BR Numbering

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I didn't think the A1 ran for London to Bristol.  But GWR engine A1, renumbered 100A1 definitely ran from Paddington to Bristol

The Great Western being what it was, they possibly thought that the road numbering was wrong and that the A1 should have been the Bath Road.

 

Jim

[Butler Henderson]

On a straight cost basis the BR renumbering always seems  a  bit odd to me. In 1948 the country was hardly awash with money and the new nationalised railway system decided to use smokebox door numberplates in lieu of painting numbers on front bufferbeams so the solution could have been that ex LMS locos retained their numbers being the only ones with smokebox door numberplates. As had occurred at grouping cabside numberplates (ex GWR locos) would be removed and possibly the metals reclaimed.

[Wickham Green too]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

........ Quite different to BR numbering since TOPS, where any significant variation to a loco, usually means a renumber to another batch. ...... 

This seems to have gone wrong with the recent electrodiesel rebuilds which has resulted in two* very different class 73/9 variants - one of which should, perhaps, have been 73/8 ??!?

* arguably three

[JimC]

20 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

The Great Western being what it was, they possibly thought that the road numbering was wrong and that the A1 should have been the Bath Road.

Personally I think they were trying for cheaper insurance premiums...

[Wickham Green too]

Returning - sort of - to the original 1948 question, one of life's greatest mysteries must be the book "Modern Locomotives" by Brian Reed and 'First published in 1949.' ( Temple Press ) which includes a wonderful colour painting frontispiece of loco 66014 ( By permission on Locomotive Publishing Co.Ltd.) and a photo of loco 66110 ( uncredited ) : 'A Western Region King Class 4-6-0 on a West of England Express' and 'Suburban traffic out of Paddington is worked by 2-6-2T engines of this type' respectively.

Yes, the painting's a painting and the photo is obviously doctored - as is the shot of 44767 on the same page - but the numbering system was well and truly settled by this time as illustrated by a ( genuine ) photo of 60030 "Golden Fleece" later in the book ..................... very odd !

[Halvarras]

On 01/05/2020 at 21:23, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Deltics were to be D1000-21, then D1500-21 before D9000-21decided upon. 

 

 

At least that placed BR' s only Type 5 into its own D9xxx series. Does anyone recall that model of a proposed Type 5 heavy freight loco in the late 1960s, pic in Brian Haresnape's 'BR Fleet Survey 3' numbered '0000'? - I'd guess these would have become D92xx.

However this begs the question of why the Class 14s weren't given a number series in the D8xxx series with the other Type 1s - after all there was a big gap above D8616......

[kevinlms]

17 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

This seems to have gone wrong with the recent electrodiesel rebuilds which has resulted in two* very different class 73/9 variants - one of which should, perhaps, have been 73/8 ??!?

* arguably three

That's why I used the word 'usually', to cover myself!

Not having much knowledge of the current scene, I knew something would break the rule.

Having said that, TOPS has been in use for about 50 years, so not surprisingly there are inconsistencies. 

 

Indeed there is a number of locos still in service, since before TOPS was introduced.

[Wickham Green too]

26 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

.... Indeed there is a number of locos still in service, since before TOPS was introduced.

Possibly even from before the D& E prefixes were introduced : I've not seen a Platform 5 'Combo' this year - but 08.220 ex.D3290, ex.13290 was still listed last year !

[Peter Kazmierczak]

5 hours ago, Neil Phillips said:

 

At least that placed BR' s only Type 5 into its own D9xxx series. Does anyone recall that model of a proposed Type 5 heavy freight loco in the late 1960s, pic in Brian Haresnape's 'BR Fleet Survey 3' numbered '0000'? - I'd guess these would have become D92xx.

However this begs the question of why the Class 14s weren't given a number series in the D8xxx series with the other Type 1s - after all there was a big gap above D8616......

 

Makes one wonder how many Claytons there might've been..............(Is there an emoji for total bafflement and possible panic?)

Edited May 3, 2020 by Peter Kazmierczak

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just thinking out loud as to why the WR Type 1s were D9500 etc.

 

Now the GW used the second digit of a locos number to indicate the broad type - yes, yes, they are loads of exceptions but bear with....

 

 0     D600, D800, D1000, D7000 = mainline passenger classes  (Castles, Kings, Counties)

 

3      D6300 = smaller versatile types  (4300 2-6-0s )

 

5       D9500 = local work (4500 2-6-2Ts)

 

Get my drift.........

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Alternatively......

 

Class 56 = Type 5 (3,250hp)

 

Class 14 = Type 1 (650hp)

 

So five Type 1 = one Type 5   Thus 650 x 5 = 3,250

 

I'll take my coat.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Just thinking out loud as to why the WR Type 1s were D9500 etc.

 

Now the GW used the second digit of a locos number to indicate the broad type - yes, yes, they are loads of exceptions but bear with....

 

 0     D600, D800, D1000, D7000 = mainline passenger classes  (Castles, Kings, Counties)

 

3      D6300 = smaller versatile types  (4300 2-6-0s )

 

5       D9500 = local work (4500 2-6-2Ts)

 

Get my drift.........

I think that has the hint of selectively assembling evidence to fit a hypothesis. It rather falls down (as does the GWR logic) when you account for 5700 (definitely local and generally held to be steam precursor of the D9500s), and there really isn't much between 4700 and 5700/3700 (+3600), or 4200/7200 & 2800 as heavy 8-coupled freight engines.

 

The tradition of obscure numbering is still thoroughly alive and well with whoever allocated the TOPS locomotive and multiple unit class numbers. A system that once had an obvious logic has these days got more and more obscure, with numbers not even allocated sequentially.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

16 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Alternatively......

 

Class 56 = Type 5 (3,250hp)

 

Class 14 = Type 1 (650hp)

 

So five Type 1 = one Type 5   Thus 650 x 5 = 3,250

 

I'll take my coat.

 

 

So what happened to 51 and 54, or why the 50s, which are only Type 4s didn't get to be Class 49?

 

Jim

[JimC]

9 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

I think that has the hint of selectively assembling evidence to fit a hypothesis. It rather falls down (as does the GWR logic) when you account for 5700 (definitely local and generally held to be steam precursor of the D9500s),

maybe, but 17xx and 27xx were pre grouping pannier tanks albeit in Dean block sequences, so 57xx had a certain logic too. The trouble is there are only so many digits! 

[jim.snowdon]

9 minutes ago, JimC said:

maybe, but 17xx and 27xx were pre grouping pannier tanks albeit in Dean block sequences, so 57xx had a certain logic too. The trouble is there are only so many digits! 

Exactly, although it has to be a definite improvement on the random systems used by some railways. 

 

Jim