Happy Birthday TOPS numbers!

[Halvarras]

Since it is now after midnight I can post this - I suddenly remembered it while doing the dishes after tea........for some reason!

 

According to the railway press at the time, the very first BR locomotive to receive a TOPS number was Class 76 E26050, which became 76050 at Crewe Works on 14th November 1971 - 50 years ago today. I was careful to say 'TOPS numbers' and not just 'TOPS' because I believe the system itself pre-dates the actual renumbering process. To begin with only electric locomotives were renumbered, diesels joining in when Peak Class 45 D96 became 45101 at Derby in March 1973. Throughout the summer of 1973 renumbered Peaks continued to appear but other works were still outshopping all other classes with their original numbers, however this changed from September. Renumbering at depot level started in December but initially very few were done until the middle of February 1974 when mass renumbering commenced, with a lot of activity during late February and throughout March. By May the vast majority were sporting their new identities, although Class 45s were still only being renumbered during works attention and several unrenumbered Class 47s lingered on awhile awaiting entry into their ETH programme, despite having been allocated TOPS numbers in the 47/0 series.

 

My own first sight of a TOPS numbered loco was 83006 (ex-E3029) at Euston on 14th October 1972, exactly 11 months after 76050 appeared (I didn't see electric locos very often!) First TOPS diesels were gleaming 45106 (ex-D106) and 45107 (ex-D43) seen parked together outside Derby Works on 25th May 1973 as I passed through en route from Swindon to Newcastle in the famous all-maroon Mark 1 rake hauled by a clean 1574.

 

As is well known the Peaks were (mostly) renumbered at random and 45106 was one of only two which managed to transfer their original numbers into their TOPS identities, the other being 45016 (ex-D16). I say 'mostly' because once the run of fifty ETH-fitted Class 45/1s had been completed the remaining Class 45s still awaiting works attention were quickly added to the Class 45/0 series in numerical order, around spring 1975. As well as claiming the title of first TOPS-numbered diesel, Class 45 was also to claim the last - severely collision-damaged D125 didn't emerge from repair at Derby as 45071 until December 1975.

 

And now I'm off to bed!

Edited November 14, 2021 by Halvarras
Source of first renumbering recalled!

[The Stationmaster]

And BR's first (trial site) TOPS offices opened in mid 1972 so TOPS didn't go live until that year and then only for the trial sites.  National cutover to TOPS didn't start until mid 1973 and of course at that time lcos numbers were free format as locos were not included in the system until some time later.

[kevinlms]

10 hours ago, Halvarras said:

Since it is now after midnight I can post this - I suddenly remembered it while doing the dishes after tea........for some reason!

 

According to the railway press at the time, the very first BR locomotive to receive a TOPS number was Class 76 E26050, which became 76050 at Crewe Works on 14th November 1971 - 50 years ago today. I was careful to say 'TOPS numbers' and not just 'TOPS' because I believe the system itself pre-dates the actual renumbering process. To begin with only electric locomotives were renumbered, diesels joining in when Peak Class 45 D96 became 45101 at Derby in March 1973. Throughout the summer of 1973 renumbered Peaks continued to appear but other works were still outshopping all other classes with their original numbers, however this changed from September. Renumbering at depot level started in December but initially very few were done until the middle of February 1974 when mass renumbering commenced, with a lot of activity during late February and throughout March. By May the vast majority were sporting their new identities, although Class 45s were still only being renumbered during works attention and several unrenumbered Class 47s lingered on awhile awaiting entry into their ETH programme, despite having been allocated TOPS numbers in the 47/0 series.

 

My own first sight of a TOPS numbered loco was 83006 (ex-E3029) at Euston on 14th October 1972, exactly 11 months after 76050 appeared (I didn't see electric locos very often!) First TOPS diesels were gleaming 45106 (ex-D106) and 45107 (ex-D43) seen parked together outside Derby Works on 25th May 1973 as I passed through en route from Swindon to Newcastle in the famous all-maroon Mark 1 rake hauled by a clean 1574.

