New Trains to get Longer Numbers

[Co-tr-Paul]

That new GWR style cast brass numberplate is going to be heavy.... !

[Mark Saunders]

Sorry but this numbering system has been coming slowly for several years just look at the Railtrack former SPA’s converted to snow ploughs and the last batch of coal hoppers for GBRf came as carkind I rather than H.

 

The BR built Ferry Wagons all had this numbering years ago only loosing it whe fully returned to domestic use!

 

From the modelling point it means lots more transfers to apply to new wagons and potential revenue for those making transfers to customise their stock.

 

Mark Saunders

[Mark Saunders]

Are

 

 

 

How many people were paid ludicrous salaries, and provided with free first class travel and luxury accommodation to get together on numerous occasions, in order to come up with htis kind of over-regulation?

 

If the opponents of Brexit want to know why the UK voted for it - they have the perfect illustration here !!!

 

We now have a Europe-wide elite who have a vested interest in telling the rest of us how we should do our jobs, whilst making what we do harder and more expensive.

 

It can't go on - sooner or later those who actually do productive work will have had enough of the parasites who exist only to make life more and more complex.

 

I'm glad that I am finished with the working environment, and those who exist only to regulate it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Mr Isherwood

 

Not for a long time have I read such rubbish it is all about interoperability of Railways across Europe rather than the conspiracy you suggest!

 

Mark Saunders

[tetsudofan]

It's interesting that when I was last in Germany some locomotives were showing a shortened number on the front - used to be seven digits (say 120 208-4) but when they started putting the full EVN number (in small print) on the side of the locomotive they dropped the check digit on the front (so the number became 120 208).

 

So DB-AG meet the current international numbering requirements but are still able to display a "traditional" style number on the front of the locomotive.

 

Must agree with the above posters regarding Mr. Isherwood's comments. What a load of rubbish.

 

Keith

[Junctionmad]

Are

 

 

 

How many people were paid ludicrous salaries, and provided with free first class travel and luxury accommodation to get together on numerous occasions, in order to come up with htis kind of over-regulation?

 

If the opponents of Brexit want to know why the UK voted for it - they have the perfect illustration here !!!

 

We now have a Europe-wide elite who have a vested interest in telling the rest of us how we should do our jobs, whilst making what we do harder and more expensive.

 

It can't go on - sooner or later those who actually do productive work will have had enough of the parasites who exist only to make life more and more complex.

 

I'm glad that I am finished with the working environment, and those who exist only to regulate it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

It's all the fault of the illuminati , I tell you , you'll see .

[Talltim]

Some 071s in Ireland had full UIC numbers,its not like they can operate in Europe

They do operate in Europe

[frobisher]

The second paragraph states-

 

Which could be read that only trains which cross borders need to carry the full (UIC) numbers and not internal stock.

Only if you're imagining an extra comma in that sentence...

[russ p]

They do operate in Europe

Not with the same wheelsets

[Supaned]

I suspect this is just another element of aligning the UK rail system with UIC regulations , in the same way that our train drivers are now required to have an EU drivers license even if they just operate a 153 on a branch line. That has still happened regardless of any political vote as the UK Rail Industry Bodies chose to do so , not because they were told to as some may like to think.

 

The rail industry isn't run for the benefit of those who like to write down numbers,

 

As an aside , it is possible to make things easier to identify the vehicle number , in Germany I've seen examples where the full UIC numbering is either in smaller font than the "internal" vehicle number , or also in light grey text with the "internal" number in black.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Supaned

[caradoc]

Vehicles which operate across European boundaries, including into the UK from the Continent, already carry UIC numbers. Vehicles which stay in the UK and never go abroad do not. Why on earth does that need to change ?

[Fenman]

If you look at the link in the OP, explaining the proposed system, you'll see they have used as an example "PB" for Porterbrook. Fine - people will easily associate the code and the name. Then a new company enters the business of railcar ownership - Parker Brothers. They can't have code "PB" because it's already in use. So they have to be given a code which doesn't really reflect their name - what would that be? Do you give them the 'next' code - "PC"? But what happens when Persephone Company enters the field - whatever code you give them, will people remember "PC" is Parker Brothers and not Persephone Company?

 

Then, what happens once you've used up (in whatever way) the 676 possible two-letter combinations and the 677th company from a country arrives, wanting to join?

...

Exactly the same system operates with airline codes for flight numbers but it seems to work. It’s not so memorable when the obvious letter combo has gone, but the system still works (Virgin Atlantic is VS, not VA).

 

And I think your 676 is an underestimate, too, since you can use numerals (cf. an airline sporting S7).

 

Paul

[Zomboid]

Not with the same wheelsets

The Republic of Ireland is in Europe. And they could very easily operate international trains, though I don't know how often they actually show up in Belfast.

[Coryton]

 

As an aside , it is possible to make things easier to identify the vehicle number , in Germany I've seen examples where the full UIC numbering is either in smaller font than the "internal" vehicle number , or also in light grey text with the "internal" number in black.

