New Swindon Cross-Country DMU (later Class 120) on test?

[The Johnster]

A Canton freight guard in the early 70s, I sort of bridged the gap.  We referred to locos as 'Westerns' 'Hymeks' and so on where there was a definite class name, but also 'D1000s', 'D7000s', along with 'D68s' (even when they were D69s or D66s).  Brush Type 4s were called 'Sulzers', and Peaks were 'Cromptons' (the use of this for Class 33 still confuses me).  O8s were 'shunting engines'.  We divided our dmus into 'Valleys sets' and everything else.  Visits to Gloucester or Hereford revealed 'Baby Sulzers' and 'Fitted Wardrobes' (Classes 25 and 20). Class 40 seemed to have just been called 'Type 4s' on the LMR.  Brush Type 2 were 'Mirlees'.  Class 50, when they appeared, were never 'D400s', they were 'Hoovers'.

 

'Brush Type 4' and 'Peak' were spotter terminology; no railwayman that I knew would have had any idea what you meant.

 

The idea of 'D7000s' or 'D68s' seems to have been based on the GW idea that Halls were '49s' and so on.  I think this may have preconditioned us to early and easy acceptance of the TOPS class numbers, which sorted a lot of confusing anomalies and made dmu life much easier.  Hymeks were basically out of this loop, and Westerns continued to be called that or D1000s, probably because they never carried the TOPS numbers

[Wickham Green]

Staying resolutely OFF TOPIC - it's amazing what confusion a minor difference in terminology can cause : I remember exploring what was left of Birkenhead shed ( not much ) and my friend asked a couple of elderly railwaymen if they remembered 47324 when it was allocated there .......... he got a completely blank stare. I twigged where he'd gone wrong and chipped in '7324' and they knew what we were talking about immediately !

[The Stationmaster]

A Canton freight guard in the early 70s, I sort of bridged the gap.  We referred to locos as 'Westerns' 'Hymeks' and so on where there was a definite class name, but also 'D1000s', 'D7000s', along with 'D68s' (even when they were D69s or D66s).  Brush Type 4s were called 'Sulzers', and Peaks were 'Cromptons' (the use of this for Class 33 still confuses me).  O8s were 'shunting engines'.  We divided our dmus into 'Valleys sets' and everything else.  Visits to Gloucester or Hereford revealed 'Baby Sulzers' and 'Fitted Wardrobes' (Classes 25 and 20). Class 40 seemed to have just been called 'Type 4s' on the LMR.  Brush Type 2 were 'Mirlees'.  Class 50, when they appeared, were never 'D400s', they were 'Hoovers'.

 

'Brush Type 4' and 'Peak' were spotter terminology; no railwayman that I knew would have had any idea what you meant.

 

The idea of 'D7000s' or 'D68s' seems to have been based on the GW idea that Halls were '49s' and so on.  I think this may have preconditioned us to early and easy acceptance of the TOPS class numbers, which sorted a lot of confusing anomalies and made dmu life much easier.  Hymeks were basically out of this loop, and Westerns continued to be called that or D1000s, probably because they never carried the TOPS numbers

 

Not to forget that so called 'TOPS Class numbers' actually appeared on loco data panels from 1968 onwards.

[EddieK]

Staying resolutely OFF TOPIC - it's amazing what confusion a minor difference in terminology can cause : I remember exploring what was left of Birkenhead shed ( not much ) and my friend asked a couple of elderly railwaymen if they remembered 47324 when it was allocated there .......... he got a completely blank stare. I twigged where he'd gone wrong and chipped in '7324' and they knew what we were talking about immediately !

 

A colleague in our club was talking once about his home layout project, and when he mentioned having "47s" I immediately thought of Brush / Sulzer Type 4 diesel locomotives. It tool a while to realise he actually meant some sort of GWR boiling water-powered machine.

[The Johnster]

Not to forget that so called 'TOPS Class numbers' actually appeared on loco data panels from 1968 onwards.

 

But nobody took any notice of them, not traincrew anyway!

[The Stationmaster]

But nobody took any notice of them, not traincrew anyway!

 

I sincerely hope the Guard took notice if them when doing his Train Preparation!!!  It would savea lot of time looking at the Data Panel comnpared with thumbing through the White Pages of the WMRS to find the details for that class of loco.

[Dunsignalling]

If we applied that logic you should complain on every topic which refers to Jubilees as they were originally referred too as, I believe, 'Red Staniers' or 'Modified Patriots'. Don't get me started on those who insist on using ETS instead of ETH - it comes down to using terminology which people understand.

My post related to when the photo in the OP was taken, c1959, at which time the term "Class 120" didn't exist .

