If Class 444s can have a 25kv AC pantograph fitted, why are they not in the 3xx series?

[Energy]

I would expect that these units do not have transformers or rectifiers etc. fitted. So the conversion would not be that straight forward.

They can be fitted fairly easily, they have to on all modern 3rd rail units, also see 350/1s.

 

[Western Sunset]

Trying to apply logic to TOPS classification is a fool's game

Indeed. Why Class 70 diesels when that range was for DC electrics? Vanity, if nothing else. My class number is bigger than yours...

 

[Neptune]

Yes they could have gone for anywhere between 61 & 65 but no, class 70 it was. Stupidity strikes again.

 

[43096]

Yes they could have gone for anywhere between 61 & 65 but no, class 70 it was. Stupidity strikes again.

Could they, once you factor in multiple unit vehicles in that number series?

 

[Domh245]

They can be fitted fairly easily, they have to on all modern 3rd rail units, also see 350/1s.

Previous discussion has suggested it certainly isn't easy - the only thing you wouldn't have to do is cut lumps of roof off to fit the pantograph but everything else would be needed. The 350/1s are a complete misnomer having been designed as dual voltage units - it just shows that it is possible (and gives you a starting point for the design), not that it is easy

 

[DB]

I would expect that these units do not have transformers or rectifiers etc. fitted. So the conversion would not be that straight forward.

So far as I understand it the 450s are basically the same as 350s just with the pantograph, transformer, etc omitted - so conversion would be a case of bolting them on in the already-existing spaces designed for them.

Don't know about 444s, but they clearly have a pantograph well on one of the coaches so the same probably applies.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Could they, once you factor in multiple unit vehicles in that number series?

Surely vehicle numbers are exactly that, vehicle numbers as distinct from locomotive numbers - HST power cars were originally vehicles numbered in the 43xxx series in units of classes 253 and 254, they later became designated as locomotives as 'class 43' although that class had previously been used for Warships.

Why Class 70 diesels when that range was for DC electrics?

And had been used for DC electric locos, the 3rd rail electric locos designed by OVS Bullied were known as class 70.

Two instances of class number being re-used.

 

[DB]

Previous discussion has suggested it certainly isn't easy - the only thing you wouldn't have to do is cut lumps of roof off to fit the pantograph but everything else would be needed. The 350/1s are a complete misnomer having been designed as dual voltage units - it just shows that it is possible (and gives you a starting point for the design), not that it is easy

It won't just be the pantograph well - if a unit has been built with one of those, it's almost certainly going to have spaces designed for the transformer, etc as well.

 

[XAM2175]

Surely vehicle numbers are exactly that, vehicle numbers as distinct from locomotive numbers - HST power cars were originally vehicles numbered in the 43xxx series in units of classes 253 and 254, they later became designated as locomotives as 'class 43' although that class had previously been used for Warships.

Locomotives are vehicles, so in your example HST power cars are still considered to be vehicles in the 43xxx series. The separation is between vehicle numbers and multiple-unit numbers.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Locomotives are vehicles, so in your example HST power cars are still considered to be vehicles in the 43xxx series. The separation is between vehicle numbers and multiple-unit numbers.

When introduced they were designated as multiple units and numbered in the multiple unit number series, trailers 40xxx, 41xxx, 42xxx, power cars 43xxx as class 253/254 units.

 

[43096]

When introduced they were numbered in the multiple unit number series, trailers 40xxx, 41xxx, 42xxx, power cars 43xxx as class 253/254 units.

There is no multiple unit vehicle number series. Locomotives, carriages and multiple unit vehicles all shared the same 3, 4 and 5 digit number series. Wagons (and now, new multiple unit vehicles) have numbers with 6 digits.

Why do you think Colas's Class 66s have been numbered 66841-850? Because there are Class 350 and 450 multiple unit vehicles also numbered in the 66801-840 sequence.

 

[Energy]

delete

 

[Cheshire Scot]

There is no multiple unit vehicle number series. Locomotives, carriages and multiple unit vehicles all shared the same 3, 4 and 5 digit number series. Wagons (and now, new multiple unit vehicles) have numbers with 6 digits.

Why do you think Colas's Class 66s have been numbered 66841-850? Because there are Class 350 and 450 multiple unit vehicles also numbered in the 66801-840 sequence.

Back in the 70s when HSTs were introduced there were separate number series for hauled stock, DMU and EMU stock.
Some HST catering vehicles had the same numbers as class 40 locos and there were numerous 'duplicates' between other coaching/ DMU stock numbers and loco numbers.
Back then with computerisation in it's infancy - e.g. there were different TOPS input procedures for locomotives and for the vehicles they hauled, it clearly didn't matter whereas in the modern era it obviously does.
When built HST power cars were numbered as DMU stock, not as locomotives.

