• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

D1100-d1111

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
317
Location
Over there
I have raised this question elsewhere, but no one ever seems to give a satisfactory answer gained from an inside knowledge of the decision.

Why were the last twelve Brush 4s numbered D1100 to D1111?

(Yes I know they ran out of numbers at D1999)

Why not do the slightly more logical thing and allocate them D1400-D1411, especially if they had thought about ordering a few more?

Surely they were not thinking of having another 400?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
4,991
I have raised this question elsewhere, but no one ever seems to give a satisfactory answer gained from an inside knowledge of the decision.

Why were the last twelve Brush 4s numbered D1100 to D1111?

(Yes I know they ran out of numbers at D1999)

Why not do the slightly more logical thing and allocate them D1400-D1411, especially if they had thought about ordering a few more?

Surely they were not thinking of having another 400?

my theory is..........
because it made it harder for anyone to allocate the later numbers to a different class, so making the Brush 4's the "preferred choice"
Putting another class in between the two sequences would have messed up the paperwork and filing systems, and those in power didn't want anything competing with the 47's


Same reason why there were 101 Hymeks, not 100 - the final loco ended up in the next block as D7100, stopping that from being used for a competing product. The GW planners wanted more Hymeks, the BRB didn't
The planners on the WCML were wise to this and simply allocated numbers by batch as they were ordered, with all AC 81-85 classes jumbled in one sequence
 
Last edited:

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,439
Easy one. After 1(999) they would have looked for something near to but over 1000. 1000 to 1073 were filled so they went for 1100.

As someone who used to deal with loco paperwork every day, it really doesn't matter what number sequence gets used, as long as that sequence doesn't lead to confusion and I can get to the right records easily.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
4,991
Easy one. After 1(999) they would have looked for something near to but over 1000. 1000 to 1073 were filled so they went for 1100.

and so blocking that number series from being used by further batches of Westerns.......or the purported proposed diesel-electric western
Sorry, got my conspiracy hat on today
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,057
Location
Fenny Stratford
my theory is..........
because it made it harder for anyone to allocate the later numbers to a different class, so making the Brush 4's the "preferred choice"
Putting another class in between the two sequences would have messed up the paperwork and filing systems, and those in power didn't want anything competing with the 47's


Same reason why there were 101 Hymeks, not 100 - the final loco ended up in the next block as D7100, stopping that from being used for a competing product. The GW planners wanted more Hymeks, the BRB didn't
The planners on the WCML were wise to this and simply allocated numbers by batch as they were ordered, with all AC 81-85 classes jumbled in one sequence


eh? Spotters don't half come up with some sillyness! You think the lack of availability of a certain numbering sequence stopped certain classes of locomotives being developed further? :roll:
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
...
The planners on the WCML were wise to this and simply allocated numbers by batch as they were ordered, with all AC 81-85 classes jumbled in one sequence
Depends what you mean by "jumbled". Each Class filled one block within the sequence, or two where the Type B freight geared locomotives were placed in a later sequence.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
4,991
eh? Spotters don't half come up with some sillyness! You think the lack of availability of a certain numbering sequence stopped certain classes of locomotives being developed further? :roll:

Oi! Don't insult me by calling me a spotter....

I don't know if the numbering did actually stop certain classes being developed, but I certainly believe some numbers were applied in the hope that would happen.
 

D6975

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
2,844
Location
Bristol
The number series from D1100 upwards was originally allocated for a further batch of type 4s that never appeared, namely the next batch of Peaks. They were to have been D194-D199 and D1100-D1113. The decision to build 47s rather than Peaks left the D1100 sequence free for the last batch of 47s.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,439
That is completely ridiculous - numbers allocated to classes doesn't stop locos being ordered! There were 9999 numbers available and at that time for type 4's you could have picked any sequence numbered 4xx, 5xx, 9xx, 11xx to 14xx, let alone moving into the type 5 9xxx series.

The person(s) allocating the numbers over the years had an eye to further expansion of main line types, hence the other gaps 60xx, 64xx, 72xx to 74xx, 77xx to 79xx, 87xx to 89xx.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,278
That is completely ridiculous - numbers allocated to classes doesn't stop locos being ordered! There were 9999 numbers available and at that time for type 4's you could have picked any sequence numbered 4xx, 5xx, 9xx, 11xx to 14xx, let alone moving into the type 5 9xxx series.

The person(s) allocating the numbers over the years had an eye to further expansion of main line types, hence the other gaps 60xx, 64xx, 72xx to 74xx, 77xx to 79xx, 87xx to 89xx.

60xx was used by what became the Class 73s.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
317
Location
Over there
The number series from D1100 upwards was originally allocated for a further batch of type 4s that never appeared, namely the next batch of Peaks. They were to have been D194-D199 and D1100-D1113. The decision to build 47s rather than Peaks left the D1100 sequence free for the last batch of 47s.

That is not what my Trains Illustrated Annual for 1962 says.

It has a table listing the current and proposed diesel orders which gives the Peaks as D148-D199 and D1500-D1513.

And D1400 was just as vacant as D1100 once they had reached D1999.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
9,954
Simplistically, it didn't matter that numbers didn't follow logically in the days of manual record cards and staff using them who knew all the locomotives anyway, and were doubtless used to pre-nationalisation steam numbers some of which were a complete jumble. Why, once the Sulzer Type 2s reached D5299, they carried on with D7500 is a similar situation.

I'm sure the clerical staff of the time in the CME department would not choose to be derided as spotters, despite the fact that they typically had the Ian Allan book on their desk because it was a much more concise and easy to use item than the lugubrious BR documents.

Yes, the last 20 Peaks were cancelled in favour of the first 20 of the Class 47, D1500-19, which were technically somewhat different from the subsequent builds, in ETH connections and I think other aspects as well, hence were generally kept together on the ECML.

Even after TOPS there were duplicates - I recall at the east end of Edinburgh Waverley seeing Deltic 55015 and single DMU car 55015 on opposite sides of a platform.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
317
Location
Over there
Simplistically, it didn't matter that numbers didn't follow logically in the days of manual record cards and staff using them who knew all the locomotives anyway, and were doubtless used to pre-nationalisation steam numbers some of which were a complete jumble. Why, once the Sulzer Type 2s reached D5299, they carried on with D7500 is a similar situation.

A similar situation maybe, but one that lends credence to the theory that the management were thinking of more than 100 extra Brush Type 4s at one time or another.

They were obviously thinking of more than 100 Sulzer Type 2s, and after D5299 there were not any other number sequences which would have sufficed for a whole block of 100+ locomotives until after the Hymeks.

They could have chosen D7200-D7399 but didn't; and that is another mystery to me.
 

Keith Jarrett

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2010
Messages
1,132
Location
No longer in London
I have raised this question elsewhere, but no one ever seems to give a satisfactory answer gained from an inside knowledge of the decision.

Why were the last twelve Brush 4s numbered D1100 to D1111?

(Yes I know they ran out of numbers at D1999)

Why not do the slightly more logical thing and allocate them D1400-D1411, especially if they had thought about ordering a few more?

Surely they were not thinking of having another 400?

D1100-D1111 were the final numbers allocated to the Brush 4s although the last one to enter traffic was the Brush built D1961. In fact the Brush built batch D1953-D1961 were the only ones delivered in proper BR blue - the XP64 liveried D1733 excepted of course.

If you want more data on the Brush 4s/Class 47s, take a look at the excellent class 47 website
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top