Trains getting their TOPS classification changed.

[stadler]

Multiple trains in recent years were originally given a different class before being changed:

The TL 700s were originally classified as 300s.

The SWR 701s (5car) were originally classified as 705s.

The SWR 701s (10car) were originally classified as 711s.

The GN 717s were originally classified as 713s.

The C2C 720s were originally classified as 711s.

The EMR 810s were originally classified as 804s.

There may well be many others that i have forgotten about.

All of these got reclassified before the first units were built and delivered.

But my question is why did they change the class numbers? I am just curious what the logic was behind this? Who made these decisions and what was the issue with their original classes?

 

[hexagon789]

Multiple trains in recent years were originally given a different class before being changed:

The TL 700s were originally classified as 300s.

The SWR 701s (5car) were originally classified as 705s.

The SWR 701s (10car) were originally classified as 711s.

The GN 717s were originally classified as 713s.

The C2C 720s were originally classified as 711s.

The EMR 810s were originally classified as 804s.

There may well be many others that i have forgotten about.

All of these got reclassified before the first units were built and delivered.

But my question is why did they change the class numbers? I am just curious what the logic was behind this? Who made these decisions and what was the issue with their original classes?

There are many historic examples as well, the Class 90s originally being designated 87/2 is one such instance.

I'm not sure thete is a "logic" per se, most of the TOPs numbering only vaguely corresponds to any 'rules' which may have been intended when the class system began use, but there were even changes with that in the early days of it.

Now, beyond perhaps the first digit of the class number there are only vague if any patterns to the numbers allocated at times.

 

[LRV3004]

Weren’t the Class 66s originally meant to be Class 61s? Sure I’ve read that somewhere!

 

[43096]

Weren’t the Class 66s originally meant to be Class 61s? Sure I’ve read that somewhere!

That was the plan - but changed as they would have clashed with 61xxx EMU vehicle numbers.

 

[D365]

Multiple trains in recent years were originally given a different class before being changed:

The TL 700s were originally classified as 300s.

I thought that ”Class 300” was merely an artists impression in First Capital Connect colours.

 

[stadler]

I thought that ”Class 300” was merely an artists impression in First Capital Connect colours.

I have an old First Capital Connect promotional document about the upcoming Thameslink improvements that refers to "new Class 300 trains" that are being procured. So it seems that it was more than just an artists impression. It was at least used officially for a brief period in the last year of the First Capital Connect franchise.

 

[Jturner98]

Although not recent the 455s were originally designated class 510 I believe.

 

[QSK19]

Multiple trains in recent years were originally given a different class before being changed:

The TL 700s were originally classified as 300s.

The SWR 701s (5car) were originally classified as 705s.

The SWR 701s (10car) were originally classified as 711s.

The GN 717s were originally classified as 713s.

The C2C 720s were originally classified as 711s.

The EMR 810s were originally classified as 804s.

There may well be many others that i have forgotten about.

All of these got reclassified before the first units were built and delivered.

But my question is why did they change the class numbers? I am just curious what the logic was behind this? Who made these decisions and what was the issue with their original classes?

I believe the 810s were renumbered from 804 because of the sheer number of differences between them and 80x. All the differences have been explained to death on RF, however shorter carriage length and number of diesel engines being two key ones.

They are in effect a completely different design to all other AT300s, so designating them 81x as opposed to 80x highlights that.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Although not recent the 455s were originally designated class 510 I believe.

They were - and a guard once showed me that they were actually labelled as such inside the cabs; I don't mean written on notes scribbled somewhere but actual stickers in the proper format and with a print reference code on them - a bit like data panel stickers but with just the class number on it.

 

[sad1e]

Weren’t the Class 66s originally meant to be Class 61s? Sure I’ve read that somewhere!

Correct, well at least according to Wikipedia and my knowledge

 

[Sun Chariot]

They were - and a guard once showed me that they were actually labelled as such inside the cabs; I don't mean written on notes scribbled somewhere but actual stickers in the proper format and with a print reference code on them - a bit like data panel stickers but with just the class number on it.

Fascinating. I remember the '510' notation being used in the railway press but I hadn't realised any of the units were thus stickered inside their cabs. Thanks for sharing the insight.

