• 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!

Have FGW renumbered 43053 to 43253?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,179
Location
Cambridge
Some of you may have seen carlwestwood's thread here in the Photography Sites forum including Carl's picture here of what appears to be a renumbered 43253 being hauled from Brush on 7th April. My original thought was that it may have been renumbered by NXEC at an earlier date but of course it wasn't reengineered by the time it left NXEC as 43053.

WNXX and the Railway Centre, both of which are usually pretty reliable, don't report this and I've seen nothing elsewhere. WNXX do show 43053 being relisted (along with 43056) from the IECP to the EFPC pool at the end of March but not a change of identity...

Have FGW decided to renumber their PCs as the other operators have or have Brush accidentally (or deviously!) renumbered the power car unofficially??

Anyone know what the story is here? You've not photoshopped it have you Carl??
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Apparently as it was a former NXEC powercar, and has been MTU-ed, it has been renumbered as if it still belonged to NXEC. Weird.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
Exactly. As bizarre as it's going to look, I don't care what number it is, I'm more interested in getting it in the book again.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,179
Location
Cambridge
Haha as one of the more dispassionate posters on here I completely agree that it makes no difference to anything operationally! But it is curious that one of the last two to be re-engined for FGW would be so different. Would still be interested as to why.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
Well aye, I have to admit I am curious, but no-one seems to know.

Going to look odd in my moves book, an entry such as the following already seems weird:

43128+43253, in 41104, Newport > Bristol Parkway (1139, 4D)

:lol
 

1D53

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
2,691
Still doesn't explain why 053 has been renumbered to 253...

Did the NX ones have further mods done which negated the change of class? I'm sure I read somewhere that they did.

 

1D53

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
2,691
I'm sure it was something like cooler group changes!
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
New control cubicle for one thing. Wiring was possibly changed too. New smaller turbos (2 little ones vice 6 big ones IIRC), alternator moved due to the different engine size causing a need to modify the engine room somewhat.

That's all I can remember from the article in the special HST issue of Rail Express from a few years ago, and since it's about 90 - 100 miles away from me, I can't get it out to check. I'm not going to cheat and research it either :p

Am I in the ballpark Scott? I know at least some of the above applied to the GNER/NXEC power cars, but whether Brush did the work to the same standard or whether they stuck to the specification from FGW for 053 and 056 is something I have no idea about.
 

43034 The Black Horse

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2007
Messages
1,270
They did have a new cubicle of some sort. But it was the electronics cubicle that changed. So, fgw changed the number so it was easier to define that it required a different sort of exam.
 
Last edited:

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,715
Location
London
They did have a new cubicle of some sort. But it was the electronics cubicle that changed. So, fgw changed the number so it was easier to define that it required a different sort of exam.




Now, what is the system I'm talking about.......;)

They have a beefed up WSP system afaiaa
 
Last edited:

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
Now why couldn't anyone just say as much before! Would have saved a lot of pointless flapping and frothing!

Makes sense to renumber it really, but the amount of frothing all over the Internet could have been avoided by just one sensible person making a simple post...
 

43034 The Black Horse

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2007
Messages
1,270
Now why couldn't anyone just say as much before! Would have saved a lot of pointless flapping and frothing!

Makes sense to renumber it really, but the amount of frothing all over the Internet could have been avoided by just one sensible person making a simple post...

Yes they could've, But it fun to see the people frothing and flapping and letting it stew before someone comes in and makes a posting....
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,179
Location
Cambridge
It's since been renumbered back to 43053 - perhaps certain posters should apologise for their smugness ;)

Edit: wasn't it just the first few FGW PCs which had "Reengineering Lite" before being retrofitted full mods to bring into line with the later examples?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top