London Transport train reporting numbers/Lettering-typeface for engineering wagons/brake vans.

[46444]

I am currently researching these 3 digit train reporting codes used on London Transport and synonymous with the  engineering trains worked by the Pannier tanks.

 

Some images below to illustrate the number sets.

 

 

 

 

I have asked Steve at Railtec Transfers if he could make me up some 3D printed sets but he requires some prototype information.

 

 

I have approached the London Transport Museum library and they have been most helpful. However, they appear to be struggling to find information on these numberplates.

 

 

With the demise of Model Master Transfers I can not find a source of engineering wagons/brake van transfers. I do have a small stash of the Model Master ones.

 

Does anyone know of another supplier in 4mm scale or know of the type face used on engineering wagons/brake vans I could use to get some transfers made up.

 

With the soon to be released Rapido Metropolitan E Class I would image there would be a need for detailing and transfers for engineering stock.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by 46444

[Jeff Smith]

Microscale.com has a vast range of alphabet decals in various styles, colours and sizes.  These are generally US railroads so you will just have to look through the range on line.  Sizes may be quoted as inches in HO scale.  I don't know if there are any distributors in the UK but I buy them on eBay in the US.

[46444]

Thanks Jeff. 

 

I would agree re: Microscale. A very good product. I have used them when I've modelled North American Railroads as well as military aircraft.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark 

[roythebus1]

They are the train reporting numbers. Th typeface is London Transport's Johnston Script, it's available to download from the LT museum shop under the typeface of P22 for a small fee. 

 

It my vry slightly from the exact typeface used on the actual prototype as the typeface varied slightly, depending on what manufacturer made the enamel number plates.

[KeithMacdonald]

As @roythebus1 said, it is London Transport's Johnston Script,
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/font-requests

 

But if you cannot download from TFL (or the Museum shop), you could try using Gill Sans as a substitute. Eric Gill used it as a model for his own Gill Sans.

https://freefonts.co/fonts/gill-sans-regular

[KeithMacdonald]

As a curiosity, TFL claims to still own the copyright of (at least) the Johnston 100 typeface.

 

Quote

TfL owns design and copyrights for all cuts of the Johnston 100 font. Application for a copy is only available by completing one of the licence request forms.

 

That's despite the copyright having expired in 2015.

 

Quote

It was a copyrighted property of the LPTB's successor, Transport for London, until Public Domain Day 2015 (Johnston died in 1944).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface)

[KeithMacdonald]

Yet more...

The Johnston 100 typeface (offered by TFL) was only created in 2016, it's slightly different to the original version that you can see on the Pannier tanks.

 

There are a couple of freeware versions of the original Johnston.

 

ITC Johnston.

https://freefontsvault.com/itc-johnston-font/

 

Railway Sans

https://fontlibrary.org/en/font/railway-sans

[BachelorBoy]

This is quite a good free font that's inspired by Johnston.

 

https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Hammersmith+One

 

[46444]

Thanks for all of your replies.

 

Very useful and something to work with.

 

Out of interest this is the no longer available Model Master 4669 LT Engineer's Wagons transfer sheet. 

 

They do sometimes come up on eBay.

 

 

I would agree. These are in Johnston font. 

 

Thanks once again.

 

Mark 

Edited October 4, 2023 by 46444

[46444]

Out of interest does anyone know the size of the three digit reporting numbers? Both the backing plate and the font?

 

Thanks once again. 

 

Mark 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by 46444

[BachelorBoy]

32 minutes ago, 46444 said:

Thanks for all of your replies.

 

Very useful and something to work with.

 

Out of interest this is the no longer available Model Master 4669 LT Engineer's Wagons transfer sheet. 

 

They do sometimes come up on eBay.

 

 

I would agree. These are in Johnston font. 

 

Thanks once again.

 

Mark 

 

How confident are you, given the poor quality of the photograph, that it's Johnston and not Gill, or even Granby?

[KeithMacdonald]

26 minutes ago, 46444 said:

the size of the three digit running numbers?

 

Err, do you mean the prototype size, or a size suitable for (e.g.) OO gauge?

 

Here's some rendered in ITC Johnston.

 

The "London Transport" isn't perfect, I've just done the "ONDON TRANSPOR" with underline, but that isn't quite right, as the real thing has much tighter leading between the initial L and the first O, along with the underline not being all the way under the O.

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

Here's some font fun.

 

The same words in Granby, Gill, and Johnston (not in that order)

 

Which one is which?

 

 

[46444]

7 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, do you mean the prototype size, or a size suitable for (e.g.) OO gauge?

 

Here's some rendered in ITC Johnston.

 

The "London Transport" isn't perfect, I've just done the "ONDON TRANSPOR" with underline, but that isn't quite right, as the real thing has much tighter leading between the initial L and the first O, along with the underline not being all the way under the O.

 

 

 

Thanks Keith,

 

That's brilliant. 

 

Size wise I was thinking more about the prototypes so it would be easier to scale them for all scales.

 

Thanks once again.

