Horse boxes

[1H was 2E]

The layout of the vehicle's cattle and attendant's compartments is very similar to that of the LMS prize cattle van to Diag. 1876. However, the data I have from Essery & Jenkinson's 'LMS Coaches - An illustrated history' is that all the LMS-built cattle vans were extinct by 3/65. That would leave lot 1638 to Diag. 1877 built at Earlestown in 1952 (surprise!) as a contender for the vehicle shown.

The book referred to shows that, at the time of preparation, the last of the 1952 Earlestown-built special cattle vans had yet to be withdrawn, and it certainly looks like one. Although the 3-part version of the book was published in 1991-on, the original single volume was published in 1970 and presumably based on data extracted in 1968 or 69. I remember an immaculate one in a bay at Aberdeen in 1968, presumably waiting for an Aberdeen Angus bull.

It's also maybe worth pointing out that Earlestown also built LNER design horseboxes in 1954-5, and these were allocated LMS-series diagram and lot numbers but numbered in the LNER series. It seems that when passenger stock was built by BR to a pre-nationalisation design the 'parent' company's diagram, lot, and the running numbers were used, but for freight stock all stock built by BR got BR series numbers. An extreme example of the latter was the NER design wooden underframe, wooden bodied 13t coal hopper built to diag 1/140 in lot 2050, B400200-B400499. Reverting to the Earlestown horseboxes, they had E suffix (ER maintenance) but were not solely allocated to the LM - were any on the ER?

[1H was 2E]

It tends to be forgotten that in the Working Timetable the letters "HC" were used to indicate the trains that were NOT allowed to have horse boxes (or carriage trucks) attached.

.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. None of the WTTs I have (all BR, admittedly) show this code; however, some trains, often overnight ones conveying parcels and mail traffic as well as passenger, were known as "H&C" and possibly this appeared in official documents and this stood for "Horse and Carriage" when, in the days before Motor-Rail, the wealthy would take their coach and horse with them.

Paraphrasing the General Appendix, there is reference in it to passengers accompanying horses (and cars and corpses) and the inference is, because they are described as passengers, a normal ticket would be required. However, there is also reference to "Persons, bona fide in charge of livestock" travelling in " Guard's van, third class carriage or same vehicle as the animals" must pay the "prescribed fare". Perhaps the latter is what produces the mysterious ticket you allude to. However, it does appear that "livestock" does not include horses.

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Earlestown also built LNER design horseboxes in 1954-5, and these were allocated LMS-series diagram and lot numbers but numbered in the LNER series.

The BR build of 1954-55 was not to an LNER design. As described in my previous message, it was a BR development of an LNER design. It had different dimensions and fittings. Key developments were in a longer wheelbase for greater stability at speed, more comfortable facilities for the groom (to counter competition from the roads), and some sorely needed improvements in the fittings that the LNER had turned a blind eye to. Small wonder that at Newmarket they quickly ousted the LNER design.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. None of the WTTs I have (all BR, admittedly) show this code; however, some trains, often overnight ones conveying parcels and mail traffic as well as passenger, were known as "H&C" and possibly this appeared in official documents and this stood for "Horse and Carriage" when, in the days before Motor-Rail, the wealthy would take their coach and horse with them.

"HC" was used in WTTs all through the LNER period (I quote from GC and GN Sections and CLC, but "H" by the NE Area) and during BR days (at least up to 1960 per WTTs to hand) with pretty well the same explanation. This is verbatim from 1960:
"Horse boxes, carriage trucks and additional non-passenger-carrying vehicles are not conveyed by this train".

"HX" was a derivative from around 1947 and as above but referred to intermediate stations, allowing conveyance between end points of the journey.

I'm not immediately familiar with "H&C" and need to look into it rather than try guess(!). If it's in a WTT, there should be an explanation. What period and where did you see it? I can't find it anywhere except in a 1947 WTT Explanation where it was used in a description when clearly referring to "HC", a verbal transcription, you might say: railway documents, no matter how official, are as fallible as the humans who produce them!

I might add that, in the 1947-60 WTTs I have just looked at, I am seeing HC and HX listed on the Explanation pages, but no longer being used. At the moment I cannot explain this.

[John Palmer]

Thanks to 1H was 2E and Bois Roussel for the interesting information about horse- and cattle box building by Earlestown.

I was indeed getting my information from the original, single volume edition of 'LMS Coaches', so have no idea what additional information, if any, the 3-volume edition may have contained. I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that my photograph was of the 24' length version of the LMS prize cattle van built in 1952 to Diag.1877, but remain in a quandary as to whether these longer vans were built to a coaching stock end profile with turnunder, or were straight-sided, as with the shorter vans to Diag. 1876.

My copy of 'LMS Coaches' contains a summary table with details of the 1954/55-built horseboxes with the following note: "Many of these were allocated off the London Midland Region with the appropriate regional prefixes, etc. An LNER design wtih LNER series number." The text, however, says that the first 25 were built at York in 1954, and that "basically the design emanated from the LNER to ER Diagram 9." Presumably the sense of this is that they reflected LNER design practice rather than being an LNER design and were built to an Eastern Region diagram. There's certainly a strong family resemblance to LNER 22' horseboxes to Diag.5, with some (all?) of the extra length in an enlarged groom's compartment.

