Dxxxx to Tops numbering

[D5541]

Morning all

 

Hopefully I can word this so it makes sense, but...

 

When (thinking smaller classes) locos were renumbered from Dxxxx to Tops, would the first in the D series become xx001, with the rest of the class being a number up from their original D number, or would Dxx01 become xx001 and Dx000 be tacked on at the end of the Tops sequence?

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi D5541

 

All depended on the class. Some like the Deltics the first of the class became the last of the class, D9000 became 55 022. Others like the Class 40s D200 took the TOPS number of 40 122, which would have been D322's TOPS number but she had been withdrawn before the TOPS numbering.

 

Other classes it was more complicated where the class had sub classes. Example being the class 47's where the TOPS number bore little relationship to the D series number as the sub classes were grouped together.

[br2975]

All depended on the class. Some like the Deltics the first of the class became the last of the class, D9000 became 55 022. Others like the Class 40s D200 took the TOPS number of 40 122, which would have been D322's TOPS number but she had been withdrawn before the TOPS numbering.

 

Other classes it was more complicated where the class had sub classes. Example being the class 47's where the TOPS number bore little relationship to the D series number as the sub classes were grouped together.

Clive.

.

Don't consider a career in politics - your answer(s) are concise, and easy for the average man to understand !!!!!

[giz]

Class 45 must be the most confusing. ISTR that the 45/1 were re-numbered in the order they went through works to be fitted with ETH with the rest becoming 45/0.

 

This page on the BR Database shows the total hotchpotch:

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=37&type=D&page=fleet&ad=&sc=

[AberdeenBill]

The original number series for undifferentiated class 08s/09s/10s ran to well over 1000 locos (D3000 to D4192), but the renumbered 08s were "squeezed" into 08 001 to 08 958.

 

If there was just one loco in the class, it was easy, as in 05 001.  

 

Bill

[jonny777]

Class 45 must be the most confusing. ISTR that the 45/1 were re-numbered in the order they went through works to be fitted with ETH with the rest becoming 45/0.

 

This page on the BR Database shows the total hotchpotch:

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=37&type=D&page=fleet&ad=&sc=

 

 

Yes, and the 86s must run the 45s a close second.

[slilley]

Hi D5541

 

All depended on the class. Some like the Deltics the first of the class became the last of the class, D9000 became 55 022. Others like the Class 40s D200 took the TOPS number of 40 122, which would have been D322's TOPS number but she had been withdrawn before the TOPS numbering.

 

Other classes it was more complicated where the class had sub classes. Example being the class 47's where the TOPS number bore little relationship to the D series number as the sub classes were grouped together.

With the Class 47s D1500 became 47401, so of that pioneer batch each TOPS number was one "higher" than the original number.

[Southernman46]

Those were the days - scouring the traction news pages of RM for the list of latest re-numberings.........

Jumpers for goalposts..............

The 45's were chaotic to say the least............

[caradoc]

I went to the library in the Westgate Centre in Oxford and copied the renumbering from Modern Railways each month.....Do libraries still have magazines to read or is this now part of history ?

[JeffP]

It was the reneumbering of the Peaks, seen at Bristol Temple Meads in 1973, that led to a mate buying a book to check out what was going on...and the rest is history, as they say.

[AberdeenBill]

Not to hijack the thread, but when you were a 'spotter in the 1970s (or indeed anytime), and a loco you had seen was renumbered, did it still "count" or did you have to spot it again?

 

Bill

[Ray M]

I remember coming back, from a day trip to Manchester.

And saying to the old fella ,that we`ve  spotted a load of sparkys on longsight,

with numbers that aint in the books.  He seemed quite suprised.

[JeffP]

Not to hijack the thread, but when you were a 'spotter in the 1970s (or indeed anytime), and a loco you had seen was renumbered, did it still "count" or did you have to spot it again?

 

Bill

We had stopped in 1968 after the demise of steam, but re-started entirely in 1973.

[D5541]

That's brilliant, thanks for all the answers :-)

 

Dan

[SRman]

I never understood why classes 24/25 were just numbered in straight blocks without regard to the sub-classes. As an example, 25 0XX could be a 25/0 or a 25/1, 25 2XX could be a 25/2 or a 25/3, depending on the actual numbers represented by the X's.The sub-classes were kept n numerical blocks but were numbered straight on from the previous block,

Possibly that's taking us a little away from the original question, but it is sort of related.

[Phil Bullock]

Not to hijack the thread, but when you were a 'spotter in the 1970s (or indeed anytime), and a loco you had seen was renumbered, did it still "count" or did you have to spot it again?

 

Bill

In our circles it still counted - hence you had to be sure how the number had been converted from the original. IIRC the spotting books of the time dealt with this well enough but of course there was a delay in their being published....

 

Phil

[jonny777]

Not to hijack the thread, but when you were a 'spotter in the 1970s (or indeed anytime), and a loco you had seen was renumbered, did it still "count" or did you have to spot it again?

 

Bill

 

 

Yes, we had this dilemma but we decided that we were spotting the loco not just the number, so it counted in either case. 

