Units displaying their numbers partially in some cases

[tfw756rider]

I'm just wondering how in some cases, units can display their numbers partially rather than wholly? For example, Greater Anglia's 755s only display 338 and 410 rather than 755338 and 755410, and the 745s do the same thing - does anyone in here know how that can be allowed?

Also, East Midlands Railway decided (for some reason) to change the display of their 170s and 360s' numbers to only show e.g. 515 on the yellow warning panels that used to show 170515, which isn't a bad thing if the full number is relocated to the bottom of the side of the cab (as it is on the purple 170s, and like on say a 197),

but I've now seen 170207 and 170208 (in red and white) with the "170" digits removed from the yellow warning panels, but without the relocated full number, so all they displayed on the whole cabs was "207" and "208". Again, how could they get away with this?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I'm just wondering how in some cases, units can display their numbers partially rather than wholly? For example, Greater Anglia's 755s only display 338 and 410 rather than 755338 and 755410, and the 745s do the same thing - does anyone in here know how that can be allowed?

Also, East Midlands Railway decided (for some reason) to change the display of their 170s and 360s' numbers to only show e.g. 515 on the yellow warning panels that used to show 170515, which isn't a bad thing if the full number is relocated to the bottom of the side of the cab (as it is on the purple 170s, and like on say a 197),

but I've now seen 170207 and 170208 (in red and white) with the "170" digits removed from the yellow warning panels, but without the relocated full number, so all they displayed on the whole cabs was "207" and "208". Again, how could they get away with this?

Not sure what you think they "are getting away with" they can do as they please as the numbers are there for their benefit not yours.

 

[driverd]

I'm just wondering how in some cases, units can display their numbers partially rather than wholly? For example, Greater Anglia's 755s only display 338 and 410 rather than 755338 and 755410, and the 745s do the same thing - does anyone in here know how that can be allowed?

Also, East Midlands Railway decided (for some reason) to change the display of their 170s and 360s' numbers to only show e.g. 515 on the yellow warning panels that used to show 170515, which isn't a bad thing if the full number is relocated to the bottom of the side of the cab (as it is on the purple 170s, and like on say a 197),

but I've now seen 170207 and 170208 (in red and white) with the "170" digits removed from the yellow warning panels, but without the relocated full number, so all they displayed on the whole cabs was "207" and "208". Again, how could they get away with this?

As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to display a unit number at all (could be wrong) - its mainly for ease of identification as far as staff are concerned.

I think vehicles may have to display a number (eg:52701 in the case of 1/2 of 158701)?

Either way, if you work for the TOC concerned and can't identify a 170 without the unit number painted on it, we have bigger issues...

 

[Davester50]

Why couldn't they?
Set numbers aren't fixed - the 175s and 180s are good examples. The actual vehicle numbers are the ones that count.

 

[swt_passenger]

Multiple unit set numbers are effectively optional for quick recognition by staff. The individual vehicle numbers are the way rolling stock is formally identified for ‘registration’ purposes.

 

[tfw756rider]

Not sure what you think they "are getting away with" they can do as they please as the numbers are there for their benefit not yours.

Well, the vast majority of units do display their whole numbers, suggesting that it's more of a requirement for identification purposes than operators being allowed to "do as they please",

so I'm just wondering how exceptions were made possible for Greater Anglia's 745s and 755s, and how East Midlands Railway were allowed to run 170207 and 170208 as only "207" and "208", without even the relocated full numbers the rest of their 170s (and 360s) have

(I'm not even going to respond to the bit about "whose benefit" the numbers are for).

 

[Class15]

Why would it be a problem? The staff won’t have any difficulty telling what type of train it is, eg on 755s when the only class they could be confused with are 745s which have different subclasses.

170s (is this at EMR?) are unlikely to be confused with other units with a /2 subclass, again.

Similarly London Overground put 378 and 710 individual numbers (e.g. ‘225’ for 378225) at depot signal berths, there’s no confusion as staff know what they are looking at.

It is a bit odd to ask ‘how are they getting away with it?’. There’s literally nothing wrong with it in the first place.

As has been said, numbers being shown are for the railway’s benefit not travellers and enthusiasts. If the railway is fine with leaving out the class number, what’s wrong with that?

