I am aware that a limited number for train classes have had units or locos numbered 100, for example. The Class 60 didn't have any later batches with differences though, so all of them are /0s as far as I'm aware. But as a hypothetical, if there was a batch of exactly 100 locos numbered xx001 to xx100, and then a second batch with differences which were numbered up from xx101, would xx100 be considered /0 or /1?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Question About TOPS Subclass Numbering
- Thread starter Doomotron
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If the first batch were considered /0 to distinguish the from a second batch, then the chances are that if the first batch included number 100, then the second batch would be /2 and start the numbering at 201.
Think it would be better to say “does not always indicate the sub class (as it clearly can’t if the sub class has more than 100 members. There were plenty of classes where, subject to that restriction, it did (33, 37, 45, 47, 50, 73, 86, 87 to name but a few)
norbitonflyer
Established Member
It would be fairer to say that, in general, a given subclass includes all locomotives with the relevant third digit (so, if 47/4 is a subclass, any loco in the range 474xx is a class 47/4). In general, as well, if the third digit does not correspond to a subclass, the loco belongs to the subclass with the nearest digit below (so 475xx were 47/4s).
IN GENERAL though. Exceptions
Most locos in the range 089xx were standard class 08s, not 08/9s - necessarily as there were more than 950 of the standard 08s, 08/9s started at 08991
Class 24s, 25s and 26s had subclasses but were numbered consecutively (class 24/1 starting at 24050, 25/1 at 25026, 25/2 at 25083, 25/3 at 25248, 26/1 at 26021)
Class 37/3 started at 37330, as class 37/0 ran to 37308
Class 37/5 was originally numbered in the range 37501-521 (split headcode) and 37667-699 (single piece headcode) - later class 37/6 was created and given numbers starting in the range 37601,
Some 47/4s carry numbers in the 478xx range as they were converted from 47/8s, the 474xx and 475xx ranges were full, and Classes 47/6 and 47/7 already existed.
IN GENERAL though. Exceptions
Most locos in the range 089xx were standard class 08s, not 08/9s - necessarily as there were more than 950 of the standard 08s, 08/9s started at 08991
Class 24s, 25s and 26s had subclasses but were numbered consecutively (class 24/1 starting at 24050, 25/1 at 25026, 25/2 at 25083, 25/3 at 25248, 26/1 at 26021)
Class 37/3 started at 37330, as class 37/0 ran to 37308
Class 37/5 was originally numbered in the range 37501-521 (split headcode) and 37667-699 (single piece headcode) - later class 37/6 was created and given numbers starting in the range 37601,
Some 47/4s carry numbers in the 478xx range as they were converted from 47/8s, the 474xx and 475xx ranges were full, and Classes 47/6 and 47/7 already existed.
Surely - as all 47/8s were conversions from /4s (mostly 5xx and 6xx, IIRC), their 47/4 numbers would have been available . By the time this was happening, the 47/6 subclass was no more - its sole representative having become the original 47/9.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 16,908
There is no Class 47/8 sub-class. They are still Class 47/4, just renumbered into the 478xx series to make the long range fuel tank conversions easily identifiable to operating staff.
TheHovisKid
Member
There were oddities in the subclasses were originally going to be /1, /2, /3 irrespective of numbers. But as most classes started at 001, /0 as a subclass appeared for convenience early on, old combined volumes used to mention them as "formerly...."
Thanks for all of your input, I didn't know about a lot of these things. The comment about the Class 08 numbers going well into the 9xx range makes me wonder. Assuming there is a class of train that is number 94001 all the way up to 94999, would an extra Class 94 be numbered in the Class 95 range, presumably 95001, but still be a Class 94?
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Background might be useful
The loco classification scheme (class numbers) was introduced in 1968 - a while before TOPS numbers and indeed before TOPS itself - and originally did not have any sub-classes. A forgotten detail, I think, appears in the April 1969 Railway Observer- 'Two additional class numbers have come to notice with the issue of a new S.R. loco stock list in January 1969. The push-pull fitted 1,550 h.p. Type 3s appear as class 34 and the 6 original electro diesels (E6001-6) are class 72' suggesting the sub-class concept was not originally intended.
