Transport Tycoon Forums

They don't just miss numbers out because they're different though, they usually miss them out because of cock ups in the way TOPS work and individual carraiges carry the numbers. That's why 70s are 70s because 68xxx are the pantograph units of the SWT 450s.

I'm just amazed that we still use a computer programme from the 1960s as the basis of our numbering system (ok, costs of changing outweigh benefits etc.). But who actually sets the TOPS numbers in the current fragmented system?

Dave Worley wrote: Note the gaps between 150 and 153, the difference between a Sprinter and SuperSprinter.

Class' 151 and 152 were prototype units.

But thenagain the 155 came before the 153...

JamieLei wrote:But thenagain the 155 came before the 153...

The 154 was also a prototype, and there's a gap for a 157....

Kevo00 wrote:I'm just amazed that we still use a computer programme from the 1960s as the basis of our numbering system (ok, costs of changing outweigh benefits etc.). But who actually sets the TOPS numbers in the current fragmented system?

I'm not, I mean come on it is Britain, on the LU they're still using signalling equipment from the 1920s and 1960s computers with deskfans to cool them .

Class 165 wrote:

Kevo00 wrote:I'm just amazed that we still use a computer programme from the 1960s as the basis of our numbering system (ok, costs of changing outweigh benefits etc.). But who actually sets the TOPS numbers in the current fragmented system?

I'm not, I mean come on it is Britain, on the LU they're still using signalling equipment from the 1920s and 1960s computers with deskfans to cool them .

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Lol, I tend to agree with using retro equipment where possible but at least wikipedia reckons there are problems with TOPS:

TOPS has grown very out of date in recent decades. It is a text-terminal, mainframe-driven system which is not very user-friendly, cryptic, hard to use and prone to operator error because of its cryptic displays and command set. In addition, it is written in its own programming language, TOPSTRAN (not strictly speaking a separate language but a set of IBM Assembler macros), and it is increasingly hard to find and train developers to maintain it. The division of British Rail and privatisation has also hurt TOPS, because it was never really designed for that; some Train Operating Companies do not keep information as up to date as they should.

Quaint, sounds like it should be in the National Computer Museum in Bletchley!

Oh it's well known that it has flaws, as I mentioned above that individual carraige numbers take up slots that should be used for locos. The system will need a redesign soon as the numbers available are running out, of course they could just order the same type of train instead of ordering a small fleet for each area but hell, that'd be crazy!

On the contrary, standardisation would be an excellent idea, as it would bring down manufacturing and maintenance costs. We're way more standardised than we used to be of course, back in the days of Swindon etc.

My point with TOPS wasn't really the numbering system, more the underlying technology. If they run out of numbers, they can easily just use the old ones again. Class 140 has been used twice, I think.

Interestingly enough, they are adopting UIC in the next 12-18 months, in a similar vein to the way that the EWS Eurosheds have received UIC numbers: http://aa.photosnaps.org.uk/p66677493.html

It's just so low level - a system could be designed pretty easily which would allow for expansion.

The TOPS system is from a bygone era where programmers worked in assembly language and had limited memory and processing power... a modern system would easily allow adding of new classes and links between classes (eg classes, sub classes, families, coupler compatibility) and for them to be changed on the fly.

A competent 2nd year computer science student could throw something together in a month. It's a basic database system. A class could just be given a number which is either chronological and arbitrary, or which relates to the above classes/subclasses/families/coupler compatabiltities or whatever else.

There's no excuse for using software approaching it's 50th birthday. I refuse to believe that the costs associated are lower than new software - who the hell writes in "TOPSTRAN" or IBM's outdated macros? Even IBM probably doesn't use them anymore.

Software is cheap, staff training and maintenance of a system is expensive.

Awesome. Looking forward for DB connections. Would love one to Amsterdam to spend a weekend there.
Too bad it is just Frankfurt, would love a little bit further to get to Poland with just 1 change and apparently I cannot go to my home city oh well

From Frankfurt and Cologne you can get most places, it stops becoming viable if you make the routes what airlines call "long and thin routes", i.e. far and thin on the ground in terms of passenger loadings.

Ameecher wrote:From Frankfurt and Cologne you can get most places, it stops becoming viable if you make the routes what airlines call "long and thin routes", i.e. far and thin on the ground in terms of passenger loadings.

So no Aberdeen to Budapest direct train service, then?

audigex wrote:
The TOPS system is from a bygone era where programmers worked in assembly language and had limited memory and processing power...

This reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it....

LaSeandre wrote:

Kevo00 wrote:

JamieLei wrote:I'd love to see one of those on an express to Frankfurt!

From Helensburgh Central?

Noooo.


Balloch.

Nah, nah, nah, Ardlui!