Jump to content

Talk:Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is currently a discussion on the naming conventions for British locomotives and multiple units at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Comments from those familar with the SR classification scheme are particularly welcome. Thryduulf 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

6-digit numbers

[edit]

As I understand it, other than some SWT sets which are using 4-digit numbers, a good many of the 455s show and have shown 6-digit numbers, notably with the "455" above the latter three digits. 456s have also only ever carried their full numbers. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class 455's have never carried anything other than 4-digit numbers. The first two digits being the last number of their sub-class. e.g. Class 455/8 carry numbers starting 58. Your are getting mixed up with Class 465/466 "Networkers" which have always carred six digit numbers. Please do not revert unless you can provide a factual source for your claims. I woudl refer you to [www.railfaneurope.net] where they have plenty of pictures class 455's. Olana North (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SWT 455s apparently carry 4-digit numbers. However, please count the digits on the front of this unit. (Index). 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of presentation

[edit]

It might make sense to:

  1. explain that the first figure denotes the number of cars in the set
  2. hyphenate the class codes (ie 2-BIL etc.) since this is how they were painted on the car ends
  3. sort the various classes alphabetically (ignoring the figure) to make them easier to find (ie 6-CIT would follow 4-CIG and precede 4-COR)

If a reference is required for some of the codes, try "British Railways Motive Power Survey". British Rail Locomotives and other motive power. London: Ian Allan. 1968. pp. 15, 17. ISBN 0 7110 0008 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]