A few questions about GWR numbering

(bear in mind generally that the second number is the important one on the GWR)


Why was the 2251 class started at 2251 instead of maybe at 82xx/92xx?
Why did they re-number oil-fired 28xx as 48xx ,entailing renumbering the 48xx to 14xx and not go for maybe 88xx or 98xx?
Why (related) did they pick 14xx for the 48xx rather than maybe 18xx or 88xx/98xx?
Why did they number the 15xx thus where panniers generally are in (the x4xx or ) x6xx/x7xx series?
Why when the Dukedogs were renumbered did they not go for 92xx instead of 90xx which is in the Express range?
Why did they not allow more than 100 numbers for Granges to allow for the future by numbering the Manors 78xx instead of maybe 88xx/98xx?
Why were the 44xx not numbered in the x5xx series like the very similar 45xx class (or vice versa)?
Why were the oil-fired Castles not renumbered?

Crazy and interesting numbering!

 

it's all academic but interesting (I think)

 

GW numbering is complicated because there were two schemes on top of each other.
Numbers below 4000 were largely in accordance with a scheme designed by Dean, numbers above 4,000 by Churchward, but with overlapping. I could write an essay on it...
But a couple of small ones...
1401-1499 under Dean was used for 4 coupled tanks, and a lot of the Metros and 517s replaced by the 48s had numbers in that range.
1501-1699 had been various 0-6-0 tank classes under Armstrong/Dean, so again it was a sequence used for the same type
2200-2299 was a passenger engine range under Dean, but when the first 2251s were being built the 2221 4-4-2T were still in existence, but scheduled to go.

But as for some of the original choices: I don't know there's any information. If there is I haven't found it. Reasons might be odd.
For instance the Hawksworth Counties were originally planned to be numbered from 9900, but the story goes that Hawksworth was cross that the information was leaked to the Railway press and changed the numbers after the articale appeared. Certainly early County drawings do carry the 9900 numbering. How much truth there is in that I don't know.

 

interesting..it looks almost as it post-Churchward they were reverting to the Dean numbering scheme.

 

i think you need to look carefully at the RCTS volumes which explain all. far too long and complicated to type out here! if it's any consolalation the GWR numbering wasnt anything like as complicated as the LBSCR with 'duplicate' lists! when you look at each GWR example quoted, there are valid reasons given for re-numbering or filling in the next available 'slot'.
cheers,
julian

 

The RCTS volumes will explain everything in what way? I already know what numbers the locos were given, I'm asking why.

 

It does seem as if Hawksworth had a sense of history or nostalgia for reusing some of the number series used in Victorian times for similar locos. (14xx, 15xx, 16xx). I'm not sure why 92xx should be suggested for the Duke dog 's as passenger engines it would surely have to be 90xx or 99xx?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk

 

I suggested 92xx as more logical as they were 32xx originally (second digit being the important one). I wonder did someone in an office somewhere still have them down as Earl Class and mistake them for Castle's?

 

In 1912 the remaining Dukes were brought together into one series running on from 3252 (Duke of Cornwall). But this was a remnant of the Dean numbering system which allocated 3201 to 3500 to four coupled passenger tender locos. At that time none of Churchward's locos had exceeded 100 in number so the second number hadn't achieved the significance it would later. Churchward's x2xx locos were the 2-8-0s. Later Collett would use the by then nearly vacant 22xx and 32xx for his goods tender 0-6-0s but not for passenger.

It does seem that in for the first decade Churchward hadn't really got a long term plan for loco numbering.

 

that's well known, but why did Collet choose 90xx for the dukedogs? Any ideas?

 

as i stated previously if you read the RCTS books all will become clear!
i dont follow the argument re the second digit in the numbering at all - this is bunkum!
cheers,
julian

 

In what way will it become clear as I said before. Second figure is the important one in GWR number series generally, everyone knows that, how do you expect anyone to take notice of your claim as bunkum when you don't say why or produce any evidence? How do you explain 57xx locos being numbered 36/46/96/57/67/77/87/97xx otherwise?

 

"Why did they not allow more than 100 numbers for Granges to allow for the future by numbering the Manors 78xx instead of maybe 88xx/98xx?"
Where a class exceeded 100 members, the second digit was the identifier. Thus Halls were in the 49XX and 59XX range.

 

lack of forethought numbering the Kings 60xx!

 

I've just spotted another trend in the GW numbering I hadn't seen before - considering new class styles there was the 4100 class used for gathering large wheel 4-4-0s, 4200 2-8-0s (1910), 4300 moguls (1911), 4400 small wheel prairies (renumbered 1912), 4500 medium wheel prairies (renumbered 1912), 4600 small 4-4-2T (1913), 4700 fast freight (1920), 4800 0-4-2 (1932), with the Halls taking 4900 as an extension to the 2900 series. But then there was nowhere for the Granges in that sequence. When I think about it the 9400 is another odd selection... But, you know, we are talking about something that happened over 30 or 40 years, and I suspect to a large extent it was "hell, that will do". After all they didn't have spreadsheets to give a easy presentation of lists of numbers...

 

That is interesting. Less haphazard than it looks! All Churchward locos..Grange being Collet

 

Well, lets look at alternatives. 4800 was probably kept clear for 2-8-0s, but was eventually used for the new 0-4-2s in 1932. 4900 for the Halls in 1928 was probably an extension of the Saint series of 2900. 5600 in 1924 seems odd. Presumably 5000 was reserved for future Castles. 5100 was free, but maybe more 2-6-2s were in hand, 5200 was used for 280T from 1923, and 5300 was already in use for 43s. by this time it was clear that no more 44s were going to be built, but 5400 wasn't used until 1930. However the 5600s did have a sort of family resemblance to the 3600 242T so maybe that was the thinking. 57s came along in 1929. From there the gaps were getting sparse, and the 68 slot for the Granges was probably a matter of running out of alternatives!

 

I wonder why they had such an aversion to the higher numbers....shoe-horning them in when a lot of the 9xxx were empty (thinking of the 2251s especially, although maybe they were seen as Mk2 Dean Goods