Re numbering of locomotives

Status
Not open for further replies.

gdale1

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
47
Hi everyone
Not sure where this fits but interested in knowing everyone's opinion on renumbering of trains. Do you still mark off the train as seen when for example certain class 156s have been modified and hence given a new number but you've seen it with its old number, many thanks.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chorley Cake

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
243
Hi everyone
Not sure where this fits but interested in knowing everyone's opinion on renumbering of trains. Do you still mark off the train as seen when for example certain class 156s have been modified and hence given a new number but you've seen it with its old number, many thanks.
There are no official rules so it’s very much down to the individual. I think some like the fact there’s a new number and will treat it differently whereas others just see it as the same. Basically it’s up to you.
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
1,827
Personally for loco if the loco had undergone a modification ETH fitted for example i would want to see it again and cross it off. However if it was just a straight renumber as in the case of 87.101 , i wouldnt go searching for it. But as others have said it is personal choice.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
10,832
Personally for loco if the loco had undergone a modification ETH fitted for example i would want to see it again and cross it off. However if it was just a straight renumber as in the case of 87.101 , i wouldnt go searching for it. But as others have said it is personal choice.
87101 was never renumbered as far as I know.
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
1,827
It had 87 036 chalked on it whilst being built and went in my notebook as such, but as you say it was always 87 101 by they time it was painted
I believe it actualy entered service as 87.036bbut was quickly renumbered
 

BRblue33

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2020
Messages
100
Location
End of the southdowns
As for unit's the coach number's stay the same. It's just the unit number that change. Or like the class 378's they add a extra new coach but don't change the unit number in that case i try and see them again.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
4,174
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
Or like the class 378's they add a extra new coach but don't change the unit number in that case i try and see them again.
Just to be pedantic: from memory, most of the original 378's were delivered as 3-car units and ran in that guise. They were renumbered from '0 to '2 when the 4th coaches were added. I don't think 378.001 ever ran in public service as such but stand to be corrected
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
The West Country
I always believed that once you'd seen the physical loco then any renumbering never mattered. Did you see 47046,47601 or 47901? Or D1664,47079 or 57009?Likewise the cumbersome class 37 renumbering. Once I'd seen the loco I'd seen it. Although I do accept those that required a loco for the new number or livery etc.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
1,260
Location
West Yorkshire
It’s over 25 years since I took numbers but I always took a renumbered loco as required and underlined it as such (ie platform 5 books always showed the previous number so underlined the old number but not the new until seen with that number).

It is definitely an individuals choice and wouldn’t say there is a right or wrong way.

Talk of 87036 reminds me of Crewe Works open day in July 1987 where I saw 87201 being built and was chalked up as such. Cue the remarks of “that never existed”!
 

86247

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
258
Location
clock face
I went to crewe works open day in 1987 4th of July I think and yes 87201 was chalked on the side it was even in my platform 5 book as that, can't remember when they decided to call them 90s instead of 87/2s.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
676
Location
ECML
I always believed that once you'd seen the physical loco then any renumbering never mattered. Did you see 47046,47601 or 47901? Or D1664,47079 or 57009?Likewise the cumbersome class 37 renumbering. Once I'd seen the loco I'd seen it. Although I do accept those that required a loco for the new number or livery etc.
I think you might be in a minority on that one, lol.

As others have said, it is personal choice and it's up to you.

However, I always went with whatever number I saw being carried. Using the example above... if I saw it as 47046 the number would get underlined and next time I saw it, it was 47901. Then in my book there would be 47901 (underlined) 47601 (Not underlined or ticked or whatever anyone chooses to identify "seen") 47046 (underlined).

In my book, ticking off a number you had not seen was seen as cheating. And reminds me of someone I knew who saw a poster of a loco (and as you could read the number on the poster) and ticked it off as seen !!! Me and my mate's at the time used to call him the fantasy spotter, lol.

If I used that rule I could go on youtube and "cop" a whole class in no time !! <heads off to youtube>

Edit: I will add, although I have seen a loco more than once I probably have seen different "engines" as actual diesel engines did tend to get swapped around when loco's went into works for overhaul.

As for units... my old books (stopped spotting decades ago) show a unit number underlined and some coaches/carriages underlined, with some missing ! As if I didn't jot down the number, it didn't get in !
 
