UIC Rolling Stock Numbering

xotGD · 21 Nov 2019

We could open a whole new can of worms by debating what the correct first two digits are under the UIC system for an HST power car.

Probably best that we don't!

And is the purpose of the check digit to help spotters make sure they've written down numbers correctly?

RailUK Forums

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

xotGD said:
We could open a whole new can of worms by debating what the correct first two digits are under the UIC system for an HST power car.

92.

xotGD said:
And is the purpose of the check digit to help spotters make sure they've written down numbers correctly?

A check digit is to ensure, especially in the software aspect of fleet management, the number is valid.

Roast Veg · 21 Nov 2019

TRAX said:
It is to be noted than in countries where the EVN system is in place, the whole 12-digit number isn’t used as the unit number. Digits 5 to 11 form the real number, the rest isn’t used as the true vehicle identifier. The EVN includes the vehicle number, not the opposite.
This is very important as the UIC numbering system numbers each vehicle individually, so that means locomotives (obviously), and each and every car of a multiple-unit. Thus a 4-car Class 377 would still need a general unit number as you wouldn’t use the 4 different UIC numbers of each one of its cars.
So the 5 additional numbers you mention (which are actually 4, the vehicle type and the country code) would not make their way onto the front of the train (look at German stock for example).

Ah, so the answer to my question would be that unit 444 001 remains unchanged, and the conflicting vehicle in 385 001 would become 94 70 0444 001-4

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

Yes absolutely.
Although the UK would find itself in a funny position where the vehicle identifier here (444 001) isn't the unit number, which could lead to confusion...

Roast Veg · 21 Nov 2019

In this case "EVN class 94 70 444" here refers to nicely to "TOPS class 385 DMSL", and the unit number 001 is correct. Although this mapping from one kind of "class" to another works quite nicely for a fair proportion of MUs (generally anything post-privatisation), this doesn't work in quite a few reshuffles with such fanciful numberings as:

TOPS 158880 DMSL - EVN 95 70 0052 737-5
EVN 95 70 0052 880-3 - TOPS 159008 DMCL (the "reverse" of the above)
TOPS 350368 PTSOL - EVN 94 70 0060 651-9
EVN 94 70 0060 368-0 - nothing!

In fact the whole 95 70 0052 and 95 70 0057 classes are pretty shambolic, and unit numbering sometimes corresponds with only the last 1, 2, or no digits between the EVN and TOPS numbers in many cases.
I'm rather tempted to write a converter between the two...

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
In this case "EVN class 94 70 444" here refers to nicely to "TOPS class 385 DMSL", and the unit number 001 is correct.

Yes but the general workings of the EVN system would theoretically put 385 in each car number, thus in each vehicle’s EVN.

but to be honest, I’m not sure the regulation authorities and the UIC really care about how the UK decides to incorporate unit numbers in their EVNs, as long as each vehicle has a unique EVN and valid check digit.

I know some (or all ?) Class 195 vehicles have EVNs, I need to find the picture again to see what went on there.

Edit/Update: it was a 331, and here is LNW GW Joint’s picture showing it.

So there we go, turns out nobody up the ranks was as pedantic as I am haha. It’ll take time to get used to the unit-like coach numbers.

Roast Veg · 21 Nov 2019

Labouring under the assumption that TOPS made any sense to begin with is probably a falsehood, and to my mind working closer to the BRCW numbering is more worthwhile.

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

FWIW, I think TOPS is a pretty good system (the SNCF system is a real mess and that’s the system I have to work with everyday), although now it’s getting more confusing with the 7xx series numbers being seemingly attributed in a kitchen blender-generated fashion, and the fact that the coach numbers are now six-digits like the unit numbers...

Dunfanaghy Rd · 21 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
We have a few conflicting carirage/loco numbers already - can anybody give an example of their respective UIC classifications?