It should be noted that any part of the unit number on Grand Central’s Class 180s are pretty hard to find.

 

[DelW]

Southern Railway then Region traditionally displayed 4 digit numbers. In the TOPS era this meant the last class digit then the three set digits, so e.g. 455xxx showed 5xxx, and 458xxx showed 8xxx.

Recent units show the full number, but there are still old units around, e.g. SWR 455s, that stay with 4 digit numbers on the cab ends.

 

[tfw756rider]

As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to display a unit number at all (could be wrong) - its mainly for ease of identification as far as staff are concerned.

Well, I don't understand why not much more than the 745s and 755s don't display their whole numbers, even though the vast majority of units do.

I think vehicles may have to display a number (eg:52701 in the case of 1/2 of 158701)?

I believe so, yes. Also, I believe the class number has to be on the data plate (or whatever it's called).

Either way, if you work for the TOC concerned and can't identify a 170 without the unit number painted on it, we have bigger issues...

Well yes, quite! Apparently though, 745s, 755s and 170207 and 170208 (at least when I most recently saw them) are so much easier to identify than other classes and other 170s (respectively) that they don't have as great of a need to display their class numbers in their unit numbers

 

[driverd]

Well, the vast majority of units do display their whole numbers, suggesting that it's more of a requirement for identification purposes than operators being allowed to "do as they please",

so I'm just wondering how exceptions were made possible for Greater Anglia's 745s and 755s, and how East Midlands Railway were allowed to run 170207 and 170208 as only "207" and "208", without even the relocated full numbers the rest of their 170s (and 360s) have

(I'm not even going to respond to the bit about "whose benefit" the numbers are for).

Another good example is, essentially, anywhere south of the Thames.

Convention was always to display 4 numbers, eg: 170207 would become 0207. Its definitely not entirely accurate to say there is a requirement to display a whole unit number.

Perhaps the question is better presented as "what are the requirements around (and what regulations govern) displaying unit/vehicle numbers?". That's something I'd be interested to know myself - I'm sure someone will know on here!

 

[tfw756rider]

Why couldn't they?
Set numbers aren't fixed - the 175s and 180s are good examples. The actual vehicle numbers are the ones that count.

I just got the impression that it was normally a requirement to display the whole unit numbers, including their class "prefixes" (as the vast majority of units do), so I was wondering how the 745s and 755s (and 170207 and 170208, at least when I most recently saw them) were "allowed" to be exceptions.

It's a fair point you make though.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Perhaps the question is better presented as "what are the requirements around (and what regulations govern) displaying unit/vehicle numbers?". That's something I'd be interested to know myself - I'm sure someone will know on here!

That was posted on the forum a year or two ago; it's an RSSB standard somewhere - but I think it does allow for only the individual number to be shown and not the class number as well.

Incidentally, that standard did state that the space between the class and individual numbers is still a requirement, although these days it seems to be increasingly left out - which I suspect may be because TOPS cannot show the space. I can't honestly see the RSSB enforcing anything as long as there is a clear identification of some kind visible.

Edited: A quick Google suggests the RSSB standard in question is RIS-2453-RST Iss 2.1 but as I don't have an RSSB account I can't read the full standard...

 

[norbitonflyer]

Southern Railway then Region traditionally displayed 4 digit numbers. In the TOPS era this meant the last class digit then the three set digits, so e.g. 455xxx showed 5xxx, and 458xxx showed 8xxx.

Indeed, most were renumbered so that this worked - the only exception being class 415, whose numbers already started with a 5

Prior to TOPS, all AC emus simply had three digit numbers, which were unique only within the region. There were, for example, three emus numbered "001" - of classes 303 (ScR), 304 (LMR) and 306 (ER). Only started to be an issue when some 303s were drafted in to replace the 506s on the Glossop line - the LMR having no sliding door stock of its own, and it being decided that going from sliding door 506s to slam door 304s was a bad image.

 

[tfw756rider]

Multiple unit set numbers are effectively optional for quick recognition by staff. The individual vehicle numbers are the way rolling stock is formally identified for ‘registration’ purposes.

Thanks, so it seems that the option is normally taken up in the vast majority of cases, but there are those odd exceptions like the examples I've given.

