Southern locomotive numbering

[kevinlms]

I must admit I know little about the pre-group locomotives of the Southern, but I'm curious of the numbering of a small class of SECR - the P class 0-6-0T

 

There were only 8 built, yet their number range varied over arange of over 500. At foot of this page.

 

http://www.semgonline.com/steam/pclass_01.html

 

I can see that the SECR, allocated numbers randomly (replacing retired numbers?) and nothing unusual about that policy. It was good enough for the LNWR, for instance.

 

But why did the SR (and later BR), not attempt to renumber them in a block? It appears that in 1927, some were renumbered (presumably, to make way for a new class of locos). Since it renumbering two, why not all of them? Instead BR, just added 3XXXX, to whatever was there.

 

BR went to a fair bit of trouble renumbering the 'duplicate' number range of 2XXXX to become 58XXX, so why not the ex-Southern?

[Dunsignalling]

Renumbering usually took place to free up sequences for new-build classes, it was seldom done for the sake of tidiness, the LNER excepted.

 

Only two of the numbers on the P Class were wanted for anything else (King Arthurs), so the rest were left alone by the SR beyond (later) adding the obligatory 1000. Had that scheme been adopted earlier (rather than the Works initials) renumbering wouldn't have been necessary. The 1xxx numbers, in turn, didn't get in the way of anything BR wanted to do so they were again ignored but for adding the 30000. 

 

ex-LSWR locos from the 0xxx Duplicate List were re-numbered in the 3xxx series by the SR and subsequently in the 305xx series by BR but the SECR had no duplicate list that required organising. What the LMS did was basically similar, but on a larger scale, moving numerically small classes and the odd survivors of largely obsolescent ones out of the main (up to 9999) numbering zone to clear the way for large numbers of new 5MT and 8F locos.

 

BR wanted the 2xxxx series for electric locos, hence the renumbering of the LMS locos affected. But for that decision, they could have been left unaltered without impinging on any other allocated range. The greater attention applied to the LMS Duplicate List (even if they didn't call it that) smacks of someone with enough clout recognising that it was an unholy mess and deciding to do something about it! 

 

However, given that many of the affected locos would have been slated for early withdrawal, the complexity of the exercise may have been excessive.

 

John

Edited June 12, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[pH]

I must admit I know little about the pre-group locomotives of the Southern, but I'm curious of the numbering of a small class of SECR - the P class 0-6-0T

 

There were only 8 built, yet their number range varied over arange of over 500. At foot of this page.

 

http://www.semgonline.com/steam/pclass_01.html

 

I can see that the SECR, allocated numbers randomly (replacing retired numbers?) and nothing unusual about that policy. It was good enough for the LNWR, for instance.

 

But why did the SR (and later BR), not attempt to renumber them in a block? It appears that in 1927, some were renumbered (presumably, to make way for a new class of locos). Since it renumbering two, why not all of them? Instead BR, just added 3XXXX, to whatever was there.

 

BR went to a fair bit of trouble renumbering the 'duplicate' number range of 2XXXX to become 58XXX, so why not the ex-Southern?

The LMS 2xxxx had to be renumbered, or else adding 40000 to the numbers would have put them into the 6xxxx series, which had been allocated to ex-LNER engines.

 

What's the necessity for members of a class to be numbered sequentially? As long as each one has a unique number on it, they can be identified for operational purposes. OK, non-sequential numbering was inconvenient for spotters, but they weren't too high on railways' lists of concerns.

 

And the SR/Southern Region numbers weren't the only unusual numbering sequence. Look at the LMS Fairburn tanks' numbers, or the whole GWR/Western Region handling of classes with more than 100 members (57xx tanks as an extreme example).

 

(Edit - spelling)

Edited June 12, 2017 by pH

[Steamport Southport]

I have read somewhere before that most of the locomotives that were affected were the ones that were due for earlier withdrawal either because they were antiqued or due to mass electrification. With the rest being renumbered into blocks when suitable blocks became available.

 

Then Bulleid came along with his system and the plan was to renumber the main classes not due for early withdrawal into this new system. Locomotives such as the LN, V, U, N, etc. would have received these alpha numerical numbers.

 

 

So I believe they planned on cleaning up the mess, but for various reasons it never happened.

 

 

Jason

[Oldddudders]

I have read somewhere before that most of the locomotives that were affected were the ones that were due for earlier withdrawal either because they were antiqued or due to mass electrification. With the rest being renumbered into blocks when suitable blocks became available.

 

Then Bulleid came along with his system and the plan was to renumber the main classes not due for early withdrawal into this new system. Locomotives such as the LN, V, U, N, etc. would have received these alpha numerical numbers.

 

 

So I believe they planned on cleaning up the mess, but for various reasons it never happened.