 

As is well known the Peaks were (mostly) renumbered at random and 45106 was one of only two which managed to transfer their original numbers into their TOPS identities, the other being 45016 (ex-D16). I say 'mostly' because once the run of fifty ETH-fitted Class 45/1s had been completed the remaining Class 45s still awaiting works attention were quickly added to the Class 45/0 series in numerical order, around spring 1975. As well as claiming the title of first TOPS-numbered diesel, Class 45 was also to claim the last - severely collision-damaged D125 didn't emerge from repair at Derby as 45071 until December 1975.

 

And now I'm off to bed!

So why did some classes mostly get numbered in sequence, yet others were entirely random?

[Gwiwer]

Ah those were the days.  Some of use were unaware of the impending changes and were more than somewhat surprised and confused to be presented with locos bearing their new numbers.  The ABC "Combine" was of course the spotter's bible at the time and took a couple of years to start catching up.  Those of us who needed to know (but who may not have had access to official records) had to await news in the Railway Magazine or similar before we could translate sightings into underlinings  

 

As TOPS was rolled out across the fleets so many DMU cars were renumbered to avoid clashing with already-allocated locomotive numbers (E56001 and loco 56001 for example) though iirc the remaining 52xxx cars retained their numbers rather than make way for the class 52 "Westerns" which were not themselves to be renumbered though were identified as 520xx on TOPS.

 

Then the coaching stock was done as required, largely the Mk1 CK and SK fleets the latter of which occupied the 24xxx - 26xxx series required by diesel loco classes 24 - 26.  Quite why the CKs needed doing escapes me now; they were 15xxx and 16xxx which series were not required for anything else at the time but were renumbered into the 7xxx series.  

 

How does the system cope today?  Six-digit carriage numbers are now common.  Many of those duplicate unit numbers either in history (but within TOPS purview) or extant such as the 42x xxx series used on the class 387 Electrostars.  Has TOPS the ability to distinguish now?  Or has it archived the units concerned which then raises the question of  how it identifies extant 4-Vep 423417 among others.

[Oldddudders]

It took a lot more years for Southern EMUs to fall into line. Presumably the RM&EE was happy that existing maintenance records and reporting were adequate for ensuring units got their scheduled attention, so TOPS's ability to assist was not considered vital. LOVERS and RAVERS come to mind as system names then in use, I think. Even when the TOPS numbers were applied, they typically ignored the first two digits. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

42 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

So why did some classes mostly get numbered in sequence, yet others were entirely random?

It was all part of the way Ian Allen infiltrated senior British Rail management in the early 1970s. Modern Railways wasn't selling as well as they hoped, and the grand renumbering scheme was a ploy of theirs to get every trainspotter to buy a copy each month so they could keep up with the renumberings. Clearly British Rail and Ian Allen had a later falling out, and BR started using predictable numbering sequences for most classes, but the Peaks, 24s and some others seemed random right to the end.

[Titan]

When it comes to TOPS, it is always a bit of chicken and egg situation.  First, in 1968 the numbers for each class were thought of, but no renumbering was undertaken.  Then TOPS came along and it was desired to have the class number as the leading two digits,  so the class number which became known as the TOPS number actually preceded TOPS by a number of years.  So when TOPS was introduced the number had already been around, just not yet applied to any loco.  TOPS then prompted a renumbering that could have been done years earlier, and seen class 23 and 28 etc. carry their respective "TOPS" number before withdrawal.  I guess decals cost money so BR did not renumber until it had to...

 

So interpret the introduction of TOPS and TOPS numbers according to your preference!

Edited November 14, 2021 by Titan

[Halvarras]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

So why did some classes mostly get numbered in sequence, yet others were entirely random?

 

The only classes to be renumbered at random during the 'first wave' were 45 & 86. The new numbers were allocated in order as and when locomotives arrived for scheduled works attention, they do not appear to have been 'pre-allocated' on a master list as the rest of the fleet were. My assumption is that a batch of both classes were about to be fitted with ETH and selections were made upon examination of the locomotives as they turned up, possibly based on overall mechanical and/or electrical condition. I can't think of any other reason why Derby for example turned out 45001-3 alongside 45101-12 (all of these carried their new TOPS numbers on all four corners so they are directly comparable).

