Gif of LNWR Emblem
London & North Western Railway Society
LNWR Mystery Photographs
  • ≪ Prev mystery No. 107
  • Next mystery No. 109 ≫  
  • Mystery Number 108 – supplied by Ted Talbot

    Show image of mystery phot  mobile/M108B.jpg

    Ted would like to know if anyone can add to the collated discussion which appears below. It is the carriage that is of most interest. The writing on the back of the photo is a bit tricky to decipher, but Ted believes that this is what it says: H.Q. Officer, F.V. Denning (Asst Supt of Line), Lamb OR Lumb (Dist Inspector), F.T. Kinsman (Outdoor Goods Manager), L.D. Price (Dist Traffic Supt), C.F. Graseman (GMO Euston), Jackson (S.M. Workington), W.G. Fowkes (West Cumb. Asst to Price), Tinnion or Jinnion (Goods Agent, Workington).

  • Click here for larger version

  • Richard Ball — 08-Nov-2010 4.10 PM
    This is an interesting photo but it's been rather difficult to figure out what it is! It seems clear that it started life as a First Class Picnic Saloon P34 (one of 8 built in 1882). However this one has had the end luggage compartment (on the left) replaced by an extension of the main saloon, with new panels and windows. Presumably this was to make it an Inspection Saloon. However all 8 are still Picnics in the 1903 DB, so it must have been converted after then. One of these carriages was indeed used as a Breakdown Van by 1921; perhaps it was this one.
    Francis Pearce — 08-Nov-2010 4.12 PM

    I agree that this is a very interesting picture and I think Richard Ball is correct in his identification of the carriage.

    I note from the 1915 Diagram book that only 7 coaches are shown, still as Saloons (nos 29-35, now duplicated).

    The eighth carriage (no. 61, and shown on the 1895 diagram book) is no longer on the latter list, so perhaps it is this one that was converted to an inspection saloon in the early 20th century, and later into a Breakdown train van (when it would not show up in the Carriage diagram book.)

    Richard Ball — 08-Nov-2010 4.14 PM

    Sharp of Francis to notice that no. 61 is missing in the 1915 Diagram Book. In fact it's the only one of the eight supplemented in the 1903 Diagram Book, and in the register it's listed as being built 1872, rather than 1882 - indeed I've always thought that this error explains its early demise.

    However there's a complication. Nos 51-60 were ten Family saloons built in 1872 (the first time these numbers were used), but according to the valuation lists there were 61 Saloons by November 1872, so there must have been a no. 61 built 1872, which was replaced by the First Class Picnic in 1882. But what this vehicle was, and what happened to it, I don't know. Possibly it was a prototype sleeper, renumbered in 1882; or it could have been an older vehicle, renumbered. However there are no more Saloons ordered 1872 in the Minute books, nor any relevant casualties in 1882.

    To confuse things still further, if you look carefully at the photo, you'll see there's a trace of a number by the shoulder of the man on the left. It looks definitely like a 4 to me (confirmed by examination of the original with a glass), which would suggest this was in fact no. 34; nothing to do with no. 61.

    Also in 1893 when Frank Ree became General Goods manager, Grasemann was But I can't find anything about L.D. Price.

    Various contributors — 08-Nov-2010 4.16 PM

    The officers are examining drawings, presumably of some local improvement to the infrastructure. It might be possible, with the aid of Minutes, to date this view more precisely than about 1910.

    F.V. Denning was one of G.P. Neele’s assistants until 1893, when he took charge of the Birmingham District, became Outdoor Asst Supt of Line about 1905 and is shown as Asst Supt of Line in the 1911 Railway Year Book.

    F.T. Kinsman is shown as Outdoor Goods Manager, Northern Division, in the 1911 Railway Year Book. From July 1913 he was Chief Goods Manager, succeeding C.E. Grasemann who held the post from 1909.

    Lewis D. Price was District Traffic Supt & Goods Manager Lancaster District.

    C.F. Grasemann, General Manager’s Office, Euston, is identified as fourth from the right in cloth cap, from the famous photograph of company officers in the board room in 1910 with their signatures beneath.

    C.E. Grasemann, who was presumably a relative, became assistant for the southern half of the line, Kinsman for the northern half in 1893, when Frank Ree became General Goods Manager. He was Chief Goods Manager before 1913, when he became Asst to the General Manager (Staff etc).

    There is no doubt that the Grasemann in the photo is C.F., from the description of his post, "GMO's office, Euston" on the back of the print. Incidentally, the spelling on the back of the print is: 'Graseman'; in The Railway Yearbook for 1911 and other publications (eg Reed The London & North Western Railway) it is 'Grasemann'.

    A. Jackson was station master at Workington in 1921.

    W. G. Fowkes (West Cumb. Asst to Price).

    Tinnion or Jinnion (Goods Agent, Workington).