When sub-classes did appear, still before the use of them as part of the displayed number, they reasonably took the sequential form /1, /2 /3 etc - of course, some classes had no sub-division. However, when locos were allocated class-based numbers (TOPS nos) each class started at nn.001 with a jump to the next lowest nn.n01 for subsequent subclasses. This meant that there was no correlation between the first digit after the class number and the subclass. Later (still looking for the circular) to avoid confusion the sub classes were renumbered to correct this, so class nn/1 became nn/0 and higher sub class numbers were adjusted to reflect the number carried. Originally, there had been no gaps in the run of sub-class numbers, i.e. /1, /2 , /3 but this resulted in gaps in the sequence when a lower numbered sub class had more than 99 members - for example, Class 47.
The loco classification scheme (class numbers) was introduced in 1968 - a while before TOPS numbers and indeed before TOPS itself - and originally did not have any sub-classes. A forgotten detail, I think, appears in the April 1969 Railway Observer- 'Two additional class numbers have come to notice with the issue of a new S.R. loco stock list in January 1969. The push-pull fitted 1,550 h.p. Type 3s appear as class 34 and the 6 original electro diesels (E6001-6) are class 72' suggesting the sub-class concept was not originally intended.
When sub-classes did appear, still before the use of them as part of the displayed number, they reasonably took the sequential form /1, /2 /3 etc - of course, some classes had no sub-division. However, when locos were allocated class-based numbers (TOPS nos) each class started at nn.001 with a jump to the next lowest nn.n01 for subsequent subclasses. This meant that there was no correlation between the first digit after the class number and the subclass. Later (still looking for the circular) to avoid confusion the sub classes were renumbered to correct this, so class nn/1 became nn/0 and higher sub class numbers were adjusted to reflect the number carried. Originally, there had been no gaps in the run of sub-class numbers, i.e. /1, /2 , /3 but this resulted in gaps in the sequence when a lower numbered sub class had more than 99 members - for example, Class 47.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Some distinction would be found that would allow the more-than-1,000 locomotives to be divided into two classes. For example, diferent gearing - and thus maximum speed - was not usually a sufficient distinction to be two classes (look at Class 31 for example) but the 1,024 standard D3000 shunters were split into two classes of 998 and 26 members respectively (classes 08 and 09) based on their gearing. (Although by the time the new numbers were issued, forty class 08s had been withdrawn or converted to class 13. There were also 146 D3000s with Blackstone engines (class 10), ten with Crossley, and fifteen with Lister-Blackstone engines, but a different, or even uprated, engine was usually sufficient to be a different class = see classes 24/25, 26/27, 21/29, 30/31, 42/43, 44/45, 47/48/57, 56/69, 101/102/111 or 105/106 - although there are exceptions, see classes 17/2, 47/9 and 73/9, which have/had different engines from the other subclasses
Not sure you are quite right there with the Blackstones - they were all the same engine the Blackstone ER6T - and Lister owned Blackstone at the time. They may well appear in print as if they are different but they are the same engine from the same maker.
The 15 that were different from the other Blackstone engined 'standard' gronks was D3152 - D3166 had BTH electrics while the rest of the Blackstones, the vast majority, had GEC electrics.
_
Actually classifying all the 08s into sub-classes is more complex and riddled with anomalies - the very early D3000s were little more than an extension of the later built LMS designed 12xxx (later class 11) except driving wheel diameter altered on D3000s to 4'6'' - and D3000s were all but equal to a ballasted version of BR SR built 15211 etc series (later class 12) which did have 4'6'' wheels (of a different type).
The 'standard' 08 build really begins not at D3000 but at D3127 and all EE engined examples from there forwards - up to D3116 they had 630 rpm engines which were nominally 350 hp that LMSR/GWR/SR/LNER had in assorted devices (which is where the name '350' comes from and why many sources quote 08s as 350 hp) - from D3127 upwards are 680 rpm engines nominally 400 hp.
One 08 anomaly. Take the 09s that were converted form 08s i.e. NOT the original 09s. The difference between 09/1 and 09/2 is trotted out over and over again is 90 or 110 V systems and everyone with the ABC Book Of Numbers seems to know that. But that difference also existed in 08s - there were both 90 V and 110 V 08, always were, built that way, yet no-one mentions this*** - differentiating this for 09 but not 08 is an anomaly.
