Jump to content

SR classes


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Richard Maunsell

 

As a phonetic alphabet for use in vital communications, I can’t see this catching on.

 

 

 

0-6-0 ... 4-4-0 ... 0-6-0ST ... 0-4-2, 2-6-0, 4-4-0, 4-6-4T, 0-6-0T, 4-4-0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I can only see two unambiguous letters in your response, S and L, I think.

 

But that should be enough for you to infer the solution?

 

That which occurs thrice has three in the first instance but two thereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you omitted an ‘I’?

 

Im assuming this one rhymes with succeed, whereas the previous one rhymes with cancel, to repeat a family joke told by the son of the second.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank the lord the highland railway never came near the Southern or we could have had a 2bil hauled by a ben over non electrified tracks..
Its bad enough trying to explain about "Frogs" without having WC classes and Bobs, and Tadpoles to explain away. Grass Hoppers, Big Hoppers, small hoppers, Paddleboats, Scotch Arthurs, Goods Arthurs

Keep it simple. The Swindon way.  The second digit identifies the class, except where it doesn't, and if it doesn't have a number the name of the first of the class identifies the class. Simples.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 O V S Bulleid.

 

where is the ‘I’ then?

 

OK, I get it, you’re conflating I and 1, which is close to cheating, given that we could have 2s, 3s, 4s, Xs, Rs and goodness knows what the LSWR did, all mixed in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 O V S Bulleid.

 

where is the ‘I’ then?

 

OK, I get it, you’re conflating I and 1, which is close to cheating, given that we could have 2s, 3s, Xs, RS and goodness knows what the LSWR did, all mixed in.

 

Well, I did the same with the R1 and you didn't complain.

 

But if we start including LSWR classes, we're into cherished numberplate territory. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DCB said:

Thank the lord the highland railway never came near the Southern or we could have had a 2bil hauled by a ben over non electrified tracks..
Its bad enough trying to explain about "Frogs" without having WC classes and Bobs, and Tadpoles to explain away. Grass Hoppers, Big Hoppers, small hoppers, Paddleboats, Scotch Arthurs, Goods Arthurs

Keep it simple. The Swindon way.  The second digit identifies the class, except where it doesn't, and if it doesn't have a number the name of the first of the class identifies the class. Simples.

What logic is there to use the 2nd digit to identify the class? In theory, that gives you a maximum of 10 locomotive classes, everything else outside that breaks the system!

 

Other companies such as the GER, used the works order number to define the class name and the LNWR, generally had no system at all, except to reuse the lowest number available - so that the bean counters could quickly determine, how many locomotives the company had overall! Such a system was useless to anyone else.

 

The Midland had a reasonable system, but let down by not providing sufficient gaps. This meant that rebuilding locomotives, many were NOT renumbered when enlarged, or as in the case of Midland 3F's 0-6-0s, some were rebuilt with smaller boilers and were technically 2F, but continued to carry their old 3F number. So you could not just go by the number on the side (originally tender, but later cab side).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

COR!

Err - that's Cor, being short for corridor, just as Buf is short for buffet of course.

 

Capitalisation was only applied when initials were used, e.g. Vestibule Electro-Pneumatic.

 

This can lead to confusion, of course, with Cig - Corridor Brighton, IG being the LBSCR telegraphic code for its coastal gem. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where duplication arose, with SER, LCDR and Brighton classes, that really should have been sorted out by the end of 1924 (allowing for a bit of thinking time).

 

Other SR class designations, especially where inherited from the LSWR are at least as workable as anyone else's. The GER used more-or-less the same  system.

 

Continental practice showed the logical way forward, but Bulleid's "C" and "21C" meant the length of locomotive IDs varied.

 

BR began to introduce some clarity when it renumbered his locomotives and continued good practice with the BR Standards (starting classes with '0' and the Caprotti 5MTs and Crosti 9Fs notwithstanding!). An effective Class identification, followed by 001 etc., though they missed a trick by not renumbering WCs to 34201 etc., upon rebuilding. In essence, the foundations of what would later be adopted with the TOPS numbering of diesels and electrics....