ETH-fitted Class 47s had reached 47528 (ex-D1111) in numerical order, but from 47529 onwards further conversions followed the above random pattern. Same for ETH Class 31s beyond 31417 (ex-D5856).

[John M Upton]

I recall reading an old Ian Allan ABC once where there were no /0 classes so for example what became 33/0, 33/1 and 33/2 were /1, /2 and /3 respectively. 

 

There were a few other oddities too.

[keefer]

2 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

 Quite why the CKs needed doing escapes me now; they were 15xxx and 16xxx which series were not required for anything else at the time but were renumbered into the 7xxx series

I think it was SUB or early EPB vehicles which were numbered S16xxxS.

The various number clashes only became a problem when the MUs then coaches were put onto TOPS or POIS in the early 80s. Until then, the use of regional prefix letters meant numbers could be duplicated - but the computer systems couldn't use the letters so any numbers then had to be unique.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

11 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

I recall reading an old Ian Allan ABC once where there were no /0 classes so for example what became 33/0, 33/1 and 33/2 were /1, /2 and /3 respectively. 

 

There were a few other oddities too.

I didn't know this. Did it precede renumbering? It probably wouldn't have made much sense to call the three class 47 sub-classes 47/0, 47/3 and 47/4 before the new numbers were known, but it would be confusing to call the renumbered locomotives 47/1, 47/2 and 47/3.

 

Multiple units in the 1970s only used /1, /2. /3 etc sub-classes but these weren't reflected in their numbers at all.

[Gwiwer]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Even when the TOPS numbers were applied, they typically ignored the first two digits. 

And still do to this day on SWR class 455 units.  

 

38 minutes ago, keefer said:

I think it was SUB or early EPB vehicles which were numbered S16xxxS.

Indeed.  It was EPB stock which used those series.  SUB stock was numbered variously in the 8xxx, 9xxx or earlier 1xxxx series though some vehicles were later rebuilt and renumbered and some were swapped between SUB and EPB units as well.  A comprehensive history is on the Blood & Custard Website

 

1 hour ago, John M Upton said:

I recall reading an old Ian Allan ABC once where there were no /0 classes so for example what became 33/0, 33/1 and 33/2 were /1, /2 and /3 respectively. 

 

There were a few other oddities too.

The push-pull fitted class 33s were originally assigned class 34 which explains why that number has not apparently been used in the locomotive series.  Class 33 was then re-designated 33/1, 33/2 and 33/3 as John says but fell into line with the rest of BR quickly in becoming 33/0 (standard locos), 33/1 (push-pull locos) and 33/2 (Slim Jim "Hastings" width locos).

 

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

So why did some classes mostly get numbered in sequence, yet others were entirely random?

BR and the Big Four had usually started class numbers with 0 or 00 such as D9000 for the Deltics and 26000 for the prototype LNER electric "Woodhead" loco.

 

Computer systems could not, at the time, assign a "value" to a zero-number; in binary 1 "is" and 0 "is not" meaning D9000 could not become 55 000 (using the space as in early TOPS days) as it would suggest Class 55 but not a locomotive.  Class leaders were therefore typically renumbered as the highest in the class if none was missing following withdrawal otherwise they were slotted in as the lowest otherwise-vacant number.  So D9000 became 55022 and D9001 became 55001.  That accounts for some of the "random" renumbering but again there were exceptions.  Of the class 33s D6502 had been an early accident victim, D6500 became 33001, 6501 became 33002 and 6503 became 33003 filling the gap.  Class 03 was renumbered taking the last three digits of their previous number despite many gaps so D2018 became 03018 despite most of its earlier sisters having been withdrawn some time previously; the high-number batch were 033xx for the same reason.  Holyhead Breakwater locos D2954/5 became 01001/2, the then-unique (on BR) class 05 on the Isle of Wight became 05001 from D2554 but the vast numbers of class 08 shunters were numbered consecutively meaning D3018 became 08011 and towards the top end D4174 became 08944.  Had there still been 1000 or more (996 were built to the class 08 configuration) in service we might have had a problem!  

