A few questions about GWR numbering

The one that most puzzles me is the way the absorbed locos at the grouping were crammed into gaps in the sequences under 1390 in amongst all sorts of elderly GWR locos, when, as you say, it would have surely been a lot less hassle to give them 9000-9999. There was such a pressure for the low numbers that one number appeared on (or at least was allocated to) three different locos within a year...

 

You GWR fans don't know how lucky you are! At least if you see a number like "4923" you can be reasonably sure it's a mixed-traffic 4-6-0.

Us Southern fans have to cope with an amalgamation of three separate pre-grouping schemes that, while they may have made life easy for the bean counters, make almost no operational sense.

Consider a man joining a West Country running shed as a boy at the turn of the last century. Wandering round the shed on his first day as a loco cleaner, he discovers an elderly double-frame 0-6-0 pottering about in his shed numbered 277. Continuing his walk, he stumbles across another locomotive numbered 277, this time one of Mr Adams' neat little 0-6-0 shunting tanks. Somewhat confused, he looks across to the adjacent mainline, just in time to see no 307, another elderly 0-6-0 goods engine, but this time of the single frame type, get passed by no 307, one of Mr Drummnd's new 4-4-0 express engines. At which point, an adjournment to the pub would seem in order, except that said Mr Drummond is very keen on promoting temperance amongst his men...

A decade later, promoted to fireman and now with more experience, he gets used to locos 482 - 490 being mixed traffic 4-6-0s; and then discovers 496 onwards are also mixed-traffic 4-6-0s. "Aha! he says, I've got this sussed" - until one day he walks out to inspect loco 491 and finds instead he's got a ruddy-great hump shunting tank engine...

Finally as a driver in his mid fifties, he hears talk that the Southern will introduce a standardised system for numbering all its locos. "At last" he thinks, just to see 21C123 waiting for him. "It's quite easy", says the running foreman. "You see, the 21C bit refers to the number of wheels, except actually its the number of axles. Oh, and they aren't in the correct order. And you've got to convert a letter to its numerical equivalent. But apart from that it makes lots of logical sense. Look, over there is 10B3298, one of Mr Beattie's little well tanks…"

Tom

 

Plus some in the 2xxx series for luck!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_locomotive_numbering_and_classification

Lots of reading here for fellow anoraks

 

Just couldn't get it right in the South huh....

Thanks for the explanation though Tom. I've always considered the latter style of Southern numbering ( mix of letters and numerals ) to be some of the most bizarre renumberings in history. While not trying to stray too far from GWR number, who on the SR board initiated this new identification trend and for what reasons was it considered sane?

 

I'd have to look that one up, though it is worth remembering that not only did the Southern get a new CME just prior to the war, but also a new General Manager. I can't imagine that scheme getting past the rather dour HA Walker...

If I get time tonight, and to avoid cluttering up this thread too much, I'll put up a thread about Southern numbering, and why in particular there were many examples of locos with the same number running at the same time...

Tom

 

they didn't have the same numbers, they had an A B or E ahead of the numbers.

 

Not pre-grouping … At least two versions of 277 were running round the South Western simultaneously; at least two 307s; as well as numerous others.

Tom

 

The GWR could be pretty confusing on names though: 4 different Castles carried the name Ogmore Castle when built but only one of them kept it until scrapping.

 

So which ones, and why all the faffing about?

Tom

 

Renamings too and from Earl and WW2 names mostly

 

I believe those would be duplicate list numbers with "0" in front

 

Not all of them. As an example, from the late 1918 until renumbered by the Southern Railway around 1925ish, Nos. 741, 744 and 745 were carried simultaneously by Drummond C14s 0-4-0 motor tanks and Urie N15s 4-6-0 express engines. Which might have made for an interesting "please explain" when a motor tank was sent to pull the 11am ex-Waterloo

Tom

 

Here: http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/southern-railway-loco-numbering.212375/, for anyone interested...

Tom

 

so far as the SR is concerned there is a well known pic of ex-IWR RYDE W13 photographed alongside ex-LBSCR W13 CARISBROOKE both with the same numbers! RYDE was one of the preservation movement's early attempts but sadly was cut up at Eastleigh during WW2 , aged some 75 years old.
cheers,
julian

 

I guess my question is - they had four locos (5056, 5080, 7007, 7035) and four names ("Earl of Powis", "Defiant", "Great Western" and "Ogmore Castle"). So why did they keep swapping the Ogmore Castle name round - why not leave it on the first loco it was assigned to and use the other names on the other locos?

Tom

 

Why rename? Why not!
The Earls, by rumour at least, were hastily renamed because the executive were embarrassed by Collet's little joke at the expense of the aristocracy.
And 7007 was the last express passenger locomotive built by the Great Western Railway.

This is another well known one in the same vein...

http://www.steampicturelibrary.com/...ith-no-111-2-4-0-locomotive/print/413723.html

 

the others weren't built.... the nam,e came off and the plates were stored and reused at a later date in each case.