leopardml2341 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Hello All, Don't know why this popped into my head, but it did and I've spent a bit of time searching this site and couldn't find an answer - so sorry if someone else does. What (and when) ? was the first loco to carry TOPS numbering - I remember my first sighting 45 101 - I guess after ETH conversion and probably sometime mid '73 ? but I was only a young'un then. Thanks in anticipation. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I reckon the best bet is the D&E Allocation Histories series by Roger Harris, wherein all the appropriate gen can be found. I can't access these at work, I hasten to add! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw1 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 The first loco's to receive new TOPS numbers were the class 83's and class 84's when they were rebuilt in 1972. The first ones I saw were 83005 and 84003/07 on Longsight depot on the 30th May 1972. This was followed by the class 76 locomotives towards the end of 1972. The first diesels were the class 45 ETH conversions and I saw my first TOPS renumbered diesel, 45101 on Derby works on the 8th April 1973. However it would be the end of 1973 before the renumbering really got going for the majority of the locomotive fleet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 The first loco's to receive new TOPS numbers were the class 83's and class 84's when they were rebuilt in 1972. The first ones I saw were 83005 and 84003/07 on Longsight depot on the 30th May 1972. This was followed by the class 76 locomotives towards the end of 1972. The first diesels were the class 45 ETH conversions and I saw my first TOPS renumbered diesel, 45101 on Derby works on the 8th April 1973. However it would be the end of 1973 before the renumbering really got going for the majority of the locomotive fleet. Close, but no cigar 76050 preceded the AC locos, done in late 1971. I'd say the vast majority of diesels (where there was no complication such as ETH programmes) were done between late summer/early autumn of '73 and late spring of '74, with the straggling 45s and 47/4s catching up during '75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw1 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'd say the vast majority of diesels (where there was no complication such as ETH programmes) were done between late summer/early autumn of '73 and late spring of '74, with the straggling 45s and 47/4s catching up during '75. I would have to disagree a little here, for example looking at my logs a trip to from Nottingham to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle over two days 28/29th December 1973 saw 33 renumbered locomotives out of just over 300 which is only about 12%. The vast majority were renumbered in the first 4 months of 1974 as by May 1974 around 95% of the fleet were carrying their new numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 That's hardly disagreeing at all, John I think as a very broad statement, my post still stands, but I'd definitely agree that things were slow to start, with renumbering almost all being done on works visits, but picking up through the early part of '74 once depot renumberings came into the equation. Certainly the ER was recorded as instituting a 'crash' programme at that time and I expect the other Regions did much the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Emily Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Was there an official reason that the class 52s never got renumbered? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 They were slated for early withdrawal, Jenny. Same applied to the remaining Hymeks and Falcon. Although the cast nameplates may have had some pragmatic bearing on the decision! Of course, cascade of replacement traction meant that survivors clung on embarrassingly long for the powers that be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 That's hardly disagreeing at all, John I think as a very broad statement, my post still stands, but I'd definitely agree that things were slow to start, with renumbering almost all being done on works visits, but picking up through the early part of '74 once depot renumberings came into the equation. Certainly the ER was recorded as instituting a 'crash' programme at that time and I expect the other Regions did much the same. I think part of the reason for a hurry-up in 1974 was a change to the TOPS programming and, of course, the real beginnings of TOPS spreading beyond the experimental sites. In 1973 locos were very much an optional item and you could put in anything you liked up to fill the field (I think it was 4 digits maximum) but when Train Preparation forms began to be completely TOPS produced including the load calculations it probably made sense to get the renumbering underway as there was then also the opportunity to reprogramme the system to include some proper loco data and it would have been quite a task to change all the loco number records if they had been entered in the old format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Although the cast nameplates may have had some pragmatic bearing on the decision! I think if they'd have had a long term future, they'd have took the plates off and used transfers like everything else. That said, the plates probably were a factor, because other than the odd few late survivors the 24s were run down over much the same period really. One or two Westerns did