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

[superalbs]

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:

Realtime Trains - 566S 1212 Eastleigh Arlington (Zg) to Wembley H.S.

Realtime Trains is an independent source of live realtime running information for the Great British railway network.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Would share a pic, but it's in a private Facebook group.

 

[swt_passenger]

Onion = Orion?

 

[superalbs]

Onion = Orion?

Oh yes, that makes sense.

 

[ExRes]

Onion = Orion?

Looking at it on Flickr it does make your eyes water ......

 

[Speed43125]

Presumably the title should be corrected to say '769' as well...

 

[Domh245]

Presumably the title should be corrected to say '769' as well...

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!)

 

[superalbs]

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!)

I had to do a double take when I saw the number, the font doesn't help!

 

[Speed43125]

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!)

ahh right, that's news to me. Seems a tad redundant but when did railway happenings claim to be rational

 

[superalbs]

Also hearing that the ROG Class 319s are now to be Class 326s!

 

[XAM2175]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Price]

Richard Clinnock from IRJ tweeted today that they will be 768's and 326's to distinguish them from passenger units. Tweet is here: https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1412342531636011009?s=19

 

[XAM2175]

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]

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:

319369_1612_Liverpool

After twenty four years on cross London suburban Thameslink duties 319369 has moved to the North West following the electrification of various routes in the area. It is seen here on the 20th December 2016 at Liverpool Lime Street working 1H46, 10:16 Liverpool – Manchester Airport. Unit History...

www.flickr.com

 

[skyhigh]

(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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TransportHub]

Does anyone have a list of the new fleet numbers of the 326s and 768s?

 

[birchesgreen]

I am probably in a minority here but i love the retro font on the front

 

[ExRes]

Does anyone have a list of the new fleet numbers of the 326s and 768s?

Is there actually any official confirmation that either class currently exist?

 

[swt_passenger]

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]

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]

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?

 

[ExRes]

I suppose it depends how much credence you give Richard Clinnick’s reporting. Is he generally on the ball?

The 'experts' do tend to get a good thrashing for their social media postings, but they can't always be wrong, can they?

 

[507021]

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]

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]

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