Model Rail / Heljan Class 11 0-6-0DE

[Wickham Green too]

52 minutes ago, Swindon 123 said:

D12040, D12047, D12062 are the only blue examples I have found photos off with the "D" prefix, although for completeness, one of the earlier jackshaft drive examples, D12016 also carried a "D" prefix.

 

I may be imagining things - and off topic - but I think some of the Woodhead electrics got a spurious E.

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, dibber25 said:

There IS news. CADs for both PWM and Class 11 on page 14 of the current issue. Much more interesting than arguing about use of the English language. (CJL)

 

That was last month though and probably about two pages back.

 

Some of us are on July now.  

 

 

 

Jason

[Swindon 123]

20 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I may be imagining things - and off topic - but I think some of the Woodhead electrics got a spurious E.

The Woodhead electrics had an "E" prefix added to their numbers in the 1960's, probably to prevent conflicting numbers with another item of rolling stock and identify them as electric locos, as all the new build 25KV electrics and SR electrics/ED,s had "E" prefixes.

 

Paul J.

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, Swindon 123 said:

The Woodhead electrics had an "E" prefix added to their numbers in the 1960's, probably to prevent conflicting numbers with another item of rolling stock and identify them as electric locos, as all the new build 25KV electrics and SR electrics/ED,s had "E" prefixes.

 

Paul J.

Oddly, this seems to have been done properly rather than just adding an 'E' to the existing number - yet the 'Tommies' were already designated as class 76 and could have been given their TOPS numbers ( not sure if any of the EM2s got the E ) so they didn't clash with BRCW type 2s ........... though the electrics DID start getting TOPS numbers 16 months earlier than diesels anyway.

[dibber25]

23 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

That was last month though and probably about two pages back.

 

Some of us are on July now.  

 

 

 

Jason

Finished July a couple of weeks ago. Working on whatever the next one is. (CJL)

[Swindon 123]

6 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Oddly, this seems to have been done properly rather than just adding an 'E' to the existing number - yet the 'Tommies' were already designated as class 76 and could have been given their TOPS numbers ( not sure if any of the EM2s got the E ) so they didn't clash with BRCW type 2s ........... though the electrics DID start getting TOPS numbers 16 months earlier than diesels anyway.

The class 76 & 77 had the "E" prefix added under the 1957 renumbering scheme, which came into being for the large numbers of new diesel and electric locos ordered under the 1955 modernisation plan. The "E" was added to the existing 1948 numbering scheme to bring them into line with the new electrics on order. Like all good BR renumbering schemes, it took time to implement, and some of the class 76's were scrapped without the "E" being added. Of the Class 77's, the only locos I don't know if the "E" was added to the number are 27003 & 27004. The other 5 locos all had "E" prefixes to their number when sold to Dutch Railways. The TOPS number system only came into being in 1968, but it took until 1972-3 before it started to be implemented for locos, (E26050 being the first ever loco to be renumbered under TOPS, becoming 76050 on 12/11/71). The 76's proved to be an easy renumbering, with in a lot of locos just having the E & 2 painted out, and a 7 substituted.

 

Paul J.

[Wickham Green too]

Just to complete the picture - and still way off topic - I believe the Southern's 'Hornbys' went to make razor blades ( in 1969 ) without receiving 'E's ........... they certainly didn't get their TOPS numbers and it was many years before 'class 70' was reissued for something rather different.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Wickham Green too
spilling

[mogman1969]

On 11/07/2019 at 19:48, No Decorum said:

Everyone knows you’re a man of taste. Perhaps its time will come if the GT3 project comes to fruition. Perhaps a prompt will come from a different direction with all the requests for early AC electrics. Design a tooling that could produce a Class 80 and 18100 and suddenly people will want 18000 too.

 

Won’t they? Especially when they hear another turbine sound project?

No Decorum , you hit the nail on the head . i have no intrest in anything west of marylebone but an early electric ...... ticks alot of quirky boxes . 

