southernelectric Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Can anyone tell me what class of EMU (number 1241) is shown in the photo below? The photo must be late 1980s (after the Weymouth line electrification) or very early 1990s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Class 421 (4CIG) unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernelectric Posted June 19, 2016 Author Share Posted June 19, 2016 Class 421 (4CIG) unit. Great, thank you! Obviously a renumbered unit, as originally, as I understand it, 4CIGs were 73xx and 74xx... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted June 19, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 19, 2016 ISTR there was a fair bit of renumbering of Southern EMUs in the late 1980s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 ISTR there was a fair bit of renumbering of Southern EMUs in the late 1980s. There certainly was, they tried to get the Southern to comply with having the unit number on the front (for example the first refurbished/renumbered 411s were numbered 411xxx) but as always the Southern soon reverted back to using the last four digits only, the unit picture would effectively be 421241 but with the '42' missing from the front. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crompton 33 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) In the end they where all renumberd. class 421/5 Greyhound 13xx. class 421/3 Facelifted 17xx. class421/4 facelifted 18xx. Then you had the 4 Big these where cig's with a Buffet car. Class 422/2 facelifted 220x . class 422/3 facelifted 2251-2262. The cig in the photo is a Greyhound unit. Edited June 20, 2016 by crompton 33 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bécasse Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It wasn't just the painted set numbers that used only the last four figures of the "official" six-digit number, much internal SR documentation continued to use just the four figures too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 All the various re-numberings of Southern stock really did my head in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 the CI All the various re-numberings of Southern stock really did my head in. CIGs were by far the worst for renumberings - though the VEPs that started out as VAB were in a league of their own ............. ........... the crucial question about that picture - and there are any number of possible answers depending on the exact date, I guess - is why is it facing up on the down line ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzler17 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 On 21/11/2016 at 13:34, Wickham Green said: ........... the crucial question about that picture - and there are any number of possible answers depending on the exact date, I guess - is why is it facing up on the down line ? That was one crucial question, the other being why was it displaying headcode 93 which was normally for the Waterloo to Bournemouth all stations stopper? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2019 On 21/11/2016 at 13:34, Wickham Green said: the CI CIGs were by far the worst for renumberings - though the VEPs that started out as VAB were in a league of their own ............. ........... the crucial question about that picture - and there are any number of possible answers depending on the exact date, I guess - is why is it facing up on the down line ? 1 hour ago, guzzler17 said: That was one crucial question, the other being why was it displaying headcode 93 which was normally for the Waterloo to Bournemouth all stations stopper? Not sure if still applies, but there were some services that terminated at Wareham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 On 28/03/2019 at 10:56, Joseph_Pestell said: Not sure if still applies, but there were some services that terminated at Wareham. Maybe the driver forgot to terminate at Bournemouth and overshot to Wareham ........................... or not as the case may be ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted September 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 13, 2019 On 21/11/2016 at 13:34, Wickham Green said: the CI CIGs were by far the worst for renumberings - though the VEPs that started out as VAB were in a league of their own ............. ........... the crucial question about that picture - and there are any number of possible answers depending on the exact date, I guess - is why is it facing up on the down line ? 12xx is a Phase II unrefurbished 4-CIG renumbered under TOPS from the previous 73xx or 74xx series. As for the direction thing, no driver visible in the cab so perhaps heading the right way but the driver forgot to wind the blinds to double red when turning round (Probably going home train!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 20 hours ago, John M Upton said: 12xx is a Phase II unrefurbished 4-CIG renumbered under TOPS from the previous 73xx or 74xx series. As for the direction thing, no driver visible in the cab so perhaps heading the right way but the driver forgot to wind the blinds to double red when turning round (Probably going home train!) Was there absolute block east of Wareham in those days? If so then the train would surely have been pulled up for lack of "tail lamp". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 I have some notes on these, which I compiled a long time ago. From my calculations, 421241 was originally 7341 and later became 421316 - but I might be wrong because half way through my earlier project I began to lose the will to live. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted September 14, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 14, 2019 3 hours ago, jonny777 said: I have some notes on these, which I compiled a long time ago. From my calculations, 421241 was originally 7341 and later became 421316 - but I might be wrong because half way through my earlier project I began to lose the will to live. Assuming my Platform 5 1992 combined volume is correct (which quite often it wasn't!) then you are right! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 (edited) There is a website devoted to all this, which must be a labour of extreme love - because I can't think of any other reason for such a detailed analysis. https://www.bloodandcustard.com Scroll down and be amazed. Edited September 15, 2019 by jonny777 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now