Another 08 anomaly. 08 c.f. 09 has higher maximum speed and lower maximum TE; the max speed is probably the more important item (for pathing anyway in the days when gronks did main line trips) yet ALL Southern Region based 08s (of the 'standard' type from D3127 upwards) had a higher maximum speed - they always were 20 mph not 15 mph but no sub-class. Another one of those facts IA persistently omitted from their ABCs and one that almost anyone writing about 08s overlooks. RCTS generally got that one right, as have P5 always.
As has been said before, any classification system will have anomalies - and outside the industry a near obsession expecting everything to be precisely categorised into neat exact compartments.
*** Not checked but IIMU the 08>09 conversions were from 08s with the respective systems, not a mod at conversion.
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 12,240
Although, equally, interpreting and categorising these anomalies is a headache-inducing excercise for anyone within the industry!
Merle Haggard
Established Member
The 90v vs 110v distinction in the large D.E. shunters seems to have been relevant to condemnation decisions. Around 1970 I used to see the stock changes lists which gave reason for condemnation and, for the D.E. shunters, it was either 'run-down condition' or 'xx volts'. This voltage was always the same, I think that it was the 90 variation but I'm not sure.
I kept (somewhere but can't find) an article about B.R. D.E. shunters in a trade magazine I used to see in the 1960's - I think it was called The locomotive Engineer. This referred to the rating being 400 h.p. (in most cases) but also some were 430 h.p. (or maybe 425??) . Shattered my faith in the accuracy of Ian Allan's A.B.C.s
I kept (somewhere but can't find) an article about B.R. D.E. shunters in a trade magazine I used to see in the 1960's - I think it was called The locomotive Engineer. This referred to the rating being 400 h.p. (in most cases) but also some were 430 h.p. (or maybe 425??) . Shattered my faith in the accuracy of Ian Allan's A.B.C.s
Falcon1200
Established Member
That's an interesting point; I would have assumed that, as locos with 47/8 numbers were different (and in an operationally important way) to those in the 47/4 series, a sub-class is exactly what they were, or should have been!
Merle Haggard
Established Member
On the subject of 47/8 not being a real subclass, what about 47/3? When RfD 47s were made long range, usually by adapting the boiler water tank, they were renumbered 473nn - from memory, going downwards from 47399. Was 47/3 a real sub-class, or just a convenience for power controllers?
norbitonflyer
Established Member
47/3 was one of the original subclasses, for the 81 locos not built with boilers. Most 47/0s later had the boilers removed or isolated, but were not usually renumbered as 47/3s.
However, seventeen 47s were renumbered in the 47/3 series: 47468/226/363/378/314/204/309/330/355/304/209/211/205/328/303/152/150 (renumbered 47300 and 47384-399 respectively). Note that more than half of these were already 47/3s. As far as I can see all of tghem, except 47300, later reverted to their original numbers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I stand corrected - thanks for that explanation. The BTH Blackstones, like the Crossleys, did not survive long enough to get TOPS classes. (In the previous system they were D3/5 and D3/3 respectively)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Although 37300-308 were all later renumbered when many of the final batch (37265-308) were converted to ETH
37300 to 37409
37301 to 37412
37302 to 37416
37303 to 37271 and then 37333 (the original 37271 had become 37418)
37304 to 37272 and then 37334 (the original 37272 had become 37431)
37305 to 37407
37306 to 37273 (the original 37273 had become 37410)
37307 to 37403
37308 to 37274 (the original 37274 had become 37402)
Last edited:
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Thanks; I recollect that the 'new' 473nn numbers were applied to locos. on their return from Doncaster Works after heavy overhaul, working down from 47399.
