Shed Codes

[SCH117X]

I think the GWR locos were not renumbered because it would be expensive to replace all the cabside brass number plates. Replacing iron smokebox number plates on other (non-GWR) locos would be less costly - and for cabside number, you just needed a "number" transfer or a paint brush..

At the 1923 grouping on the other big four railways brass cabside numerplates were disposed of when locos where renumbered with painted numerals so why would ex GW locos need new brass numberplates if they were to be renumbered? The most economical numbering BR could have implemented would have been to keep the numbers of ex LMS locos as those were the only ones with smokebox number plates.

 

[Beebman]

At the 1923 grouping on the other big four railways brass cabside numerplates were disposed of when locos where renumbered with painted numerals so why would ex GW locos need new brass numberplates if they were to be renumbered? The most economical numbering BR could have implemented would have been to keep the numbers of ex LMS locos as those were the only ones with smokebox number plates.

My guess as to why LMS locos didn't keep their numbers on nationalisation is that they were in the number range 1-29999 and BR wanted to compress them into one which only had a maximum of 20,000 numbers (i.e. 40001-59999).

 

[norbitonflyer]

At the 1923 grouping on the other big four railways brass cabside numerplates were disposed of when locos where renumbered with painted numerals so why would ex GW locos need new brass numberplates if they were to be renumbered? The most economical numbering BR could have implemented would have been to keep the numbers of ex LMS locos as those were the only ones with smokebox number plates.

Of necessity only locomotives of three lpre-grouping railways (plus the GWR) could keep their original numbers in 1923 so renumbering was essential (Those railways were the North Eastern, Midland, and LSWR). How many pre-grouping railways actually used cast, rather than painted, numberplates anyway?

My guess as to why LMS locos didn't keep their numbers on nationalisation is that they were in the number range 1-29999 and BR wanted to compress them into one which only had a maximum of 20,000 numbers (i.e. 40001-59999).

LMS numbers over 20000 were a "duplicate" series which had been created to clear blocks of 4-digit numbers for new classes, by adding 20,000 to their original numbers (usually ex-LNWR or Midland locomotives, as the smaller companies' locomotives had been numbered in blocks above 10,000).

BR added 40,000 to all LMS steam numbers except those in the duplicate series which were renumbered in a new series starting at 58000, bearing no relation to their 2xxxx numbers. .

 

[SCH117X]

Of necessity only locomotives of three lpre-grouping railways (plus the GWR) could keep their original numbers in 1923 so renumbering was essential (Those railways were the North Eastern, Midland, and LSWR). How many pre-grouping railways actually used cast, rather than painted, numberplates anyway?

Major pre-grouping railways that used numberplates were the Great Central, Great Eastern and London North Western.

LMS numbers over 20000 were a "duplicate" series which had been created to clear blocks of 4-digit numbers for new classes, by adding 20,000 to their original numbers (usually ex-LNWR or Midland locomotives, as the smaller companies' locomotives had been numbered in blocks above 10,000).

BR added 40,000 to all LMS steam numbers except those in the duplicate series which were renumbered in a new series starting at 58000, bearing no relation to their 2xxxx numbers. .

So BR could have kept the LMS loco numbering bar those in the 20000s whch would have been renumbered starting at 18000. For some reason many ex LNWR locos did not carry smokebox numberplates.

 

[Bevan Price]

Of necessity only locomotives of three lpre-grouping railways (plus the GWR) could keep their original numbers in 1923 so renumbering was essential (Those railways were the North Eastern, Midland, and LSWR). How many pre-grouping railways actually used cast, rather than painted, numberplates anyway?


LMS numbers over 20000 were a "duplicate" series which had been created to clear blocks of 4-digit numbers for new classes, by adding 20,000 to their original numbers (usually ex-LNWR or Midland locomotives, as the smaller companies' locomotives had been numbered in blocks above 10,000).

BR added 40,000 to all LMS steam numbers except those in the duplicate series which were renumbered in a new series starting at 58000, bearing no relation to their 2xxxx numbers. .

Many pre-grouping companies used random number series which did not group loco classes together into single number series. If a new loco was built, it would often get the lowest available number (that had been left blank by withdrawal of older locos). The Midland was one of the earliest railways to group classes together into single series of numbers (circa 1907). The LMSR adopted that policy from 1923, but it was not until about 1942/1946 that LNER followed the same policy (although it had renumbered locos at the 1923 grouping - but not to put loco classes into single series.)

 

[xotGD]

I've not seen a GAT code but I have seen GHD which I assume is Gateshead.

Shed Bash UK lists it as GHD from 1935.

Thank you both.

GHD -> 52A -> GD -> RIP

 

[Taunton]

At the 1923 grouping on the other big four railways brass cabside numerplates were disposed of when locos where renumbered with painted numerals so why would ex GW locos need new brass numberplates if they were to be renumbered? The most economical numbering BR could have implemented would have been to keep the numbers of ex LMS locos as those were the only ones with smokebox number plates.

I've written here before about how smokebox numberplates, which became universal after nationalisation, had replacements knocked up by the smith at Taunton shed in the hearth, hammer the numbers in individually from the box of them, bit of white paint, drill, done. They weren't difficult. They didn't need to be done at the main works. Most of the work for the new ones was drilling the smokebox frontplate itself on the loco to accept them. If they had followed the procedures of other railways (including GWR) of just painting the number of the ex-LMS locos on the front bufferbeam that would have been the most economical.