    I.A. Sherwen Goods Agent 1921 is only name I have.

    The Divisional Engineer for the Northern Division was J. H. Thurstan, could his be the missing name, given that they are looking at some form of drawing?

    Finally, the two men on the left are the enginemen (the engine is out of the picture on the right); the five men in ordinary railwaymen's caps standing behind are perhaps goods and station staff; it would be nice to know the identities of the four men holding the plan and of the two bowler hats on the right; and doubtless the smartly dressed steward looking out of the saloon is waiting to serve lunch.

    Philip A. Millard — 13-Nov-2010 5.38 PM

    I am not able to add a great deal. But if the number is indeed a 4 (which I agree it appears to be), then the only possibility would seem to be 34. These vehicles were all supplemented by the time of the 1915 Diagram Book (probably in 1914-5) as 05034 etc. and were all withdrawn before the grouping.

    There was no Engineer's or Traffic Inspection Saloon allocated to West Cumberland. The nearest was based at Lancaster, and was a 30ft 1in type with end balconies.

    The presence of so many important officers, including the Asst. Supt. of the Line no less, suggests a very significant proposal. Whatever it was it involved the Traffic and Goods Department, but not it seems the Civil Engineer's (i.e. P.Way) Department. So the drawing is probably of a building, perhaps a new or enlarged goods depot.

    Denning did not qualify for a saloon, but was too important to mix with the ordinary passengers, so I am guessing that this carriage was provided for him to travel with Grasemann from Euston to Cumberland. Doubtless they stayed overnight in a hotel.

    My guess is that we are looking at Saloon no. 34, altered, as many were circa 1910, before it was renumbered as no. 5034 (recorded as 27/3/13). It was still in capital stock at that date. In other words, circa 1910-2. That date is consistent with Kinsman being Outdoor Goods Manager, Northern Division (as noted on the print) until promoted in to Chief Goods Manager in 1913. Somehow the clothing has a pre-WW1 look to it. The man in the white bowler (Lamb?) looks remarkably like Oliver Hardy! And why are Denning and Grasemann wearing flat 'ats?

    The chap looking out of the window is an attendant, and if he is about to serve lunch it must be from picnic baskets. More likely the senior guys would take an expense-account lunch in a hotel - that is what usually happened in BR days! The mid-ranking ones would go to a pub or cafe. The lower orders would have to fend for themselves.

    I feel that Saloon no. 61 is a red herring. A saloon of that number was built in 1872, but either it was wrongly included on P34 (a not unknown situation) or was replaced by another no. 61 in 1882. That seems too early in its life to be altered to Inspection, and there is no record of a Saloon no. 61 being destroyed in an accident. So I think that no. 61 was indeed built in 1872 and included in error on P34 (or perhaps just to avoid the need to raise a separate diagram), and duly withdrawn circa 1904-5 at the usual age in those days of 32-33 years.

    Philip A. Millard — 16-Nov-2010 8.34 AM
    For the record, P.34 Saloon no. 61 was replaced in the capital stock in 1898 by a 45ft 0in Family Saloon to D.63. I think we can be sure that it was not of the same type as the others of P.34, although it was doubtless similar in basic dimensions and layout. But its 1872-build underframe would be of antique design, probably unsuited to speeds much above 45mph, which would account for it being downgraded to supplementary stock in 1898 at age 26. By 1882 underframe design had advanced a fair way.
    Reg Instone — 28-Oct-2011 1.58 AM

    I have managed to narrow down the date to between 1/10/09 when F V Denning was appointed ASOL and 1/11/11 when L D Price retired. For the record, the full details are:

    F V Denning ASOL 1/10/09 to 30/6/14 (retired)
    F T Kinsman Outdoor G M (N of Crewe) 7/1/93 to 1/6/13 ( to chief GM)
    L D Price Dist Tfc Superintendent 1/5/99 to 1/11/11 (retired)
    C F Graseman Asst to Goods Mgr 1/7/02 to 1922
    A Jackson SM Workington (by 1898) to (post 1921)
    W G Fowkes asst (Goods) to Super 1/12/96 to 20/11/16 (to Northampton)
    J Tinnion Goods Agent, Workington 1/6/02 to (post 1916)

    All derived from the digitised staff records on

    So one can now ask - what major schemes affecting the goods depot at Workington were proposed in 1910 or 1911?

    Reg Instone — 03-Aug-2012 12.55 PM

    I have checked my extracts from Goods Traffic Comm book 6 (RAIL410/104) for 1910 and 1911 but sadly have not found anything relevant. The only items for W. Cumberland are private sidings at Maryport, Brigham, Camerton and Marron, and removal of a timber bridge at Marron.

    So I conclude that: a) this was a preliminary proposal for something which did not come to the GTC until later, or not at all or b) it has somehow not been included in my extracts.

    Your name will appear here
    Your comment will appear here – Email to the Webb Master please.