Bogie Bread Vans Built 1946

[Glossop Central]

Hello members,
Can anyone help me to locate photographs or a drawing of these vans.
I understand they were built at Doncaster works in 1946.
The quoted numbers being 70637 & 70639.
They were intended to help with bread distribution on the introduction
of bread rationing in 1946.
8ft 6in bogies seem to have been fitted at 35ft centres.
51ft 1.1/2in over bodies.
I think they may have been built onto Gresley suburban coach chassis or similar
in a means to produce them quickly due to the obvious demand.
Was there a 70638 as well as I have three ancient Highfield 7mm kits but no information

Thanks to anyone who can help with this enquiry!

[1H was 2E]

There's photo and details of these in the Michael Harris LNER Carriages.
This source states the LNER bought 4 Highland (i.e., LMS) bogie vans to convey bread between Glasgow and Perth. 2 were damaged, so 2 replacements built at Don using 51' u/f of 2 GE section carriages whose bodies had been destroyed in the war.
The u/f were from the same source as those for the LT&S stock.
Possibly the 2 vans carried the numbers of the vans they replaced, so the 'missing' number was still carried by the HR van.
Bit puzzled why the LNE was so short they had to buy from the LMS though...
Photo shows E70637 in 1965 in use on parcels traffic - note, no suffix. Branded 'B Bread'

[65447]

Bit puzzled why the LNE was so short they had to buy from the LMS though...

Expediency; immediate post-war rationing problem, not only of bread but also of materials - especially steel - the use of which was centrally controlled and had to be approved. Also Workshops under-manned and under pressure with post-War work, building amongst other things replacements for wartime losses.

The underframes for the replacements for nos. 3138 and 303 came from ex-GE Section non-vestibuled carriages nos. 60599 - DEA Knebworth 1943 (70637) and 63940 - DEA Stratford 1940 (70639). Both replacements were later classified PMVs and condemned mid-1967, so lasted well. There is a reasonable amount of detail on the official Dia. 335.

60599 was a Dia. 141 TK and after conversion to a Bread Van was used on Liverpool St-Cromer services.

63940 was a Dia. 244 CL and after conversion was also used on the GE Section.

70638 was something completely different.

[1H was 2E]

Thanks, interesting point; but what I really meant was not so much why not a new build but why none of the LNER's existing bogie vans could be spared, but the LMS had did have a surplus.
Looking again at the caption in the Michael Harris book; it's said to be branded "B BREAD" but the code B means non gangwayed brake (i.e. guard's compt); it is non gangwayed but does not have a guards compartment. Also, why is it E with no suffix rather than Sc-----E? I have a feeling that perhaps these non gangwayed bogie vans were regarded as freight stock (vide my previous post querying the postwar van with a D plate B1302) and of course pre nat freight stock would be E prefix. Odd, too, that they were reclassified PMV which I associate (obviously wrongly) with 4 wheel vans.
Regarding the point made about shortage of steel; the first order for BR standard HBs (steel bodied) was cancelled. Soon afterwards, Earlestown produced HBs to a stretched version of the LNER design which were steel framed wood planked. Maybe this rather odd event was caused by the steel shortage, too.

[65447]

Thanks, interesting point; but what I really meant was not so much why not a new build but why none of the LNER's existing bogie vans could be spared, but the LMS had did have a surplus.
Looking again at the caption in the Michael Harris book; it's said to be branded "B BREAD" but the code B means non gangwayed brake (i.e. guard's compt); it is non gangwayed but does not have a guards compartment. Also, why is it E with no suffix rather than Sc-----E? I have a feeling that perhaps these non gangwayed bogie vans were regarded as freight stock (vide my previous post querying the postwar van with a D plate B1302) and of course pre nat freight stock would be E prefix. Odd, too, that they were reclassified PMV which I associate (obviously wrongly) with 4 wheel vans.
Regarding the point made about shortage of steel; the first order for BR standard HBs (steel bodied) was cancelled. Soon afterwards, Earlestown produced HBs to a stretched version of the LNER design which were steel framed wood planked. Maybe this rather odd event was caused by the steel shortage, too.

The LNER built carriages for specific workings or traffic, not for a general pool. Furthermore there was a significant number of carriages DEA (destroyed enemy action) that depleted overall numbers. The telegraphic code was BrV but that was an addition to the codes not standard. PMVs could be 4 or 6 wheeled or bogied - it's the purpose not the wheel arrangement that was the primary reason.

[billdonald]

The point about the shortage of steel and the centralised control thereof is quite pertinent in the railway context. However the shortage was largely driven by the near collapse of the public electricity supply between 1945-7. Although the steel industry was only one of many industrial-based loads placed on the power supply network, it certainly was one of the heaviest. Consider the very large electric motors for blowing engines, rolling mills, raw material hoists to the furnace, electric-arc furnaces for secondary steel production - the list is quite extensive. Furthermore, the smelting element is a continuous process that must be maintained otherwise the furnace and associated stoves will be severely damaged.

The power stations had been running flat out during WW2 and steam-raising and rotating plant such as turbo-alternator sets were in very poor if not dangerous condition. Thus in 1946 there were numerous power restrictions and black-outs as plant failures reached unheard-of levels. For example, in North East England which was regarded a national model in terms of technical innovation, network development and management, the three base-load power stations, namely Dunston-B, North Tees and Carville-B stations dated from 1932, 1921 and 1916 respectively. With a capital lifecycle of 30 years, Carville and North Tees, after the demands of WW2 were worn out. You can see the parallels with the railways in terms of their rolling stock situation. Although the Ministry of Supply has plenty of war-surplus locomotives it could sell to the railway companies, it did not have armfuls of power station plant it could unload into the electricity supply market. So the steel shortage and the coal shortages were directly attributable to the inability to maintain reliability of supply from the power stations.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland

[Seagull]

One of the government policies of the time was to rebuild the merchant fleet to help revive trade especially to ensure that it was not lost to competitors. Merchant shipbuilding was accorded quite a high priority and steel was channeled to this at the expense of other industries.

Alan

[1H was 2E]

The LNER built carriages for specific workings or traffic, not for a general pool. Furthermore there was a significant number of carriages DEA (destroyed enemy action) that depleted overall numbers. The telegraphic code was BrV but that was an addition to the codes not standard. PMVs could be 4 or 6 wheeled or bogied - it's the purpose not the wheel arrangement that was the primary reason.

The LMS managed to rebody 133 war-damaged 57' coach underframes as all-steel BGs (not the LMS code) in 1944; interesting that the LNER took longer to use its stock of underframes. The LMS allocated coaching stock to workings though diagrams but this, too, presumably exhausted the available stock.
My query about the application of the code PMV was because the not-dissimilar LMS standard 40' van (but with end doors) was classified GUV by BR; indeed I cannot recollect any LMS van as being coded PMV. Even when I worked on the WR (and I'm only a youngster) the again similar Siphon Gs were coded SG in the circuit books and on the list of codes. Maybe it was a regional thing; the SR had a few bogie luggage vans (side doors and no guards compt) with gangways; these must have tested the system!