 

Mark 

[BachelorBoy]

18 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, do you mean the prototype size, or a size suitable for (e.g.) OO gauge?

 

Here's some rendered in ITC Johnston.

 

The "London Transport" isn't perfect, I've just done the "ONDON TRANSPOR" with underline, but that isn't quite right, as the real thing has much tighter leading between the initial L and the first O, along with the underline not being all the way under the O.

 

 

 

The other problem is that the strokes of the L and the T at the ends are too thick. as the letters are bigger than the rest

[BachelorBoy]

41 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, do you mean the prototype size, or a size suitable for (e.g.) OO gauge?

 

Here's some rendered in ITC Johnston.

 

The "London Transport" isn't perfect, I've just done the "ONDON TRANSPOR" with underline, but that isn't quite right, as the real thing has much tighter leading between the initial L and the first O, along with the underline not being all the way under the O.

 

 

 

I had a go with Gill in Glyphs software. Surprisingly tricky. (My spacing is all over the shop, too)

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

44 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Surprisingly tricky. (My spacing is all over the shop, too)

 

It's a nice challenge. For me, dredging up nearly-forgotten typography knowledge from 45 years ago. I'm now wondering if the leading L and the last T are the same font as all the other characters, so the thickness stays consistent, but with artificially extended vertical strokes, to give the extra height down to the horizontal line. Perhaps?

 

My dear old Dad would smile as well. He started way back in the 1930s as a time-served printing apprentice with huge trays of letterpress type. One of the tricks of his trade was using roll-up cigarette papers as shims to get the desired leading and spacing. Then they went "high tech" and started using Linotype hot metal, mostly Times Roman and Helvetica (IIRC).

https://www.printweek.com/features/article/best-of-british-high-tech-with-a-hot-metal-heritage

 

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, 46444 said:

Size wise I was thinking more about the prototypes so it would be easier to scale them for all scales.

 

The only thing I can think of is to find one of the relevant LT loco's that have been preserved, and make a visit with a ruler.

 

This wiki page

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

says L89 is with the KWVR, but i can't see it on their website

https://kwvr.co.uk/about-the-railway/locomotive-rolling-stock/

 

L99 at Buckinghamshire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire_Railway_Centre#/media/File:London_Transport_L99_&_City_of_Truro_at_Sheringham.jpg

 

Edit

L92

The one from Worcester Locomotive Society that's in Devon

https://www.southdevonrailway.co.uk/rolling-stock/locomotives/5786-gwr-0-6-0pt/

 

Any others?

Edited October 4, 2023 by KeithMacdonald

[KeithMacdonald]

L92 on Flikr

 

 

[Typographer]

I’m sure some details will be corrected, but this is what I learnt when I worked for the Underground as a junior clerk in the publicity office in the late 60s / early 70s, designing posters, maps and transfer masters (I think ’STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS on some Jubilee line stock was mine), and later studying print processes and design.

 

The Johnston type was exactly that, wooden (large sizes for posters) and metal (small sizes for fliers, etc - NB not small enough for text, Gill was used). Everything else, signs, transfers etc were essentially hand drawn from reference sheets or constructed by pasting up ‘pulls’ (printed sheets of the whole alphabet and numbers in different sizes which could be cut up) to create the required words. Johnston, of course, did not design it as a type designer would now, but simply drew the letters with pen and ink - the type founders interpreted his drawn sheet of letters, numerals, and punctuation to rout out the wood type and cast the metal type, hence the differences between them.

 

The production systems for bus blinds, fleet name transfers, illuminated signs, and enamel signs involved different physical processes, and there was no way that the ‘true’ letterforms, as most accurately represented by the wood type, could be consistently rendered with complete fidelity across different artefacts. The design of different lettered object acknowledged this.

 

So, the addition of a black key line to gold transfer letters, and the ’squidge’ of the silkscreen process for blinds and enamel signs changed the thickness of the letters, sometimes noticeably. Nor was Johnston ‘unitised’, like the later Transport Alphabet for UK road signs (each letter sitting on a ’tile’ of a specific number of units). The width of each letter as drawn was of course fixed, but the space between letters was up to the person making the particular object. (It was usually quite well done, by eye.)

 

The fact that the application of Johnston across the system appears so consistently to us now is a tribute to the craftsmen who made it so, before digital fonts and large-format printing made it easy.

 

This is a long way round saying you will see variety in weight, spacing, and even the shapes of letters if you look closely at historical examples. I think Chiswick ordered bus transfers, and observed the ‘round overlap’ (the optical compensation in the vertical dimension of an O in comparison to an H). Neasden, I think, didn’t for Underground stock transfers: the first ones to receive UNDERGROUND as the fleet name instead of LONDON TRANSPORT had under-sized (to a typographer) U, G, and O. Horrid!

 

The P22 version of Johnston is great, and I advise you buy a copy (no commercial interest). 

https://www.myfonts.com/collections/underground-inactive-font-p22

It is the best rendering of the historic wood type, and therefore of the ‘master’ letters that would have informed sign and transfer makers (and hand lettering artists) from its introduction (1916/17) to the Eiichi Kono ‘New Johnston’ of 1979 (which was for print and signage applications).