[The Stationmaster]

On 11/06/2020 at 02:46, Swindon 123 said:

The class 76 & 77 had the "E" prefix added under the 1957 renumbering scheme, which came into being for the large numbers of new diesel and electric locos ordered under the 1955 modernisation plan. The "E" was added to the existing 1948 numbering scheme to bring them into line with the new electrics on order. Like all good BR renumbering schemes, it took time to implement, and some of the class 76's were scrapped without the "E" being added. Of the Class 77's, the only locos I don't know if the "E" was added to the number are 27003 & 27004. The other 5 locos all had "E" prefixes to their number when sold to Dutch Railways. The TOPS number system only came into being in 1968, but it took until 1972-3 before it started to be implemented for locos, (E26050 being the first ever loco to be renumbered under TOPS, becoming 76050 on 12/11/71). The 76's proved to be an easy renumbering, with in a lot of locos just having the E & 2 painted out, and a 7 substituted.

 

Paul J.

A minor point.  The class identifier number based system had indeed been devised by 1968 so it predated any thought of BR buying TOPs by a number of years.   In fact it was introduced as a national system to replace the various different Regional systems which had previously been used.   TOPS trial sites first appeared in 1973 and wider introduction - initially with a few more trial sites for technical reasons - began in 1974.  TOPS as delivered to BR allowed existing loco and rolling stock numbers to be used with little or no adaptation and in fact it required programme alterations to allow class identifier based numbers to be fully exploited.

 

Clearly the arrival of TOPS, and wider exploitation of the system was an ideal opportunity for the class identifier based numbering system to be brought into full use with actual renumbering of locos.  But the class identifier system itself had been in use in the new Freight Train Loads System since 1968 - the first place in which it made its appearance for operational use.

[Roy Langridge]

On 07/08/2020 at 11:05, The Stationmaster said:

The class identifier number based system had indeed been devised by 1968 so it predated any thought of BR buying TOPs by a number of years.  

 

I think there is, however, a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. You are right that BR didn't buy TOPS until later, but it did look at in the late 1960s and BR knew that they had to get their numbering house in order to introduce such a system. As a result, there was little point in purchasing TOPS as the numbering system in use was not compliant, and there was no point in introducing a system that was not compliant. That took time to get fully realised and TOPS was duly purchased.

 

It also had to be considered that, at that time, there was little by of competition for TOPS.

Roy

[PenrithBeacon]

The September 1968 issue of Railways Illustrated has a complete description of the BR implementation of TOPS and the same description is repeated in the October 1968 issue of Railway Magazine. Clearly it was a press release. Later there were references, I think in Modern Railways, to the project being delayed because it had been decided to computerise it. Not a simple task in the late sixties which is why the full implementation wasn't until the early (?) 1970s.

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

I think there is, however, a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. You are right that BR didn't buy TOPS until later, but it did look at in the late 1960s and BR knew that they had to get their numbering house in order to introduce such a system. As a result, there was little point in purchasing TOPS as the numbering system in use was not compliant, and there was no point in introducing a system that was not compliant. That took time to get fully realised and TOPS was duly purchased.

 

It also had to be considered that, at that time, there was little by of competition for TOPS.

Roy

Actually the old numbering system was wholly compatible with TOPS - I'm not sure about 5 digit loco numbers but it the loco number field definitely accepted any number of digits up and including 4 with no problems at all although the SP used 4 digit numbers.  The only reason I don't know about 5 digit numbers was because we didn't have any in the areas where I worked but we used all the others and in most cases they activated weight and Brake Force detail as they were supposed to.

 

In fact the relevant parts of TOPS had to be reprogrammed to accept the Class identifier based painted numbers because it had never been programmed in US use to work with such a numbering system although I'm pretty sure, without checking back, that  it did recognise the class identifier somehow otherwise it couldn't have done the calculations needed for train loads and Brake Force etc.  But all that was input was the original painted number on the loco.

 

21 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The September 1968 issue of Railways Illustrated has a complete description of the BR implementation of TOPS and the same description is repeated in the October 1968 issue of Railway Magazine. Clearly it was a press release. Later there were references, I think in Modern Railways, to the project being delayed because it had been decided to computerise it. Not a simple task in the late sixties which is why the full implementation wasn't until the early (?) 1970s.