 

[dosxuk]

Well, the vast majority of units do display their whole numbers, suggesting that it's more of a requirement for identification purposes than operators being allowed to "do as they please",

Convention does not imply requirement

so I'm just wondering how exceptions were made possible

There is no need for any exception to be made, units have long run around without full numbers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks, so it seems that the option is normally taken up in the vast majority of cases, but there are those odd exceptions like the examples I've given.

Yes, and another option used in some areas was to paint on only the last four digits on EMUs, just enough to make the partial set number unique, so in the early SWT period you’d see 2xxx on a 442, and still see 5xxx on a 455.

 

[stadler]

On the old Class 460 trains at Gatwick Express they only displayed the last two digits. The eight units just had 01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06 / 07 / 08 written on the front and back. They did still have the five digit carriage numbers on the sides of each coach but the full six digit unit number was not displayed anywhere.

 

[tfw756rider]

Why would it be a problem? The staff won’t have any difficulty telling what type of train it is, eg on 755s when the only class they could be confused with are 745s which have different subclasses.

It's not so much that it's a problem, more that it just seems odd how there are these minority exceptions compared to the vast majority of units displaying their full unit numbers.

170s (is this at EMR?) are unlikely to be confused with other units with a /2 subclass, again.

Yes, it was only two 170s at East Midlands Railway (170207 and 170208, both of which were still red and white when I saw them), where, like their purple 170s, they had removed the "170" digits from their unit numbers on the yellow warning panels, but unlike their purple 170s, they hadn't relocated the full unit numbers to the lower cab sides (196/197-style), so they were running around only as "207" and "208" on their whole cabs.

Similarly London Overground put 378 and 710 individual numbers (e.g. ‘225’ for 378225) at depot signal berths, there’s no confusion as staff know what they are looking at.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know.

It is a bit odd to ask ‘how are they getting away with it?’. There’s literally nothing wrong with it in the first place.

I can understand why it would come across that way. On the other hand, I think it's a bit odd that there are those minority exceptions, even though the vast majority of units do display their full unit numbers

As has been said, numbers being shown are for the railway’s benefit not travellers and enthusiasts. If the railway is fine with leaving out the class number, what’s wrong with that?

I will respond in this case, as wording goes a long way. While I find the whole "they're for us, not you" thing a little difficult, I do get what you're saying. Again though, these minority exceptions to the majority practice do seem a bit odd to me.

It should be noted that any part of the unit number on Grand Central’s Class 180s are pretty hard to find.

Very true - either not displayed at all, or on the... coupler? A bit strange. Of course, that's in terms of physically on the units - they're quite happy to take part in Realtime Trains' "Know Your Train", which was the only reason I knew that 180103 was 180103 since the day I went somewhere on it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

Southern Railway then Region traditionally displayed 4 digit numbers. In the TOPS era this meant the last class digit then the three set digits, so e.g. 455xxx showed 5xxx, and 458xxx showed 8xxx.

Recent units show the full number, but there are still old units around, e.g. SWR 455s, that stay with 4 digit numbers on the cab ends.

Yes, very true!

 

[Class15]

It's not so much that it's a problem, more that it just seems odd how there are these minority exceptions compared to the vast majority of units displaying their full unit numbers.


Yes, it was only two 170s at East Midlands Railway (170207 and 170208, both of which were still red and white when I saw them), where, like their purple 170s, they had removed the "170" digits from their unit numbers on the yellow warning panels, but unlike their purple 170s, they hadn't relocated the full unit numbers to the lower cab sides (196/197-style), so they were running around only as "207" and "208" on their whole cabs.

That’s very odd. In their TfW days, I assume they still had the whole number? I wonder, then, why they removed the ‘170’ as that does seem very strange.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know.


I can understand why it would come across that way. On the other hand, I think it's a bit odd that there are those minority exceptions, even though the vast majority of units do display their full unit numbers

It feels a bit like a blast from the past, where a lot of freight locos had the second part of the number only. It’s a bit odd I agree, but is it worth the effort to change?

I will respond in this case, as wording goes a long way. While I find the whole "they're for us, not you" thing a little difficult, I do get what you're saying. Again though, these minority exceptions to the majority practice do seem a bit odd to me.