 

Mark Ovenden’s London by Design 

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/London-Underground-by-Design-by-Mark-Ovenden/9781846144172

has lots of great images.

[46444]

Thanks Keith,

 

Asking the owners of one of the preserved LT Panniers had crossed my mind. 

 

The funny thing is I used to see L92 on the SDR quiet a bit down at Buckfastleigh when it was repainted. 

 

Living in West Yorkshire now I will enquire with the KWVR to see if they have any information on the reporting code plates.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark 

 

 

[46444]

8 minutes ago, Typographer said:

I’m sure some details will be corrected, but this is what I learnt when I worked for the Underground as a junior clerk in the publicity office in the late 60s / early 70s, designing posters, maps and transfer masters (I think ’STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS on some Jubilee line stock was mine), and later studying print processes and design.

 

The Johnston type was exactly that, wooden (large sizes for posters) and metal (small sizes for fliers, etc - NB not small enough for text, Gill was used). Everything else, signs, transfers etc were essentially hand drawn from reference sheets or constructed by pasting up ‘pulls’ (printed sheets of the whole alphabet and numbers in different sizes which could be cut up) to create the required words. Johnston, of course, did not design it as a type designer would now, but simply drew the letters with pen and ink - the type founders interpreted his drawn sheet of letters, numerals, and punctuation to rout out the wood type and cast the metal type, hence the differences between them.

 

The production systems for bus blinds, fleet name transfers, illuminated signs, and enamel signs involved different physical processes, and there was no way that the ‘true’ letterforms, as most accurately represented by the wood type, could be consistently rendered with complete fidelity across different artefacts. The design of different lettered object acknowledged this.

 

So, the addition of a black key line to gold transfer letters, and the ’squidge’ of the silkscreen process for blinds and enamel signs changed the thickness of the letters, sometimes noticeably. Nor was Johnston ‘unitised’, like the later Transport Alphabet for UK road signs (each letter sitting on a ’tile’ of a specific number of units). The width of each letter as drawn was of course fixed, but the space between letters was up to the person making the particular object. (It was usually quite well done, by eye.)

 

The fact that the application of Johnston across the system appears so consistently to us now is a tribute to the craftsmen who made it so, before digital fonts and large-format printing made it easy.

 

This is a long way round saying you will see variety in weight, spacing, and even the shapes of letters if you look closely at historical examples. I think Chiswick ordered bus transfers, and observed the ‘round overlap’ (the optical compensation in the vertical dimension of an O in comparison to an H). Neasden, I think, didn’t for Underground stock transfers: the first ones to receive UNDERGROUND as the fleet name instead of LONDON TRANSPORT had under-sized (to a typographer) U, G, and O. Horrid!

 

The P22 version of Johnston is great, and I advise you buy a copy (no commercial interest). 

https://www.myfonts.com/collections/underground-inactive-font-p22

It is the best rendering of the historic wood type, and therefore of the ‘master’ letters that would have informed sign and transfer makers (and hand lettering artists) from its introduction (1916/17) to the Eiichi Kono ‘New Johnston’ of 1979 (which was for print and signage applications).

 

Mark Ovenden’s London by Design 

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/London-Underground-by-Design-by-Mark-Ovenden/9781846144172

has lots of great images.

 

Absolutely fascinating Typographer and to hear it from someone who was there makes it more interesting.

 

Thankyou for the links as well.

 

The book looks like a very informative read.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark 

 

 

[bécasse]

Isn't it a bit dangerous referring to the preserved locos? They almost certainly aren't still in their original LT finish and what they carry now will be their signwriter's interpretation of what was there originally - very close but almost certainly not precisely the same.

 

I have wondered about the original train number plates. There must have been thousands of each of the ten single digits and, no matter where one saw them, they always looked precisely the same, furthermore they must have all been precisely the same size to fit the slots. That suggests to me that they must have been produced using a mechanical process rather than being sign written. The E-plates for bus stop flags were certainly sign written but there there were small numbers required of what must have been several thousand different plate designs of at least three different sizes.

[roythebus1]

As I said earlier, the train running numbers were enamel finish, like the station signs.

 

I happen to have a London Transport vinyl fleetname under my wokbench, that is one I'm certain is the same as the earlier varnish fix transfers made by Tearne. The and T are a bigger font but usually a lighter typface to make the letters appear the same thickness as the ondon transpor bit.

 

The letter R varied in design, the early R (as is RT or RF fleet numbers) had the tail very close to the upright, later transfers had the tail further to the right. Both types are correct and it was possible to see both types of R on the same bus. It depends what the garage had in stock at the time. The bus stop E plates that Becasse mentions were also stove enamel plates. They were changed to plastic sometime in the 1970s.

[roythebus1]

I was trying to go with Johnston P22: but cut-and-paste lost the font!! I'll try again tomorrow when I'm not so tired. I've got it on my laptop. the only problem is that it doesn't have the punctuation marks.