Re: AN Loco Classifications
David Bromage (dbromage@metz.une.edu.au)
22 Nov 1997 12:42:39 GMT
Craig Haber (albatross@harnessnet.com.au) wrote:
>G'day,
>
>John McCallum wrote:
>> I agree on the preference for the NSW (and SAR) classification system, although NSWGR did muck it up
>> with the 421, 422 and 442 classes.
>
>Although I'm a Victorian and hence think our system is the best (!),
>what I did (and do) like about the NSW way of doing it is that the class
>number is always seperate from the unit number. e.g., you have a 42201,
>and a 42220, wheras in South Australia, you had 930 to 966, I'd have
>preferred if this was done the NSW way 93001 to 93036.
Even Victoria didn't quite get it right. You have three almost completely
different locos all classed X, and five different locos all classed T. VR
would have been better off following previous practice by calling them X1,
X2, X3, T1, T2, T3, etc just like the D1, D2, D3, D4, A1, A2, etc.
Cheers
David