I agree with you that there should be consistency, particularly in the GBR era.

Very true - either not displayed at all, or on the... coupler? A bit strange. Of course, that's in terms of physically on the units - they're quite happy to take part in Realtime Trains' "Know Your Train", which was the only reason I knew that 180103 was 180103 since the day I went somewhere on it.

Of course - I forgot RTT! And of course GC is an Open Access, so probably has different standards?

 

[tfw756rider]

Another good example is, essentially, anywhere south of the Thames.

Convention was always to display 4 numbers, eg: 170207 would become 0207. Its definitely not entirely accurate to say there is a requirement to display a whole unit number.

Perhaps the question is better presented as "what are the requirements around (and what regulations govern) displaying unit/vehicle numbers?". That's something I'd be interested to know myself - I'm sure someone will know on here!

Yes indeed, and yeah, I kind-of wish I had now

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

That was posted on the forum a year or two ago; it's an RSSB standard somewhere - but I think it does allow for only the individual number to be shown and not the class number as well.

Incidentally, that standard did state that the space between the class and individual numbers is still a requirement, although these days it seems to be increasingly left out - which I suspect may be because TOPS cannot show the space. I can't honestly see the RSSB enforcing anything as long as there is a clear identification of some kind visible.

Edited: A quick Google suggests the RSSB standard in question is RIS-2453-RST Iss 2.1 but as I don't have an RSSB account I can't read the full standard...

Interesting - thanks for the information. So that's how the minority cases are allowed, and the display of the full numbers is an option being taken up as a majority. I now consider my question (or whatever it is) to have been answered - thanks everyone for the replies

I will say Peter, as you mentioned it, I honestly didn't know that the space "isn't supposed to be" left out. I actually prefer no space in most cases.

Thanks again all

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

Indeed, most were renumbered so that this worked - the only exception being class 415, whose numbers already started with a 5

Prior to TOPS, all AC emus simply had three digit numbers, which were unique only within the region. There were, for example, three emus numbered "001" - of classes 303 (ScR), 304 (LMR) and 306 (ER). Only started to be an issue when some 303s were drafted in to replace the 506s on the Glossop line - the LMR having no sliding door stock of its own, and it being decided that going from sliding door 506s to slam door 304s was a bad image.

Convention does not imply requirement



There is no need for any exception to be made, units have long run around without full numbers.

Yes, and another option used in some areas was to paint on only the last four digits on EMUs, just enough to make the partial set number unique, so in the early SWT period you’d see 2xxx on a 442, and still see 5xxx on a 455.

On the old Class 460 trains at Gatwick Express they only displayed the last two digits. The eight units just had 01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06 / 07 / 08 written on the front and back. They did still have the five digit carriage numbers on the sides of each coach but the full six digit unit number was not displayed anywhere.

Read (past tense) but not replying, hope that's OK - thanks!

 

[DanNCL]

It should be noted that any part of the unit number on Grand Central’s Class 180s are pretty hard to find.

Very true - either not displayed at all, or on the... coupler? A bit strange. Of course, that's in terms of physically on the units - they're quite happy to take part in Realtime Trains' "Know Your Train", which was the only reason I knew that 180103 was 180103 since the day I went somewhere on it.

I’ve seen them display the wrong unit number on the coupler before. Saw one number displayed on the coupler, but both the individual vehicle numbers and RTT suggested that it was actually another unit.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Class 91s display only the last two digits on the cab front.

In the eraly days HSTs displayed the unit number on the panel that covered the emergency coupler. With power cars swapped as frequently as they were, it wasn't long before two trains could be seen on the sops at Paddington both dispaying the same unit number.

(And of course in time the covers moved between power cars anyway)

 

[tfw756rider]

That’s very odd. In their TfW days, I assume they still had the whole number? I wonder, then, why they removed the ‘170’ as that does seem very strange.

