The LNER Encyclopedia

Can anyone explain to me the abbreviations 'WT' and 'WB' (they are used with regard to a 1927 excursion). The 'T' and 'B' look like third and brake third.
Any help would be most appreciated.

Which section or constituent company? Pre-grouping telegraphic codes remained in use at this time.

If its ex NER, GER or GNSR:

'W' == Westinghouse brakes.

many thanks bill. that was my initial thought but needed someone to confirm it.
regards
booklad

hello again bill
perhaps you can help me with another lner coach abbreviation - dating from 1935, it's 'ST'. how about 'Sleeper Third'?
regards
booklad

booklad wrote: perhaps you can help me with another lner coach abbreviation - dating from 1935, it's 'ST'. how about 'Sleeper Third'?

It's more likely to be saloon third. You should be able to tell from the context. Sleepers were only used on specific trains, saloons were much used for excursions and could be added to regular trains to convey parties.

hello again bill
the context is an overnight (and 3rd class) newcastle to blackpool excursion on 21 september 1935, in which case saloon third does look more likely. thanks again for your help.
regards
booklad

me again bill
help please with two more abbreviations if you can: BTLV and TLV.
The railway company is the NER, the year in question is 1910, and I've attached a photocopy of the excursion working they relate to (it's fascinating).
regards
booklad

I'm sure the the two abbreviations are:

BTLV - Brake Third Lavatory Vestibule
TLV - Third Lavatory Vestibule

Both these were compartment stock, with internal corridors only. BTLV(832) I've identified as diagram 113, a straight sided BT with six compartments. The third I've not yet identified.

If 3575 is the number of the vehicle.

According to the NERA list, as at 31-12-1906, No. 3575 is a Diagram 117 6-wheel vehicle, several of which were acquired by the NER from ECJS.

It has lavatories, which all areas of the vehicle can access, but not internal corridors, as such.

It would suit the type of train described, I think.

John

bill & john
my thanks to you both.
in case you wonder why i ask such questions, i'm working on a monograph about seaside excursions in county durham and some coaching stock abbreviations are simply beyond my ken.
regards
booklad

I've attach one of the from pages of the May 1928 NEA carriage roster. This gives the telegraphic code as the existed at the time. 1928 was in the middle of the change from westinghouse to vacuum brakes so the brake codes are more complicated than at other times.

Curious how the world changed after the GNR took over at Grouping. In the pre-Grouping NER code list the vehicles were Westinghouse-braked by default, i.e. no 'W' in the code, whereas those fitted with the vacuum brake had 'V' appended to their codes.

Wasn't there an explicit decision to standardise on vacuum braking except for the 'Jazz' services? I can't remember when it was but I'd have imagined it was relatively soon after 1923.

65447 wrote:Curious how the world changed after the GNR took over at Grouping. In the pre-Grouping NER code list the vehicles were Westinghouse-braked by default, i.e. no 'W' in the code, whereas those fitted with the vacuum brake had 'V' appended to their codes.

So the GNR took over did they? Despite the CGM being from the NER? The first 1923 Passenger Manager's Committee that specified new coaching stock was chaired by Viscount Grey (as in Sir Edward Grey, who will be much in the news this year, because he was Foreign Secretary in the years up to and including 1914 - ' the lamps are going out all over Europe... etc), who was a former NER director. There was also interesting correspondence between Gresley (ex GNR) and Stamer (ex NER) about coach constructional details. In some details NER practice was more advanced, although (like round cornered windows) not always followed.

I've just checked Harris, and the formal Unification of Brakes Programme was initiated in March 1928, from a committee chaired by Bullied (ex GNR). If I understand correctly though, prior to that the brakes on newly ordered vehicles would have been specified to match the services they were intended for.

However, if the GNR took over engineering design, why was the GNR wagon length of 19' with a wheelbase of 10' or 10'6" discarded for the inferior RCH standards?

Excuse me now, I need to get back to completing a GNR pre-Gresley van. The brake is very odd!