 

[Andyh82]

I know people will say it doesn’t matter, but someone should have kept a tighter control on the numerical allocation of new types as it is now all over the place, and however the likes of Wikipedia like to describe the 700 range, it’s basically just ‘anything built fairly recently or coming soon, but not quite everything’

There is only the DMU sequence which works well, with similar types generally next to each other, and the higher the number generally meaning the newer the stock.

The fact that identical builds get a whole new number is annoying as well. Imagine if they’d done that with the 170s considering the amount of different builds they got, surely minor differences should just be xxx/1 /2 etc. 802s, 803s etc should really be 800s?

 

[XAM2175]

however the likes of Wikipedia like to describe the 700 range, it’s basically just ‘anything built fairly recently or coming soon, but not quite everything’

The description (which is lifted almost verbatim from Rail Industry Standard RIS-2453-RST, by the way) seems to match reality pretty well, does it not?

Unit Type	Class Allocation
AC and AC/DC electric multiple-unit sets	300 – 399 and 700 – 749
Multi-mode*A multiple-unit sets	750 – 799

*A = A multi-mode unit is one with two or more sources of traction power, at least one of which is external.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I know people will say it doesn’t matter, but someone should have kept a tighter control on the numerical allocation of new types as it is now all over the place, and however the likes of Wikipedia like to describe the 700 range, it’s basically just ‘anything built fairly recently or coming soon, but not quite everything’

There is only the DMU sequence which works well, with similar types generally next to each other, and the higher the number generally meaning the newer the stock.

The fact that identical builds get a whole new number is annoying as well. Imagine if they’d done that with the 170s considering the amount of different builds they got, surely minor differences should just be xxx/1 /2 etc. 802s, 803s etc should really be 800s?

800 is DFT programmed as is 801, but I can see 805 and 807 being reclassified as 802 and 803 with the current non IEP 802s and electric only version for ECT. After all, they did that with the 711s becoming 720, and I believe the 701s were also supposed to be two separate classes for 5 and 10 coach version.

Plus I heard there was originally a separate number for the TPE 802s?

 

[dubscottie]

There is no multiple unit vehicle number series. Locomotives, carriages and multiple unit vehicles all shared the same 3, 4 and 5 digit number series. Wagons (and now, new multiple unit vehicles) have numbers with 6 digits.

Why do you think Colas's Class 66s have been numbered 66841-850? Because there are Class 350 and 450 multiple unit vehicles also numbered in the 66801-840 sequence.

Opening that old can of worms again..
There WAS a series for the HST. As stated 4xxxx. It may not be the case now but it was until the late 1980s.
An example is the 44xxx TGS clashing with class 44 locos.
One an unpowered trailer and one a loco. No chance of a TGS being rostered to haul a Toton coal train!

 

[43096]

Opening that old can of worms again..
There WAS a series for the HST. As stated 4xxxx. It may not be the case now but it was until the late 1980s.
An example is the 44xxx TGS clashing with class 44 locos.
One an unpowered trailer and one a loco. No chance of a TGS being rostered to haul a Toton coal train!

Was being the operative word, like “is” in my original statement. The addition of units and coaching stock to computer systems was done nearly 40 years ago and saw various renumberings including HST TRSB vehicles from 400xx to 404xx to avoid a clash with Class 40 locomotives. Likewise DMUs in the 50xxx and 56xxx series and NPCCS in the 81xxx and 86xxx series etc etc etc.

 

[Western Sunset]

Still opening that can...
On the prototype, the "power cars" were originally Class 41 locos (41001/2), before renumbered as 43000/1 for unit 252001. The Blue Pullmans being Class 251.

I'm not going to mention the oft-quoted North British D6xx either...

 

[Paul Jones 88]

How about the proposed but never built Class 471 for the Southeastern Division of BR?
Would it have been reclassified as a Class 371 if it were fitted with a pantaloon and sent North of London?

 

[D365]

The fact that identical builds get a whole new number is annoying as well. Imagine if they’d done that with the 170s considering the amount of different builds they got, surely minor differences should just be xxx/1 /2 etc. 802s, 803s etc should really be 800s?

Hitachi units post-802 do have some significant changes, compared to the 800/801/802. Different mechanical specifications, and the 803s are not fitted with any diesel power packs.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Indeed. Why Class 70 diesels when that range was for DC electrics? Vanity, if nothing else. My class number is bigger than yours...

Class numbers have been recycled before - classes 41 and 43 being the best known examples, and with no dc locos remaining except the 73s (which are essentially diesel locos now) and the 60-69 block rapidly filling up expanding into the 70s seems the obvious thing to have done. No-one seemed to object when the class 87/2s were reclassified as class 90 before any had actually been built.
Numbers have been recycled too - some early Sprinter (class 150/1) car numbers in the 521xx range duplicated the last Class 123 dmu cars.

Back in the 70s when HSTs were introduced there were separate number series for hauled stock, DMU and EMU stock.

