Why were the Network Rail Class 37s renumbered as 97s?

[Bonbonbalinski]

I have been doing some research and it looks like they are the exact same, so why did they get reclassified?

 

[JJmoogle]

They're ERTMS test locomotives

 

[Davester50]

Aren't these the ERTMS fitted ones?
I guess they've just used the long tradition of putting them in the old departmental number series.

 

[D365]

Aren't these the ERTMS fitted ones?
I guess they've just used the long tradition of putting them in the old departmental number series.

Without having worked on the 97s personally, I would suspect that the renumbering is indeed down to using the departmental designation. However 97302-304 are also used as general loco haulage on the Cambrian lines.

The WCRC 37s fitted with Hitachi ETCS (668, 669) were, unlike 97301, not renumbered.

 

[Davester50]

Without having worked on the 97s personally, I would suspect that the renumbering is indeed down to using the departmental designation. However 97302-304 are also used as general loco haulage on the Cambrian lines.

The WCRC 37s fitted with Hitachi ETCS (668, 669) were, unlike 97301, not renumbered.

I guess the owner/lessor makes the difference, plus the timing of the fitting some years later to the West Coast locos.

 

[fgwrich]

Without having worked on the 97s personally, I would suspect that the renumbering is indeed down to using the departmental designation. However 97302-304 are also used as general loco haulage on the Cambrian lines.

The WCRC 37s fitted with Hitachi ETCS (668, 669) were, unlike 97301, not renumbered.

Not only that, but I believe most of the 379XX series is already in use elsewhere (on top of the re-engineered 901-906).

 

[co-tr-paul]

See www.class37.co.uk

 

[High Dyke]

97302 seen on a test run two weeks ago from Rectory Sidings to Allington and back.

Image shows a renumbered Class 37 locomotive (97302).

Also found various footage on YouTube of it piloting a freight train on the Cambrian Route in Wales.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Slightly OT. I always thought TOPS needed to differentiate non revenue earning locos, so 97xxx reserved for test and departmentals.

Then class 47s 97545, 97561, etc became 47971 to 47975; and class 31 97204 became 31970. So there must've been another rationale?

 

[themiller]

Several class 40s were renumbered into the 97 series for the remodelling of Crewe station. I doubt that it matters now since privatisation because NR (as Railtrack) was also a private company at one time. In any case, shunters aren’t revenue earning and very few were 97s! After all, with modern computer systems, it doesn’t matter what the class number of a loco is because locos aren’t necessarily operated by their owners.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Several class 40s were renumbered into the 97 series for the remodelling of Crewe station. I doubt that it matters now since privatisation because NR (as Railtrack) was also a private company at one time. In any case, shunters aren’t revenue earning and very few were 97s!

That's right, members of classes 24, 25, 31, 40, 45, 46 and Ruston PWM shunter became a 97xxx number.
My examples in post #9 changed from their 97xxx number back to a number beginning with their TOPS class.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Slightly OT. I always thought TOPS needed to differentiate non revenue earning locos, so 97xxx reserved for test and departmentals.

Then class 47s 97545, 97561, etc became 47971 to 47975; and class 31 97204 became 31970. So there must've been another rationale?

They went back to 31 & 47's as the drivers started to refuse them as not being trained on 97's. Management's fault for not informing everyone what had been done.

 

[Sun Chariot]

They went back to 31 & 47's as the drivers started to refuse them as not being trained on 97's. Management's fault for not informing everyone what had been done.

Interesting. What was it about those six particular locos, versus the other 97xxx locos?
31970 and 47971-55 were numbered thus during 1989, if I recall.
The other 97xxx examples had gone by then, so I presume the drivers' resistance pnly started during 1987-88?
NR's 37s are in 973xx sequence, so what's different now re: driver acceptance?

 

[D365]

NR's 37s are in 973xx sequence, so what's different now re: driver acceptance?

’Unique’ ETCS cab desks.

 

[Sun Chariot]

’Unique’ ETCS cab desks.

Thanks @D365 although I'm not clear how this ties back to your post #4 comment?
"...The WCRC 37s fitted with Hitachi ETCS (668, 669) were, unlike 97301, not renumbered."

 

[D365]

Thanks @D365 although I'm not clear how this ties back to your post #4 comment?
"...The WCRC 37s fitted with Hitachi ETCS (668, 669) were, unlike 97301, not renumbered."

I’m not aware that the reclassification of the NR ex-37s had any impact on driver acceptance. But I wasn’t there at the time of their commissioning, so can’t be taken as gospel. By contrast, the ETCS fitted 158s [and all recently fitted vehicles] have not been renumbered, which leaves the 97/3s as an outlier.

Apologies; I may well have misunderstood the question you were asking.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Thanks @D365 I'm guilty of pulling this thread a little OT

In post #9 I'd asked if anyone knew why - out of all locos that received 97xxx numbers - what the rationale was for 97204 to then be numbered 31970 and ditto for 97545, 97561, etc to then become 47971-975.

Post #12, Hairy Bear explained : "They went back to 31 & 47's as drivers started to refuse them as not being trained on 97s".

So I was intrigued how NR's 973xx examples got around that stance

 

[Nym]

I think the actual answer here is, "Because someone in Network Rail wanted to."

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think the actual answer here is, "Because someone in Network Rail wanted to."

Quite. Do not expect consistency with TOPS numbering, as every "rule" has at least one exception!

 

[Sun Chariot]

Quite. Do not expect consistency with TOPS numbering, as every "rule" has at least one exception!

I guess that means drivers - NR ones, at least -  do sign and accept 97xxx numbered class 37s.

I'll presume allocation pools have evolved significantly since the years of 'loco number + depot', so there's no likelihood of inadvertently assigning a NR loco to (for example) a revenue earning freight.

 

[Harpo]

so there's no likelihood of inadvertently assigning a NR loco to (for example) a revenue earning freight.

The NR 97s are the only means of running the revenue earning Aberystwyth log train currently.

Originally pairs of 97s were used but latterly its a single leading 97 multied to an unfitted 37.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The NR 97s are the only means of running the revenue earning Aberystwyth log train currently.

Originally pairs of 97s were used but latterly its a single leading 97 multied to an unfitted 37.

Oh, I'd like to snare a photo of that!
Sadly, a little too far to "pop out", from the Hampshire coast.

I found this YouTube clip, of an NR 37 on the logs.
At 2 mins 20sec onwards, what a departure!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wasn't the renumbering in part to ensure that these locomotives stayed where they were needed instead of getting nicked to work everywhere else...?