One thing I find a bit odd is numbering conventions revealed by photographs of these horseboxes. 'LMS Coaches' shows one of the 'Eastern Region design' horseboxes to Diag. 2181 bearing the number E2438E. The LNER Diag.5 horsebox illustrated in 'Historic Carriage Drawings' Vol.3 is numbered E2356 and no suffix. Am I wrong in thinking that the first mentioned vehicle should not have had an 'E' suffix and that the second should?

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Rolling stock numbering - I can't, off the top of my head, give dates for this but initial BR practice was a prefix for Big Four origin. After a while, that became a suffix and a prefix was added to indicate the region where allocated. < This is wrong, see following posts. SB> There was overlap, of course, but essentially it was a time thing. I think there's a tendency to view numbering through modern eyes where things tend to be neatly chronological. A lot of numbering in Big Four days, and earlier, was random, using numbers released by scrapping. BR did a lot of renumbering and while an effort was made in a batch to sequence by date of construction, I'm not sure that it was always possible, and whole batches were certainly out of chronological order.

[John Palmer]

Makes sense to me, particularly since I came across another photograph confirming that the 'company of origin' suffix convention was not necessarily applied even after application of a fresh number in BR Gill Sans style: see ex-Cheshire Lines third M336 at Plate 115 in Michael Harris' 'GNR and ECJS Carriages'.

[65447]

Rolling stock numbering - I can't, off the top of my head, give dates for this but initial BR practice was a prefix for Big Four origin. After a while, that became a suffix and a prefix was added to indicate the region where allocated. There was overlap, of course, but essentially it was a time thing. I think there's a tendency to view numbering through modern eyes where things tend to be neatly chronological. A lot of numbering in Big Four days, and earlier, was random, using numbers released by scrapping. BR did a lot of renumbering and while an effort was made in a batch to sequence by date of construction, I'm not sure that it was always possible, and whole batches were certainly out of chronological order.

Providing clarity to confusion, the prefix was to denote the regional allocation, else why would ex-LNER carriages receive SC (Scottish), M (Midland, principally the ex-CLC stock), or W (e.g. on the Hemyock branch)?

Change occurred following the introduction of BR standard coaching stock (later referred to as MK1 after the introduction of Mk2 designs), where the BR rolling stock carried the regional prefix and the pre-BR stock both that prefix and a suffix to denote the region responsible for maintenance.

Obviously this change did not take place until after the introduction of the first production BR standard coaching stock in early 1951.

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Numbering in BR days - a summary may be useful for clarifying confusion (some from me) during times of great change and even inconsistency. By "Mk1", I mean the revised system after construction of Mk.1 stock gathered pace. There were always overlaps. And not all vehicles were renumbered after transfer.

1948-Mk1 - prefix only

The Scottish region was part of BR from the outset but I don't know when Sc began to be used as a prefix for regional allocation (which included financial responsibility for operation and maintenance). Elsewhere regional allocation was initially synonymous with the former Big Four companies.

Post-Mk1 - prefix and suffix

The same practice was used for the prefix (and, later, NE and GE). A suffix was added vis a vis maintenance and it could mean:
- Big Four designs built by the Big Four,
- Big Four designs built under BR auspices,
- BR-built designs based on development of Big Four designs.
It boils down to where the spares and maintenance expertise were based. The owning region did not have to send to the suffixed region, it could do the work itself.

The aforementioned horse boxes built at Earlestown in 1954-55 (where I think we started) had E prefix and E suffix. Not Bxxxxx. It should have been the latter but LNER components were used and initial allocation was entirely for the ER. Not entirely consistent, but railway bureaucracy was like any bureaucracy, often acting under its own imperatives in matters of little import in the wider scheme of things. I've said before that too much can be read into official paperwork!

I need to pull out my copy of the diagram for the 1954-55 horse box to check if all were ExxxxE. And if any were later allocated to the LMR, for example, where they were used.

[65447]

LNER horse box evolution

Both LNER designs derived from a GER design and, as already touched on, that line of development continued into BR days! I've submitted an account of this evolution to the GER Society for their Journal (due in the New Year, I believe).

Are you sure they were GER designs, rather than merely recorded as GER diagrams?

Both types were built by the Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon Co., with some also being built to the order of private owners and for other railway companies.

[1H was 2E]

The aforementioned horse boxes built at Earlestown in 1954-55 (where I think we started) had E prefix and E suffix. Not Bxxxxx. It should have been the latter but LNER components were used and initial allocation was entirely for the ER. Not entirely consistent, but railway bureaucracy was like any bureaucracy, often acting under its own imperatives in matters of little import in the wider scheme of things. I've said before that too much can be read into official paperwork!

I need to pull out my copy of the diagram for the 1954-55 horse box to check if all were ExxxxE. And if any were later allocated to the LMR, for example, where they were used.