That sounds a bit odd to me.  TOPS was always a computerised system - that was the whole point of it as it had been designed from the very start to computerise the US method of various aspects of operating freight traffic.  Was what you read in 1968 an article about the new loco class identifier system or an article about the new freight train loads system?  It was introduced,  and was in operating dept use for the new system of freight train load calculation, during 1968 and obviously there were ideas about somehow eventually computerising that.    If I get a chance I'll try to delve out that issue of MR and have a look at the article.

 

But as several of the engineers behind had previously explained (when asked at lectures) there wasn't the money available to physically renumber locos using the class identifier system.  That was subsequently tagged on to get the cost through as part of the TOPS budget.  Various people had Derby had long wanted to nationally unify class identifiers for diesel locos and from what was said in answer to a question I asked at a lecture back in September 1966 even then various outline ideas had been worked up

 

In freight operating terms we were using class identifier numbers for locos from around the middle/early autumn of 1968 and of course the data panels which appeared from that year included that number because it was needed for calculations (and the list included all the diesel hydraulic classes then extant and they of course continued right to the end having only their original 'painted' number input to TOPS). 

[caradoc]

23 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The September 1968 issue of Railways Illustrated has a complete description of the BR implementation of TOPS and the same description is repeated in the October 1968 issue of Railway Magazine. Clearly it was a press release. Later there were references, I think in Modern Railways, to the project being delayed because it had been decided to computerise it. Not a simple task in the late sixties which is why the full implementation wasn't until the early (?) 1970s.

 

There is nothing in the October 1968 Railway Magazine regarding TOPS; There is, in the September 1968 edition (P565), a feature on the 'Reclassification of BR locomotives' , ie the Class numbering system, which was described as being 'to suit computerised accounting records'. 

 

The first time I became aware (as a young rail enthusiast, not railway staff of course) of TOPS was an article in the January 1972 Railway Magazine (P38); The same edition also mentions (P53) the first loco renumbering, 76050, although no mention is made here of TOPS !

 

Given that SP did not renumber its loco fleet for TOPS, I have always wondered why BR did; Could each loco's individual characteristics not have been programmed, so that (for example) TOPS would know that 6580 was a push-pull fitted Class 33, as opposed to a non-fitted or Hastings Line Gauge loco, instead of having to renumber it to 33119 ? Presumably, pre-TOPS, the SR's operating staff knew which locos were which variant, despite the 33/1s being scattered randomly among the 33/0s. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort updating my spotting books in the early 70s !

 

[andyman7]

The pre-TOPS numbering was extremely random though and regardless of its requirement for the system the renumbering made a lot of sense for just logically sorting the fleet out. The fact that the same process is used today (and also abroad) of putting the class number first and then the fleet number suggests that it has proved itself.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

The pre-TOPS numbering was extremely random though and regardless of its requirement for the system the renumbering made a lot of sense for just logically sorting the fleet out. The fact that the same process is used today (and also abroad) of putting the class number first and then the fleet number suggests that it has proved itself.

BR copied the class identifier number from the DB model more than from anything elsewhere - and it n had been used in Germany for along time.

 

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

There is nothing in the October 1968 Railway Magazine regarding TOPS; There is, in the September 1968 edition (P565), a feature on the 'Reclassification of BR locomotives' , ie the Class numbering system, which was described as being 'to suit computerised accounting records'. 

 

The first time I became aware (as a young rail enthusiast, not railway staff of course) of TOPS was an article in the January 1972 Railway Magazine (P38); The same edition also mentions (P53) the first loco renumbering, 76050, although no mention is made here of TOPS !

 

Given that SP did not renumber its loco fleet for TOPS, I have always wondered why BR did; Could each loco's individual characteristics not have been programmed, so that (for example) TOPS would know that 6580 was a push-pull fitted Class 33, as opposed to a non-fitted or Hastings Line Gauge loco, instead of having to renumber it to 33119 ? Presumably, pre-TOPS, the SR's operating staff knew which locos were which variant, despite the 33/1s being scattered randomly among the 33/0s. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort updating my spotting books in the early 70s !

