Naming of diesel locos/classes in photos.

[Martino]

This may sound like a rant, but it's really not meant to be!

 

I notice that folk often caption photos of diesel, and I suppose electric, locos taken in the pre TOPS era with their TOPS class numbers. Should we, to be correct actually refer to them as they were known at the time?

 

For example, Clas. 47 : Brush 4, class 37: English Electic type 3 etc.

 

I do find it strange that Westerns are oft times called class 52, but although they carried TOPS stickers with Class 52 on them they were never re numbered. Same applies to Hymeks and Warships.

 

I can understand captioning a late photo of a Class 40 as such, but shouldn't an early photo be an EE type 4?

 

Pedant mode off - going for a beer!

[Flood]

A valid question, the problem being that an EE Type 4 could be a Class 40 or a Class 50 which for the uninitiated could cause confusion.

 

Thinking about it you very rarely here of a Hymek being called a Class 35 although it is perfectly acceptable.

 

I think it goes down to personal choice (and a person's age). I for one say Bath with a long 'a' (Barth) but Newcastle ('a' as in at) but that solely because I know that is how each of the locals would pronounce those place names.

[pH]

While I'm of an age that I'm more comfortable using the 'early' names you refer to to describe diesels, I don't think they're as useful in captions of photos which are going to be searched e.g. on Flickr. For example, would you be happy if your search for Class 40s turned up a similar number of both Class 40s and 50s? - both were 'English Electric Type 4s' before TOPS. And all the variations of Class 24s and 25s were 'Sulzer Type 2s' pre-TOPS.

 

So - pre-TOPS names used only in captions for pictures in physical form - books, magazines etc. (with TOPS class numbers if desired), but TOPS class numbers in captions which are going to be searched electronically - would that work?

 

(Edit - 'Flood' raised some of these points while I was typing.)

[RJS1977]

I think the convention seems to be to use the TOPS numbers throughout to avoid confusion (IIRC Ian Beattie also used to use TOPS numbers throughout when covering BR diesel classes in his "Drawn and Described" series in RM). If both were used as applicable then a search for photos of Class 47s might show a loco as it looked the day it was renumbered, but not as it looked the day before, even if in all other respects it was identical. Though whilst using TOPS instead of "English Electric Type 4" helps differentiate the 40s and the 50s, it could cause confusion for 43s ("Warships" v HSTs) and 70s (3rd rail electrics v Freightliners)!

[Clive Mortimore]

Does it matter, we all know what a GWR 4073 class loco is or a NER P class. So if it is a Class 16 or a D84XX who cares.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

As Clive will know, the ER also had their own diesel classification scheme, whilst the WR in WTTs and other notices referred to D6XX, D8XX etc.

Same applies to time; should it be am/pm before the introduction of the 24-hour clock?

['CHARD]

There's obviously no 'right or wrong' here, it all comes down to personal preference.  However, it may be helpful in conveying time and place convincingly, to use appropriate terminology when writing about one's modelling endeavours.  It does set a context and help in the all-important suspense of disbelief. 

[EddieB]

While technically incorrect when applied retrospectively, the TOPS classification system is less ambiguous and more straightforward than its predecessor.  Please also bear in mind that class numbering was introduced a couple of years before the class members were renumbered into the appropriate TOPS series (where they were renumbered, that is), so a reference to say a Deltic carrying a 9000-serries number as a "class 55" may still be historically accurate.

 

A similar situation obtains to identification of Great Eastern locomotives by their later LNER classification.  While it may be incorrect to refer to a T26 in GER days as an E4, for instance, the simpllicity and longevity of the LNER classification scheme might be substituted - and is more likely to be recognised and understood.

 

It's also a bit like preferring "Brontosaurus" to "Apatosaurus" (any Stephen Jay Gould readers here?) - sometimes the name is common usage is better than the strictly correct.

[andygif]

Hmm, modellers rule #1 applies or in this case picture posters amended rule #1.  "My pictures, my captions if you don't like 'em dont read 'em!"

