Use of 7xx and 8xx numbers

[pdeaves]

we're running out of unused 2-digit numbers

I personally think we could have alpha-numeric (numero-alphabetic? is that a word?) classes so the range would be 57, 58, 59, 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. It probably won't happen, but it would create new 'numbers' within the correct range.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I personally think we could have alpha-numeric (numero-alphabetic? is that a word?) classes so the range would be 57, 58, 59, 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. It probably won't happen, but it would create new 'numbers' within the correct range.

I was worried the suggestion of 3-digit loco classes would cause widespread meltdowns among forum members... yet you've doubled down on that! Letters? Madness!

 

[trash80]

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.

When they added the 600-899 number blocks they extended diesel locos to 79. With unused numbers there should be enough for a while.

 

[D365]

I personally think we could have alpha-numeric (numero-alphabetic? is that a word?) classes so the range would be 57, 58, 59, 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. It probably won't happen, but it would create new 'numbers' within the correct range.

Hexadecimal?

As above, the DC loco classes (other than 73 - of which the /9s are essentially diesels anyway) can easily be reused.

 

[southern442]

Hexadecimal?

As above, the DC loco classes (other than 73 - of which the /9s are essentially diesels anyway) can easily be reused.

Especially considering plenty of numbers were allocated to single (or a very small fleet of) prototype units.

 

[Joe Paxton]

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...

Does it actually matter?

 

[higthomas]

Does it actually matter?

Of course not!
But what else are forums for?

 

[Joe Paxton]

Of course not!
But what else are forums for?

True!

 

[AM9]

True!

The next wacky discussion for naming/numbering might be to rename stations such that each line has a same suffix or prefix, e.g. Liverpool St Elizabeth, Farringdon Elizabeth etc., or Virgin Crewe, Virgin Stoke On Trent. Anything to start a discussion.

 

[BlythPower]

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.

38xxx would clash with cl. 378 and 380 vehicles and 61-65xxx would clash with loads of EMUs.

 

[mallard]

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.

Considering that the first digit of a loco's number is supposed to be its power class, those 3x and 4x numbers are quite unlikely to find a use; I doubt anyone plans to build any new locos with less than 2500hp. That means we've only got 4 (5 if someone decides to use 69) available numbers for new diesel locos!

I expect the 7x range will end up being used by diesels before a new solution is found.

 

[Domh245]

Considering that the first digit of a loco's number is supposed to be its power class, those 3x and 4x numbers are quite unlikely to find a use; I doubt anyone plans to build any new locos with less than 2500hp. That means we've only got 4 (5 if someone decides to use 69) available numbers for new diesel locos!

That may be the case historically, but as I understand it, the power class rule is no longer applicable so not an issue.

 

[AC47461]

Considering that the first digit of a loco's number is supposed to be its power class, those 3x and 4x numbers are quite unlikely to find a use; I doubt anyone plans to build any new locos with less than 2500hp. That means we've only got 4 (5 if someone decides to use 69) available numbers for new diesel locos!

I expect the 7x range will end up being used by diesels before a new solution is found.

That may be the case historically, but as I understand it, the power class rule is no longer applicable so not an issue.

I should have clarified in my original post that given the blurring of use of class numbers for multiple units, it wouldn't be surprised if the same happened for loco class numbers too. I think the allocation of unit numbers has got out of hand (in my opinion). There is only so far the TOPS based numbering will go, especially now that some coach numbers in units are 6 character. Perhaps it's time for a complete rethink?

 

[xotGD]

I should have clarified in my original post that given the blurring of use of class numbers for multiple units, it wouldn't be surprised if the same happened for loco class numbers too. I think the allocation of unit numbers has got out of hand (in my opinion). There is only so far the TOPS based numbering will go, especially now that some coach numbers in units are 6 character. Perhaps it's time for a complete rethink?

Here's a radical idea - you could prefix the numbers of diesel locomotives with a D and electric locomotives with an E. I can't understand why no-one has thought of this before...

 

[D365]

Here's a radical idea - you could prefix the numbers of diesel locomotives with a D and electric locomotives with an E. I can't understand why no-one has thought of this before...

Very helpful for computer systems

 

[jopsuk]

as I've posted before, my solution would be quite simple:

8 digit vehicle numbers. Scrap all the current vehicle numbers and start again.

For an MU, each carriage would be:
WWW X YY ZZ

where
WWW: class number
X: Sub class number
YY: Unit number
ZZ: vehicle number (including a leading zero for coach 01-09)

For a loco, each would be
0WW X YY 00

where
WW: Class number
X: Sub Class number
YY: Loco number

For coaches and wagons:
WWW XX YYY
where
WWW: Coach type class
XX: Sub type
YYY: Serial number

And only modern revenue earning stock would be so classified

 

[swt_passenger]

where
WWW: class number
X: Sub class number
YY: Unit number

Will need a tweak for fleets with more than 100 units, such as 450s. As delivered 450001 - 450127.

 

[306024]

as I've posted before, my solution would be quite simple:

8 digit vehicle numbers. Scrap all the current vehicle numbers and start again.

For an MU, each carriage would be:
WWW X YY ZZ

where
WWW: class number
X: Sub class number
YY: Unit number
ZZ: vehicle number (including a leading zero for coach 01-09)

For a loco, each would be
0WW X YY 00

where
WW: Class number
X: Sub Class number
YY: Loco number

For coaches and wagons:
WWW XX YYY
where
WWW: Coach type class
XX: Sub type
YYY: Serial number

And only modern revenue earning stock would be so classified

Solution to what? Apart from some spotters wanting things nice and tidy what is the problem that needs a solution? Add in the cost of such a suggestion and I'd hazard a guess it will remain firmly on the hypothetical pile

As an aside how are spotters coping with the 315 that now has vehicles from two different original units? Presumably unit numbers are not much use and individual coach numbers are more relevant?