 

When ETH was first introduced, "ETS" would have been similarly meaningless. It's therefore only "ETS" on a model if the loco is finished in a condition that post-dates the introduction of air-conditioned coaches, when it stopped being simply Electric Train Heating.

 

Equally, D1500 on its first day in BR service, couldn't have been described as a Class 47, simply because at the time, there was no such thing as a Class 47.

 

What LMS locos got called by spotters years later is neither here nor there, nor me still calling Brush Type 4s "Duffs".

 

John

Edited May 23, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Bomag]

My post related to when the photo in the OP was taken, c1959, at which time the term "Class 120" didn't exist . When ETH was first introduced, "ETS" would have been similarly meaningless. It's therefore only "ETS" on a model if the loco is finished in a condition that post-dates the invention of the term.

 

Equally, D1500 on its first day in BR service, couldn't have been described as a Class 47, simply because at the time, there was no such thing as a Class 47.

 

What LMS locos got called by spotters years later is neither here nor there.

 

John

 

Pedantic twaddle - its a bit like saying old pictures of buses must refer to them omnibuses or 'buses. Similarly you should be be moaning about all references to 'Mk1' coaches in photos prior to 1963 when they were referred to as 'BR Standard' coaches. Also the references I made to Jubilees were apparently used by the LMS and not only spotters.

[dibber25]

My post related to when the photo in the OP was taken, c1959, at which time the term "Class 120" didn't exist .

 

When ETH was first introduced, "ETS" would have been similarly meaningless. It's therefore only "ETS" on a model if the loco is finished in a condition that post-dates the introduction of air-conditioned coaches, when it stopped being simply Electric Train Heating.

 

Equally, D1500 on its first day in BR service, couldn't have been described as a Class 47, simply because at the time, there was no such thing as a Class 47.

 

What LMS locos got called by spotters years later is neither here nor there, nor me still calling Brush Type 4s "Duffs".

 

John

 

Oh, for Pete's sake!! I altered the heading two days ago to make it pedant-proof. I thought people would be interested in the photo not arguing about the blasted heading! (CJL)

[locoholic]

I wonder if there's any connection between this thread and one covering the Model Rail Announcement...……….

That would be very nice.

[Dunsignalling]

Apologies for upsetting Chris. I was responding to a previous post, not the amended heading. 

 

To Bomag I was merely pointing out that, had he or I been there on the day, that's what it would have been called. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

That may be slightly pedantic, but as it is indisputably true, it cannot be twaddle. How about that for pedantry   

 

As for the "BR Mk.1", as soon as someone introduces a Mk.2 of anything, its predecessor becomes the Mk.1 by default.

 

John

[Joseph_Pestell]

Oh, for Pete's sake!! I altered the heading two days ago to make it pedant-proof. I thought people would be interested in the photo not arguing about the blasted heading! (CJL)

Well, Chris, as an experienced editor, you should know better.

[Wickham Green]

Apologies for upsetting Chris. I was responding to a previous post, not the amended heading. 

 

To Bomag I was merely pointing out that, had he or I been there on the day, that's what it would have been called. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

That may be slightly pedantic, but as it is indisputably true, it cannot be twaddle. How about that for pedantry   

 

As for the "BR Mk.1", as soon as someone introduces a Mk.2 of anything, its predecessor becomes the Mk.1 by default.

 

John

Sorry, I think the pedantry started with my post # 7 .......... for which I make absolutely no apologies - other than to Dunsignalling who's taken up the baton on my behalf in confirming that' on the day, that's what it would have been called' - Thanks !

 

As for Mk1 naturally being a predecessor of Mk II, I agree to a point - but in the case of British Railways so-called "Standard" coaches what is known as the Mk4 inherited absolutely nothing from its supposed predecessors ! - and is anything but standard with anything else. ( Ditto on Irish Rail where a totally different type of Mk4 coach followed Mk II & Mk III stock of B.R. parentage.)

[br2975]

This has descended into a good example of " how to divert potential further posts from what started out as a perfectly interesting, historic thread ".

.

How many new members would be put off by what appears to be  'pedantic one upmanship'  which, when challenged, some try to pass off as 'banter' ?

Edited May 24, 2018 by br2975

[Wickham Green]

This has descended into a good example of " how to divert potential further posts from what started out as a perfectly interesting, historic thread ".

.

How many new members would be put off by what appears to be  'pedantic one upmanship'  which, when challenged, some try to pass off as 'banter' ?

I suspect the scope for 'a perfectly interesting, historic' discussion on the EXACT topic posted was exhausted on page 1 of this thread ........ but if what follows is of no interest to a new member he'll find plenty more threads elsewhere on this forum .... and if none of THOSE excite his taste buds I trust he knows where the 'OFF' button is  -  goodbye.