The LNER Encyclopedia

I would be grateful for any further information about this Cheshire Lines Committee van, which appears to be M585 although the number is not clear:

CLC_van_M585 by robertcwp, on Flickr

It is a standard LNER CCT. LNER truck diagram 2.

Chivers used to do a etched kit for them.

Thanks for the information.

Just as an aside, it seems the CLC stock did cause some identification problems in early BR days. The coaching stock of the four companies received the appropriate prefices to the numbers and it seems that it was then realised (probably by experience!) that, if the CLC stock (numbered in its own series) was prefixed M there would be duplication with LMS stock; when the prefix/suffix system was introduced (after similar problems with BR standard stock), CLC stock got MnnnCLC.
Subsequently, the LM renumbered the CLC stock into the LMS number blocks and was regarded as LM maintenance, so got an M suffix; but a lot (?all) of the CLC stock was LNER design. The interesting results were an NER toplight which found its way back to York as M14948M; and a Gresley BT on the LT&S as M22630M.
Wonder if there's a list of these re-numberings anywhere?

The maintenance of CLC stock was transferred to Newton Heath in 1938 when Dukinfield works closed. This is why they were given MxxxM numbers and not MxxxE.

This CCT may still be available from Chivers. Google (or other) Five79 (http://www.five79.co.uk/ ). Martin Chivers (Roger's son) still issues his father's kits from time to time.

ArthurK

I think you mean Matthew, Arthur. I believe Martin played football.

There's no mention on his website and I had heard indirectly that he'd withdrawn the etched kits, which isn't to say that he isn't doing occasional runs of them. From what I recall talking to him it was the castings (or more accurately the moulds and masters) which were the stumblling block.

jwealleans wrote:I think you mean Matthew, Arthur. I believe Martin played football.

There's no mention on his website and I had heard indirectly that he'd withdrawn the etched kits, which isn't to say that he isn't doing occasional runs of them. From what I recall talking to him it was the castings (or more accurately the moulds and masters) which were the stumblling block.

My apologies to Matthew I know him well and I don't know where the name Martin came from!

Yes the castings are the main problem, or so I am told.

ArthurK

Bill Bedford wrote:The maintenance of CLC stock was transferred to Newton Heath in 1938 when Dukinfield works closed. This is why they were given MxxxM numbers and not MxxxE.

Indeed,and that was my point, perhaps not well made, concerning the ex CLC coaches that found themselves back on the former LNER system and surrounded by others of identical design. The situation would presumably have arisen that, when the LNER designed and built coach at York that carried an MxxxxM number/letters was due for works attention it would be sent to Newton Heath but other, identical vehicles due for works surrounding that coach in the same sidings would be sent round the corner into the works where they were all built. An example of how logic that cannot be faulted sometimes produces an illogical outcome.