At least some of the Earlestown HBs were M prefix; I photographed one at Rugby 1969. Horseboxes are non passenger carrying coaching stock (*NPCCS"); freight stock has a B prefix.

On the subject of the query about LM Prize Cattle Vans, in the book " LMS Standard Coaching Stock, Part 1" there is a copy of diagram 1877 and this shows they were, unlike D1876, built to a coaching profile, though being only 8' 6 1/2" wide the tumblehome etc is quite shallow.
The same book was the source of my erroneous assertion that the Earlestown HBs were built to an LNER design - sorry.
As has already been mentioned, the official explanation was always that the suffix, when adopted, was the maintaining region not necessarily the company of design. The only definite case to confirm that is that the Shenfield sets were E suffix but the Manchester-Glossop/Hadfield sets (same design, adjacent number series) were M suffix.
I'm still racking my brain about "H&C" but it was definitely used in the Trains Office and Control in my youth.

[John Palmer]

On the subject of the query about LM Prize Cattle Vans, in the book " LMS Standard Coaching Stock, Part 1" there is a copy of diagram 1877 and this shows they were, unlike D1876, built to a coaching profile, though being only 8' 6 1/2" wide the tumblehome etc is quite shallow..

Now that is most welcome confirmation of what my photograph seemed to be telling me - thank you very much! Just goes to show how incomplete my library is, however.

I photographed one at Rugby 1969.

Good to know that others were taking photographs of rolling stock rather than just locomotives at a time when the ancient and unusual had not entirely vanished from the railway scene. During the few trips I made to Woodham's yard I spent as much time taking pictures of wagons in for cutting as I did of locomotives.

[60117 Bois Roussel]

At least some of the Earlestown HBs were M prefix; I photographed one at Rugby 1969. Horseboxes are non passenger carrying coaching stock (*NPCCS"); freight stock has a B prefix.

Thank you (for info and correction). There is a picture of a horse train I have seen in a book with some of these boxes and an LMS support coach captioned as an Aintree-Newmarket working, which with that formation it could hardly be. This info confirms an LMS-origin train, destination unknown. Interesting how this has got teased out in an LNER forum - nothing beats wide horizons!

I haven't located the LNER Diagram yet but it's likely to have referred only to the boxes allocated to the ER and thus not telling the whole story.

[Bill Bedford]

The same practice was used for the prefix (and, later, NE and GE). A suffix was added vis a vis maintenance and it could mean:
- Big Four designs built by the Big Four,
- Big Four designs built under BR auspices,
- BR-built designs based on development of Big Four designs.
It boils down to where the spares and maintenance expertise were based. The owning region did not have to send to the suffixed region, it could do the work itself.

Ex-CLC Gresley coaches were all numbered MXXXXM as they were all maintained a Newton Heath.

Scottish pre-nationalisation coaches could be numbered either ScXXXXM or ScXXXXE depending on which works did the maintenance.

[65447]

Numbering in BR days - a summary may be useful for clarifying confusion (some from me) during times of great change and even inconsistency. By "Mk1", I mean the revised system after construction of Mk.1 stock gathered pace. There were always overlaps. And not all vehicles were renumbered after transfer.

This sort of summary only adds to the confusion, especially when it is incomplete and still contains errors.

The 'SC' prefix was applied as existing vehicles entered works or repair shops, but more deliberately as new stock was constructed and entered service. Since much of the new construction of 'Thompson' carriages was allocated to the Scottish Region this prefix appeared and spread rapidly.

Elsewhere allocation was not always initially synonymous with the former 'Big Four' companies; Bill Bedford has beaten me to pointing out the situation appertaining to the CLC stock. Whether built to either standard LNER or specific CLC diagrams, the carriages were numbered in CLC series. The CLC was one of a number of former companies or lines that changed hands from 1948, the LT&S being another. CLC carriages initially retained their existing numbers but prefixed 'M' then, from 1950, were renumbered into LMR (?) series, still prefixed 'M' and most were suffixed 'M' but some, for whatever reason, were suffixed 'E'.

The suffix letter indicated the Region responsible for holding technical information (typically the one that built or ordered it) and usually responsible for its maintenance. This clarification arises from back-checking in another forum dedicated to the subject.

...but railway bureaucracy was like any bureaucracy, often acting under its own imperatives in matters of little import in the wider scheme of things. I've said before that too much can be read into official paperwork!

In other words please don't make it up!

[Andy W]

The prefix change was reportable to the CSR (Central Stock Registry), later the RSL (Rolling Stock Library) and anyone (on the ER at least) carrying it out had to fill in the appropriate CSR/RSL form. If a batch of vehicles had been transfered into the ER, the numbers would be wired out and then you got busy if they came onto your depot/s.

The suffix was used in the maintenance offices/depots I worked in as a type identifier when combined with the number. At ER Regional level it was used in shopping as anything that was M or S or W suffix was usually offered to the relevant region (who looked after that type) first before allocating to a ER depot/works for shop repairs.

As the prefix was an operating region ownership code (and therefore where the costs were going to go), the shopping of those vehicles was important to those owning regions and they usually had the final say as to shopping, the type of repair and whether to scrap or not.