Steam Loco numbering under BR - 1XXXX & 2XXXX series?

[alexl92]

As I understand it, under BR, steam locomotives built or owned by the GWR kept their original numbers, of which to my knowledge all were 4-digits. Additionaly:
ex-Southern stock had 30000 added (ie 30826),
ex-LMS stock had 40000 added to be numbered in the 4XXXX series (e.g. 46233) or 5XXXX (usually pre-grouping stuff such as ex-L&Y locos).
ex-LNER stock became 6XXXX
And BR designs were numbered from 70000 - 92250

Was the 10000 and 20000 series ever used for steam locomotives under BR? I know that the first LMS diesels were 10000 & 10001; was the rest of this series left empty for diesels then?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I know that the first LMS diesels were 10000 & 10001; was the rest of this series left empty for diesels then?

The numbering system was that 1xxxx was for diesels and 2xxxx for electrics. There were diesel shunters and both Southern and LNER electric locos as well the LMS diesels,

 

[33017]

1xxxx were diesel, 2xxxx were electric. GWR numbers were mostly four digits but there were also one, two and (plenty of) three digit numbers.

 

[Taunton]

I think, interpreting the original question, that it was a chance that LMS diesel 10000 was numbered as such, as this then suited the new scheme. Other LMS diesels, shunters, had been numbered by them in the 7xxx series, and were changed to the BR one. Ivatt had raced the project along so 10000 appeared, as such, only days before nationalisation.

LMS steam locos broadly had 40,000 added to their number, there were a large number in the 1xxxx and even 2xxxx series, the latter were renumbered into gaps mainly in the 58000 series, and there were also quite a number of modern LMS locos in the 1xxxx series, which were renumbered into the 40000 series. It did take quite some time, years in fact, to actually apply all the renumbering, so steam locos could be seen with numbers beginning 1 or 2 for quite some time into BR days.

 

[alexl92]

Interesting, thank you!
The train of thought that prompted the question was: if I was renumbering an industrial tank engine into a fictional BR livery, which number range would I be able to slot it into? Were any left free?

 

[30907]

Interesting, thank you!
The train of thought that prompted the question was: if I was renumbering an industrial tank engine into a fictional BR livery, which number range would I be able to slot it into? Were any left free?

The nearest precedent would be the WD 2-8-0s which were numbered into the BR standard series. For a tank loco this would suggest 8xxxx - and 86xxx or 88xxx would continue the sequence 80,82,84...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Interesting, thank you!
The train of thought that prompted the question was: if I was renumbering an industrial tank engine into a fictional BR livery, which number range would I be able to slot it into? Were any left free?

It depends where it worked. It might well have been numbered into a spare slot in a regional series, rather than the BR 7xxxx, 8xxxx or 9xxxx series. When BR was formed the minor railways stock went into those regional series.

 

[30907]

It depends where it worked. It might well have been numbered into a spare slot in a regional series, rather than the BR 7xxxx, 8xxxx or 9xxxx series. When BR was formed the minor railways stock went into those regional series.

Good point, though in the case of the KESR and EKR (the only ones I know of) the locos concerned were all Southern types.

 

[Bevan Price]

Interesting, thank you!
The train of thought that prompted the question was: if I was renumbering an industrial tank engine into a fictional BR livery, which number range would I be able to slot it into? Were any left free?

I imagine it would depend on the type of the loco. If it was one of many resembling the Austerity 0-6-0ST (LNER Class J94), I think that numbers 68001 - 05 were vacant. If it was a small 4 wheel saddle tank or side tank loco,it might have got a vacant number close to the numbers of similar locos in whichever region it was allocated to.

 

[alexl92]

Hmmmmm, interesting. I was thinking of some of the industrial Hunslet and Hudswell 0-6-0Ts that worked all over the country in different industries. Maybe as they were built in Leeds, LNER or LMS numbers would be most appropriate?

 

[SCH117X]

Given the austerity the country was in I have always been puzzled by the numbering system that was used. With decision that locos would have smokebox numberplates it would have been more logical IMO to keep the original numbers of LMS locos. The story that often arises that GWR locos kept their original numbers because of the cost of casting new numberplates is complete rubbish, the numberplates would have been replaced by painted on numbers as happened at grouping.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The nearest precedent would be the WD 2-8-0s which were numbered into the BR standard series.

Beside the very large numbers of those ex-WD 2-8-0 locomotives, there were the much smaller numerically ex-WD 2-10-0 locomotives that were sequentially renumbered from 90750 to 90774 into the above series.

 

[Bedpan]

One thing about the 70000 and 80000 series of the standards is that the higher the number, the smaller the loco. The only exception was that 71000 Duke of Gloucester was a class 8 and the Britannias were class 7. So if the industrial loco you were going to renumber was, say, a small 0-4-0 saddle tank, then it would logically be in the 88000 or 89000 series.