 

Basically it could do the latter as data could in the SP system be identified to a loco number to see which class it was and what its characteristics and that of course was exactly what TOPS could do in the British situation and always did in respect of the diesel hydraulics which never had their running numbers changed either on the actual locos or in the TOPS data files.  Equally anyTOPS  accumulated maintenance etc data for locos under their old running number had to be tracked across to their new number when they were renumbered.

 

But class identifier numbers, especially sub groups with a prefix identifer were probably more suited in some respects to dealing with things likely the variety in Class 25s and later the considerable variety among Class 37s.  and it no doubt helped teh mechanical engineers because it gave a degree of consistency between their accounting etc records and detail shown on TOPS.

[SRman]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

BR copied the class identifier number from the DB model more than from anything elsewhere - and it n had been used in Germany for along time.

 

Basically it could do the latter as data could in the SP system be identified to a loco number to see which class it was and what its characteristics and that of course was exactly what TOPS could do in the British situation and always did in respect of the diesel hydraulics which never had their running numbers changed either on the actual locos or in the TOPS data files.  Equally anyTOPS  accumulated maintenance etc data for locos under their old running number had to be tracked across to their new number when they were renumbered.

 

But class identifier numbers, especially sub groups with a prefix identifer were probably more suited in some respects to dealing with things likely the variety in Class 25s and later the considerable variety among Class 37s.  and it no doubt helped teh mechanical engineers because it gave a degree of consistency between their accounting etc records and detail shown on TOPS.

 

They missed a trick with the 24s and 25s because they numbered them continuously instead of separating out the sub-classes. It would have saved a lot of confusion among modellers in distinguishing members of sub-class 25/2 from sub-class 25/3, as an example.

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, SRman said:

 

They missed a trick with the 24s and 25s because they numbered them continuously instead of separating out the sub-classes. It would have saved a lot of confusion among modellers in distinguishing members of sub-class 25/2 from sub-class 25/3, as an example.

Subdividing the 25s was an afterthought ............ and to confuse matters 24/0 & 24/1 were originally to have been 24/1 & 24/2 : good job nothing got painted 24.1xx before they changed their mind.

[dibber25]

The first EP of the Class 11 arrived from Heljan just before Christmas and is with Model Rail for testing etc. (CJL)

[boxbrownie]

On 26/12/2020 at 23:21, dibber25 said:

The first EP of the Class 11 arrived from Heljan just before Christmas and is with Model Rail for testing etc. (CJL)

And.....? 

[Covkid]

Is there any way of preordering these ?

With limited runs of 300 pieces I sense some people will be disappointed.  I rarely preorder locos, but in this case the credentials are appealing and I would really like a particular version. 

 

Is it being marketed by Model Rail ?

[boxbrownie]

Yes by Model Rail...well advertised in the magazine as one of their specials......I wouldn’t hold much hope out for ordering it yet, the EP must have got lost in the office 

[Covkid]

On 04/06/2021 at 19:08, boxbrownie said:

Yes by Model Rail...well advertised in the magazine as one of their specials......I wouldn’t hold much hope out for ordering it yet, the EP must have got lost in the office 

 

Thanks for that.  I don't buy many mags these days and certainly no subscriptions.  Might have to change that policy !!

[PMP]

On 04/06/2021 at 18:58, Covkid said:

Is there any way of preordering these ?

With limited runs of 300 pieces I sense some people will be disappointed.  I rarely preorder locos, but in this case the credentials are appealing and I would really like a particular version. 

 

Is it being marketed by Model Rail ?

The EP looks very good, it’ll be available to order through their web shop.

http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/pg/167/Project-Class-11-12

[boxbrownie]

31 minutes ago, PMP said:

The EP looks very good, it’ll be available to order through their web shop.

http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/pg/167/Project-Class-11-12

Tease....I thought you meant there were pictures of the EP available 

[PMP]

3 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Tease....I thought you meant there were pictures of the EP available 

Nope, I didn’t imply that either, I provided the link so that interested parties could see what’s being prepared and where in due course they can order it. Having seen the EP however, it does look good.