 

I understood, but am happy to be corrected if necessary, that the entirely random renumbering of some other main-line classes was connected with rebuild programs either in progress or authorised such that Peaks were split into class 45/0 and 45/1 according to heating provision, class 47 into several sub-classes again based upon equipment (such as the no-heat class 47/3) and whether or not long-range fuel tanks were fitted and class 86 subdivided according to suspension and other technical differences with the 86/2 being fitted with Flexicoil kit for top-link passenger work.  As such the numbers were assigned as locomotives went through works or classified overhaul rather than based upon the original BR numbers.  

 

When multiple units were renumbered into their TOPS classes much the same occurred; the SR 4-CIG units for example being subdivided into 421/1 and 421/2 carrying numbers 11xx and 12xx to begin with though more changes were made later.  

.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Gwiwer

[JeffP]

6 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

It was all part of the way Ian Allen infiltrated senior British Rail management in the early 1970s. Modern Railways wasn't selling as well as they hoped, and the grand renumbering scheme was a ploy of theirs to get every trainspotter to buy a copy each month so they could keep up with the renumberings. Clearly British Rail and Ian Allen had a later falling out, and BR started using predictable numbering sequences for most classes, but the Peaks, 24s and some others seemed random right to the end.

It was certainly the random renumbering that got me and a mate re-interested.

We'd gone on a Merrymaker excursion, actually a Mystery Tour which we boarded at Gainsborough Lea Road, and which went to Weston super Mare. Spring 1973.

My mate bought an Ian Allen on Bristol TM station, and it took off from there.

That was the first time I'd ever been sworn at by a BR employee.

Entering Bath Road depot by the proper entrance, and approaching the desk to ask permission, we were greeted brfore we even asked, by "No you can't go round the depot, now **** off."

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, JeffP said:

Entering Bath Road depot by the proper entrance, and approaching the desk to ask permission, we were greeted brfore we even asked, by "No you can't go round the depot, now **** off."

It seemed to depend who you met and what sort of day they were having.  In diesel days it was much harder to "bunk" a depot than it had been during the steam era but even then you could be thrown out on your ear without warning.  A few unlucky spotters also had their notebooks taken though that seemed to be very much the exception.  Stratford depot in London was famously difficult to get into; the official route was a subway beneath the station which almost always had someone walking through who would march you smartly out before you got anywhere near anything.  What was less well-known was the Temple Mills Lane gate which wasn't always locked (though should have been) and which required you to cross "live" running lines to get into the depot area but which was much closer to the interesting stuff.  That way you stood at least a small chance ..... 

 

Much the same was true of bus garages.  Some companies turned a blind eye, some required written permits, some had an absolute no-entry policy and some actually made you a cup of tea!  

[Bomag]

On 14/11/2021 at 12:59, Gwiwer said:

Ah those were the days.  Some of use were unaware of the impending changes and were more than somewhat surprised and confused to be presented with locos bearing their new numbers.  The ABC "Combine" was of course the spotter's bible at the time and took a couple of years to start catching up.  Those of us who needed to know (but who may not have had access to official records) had to await news in the Railway Magazine or similar before we could translate sightings into underlinings  

 

As TOPS was rolled out across the fleets so many DMU cars were renumbered to avoid clashing with already-allocated locomotive numbers (E56001 and loco 56001 for example) though iirc the remaining 52xxx cars retained their numbers rather than make way for the class 52 "Westerns" which were not themselves to be renumbered though were identified as 520xx on TOPS.

 

Then the coaching stock was done as required, largely the Mk1 CK and SK fleets the latter of which occupied the 24xxx - 26xxx series required by diesel loco classes 24 - 26.  Quite why the CKs needed doing escapes me now; they were 15xxx and 16xxx which series were not required for anything else at the time but were renumbered into the 7xxx series.  

