298 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) I've seen the TOPS number 98428 discussed on another forum, but without a definitive answer as to what it is. The details are: Class 98/4, Diagram 98-4FV, 1,200hp, Weight 105t, Length 59', Max speed 60mph, Brake force 62t. 7325- 98425 MBSL KIDDERMSV BRIDGNTH 31825- 98426 MBSL ALTON ROPLEY 4027- 88427 ???- 98428 MBSL OFF T.O.P.S. 75029- 98429 MBSL GROSMNT GROSMNT According to the numbering rules, the third digit shows it has the power of a class 4 and the last two numbers are it's number, if this is already allocated then it goes to the next free number (hence 31825 above). The 98-4FV design code might be a clue, as I haven't seen another loco with it on the Wikipedia list. It's length and weights hint at a 2-6-0 or 4-4-0 tender loco. There is a comprehensive list of known class 98 numbers here: https://www.rcts.org.uk/about/news/98xxx.htm So, any ideas...? Edited February 2, 2018 by 298 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D6775 Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 I *think* it’s a Black 5, 45428 rings a bell. Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted February 3, 2018 Author Share Posted February 3, 2018 I *think* it’s a Black 5, 45428 rings a bell. Al. That one carries its logical number, 98528. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modfather Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 I'd suggest Repton fits the bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 3, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) I'd suggest Repton fits the bill. Surely Repton would be 98/5 as it is rated 5P? Its Tops class is 98/5EV Which it is = 98526 or is that Cheltenham? Keith Edited February 3, 2018 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Surely Repton would be 98/5 as it is rated 5P? Its Tops class is 98/5EV Which it is = 98526 or is that Cheltenham? Keith 525 is Cheltenham. Repton is 526, and to complete the set, Stowe is 928 Class 5 locomotives, as you say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Are you sure it isn't a misplaced numeral? That's why we need long EVN/UIC numbers with check digits (q.v.)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 4, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 4, 2018 Are you sure it isn't a misplaced numeral? That's why we need long EVN/UIC numbers with check digits (q.v.)! Well two respected lists of Tops for steam locos manage to confuse Cheltenham & Repton! Cheltenham can't be 98525 because Black five (4)5025 is that. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Do all preserved locos have TOPS numbers or just those who are registered for mainline running? I thought it was the latter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 6, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2018 Do all preserved locos have TOPS numbers or just those who are registered for mainline running? I thought it was the latter. I have snipped this from the RCTS site on TOPS locos: "A number of locos have been registered on the RSL for the transfer to or from a location where road access is difficult and therefore there may the need for a short shunt by rail, e.g. Didcot Railway Centre and Eastleigh Works. It should be noted that there are a number of preserved "Industrial Locomotives" which have been registered on TOPS." So only those that may need to touch Network Rail tracks for any reason. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 https://www.rcts.org.uk/about/news/98xxx.htm Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Missing from that list is 98833, otherwise 8F 8233. This the reason that 6233 received the TOPS number 98834. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 6, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2018 Missing from that list is 98833, otherwise 8F 8233. This the reason that 6233 received the TOPS number 98834. The 8F has a number based on it's BR number 48773 = 98873 Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Could it be 7828 Odney Manor? I know the Manors should be in the 985XX series as 98528 But that number is full, and 62005 and the S15s aren't 6s yet are in the 986XX series. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 The 8F has a number based on it's BR number 48773 = 98873 Keith Ah, it's been renumbered then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 6, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) Ah, it's been renumbered then? No, not as far as I know. It was one of 3 War department locos that BR bought in 1957 (WD500-2) Unsure of where they should go they were originally 90733-5 after the Riddles WD 8Fs but it was soon realised all 3 should go in the Stanier list but were put at the end instead of taking their places based on the allocated LMS numbers of eg. (4)8233 It only ever ran on BR as 48773 hence the logical TOPS number 98873. Other than those three the other LMS numbered WD locos did go in their rightful place as they were in LMS stock with their proper LMS numbers1/1/48 EDIT apart from those anomalous allocations there was a LNER 8F which was still in LNER stock at 1/1/48 with an LNER number so it was absorbed as LNER loco 3554 48705-48772 were never owned by the LMS, they were built for the LNER and numbered by them. However after the war they were sent to the LMS on loan and all given LMS numbers sitting at the end of the proper LMS ones (except 3554 above) which hadn't arrived by nationalisation although had an allocated LMS series number which it duly took later. Keith Edited February 6, 2018 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 It only ever ran on BR as 48773 hence the logical TOPS number 98873./quote] Hate to disagree, but it did run on BR as 8233. In October 1987, the army held an open weekend at Long Marston to celebrate, I think, 200 years of the Royal Engineer. 8233, as she was then numbered, was invited and made the journey engine and support coach, working various trains, passenger and goods, on the site. She did not haul passenger trains on BR, but needed the TOPS number 98833 for the L.E. movement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 6, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) Hate to disagree, but it did run on BR as 8233. In October 1987, the army held an open weekend at Long Marston to celebrate, I think, 200 years of the Royal Engineer. 8233, as she was then numbered, was invited and made the journey engine and support coach, working various trains, passenger and goods, on the site. She did not haul passenger trains on BR, but needed the TOPS number 98833 for the L.E. movement. Why was it's TOPS number changed? Surely It should have kept it's originally allocated one? BTW the RCTS list does not equate exactly with some of the other TOPS lists. such as http://www.uksteam.info/tours/tops.pdf Keith Edited February 6, 2018 by melmerby 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