 

The GWR was heading in that direction much earlier, but failed to realise that they had too many locomotives for it to work with only four-digit numbers...😟

 

The Eastern Region, with its myriad sub-classes, would have greatly benefitted from an extension of the practice, but had only just renumbered everything in 1946 so probably weren't ready to do it all over again.🥸

 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Where duplication arose, with SER, LCDR and Brighton classes, that really should have been sorted out by the end of 1924 (allowing for a bit of thinking time).

 

That presumes that there was any operational benefit, rather than just enthusiasts' convenience.

 

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The Midland had a reasonable system

 

Which Midland system? Classes are generally known by the number of the first class member: 1400 Class, 1532 Class, etc. - reasonable, in its way, but far from descriptive; but how much were those used at the time? I think Ahrons uses them, but although he was around at the time he was writing in the 1920s. Johnson seems to have had a behind-the-scenes classification and in due course there was a system of numbered engine diagrams. At the great renumbering of 1907, engines were put in some sort of logical numerical order which, as you say, this fell apart with the rebuilding of Johnson's engines, although eventually all but the earliest 4-4-0s were uniformly rebuilt as 483 Class. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Other SR class designations, especially where inherited from the LSWR are at least as workable as anyone else's.

Which is more than can be said for the LSWR numbering system, which appears to me to have been chaotic, with little provision for block-booking whole classes in one sequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... and talking of numbers - why on earth did the bean counters insist that LCDR locos had 459 added under the SECR ?  Surely adding 500 would have been simpler for everyone - not least the poor guys who had to do the renumbering. The railways were adept at filling blank numbers so a 'gap' of 61 should have been no problem ( and might even have allowed scope for some new construction to be numbered as a block ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That presumes that there was any operational benefit, rather than just enthusiasts' convenience.

 

 

Which Midland system? Classes are generally known by the number of the first class member: 1400 Class, 1532 Class, etc. - reasonable, in its way, but far from descriptive; but how much were those used at the time? I think Ahrons uses them, but although he was around at the time he was writing in the 1920s. Johnson seems to have had a behind-the-scenes classification and in due course there was a system of numbered engine diagrams. At the great renumbering of 1907, engines were put in some sort of logical numerical order which, as you say, this fell apart with the rebuilding of Johnson's engines, although eventually all but the earliest 4-4-0s were uniformly rebuilt as 483 Class. 

I was thinking of the post 1907 numbering. Alas the Midland before then, is a bit of a mystery, as I prefer the post WW1 period and into the LMS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Swindon system makes little sense either, since they started classes with random numbers (e.g. 4073) and filled in gaps so that the last class (1500) has a really low number, while the class built shortly before it is 9400.

 

It makes you long for the logic of TOPS numbering, although it took them a long time to decide that an HST power car wasn't really part of a DMU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

It makes you long for the logic of TOPS numbering, although it took them a long time to decide that an HST power car wasn't really part of a DMU.

..... but they DID give it a pre-existing class number just to confuse historians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

It makes you long for the logic of TOPS numbering

 

Precisely. It's only if you've got TOPS or something like it that the number needs to provide a clue to the class. Otherwise it's start at 1 and re-use 1 when the old 1 requires renewal. That way you knew how many locomotives you'd got and that's the statistic the Board of Trade collected.

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

The Swindon system makes little sense either, since they started classes with random numbers (e.g. 4073) and filled in gaps so that the last class (1500) has a really low number, while the class built shortly before it is 9400.

 

It makes you long for the logic of TOPS numbering, although it took them a long time to decide that an HST power car wasn't really part of a DMU.

This is where we need the input of a pre-nationalisation driver/fireman/fitter/shed foreman/storeman/accounts clerk to know how useful it would be for all locos in the same class to be clearly identified. Apart from existing literature I suppose we will never know,

 

cheers 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

It makes you long for the logic of TOPS numbering, although it took them a long time to decide that an HST power car wasn't really part of a DMU.

There was a time when TOPS numbering for locomotives and multiple units had an obvious logic to it, but these days I begin to doubt the sanity of those who allocate TOPS class numbers. Things were doing fine as the Type 5 locos progressed through the 50s and reached 60 (although there are some odd gaps in the lower 50s), and then jumped straight to 66. The progression of EMU numbers seems even stranger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...