The important factor in the RfD 'new 47/3s' was the long range fuel tank, necessary for locos on diagrams working C.T. trains. Dictated the allocation between RfD C.T. and Freightliner fleet at the split, the low hours of the ones retained by RfD as a result of recent overhaul being entirely coincidental
norbitonflyer
Established Member
There have been a numbver of theories publiushed about other "missing" classes. Some that wwre suggested in a long-lost copy of railway Magazine invcluded:
18 - Rolls Royce-engined "Claytons" D8586/87 (became 17/2)
19 - "Claytons" with Crompton Parkinson electrics and blue star coupling code (D8588-8617) (the rest had GEC electrics and red diamond) - became 17/3
32 - "Hastings gauge" class 33s (became 33/2)
36 - LMS prototypes 10000, 10001 - the latter was still extant in 1966
38, 39 - variants of Class 37 - the first 119 examples had some differences from the rest, most visibly (but least importantly) in the headcode arrangments, and the two groups were always kept separate (for example with Class 37/5s being numbered up from 37501 and down from 37699)
49 - the "generators" D1500-19, (most 47s had alternators for ETH - these first twenty (and the Deltics) could only operate with certain ETH fitted stock
51 - in the late 1960s the D1500 class were downrated to 2580hp, in attempts to get the right balance between power and reliability. Could this class have been reserved for the original higher rated (2750hp) version?
There were several other anomalies - a minor re-rating of the Sulzer engine resulted in two classes of BR(Derby) Type 4 (Classes 44,45), and but only two of the Type 2 (Classes 24/25). But a change in the electrical equpment fitted to the Type 4s resulted in a further class (46) but not in the Type 2s (four subclasses of Class 25). But a completely different make of engine was fitted to two of the "Claytons", and different electrical equipoment to thirty of them, but they were all classified "17".
Other gaps are more easily explained - by the mid 1980s there was a policy of not duplicating locomotive and carriage numbers* , and as the 61xxx, 62xxx, 63xxx, 64xxx and 65xxx ranges were still occupied by EMU cars in 1998, Ed Burkhardt's "Sheds" and Skips" became classes 66 and 67.
(*Note the mass renumbering in 1983 of DMU cars in the 50xxx and 56xxx ranges (the Deltics had already gone) and hauled stock in the 25xxx, 26xxx, 81xxx and 86xxx ranges, and in 1989/90 half a dozen surviving DMU cars in the 591xx and 60xxx ranges were also given new numbers).
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 12,240
My understanding is that Class 38 was, in effect, to be a RA5 version of the Class 60 that was proposed by British Rail in the 80s. This is the reason for the gap in numbering of the 37/5 and 37/7 subclasses - originally it had been planned to refurbish all of the Class 37s, but the HGR programme was cut short and ultimately the funding for the Class 38s never materialised.
Later on, EWS also mooted a ”Class 38”, which would have been a RA5 version of the Class 66.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Indeed, but these proposals only materialised long after the original TOPS classes were allocated in the late 1960s. There seem to be few, if any examples of "future-proofing" the system - note that as early as 1972 a class number had to be recycled (Class 41, originally allocated to the D600 "Warships" which were withdrawn in 1967, was re-used for the prototype HST power cars). There was an even shortger gap (1971-75) for class 43
The fact that the D600s were given a classification at all, despite being extinct by the end of 1967, suggests that the numbers had been allocated some time before, giving some credence to the theory that class 36 was to be allocated to No 10001. And classes 16, 21, 28, 30, 77 and 80 were all gone by the end of 1968.
Last edited:
12LDA28C
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 5,058
This is not correct, the 47s renumbered into the 47384-47399 range were classified as 47/2s which signified their green circle multi-working capability for use on the Felixstowe branch. Once the multi-working trial was deemed a success, the multi-working modification was rolled out across the fleet which meant there was no longer any need for a separate sub-class and 47384-399 regained their former identities.
47468 of course was renumbered 47300 purely to replace 47343 which had been withdrawn following collision damage.
Indeed, this was a condemnation decision factor; somewhere or other I have the original build list breakdown by numbers which was 90 or 110 V; not on hand.The 90v vs 110v distinction in the large D.E. shunters seems to have been relevant to condemnation decisions. Around 1970 I used to see the stock changes lists which gave reason for condemnation and, for the D.E. shunters, it was either 'run-down condition' or 'xx volts'. This voltage was always the same, I think that it was the 90 variation but I'm not sure.
