Use of 7xx and 8xx numbers

[Malcolmffc]

Why have Class 7xx and 8xx numbers been used for new units in recent years when there are plenty of unused numbers in the 3xx and 4xx ranges? Will there ever be any more new units numbered in these ranges?


Is there supposed to be any differentiation between an 8xx and a 7xx?

 

[noddy1878]

700s are assigned for EMUs whilst 800s are assigned for HSMUs (High Speed).

 

[XCTurbostar]

I think the industry has moved towards a ‘700-800 series is more modern’ approach on this topic. The TOPs number is not limited to the 700 or 800 series because we have 345 for crossrail Units and 397 for TPE Units.

 

[ainsworth74]

we have 345 for crossrail Units

To be fair that one was chosen, I think, as long as go as to be by BR in the 1990s!

 

[jopsuk]

DON'T GO LOOKING FOR CONSISTENT LOGIC IN THE TOPS NUMBERS IT ISN'T THERE*

*exception: the southern region had a consistent scheme for the 4xx units; classes 444, 450, 458 and 460 excepted.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a group standard about it - section A.3 gives the definitions.
https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GMRT2453 Iss 2.pdf
Classes 7xx and 8xx basically just provide more unused number ranges for new or modified units (eg in the case of the 769).
There is no obvious requirement to use the new ranges as has already been pointed out above.

 

[AM9]

DON'T GO LOOKING FOR CONSISTENT LOGIC IN THE TOPS NUMBERS IT ISN'T THERE*

*exception: the southern region had a consistent scheme for the 4xx units; classes 444, 450, 458 and 460 excepted.

Except for 375/3, /7, /8, /9, 376 and 377/1, /3, /4, /6, - all of which should

I think the industry has moved towards a ‘700-800 series is more modern’ approach on this topic. The TOPs number is not limited to the 700 or 800 series because we have 345 for crossrail Units and 397 for TPE Units.

I think it's more that class 7xx trains have design features that will be the new standard for metro/outer suburban rolling stock, OLE poweredx with a DC option, through gangwayed within units, full width cabs, interior layout designed to cope with peak loads on routes they are deployed on (including accessibility) etc..
Similarly, the class 8xx types will have medium/high density appropriate to real inter-city duties with acessibility designed in.
There will be a few rural/regional service types of stock probably in the 3xx ranges but most of the big new orders will be for classes that fall within the 7xx and 8xx categories. It's noted that the class 369 flex units are not conforming to the above but they are really prototypes.

 

[swt_passenger]

Except for 375/3, /7, /8, /9, 376 and 377/1, /3, /4, /6, - all of which should


I think it's more that class 7xx trains have design features that will be the new standard for metro/outer suburban rolling stock, OLE poweredx with a DC option, through gangwayed within units, full width cabs, interior layout designed to cope with peak loads on routes they are deployed on (including accessibility) etc..

But as mentioned in previous threads about this there is absolutely nothing in the standard to support that view. You may recall that at least one poster was adamant for some while that the 700 series was reserved for long fixed formation units of the Thameslink pattern. 345s also meet all of your definition anyway... AFAICS 800 means 'high speed' which means any 125 mph unit could go there - such as the 395 Javelins if they weren't already in the the 3xx range under the existing scheme.

 

[AM9]

But as mentioned in previous threads about this there is absolutely nothing in the standard to support that view. You may recall that at least one poster was adamant for some while that the 700 series was reserved for long fixed formation units of the Thameslink pattern. 345s also meet all of your definition anyway... AFAICS 800 means 'high speed' which means any 125 mph unit could go there - such as the 395 Javelins if they weren't already in the the 3xx range under the existing scheme.

But another poster quite rightly indicated that the class 345 is a legacy of the length of the Crossrail programme. The planning started in earnest in 1991 whem the route safeguarding was started for a Paddington to Liverpool St tunnel. At about the same time, the Networker design was being exploited for all sorts of service in Network South-East and there was a specification for a class 341 to be used on Crossrail. Like the line at the time, there was no progress, but aspects of the specification were used to define the current Crossrail requirement so it was a logical decision to use a number in that group.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I suppose if it ever happened - tri mode and quad mode units could well be class 480's and 490's.