 

Indeed. Though the note talks about underlining the TOPS part to make it clearer, and without reading the UK standard referred to, we can't tell if it's been "over-interpreted" to say that the UIC number is the only one to be carried.

 

The second paragraph states-

 

Which could be read that only trains which cross borders need to carry the full (UIC) numbers and not internal stock.

 

No. The article makes it very clear that "new" trains must carry the number whether they shuttle between Stourbridge and Stourbridge Town or go from London to South France.

 

(Edited to fix typo)

Edited January 24, 2018 by Coryton

[Coryton]

 

 If you look at the link in the OP, explaining the proposed system, you'll see they have used as an example "PB" for Porterbrook. Fine - people will easily associate the code and the name. Then a new company enters the business of railcar ownership - Parker Brothers. They can't have code "PB" because it's already in use. So they have to be given a code which doesn't really reflect their name - what would that be? Do you give them the 'next' code - "PC"? But what happens when Persephone Company enters the field - whatever code you give them, will people remember "PC" is Parker Brothers and not Persephone Company?

 

Then, what happens once you've used up (in whatever way) the 676 possible two-letter combinations and the 677th company from a country arrives, wanting to join? If you don't think that's likely, look at the list of AAR reporting marks for North American railcar-owning organisations.

 

So - do not build significance into codes where you are likely to get duplicate codes according to the allocation rules you're using. And allow for a requirement of at least an order of magnitude beyond what you think is 'reasonable'.

 

IMO, that part of the number should be 4 numerics long, with codes being allocated sequentially - computers can translate the codes very simply if needed.

 

I see your point. It's not a "proposed" system though, it's one that has been in use for a while, including in the UK.

 

I don't think the letters at the end are actually part of the number, (i.e. you can't have two numbers the same apart from the "keeper" code) and the country code seems to duplicate the country number at the start.

[John M Upton]

The thing with UIC numbers is that whenever I have seen one all I can see is long complicated meaningless gibberish.

[Oldddudders]

Check-digits are worth having. And as said above, both Germanies had them by 1970. Even on 750 mm gauge mallets in the East! Their scope for International service was a mite limited.

 

At about the same time, my day job in the Control included, on night shift, getting a close of play report from terminating stations - number of trains arrived right time, number 1 - 5 mins late etc. They would also report that they had the correct number of units berthed for morning service, or not. Then about 1971 this was changed to actual unit numbers, and the fun began. The Divisional Controls were required to report those numbers to HQ Control, where after a reconciliation a nightly game took place challenging the incorrect numbers. So, for joint fleets, e.g. 4-Subs, HQ would tell us that unit 4623, which we had assured them was at Horsham, was also being declared by the South Western as being at Effingham Junction. If there were night staff at the berthing point, we’d dig ‘em out to go and have another look, but if not we were supposed to call out the On-Call SM! Ridiculous, and a check digit using modulus whatever (maths well beyond my understanding) would have saved effort.

 

Mind you, it might not have been successful the night a unit was found with different numbers on each end!

[Talltim]

The Republic of Ireland is in Europe. And they could very easily operate international trains, though I don't know how often they actually show up in Belfast.

And Northern Ireland is also in Europe. The only time they’ve been not in Europe was when they were being built. Edited January 24, 2018 by Talltim

[John Isherwood]

Mr Isherwood

 

Not for a long time have I read such rubbish it is all about interoperability of Railways across Europe rather than the conspiracy you suggest!

 

Mark Saunders

 

I will confess to a certain roguish tongue-in-cheek when I posted, and I rather anticipated the response from a certain sector; but it seems from the 'Likes' and 'Agrees' that have been registered that I am far from being alone in my opposition to ever more complex regulation.

 

Surely computers are capable of understanding a simple number such as GBxxxxxx or Fxxxxxx or Dxxxxxx, and producing on-screen the appropriate descriptive data? Why does the number itself have to describe the vehicle in question?

 

The numbers are now so complex that you need a hand-held computer to decipher them! All that is necessary is a central database to ensure that individual numbers are not duplicated.

 

Simples!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

(.... and I still contend that a senior level of railway management gets a lot of luxury 'jollies' during the never-ending debates over issues such as this. Significantly, several posters have referred to the UIC numbering system as "slowly" having been developed over many years - that's the trouble with ever-widening regulation; it takes forever and is paid for by the rail-users).

[D854_Tiger]

Are

 

 

How many people were paid ludicrous salaries, and provided with free first class travel and luxury accommodation to get together on numerous occasions, in order to come up with htis kind of over-regulation?

 

If the opponents of Brexit want to know why the UK voted for it - they have the perfect illustration here !!!

 

We now have a Europe-wide elite who have a vested interest in telling the rest of us how we should do our jobs, whilst making what we do harder and more expensive.