 

[D365]

Class 332 (Heathrow Express) was originally mooted as Class 331. Why the change, I don’t know. Especially as the more numerous ’Civity’ Northern EMU fleet later received that classification ~2015

 

[LRV3004]

Class 332 (Heathrow Express) was originally mooted as Class 331. Why the change, I don’t know. Especially as the more numerous ’Civity’ Northern EMU fleet later received that classification ~2015

Interesting! Always gets me wondering why we get “gaps” in certain classes, for example we have the Class 395 “Javelin” units, followed by the Transpennine Class 397s, then the TfW tram/train Class 398s, and the Sheffield tram/train Class 399s……so why no Class 396s?!

 

[norbitonflyer]

I don't think this is anything new. I read an article in railway Magazine many years ago suggesti g many of the gaps in the roiginal TOPS classes were the result of a late decision not to give separate classifications to the various flavours of classes 17, 33, 37, 47 and 73, accounting for the "missing" classes 18, 19, 32, 34, 38, 49, 51, 53 (later used for the "Falcon"), 54 and 72

Interesting! Always gets me wondering why we get “gaps” in certain classes, for example we have the Class 395 “Javelin” units, followed by the Transpennine Class 397s, then the TfW tram/train Class 398s, and the Sheffield tram/train Class 399s……so why no Class 396s?!

39x was originally for high speed stock (Pendolinos) so the javelins fit in (with the penchant for numbers ending in 0 or 5) 397 fits, sort of, as 197 is another CAF class.

399 was adopted, like 499 and 599, for units that run both on Network Rail tracks and on tracks owned by municipal operators. As the TfW version are similar to those in Sheffield, 398 seems logical for them. (I suppose they could have been 799 as they are bimode, but that number is already spoken for)

 

[Belfastmarty]

Maybe not entirely what the OP was thinking of, but the first gen DMUs initially had multiple class numbers for power and trailer cars which eventually reverted to a single class per type. So, for example, for class 101 the DTCL were class 144 or 147, the TSL class 162, the TBSL class 168 and the TCL class 171, all eventually reclassified back to class 101.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Maybe not entirely what the OP was thinking of, but the first gen DMUs initially had multiple class numbers for power and trailer cars which eventually reverted to a single class per type. So, for example, for class 101 the DTCL were class 144 or 147, the TSL class 162, the TBSL class 168 and the TCL class 171, all eventually reclassified back to class 101.

Well remembered

I recall my surprise when reading a 1978 Ian Allan Combined Volume. All those DMU vehicle-specific classes!

 

[LRV3004]

I don't think this is anything new. I read an article in railway Magazine many years ago suggesti g many of the gaps in the roiginal TOPS classes were the result of a late decision not to give separate classifications to the various flavours of classes 17, 33, 37, 47 and 73, accounting for the "missing" classes 18, 19, 32, 34, 38, 49, 51, 53 (later used for the "Falcon"), 54 and 72


39x was originally for high speed stock (Pendolinos) so the javelins fit in (with the penchant for numbers ending in 0 or 5) 397 fits, sort of, as 197 is another CAF class.

399 was adopted, like 499 and 599, for units that run both on Network Rail tracks and on tracks owned by municipal operators. As the TfW version are similar to those in Sheffield, 398 seems logical for them. (I suppose they could have been 799 as they are bimode, but that number is already spoken for)

Thanks for that - rather interesting and insightful!!!

 

[Class15]

Interesting about 455s and ‘510s’ - I had thought that 5xx class numbers were for non-Southern DC electric units.

 

[AlistairCowell]

Class 325 was going to be Class 350 according to Wikipedia (not related to Desiro EMUs as it was in the 1990s of course).

There was a proposed Class 300 classification for the units to be rebuilt from Class 307, but went for new-build Class 325 units instead.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Interesting about 455s and ‘510s’ - I had thought that 5xx class numbers were for non-Southern DC electric units.

Well, the 508s started out on the Southern, and I don't think it was originally intended that their stay there would be temporary.

Maybe not entirely what the OP was thinking of, but the first gen DMUs initially had multiple class numbers for power and trailer cars

The SR EMUs were originally to have quite different class numbers too. In particular the SR and BR EMUs would have had different classes.