Last edited:

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,217
Location
Lancashire
I went to crewe works open day in 1987 4th of July I think and yes 87201 was chalked on the side it was even in my platform 5 book as that, can't remember when they decided to call them 90s instead of 87/2s.
Quite surprised that Class 90s were going to be numbered in the 872xx sub class, especially with big gap of build dates and equipment
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
2,634
Location
Up the creek
I believe it actualy entered service as 87.036bbut was quickly renumbere
It had 87 036 chalked on it whilst being built and went in my notebook as such, but as you say it was always 87 101 by they time it was painted
I went to crewe works open day in 1987 4th of July I think and yes 87201 was chalked on the side it was even in my platform 5 book as that, can't remember when they decided to call them 90s instead of 87/2s.
The loco was ordered as 87 036 and was seen to carry that number on a number of occasions during construction. The last recorded was on 26 January 1975, when it was in the Test Shop painted in primer. On 23 February it was in the same location, partly painted and carrying 87 101; the number was supposed to have been put on on 21 February. (Source: The Allocation History of BR Diesels & Electrics, Part 4, 3rd edition, by Roger Harris.)

Quite surprised that Class 90s were going to be numbered in the 872xx sub class, especially with big gap of build dates and equipment
The change from 87/2 to 90 seems to have taken place around July 1987, as incomplete 87 201 to 87 203 were seen so numbered on 4 July, but carried 90 001 to 90 003 by the end of the month. (Source as above.)
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
1,260
Location
West Yorkshire
I went to crewe works open day in 1987 4th of July I think and yes 87201 was chalked on the side it was even in my platform 5 book as that, can't remember when they decided to call them 90s instead of 87/2s.
Ah yes that was the date. I remember it was a red hot day and we went by car so we could do some line siding on the way there and back too. Happy memories that cannot be repeated.
 

ANDREW_D_WEBB

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2013
Messages
544
What you actually see on one day is not necessarily what you would see at a later date. For example, see a loco today, it goes in the book. At a later date it might have replacement bogies, buffers, windscreens etc. Have you still ‘seen’ it?

What about rebuilds such as class 57s and 69s? If you saw the donor 47 or 56 have you seen the ‘new’ loco, bearing in mind most of the new stuff is inside and not visible to the average punter on the platform end?

All depends on personal preference. I’ve still not ‘seen’ 153310, despite having seen and ridden on all 155s numerous times when commuting to school back in the late 1980s, so by default have ‘seen’ all but the new cab!
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
676
Location
ECML
Quite surprised that Class 90s were going to be numbered in the 872xx sub class, especially with big gap of build dates and equipment
I think it was because the electronics were a progression on what was used in 87101 (ie thyristor controlled). Hence the 87/2 idea.

Then someone no doubt realised that the new builds looked nothing like a 87 and decided to change it !! lol
 

86247

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
258
Location
clock face
yeah I remember it being boiling hot me and my mate had our dinner in the cab of 37011 as the other cab had been crushed highlight for us was cabing all them wonderful 40s marvellous good times.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
676
Location
ECML
What you actually see on one day is not necessarily what you would see at a later date. For example, see a loco today, it goes in the book. At a later date it might have replacement bogies, buffers, windscreens etc. Have you still ‘seen’ it?
I kind off eluded to the same thing in my post. It really is a case of "how far do you want to go"?

And that is really down to each individual person tbh.
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
The West Country
What you actually see on one day is not necessarily what you would see at a later date. For example, see a loco today, it goes in the book. At a later date it might have replacement bogies, buffers, windscreens etc. Have you still ‘seen’ it?
I remember visiting Doncaster works when the 58s were being built. If an underframe had cabs fitted then I felt it was a cop.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
12,255
Location
Epsom
I went to crewe works open day in 1987 4th of July I think and yes 87201 was chalked on the side it was even in my platform 5 book as that, can't remember when they decided to call them 90s instead of 87/2s.
...and here is that very machine on that date.
 

Attachments

  • Peter Archive 3021.jpg
    Peter Archive 3021.jpg
    847.9 KB · Views: 56

86247

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
258
Location
clock face
that picture of the 87201 takes me back that was one of the best open days I've been to, nearly 34 years ago makes me feel old now .
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,950
Location
In the cab with the paper
What you actually see on one day is not necessarily what you would see at a later date. For example, see a loco today, it goes in the book. At a later date it might have replacement bogies, buffers, windscreens etc. Have you still ‘seen’ it?

Crumbs!! This is getting a bit like Trigger's broom. At what point does this stop? How can you be certain that you'd seen the same loco right down to the last bolt and washer? What if the screenwash bottle has been refilled? What if the driver had forgotten his flask? :lol:

I appreciate that everyone has their own ideas and rules, but I will just offer this from the world of aviation.