I don't know about carriage numbers, I'm an (ex-) freight man, but the Esso TTA fleet that used to run to / from Fawley to depots such as Laira were all ESSO56xxx. same number series as Class 56 locos. Also there were some other P.O. wagons that had overlapping numbers: RLS92338/9 & DR92338/9, by way of example.
I believe that the Rolling stock library has allocated EVNs to all vehicles registered, but not applied them. Does anyone know what they are? (Or would we be in breach of the Treason Acts if we 'little people' knew.)
Pat

43096 · 21 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
In this case "EVN class 94 70 444" here refers to nicely to "TOPS class 385 DMSL", and the unit number 001 is correct. Although this mapping from one kind of "class" to another works quite nicely for a fair proportion of MUs (generally anything post-privatisation), this doesn't work in quite a few reshuffles with such fanciful numberings as:

TOPS 158880 DMSL - EVN 95 70 0052 737-5

EVN 95 70 0052 880-3 - TOPS 159008 DMCL (the "reverse" of the above)

TOPS 350368 PTSOL - EVN 94 70 0060 651-9

EVN 94 70 0060 368-0 - nothing!

In fact the whole 95 70 0052 and 95 70 0057 classes are pretty shambolic, and unit numbering sometimes corresponds with only the last 1, 2, or no digits between the EVN and TOPS numbers in many cases.
I'm rather tempted to write a converter between the two...

The way Britain has implemented the EVN scheme is, of course, shambolic and an opportunity has been missed to implement a better system.

I would go for something like the way the Swiss do it. Applied here, and ignoring the first four digits of the EVN (the vehicle type and country codes) you have 7 digits to use. Locomotives would stay as now with the loco number padded with 0s before it. For EMUs I would use the set number as the last six digits and the digit before would indicate its position in the set, using 1 and 2 for driving cars. So something like this, using 159001 as an example:
52873 currently, would be (95 70) 1159 001
58718 currently, would be (95 70) 3159 001
57873 currently, would be (95 70) 2159 001

The Swiss actually go further and use the '0' identifier to indicate a set number - in this case (95 70) 0159 001.

Far more useful than what we have now as it indicates what class the vehicle is and which set the vehicle belongs to.

But then the Swiss normally do sensible, don't they?

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

43096 said:
The way Britain has implemented the EVN scheme is, of course, shambolic and an opportunity has been missed to implement a better system.

I would go for something like the way the Swiss do it. Applied here, and ignoring the first four digits of the EVN (the vehicle type and country codes) you have 7 digits to use. Locomotives would stay as now with the loco number padded with 0s before it. For EMUs I would use the set number as the last six digits and the digit before would indicate its position in the set, using 1 and 2 for driving cars. So something like this, using 159001 as an example:
52873 currently, would be (95 70) 1159 001
58718 currently, would be (95 70) 3159 001
57873 currently, would be (95 70) 2159 001

The Swiss actually go further and use the '0' identifier to indicate a set number - in this case (95 70) 0159 001.

Far more useful than what we have now as it indicates what class the vehicle is and which set the vehicle belongs to.

But then the Swiss normally do sensible, don't they?

That’s the way most EVN user countries do it, and they base their individual vehicle numbering on the actual vehicle number and/or vehicle position in the unit.
Nothing Swiss about it, they’re just following a basic principle of the EVN system.

Roast Veg · 21 Nov 2019

How does that system work for units longer than 9 carriages?

TRAX · 21 Nov 2019

Exactly the same, why ?
There are lots of those...

Roast Veg · 21 Nov 2019

I mean, for instance, 700101.

An EVN of 94 70 1700 101-9 to 94 70 9700 101-2 covers the first 9 carriages, what about the remaining 5?

43096 · 21 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
I mean, for instance, 700101.

An EVN of 94 70 1700 101-9 to 94 70 9700 101-2 covers the first 9 carriages, what about the remaining 5?

Remaining three!

Just allocate another “class number”.

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

Yeah, changing just one number would be sufficient (and would actually change two because of the check digit).

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
I mean, for instance, 700101.

An EVN of 94 70 1700 101-9 to 94 70 9700 101-2 covers the first 9 carriages, what about the remaining 5?

Also, you can cover 10 carriages with the basics, as 0 counts. So you would go from 0 to 9, not from 1 to 9.

