When did class 98 start to be used for main line locomotives?

[Coryton]

Does anybody know when class 98 started to be used for preserved main line locomotives?

 

For bonus marks, were the Vale of Rheidol locomotives actually numbered 98 007 etc. in any sense, or were they just allocated class 98? The Ian Allan "abc" guides just listed them as 7, 8 and 9 if I recall correctly.

[96701]

Is Wikipedia correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_98

[Coryton]

36 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Is Wikipedia correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_98

 

Wikipedia says: "The Class 98 series has also been used for privately owned steam locomotives registered to run on the mainline since 1971"

 

I don't think that preserved steam locomotives were allocated a 98 xxx number back in 1971, but I could be wrong.

 

That sentence is a bit ambiguous anyway - it could mean that class 98 numbers are now used for locomotives which were registered since the steam ban ended (but Flying Scotsman has a class 98 number now and was allowed on the main line before that, wasn't it?)

 

 

[TravisM]

I think the Class 98 numbering is solely for TOPS use and not physically used.

[adb968008]

Mainline steam started around the sametime as TOPS.

 

as every loco on the mainline needed a number to identify it in the system, steam loco was bundled under 98.

98 followed by power classification, followed by the last two digits of the steam locos number. If that was taken, the next number up in sequence was used.

 

thus 98800 represents 6000 as the first steam loco on the mainline, though 7,8,9 of Vale of Rheidol were the first allocated a TOPS steam number, they remain the only ones not to carry it.

 

All other mainline steam locos have their tops number carried on the footplate somewhere, usually above the drivers side seat.

 

“Preserved” coaches have TOPS numbers too, usually in the 99xxx series. Some coaches carry this number on the side, but they usually all have a painted or platic oval yellow plate on the solebar with it.

Its a bit anarcharistic, as in WCRC fleets its confusing as most coaches they acquired from ex-BR, as a TOC meant they werent unregistered from TOPS and continue to carry their original numbers along side former pre-privatisation “preserved” coaches that had been deregistered / reregistered in BR days and thus still carry the 99xxx number. 

 

I might be wrong but IIRC 99xxx were mileage limited in BR days, something like 6k miles a year.

 

Examples include:

 

other examples include long term preserved stock like Queen if Scots, SLOA Pullmans and Manchester Pullman stock as well as many long term owned Support coaches.

Edited February 24, 2019 by adb968008

[Coryton]

25 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Mainline steam started around the sametime as TOPS.

 

as every loco on the mainline needed a number to identify it in the system, steam loco was bundled under 98.

98 followed by power classification, followed by the last two digits of the steam locos number. If that was taken, the next number up in sequence was used.

 

As I understand it, the use of TOPS has expanded over time so what's necessary now might not have been in the early 70's.

 

(E.g. coaching stock wasn't on TOPS from the start, so while private owner coaches needed to have a number, in the 70's that number wouldn't have been on TOPS.)

 

I believe that TOPS started out to identify wagons and for tracking locomotive maintenance. Steam locomotives weren't maintained by BR and wouldn't haul freight trains so it's not obvious to me that in the early 70's there would have been a need to assign them an identity on TOPS. 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Coryton said:

As I understand it, the use of TOPS has expanded over time so what's necessary now might not have been in the early 70's.

 

(E.g. coaching stock wasn't on TOPS from the start, so while private owner coaches needed to have a number, in the 70's that number wouldn't have been on TOPS.)

 

I believe that TOPS started out to identify wagons and for tracking locomotive maintenance. Steam locomotives weren't maintained by BR and wouldn't haul freight trains so it's not obvious to me that in the early 70's there would have been a need to assign them an identity on TOPS. 

TOPS also included BR ships as class 99

 

i certainly saw (and I may even still have) print outs from the 1980s with xZxx movements with 98xxx numbers listed. 

Steam locos were on TOPS printouts and were used in BR days in the 1980’s.

 

Looking at this list, some haven’t been mainline since Shildon in 1975, so its usage for steam goes right back to the start, the only omission I see is 92203 which hasn’t been mainline since 1975, and Lion/47298 since 1980, though could have been deregistered too.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_98

 

note just being a class 98 doesn’t mean it’s able to run mainline, a loco movement on the mainline in tow has seen it allocated a class 98 stock number.

