Class 395

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:51 pm

The TOPs number for the CTRL domestic stock....

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:51 pm

johncard · Post by **johncard** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:23 pm

What exactly is the convention for determining the TOPS numbers of trains? Or are numbers just picked out of the hat?

It seems odd that we've got loads of gaps in the number series, and I'm not just talking about units here - why wasn't the rebuilt class 47 classifyed 47/x or even class 48 (I don't think there has ever been one of them)?

John

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:29 pm

48 was a rebuilt 47 built as a prototype or something like that.

johndibben · Post by **johndibben** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:48 pm

TOPS numbers for classes were allocated in 1969 but renumbering wasn't immediate. Therefore some classes became redundant before they would've been renumbered.

Other classes were earmarked for imminent withdrawal or had cast numberplates (Westerns) and were never renumbered.

salopiangrowler · Post by **salopiangrowler** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:16 pm

D6600-6609 (37300-309*)
D6700 (37119&350)
D6701-6818 (37001-118 split box indicators)
D6820-6982 (37120-282 central box indicator)
D6983 (cut up aged 3 months)
D6984-6999 (central as 820 982)

* 37309 never was meant to be after D6983 got cut up in 1960, but 37274 became 37402 in 1984 and 309 became 274 to fill the gap, 37299 then became the new 283 which is now also scrapped.

There my religion in tops thats just off the top of my head too.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:55 am

class 48 was the same as a 47 except the engine was a sulzer 12LVA, (V12) rather than a 12LDA (twin bank 12 cylinder) as fitted to a 47. There were only 5 built, and one survives (D whatever it is at the GCR).

Would be interesting to get a 12LVA from france (where they were quite successful) and fit it to that. There was a project to save the other remaining 48 conversion and fit it with the LVA, but the loco was cut up in the last couple of months.

tigermon · Post by **tigermon** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:07 am

D1705 'Sparrowhawk' is at the Great Central, I see it at least once a week when I'm on Platform Duty down there

D1705 was indeed one of only five locomotives (D1702-D1706) built with the unreliable Sulzer 12LVA24 Vee shaped engines, the five members fitted with this Engine were indeed the Class 48 Locomotives, and the Class 48's didnt last longer than 6 years before they were all converted to Class 47's with the normal Sulzer 12LDA28C.

That's about where my knowledge on the Class 48's runs out, but I'm certain that a dig up will find a few sites where there is info on them, I'll edit it in if I find anything.

EDIT: http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/locos/dd1705.htm
http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Tech%20 ... ass48.html

qzdcg8 · Post by **qzdcg8** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:27 pm

Wasn't the original Class 43 just a different engined 42 (Warship?) and they all became 42's before the HST came along?

Class 77's were allocated but retired before conversion from EM2 E2700x to 7700x

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Believe so - I think the Bullied/Raworth electrics were class 70, but never carried the numbers.

We all know about the class 30 debacle too, don't we?

qzdcg8 · Post by **qzdcg8** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:41 pm

arabiandisco wrote:We all know about the class 30 debacle too, don't we?

No? Go on...

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:52 pm

The original Brush type 2 was the class 30 - a class 31 with a Mirlees J series (I think) engine, but the engine suffered sever fatiguing problems, and was replaced with an EE lump - I believe this was before TOPS numbers were applied to locos so no loco has carried 30xxx, and when they were re-engined they became class 31. The 31 that's been pretty much abandoned at the Glos Warks is unrefurbished, so it's the same as a 30 except for the EE lump. Would make a good candidate for fitting with a Mirlees, as there are plenty knocking around in marine applications at the moment. But that's beside the point.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:01 pm

We wanted one that was better than Class 390. Originally Class 391 was prime reserve number but we rounded it up to be even better

Regards

Dan

salopiangrowler · Post by **salopiangrowler** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:15 pm

BR7MT wrote:We wanted one that was better than Class 390. Originally Class 391 was prime reserve number but we rounded it up to be even better

Regards

Dan

So your job involves the Hitachi trains aswell then, tell us more, go on you know you want to.