Class 326 and Class 768 for Rail Operations Group 'Orion'

superalbs

Established Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,137
Location
Exeter
Just seen on Facebook pics of 57312 hauling a converted Class 319 in the ROG Onion livery.

I was expecting this to be a Class 769/5, but it seems they have decided to reclassify these as Class 768 now.

Working seems to be 1212 Eastleigh Arlington to Wembley H.S., running quite delayed:

Would share a pic, but it's in a private Facebook group.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,696
Location
Glasgow
I was expecting this to be a Class 769/5, but it seems they have decided to reclassify these as Class 768 now.
There's also a suggestion that their 319s will be reclassified as 326s.

(though I hope that choice of font does not stay long - it's not the most legible!)
I'd hazard a guess that it fails the spirit of the vehicle marking standard, even if it satisfies the letter - but I note that while RIS-2453-RST (Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering) makes specific demands for the format of the vehicle number, it doesn't include any requirements at all for the appearance of the set number other than where it's positioned.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
11,107
There's also a suggestion that their 319s will be reclassified as 326s.


I'd hazard a guess that it fails the spirit of the vehicle marking standard, even if it satisfies the letter - but I note that while RIS-2453-RST (Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering) makes specific demands for the format of the vehicle number, it doesn't include any requirements at all for the appearance of the set number other than where it's positioned.
The vehicle number is in the same style: if you zoom in on the photo linked in post #6 above it's visible.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,313
I suppose being parcels carriers they are now very similar to a class 325, hence class 326. As I understand it, despite having a networker shaped cab, the 325s are pretty much 319s with roller shutters.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,121
Location
nowhere
I'd hazard a guess that it fails the spirit of the vehicle marking standard, even if it satisfies the letter - but I note that while RIS-2453-RST (Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering) makes specific demands for the format of the vehicle number, it doesn't include any requirements at all for the appearance of the set number other than where it's positioned.

It's surprising that there isn't anything in the standard about it being clear and legible!

To be fair though, the longer I've looked at it, the more I've adapted. I think that possibly the real issue is that they've crammed it in between the grille and the blue edge so the 1 is barely legible against the edge - move it to the other side and there's less of an issue (or uncommit their major sin of slapping a yellow box on the front, ignoring the 'lines' of the unit where the yellow should naturally fall!). That and the 7, which ideally would have a sloping 'tail' than a straight down one
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,696
Location
Glasgow
It's surprising that there isn't anything in the standard about it being clear and legible!

For comparison, this is what's said about vehicle numbers:
Part 4 - Data to be Displayed on Rail Vehicles
4.2: Display of GB operational number (TOPS)

4.2.1: For existing GB registered vehicles, the GB operational number (TOPS) shall:
a) Be displayed on each side of the rail vehicle using a minimum of 80 mm high Arabic numerals;
b) Be written in a sans serif font;
c) Contrast with the background; and
d) Not be positioned higher than 2 m above rail level.
Rationale
G 4.2.2: The minimum size, position and font specified enables clear recognition by operational staff.

But this is all that's said about set numbers:
4.5: Display of the multiple unit and fixed formation set identification number
4.5.1: Multiple unit sets shall have the multiple unit set identification number displayed in full, externally on each end of the set.
4.5.2: The display of the multiple unit set identification number shall be on the front of the cab or, if not on the front of the cab, on both sides of the vehicle at the cab end.
Rationale
G 4.5.3: The display of the multiple unit set identification numbering is necessary for operational purposes.
Guidance
...
G 4.5.5: It is permissible for the class identifier element of the multiple unit set identification number to be separated by a short space, for example 465 201.

Personally I'd say that the way they've done it for 768001 is unacceptable, but it's not like it's my problem!
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
7,237
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Original post notes that they seem to have been reclassified from 769/5 to 768

Photographic evidence on flickr as well of the renumbering (though I hope that choice of font does not stay long - it's not the most legible!)
It's not just the font that irks me, but the slapdash positioning of the yellow panel - it's like the Batman Mask. It just would have looked that little bit better if they'd done it like the Northern Electrics livery in my opinion:

 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
1,694
(or uncommit their major sin of slapping a yellow box on the front, ignoring the 'lines' of the unit where the yellow should naturally fall!)
I normally try to stay out of paint wibble, but you're right - the way they've done that is awful
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,121
Location
nowhere
For comparison, this is what's said about vehicle numbers:


But this is all that's said about set numbers:


Personally I'd say that the way they've done it for 768001 is unacceptable, but it's not like it's my problem!

That is surprising. I'd have thought that there might be some generic catch-all line in there somewhere about "all markings should be legible etc etc" but evidently not. Worst bit is that even if such a point did exist, and was the same as the current requirements on the vehicle numbers, that would technically meet it (as evidenced by the use of the same font for the vehicle number, underneath the first window back from the cab)

It's not just the font that irks me, but the slapdash positioning of the yellow panel - it's like the Batman Mask. It just would have looked that little bit better if they'd done it like the Northern Electrics livery in my opinion:
I normally try to stay out of paint wibble, but you're right - the way they've done that is awful

100% - funnily enough I was complaining about this exact thing yesterday on a different thread!
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
4,515
Location
Gateway to the South West
I normally try to stay out of paint wibble, but you're right - the way they've done that is awful
I disagree. I think the yellow and font is just jarring enough to match the bold 'hey, look at me' image on the rest of the unit. I quite like it. Shows we're all different, I suppose!
 

SeanG

Member
Joined
4 May 2013
Messages
848
I also stay out of paint wibble - its their unit so they can paint it how they like.

But this just seems like a photoshop job where they haven't bothered to use the curve of the front end panel and just have stuck a rectangle on
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
26,728
Is there actually any official confirmation that either class currently exist?
Other than it (768) appearing in a photo, what official confirmation would you normally expect? What confirmation did you get when eg 769 first appeared?
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
3,857
Location
Back in Sussex
Other than it (768) appearing in a photo, what official confirmation would you normally expect? What confirmation did you get when eg 769 first appeared?

Having now seen a photo with 768 on the front of the unit then fair enough, but class 326? why should I not challenge something which is nothing more than supposition?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
26,728
Having now seen a photo with 768 on the front of the unit then fair enough, but class 326? why should I not challenge something which is nothing more than supposition?
I suppose it depends how much credence you give Richard Clinnick’s reporting. Is he generally on the ball?
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,448
Location
Liverpool
Having now seen a photo with 768 on the front of the unit then fair enough, but class 326? why should I not challenge something which is nothing more than supposition?

Class 326 and 768 designations have been allocated to these fleets because the vehicles which make up the units have been reclassified*, which means they can no longer be considered as a Class 319 or 769 subclass respectively. The Class 321 freight demonstrator has not had the same treatment, so has retained its existing TOPS number and classification.

* From DTSO-PMSO-TSOL-DTSO to DTV-PMV-TV-DTV.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,278
I suppose being parcels carriers they are now very similar to a class 325, hence class 326. As I understand it, despite having a networker shaped cab, the 325s are pretty much 319s with roller shutters.
Correct. The bodyshells and traction equipment are all the same as the 319.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,121
Location
nowhere
Class 326 and 768 designations have been allocated to these fleets because the vehicles which make up the units have been reclassified*, which means they can no longer be considered as a Class 319 or 769 subclass respectively. The Class 321 freight demonstrator has not had the same treatment, so has retained its existing TOPS number and classification.

* From DTSO-PMSO-TSOL-DTSO to DTV-PMV-TV-DTV.

To be fair, the Orion units were 319s and 769s until recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 321 demonstrator similarly renumbered before it goes into service for the reasons you note
 

Top