 

i recall once seeing a print out of a GW 150 open day in 1985 and the steam locos on it were listed in tops as their 98xxx numbers.

 

so preserved steam locos are on tops and have been for decades. Scotsman ran a railtour once with its 98xxx number as a yellow car registration number plate for a joke sometime in the 1980’s... so it had a 98xxx then.

 

As an aside earliest I recall preserved diesels with TOPS was in 1987 for D5054 (my accounts username) and D1041 being given 89254 and 89441, though I’m sure locos like 76020 and D4 had them earlier, I’ve a photo of 55015 carrying its TOPS number and it’s class number as a Barcode at a Coalville open day in the early 1980’s.

At Rainhill in 1980 everything capable of working the mainline that did so to get there had a TOPS number (673, Maude, Cornwall, 4027, even 925 etc) had one, and haven’t been seen since.

Another case in point is 30841 (98541), which now for all purposes was scrapped in the 1990’s, but worked 3 mainline trips in the 1970’s before going to the NYMR (and off mainline) and donating it’s bits to similarly registered 30825 (98525) for Whitby ops.

 

my guess is TOPS class 98 started with 7,8,9 at the VOR on its introduction and given the bureaucracy driven railway, I can’t see how steam would have had a blind eye for a decade, or even 5 years from exemption when the mechanism for its inclusion existed from the outset.

Edited February 24, 2019 by adb968008

[Coryton]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 I can’t see how steam would have had a blind eye for a decade, or even 5 years from exemption when the mechanism for its inclusion existed from the outset.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that coaching stock or multiple units were originally on TOPS. So BR was quite happy to have large numbers of passenger trains running around without being on TOPS even though they could have been.

 

Given that, I don't see why they would have felt it necessary to include steam locomotives which appeared infrequently on the main line.

 

As for ferries being on TOPS as "locomotives", they were effectively hauling wagons so did make sense from the start.

[KeithHC]

I seam to recall that the Festiniog and Welsh Highland loco have the TOPS code allocated so that they can cross the Cambrian line. So allocated to use 4ft 8 1/2ins of track.

 

Keith

[Merfyn Jones]

2 hours ago, KeithHC said:

I seam to recall that the Festiniog and Welsh Highland loco have the TOPS code allocated so that they can cross the Cambrian line. So allocated to use 4ft 8 1/2ins of track.

 

Keith

Wow, never heard of that. Any more details ?

[Coryton]

16 minutes ago, Merfyn Jones said:

Wow, never heard of that. Any more details ?

 

Sounds surprising.

 

I suppose you could make a case that just as rolling stock needs to be certified safe to use the main line, you don't want narrow gauge stock dropping bits on the crossing (or leaving part of the train behind on it).

 

But we cope with road traffic using level crossings and take the risk of them leaving debris behind on the track.

 

 

 

[AMJ]

98 for the VOR and 98/1 for the diesel they (10) they had will have been purely an accountancy measure.

 

If we are getting into TOPS then the Sealink ships were also allocated class 99 numbers! (Wikipedia has a list)

 

Allocating a mainline loco etc a unique TOPS number will be sensible for when trains are operational as most computers are unable to handle multiple blanks.

[Coach bogie]

The first time I saw the 97 series used was on City of Truro in 1985.The label/transfer was being fixed at the top of the cab,inside. I was told it could not go mainline without it being clearly visible to the crew.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Covkid]

On 24/02/2019 at 08:09, adb968008 said:

Mainline steam started around the sametime as TOPS.

 

as every loco on the mainline needed a number to identify it in the system, steam loco was bundled under 98.

98 followed by power classification, followed by the last two digits of the steam locos number. If that was taken, the next number up in sequence was used.

 

thus 98800 represents 6000 as the first steam loco on the mainline, though 7,8,9 of Vale of Rheidol were the first allocated a TOPS steam number, they remain the only ones not to carry it.

 

All other mainline steam locos have their tops number carried on the footplate somewhere, usually above the drivers side seat.