have the 'D' prefix ground off back in 1968 when that was dropped, until somebody realised painting it over would be a tad more cost effective. Something that's always puzzled and amused me in equal measure is why the 'Ds' were even painted over - a lot of staff time and a fair amount of paint involved, when it would surely have been simpler to just send out an instruction to disregard the D on any loco that had it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 As I understand it was a missinterpretion of a maintenance instructiuon which may have been badly worded - presumably something along the lines 'from now on D prefixes not to be fitted'. The intention was that on repaints the D was not to be added. However many places took this to mean that they should also remove existing D prefixes. This resulted in many locos just having them painted out (not just westerns), but on the westerns some depots were a little more determined! Mind you, bearing in mind the potential resale value of the number plates - even as scrap brass - I reckon taking them off and replacing with transfers would most likely have returned a profit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 And D7017 at some point in 1974 had all (?) its cast numerals removed and sans serif style 7017 numbers applied (to two cab sides only?), when they could just have easily applied 35017, which would have made a very interesting twist... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Just a thought, but would'nt the two protoype HST power cars (initially referred to as locos) 41001/2 have been the first diesel locos with TOPS numbering? Thinking about the Cl.52s, would TOPS have recognised, say D1066, on the system as a loco? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 When we say 'recognised,' I'm not sure. But TOPS print-outs of the period certainly featured Thousands in train consists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Thinking about the Cl.52s, would TOPS have recognised, say D1066, on the system as a loco? There must have been some arrangement Peter (though it's something I've been curious about), because the last few 47s with four-digit numbers also lasted into 1975 whilst awaiting their call for the ETH programme - ISTR a thread some time ago that discussed 1592 carrying its originally-allocated number of 47025 for a short time, then reverting to 1592 until ETH conversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yes Ian, I'd be interested in the mechanics (if that's the right word) of the operating system too. If TOPS couldn't recognise, say 55000 (hence Royal Scots Grey becoming 55022), how did it deal with D1000? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 With more modern computer systems it could/would be feasible to have kept the D/E prefixes. Theoretically steam should have carried S prefix. Just think hypothetically SW24 would be Calbourne in the IoW. Just wait until it is suggested as to what UIC number some of the items should carry! I know some of the 66's now carry these as they have operated in mainland Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 As I understand it was a missinterpretion of a maintenance instructiuon which may have been badly worded - presumably something along the lines 'from now on D prefixes not to be fitted'. The intention was that on repaints the D was not to be added. However many places took this to mean that they should also remove existing D prefixes. This resulted in many locos just having them painted out (not just westerns), but on the westerns some depots were a little more determined! Mind you, bearing in mind the potential resale value of the number plates - even as scrap brass - I reckon taking them off and replacing with transfers would most likely have returned a profit! A minor point but I believe the plates were aluminium - they certainly weren't brass (as was also the case on manyGW/WR steam locos in the 'lesser classes'). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugd1022 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Correct Mike, and each plate was made up of several seperate parts, including the beading around the edges.... plenty of these ended up with bits falling off after shunting accidents and being driven from the wrong end, with a surprising number having complete replacements... Chard - re Hymek 7017, it was repainted in the Factory at Old Oak in the Summer of '74 and had all of it's alloy numbers removed, and 'corporate' style transfers were appplied under the driver's windows only. And going back to the OP, a few months previous to sorting out 7017, Old Oak had a purge on renumbering it's allocation of 08s, 31s and 47s between February and April. ;o) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 There must have been some arrangement Peter (though it's something I've been curious about), because the last few 47s with four-digit numbers also lasted into 1975 whilst awaiting their call for the ETH programme - ISTR a thread some time ago that discussed 1592 carrying its originally-allocated number of 47025 for a short time, then reverting to 1592 until ETH conversion. As far as the diesel hydraulics are concerned it was simple - the loco numbers just went in as they were and as far as I'm aware it worked - we certainly got Train Lists out for the diesel hydraulics although I can't remember to what extent there was any auto generation of load checking and Brake Force for them. But a computer is a