Furthermore I believe there were two iterations of changing the ex-LMS smokebox numbers. At first there was an M prefix, which seemed done as a separate piece of plate, then again redone as 5-digit numbers.

Not all ex-LMS locos kept their previous number sequence, their large number of locos with 2xxxx series numbers were completely redone, along with various others as well.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Not all ex-LMS locos kept their previous number sequence, their large number of locos with 2xxxx series numbers were completely redone, along with various others as well.

Very few, if any, others - except diesel shunters, which were renumbered into the 12xxx series

not until about 1942/1946 that LNER followed the same policy (although it had renumbered locos at the 1923 grouping - but not to put loco classes into single series.)

In 1923 the LNER, like the Southern, had simply added a multiple of 1000 to the existing numbers of locomotives of its constituent companies
NER unchanged
GNR 3000
GCR 5000
GNSR 6800
GER 7000
NBR 9000

LSWR unchanged
SECR 1000
LBSCR 2000

British Railways. of course, did exactly the same in 1948.

 

[SCH117X]

The Southern initially appended the A B or E to the loco numbers - A for Ashford works (primarily ex SECR locos), B for Brighton works (primarily ex LBSCR locos) and E for Eastleigh works (primarily ex LSWR locos) until 1931 when the 1000 / 2000 were added instead to SECR and LBSCR types

 

[etr221]

The Southern initially appended the A B or E to the loco numbers - A for Ashford works (primarily ex SECR locos), B for Brighton works (primarily ex LBSCR locos) and E for Eastleigh works (primarily ex LSWR locos) until 1931 when the 1000 / 2000 were added instead to SECR and LBSCR types

Strictly, prepended - the letters were prefixes. W was also used, up until nationalisation, for locos on the Isle of Wight (Ryde works) - locos transferred across were renumbered.

The Southern also had to deal with ex LSWR duplicate list locos: these had been renumbered with a leading 0 - in 1931, these were renumbered, by dropping the 0 and adding 3000. Survivors were renumbered on an individual basis by BR in 1948, into the 305xx range. So, e.g. the Adams 4-4-2T that was originally LSWR 125, became 0125 on duplication, E0125 in 1923, 3125 in 1931, and 30582 in 1948.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Regarding the short codes for L.N.E.R. sheds; in a pre-war 'R.O.', the R.C.T.S. made it clear that the codes it used were certainly not official.

At some point after the grouping the Company introduced the policy of painting the shed name (as well as the loco class code) on the front buffer beam, and the name was abbreviated if lengthy but not 'coded'. I did try, by examination of photos., to compile a list of how sheds were actually rendered but it did seem to rely on the signwriter as much as anything (and I found one where the name was painted upside-down- presumably the beam had been removed from the loco when it was done) Another indication of the home shed was an enamel plate with the name on, mounted inside the cab at the side and at eaves level. I didn't 'cab' locos on shed bashes (normally, hospitality was already being extended) but I think that these may have remained until scrapping but overpainted. They occasionally crop up at
'Railwayman' auctions, and command a high price. One recent example was DF'LINE for Dunfermline, possibly they were standard length to fit pre-drilled bolt holes.

Strictly, prepended - the letters were prefixes. W was also used, up until nationalisation, for locos on the Isle of Wight (Ryde works) - locos transferred across were renumbered.

Interesting that IoW locos not only 'escaped' the 1931 renumbering but, for them, the previous system prevailed on B.R. until 1967, by which time I doubt anyone remembered its origin.

For some reason many ex LNWR locos did not carry smokebox numberplates.

When the LMS was formed, practice followed that of the Midland, with numbers on the tender and only smokebox plates to identify the loco. itself. When this was changed (to cab side number) it seems that everywhere apart from the ex-Midland works then regarded s/b plates as un-necessary. In later L.M.S. days, as well as the ex L.N.W.R. locos, certainly former L&Y and Caledonian ones rarely carried them either; it was only in B.R. days that they re-appeared on the latter two, but never on the former.

Furthermore I believe there were two iterations of changing the ex-LMS smokebox numbers. At first there was an M prefix, which seemed done as a separate piece of plate, then again redone as 5-digit numbers.

The regional prefixes scheme, which lasted from January to about April 1948, were intended to be applied to all region's locos. and so there were ex G.W. locos with a 'W' painted above or below the numberplate. It also resulted in the extravagant S21Cnnn applied to a few Bullies before they were renumbered into the 34xxx and 35xxx series.
Although existing ex LMS locos received the 'M' on the cab side it seems from photos that only newly built LMS design locos received the M prefix to the smokebox plate. I own one of then (pounced when no-one realised what it was). It (obviously) is a block with an 'M' on but it has a tail with a hole in; the left hand bolt securing the s/b plate is removed, the tail slid under it and then the bolt is re-applied. (Once again, that Taunton is leading me off thread , so perhaps this should all be on a new thread)

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that discussion in this thread should be confined to the topic of Shed Codes.

A new thread on renumbering can be found here:

Loco renumbering at time of merger.

Moderator note - split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/shed-codes.259907/ To elaborate on the LNER renumbering (see RCTS History of LNER Locos, Volume 1) A few locos were renumbered in 1942, but the first major renumbering scheme was only proposed in 1943. Maybe...

www.railforums.co.uk

thanks