All coaching stock (except pre-nationalisation designs), including multiple unit stock, was numbered in a single number series, but dmus, demus and emus had separate blocks within that series - 5xxxx (and 79xxx), 60xxx, and 61xxx-78999 respectively. HST vehicles were given their own block in the 4xxxx range, recently vacated by the last BR-design non-corridor hauled stock, made redundant by the GN electrification scheme. Other blocks were:
from 1-1999 catering vehicles
2xxx sleeping and royal vehicles
from 3000 Open First
from 3700 Open Second
from 9200 Brake Open second
from 13000 Corridor First
from 14000 Brake Corridor First
From 15000 Corridor Composite
From 21000 Brake Corridor Composite
From 24000 Corridor Second
From 34000 Brake Corridor Second
From 41000 Non-corridor hauled stock
From 50000 DMU power car
From 55000 DMU single unit
From 56000 DMU driving trailer
From 59000 DMU trailer
From 60000 DEMU
From 61000 EMU power car
From 70000 EMU trailer
From 75000 EMU driving trailer
From 79000 early DMUs
From 80000 non-passenger stock (e.g full brakes, kitchen cars, postal vehicles)

Rolling stock built to pre-nationalisation designs (which included some EPB emus built as late as 1960) were given numbers in their parent companies' schemes, with a suffix (E, M, S or W) to distinguish them from each other and from the BR numbering series. (All coaching stock also originally had a regional prefix as well - so SC1234E would be a former LNER vehicle now allocated to the Scottish Region)

As you say, some TOPS locomotive numbers duplicated carriage numbers, (as did the numbers of some SR-design EPBs in the 14xxx, 15xxx and 16xxx range). A mass renumbering of coaching stock took place in the early 80s to remove this duplication. As many diesel classes had been withdrawn by then, this mainly affected vehicles in the 14xxx, 15xxx, 16xxx, 25xxx, 26xxx, 50xxx, 56xxx, 81xxx and 86xxx ranges, renumbered respectively to 17xxx, 7626-7999 (all older 15xxx CKs having been withdrawn), 7000-7258, 18xxx, 19xxx, 53xxx, 54xxx, 84xxx and 93xxx ranges, with a few odd mu vehicles in the 59xxx and 60xxx ranges also renumbered.
Some of these renumberings did seem a bit un-necessary - for example renumbering nearly 1,500 dmu vehicles when less than 200 of them (50001-50 and 56001-56135) actually duplicated loco numbers, and there was room for those that did at the ends of their respective blocks (e.g. 52201-50, 56601-56735)

Since the 1980s, class numbers which duplicate coaching stock have been avoided, hence Class 66 - 61001 would have duplicated a class 307 vehicle, 62001 (class 415), 63001 (class 321), 64001 and 65001 (both class 323). Class numbers 68001, 69001 and 70001 became available more recently, following the demise of classes 419, 412 and 307. ,

 

[AverageTD]

The 777s got the number before the 750-799 being multimode rule was put in place. They were told they could have any number in the 7xx range so they picked the nice number of 777, no other reasoning.

But lucky that they picked a 7xx number in the half that they'd be classified as anyway.

 

[Energy]

But lucky that they picked a 7xx number in the half that they'd be classified as anyway.

I doubt the would be classified in that half, they aren't getting batteries from new and even if they did I doubt batteries alone can classify it as multi mode.

 

[Andyh82]

Is there any significance why Voyagers are 220/221 rather than in the 100s (probably would have been 180/181s)?

If we are in the world of just picking any old number, I think Northern should maybe have arranged for the Civities to have the same last two digits, something like 192/392s

 

[Energy]

Is there any significance why Voyagers are 220/221 rather than in the 100s (probably would have been 180/181s)?

They are DEMUs which are in the 200 range (220/221, 230, 231)

 

[AverageTD]

I doubt the would be classified in that half, they aren't getting batteries from new and even if they did I doubt batteries alone can classify it as multi mode.

I thought they were getting batteries...

 

[Energy]

I thought they were getting batteries...

Clarification: They are getting batteries for depot work only. There is an option to fit batteries for non-electrified work should Merseyrail/Merseytravel want it but it will not be fitted from new. I doubt either are enough to classify it as a multi mode unit.

 

[XAM2175]

Clarification: They are getting batteries for depot work only. There is an option to fit batteries for non-electrified work should Merseyrail/Merseytravel want it but it will not be fitted from new. I doubt either are enough to classify it as a multi mode unit.

This is the numbering standard's definition of a multi-mode unit:

A multi-mode unit is one with two or more sources of traction power, at least one of which is external.

That's it. The batteries can be a source of traction power so the 777s qualify as being multi-mode.

 

[py_megapixel]

This is the numbering standard's definition of a multi-mode unit.

Which makes the division of the 700 series into multi-mode and pure electric redundant then, as all pure electric units delivered in the modern day are capable of having two sources of traction power - third rail and OHLE. Usually they don't come with shoegear if they don't need it, same with a pantograph, but they're still theoretically multi-mode units