Roast Veg · 22 Nov 2019

Except that changing one number for the sake of two (simple maths failed me yesterday - nobody has called me out on my check digits though) carriages is arguably more of a mess. It would be a lot simpler if the 700/1s were numbered differently in their two half sets, with six carriages apiece.

This seems to be the policy for the 374s

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

But the UK has never used the half-set principle (apart from LU).

Roast Veg · 22 Nov 2019

Not in its numbering, but the 700s are actually made up of half sets.

43096 · 22 Nov 2019

TRAX said:
But the UK has never used the half-set principle (apart from LU).

And Eurostar.

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

Roast Veg said:
Not in its numbering, but the 700s are actually made up of half sets.

it’s the opposite in France, trains aren’t made up of half sets but are numbered like that.

43096 said:
And Eurostar.

That’s to coincide with the French 1/2 numbering system. The 374000 numbering principle is a compromise to suit both the french system and TOPS. Here, we consider the e320s to be numbered in the 4000 series (4001/4002, etc.), not 374. This also makes the fleet numbering adapted to the standard TGV system. This also means you guys have to deal with our double numbering system. This is the reason why the 374s have the double numbering, because it’s the french way of doing it. It’s not because the trains are half-sets, which shouldn’t (and doesn’t) affect numbering.

Roast Veg · 22 Nov 2019

Am I right in saying that, rather unhelpfully, the Class 387 and Class 707 carriage numbering would fall under the same 92 70 0 42x area? With the 707s one car longer, they don't exactly line up well...

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

Class 387s and 707s are 94, not 92.
Also, coach numbers of 387s and 707s don’t have any duplicates, right ?

Roast Veg · 22 Nov 2019

No duplicates, but it means the EVN class cannot be used to identify the vehicle type alone without the first digit of the unit number, unlike other modern ranges that encapsulate the vehicle's purpose purely in the class.

axlecounter · 22 Nov 2019

Before discussing on the system itself, one should decide what’s the basic purpose of the (new) numbering system, and then start from there...

TRAX · 22 Nov 2019

But it's not new... it's now more than 10 years old... The UK is late to the party, that's all...
The basic purpose is uniformisation across the EU fleet as there are more and more cross-border lines and trains/locomotives in Mainland Europe.

eastwestdivide · 23 Nov 2019

TRAX said:
But it's not new... it's now more than 10 years old... The UK is late to the party, that's all...
The basic purpose is uniformisation across the EU fleet as there are more and more cross-border lines and trains/locomotives in Mainland Europe.

The system itself is older than that! The system for locos is just an extension of the UIC numbering system for coaches and wagons. The UIC numbers were on ferry wagons in the UK back in the 1970s.
But yes, the purpose is standardisation across borders, and not just EU/EC/EEC.

Here's a BR ferry van in the early 1980s I photographed at Hoo Junction.
TOPS code VIX, UIC number 21 70 238 0 105-3, type code Hfs (I think H was covered vans, and f = ferry fitted, not sure about the 's').

dazzler · 23 Nov 2019

eastwestdivide said:
The system itself is older than that! The system for locos is just an extension of the UIC numbering system for coaches and wagons. The UIC numbers were on ferry wagons in the UK back in the 1970s.
But yes, the purpose is standardisation across borders, and not just EU/EC/EEC.

Here's a BR ferry van in the early 1980s I photographed at Hoo Junction.
TOPS code VIX, UIC number 21 70 238 0 105-3, type code Hfs (I think H was covered vans, and f = ferry fitted, not sure about the 's').
View attachment 70694

According to the relevant Wiki page:

H = Special covered wagon;
f = Great Britain loading gauge, suitable for ferries and channel tunnel;
s = Permitted in trains up to 100 km/h.

eastwestdivide · 24 Nov 2019

dazzler said:
According to the relevant Wiki page:

H = Special covered wagon;
f = Great Britain loading gauge, suitable for ferries and channel tunnel;
s = Permitted in trains up to 100 km/h.

Thanks for that.
It's worth noting that some of those code definitions changed over the years. And some of the lower-case letters have different definitions according to which upper case letter they come after, and in which country they're used. I used to have a 1980-era German wagons pocket book that had loads of detail, but I sold it to someone.

UIC Rolling Stock Numbering

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member