The LNER Encyclopedia

I have been wondering what method the LNER used in numbering its locos. Given that Mallard was 4468, Bittern was 4464, Gresley was 4498, but in among this was Flying Scotsman 4472. Anyone any idea how they worked this out?

Ad hoc locos were given numbers available. Groups were only used when a major class was built e.g A4. Thompson renumbered the whole of the LNER into classes of Locos postwar.

Ah the old Chestnut, In 1923 when the LNER was formed the NER by being the largest company in the group did not change its loco numbers. the GNR added 3000 to their numbers and the other constituents added different numbers to arrive at the first LNER numbers. As the LNER started to build new locos, the new locos would take on vacant numbers in the list possibly from recently scrapped locos usually using the lowest available number. so actually 4468 was a spare number in the GNR sequence.
This practice of reusing numbers started way back at the start of Railways with the York Newcastle and Berwick Railway doing this and the NER & LNER following suit this led to locos of the same class being allocated numbers miles apart from each other.
This was the norm until 1946 when Thompson carried out a complete renumbering putting classes together with consecutive numbers in a logical order. With the formation of British Railways in 1948 60000 was added to the second LNER number to give the final numbers carried.

I hope this makes sense, somewhere on here I have explained this a little more fully, I will try to refind that post.

Just to add to 52D's explanation, reuse of a number often resulted from a locomotive being scrapped and its replacement, for accounting purposes, took on its predecessor's number. Duplicate numbers were frequently in use.

To further confuse matters, each constituent had its own numbering system, which was not normally logical and continued in use for LNER rebuilds. The GE built the 'Clauds' in descending blocks of 10 from 1900, 1900 being used for 'Claud Hamilton' as it was the year in which it was constructed. There were also some interim re-numberings whilst the Sentinel and Clayton railcars were numbered as coaching stock.

Thompson's renumbering scheme actually dated from 1943, as did the coaching stock renumbering, but wartime delayed introduction for existing stock and it took several years to complete.

For the most comprehensive and accurate explanation see Locomotives of the LNER Part 1 Preliminary Survey.

Thompsons renumbering also made allowances for diesel and electric locos.

One curiosity in the Thompson scheme is that the numbering of locos in age order was not applied to the Pacifics eg one of the GN-built A1s was numbered 102 rather than 35. (The other was of course rebuilt and numbered 113.)

Just one loco kept its earlier LNER number in the Thompson scheme, but what intrigues me is how its numerical neighbours (all J6s) were accurately identified when their old and new numbers were in the same series. A nightmare for spotters?

Btw, the practice of "filling the gaps" when new engines were built was common amongst most of the pre-Grouping railways but post-Grouping only the Southern, besides the LNER, retained the system in respect of inherited locos and even the Southern managed to number its new build in blocks. (Bulleid, of course, had his own ideas when it comes to numbering.)

Kudu

Having spent much of career (such as it was) in what would now be called 'data management', I am amused by the change of requirements regarding locomotive numbering.

Now-a-days of course, the number would only need to be what it always was, a Unique Identifier for the Capital Asset Register (or whatever the correct Railway Accounting terminology was. Other attributes and classification would be associated as required.

Since for most of the railway history we are interested in, all information had to be manually recorded, with dissemination largely by letters and other documents, it is surprising that giving the Loco Number a significance (at least as regards class of loco) was not carried out earlier. However, given the long history of the pre-grouping companies and the long life of locomotives, albeit likely to be built, re-built and sometimes completely transformed in that time, perhaps this is quite explicable. After all many companies had to resort to 'duplicate lists' to cope with obsolescence.
Perhaps this is also why Works Numbering was entirely separate to Running Numbers.

The NER list at grouping had large gaps, which since NER locos were not re-numbered, allowed the LNER to fill with new construction.

I have read that the LNER introduced the Hollerith Punched Card system. Does anybody know more about how it was used, and whether it was used for locomotives?

(I can remember the chaos that could be caused when a tray of cards was dropped!)

I have not seen an example of the Hollerith cards for locomotives although I am quite sure that they existed in tandem with the Engine History cards which are the basis of Yeadon. I have seen the cards used for coaching stock and NPCS and was able to down load a printout of a large number in 1972. They held quite a bit of information including withdrawal details in manuscript.

Incidentally we came by a wicker pannier of them at Eversholt Street and working for ICL at the time, I was able to put them through a modern (then) punched card reader programmed simply to print out what was on them. The reader worked at a rate of 1,250 cards a minute and yet we had only two wrecked cards in about 6,000 processed. Not sure where the basket went but suspect that they may have been burned!

When the LNER comprehensive renumbering scheme was first drawn up in 1943 (though not actually implemented until 1946), the Class P2 2-8-2s were still in existence. Does anyone know what nu,bers they would have been allocated had they not been rebuilt?

GeoffBird wrote:When the LNER comprehensive renumbering scheme was first drawn up in 1943 (though not actually implemented until 1946), the Class P2 2-8-2s were still in existence. Does anyone know what nu,bers they would have been allocated had they not been rebuilt?

At a guess I would say 2xx, 3xx, 4xx or 6xx Which would give 602xx, 603xx, 604xx or 606xx under the BR scheme

In response to the original question, could part of the answer be that Doncaster built engines (A1, A3, A4 etc) carried numbers inn the ex-GNR series ( 3000 to 4999) whilst Doncaster built engines carried numbers (filling in empty spaces) in the ex-NER serioes (1 to 2999)?

GeoffBird wrote:In response to the original question, could part of the answer be that Doncaster built engines (A1, A3, A4 etc) carried numbers inn the ex-GNR series ( 3000 to 4999) whilst Darlington built engines carried numbers (filling in empty spaces) in the ex-NER serioes (1 to 2999)?

Nearly but not quite - it was not the building location but the area that the engines were constructed for.

New engines for the NER section were given numbers in the NER series 0001-2999 Those for the GNR section were given numbers in the GNR series 3000-4999 and so on.

As mentioned above they filled in the gaps rather than using a block of numbers even for quite small classes - the A4s are case in point.

Alan

Hi all, many thanks for your replies to my question, I think I now have some understanding as to how the locos were numbered

I have just joined this forum as I had noticed that the topic was Loco numbering. My apologies in advance if this is not posted in the correct place. My paternal grandfather was an engine driver based as far as I know at Kipps Shed near Coatbridge in the 1920/30s I am led to believe he worked for North British Railways on engine numbers 446 and 447. Would these Locos have been absorbed into LNER at grouping and if so any ideas as to their numbers following this.

Good morning all

The P2's were allocated 990-995 under the Thompson renumbering scheme.

Earlswood nob