 

“Preserved” coaches have TOPS numbers too, usually in the 99xxx series. Some coaches carry this number on the side, but they usually all have a painted or platic oval yellow plate on the solebar with it.

Its a bit anarcharistic, as in WCRC fleets its confusing as most coaches they acquired from ex-BR, as a TOC meant they werent unregistered from TOPS and continue to carry their original numbers along side former pre-privatisation “preserved” coaches that had been deregistered / reregistered in BR days and thus still carry the 99xxx number. 

 

I might be wrong but IIRC 99xxx were mileage limited in BR days, something like 6k miles a year.

 

Examples include:

 

other examples include long term preserved stock like Queen if Scots, SLOA Pullmans and Manchester Pullman stock as well as many long term owned Support coaches.

 

I think you are unintentionally muddying the waters regarding private owner coaching stock numbers and the WCRC fleet. Yes. I believe that "private owner" vehicles need some form of number, but I think some of the WCRC vehicles have been renumbered because they are not now as they were built. Not sure which way round they are but I believe Mk1 Seconds have had their interior gutted and rebuilt as the other type - possibly SK to TSO.  This would mean that a 254xx number would need to become a 4xxx or 5xxx number, but there aren't any spare because Mk2s followed on from Mk1s.  Additionally an SK has been rebuilt as a kitchen car.

 

I would welcome correction of this. 

 

[Steven B]

The TOPS numbers of steam locos are usually painted somewhere in the cab - above a window or on the tender are both places I've seen them. Here's a photo of Britannia's

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-view-inside-the-cab-of-ex-br-loco-no70000-britannia-at-bishops-lydeard-78567994.html

 

 

[phil-b259]

On 24/02/2019 at 10:08, adb968008 said:

 

 

note just being a class 98 doesn’t mean it’s able to run mainline, a loco movement on the mainline in tow has seen it allocated a class 98 stock number.

 

 

Quite so

 

No. 592 (SECR C class) on the Bluebell got a TOPS number (as did the coaching stock that went with it) when it was used in the filming of Wonder Woman at Kings Cross

 

Similarly Camelot also has a TOPS number as a result of its trip to the WSR via the national network

 

This is despite both locos mentioned above being towed around in lightish steam rather than being 'mainline certified' as it were

 

The Met coaches must also have gained TOPS numbers when they went up to be used by London Underground for the trips through the tunnels to Moorgate as this was another rail movement over the national network.

[298]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Quite so

 

No. 592 (SECR C class) on the Bluebell got a TOPS number (as did the coaching stock that went with it) when it was used in the filming of Wonder Woman at Kings Cross

 

Similarly Camelot also has a TOPS number as a result of its trip to the WSR via the national network

 

This is despite both locos mentioned above being towed around in lightish steam rather than being 'mainline certified' as it were

 

The Met coaches must also have gained TOPS numbers when they went up to be used by London Underground for the trips through the tunnels to Moorgate as this was another rail movement over the national network.

 

Not necessarily, Underground stock has certain excemptions and I've not seen a TOPS number mentioned for Sarah Siddons when it was dragged to Eastleigh. It ran there under its own power in the 1980s and in theory could still do without yellow panels, subject to the usual safety systems being fitted. 

 

There is still a mystery number (98428?) which I'm sure was the Nord Compound when it took the usual route to Didcot Railway Centre.

[phil-b259]

26 minutes ago, 298 said:

 

Not necessarily, Underground stock has certain excemptions and I've not seen a TOPS number mentioned for Sarah Siddons when it was dragged to Eastleigh. It ran there under its own power in the 1980s and in theory could still do without yellow panels, subject to the usual safety systems being fitted. 

 

There is still a mystery number (98428?) which I'm sure was the Nord Compound when it took the usual route to Didcot Railway Centre.

 

When I said the Met stock - I meant the 4 'Chesham coaches on the Bluebell, not any current LU stock

 

However as others have indicated, the scope of TOPS has grown over time and if Sarah Siddons was to operate over Network rail infrastructure she would certainly be allocated a TOPS number just like the 4TC unit has been.