 

[Class15]

Well, the 508s started out on the Southern, and I don't think it was originally intended that their stay there would be temporary.

Oh that is a good point. It seems to have worked for previous ones though - 501 (North London and Watford lines), 502 & 503 (Merseyside), 504 (Bury line), 506 (Hadfield/Glossop), 507 (Merseyside).

 

[YorksLad12]

I sat in an All-Party Parliamentary Rail in The North Group meeting about nine years ago (and still have my notes somewhere!) where the TPE person said that their new units would be class 803. They're 802/2, which makes sense to me as they're the same as the rest of the 802 units mechanically.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Oh that is a good point. It seems to have worked for previous ones though - 501 (North London and Watford lines), 502 & 503 (Merseyside), 504 (Bury line), 506 (Hadfield/Glossop), 507 (Merseyside).

And 505 was to have been the 1500V Manchester Altrincham sets - dating from 1931, they were possibly the oldest rolling stock to receive a TOPS class (apart from some of the Class 485, 486 Isle of Wight units, but they only came into BR stock in 1967)

I have found the original SR classifications
411 4EPB (SR type) - became 415/1
412 2HAP (1951) - became 414/2
413 2EPB - became 416
414/1 4CEP (1951) - became 411
414/2 4BEP (1951) - became 410, later 412

421/1 4CEP (1957) - became 411
421/2 4BEP (1957) - became 410, later 412
422/1 MLV - became 419
422/2 TLV - became 499
423 4EPB (BR type) - became 415/2
424 2HAP (1957) - became 414/1 (SR), 414/3 (BR)

431/1 4CIG - became 421
431/2 4BIG - became 420, later 422
432 4VEP/8VAB - became 423

441 4REP - became 430, later 432
442/1 3TC became 491
442/2 4TC became 491, later 438

453 Waterloo & City became 487

461 PEP driving cars - became 445, 446
462 PEP intermediate cars - became 445

The listing I have makes no distinction between SR-design and BR-design 2EPBs (423) and between SR-design and BR-design 2HAPs (424)

The distinction between 1951 and 1957 stocks was in the control system, electro-pnematic contactor in the former and camshaft control in the latter. This distinction was lost in the later classification system although it was noticed when the CEPs were refurbished and renumbered that the two batches were renumbered, in the order in which they passed through works, from 1501 upwards and 1621 downwards to keep the two batches apart.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Does the Class 341 originally expected to be the numbering for Crossrail(now Elizabeth Line) stock count?

 

[stadler]

Does the Class 341 originally expected to be the numbering for Crossrail(now Elizabeth Line) stock count?

Personally i would not count that. That was a completely different train. I believe that was a Networker design. It was intended for Crossrail but it was never designed by Bombardier and was a completely different train. There was eight of these proposed Networker trains (171 331 332 341 342 371 381 471) but none got built.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Personally i would not count that. That was a completely different train. I believe that was a Networker design. It was intended for Crossrail but it was never designed by Bombardier and was a completely different train. There was eight of these proposed Networker trains (171 331 332 341 342 371 381 471) but none got built.

Fairs, worth a shot

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Personally I would not count that. That was a completely different train. I believe that was a Networker design. It was intended for Crossrail but it was never designed by Bombardier and was a completely different train. There was eight of these proposed Networker trains (171 331 332 341 342 371 381 471) but none got built.

They certainly got as far as building and exhibiting a mock up, which does show that you are correct in thinking it would have been a Networker variant.

 

[Spartacus]

Weren't some more 'obvious' class omissions done because at least some of the relevant numbers were taken up with rolling stock, which once withdrawn meant it was later possible to 'backfill' them.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Weren't some more 'obvious' class omissions done because at least some of the relevant numbers were taken up with rolling stock, which once withdrawn meant it was later possible to 'backfill' them.

The 50xxx and 56xxx DMU vehicles were renumbered into 51xxx and 59xxx to avoid TOPS clash with the class 50 and class 56.

 

[ED73]

Not previously mentioned is that GWRs 800/3s were originally ordered as all-electric 801/0s, and their carriage numbers remain as such.