The LNER Encyclopedia

Dear All,

I have a document I am copying for the LNER Society.

It contains an Third Open carriage number '4248' in a set running on cup final day 1932. All the rest of the numbered carriages have been identified, but not this one.

Steve White has identified GN Section 4248 as a 4-wheel suburban carriage, which this is not.

Can anybody help?

We have considered mistakes, by omission. But that would make things tricky.

If anyone wants the formation 'as known' as a Word docx, plus a processed photo of the original page, PM me.

Best wishes to all,

John

LNER Carriages - Michael Harris (the last hardback version) page 130.

Dia 28 - shows a 42481 - could it be the the 1 is very faint or missed entirely.
This is shown as an open 3rd 3 sections 64 seats constructed 1927/8 and if I'm not misreading is of all steel construction.

Alan

Many thanks Alan,

I have the D28 as a 'possible' too.

It is not easy.

John

John,
I too agree it is likely to be one of the series that are shown in the Harris Blue book, on page 130.
It could also be 42482 or 9

It is important to remember that Steve Bank's comment was probably based on looking at one
of the ex GN diagram books to which he may have access, but he forgot that when the LNER
was formed, all the GNR numbers were made 5 figure or above,by adding a 4 at the front
so it might then well have been 40248 rather than 4248? I am also not sure whether the
suburban 4 wheel 2nds would still be in revenue service in 1932.

Mind you it took me a long time to find it in Harris

Paul

john coffin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:14 pm
It is important to remember that Steve Bank's comment

Hello Paul,

Mr Bank's?

I trust you mean our good friend Mr White.

John

As usual, you are right John,
too much late night looking at things too late for me!!!!!

Sorry Steve White, for mistaking you.....

Take care
Paul

john coffin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:14 pm he forgot that when the LNER
was formed, all the GNR numbers were made 5 figure or above,by adding a 4 at the front
Paul

Is it correct that all former GN carriage numbers were made into five figure numbers by the LNER shortly after grouping? Were they all displayed in full five figure form on the carriages?

This is the first I've heard of that, if it is so. My impression from reading the Harris books was that a 4 was simply added to prefix the previous number, regardless of how many figures it contained, so that xx became 4xx, xxx became 4xxx, and xxxx would become 4xxxx. Is that wrong? Were instead the new numbers in each case 400xx,40xxx, and 4xxxx? I have some wrong numbers on models if that is the case....

Graeme,

You were right in the first place.

John

Atlantic 3279 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:17 pm...4 was simply added to prefix the previous number, regardless of how many figures it contained....

As our Transatlantic cousins would say - you nailed it in that statement.

Alan

On here under my real name of Steve White

I used Hemmingway List which shows the GNR Vehicle no and later LNER renumbering of some coaching stock, the 4 Wheel vehicle also looks to have passed to LNER stock as it is showing both on the GYH list and also the GNRS GNR Diagram book (Disk04).

On emailing with John and the fact the set is made up of ex GNR stock …. and assuming it is a printing error other options could be Dia 248H 42548 or Dia 248A 42748 both 3rd vestibule vehicles… the Notice shows all as Vestibule vehicles.

Its been an interesting exercise to try and track the vehicle down.

Re numbering, others have pointed out before my post but the LNER placed a 4 in front of the GNR vehicle number so there could be 2,3,4 or 5 digit numbers for ex GNR vehicles in LNER service during this period.

Hope the above is of interest

Steve

www.gnrsociety.com

Just goes to show I should stick to pre 1911 stuff like I generally do, I misread some data I had found
about the transfer of some ECJS stock and frankly could not conceive of the LNER not using a
sensible re-numbering system after they had added an N to the original numbers for the GNR.

I was sure that I had read that the numbers started at 4xxx, and so am concerned that I got it so wrong.

Still if you don't look for new info, you perpetuate myth.

Paul