 

This is because before any vehicle of any type (be it a loco, an EMU, a wagon, a piece of on track plant) there are certain minimum tests which must be carried out* - the most prominent being an ultrasonic wheel & axle check to ensure they aren't going to break while being moved! If an incident did occur this prof needs to be readily accessible - and by giving a vehicle a TOPS number you have a nice unique identifier to collate all the relevant information under.

 

More widely though its true that London Underground has a number of exemptions from NR standards but this is usually based on other mitigating factors (e.g. the presence of trainstops making TPWS unnecessary) and unique historic agreements, thus it would be a mistake to assume these can be applied to vehicles owned by others operating on the national network.

 

* Once accepted the ORR and NR will expect the operator / owner to ensure that adequate maintenance is carried out as per manufacturers guidelines (or 'best practice' as published by the HRA for stuff like steam locos) to ensure that the wheels / axles remain in good condition (i.e. periodic retests will be needed). If this is not done than the affected vehicle can be bared from NR infrastructure - which is why keeping stuff mainline certified, even just to be dragged around by others is an expensive business.

[Coryton]

Going back to the original question...

 

It certainly looks as if by the 80's steam locomotives were issued with TOPS numbers.

 

However, it doesn't seem clear to me that this was the case from the start of TOPS (in the early 70's).

 

The evidence so far appears to be:

1) Locomotives with a class 98 number that haven't run on the main line since 1975. I don't think that's particularly conclusive - there could be other reasons for this.

2) The suggestion that steam locomotives must have required a class 98 number from the start of TOPS because everything else had one. But I don't think that's true, and if BR was happy to have a large number of DMUs running round without an existence on TOPS then I don't see why the odd journey of a preserved steam engine should have worried them. (The "private owner" coaches they pulled had to have a number in the BR carriage series, but I don't believe that carriages were on TOPS then either).

 

Does anybody have any more concrete evidence of class 98 numbers in the 70's?

[adb968008]

Sarah siddons TOPS number is 89212.

[Coryton]

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Sarah siddons TOPS number is 89212.

 

And if 89 001 returns to the main line in preservation it will presumably need a class 89 number...

[caradoc]

As a matter of interest, how were Hymeks and Westerns dealt with under TOPS ?

[Coryton]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

As a matter of interest, how were Hymeks and Westerns dealt with under TOPS ?

 

Apparently as with everything else by using the number painted on the side (or rather, in this case, on a cast-iron plate), even though these still kept their 1957 numbering scheme number (i.e. a "D" number but without the D)

 

This doesn't seem to have caused TOPS any problems which says something about how it worked, i.e. it suggests that a four digit number was not the same as a five digit number starting with zero.

 

If that's the case, then they wouldn't have clashed with anything else, unlike steam engines with their 5 digit 1948 scheme numbers which could have clashed with a diesel or electric locomotive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike 1247]

The idea of allocating all Steam locomotives certified to operate on BR as Class 98's, was devised by a member of the DM&EE Systems Group in Nelson Street Offices, in Derby, in 1984/1985. It was proposed to the Director of Operations as a means to meaningfully add Steam Locomotives to TOPS. The first locomotive to be added to TOPS was City of Truro, followed by Flying Scotsman, (4472 = 98872). TOPS numbers now appear inside the locomotive cab.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Mike 1247

[Michael Hodgson]

On 27/02/2019 at 09:41, Coryton said:

 

Apparently as with everything else by using the number painted on the side (or rather, in this case, on a cast-iron plate), even though these still kept their 1957 numbering scheme number (i.e. a "D" number but without the D)

 

This doesn't seem to have caused TOPS any problems which says something about how it worked, i.e. it suggests that a four digit number was not the same as a five digit number starting with zero.

 

Hmmm.  So when entered into a five character field on a computer system, would that be a four digit number with a leading space or with a trailing space?  Would both versions be able to co-exist as distinct vehicles ?

Computer systems that can accept spaces as well as digits usually accept also any alphabetic character too, but in that case you might as well have kept the D.

In practice different systems interface with one another and any non-numeric characters would be likely to cause a problem with something somewhere.