Class 142 subclasses?

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-victoria-then-and-now.248362/page-4#post-6227361

The picture on that post shows a cab numbered 142059, but with a sticker saying Class 142/1 on it. Were there subclasses of 142, how did they differ to other 142s, and how come it wasn't numbered 159?

 

[driver9000]

Yes there was. The easiest way to tell was the roof. The later 142/1s had fewer roof ribs but as far as train crew are concerned there was no difference between them.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How many other cases are there of the subclass not matching with the 4th digit (3rd for locos)? Is it just 142s?

 

[43096]

How many other cases are there of the subclass not marching with the 4th digit (3rd for locos)? Is it just 142s?

Classes 24, 25 and 26 as a “starter for 10”.

 

[Nym]

47/4s numbered in the 47800 range. 47/0 up into the 100s etc

 

[tomuk]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-victoria-then-and-now.248362/page-4#post-6227361

The picture on that post shows a cab numbered 142059, but with a sticker saying Class 142/1 on it. Were there subclasses of 142, how did they differ to other 142s, and how come it wasn't numbered 159?

BR built them in two batches 142/0 first 50 142/1 second 46.

 

[Efini92]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-victoria-then-and-now.248362/page-4#post-6227361

The picture on that post shows a cab numbered 142059, but with a sticker saying Class 142/1 on it. Were there subclasses of 142, how did they differ to other 142s, and how come it wasn't numbered 159?

Apart from the roof the subclasses were the same. There was more differences between which regions owned them.
The ex Mersey rail ones had an electronic destination blind.
They were like triggers broom. I think only the body and frame were the same as what rolled off the production line.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

During the early 90s there was a numbered subclass of 142/5 which I recall was units yet to have the Voith hydraulic transmission fitted, to replace the original mechanical drivetrain. I’m not sure it was a universally applied numbering but some depots certainly did.

 

[D365]

47/4s numbered in the 47800 range. 47/0 up into the 100s etc

Class 37/0 and 37/3 both use the 3xx range, Class 37/5 and 37/6 both use the 376xx range. Must confess it took me some time to get my head around the HGR renumberings…

 

[Helvellyn]

BR built them in two batches 142/0 first 50 142/1 second 46.

Always thought it a shame that the second batch wasn't a follow-on 143 build.

 

[Towers]

There have been some temporary oddities of course, 150/9s come to mind!

 

[43096]

During the early 90s there was a numbered subclass of 142/5 which I recall was units yet to have the Voith hydraulic transmission fitted, to replace the original mechanical drivetrain. I’m not sure it was a universally applied numbering but some depots certainly did.

The other way round: 142/5 was for units fitted with Voith transmission. It was part of a wider scheme to identify these sets. Something like…
1411xx original SCG transmission
1422xx original SCG transmission
1433xx original SCG transmission
1444xx original SCG transmission
1425xx Voith transmission
1436xx Voith transmission
1447xx Voith transmission
1418xx Voith transmission

It was only really Heaton depot that implemented this scheme, which is why the 143s all became 1436xx. It was the HT 142s that were 1425xx but they were all changed back to 1420xx when transferred away.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The other way round: 142/5 was for units fitted with Voith transmission. It was part of a wider scheme to identify these sets. Something like…
1411xx original SCG transmission
1422xx original SCG transmission
1433xx original SCG transmission
1444xx original SCG transmission
1425xx Voith transmission
1436xx Voith transmission
1447xx Voith transmission
1418xx Voith transmission

It was only really Heaton depot that implemented this scheme, which is why the 143s all became 1436xx. It was the HT 142s that were 1425xx but they were all changed back to 1420xx when transferred away.

That’s interesting, thanks for clarifying / reminding me! Yes I remember seeing a choc/cream liveried 142513 at Knaresborough, must have strayed from its Heaton home base after being transferred up from Exeter. Presumably the intent of all the above was to prevent mechanical and hydraulic units from being coupled together? Although I do remember seeing a mechanical 142 multi’d with a 150 on more than one occasion so there must have been some compatibility. (Perhaps thats why other depots didn’t bother.)

 

[superalbs]

How many other cases are there of the subclass not matching with the 4th digit (3rd for locos)? Is it just 142s?

158/0 numbered in 7xx to 8xx.

 

[Helvellyn]

How many other cases are there of the subclass not matching with the 4th digit (3rd for locos)? Is it just 142s?

Class 317 - when the second batch were built (317349-317372) they were classified 317/2, withe the original units (317301-317348) becoming 317/1.