[eastwestdivide]

On the other hand, picture posters' rule no2: if a computer is going to search for it, make sure it can be found easily.

 

Seems to be two requirements here, historical accuracy and searchability. If you're concerned about both, how about, for example,

"Sulzer Type 2 (later Class 24) No D5xxx..."

 

Sometimes though, you've just got to be thankful there's a caption at all.

[talisman56]

It's my age, or long and ingrained habit, that I refer to locos and DMMUs by their TOPS class numbers. On the other hand, EMUs and SR DEMUs I refer to by their pre-TOPS designations (AM10, 4CEP, 3H etc) - at least I know what I mean!

[johnlambert]

I prefer picture captions that include the TOPS class for diesel and electric locomotives (and multiple units); for some reason I feel more confident that I know what I'm looking at when it is captioned "Class XX" rather than "DXXXX" or "Brush/English Electric/etc Type X" especially where some diesels look very similar (to my untrained eyes).

[Clive Mortimore]

Here lies a problem, what do you call a North British type 1, also known as Paxman Type 1, D84xx, ER Class 8/4 or Plumbers nightmare. Is it a Class 16? Now they were allocated Class 16 when Derby drawing office was writing the TOPS class numbers, but they were withdrawn about a week or so before the TOPS class numbers were introduced therefore they never ran in service as Class 16. I re-ask my question, is it a class 16?

 

Even more confusing with another of the products from Springburn, the big Warships. Now they too had been withdrawn before the introduction of the TOPS class numbers so never ran as Class 41. Now the prototype HST power cars were at first classed as locomotives, they even had cabs in the rear so that overnight they could be used as freight locos. These too were Class 41. So a caption of a photo describing a NBL Type 4 as a class 41 would be very misleading to someone looking for a Class 41 "HST" locomotive.

 

Please note I have written TOPS class numbers not TOPS loco numbers, loads of locos were withdrawn with their correct number on their cabs and never had a computer number.

[Baby Deltic]

But was the classification system done under TOPS or before TOPS? I have heard that BR brought out their classification system before TOPS came into existence. Maybe it was purely to remove the confusion between descriptions.

[Clive Mortimore]

But was the classification system done under TOPS or before TOPS? I have heard that BR brought out their classification system before TOPS came into existence. Maybe it was purely to remove the confusion between descriptions.

Hi Lloyd

 

Not too sure which came first the classification or TOPS. I will have to re-read the David Percival article form an early traction magazine regarding TOPS and TOPS numbers. That might have the answers. What I do recall from the article was his comments on the system being Derby biased, hence the Peaks are classes 44, 45 and 46 where as another class with differing engines, and traction motors etc. would be class XX/1, XX/2 and so on.

[Clive Mortimore]

While technically incorrect when applied retrospectively, the TOPS classification system is less ambiguous and more straightforward than its predecessor.  Please also bear in mind that class numbering was introduced a couple of years before the class members were renumbered into the appropriate TOPS series (where they were renumbered, that is), so a reference to say a Deltic carrying a 9000-serries number as a "class 55" may still be historically accurate.

 

A similar situation obtains to identification of Great Eastern locomotives by their later LNER classification.  While it may be incorrect to refer to a T26 in GER days as an E4, for instance, the simpllicity and longevity of the LNER classification scheme might be substituted - and is more likely to be recognised and understood.

 

It's also a bit like preferring "Brontosaurus" to "Apatosaurus" (any Stephen Jay Gould readers here?) - sometimes the name is common usage is better than the strictly correct.

Hi Eddie

 

Your example of the E4 is quite interesting, you say the longevity of the use of E4 compared to T26. I am not sure when the LNER re-classed its locomotives but if it did so in 1923 then E4 was officially in use only 5 more years than T26. For the last 11 years of their service they were 1MT which no one ever calls them. Its longevity comes from the continued use by railway enthusiast. Remember the drivers called them "Intermediates".

