RMweb Premium Welly Posted February 3, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2013 Wow! What an ugly looking thing! At least it has less angles than the GE "Betty" Class 70s. Having seen the clip of a Vossloh Euroloco posted by St Simon - what's with the weirdly flashing headlights on that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Ok, so why did we go class 66 - 70 - 68 ? anyone explain this numerical strangeness ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 a lot of EMU carriages are numbered in these ranges, presumably its to avoid duplication Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 3, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2013 Ok, so why did we go class 66 - 70 - 68 ? anyone explain this numerical strangeness ? You've skipped one..... 66 - 67 - 70 - 68..... Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted February 4, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 4, 2013 Hello all, I'm curious about the apparent lack of logic in the numbering series. I did briefly wonder whether it was a legacy of the original TOPS numbering scheme where class numbers were assigned according to power (ie Type 3 locos were renumbered Class 30-39 and so on) and the supposed power of the Class 70s made them the equivalent of a Type 7. However, I think this is unlikely - especially as there are other inconsistencies - eg Class 59 v Class 66. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Interesting read!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I'm curious about the apparent lack of logic in the numbering series. I did briefly wonder whether it was a legacy of the original TOPS numbering scheme where class numbers were assigned according to power (ie Type 3 locos were renumbered Class 30-39 and so on) and the supposed power of the Class 70s made them the equivalent of a Type 7. However, I think this is unlikely - especially as there are other inconsistencies - eg Class 59 v Class 66. I suspect that it was a combination of factors including (but not limited to) where the gaps in TOPS usage were/are/will be and maunfacturers wanting a higher class number than the opposition ('cos bigger numbers are better). And also to quote Bill and Ted - "69, Dude" The break with the Type bands happened with BR and the class 60, and the DC electrics range (70-79) is never going to be fully used now (though I remember seeinng some speculation that a new class of electro diesels may get made, but AC rather than DC electrics). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted February 4, 2013 Author Share Posted February 4, 2013 Hello all, I'm curious about the apparent lack of logic in the numbering series. I did briefly wonder whether it was a legacy of the original TOPS numbering scheme where class numbers were assigned according to power (ie Type 3 locos were renumbered Class 30-39 and so on) and the supposed power of the Class 70s made them the equivalent of a Type 7. However, I think this is unlikely - especially as there are other inconsistencies - eg Class 59 v Class 66. cheers Ben A. Hi, There's a couple of factors at play when it comes to choosing a TOPS number, firstly is the potential clash between numbers on different vehicles, the number series 68xxx and 69xxx I believe is used on some MK3 coaching stock used on the mainline which is registered on TOPS, so having a class of loco with the same numbers will cause confusion, so it has to be looked at which numbers can and can't be used. Secoundly, the operating companies have a say on the TOPS number of a 'their' class of loco, because a class number ending in 0 or 5 is much more 'publicity friendly' than (eg Class 70 looks better on a companies publications / press releases than Class 68). A number ending in a 0 or 5 appears to people to be a more major step in train development than going up in single values all the time, although this isn't true it just seems like it is. If that makes sense? Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted February 4, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 4, 2013 Hello Paddy and Simon, Thanks - very interesting. I appreciate that a company may wish to avoid being the only operator of the Class 69...! I can also see that numbers ending in 0 or 5 are perhaps more publicity friendly, but I would have thought that few beyond the industry and enthusiast fraternity will ever even know the Class number of the DRS locos, and should be less vulnerable to such ploys... Besides, in publicity it seems that increasingly manufacturers and TOCS are using jazzy sounding names for their trains - Javelin, Eurostar, Desiro, Electrostar and, indeed, Eurolight.... cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 ......Besides, in publicity it seems that increasingly manufacturers and TOCS are using jazzy sounding names for their trains - Javelin, Eurostar, Desiro, Electrostar and, indeed, Eurolight.... Except that there are no such trains called Javelin or Eurostar. They don't exist. Javelin was the official name of the Olympic Shuttle service and Eurostar is the name of a train operator, not the name of their trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 javelins, not javelins then javelins again nobody ever heard of a Eurostar, the skys pink tonight you know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 4, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 4, 2013 Except that there are no