 

How does the system cope today?  Six-digit carriage numbers are now common.  Many of those duplicate unit numbers either in history (but within TOPS purview) or extant such as the 42x xxx series used on the class 387 Electrostars.  Has TOPS the ability to distinguish now?  Or has it archived the units concerned which then raises the question of  how it identifies extant 4-Vep 423417 among others.

 

DMU and coaches were renumbers for TOPS from 1983 so 52xxx power cars didn't need to renumbered as Westerns had gone for 5+years

 

BFK 14xxx and CK 15xxx-162xx needed to be cleared for 4 EPB DMSO (14xxx), EPB TS/TSO (15xxx) and EPM DTSO (161xx)  - they lost the S prefix/suffix and were absorbed into the BR number series. There were less than 200 BFKs and about 80% of CKs had gone by then so it was less work to renumber the coaches rather than the EMUs.

 

[rodent279]

So which loco carried it's first TOPS no. the longest, and which the shortest?

[russ p]

50 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

So which loco carried it's first TOPS no. the longest, and which the shortest?

 

I would think the DRS 37/0s must be contenders if preservation isn't counted and probably the 02s that got them the shortest or 71s 

[Gwiwer]

There’s a nice picture of a blue 20001 on a Bookface group I belong to. 
 

The only problem being that it’s at Brighton and the 20001 in question was previously CC1 not D8001 and was assigned to class 70 on paper. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Gwiwer

[The Stationmaster]

On 14/11/2021 at 13:43, Titan said:

When it comes to TOPS, it is always a bit of chicken and egg situation.  First, in 1968 the numbers for each class were thought of, but no renumbering was undertaken.  Then TOPS came along and it was desired to have the class number as the leading two digits,  so the class number which became known as the TOPS number actually preceded TOPS by a number of years.  So when TOPS was introduced the number had already been around, just not yet applied to any loco.  TOPS then prompted a renumbering that could have been done years earlier, and seen class 23 and 28 etc. carry their respective "TOPS" number before withdrawal.  I guess decals cost money so BR did not renumber until it had to...

 

So interpret the introduction of TOPS and TOPS numbers according to your preference!

And really all down to money.  Once the national class numbers had been brought into use in 1968 when, among other things, they replaced the different class identifiers used by the various Regions with two or three different designations for exactly the same locos.  The new class identifiers became very much part of the operational railway scene from 1968 but no money could be found to do what the M&EE folk wanted which was to renumber the whole loco fleet making use of the class number as the first two digits of the running number (which had been an ambition even before 1968).  But when TOPS came along there was plenty of money and some of it could be readily explained away as being 'needed' for the 'essential' renumbering of the loco fleet (although it wasn't actually needed except to make things tidier - it didn't have any operational impact because TOPS already 'knew' which class locos happened to belong to as part of the system's loco database programming and it then had to be reprogrammed to substitute the new running number for the previous one).

[leopardml2341]

Does anyone have a picture of 45101 when it was first renunbered that they would be willing to share, either on forum or by pm?

 

45101 was the very first renumbered loco I saw, and certainly was not in my ABC, at Sheffield not long after it was outshopped as such. Trouble is I can't remember (it was nearly 49 years ago) if it had numbers at all four corners, or indeed if it was 45.101 as some early renumbers had a . between the Class and Serial numbers.

 

I've recently,  via a tip off on Bargain Hunters, acquired a blue Peak which I will renumber to 45101 as it just fits the period I model.

 

Also, if anyone has a couple of ETH jumpers going spare.......

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

[andyman7]

On 16/11/2021 at 00:44, Bomag said:

 

DMU and coaches were renumbers for TOPS from 1983 so 52xxx power cars didn't need to renumbered as Westerns had gone for 5+years

 

BFK 14xxx and CK 15xxx-162xx needed to be cleared for 4 EPB DMSO (14xxx), EPB TS/TSO (15xxx) and EPM DTSO (161xx)  - they lost the S prefix/suffix and were absorbed into the BR number series. There were less than 200 BFKs and about 80% of CKs had gone by then so it was less work to renumber the coaches rather than the EMUs.

 

I remember is being post-1982 because it allowed the Class 122 cars to keep their 55XXX numbers as by then the Deltics had gone too