Engineering wagon names and telegraph codes

The RUDD wagons on the SVR date from the 1980s.

 

We have a couple of these modern RUDDs and they are very useful powerful braked wagons for works trains.

Off topic but we also have a WELTROL which now has the nickname WENDY and their is only one name possible for our SALMON wagon it has to be NICOLA

 

Built 1955-58 according to the wagon survey, e.g. http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=11648

The Seacows are 1980s though

Patrick

 

They were originally built as Coal hoppers in the mid to late 50s, but began to be withdrawn in the 1980s for conversion into Rudds. The SVR ones were all converted in the early 1990s .

http://www.svrwiki.com/BR_'Rudd'_Ballast_Wagons

 

Code names for wagons are still used when planning engineering works. It can cause serious confusion by using TOPS wagon codes. ( I know, I've tried .... )
Traffic terms like OPPOS, FABRIC and LEFTPAS are still used in the conditions of travel for out of gauge loads. CAPE, PINE and WARNPASS still appear on control log.

Cheers, Neil

 

We have two of the ex-LT hoppers on the Isle of Wight. Although they share their 20T capacity with BR Herrings http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brrivetherring/h15f7a5f7#h15f7a5f7 that is all. The LT ones are a 1935 air braked design specially for the UndergrounD and have centre and side doors. When we reconditioned our 1965 built examples we decided not to paint any Fishkind code on them as it would not have been appropriate. http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=8335 . (To be fair the BR black livery is not appropriate either...................)

 

Strange that these LT hoppers should come up. We have two at the North Norfolk and painting them pseudo BR livery has come up in conversation.

My suggestion was to paint and letter them BR style so as to make them fit in, but to give them a new name so as to remain true to the fact that they are a unique design of hopper unlike any BR equivalent.

The proposed name for them? "KIPPER". The reason? 1) A nod to the local kipper trade in Great Yarmouth tying in to local history and 2) Kippers are smoked, and the LT hoppers were used in "the smoke" after all!!

We obviously had too much time to think into the idea, and alas it remains an idea!

Sent from my HTC Desire 620 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks to you and all the other contributors. Very much appreciated.

 

Of course the more educated here would say it is unsuitable because it is not CLEAR and DISTINCTIVE and so could be misheard for the word you are driving at as that was part of the point of using code words.

 

Well actually, in the case of railway telegraphic codes, it wasn't about voice communication so not what you hear. It was more about sending messages using the minimum number of words as telegrams were charged by the word. Hence the code words had to be real words, or the telegraph companies would have refused them.

Notably some of the later code words are not "real words" but presumably by that time transmission was within the one railway's control and charging.

 

There is that too, however the wagon codes were also used to identify them and therefore would have been spoken. There is potential for someone being requested to move a number of wagons to miss hear pollock for his SM making an error and uttering B***ocks

 

There's plenty of scope and opportunity for most railwaymen to make an error and utter b***ocks regardless of any fishkind names painted on any wagons. I don't think I've ever met one who was so sensitive that this would have caused a problem.

As an aside, an idea has just occurred to me:
Control: "Shunter, have you got any Grampus wagons in your yard"
Shunter: "No, sorry, can't help you with those. I've got Crabs..."

(I'll get my coat...)

 

Oh and on a completely unrelated note (other than pertaining to the sensitivity or otherwise of railway staff) train operator's plungers on LU (and possibly elsewhere) have always been universally known as "donkey cocks". If you've seen one you'll understand why.