 

It is the enthusiast terminology that we as modellers tend to use, hence the use of class 16 not D84xx. This in itself is not wrong. So does it matter if I call my loco a 2000 or a Class 40? More modellers know what a class 40 is but the drivers called them 2000s well past the renumber by TOPS.

[The Stationmaster]

But was the classification system done under TOPS or before TOPS? I have heard that BR brought out their classification system before TOPS came into existence. Maybe it was purely to remove the confusion between descriptions.

Well said BD - I get fed up with people referring to it as 'the TOPS classification system' which it very definitely wasn't as it pre-dated TOPS by several years although when it was devised the originators of it more than likely had renumbering in mind but if nothing else it put engineering references and Regional issued Diagram Books on a common footing.   It's first (operational/non M&EE) use was for the new Freight Train Loads System introduced in 1968 and at that time TOPS was hardly even a glint in BR's eyes let alone an operational reality.

 

TOPS was originally designed to work with 4 digit loco numbers and could accept loco class details in that form (it could also accept shorter numbers although possibly only in free format?) and it had to be reprogrammed in order to accept the so-called 'TOPS numbers'.  So the only way in which the system became TOPS related was that the numbers were actually applied to locos post introduction of TOPS - and not in order to comply with or facilitate that introduction.

 

Coming from a Western background I know which everyday terms suit me best but perhaps in order to add to the confusion I should start talking about DH4102/1 (the WR Diagram Book identification for the class) instead of D10XX; or a 17/7 (the ER code for the class) instead of DH3100/1 or DH3100/2 (WR DIagram Book codes for the same class) instead of D70XX?     Yes, prior to the emergence of the standard codes, and well before TOPS arrived, it was a right jungle.

[Rugd1022]

The TOPS 'class identification' numbers for diesels and electrics came into existance in 1968, which is when the early style vinyl 'data panels' in blue with white typeface and border began to be applied to locos, either at main works or on depots. These early stickers didn't have the seperate section at the top containing the class number of the later (1973 onwards) versions.

 

Edit! Here's the early style as applied to preserved 47 105, aka 1693...

 

 

And the later version on 37 275, often overlaid with individual numbers...

 

[EddieB]

Hi Eddie

 

Your example of the E4 is quite interesting, you say the longevity of the use of E4 compared to T26. I am not sure when the LNER re-classed its locomotives but if it did so in 1923 then E4 was officially in use only 5 more years than T26. For the last 11 years of their service they were 1MT which no one ever calls them. Its longevity comes from the continued use by railway enthusiast. Remember the drivers called them "Intermediates".

 

That's a good point, but the E4 classification has since perpetuated during 50+ years of preservation.  Of course the other problem with captioning one of these locomotives in Great Eastern days was that there were a dozen different classifications applied to separate batches - does one use the "generic" T26 or the specific batch classification (which would make little sense to just about everyone)? 

 

Perhaps we should stick to nicknames (unless we're dealing with the Southern IIX class)!

[slilley]

But was the classification system done under TOPS or before TOPS? I have heard that BR brought out their classification system before TOPS came into existence. Maybe it was purely to remove the confusion between descriptions.

 

The two digit class numbers were circulated by the BR Chief Engineer (Traction& Rolling Stock) on 22 March 1968  to the regional CMEs and they were to be used forthwith for WTT and train loading, drawings records costing and correspondence, maintenance and stores, and finally casualty and failure returns.

 

Regards

 

Simon

[scorpion]

i seem to remember the term "TOPS numbers" was introduced by the then new Rail Enthusiast magazine in 1981/82, i had not heard the term before then

 

The class numbers had clearly been devised before the introduction of TOPS

 

just one anomaly is that it is claimed the 5 digit numbers were required for TOPS to work yet the system as imported from the USA coped perfectly well with US 4 digit numbers

 

i think it was a case of some new wonderful IT being used as an excuse to change things to a more "modern" set up, "if you can't do good then just change something"