 

 

Jason

I suspect the war scuppered a great many good intentions across an awful lot of firms.

[The Johnster]

Also it is worth mentioning that the Southern, and BR (S), was very entrenched in terms of operating and administration to it's three pregrouping component railways, which effectively survived as the Eastern, Central, and Western Sections using Ashford, Brighton, and Eastleigh respectively as centres of locomotive matters.  The old railways, as new 'sections' were largely left to get on with things as they had always done, with only the imposition of a standard livery and the sharing of new locos and stock to interrupt custom ancient and time honoured.  Bullied may, given time, have renumbered Southern Region's more modern locos his own way, but his departure after the Leader fiasco was under such circumstances that few of his ideas would have been suitable for anyone who wanted to advance their career afterwards.  

 

A number is only something painted on the side of a loco to identify it to the crew ordered to take it out and to facilitate records; it saves the shed foreman from having to walk out in the rain to say 'that one there'.  It is much more important that boilers have numbers than that locomotives do, as these need to be inspected by one of Her Majesty's inspectors of boilers at regular intervals, so they need to be able to be swapped around among locos.  In reality, it is the locos that are swapped around among boilers...

Edited June 12, 2017 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

I must admit I know little about the pre-group locomotives of the Southern, but I'm curious of the numbering of a small class of SECR - the P class 0-6-0T

 

There were only 8 built, yet their number range varied over arange of over 500. At foot of this page.

 

http://www.semgonline.com/steam/pclass_01.html

 

I can see that the SECR, allocated numbers randomly (replacing retired numbers?) and nothing unusual about that policy. It was good enough for the LNWR, for instance.

 

But why did the SR (and later BR), not attempt to renumber them in a block? It appears that in 1927, some were renumbered (presumably, to make way for a new class of locos). Since it renumbering two, why not all of them? Instead BR, just added 3XXXX, to whatever was there.

 

BR went to a fair bit of trouble renumbering the 'duplicate' number range of 2XXXX to become 58XXX, so why not the ex-Southern?

 

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

 

As far as the staff were concerned things were basically as they had been before the Grouping just with an additional digit, or couple of digits at the front of the old number.

 

Complete renumbering of any fleet of locos or vehicles  is an expensive process and hardly likely to be indulged in unless there are very good reasons to justify the cost - for example the GWR did it with absorbed engines simply in order get them in an obvious group standing alongside but apart from its own standard numbering system.  And the best example of all was the LNER renumbering as part of Thompson's standardisation scheme although it could hardly be described as entirely logical.  But generally at the Grouping, as at Nationalisation - it was no more than a case of dropping existing numbers into series led by an additional digit or pair of digits (i.e thousands, or tens of thousands)

[Oldddudders]

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

Umm. Not sure about the LSWR numbers, Mike. Most were simply left as they had been, surely?

[Davey]

When the South Eastern Railway entered a working partnership with the London Chatham & dover Railway in 1899 under the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Joint Committee, all L.C.&D.R. locomotive numbers were increased by the addition of 459 to the original L.C.&D.R. number, there being 458 locomotives in the S.E.R fleet.

 

Davey

[phil-b259]

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

 

As far as the staff were concerned things were basically as they had been before the Grouping just with an additional digit, or couple of digits at the front of the old number.

 

Complete renumbering of any fleet of locos or vehicles  is an expensive process and hardly likely to be indulged in unless there are very good reasons to justify the cost - for example the GWR did it with absorbed engines simply in order get them in an obvious group standing alongside but apart from its own standard numbering system.  And the best example of all was the LNER renumbering as part of Thompson's standardisation scheme although it could hardly be described as entirely logical.  But generally at the Grouping, as at Nationalisation - it was no more than a case of dropping existing numbers into series led by an additional digit or pair of digits (i.e thousands, or tens of thousands)

 

 

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

Umm. Not sure about the LSWR numbers, Mike. Most were simply left as they had been, surely?

 

Upon grouping in 1922 the new Southern Railway company initially used letter prefixes - A for SECR locos, B for LBSCR, locos and E for LSWR locos. As new loco building for the new company was mainly carried out at Eastleigh most SR designs (e.g. the LN and initial batch of V locos) came out with the E prefix.

 

In the mid 1930s this arrangement was changed with locos previously carrying the A prefix having 1000 added to their numbers instead and B prefixed locos having 2000. Ex LSWR locos (and pure SR built ones) carrying the E prefix simply lost the prefix and retained two or three digit numbers.

 

BR then added 30,000 to ALL ex Southern numbers upon nationalisation.

[Dunsignalling]

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

Umm. Not sure about the LSWR numbers, Mike. Most were simply left as they had been, surely?

AFAIK, the only LSWR locos renumbered as a consequence of the Grouping were those on the Duplicate List.