Similar with Class 304. The original units with narrow windows between doors (304001-304015) were conventionally 304/0 but the remaining thirty units (304016-304045) with wider windows were 304/1.

Class 312 were built as 312/0 (GN units 312001-312026), 312/1 (GE units 312101-312119) and 312/2 (WM units 312201-312204), but renumbering saw the 312/0 units become 312701-312726, 312/1 units become 312781-312799 and the 312/2 units not only become 312727-312730 but reclassified 312/0 as well.

The Class 309 units were 309/1, 309/2 and 309/3 despite all being numbered in the 3096xx series with various reformation over the years.

 

[Richard Scott]

47/4s numbered in the 47800 range. 47/0 up into the 100s etc

Not really same thing, the 47/0 was for boiler fitted locos of which there were 298 so all numbered from 001 to 298 even though not all locos were identical as some had series-parallel motor arrangements and others all parallel.
47/8 was a 47/4 fitted with long range fuel tanks hence separate number series.

 

[43096]

Not really same thing, the 47/0 was for boiler fitted locos of which there were 298 so all numbered from 001 to 298 even though not all locos were identical as some had series-parallel motor arrangements and others all parallel.
47/8 was a 47/4 fitted with long range fuel tanks hence separate number series.

47/8 wasn't a separate sub-class. They were still 47/4s, just numbered in the 478xx range to differentiate them.

 

[43096]

Similar with Class 304. The original units with narrow windows between doors (304001-304015) were conventionally 304/0 but the remaining thirty units (304016-304045) with wider windows were 304/1.

There were three 304 sub-classes:
304/1 304001-015
304/2 304016-035
304/3 304036-045

 

[Richard Scott]

47/8 wasn't a separate sub-class. They were still 47/4s, just numbered in the 478xx range to differentiate them.

Because they were twin tank fitted. Still a separate number series; I didn't say it was a separate sub-class.

 

[43096]

Because they were twin tank fitted. Still a separate number series; I didn't say it was a separate sub-class.

First, you described them as “47/8”: that’s the conventional way of writing a sub-class.

Second, the 478xx locos are better described as having extended/long range fuel tanks - the extra fuel tank actually made them triple-tanked.

 

[Nym]

There's actually quite a lot more mods done to the 47s that are from 47805 through to 47830 in addition to the 3rd fuel tank (and removal of the water tank) to generally increase reliability.

 

[Strathclyder]

Back to the 142/5s, Flickr user 6089Gardener has a few images of them in service in/around Newcastle/Tyne & Wear, two of which depict one working with a 143:

142519 Gateshead 20-4-91

On 20 and 21 April 1991, local trains did not call at Newcastle owing to resignalling works but ran from Hexham to Sunderland via Gateshead. On Saturday 20 April, 142519 passes Gateshead depot, then (just) still in use, on a train from Hexham.

www.flickr.com

142522 Gateshead 20-4-91

On 20 and 21 April 1991, local trains did not call at Newcastle owing to resignalling works but ran from Hexham to Sunderland via Gateshead. On Saturday 20 April, 142522 passes Gateshead depot, then (just) still in use, on a train from Sunderland. The two 08s visible, both out of use, are 08808...

www.flickr.com

 

[Neptune]

The only discernable differences with the 142’s subclasses as built were indeed the roof ribs and originally the destination blinds too. The first batch 142001-050 had all glass blinds and the 142051-096 range had the final arrangement with the more distinctive blind with a raised gasket surround. This was retro-fitted to the original batch although I seem to remember that 142021 retained the glass blind to the end on one end at least if not both.

Also 142081 had an experimental electronic destination blind fitted by RRNE and on transfer to Wales it was removed and an original style glass destination blind was fitted although the blind itself was more central than standard.

The odd one out though was 142051. I’m almost certain that it the same amount of roof ribs as the original batch although it had the later destination blind. This eventually became a merseyrail unit with the electronic destination blind.

As mentioned above Heaton did go through the renumbering process of 1425xx, 1433xx (the T&W units were modified last and had these numbers prior to modification and further renumbering) and 1436xx. The 142’s were renumbered back to 1420xx when the 143’s headed south in the early 90’s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The lesson here seems to be: just as there's no concrete logic applied to how class numbers are defined under TOPS, there's also no concrete logic with subclasses either. 158s being the obvious examples, with the 158/0s (in the 1587xx-1588xx range) having three different engine types across the subclass... and the only other subclass being the 10 158/9s (158901-910) which as built were distinct from the rest of the fleet solely down to having fewer toilets fitted. Not to be confused with the hybrid 3-car sets which also use the 1589xx range but are still 158/0s.