I kept (somewhere but can't find) an article about B.R. D.E. shunters in a trade magazine I used to see in the 1960's - I think it was called The locomotive Engineer. This referred to the rating being 400 h.p. (in most cases) but also some were 430 h.p. (or maybe 425??) . Shattered my faith in the accuracy of Ian Allan's A.B.C.s
re horsepower, when you look at trade mags, and especially w.r.t. to EE stuff, one must bear in mind what is being quoted - is it the continuous engine rating, the one hour rating, or something else.
The jump from 'original' gronk 350 hp to 400 hp was a continuous rating uprating (if you see what I mean); by the time BR was into huge series production, the basic 6K engine had already been around for 20 years or so and progressed in that time. Just as late 1940s the EE 16SVT per prototypes was 1600 hp, it was 2000 hp by 1955 orders - the 6K moved the same way.
I would suggest if 425/430 hp were quoted for a gronk power unit, that might be the one hour rating. EE had an infernal habit of doing this; the matter of everyone going around stating EE507 motors in 4Vep were nominal 275 hp but everything else EE507 nominal 250 hp is an example: 4Vep motors were EXACTLY THE SAME EE507s as Cigs, Ceps, EPB, and all the rest had, and indeed freely interchanged with them, just EE quoted the one hour rating in blurb and everyone taken in ever since.
IA ABC inaccuracy - omissions as well as errors - is a more significant issue than many realise. And the root cause of much debate. It always concerns 'trainspotter' OCD on accuracy and precision of information, yet quite significant data in ABC was wrong. RCTS then P5 moved a big step forwards in this respect on locos - but still errors get through - or old errors reintroduced; I have recently done a review of a 2024 publication for a publisher where I identified around 100 errors in this sort of data, few of which are howlers or typos, but most of which are replicated from flawed sources. Unfortunately, the review was after publication not before. I'm not going to say which book it is.
Back to IA ABC, there are whole complete locos omitted from every edition - and if you follow those omissions through, the /same/ locos are /generally/ omitted from other works compiling 'registers' of all diesel locos, for example, and the same locos are /general/ omitted from the likes of wiki-dribble and similar web stuff.
_
_
I am glad this one has been mentioned again.
I have asked more than once before was 47300 REALLY a 47/3 or a 47/2.
The knee jerk answers of 'third digit is a 3' and 'it had SSC => 47/3' do not answer that one - many 47/2 had SSC. Was 47300 really SSC fitted at rebuild ? Given the run down of the need for SSC loco well well under way at that , why would they do this ?
It just happens the number 47300 fell in the one single gap between 47299 and 47301, and no way is it clear if it was added to then end of 47/2 or the start of 47/3.
A perfect example of trainspotter categorisation not necessarily providing the right answer.
Last edited:
12LDA28C
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 5,058
It certainly wasn't a 47/2 as it wasn't fitted with multi-working as per 47384-47399 and you might argue it wasn't really a 47/3 as they were 47301-47381, built without train heating for freight use. Effectively 47300 was just a 47/4 with its ETH capability removed and the various spotting books listed it under the 47/3 heading purely due to the sticky digits on the side. 47299 was not a '47/2' of course, it was a 47/0.
Were they ?
This is stated time and time again - but no-one yet has ever ever produced with an OFFICIAL contemporary BR list showing class 41 as allocated to D600s.
ITYF this use of 41 for D600s did not appear anywhere until late 70s / early 80s when a certain well known writer produced such a list for his mags/books.
I'd welcome someone producing or locating a real 1967/1968 BR document containing this. Until then, I do not believe a word of it.
WR WTT, loads books, used the term D6XX for them, as they did D8XX D7XXX etc, and yes there was the ER system; but 41 .................... ?????
Same thing applies to use of 80 for E2001. No evidence I am aware of official BR use and first pubic appearance per above. Indeed, the use of 80 of E2001 is even more lunatic than D600s - sure E2001 survived into 1970s, but not as a locomotive as such, not in running lines, but a bit of static test kit, which otherwise did not get so classified.
_
_
Sorry I meant was 47300 really a NB 47/0 not 47/2. I know what I meant but that introduced an error.
what you say about 47300 is what I believe - merely a no ETH 47/4 - it did not have SSC ? did it ?