simply a machine and it does what you tell it to do (in theory) and holds the records you tell it to hold. If a class of locos is fed in in 4 digit form and the system will accept that then all is ok. If the loco number field will also accept 5 digit number then all is also ok when you feed 5 digit number into it. Later as the 1000s and Hymeks were withdrawn you just delete the record or load onto some library disc or whatever - easy (as far as I understand such things) but altering numbers within a system is - I suspect - perhaps not quite so easy and can go wrong with a slip of the typing finger. So that would I'm sure have been kept to a minimum if at all possible although some locos could be left in old form pending planned changes which would accompany renumbering. And is there any evidence that TOPS couldn't recognise numbers ending in 3 zeros? It could certainly recognise wagon numbers like that and it could definitely originally recognise accept loco numbers ending in several zeros. Don't forget that the renumbering wasn't necessary for TOPS purposes although certain aspects of it - such as using a Class identifier number - might perhaps have made things easier or quicker when the system carried out calculations? The 2 digit Class identifier numbers had been in everyday operational use since 1968 - long before TOPS was little more than a faint glint in BR's eyes - and, as I said above, my memory/impression of things was that TOPS was altered to accept numbers longer than 4 digits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Interesting Mike. So why was there never 55000 or 56000 etc etc? And if renumbering introduces errors, why renumber? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Just an afterthought, of course certain DMUs (and other vehicles) were later renumbered to avoid duplication with locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 Interesting Mike. So why was there never 55000 or 56000 etc etc? And if renumbering introduces errors, why renumber? I think the answer to the last one is fairly simple - 'because someone wanted to do it'. There had been various moves among loco engineers over the years, from the steam era, to move to a more logical numbering system and someone in an M&EE Dept did create such a system for diesels - in fact I think there was probably more than one such system as the ER had one and the Diesel (Loco) Diagram Book had one as well. Clearly when the National traction Plan was being put together the Class Identifier Number (as I call it) began to make some sense and it was far simpler operationally to have such a system for the new Freight Train Loads calculation method when it was introduced in 1968 (which is why locos began to get data panels). I suppose it was possibly seen, and debated out, as a logical step to actually put it on locos at some time as it was far more flexible than the previous system of using a block of numbers (which had broken down in any case as the original number blocks were inadequate). Somewhere I suspect there will be a set of committee(or various committees) minutes which trace the story and from which the reasons for it eventually arriving on the sides of locos can be traced. As for not using '000' for locos I don't know. Rolling stock library details for wagons put onto part of the TOPS mainframe definitely included numbers ending in multiple zeros and such numbers could be found on wagons. Maybe some of the loco data sub-programmes which BR developed couldn't handle multiple zeros or maybe - daft tho' it may sound - 'someone' in a position of influence on a committee didn't like the idea of such numbers (stranger things than that happened on BR committees and it was sometimes possible to get some highly individual views through as policy ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 In my job I sometimes have to assign numbers to items and I don't do it in any particular order - just whatever happens to be next on a particular sheet that I pick up. So if someone in 50 years wanted to understand the rational behind our numbering of particular items, they wouldn't be able to find out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 In my job I sometimes have to assign numbers to items and I don't do it in any particular order - just whatever happens to be next on a particular sheet that I pick up. So if someone in 50 years wanted to understand the rational behind our numbering of particular items, they wouldn't be able to find out. Back in the early 1990s I was asked to give a name for a new junction in order for it to be easily referenced on signalling plans (where it was thus far labelled as 'Funny Name Jcn'). So I gave the signal design people a name, irreverently based on old GWR practice that named a junction after a place it was nowhere near, and it went onto their drawings. Then it was copied onto the civil engineers' drawings, then it went onto the site plans, then it went onto site delivery notes - where it duly confused lorry drivers who clearly didn't understand GWR habits. Finally it appeared on a nice enamel sign at lineside plus going into all the operating documents while I made absolutely sure that it went into the WTT as I had a degree of control over the names in the station bank. And it's still in use today - 20 years on (and it's probably still confusing those who don't understand the idiosyncracies of the GWR). Sorry for wandering OT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.