such trains called Javelin or Eurostar. They don't exist. Javelin was the official name of the Olympic Shuttle service and Eurostar is the name of a train operator, not the name of their trains. Although for a long time the expression 'travelling on the Eurostar' has been in fairly common usage, especially among passengers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted February 5, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 5, 2013 Ron, You're right and that's exactly the point. The TOCs encourage passengers to use such names, whether or not they have much meaning within the industry. Few passengers on Eurostar know they're on a class 373 - so who would snigger if DRS were to operate a class 69? Cheers Ben A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Except that there are no such trains called Javelin or Eurostar. They don't exist. Javelin was the official name of the Olympic Shuttle service and Eurostar is the name of a train operator, not the name of their trains. There is a class of train with the name 'Eurostar'; they were built in Italy by a FIAT subsiduary in the early 1990s for FS (Italian Railways), and were the subject of a legal 'discussion' at the time. The only time I hear the ones that run through the Channel Tunnel referred to as 'Class 373' is when the drivers call through a fault code and use the stock number.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Ah yes Mick, forgot the 67... Is that really carbon fibre on the roof then ? I wouldn't have thought 'lightness' was a factor in designing a 100T + loco ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 7, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 7, 2013 Ah yes Mick, forgot the 67... Is that really carbon fibre on the roof then ? I wouldn't have thought 'lightness' was a factor in designing a 100T + loco ? It is for a 4 axle loco! Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Many numbers in the 6XXXX and 7XXXX range are already taken by EMU vehicles. This even affects class 66. Numbers 66811-40 and 66861-90 are used by class 350 trailers. 68101-200 are allocated to class 450 trailers which then jump to 66801-10 then 66901-17. Other class 450 trailers occupy 66851-60 and 66921-37.That's why the Colas 66s are squeezed in to such an odd range. 66841-50 was the only gap for a class 66/8 - any more will have to be 66891 and upwards. The class 66/9 sequence for Freightliner began at 66951 because 34 of the first 50 were already taken by EMUs. Class 68 can run from 68001 to 68100 before a clash with EMU vehicles. I assume one reason the 68XXX series was chosen is that they didn't think that many would be built. The class 465 EMUs contain an oddity. Their TSO number series starts at 70028 and runs to 70127. That might lead to problems if the originally planned 30 locomotives of class 70 are built. Unit 465036 also contains TSO 70099 which shares a number with the newly-arrived class 70 from Turkey. Has someone made a mistake? Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted May 3, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 3, 2013 Thanks to Si on the DEMu forum for this link Class 68 under construction. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 HI All A pic of the model at Multimodal the other week. Regards Arran Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
69843 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 That's it, I'm passing judgement... These are a very smart investment by DRS on their part, and I applaud them for the choice in locomotive, but I can't escape that front end. It looks like a pig snout, and something tells me these might become known as 'Pigs'. However, still a nice choice of engine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 what are they going to do with more engines ? they have dozens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted May 4, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 4, 2013 what are they going to do with more engines ? they have dozens Possibly hoping that they get the Scotrail sleeper contract? Get rid of the 47's? Only time will tell. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted May 5, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 5, 2013 what are they going to do with more engines ? they have dozens The dozens they have are a mixed bag of ageing diesel locos which are expensive to maintain so get snapping those DRS 20s, 37s and 47s now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meld Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Considering they happily 'dump' their leased 66/4's at the end of the contract, I would expect that they are partially a replacement for the next batch due to go off lease in the next year or so. Also with one eye, as Mick states, for the scottish sleepers contract - if they win that . HTH Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alderson.eric.j Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 As mentioned elswhere, Sud Express currently have the exclusive rights from Vossloh to produce models and have already done the 6 axle variant. I wonder if the license will be granted to a.n.other company to produce a 4mm version. or will Sud Express dip their toes in to the UK 4mm market? Cheers, Mick As I know well the distributor of Sudexpress for Benelux, I hinted a word to him so to forward to sudexpress... Will keep You posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.