 

It can't go on - sooner or later those who actually do productive work will have had enough of the parasites who exist only to make life more and more complex.

 

I'm glad that I am finished with the working environment, and those who exist only to regulate it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I've no doubt the EU will be claiming this proposal as its own but like so many things European the EU just co-opts them neglecting to mention that there are plenty or European nations involved in deciding these things that are not actually in the EU.

 

The EU often doesn't just reinvent the wheel it more likely lays claim to have invented the wheel in the first place.

 

That's why a lot of younger people believe that before the EU came along (and why we need it) you couldn't have a stag weekend in Eastern Europe yet I remember (shows age here) my first pre-Common Market visit to France was done on a passport you could buy from the post office. A form you filled in and could wave at a French customs officer (with a Gitanes on his lip) and they just waved you through, never looking, apart from the inevitable look of total disinterest.

 

Every telecom standard there is nowadays, is a European one, but how long have we been able to make phone calls right across Europe (not to mention the rest of the world).

 

I wouldn't mind betting even standard gauge is in a European standard nowadays and we all know who invented that (well actually we don't but you get my drift).

 

The Remain side were quick to claim all our airlines would be grounded if we left the EU, without a deal, but the body that allocates European slots of necessity includes eight European nations that are not in the EU and also allocates slots for heaven knows how many airlines (from half way round the world) that overfly Europe and are never likely to be part of the EU.

 

The idea we were ever going to be excluded from that was just silly and also ignored the fact that most of the biggest low-cost airlines operating here are EU owned and always likely to be.

 

Anyway, in the spirit of entente cordiale it was us Brits that came up with '4 mm to the foot' and decided we would use 70 degrees (F) for hot and zero degrees © for brass monkey and you can't be better European than that surely.

[JimC]

Surely computers are capable of understanding a simple number such as GBxxxxxx or Fxxxxxx or Dxxxxxx, and producing on-screen the appropriate descriptive data? Why does the number itself have to describe the vehicle in question?

 

They are, but its enormously convenient for the informed user to be able to interpret the number without having to look it up. Basically the concept makes sense, and the same sort of thing has been in use for part numbers since forever. What is perhaps less clever is the precise format since the "daily use" number is embedded within the middle of the long string. it would have been better if it had been one end of the other, so it was easier to pick out, but I imagine that error was made decades ago. The various large text or different colour options are sensible.

[Zomboid]

If you're going to have an interoperable system the size of the European railway network, then by necessity you need some form of interoperable database.

It's going to be complex to set up a workable index system to cover something so big. But actually what is proposed looks rather user friendly once you're familiar with what each part of the scheme means.

It's exactly that same as TOPS really, just on a larger scale. With TOPS, you know that the first 2 or 3 digits are the class, and the remaining 3 are the unique identifier within that. It'll be the same, just with more information contained within the scheme, every part of which will be useful to someone, and they won't have to consult a database to know some important stuff about the thing they're looking at.

[D854_Tiger]

Indeed. Though the note talks about underlining the TOPS part to make it clearer, and without reading the UK standard referred to, we can't tell if it's been "over-interpreted" to say that the UIC number is the only one to be carried.

 

 

No. The article makes it very clear that "new" trains must carry the number whether they shuttle between Stourbridge and Stourbridge Town or go from London to South France.

 

(Edited to fix typo)

 

My guess is they will carry both types of number the new one being added as an afterthought.

 

Locomotive crews will always need something easily identifiable.

 

I can remember even TOPs numbers being shortened on units in the past.

 

I used to pride myself at being able to spot the number of an eleccy at 100 mph, mind you, it was TOPs that caused me to give up on trainspotting (all that translation from the old to new in the combine volume was tedious squared) and at least this scheme should be straightforward to follow for modern anoraks.

[John Isherwood]

...and they won't have to consult a database to know some important stuff about the thing they're looking at.

 

Really? From what I see, humans now come with a database source attached to their ear at birth !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[D854_Tiger]

If you're going to have an interoperable system the size of the European railway network, then by necessity you need some form of interoperable database.

It's going to be complex to set up a workable index system to cover something so big. But actually what is proposed looks rather user friendly once you're familiar with what each part of the scheme means.

It's exactly that same as TOPS really, just on a larger scale. With TOPS, you know that the first 2 or 3 digits are the class, and the remaining 3 are the unique identifier within that. It'll be the same, just with more information contained within the scheme, every part of which will be useful to someone, and they won't have to consult a database to know some important stuff about the thing they're looking at.

 

 

....... and there's nothing that says all the numbers must be the same size, when painted on a loco, so the traditional number could be in a larger type-face.

 

Wonder how they will fit it on Clan Line though.

 

Then it all makes work for the Hornby worker to do.

Really? From what I see, humans now come with a database source attached to their ear at birth !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I think it's called DNA.

[31A]

'Internal Use' section of the number underlined:

 

 

SNCB double deck coach, Charleroi July 2016