Yes, even early East Midlands Railway days. On their purple 170s (and 360s), they had already removed the "170" and "360" from the yellow warning panels, leaving only "515" and "103" etc. on the yellow warning panels, but they relocated the full numbers (e.g. 170515 and 360103) to the lower cab sides - it's like for some reason they wanted to make them kind-of 196/197-style with the numbers. Then they removed the "170" from 170207 and 170208's yellow warning panels, when they were still red and white units, but they didn't put the full numbers back on the lower cab sides! We know now though of course, thanks to Peter, that that's very much allowed by the RSSB, even though not "the usual" (which also explains the 745s and 755s etc.).

It feels a bit like a blast from the past, where a lot of freight locos had the second part of the number only. It’s a bit odd I agree, but is it worth the effort to change?

Probably not, it was just one of those things that was kind-of bugging me a little until it was explained.

I agree with you that there should be consistency, particularly in the GBR era.

Oh yeah

Of course - I forgot RTT! And of course GC is an Open Access, so probably has different standards?

It must do then, surely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

I’ve seen them display the wrong unit number on the coupler before. Saw one number displayed on the coupler, but both the individual vehicle numbers and RTT suggested that it was actually another unit.

Oh gosh

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

Class 91s display only the last two digits on the cab front.

Oh yes, and the Mark 4 Driving Van Trailers, even at least some of the ones now with Transport for Wales.

In the eraly days HSTs displayed the unit number on the panel that covered the emergency coupler. With power cars swapped as frequently as they were, it wasn't long before two trains could be seen on the sops at Paddington both dispaying the same unit number.

(And of course in time the covers moved between power cars anyway)

Ah yeah, I can see why they changed the way they numbered them (and where they placed the numbers).

 

[D6975]

Once upon a time, loads of units ran around without unit numbers. Even EMUs too, the MGH 506s never carried unit numbers. A notable exception was the Western region which had a thing about DMUs having set numbers, although they weren't fixed with units regularly being rearranged.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Once upon a time, loads of units ran around without unit numbers. Even EMUs too, the MGH 506s never carried unit numbers. A notable exception was the Western region which had a thing about DMUs having set numbers, although they weren't fixed with units regularly being rearranged.

As a young spotter I remember being frustrated by first-gen DMUs not carrying set numbers that conformed to the convention of the second-gen units. If my memory serves they were only applied towards the end of their lives, and only in Scotland and Manchester (plus the handful of bubble cars that lasted longer with Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales). I'm sure there'll be other examples I've missed though.

 

[DarloRich]

gain, how could they get away with this?

Can you explain what "they" are getting away with and why "it" is a problem?

while you are thinking may I add this to the mix?

Midland Railway – Butterley by MK Darlo, on Flickr

 

[MCR247]

Regarding EMR I think it is just cosmetic, they (or whoever they have in charge of livery design) decided they looked better/cleaner this way.

 

[tfw756rider]

Regarding EMR I think it is just cosmetic, they (or whoever they have in charge of livery design) decided they looked better/cleaner this way.

Yeah, I thought that might have been the case to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

Can you explain what "they" are getting away with and why "it" is a problem?

I don't think there's much point in doing so, as I since learned (thanks to Peter in post #12) that the RSSB only requires the second half of the number to be displayed, just that not much more than the 745s and 755s (nowadays anyway) took this "bare minimum" approach to the displaying of the numbering.

while you are thinking may I add this to the mix?

Midland Railway – Butterley by MK Darlo, on Flickr

Yes, but could you explain the numbering of this 108 please?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

As a young spotter I remember being frustrated by first-gen DMUs not carrying set numbers that conformed to the convention of the second-gen units. If my memory serves they were only applied towards the end of their lives, and only in Scotland and Manchester (plus the handful of bubble cars that lasted longer with Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales). I'm sure there'll be other examples I've missed though.

Ah yeah

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

Once upon a time, loads of units ran around without unit numbers. Even EMUs too, the MGH 506s never carried unit numbers. A notable exception was the Western region which had a thing about DMUs having set numbers, although they weren't fixed with units regularly being rearranged.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Davester50]

Yes, but could you explain the numbering of this 108 please?

The LO would be the depot, presumably Longsight, and the set number is the depot's set number.
Back in BR days different depots had their own way of IDing sets, there wasn't a standard.

 

[tfw756rider]

The LO would be the depot, presumably Longsight, and the set number is the depot's set number.
Back in BR days different depots had their own way of IDing sets, there wasn't a standard.

Thanks