I suppose one could argue NB 47/0 = not ETH 47/4 but anyway IMHO 47/3 it was not.
Last edited:
12LDA28C
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 5,058
Not to my knowledge - it was a departmental / civil engineers sector loco so would have had no need for it.
Absolutely.
You are the first person agreeing with my thoughts on this one.
_
_
I believe that theory may be down to me
from an item one David Maxey induced me to wrote for RAIL (not RM) under his editorship many many moons ago; others may have repeated this theory.I stress /theory/ it was never proven in fact. It is merely logical if one peruses an official contemporary BR Diagram Book. and really was more of a 'lets stir things up' item
Even then, the coupling code issue - Red Diamond v. Blue Star - many of the as built GEC Red Diamonds were later Blue Stars. Search images and you can see this. Preserved D8568 correctly carries Blue Stars.
The recent (2-3 yr old) book on D8500s states they were "re-wired" but then dismisses this subject in one single line.
IIMU - and I can't now remember where I got this from - that the reason for 'Red Diamond' was not that their control system was technically different from Blue Star - but that mating two 17s meant the highly complexicated internal systems of one 17 that allowed one or two engine running across 2 or 4 motors in almost any permutation was not implementable on Blue Star. Hence Red Diamond was added as a sort of indicator not to mate them with another class. It is possible, theory, the D8500 rewiring that was done did not alter the control system, but remove the complexity of the orginal internal systems.
_
Class 25s are another example- they were all given Blue Star, but on mating a 25/3 with any other sub class the locos were not truly in multiple; even with the lesser electronics in a 25/2 and the more electronics in a 25/3, the field events took place at different road speeds; a 25/2+25/3 combo had a 25% maximum trailing load reduction compared with 2x25/2 or 2x25/3 when it came to real heavy freights like tanks from Stanlow via Standedge or Todmorden. It was a coupling restriction that was never reflected in subclasses or codes - but possibly ought to have been.
Again we are back to how far does one go into all this classification and compartmentalisation.
Last edited:
12LDA28C
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 5,058
It's worth noting that 47468 was chosen because it was already stored U/S, being overdue overhaul and had high engine hours. 47468 actually received the power unit and bogies from 47343 with the transplant being carried out at Crewe, prior to renumbering as 47300.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Regarding the question of 'class 41'; I have in front of me the Railway Observer (quoted in my earlier post) listing the then new codes. As D7666 states, it's not on the list.
The observation I'll make is that there are several gaps in the numbers, but I can see some logic for it;
Class 31 is 1470 hp, 32 is vacant then 33 is 1550 hp. 34 is missing, then 35 is 1700 hp.
Similarly, class 40 is 2000 hp then 42 is 200/2200/2400.
I think a gap is just to separate power; if 41 is.a gap because the D600s were intended, there should also be candidates for cl 32 and 34. if anyone can come up with type 3 classes withdrawn just before the scheme was introduced, I'd be interested to hear what they were
If, in an early draft, 41 had been allocated and then the class withdrawn I would suggest that the other numbers would be moved up to close the gap.
On the subject of coupling codes I remember at the time on a Freedom of Scotland bash that the NB type 2a - D6100 - had varying coupling codes - oranger star and white diamond from memory (sorry if that's wrong, it was 60 years ago). I mean the ones before rebuilding.
The observation I'll make is that there are several gaps in the numbers, but I can see some logic for it;
Class 31 is 1470 hp, 32 is vacant then 33 is 1550 hp. 34 is missing, then 35 is 1700 hp.
Similarly, class 40 is 2000 hp then 42 is 200/2200/2400.
I think a gap is just to separate power; if 41 is.a gap because the D600s were intended, there should also be candidates for cl 32 and 34. if anyone can come up with type 3 classes withdrawn just before the scheme was introduced, I'd be interested to hear what they were
If, in an early draft, 41 had been allocated and then the class withdrawn I would suggest that the other numbers would be moved up to close the gap.
On the subject of coupling codes I remember at the time on a Freedom of Scotland bash that the NB type 2a - D6100 - had varying coupling codes - oranger star and white diamond from memory (sorry if that's wrong, it was 60 years ago). I mean the ones before rebuilding.
- Status