 

Our bigger concern was how complete did the loco have to be to count?  Did a 47 in Crewe Works minus its engine count? Or what about a semi-cut hulk on the scrap line at Swindon? It was all taken very seriously.

 

My biggest problem came one day at Derby Works where a 25 must have just been given a replacement cab from another loco, as it had one number at one end and a completely different one at the other.

[jamie92208]

Yes, we had this dilemma but we decided that we were spotting the loco not just the number, so it counted in either case. 

 

Our bigger concern was how complete did the loco have to be to count?  Did a 47 in Crewe Works minus its engine count? Or what about a semi-cut hulk on the scrap line at Swindon? It was all taken very seriously.

 

My biggest problem came one day at Derby Works where a 25 must have just been given a replacement cab from another loco, as it had one number at one end and a completely different one at the other.

I remember when the 56's were being built at Donny having a similar conversation as to which piece of metal counted as locos.  We eventually decided the ones with engines on their proper bogies but not the sets of frames on accommodation bogies.  Whoever thought we would discuss the 'ethics' of trainspotting. 

 

Jamie

[stovepipe]

What about locos undergoing heavy maintenance then - engine and bogies elsewhere - did they count?

[jonny777]

I remember when the 56's were being built at Donny having a similar conversation as to which piece of metal counted as locos.  We eventually decided the ones with engines on their proper bogies but not the sets of frames on accommodation bogies.  Whoever thought we would discuss the 'ethics' of trainspotting. 

 

Jamie

 

Yes, I remember going to Crewe Works when the 87s were under construction and having the same problem, although in reality it did not matter as I was going to see them in service anyway.

 

However, the APT power cars (class 49) were being built at Derby one time I was there and I never saw those in service. In fact I never saw them ever again.

 

I used to put them in my book, but in brackets just as a record of what was there. I did not count them at the time, but looking back now, I suppose that I am relieved to have seen something.

 

What about locos undergoing heavy maintenance then - engine and bogies elsewhere - did they count?

 

After a long discussion, we decided that they counted; mainly because the whole loco's parts were there somewhere, and we had probably walked by most of the bits without realising.

 

But that was my local group's agreed decision, others might differ.

[JeffP]

As a lad, going round "The Plant", we were allowed to write down a number if it was visible on any part of the loco, but NOT just on detached pieces.

 

Hence, 60095, Flamingo, in the erecting shops, with 60095 on the cabs, chalked on the bufferbeam, frames, etc, but with no wheels or boiler, counted.

Parts of 60700, outside on the scrap line, (streamlined casing with 60700 chalked on), or a set of rods with 60095 chalked on, but no sign of the loco, didn't.

 

At nine years old, I took it pretty seriously, and certainly didn't want to be accused of being a cribber.......that was worse than being called a "summer only".

 

Arguments often ensued, since locos like 60095 ONLY appeared at Doncaster for shopping, they were allocated to Carlisle and we never saw them on the ECML.

[D5541]

Spotting certainly sounds like a serious business back in the day :-p

 

I'm an 80's child and it was a decidedly unfashionable hobby amongst my crowd of friends back then :-/ I missed the Dxxxx/Tops transition and I never really ranged far on my own, but regular trips to Penzance to help dad put stuff on the mail train, or clothes being dried at the launderette and dad taking me down to the station to pass the time made up the bulk of my number collecting, and regular trips up to Cheltenham. I do remember seeing certain locos almost every time I was on or near a train, the class 37 Tre Pol and Pen, is one that sticks, saw that so many times!

 

My book, if memory serves, was an abc one, with a picture of 89001 on the cover, seem to recall it being the 1989 book of numbers, but if anyone can confirm or correct me...?

 

Asides from my waffling

Is it possible to reverse engineer Tops to Dxxxx numbers? I.E. What range would the 60's or 92's have been in?

 

Dan :-)

[keefer]

Don't think there was any pattern as such to the D numbers, presumably just allocated a big enough block.

That said different blocks of numbers could be used for the same class e.g. what became the class 25s

[csiedmo]

They were with a few exceptions arranged by type, so Type 4s all being D1-D1999,  Shunters D2000-D4999, Type 2s D5000-D6499, Type 3s D6500-D7999, Type 1s D8000-D8999, Type 5s D9000+, the exceptions being the Class 25s in the D75xx range as they'd run out of room in their own range (but not the type 2 range!) and for some unfathomable reason the Class 14s in the D95xx range. You would imagine that the Class 56s, 58s 59s and 60s would have extended the type 5 range skipping over the Class 14s, so 56s: D91xx 58s: D93xx, 59s: D94xx, 60s: D96xx.

[EddieB]

 

My book, if memory serves, was an abc one, with a picture of 89001 on the cover, seem to recall it being the 1989 book of numbers, but if anyone can confirm or correct me...?

 

The 1989 edition of the Ian Allan "abc British Rail Locomotives" certainly has 89001 on the cover (and price of £1.40).

 

Spotters' book had stopped showing the pre-TOPs numbers by then, but had for many years shown previous number(s) in brackets.  (Actually the last with new and old numbers I can find is an NREA publication from 1987.  Ian Allan stopped well before that date - a 1981 Combined Volume only shows previous number series for each class).