel so BoBoBo electric locos "must" be class 99 in TOPS on the 9 (for electric loco) + 9xxx number despite that they never turn a wheel on GB main line metals; that one sure was dismissed out of hand. But you can see both where some of this dribble comes from and the OCD need to neatly categorise everythings..

 

[hacman]

Actually now you mention that about 5994001 I have seen this i.e. class 599 no, 4001 etc, proposed before on a forum*** somewhere but it was long after both the 994 and 599 so called 'classes' were known and was dismissed as a retro explanation (like how a backronym works) and not correct. Who knows though.

I do suggest the thing here is understanding there are grey areas between the blacks and whites of what is a class, what is a set of vehicles, and what is a vehicle number, and why or how certain non standard movements or traffic need to be input to systems maybe with work arounds - and trying to fit EVERY example into neat trainspotter type OCD categories for one's P5 ABC Book Of Numbers will fail.

Besides, we need anomalies like this to generate web wibble and support internet bandwidth consumption this sustaining the ISP and IT industries.


I am pretty sure the same thread had someone suggesting that Eurotunnel so BoBoBo electric locos "must" be class 99 in TOPS on the 9 (for electric loco) + 9xxx number despite that they never turn a wheel on GB main line metals; that one sure was dismissed out of hand. But you can see both where some of this dribble comes from and the OCD need to neatly categorise everythings..

I think this covers it nicely - the systems that the railway uses were not designed to be "universal" and as such exceptional situations (especially with small private railways like Metro or Eurotunnel) are not accounted for. Many of these systems were likely never envisioned to still be running all these decades later, and in some cases are very much a throwback to the days of "big iron" computing where a business purchased or leased one or two "computers" that usually came with entire teams of people just to operate, nevermind develop or maintain them!

All this is what the UIC numbering under TSI tries to fix somewhat, though that is equally painful for other reasons and isn't a requirement in many circumstances!

At least we know what the 555s are from the start

 

[choo.choo]

I can't remember where, but I am sure I read something about it being that their numbers are effectively "5994001" and so on, but due to how data is shown on various systems it sometimes got truncated and shown in the format of "994001". With the mish-mash of 70's era tech that sits behind various railway systems this sort of thing would be very possible.

All the paperwork certainly says 599 for them.

I'm not sure if they'd have needed TOPS numbers before 2001 when Sunderland Direct opened, as when they were towed from the factory to Tyneside they would have just been classed as whichever locos plus barrier wagons were used, along with "other unbraked load". Possibly as D7666 says above with just a placeholder number of some sort.

I’ve definitely heard this somewhere too, although I can’t find a source for it right now.

 

[Sirasuke]

Does anyone know what is the TOPS classification for the Metro Cammell current Tyne & Wear Metro units? I am not sure whether Class 599 or Class 994 is the correct TOPS number? Looking online half the sources seem to say Class 599 and half the sources seem to say Class 994 so it is difficult to know what is correct? I am presuming the number changed at some point? Could it be to do with when they were refurbished? If so which is the old and which is the new? If anyone knows anything about this that would be very helpful to know. Thank you in advance for any help.

Hey I'm new to these forums.

Back in the 80's they were 599 as they were prototypes and hadn't been refurbished yet. They earned the 994 TOPS number once they were refurbished.

You can tell the refurbs and non-refurbs through the flooring, the seat maquettes and and the female voice announcements.

I'm not sure if they still do, but I know for sure that 4001 used to run at peak time a few years ago from Pelaw - Monkseaton.

Hope this helps!

 

[Paul_10]

Hey I'm new to these forums.

Back in the 80's they were 599 as they were prototypes and hadn't been refurbished yet. They earned the 994 TOPS number once they were refurbished.

You can tell the refurbs and non-refurbs through the flooring, the seat maquettes and and the female voice announcements.

I'm not sure if they still do, but I know for sure that 4001 used to run at peak time a few years ago from Pelaw - Monkseaton.

Hope this helps!

With respect, this is nonsense. They are class 599s, staff who work for Metro have repeatedly said so, nothing to do with refurbishments, what seat Morquette is being used or the sex of the PA announcements. The 994 number got banded about through confusion possibly stemming what Hacman has said.

4001 is now withdrawn pending preservation although I'll remain skeptical on that until it actually happens.

 

[D7666]

Hey I'm new to these forums.

Back in the 80's they were 599 as they were prototypes and hadn't been refurbished yet. They earned the 994 TOPS number once they were refurbished.

You can tell the refurbs and non-refurbs through the flooring, the seat maquettes and and the female voice announcements.

I'm not sure if they still do, but I know for sure that 4001 used to run at peak time a few years ago from Pelaw - Monkseaton.

Hope this helps!

Have to agree with the preceding post, think you are wrong here, it is the other way round - the early number was 994 (seems to be accepted as being for delivery only) and the later number 599

599 has been around as the de facto number for over 20 years now and nothing to do with refurbishment or not nor prototypes