Unused works numbers from Manning Wardle's locomotives

[47137]

I hope the title of this topic makes sense.

 

I have one of the Minerva K class locos and I want to finish it as an imaginary member of the class. The name will be 'Blackwater' after a local river, the year of manufacture probably 1885 (perhaps earlier, I do want to keep the open cab and I want to fit an earlier pattern smokebox door), and I wonder if anyone could suggest a hitherto-unused works number?

 

This is so I can order up the plates.

 

Many thanks,

- Richard.

 

[Compound2632]

I think that's maybe problematic, since works numbers would surely be used consecutively. I suppose not all works numbers would be assigned to locomotives, though, if Manning Wardle were also making other things?

 

This list of preserved engines at least gives you some idea of the likely number range for your date, with 641 built 1877, 865 built 1882, and 1207 built 1890, that's on average a little over 40 works numbers per year, so an engine built in 1885 would presumably have been around the high 900s - low 1000s.

[Nearholmer]

There is a published MW workslist somewhere, but I seem to recall that there is a lot of uncertainty about earlier years. Try the IRS.

 

Earwigo https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manning-Wardle-Company-Ltd-Locomotive/dp/0906829089

 

Or, find a loco of the right class and date that disappeared without trace - there are plenty of industrial locos where ownership can only be traced so far, making it possible that one was sold to your fictional railway.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Nearholmer

[doilum]

Neat idea but I fear you will be disappointed. MW seem to have had a practice of numbering the locomotives as they went out of the door, or at least as construction actually began. Having had a quick scan through FW Mabbott's Locomotive Works List there are no blank numbers. The earliest K is #35 from 1861. 

There is a potted history for each locomotive so I might be able to identify an export model for you to create your own backstory.

[47137]

1 hour ago, doilum said:

Neat idea but I fear you will be disappointed. MW seem to have had a practice of numbering the locomotives as they went out of the door, or at least as construction actually began. Having had a quick scan through FW Mabbott's Locomotive Works List there are no blank numbers. The earliest K is #35 from 1861. 

There is a potted history for each locomotive so I might be able to identify an export model for you to create your own backstory.

 

This is a kind thought. I don't suppose Manning Wardle built a stationary engine or a boiler? This would leave some food for thought for whoever gets the model after I leave it behind :-)

 

Edit: I've ordered a s/h copy of Mabbott's book - I think it will be useful for future searches.

 

Edit 2: If I get really stuck I might go for "060". The lettering will be very small on a 7mm scale plate.

 

- Richard.

Edited September 15, 2021 by 47137

[Nearholmer]

The book is a few years old now, and diligent/obsessive members of the IRS have traced a lot more detail of individual loco histories, and I think sorted-out some of the early confusions, since it was published, so even if you find one that appears to have disappeared, there is a danger that two people in the world will know enough to tell you that, in fact .......... Which is a danger that you might, or might not worry yourself over!

[doilum]

127 of 1864 originally "Tilsit" went to Konigsberg Germany.

158,9,60,61 and 233,4 went to Chile.

206&7 Pero &Betts contractors Russia

369 of 1871 to Humphrey Davy in Berlin 

395 of 1871 to Clark & Punchard contractors in Uruguay 

567&8 of 1875 to Rio de Janeiro

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, doilum said:

Neat idea but I fear you will be disappointed. MW seem to have had a practice of numbering the locomotives as they went out of the door, or at least as construction actually began. Having had a quick scan through FW Mabbott's Locomotive Works List there are no blank numbers. The earliest K is #35 from 1861. 

There is a potted history for each locomotive so I might be able to identify an export model for you to create your own backstory.

So anyone could have easily 'hacked' MW's construction list!

[jamie92208]

If anyone does kniw it will probably be AndrewcJohnson andvKris Ward who run the Leedsengine Info website. I thi k that they are both on RMWeb.

 

Jamie

[47137]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

The book is a few years old now, and diligent/obsessive members of the IRS have traced a lot more detail of individual loco histories, and I think sorted-out some of the early confusions, since it was published, so even if you find one that appears to have disappeared, there is a danger that two people in the world will know enough to tell you that, in fact .......... Which is a danger that you might, or might not worry yourself over!

 

The book sounds like it was a bit ambitious for one person.

 

Me, I'm not going to be worried as long as I choose my plate number for a "reason", something more than a random number. I could even have the middle of the works plate left blank.

 

- Richard.

 

[47137]

On 15/09/2021 at 11:37, Nearholmer said:

The book is a few years old now, and diligent/obsessive members of the IRS have traced a lot more detail of individual loco histories, and I think sorted-out some of the early confusions, since it was published, so even if you find one that appears to have disappeared, there is a danger that two people in the world will know enough to tell you that, in fact .......... Which is a danger that you might, or might not worry yourself over!

Now I have a copy of Mabbott's book I can imagine he left himself wide open to errors. Really, it is a bound copy of a spreadsheet containing basic specifications and a potted history of every locomotive. He must have copied at least some of these from somewhere, no mortal could track down every detail.

 

I think for my model loco the works plates will either show '0000' or a blank space for the works number. Or '01632' if I can squeeze in a fifth digit. None of these will be terribly obtrusive.

 

- Richard.

[doilum]

My guess is that he got his hands on the old order book. There may well be some export orders that didn't make it to the original intended destination.

[47137]

On 24/09/2021 at 09:11, doilum said:

My guess is that he got his hands on the old order book. There may well be some export orders that didn't make it to the original intended destination.

I have an idea.

 

Suppose the firm T A Walker (who did much work for the Manchester Ship Canal) won the contract to build my imaginary railway. They brought with them their K class works number 1032, a standard gauge locomotive built in 1888 for export to Buenos Aires, and completed the works in 1889. The locomotive remained and worked the line until closure in 1912. The same contractor returned to dismantle the railway and took away the locomotive. The locomotive was renamed 'Thornton' and exported, as recorded in the works list.

 

The works list stays correct and the only fictional part is a 23-year hiatus before the locomotive was exported. I haven't found any photos of Thornton, but if it looks markedly different to my own K class then I can only imagine some rebuilding happened after export.

 

I think this will satisfy me, it is the best way I can think of to work a fiction into history.

 

- Richard.

Edited October 17, 2021 by 47137
typos

[47137]

On 14/09/2021 at 22:06, Compound2632 said:

I think that's maybe problematic, since works numbers would surely be used consecutively. I suppose not all works numbers would be assigned to locomotives, though, if Manning Wardle were also making other things?

 

This list of preserved engines at least gives you some idea of the likely number range for your date, with 641 built 1877, 865 built 1882, and 1207 built 1890, that's on average a little over 40 works numbers per year, so an engine built in 1885 would presumably have been around the high 900s - low 1000s.

 

I have received the plates from Light Railway Stores so here she is:

 

 

I spent ages worrying about the build year but it turns out to be illegible ... so if I rewind my setting back to 1886 I am sure everything will still look fine :-)

 

- Richard