When I was still a callow youth I used to know a chap who served in the RAF at Wyton in Cambridgeshire where he was involved with some of the last operational Canberras at around the time of their withdrawal. According to him, an individual jet engine was comprised solely of an identification plate. It didn't matter what else was bolted to that plate, it was the plate and the plate alone that identified that engine. If you possessed the plate then you possessed the engine and any engine without a plate was not an engine no matter how complete it was. Therefore an engine could in fact be completely materially different, but it was still the same engine provided that it had the same identification plate.

**EDIT**

On a slightly more pertinent note, is it not the case that sometimes a preserved loco will carry the identity of a long-scrapped classmate, or indeed a totally fictitious one? In this instance, what number do you record?
 
Last edited:

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
664
Location
Eaglesham
Crumbs!! This is getting a bit like Trigger's broom. At what point does this stop? How can you be certain that you'd seen the same loco right down to the last bolt and washer? What if the screenwash bottle has been refilled? What if the driver had forgotten his flask? :lol:

I appreciate that everyone has their own ideas and rules, but I will just offer this from the world of aviation.

When I was still a callow youth I used to know a chap who served in the RAF at Wyton in Cambridgeshire where he was involved with some of the last operational Canberras at around the time of their withdrawal. According to him, an individual jet engine was comprised solely of an identification plate. It didn't matter what else was bolted to that plate, it was the plate and the plate alone that identified that engine. If you possessed the plate then you possessed the engine and any engine without a plate was not an engine no matter how complete it was. Therefore an engine could in fact be completely materially different, but it was still the same engine provided that it had the same identification plate.

**EDIT**

On a slightly more pertinent note, is it not the case that sometimes a preserved loco will carry the identity of a long-scrapped classmate, or indeed a totally fictitious one? In this instance, what number do you record?
The railways best example of that is Rood Ashton Hall, or is it Albert Hall
 

ANDREW_D_WEBB

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2013
Messages
544
According to him, an individual jet engine was comprised solely of an identification plate. It didn't matter what else was bolted to that plate, it was the plate and the plate alone that identified that engine.
Similar with London Buses. If I understand Routemaster overhauls at Aldenham, the body was separated from the sub frames and made their separate way through the works. At the end of the process, the sub frames would be reunited with the next available body, not always the one it was split from at the start of the overhaul. It was the sub frames which determined the fleet and registration number allocated, even if what the average bus spotter saw most of was the body!

Ultimately we are in these hobbies for the fun of it. As long as the ‘rules’ we set ourselves allow us to enjoy it then it doesn’t really matter what we actually record as a ‘sighting’.
 

APT618S

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
219
I only record haulages these days but when I used to spot locos I went by the body. So for example, D1759, 1759, 47165, 47590, 47825 & 57601 are all the same loco and only needed to be seen once in any guise.
Same for bashing.
For unit spotting I used to go by the individual car numbers. If I had seen every car then I had seen the unit. If a unit is reformed then it depends if I had seen all the cars previously. I did not physically need to see the (new) unit number.
For unit bashing I record the mileage of the motor cars. To claim having had a unit I have to have travelled on a train or trains containing all the motor cars. My unit mileages are based on the lowest mileage of all the individual motor cars in a unit currently. So if a unit has a brand new motor car added I need to get it again as the mileage for that is 0, if just a trailer is added I do not. So for a reformed unit like 158755 I only claim having 374 miles despite having 435 miles off car 58702
I came up with above for units when the EPBs were refurbished / reformed / renumbered having not really considered it before.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
676
Location
ECML
**EDIT**

On a slightly more pertinent note, is it not the case that sometimes a preserved loco will carry the identity of a long-scrapped classmate, or indeed a totally fictitious one? In this instance, what number do you record?
Very good point !

Personally I wouldn't tick its number off as you actually know it's a disguise!
I tend to go on the number(s) used while in mainline use/certification.
Similar with London Buses. If I understand Routemaster overhauls at Aldenham, the body was separated from the sub frames and made their separate way through the works. At the end of the process, the sub frames would be reunited with the next available body, not always the one it was split from at the start of the overhaul. It was the sub frames which determined the fleet and registration number allocated, even if what the average bus spotter saw most of was the body!

Ultimately we are in these hobbies for the fun of it. As long as the ‘rules’ we set ourselves allow us to enjoy it then it doesn’t really matter what we actually record as a ‘sighting’.
I actually watched a youtube video about Aldenham the other day (and read the Wikipedia article). Apparently the Reg numbers changed from bus to bus... there was a float of chassis' and bodies and a bus could enter the works with the Reg LT 1 in the morning and another bus with different body/chassis would leave in the afternoon with LT 1. As it saved money on registrations/tax etc.

Edit :
is the youtube link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top