Discussion about TOPS allocations in the context of recent locomotive orders

[LOL The Irony]

mods note - split from this thread.

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

 

[JonathanH]

98 aren't taken?

98 is occupied by TOPS registered steam locomotives.

https://features.rcts.org.uk/locomotives/tops-class-98/

INTRODUCTION

The following numbers have been issued by the Rolling Stock Library (RSL) for privately owned steam locomotives.

The third digit represents the power classification and the last two digits are the final two digits of the historic number, except where duplication occurs. A number of locos have been registered on the RSL for the transfer to or from a location where road access is difficult and therefore there may the need for a short shunt by rail, e.g. Didcot Railway Centre and Eastleigh Works. It should be noted that there are a number of preserved “Industrial Locomotives” which have been added to the RSL.

 

[172007]

98 is occupied by TOPS registered steam locomotives.

https://features.rcts.org.uk/locomotives/tops-class-98/

Surely it's just the merchant Navy class that are 98.

 

[alexl92]

Surely it's just the merchant Navy class that are 98.

Unless there's a joke I've missed here... the 98 is the TOPS class, the third digit is the power class and the last two are the loco's numbers or as close as possible - so 60009 is 98809 - TOPS class 98 -power class 8- 60009

 

[pdeaves]

Unless there's a joke I've missed here... the 98 is the TOPS class, the third digit is the power class and the last two are the loco's numbers or as close as possible - so 60009 is 98809 - TOPS class 98 -power class 8- 60009

There was a joke in there, reference '99' originally being ships but Merchant Navy class, being named after ships, are now allocated '98'.

 

[D6130]

There was a joke in there, reference '99' originally being ships but Merchant Navy class, being named after ships, are now allocated '98'.

Pedant alert: The Merchant Navy class locomotives are named after shipping lines - not ships!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

It is a bit of a mystery. According to my 2019 volume there are only three vehicles in the number ranges 94xxx, 95xxx, 96xxx and 97xxx: GUVs 94225, 96100 and 96175. (95xxx and 97xxx are completely empty).
There are four coaches numbered in the 993xx and 997xx series, and until recently the 99xxx series was used for private-owner vehicles.

 

[JonathanH]

There are four coaches numbered in the 993xx and 997xx series, and until recently the 99xxx series was used for private-owner vehicles.

99xxx still is used for private-owner vehicles. There are many more 99xxx vehicles than just the four you have referred to

 

[pdeaves]

Pedant alert: The Merchant Navy class locomotives are named after shipping lines - not ships!

OK, 'ship related things'? (in my defence I am neither a steam locomotive nor water transport expert...)

 

[GB]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

Don't think there is any hard rule that says new classes have to be sequential.

 

[D6130]

Don't think there is any hard rule that says new classes have to be sequential.

Indeed....the class 331 EMUs being a prime example.

 

[birchesgreen]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

Well Class 99 fulfils the most important criterion these days, it sounds cooler.

 

[edwin_m]

Pedant alert: The Merchant Navy class locomotives are named after shipping lines - not ships!

Should apply to Class 43 (the first one) and Class 50 instead.

 

[norbitonflyer]

99xxx still is used for private-owner vehicles. There are many more 99xxx vehicles than just the four you have referred to

According to the 2019 volume I consulted, "....carriages may still carry numbers in the 99xxx number range of the former private owner number series, which is no longer in general use"

There then follows a list of 72 vehicles with numbers ranging from 99025 to 99974.

Whether those numbers are available for re-use as locomotives or not, the point I was trying to make was that the 94, 95, 96 and 97 ranges are emptier.

 

[matacaster]

Historically, 'class 99' was allocated to ships [1]. Such knowledge conjures up some interesting mental images!

[1] Obviously, the number can easily be reused; that isn't a problem...

Useful for aire Valley line out of Leeds when it floods?

 

[alexl92]

Indeed....the class 331 EMUs being a prime example.

I may have missed your point but the 331s were numbered in sequence with the 332s (Heathrow Express) and 333s (Aire Valley Line) are also in that number range.

 

[The exile]

I may have missed your point but the 331s were numbered in sequence with the 332s (Heathrow Express) and 333s (Aire Valley Line) are also in that number range.

Not sequentially as they came long after the higher numbered classes.

 

[Deepgreen]

Surely it's just the merchant Navy class that are 98.


Guess 100mph may be useful when running late.

All main line-registered steam locos are class 98 in TOPs. The 92s are already rated at 87mph (140kph) - would a re-gearing allow 100mph?

 

[Deepgreen]

Pedant alert: The Merchant Navy class locomotives are named after shipping lines - not ships!

That's not pedantic - there is a big difference. Some class 40s were named after ships.

 

[D6130]

Not sequentially as they came long after the higher numbered classes.

Thank you....that was my point.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Should apply to Class 43 (the first one) and Class 50 instead.

And the original classes 41 and 42

 

[4F89]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

98 is kettles

 

[McRhu]

If they'd been a bit quicker off the mark they could've bagged the "18" slot ahead of Clayton and really provoked a class war.

 

[O8yityityit]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't order any more new rolling stock because we don't have a suitable slot in our Platform 5 books?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Are you suggesting we shouldn't order any more new rolling stock because we don't have a suitable slot in our Platform 5 books?

No, I'm simply pointing out the over liberal use of TOPS. GBRf could've taken the 94 classification but chose instead to go down the one-upmanship route and take the 99 classification. In fact, as electro-diesel locomotives, all the Stadler EuroDuals should be classified in the 7x range.

 

[GB]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

There is a finite amount of numbers available, if you believe we will run out of numbers then that will happen whether 99 is used before 94-96 or not. Its all pretty irrelevant anyway as tops classification is just to identify within tops so I don’t see what difference using 99 first makes.

 

[train_lover]

Why are they giving it a ship classification when 94-96 & 98 aren't taken? Also, if they are just going to be Stadler EuroDuals, why not use the 93 classification? It feels like they're using new classifications for the sake of it, and soon, we'll run out.

Because the class 93 and 99 are completely different in many different ways. It's like saying the class 59 and 66 should be under the same classification. But I agree with what you are saying about other numbers. What I don't know is who gives it the classification. I assume it's the DFT.

Fair enough I take that back then sorry!

No need to apologise bud

 

[43096]

In fact, as electro-diesel locomotives, all the Stadler EuroDuals should be classified in the 7x range.

You've jumped to the conclusion that because the 73s (and 74s) are electro-diesels that the 7x series is for electro-diesels, which doesn't fit as there were also 71, 76 and 77 as straight electrics in that range. Historically, the 7x series was for DC electric locos and 80 upwards for AC electric locos (but now including dual voltage and electro-diesel AC locos).

 

[train_lover]

You've jumped to the conclusion that because the 73s (and 74s) are electro-diesels that the 7x series is for electro-diesels, which doesn't fit as there were also 71, 76 and 77 as straight electrics in that range. Historically, the 7x series was for DC electric locos and 80 upwards for AC electric locos (but now including dual voltage and electro-diesel AC locos).

As mentioned the 76 and 77 although overhead were DC. Now what's interesting is the fact Class 70s are 70s as they don't fit into the above category.

 

[jopsuk]

No, I'm simply pointing out the over liberal use of TOPS. GBRf could've taken the 94 classification but chose instead to go down the one-upmanship route and take the 99 classification. In fact, as electro-diesel locomotives, all the Stadler EuroDuals should be classified in the 7x range.

TOPS has always had odd stuff floating around, and class numbers reused, and is basically all a mess anyway. There's been no Class 99 ship in almost 38 years (they went off the system when Sealink was sold).