 

Under the LSWR, locos transferred to the Duplicate List had their original three digit numbers prefixed by a nought.

 

The SR just substituted a three for the nought, and upon nationalisation, they should therefore have become 33xxx. BR evidently didn't want a collection of randomly numbered relics tacked on to the end of the Q1 class block so renumbered them consecutively in the vacant upper half of the 305xx series.

 

The only classes affected were eighteen 0395 0-6-0s, three Beattie Well tanks, three Adams Radials and two C14 0-4-0Ts. As a Departmental loco, the third surviving C14, No.77S, was ignored.

 

One loco escaped the process, the Southampton Docks 0-4-0ST No.3458 which, somewhat illogically, became 30458 and so followed the block occupied by the "Eastleigh Arthurs"..  

 

John

Edited June 13, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[asmay2002]

If you carry out a Grouping of several Pre-Grouping companies the job is complex and takes time therefore wherever possible you adopt the simplest available approach.  So the Southern did exactly that - all engine numbers were turned into 4 digit number by in many cases simply adding a leading digit or pair of digits - 1/10 for the SECR. 2/20 for the LBSCR, and 3/30 for the LSWR;  with slight variations where duplicate list numbers needed to be picked up.

 

As far as the staff were concerned things were basically as they had been before the Grouping just with an additional digit, or couple of digits at the front of the old number.

 

Complete renumbering of any fleet of locos or vehicles  is an expensive process and hardly likely to be indulged in unless there are very good reasons to justify the cost - for example the GWR did it with absorbed engines simply in order get them in an obvious group standing alongside but apart from its own standard numbering system.  And the best example of all was the LNER renumbering as part of Thompson's standardisation scheme although it could hardly be described as entirely logical.  But generally at the Grouping, as at Nationalisation - it was no more than a case of dropping existing numbers into series led by an additional digit or pair of digits (i.e thousands, or tens of thousands)

The LMS renumbered everything apart from the ex MR engines into an orderly structure in 1923 tidying up the mess in the process.

[Steamport Southport]

Thinking about it, BR also got in a muddle with the diesels. Random blocks of numbers with no real sequence. Not solved until they brought in TOPS.

 

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

The LMS renumbered everything apart from the ex MR engines into an orderly structure in 1923 tidying up the mess in the process.

Agreed, they also took into account the Midland system of numbering the locos in the sequence of Passenger Tender locos (lowest numbers), Passenger Tank locos, Freight Tank locos & Freight Tender locos (highest numbers). Othe companies locos, followed suit, after the Midland locos. 

 

So the LMS in early days ended up as

 

Midland Division 1-4999 allocated to ex Midland locos (effectively staying the same). Ex NSR & S&DJR were fitted into gaps.

Western Division 5000-9999 ex LNWR locos (this involved extensive renumbering into blocks from a previous random system).

Central Division 10000-12999 ex L&Y locos. Also lots of railways from Cumbria etc).

Northern Division  14000-17999 All Scottish railway.

 

The system had lots of gaps, so new construction filled in many of these spares.

 

However, since the LMS continued to build new locos in vast numbers, the gaps proved to be insufficient, so the system soon got messed up. So the fleet was significantly renumbered in 1934.

 

 

Sorry for the digression, but it appears that the LMS wanted a nice tidy numbering system (that worked well - not), with everything in block numbers.

 

The Southern on the other hand, felt no such need.

 

 

Thanks everyone, for their thoughts.

[John M Upton]

Just out of interest did anyone else in the World adopt the same utterly bonkers numbering/lettering system Bulleid instituted or was this thankfully fairly short lived idea a uniquely Southern Railway aberration?

[Steamport Southport]

Hardly short lived. We still use it today for diesels and electrics. A1A-A1A, Bo-Bo, Co-Co, 1Co-Co1, etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_arrangement

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIC_classification_of_locomotive_axle_arrangements

 

Quite a few of the continental railways especially the French also used it for steam.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SNCF_classes#Steam_locomotives

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Zomboid]

Just out of interest did anyone else in the World adopt the same utterly bonkers numbering/lettering system Bulleid instituted or was this thankfully fairly short lived idea a uniquely Southern Railway aberration?

Given that numbering is pretty much entirely arbitrary, I don't think you could describe it as bonkers. It's a way to bring a semblance of order to what otherwise could have been a pretty random array of numbers.

And the principle he applied is what SNCF for one were up to, if not the same in terms of detail.

 

Edit - one thing I don't understand is the order he used. A Pacific can be described under one of the systems for such things as 2C1, but he went with 21C which I've never seen elsewhere.

Would be fun to apply his system to some of the larger locos that have graced the rails around the world though - a 22DD "big boy" for example. How an EAR 59 class Garratt with intermediate trailing wheels would work though... 21D+D21? 222DD?

Edited June 15, 2017 by Zomboid