 

[Neptune]

The lesson here seems to be: just as there's no concrete logic applied to how class numbers are defined under TOPS, there's also no concrete logic with subclasses either. 158s being the obvious examples, with the 158/0s (in the 1587xx-1588xx range) having three different engine types across the subclass... and the only other subclass being the 10 158/9s (158901-910) which as built were distinct from the rest of the fleet solely down to having fewer toilets fitted. Not to be confused with the hybrid 3-car sets which also use the 1589xx range but are still 158/0s.

The 158/9’s were also distinctive from the rest in that as built they had 2 extra seats per coach due to the fact they had a small luggage rack and a pair of seats in place of the large luggage rack fitted at the vestibule end of the saloon in both coaches.

The saloons are now identical to the 158/0 2 car units since refurbishment by Northern.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 158/9’s were also distinctive from the rest in that as built they had 2 extra seats per coach due to the fact they had a small luggage rack and a pair of seats in place of the large luggage rack fitted at the vestibule end of the saloon in both coaches.

The saloons are now identical to the 158/0 2 car units since refurbishment by Northern.

Thanks. Indeed Northern's 158/0s themselves now have had one of the toilets removed, making them more like the 158/9s. The smaller luggage racks and fewer toilets was probably because they weren't intended for the same sorts of services that the "mainstream" 158s were... though they did often turn up on York to Blackpool, so the extra luggage space would have been useful on there. Then once privatisation happened (and even before then) it wasn't unheard of for a Metro unit to turn up on a Trans-Pennine express service.
Not sure how true this is, but supposedly WYPTE had wanted to order an additional 10 155s, but the assembly jigs for those had been dismantled. 158s were still being built at Derby, so an extra 10 were added to the order for West Yorkshire.

My main point was that there's no logic or structure to what becomes a subclass and what doesn't. 150/1s and 150/2s should really be a separate class if there were any 'rules' about these things.

 

[Neptune]

Thanks. Indeed Northern's 158/0s themselves now have had one of the toilets removed,

They still have 2 toilets.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They still have 2 toilets.

Quite right- I was getting confused with the 159/1 thing where the MS vehicles had one of the toilets permanently locked out.

 

[308165]

The lesson here seems to be: just as there's no concrete logic applied to how class numbers are defined under TOPS, there's also no concrete logic with subclasses either. 158s being the obvious examples, with the 158/0s (in the 1587xx-1588xx range) having three different engine types across the subclass... and the only other subclass being the 10 158/9s (158901-910) which as built were distinct from the rest of the fleet solely down to having fewer toilets fitted. Not to be confused with the hybrid 3-car sets which also use the 1589xx range but are still 158/0s.

I think in the 158 case there is some logic. If you look at all the Sprinter fleets together (Class 150 to 159) the vehicle numbering for driving vehicles is 52xxx and 57xxx.

The vehicle numbers are associated with the set number, so you end up with:

●Class 150 = 520xx/521xx/522xx
●Class 153/155 = 523xx
●Class 156 = 524xx/525xx
●Class 158/159 = 527xx/528xx/529xx

So the only gap is the 526xx series (kept for something that was never built?). All this means that Regional Railways, as was, had a logical set of numbers for the bulk of the fleet, with the third digit of the vehicle number identifying the fleet type.

Had the Class 151 prototype not been built it might have been possible to split the Class 150 fleet in Classes 150,151 and 152.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think in the 158 case there is some logic. If you look at all the Sprinter fleets together (Class 150 to 159) the vehicle numbering for driving vehicles is 52xxx and 57xxx.

The vehicle numbers are associated with the set number, so you end up with:

●Class 150 = 520xx/521xx/522xx
●Class 153/155 = 523xx
●Class 156 = 524xx/525xx
●Class 158/159 = 527xx/528xx/529xx

So the only gap is the 526xx series (kept for something that was never built?). All this means that Regional Railways, as was, had a logical set of numbers for the bulk of the fleet, with the third digit of the vehicle number identifying the fleet type.

Had the Class 151 prototype not been built it might have been possible to split the Class 150 fleet in Classes 150,151 and 152.

Logic within Sprinters in isolation, sure. But there's no consistency across-the-board. For example 465s were in different subclasses based on which traction package they were fitted with, but 158s were all one subclass despite three different engine types. On the other hand 143s and 144s were entirely different classes due to different builders (and a slight difference in ride height of a few mm) though there were also locos that were in the same class or subclass despite being built in different locations.

The moral being that TOPS makes sense, except when it doesn't!