 

[mallard]

Since the 7xx range is already starting to suffer from illogical numbering syndrome, I wonder what numbers will be used next block to be used will be... Any particular reason why 6xx was skipped?

Seriously, we have Siemens units on 700, 707 and 717, Bombardiers on 701, 710 and 720, Stadlers on 745, 755 and 777 and rehashed Mk3s on 769; what a mess! Siemens should have been 70x, Bombardier 71x and Stadler 72x. There's plenty of room in the 2xx range for bi-mode Mk3 lashups.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Any particular reason why 6xx was skipped?

Because there was a chance that a unit could be numbered.. 666.. Joking obviously I have no idea.

 

[306024]

To be fair that one was chosen, I think, as long as go as to be by BR in the 1990s!

As mentioned back then Crossrail units were to be class 341s. The publicity at that time shows that. They became class 345s simply because someone at TfL suggested it would be a more catchy number, and no one disagreed.

 

[Mikey C]

Since the 7xx range is already starting to suffer from illogical numbering syndrome, I wonder what numbers will be used next block to be used will be... Any particular reason why 6xx was skipped?

Seriously, we have Siemens units on 700, 707 and 717, Bombardiers on 701, 710 and 720, Stadlers on 745, 755 and 777 and rehashed Mk3s on 769; what a mess! Siemens should have been 70x, Bombardier 71x and Stadler 72x. There's plenty of room in the 2xx range for bi-mode Mk3 lashups.

Agreed, after starting with 700 and 707 with Siemens (and even then why 707 and not 701), and 710 being the first non Crossrail Aventra, the numbering went a bit haywire after that. 701 for an Aventra makes no sense etc

And weird that the TPE CAF units were given 397. Maybe somebody couldn't decide whether they were EMUS (7xx) or High Speed (8xx) and decided to duck the question by giving them a 3xx number

 

[trash80]

Since the 7xx range is already starting to suffer from illogical numbering syndrome, I wonder what numbers will be used next block to be used will be... Any particular reason why 6xx was skipped?

6xx is a new block of numbers for DMUs.

 

[D365]

6xx is a new block of numbers for DMUs.

The CAF DMUs then... well the Northern ones became Class 195 for lord knows what reason.

 

[trash80]

Probably be given the number Class 672 or something else totally illogical

 

[DanTrain]

Well I mean the 3xx numberings were going ok:
37x for electrostars (375-9)
38x for Scottish electrics (380, 385)
39x for high speed electrics (390, 393, 394, 395, 397 (ish))
3x0 for Desiros (350, 360, 380)

And then the 387 and 399 had to ruin it all...

Numbering really is a mess...

 

[Kite159]

Well I mean the 3xx numberings were going ok:
37x for electrostars (375-9)
38x for Scottish electrics (380, 385)
39x for high speed electrics (390, 393, 394, 395, 397 (ish))
3x0 for Desiros (350, 360, 380)

And then the 387 and 399 had to ruin it all...

Numbering really is a mess...

393/394s?

 

[D365]

39x for high speed electrics (390, 393, 394, 395, 397 (ish))

What are these?

And then the 387 and 399 had to ruin it all...

Those aren't the best examples, both are one-offs in a way.

 

[Mikey C]

393/394s?

I assume DanTrain means the Eurostar trains which are 373 and 374!

I'm sure there's an logical reason why when the LTS Electrostars are 357, the south of the river Electrostars were given 375 and 377

 

[pdeaves]

{387 and 399} Those aren't the best examples, both are one-offs in a way.

Is the 387 a one-off?

 

[DanTrain]

I assume DanTrain means the Eurostar trains which are 373 and 374!

I'm sure there's an logical reason why when the LTS Electrostars are 357, the south of the river Electrostars were given 375 and 377

And that's not including the north river 379s!