 

[Taunton]

The large WDs were the only locos to be renumbered into the "BR" sequence, because such a large range was required and because they were deployed nationwide. Some of them had been acquired by the LNER before nationalsiation, and were renumbered again into the BR series. The tank engines (J94), also bought by the LNER before nationalisation, were given LNER series numbers.

Given the austerity the country was in I have always been puzzled by the numbering system that was used. With decision that locos would have smokebox numberplates it would have been more logical IMO to keep the original numbers of LMS locos. The story that often arises that GWR locos kept their original numbers because of the cost of casting new numberplates is complete rubbish, the numberplates would have been replaced by painted on numbers as happened at grouping

Bear in mind that the LMS (and BR) smokebox numbers were just plain iron, knocked up if required by the shed blacksmith (hence the range of digit sizes and fonts), whereas the GWR numbers were cast brass made in the brass foundry at Swindon. The GWR font style went along with the loco nameplates. There were enough attempts by Derby and Crewe to dumb down GWR concepts, such as the incompetent design of the ATC/AWS warning on the Britannias, (which directly led to the serious Milton accident near Swindon) without ripping everything away.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Given the austerity the country was in I have always been puzzled by the numbering system that was used. With decision that locos would have smokebox numberplates it would have been more logical IMO to keep the original numbers of LMS locos. The story that often arises that GWR locos kept their original numbers because of the cost of casting new numberplates is complete rubbish, the numberplates would have been replaced by painted on numbers as happened at grouping.

I have read - but have no idea if it is true - that the original decision was to have the LMS locos keep their numbers. But the GWR types then argued it would cost them, and the decision was made to allow the GWR to stay as they were.

I strongly suspect this was a political decision as much as anything - the GWR group was suely the most fiercely protective of its identity/company culture - so the new management said: let's just give in on this one and get on with the bigger issues, and maybe use this to push the Swindon lot into a more important concession down the road.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...

Bear in mind that the LMS (and BR) smokebox numbers were just plain iron, knocked up if required by the shed blacksmith (hence the range of digit sizes and fonts), whereas the GWR numbers were cast brass made in the brass foundry at Swindon. ... .

UH? What do you mean, "plain iron" ? They were cast, surely? And regular depots did not have foundry facilities - only the works had those. (OK, I don't know for sure, maybe 'super sheds' - Newton Heath or somewhere like that MAY have had foundries, but that was not the norm.)

 

[SCH117X]

. The GWR font style went along with the loco nameplates.

Numerous pre grouping companies used name and numberplates, presumably most if not all in the same font, but it did not stop the LMS, LNER and SR removing the numberplates

 

[Taunton]

UH? What do you mean, "plain iron" ? They were cast, surely? And regular depots did not have foundry facilities - only the works had those. (OK, I don't know for sure, maybe 'super sheds' - Newton Heath or somewhere like that MAY have had foundries, but that was not the norm.)

Well humble 83B Taunton had a blacksmith, who knocked up all sorts of ironwork, like spring plates, although by the time I knew it there was no longer a requirement to shoe any horses belonging to the railway. The fire was surrounded by the sand hopper, to keep the sand dry. Identification plates could be made by hammering his stock of numbers, and letters, into a red-hot bit of plate, which was then drilled for the fixing bolts.

Here's a photo on the Web of the blacksmith at the 'Super Shed' of ... wait for it ... Kyle of Lochalsh (the 83B facility was a bit bigger).

http://www.ambaile.org.uk/detail/en/12490/1/EN12490-blacksmith-kyle-of-lochalsh.htm

 

[Bevan Price]

Hmmmmm, interesting. I was thinking of some of the industrial Hunslet and Hudswell 0-6-0Ts that worked all over the country in different industries. Maybe as they were built in Leeds, LNER or LMS numbers would be most appropriate?

Welll - Hunslet did build some of the LMSR Fowler 3F 0-6-0Ts (commonly caleed "Jinty" type..) , so a vacant number near that class might have been considered....

 

[alexl92]

Welll - Hunslet did build some of the LMSR Fowler 3F 0-6-0Ts (commonly caleed "Jinty" type..) , so a vacant number near that class might have been considered....

You know, I never knew that. Thank you!

 

[70014IronDuke]

Well humble 83B Taunton had a blacksmith, who knocked up all sorts of ironwork, like spring plates, although by the time I knew it there was no longer a requirement to shoe any horses belonging to the railway. The fire was surrounded by the sand hopper, to keep the sand dry. Identification plates could be made by hammering his stock of numbers, and letters, into a red-hot bit of plate, which was then drilled for the fixing bolts.

Here's a photo on the Web of the blacksmith at the 'Super Shed' of ... wait for it ... Kyle of Lochalsh (the 83B facility was a bit bigger).

http://www.ambaile.org.uk/detail/en/12490/1/EN12490-blacksmith-kyle-of-lochalsh.htm

Having a smithy is nothing like having foundry facilities. I have never seen a fabricated numberplate. Maybe there were some, but the ones I've seen have all been cast. And shed plates too.