373/4 are indeed eurostars, slightly obscure examples I know, but hey...

 

[AC47461]

Here's a radical suggestion, why not number them in numerical order and stop jumping all over the place......then again nah.....

 

[D365]

Is the 387 a one-off?

Yep, last in the line of Electrostars. And designed for 110mph operation from the outset.

 

[sprinterguy]

Here's a radical suggestion, why not number them in numerical order and stop jumping all over the place......then again nah.....

At the very least, it'd be nice if "families" of trains such as the Desiro Cities or Aventras could be grouped within, say, a block of ten as is the case with most of the Electrostars. The opening up of the new number range seems to have offered TOCs the opportunity to go hell for leather on numbering new stock willy nilly so long as they can get a number that ends in "0", "5" or, for some reason now, "7"; blocking out whole class allocations with a comparatively small numbers of units and filling up the class range available far more rapidly than need be the case. I'm not terribly familiar with the tranches of new trains that have been ordered for the London area, but is there really a huge amount of difference between, say, a class 345/701/710/720, or a class 700/707/717 apart from number of carriages (I appreciate that the Crossrail 345s have three doors per side rather than two, and the 717s have cab end doors for the Moorgate tunnels)?

 

[AM9]

At the very least, it'd be nice if "families" of trains such as the Desiro Cities or Aventras could be grouped within, say, a block of ten as is the case with most of the Electrostars. The opening up of the new number range seems to have offered TOCs the opportunity to go hell for leather on numbering new stock willy nilly so long as they can get a number that ends in "0", "5" or, for some reason now, "7"; blocking out whole class allocations with a comparatively small numbers of units and filling up the class range available far more rapidly than need be the case. I'm not terribly familiar with the tranches of new trains that have been ordered for the London area, but is there really a huge amount of difference between, say, a class 345/701/710/720, or a class 700/707/717 apart from number of carriages (I appreciate that the Crossrail 345s have three doors per side rather than two, and the 717s have cab end doors for the Moorgate tunnels)?

Why segregate trains into manufacturer groups. To a passenger, (as opposed to an enthusiast) there's not much difference between rolling stock made by Siemens, Bombardier, (and soon - Statler and CAF), so why discriminate on who makes them? The differences are really by role, i.e. Metro, Outer Suburban, Regional, Rural and Inter-city. The passenger doesn't have to know which ones to roster or which lines are cleared for certain types, they only need to know how many cars, and even that tends to be fixed with modern fleets purchased specifically for a service.
The other issue is that trains are not usually owned by TOCs. Who is it that applies/issues the class numbers?

 

[sprinterguy]

Why segregate trains into manufacturer groups. To a passenger, (as opposed to an enthusiast) there's not much difference between rolling stock made by Siemens, Bombardier, (and soon - Statler and CAF), so why discriminate on who makes them?

Commonality of components and multiple working capability (although in this day and age, modern train management systems have made a mockery of that concept). Just because they're separate fleets now doesn't mean that they will remain so in the future, or will necessarily remain allocated to the same sort of traffic all of their lives (although it is likely). Passengers don't need to know train numbers at all, they're primarily for the benefit of fleet, rostering and maintenance teams. Though I'll admit that the use-based system formerly used by the Southern region was a good and logical one.

The other issue is that trains are not usually owned by TOCs. Who is it that applies/issues the class numbers?

I assumed that it was the TOCs that got to choose from the appropriate available numbers, hence why since privatisation they've increasingly been all over the shop (not that BR was by any means perfect in that regard, either).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One thing the new ranges don't allow for is future new classes of locomotives. The 70s already broke the system (69 would've been more logical, but would've prompted lots of unfunny jokes) but we're running out of unused 2-digit numbers (though they can be re-used like 43 and 70) so it wouldn't surprise me to see a new loco class be given a 3-digit class number in the 6xx range.

 

[AC47461]

There are plenty of spare double numbers for a little while yet. 61-65, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 48, 49, although some have been allocated in the past and not subsequently used. 43 is already on it's 2nd use with HST power cars.