FMC Fleet numbering

[Hastings]

Somebody must know the secret of FMC fleet numbering. This morning, both ex-steamer Viceroy no: 196 (built 1909) and Lark no: 44 (built 1913) were here in Audlem. Clearly, the numbering scheme (if there was one) is not sequential on build date, and that's confirmed when I look at the list of boats in Alan H Faulkner's book "FMC" in the Robert Wilson series. I can't see any logic, though I suspect there is some....

 

So, was numbering done in batches based on e.g. whether the boat was built as a horse boat, steamer, butty or diesel motor, or perhaps on the notional "class", e.g. names of birds, fish etc.?

 

I have obviously missed something that's probably glaringly obvious. Thanks for your help.

 

Peter

[RLWP]

I don't know the answer, and some railway companies reused 'asset' numbers on locomotives. So when a loco was scrapped, a new one would take its number.

 

Richard

[pete harrison]

Somebody must know the secret of FMC fleet numbering. This morning, both ex-steamer Viceroy no: 196 (built 1909) and Lark no: 44 (built 1913) were here in Audlem. Clearly, the numbering scheme (if there was one) is not sequential on build date, and that's confirmed when I look at the list of boats in Alan H Faulkner's book "FMC" in the Robert Wilson series. I can't see any logic, though I suspect there is some....

 

So, was numbering done in batches based on e.g. whether the boat was built as a horse boat, steamer, butty or diesel motor, or perhaps on the notional "class", e.g. names of birds, fish etc.?

 

I have obviously missed something that's probably glaringly obvious. Thanks for your help.

 

Peter

I have records of 684 boats owned by Fellows, Morton & Clayton Ltd. of which I have 113 that I can not allocate a fleet number to (yet). Most of my F.M.C. Ltd. records are sourced from the company's own 'Boat Register' and 'Docking Book' (2 separate documents) and are supplemented by gauging records and health registers.

 

F.M.C. Ltd. fleet numbers go from 1 to 361, with numbers 285 to 361 all being motors, although 297, 298, 299, 303 were allocated to boats that were not built (I have their names) and 308 missed out altogether. Fleet numbers from 1 to 284 are a combination of everything else and includes boats that were built new and boats acquired from other carriers - both wide and narrow beam.

 

What is clear when all of these details are studied is that all boats were fleet numbered when entering the new fleet of F.M.C. Ltd. from 1889. Boats were apparently fleet numbered randomly and in no particular order, and boats later built in 'classes' were not numbered sequentially either (fleet numbers 1 to 260). To complicate matters F.M.C. Ltd. reused all of their fleet numbers up to 258 inclusive, as well as reusing boat names, but what they never did was reuse both a fleet number and boat name on a second or third generation boat of the same fleet number or boat name. As an example I have four F.M.C. Ltd. boats that carried the fleet number "1" with all four carrying a different boat name.

 

Fleet numbers and boat names became vacant as a boat was disposed of and usually both the fleet number and boat name were reused within a few years.

 

edit - attempt to improve clarity.

Edited June 11, 2013 by pete harrison

[Heartland]

 

When looking at fleet numbering, I suppose some study must be made of the constituent operations that is James Fellows (with Thomas Bagnall), William Clayton, Fellows Morton & Co, London & Staffordshire Canal Carrying Co to name a few. Was there complete renumbering at one point say from 1889, or for example was the FM fleet the basis. Then there are other absorbed fleets so was there ever a unified fleet numbering strategy.

 

Ray Shill

[Hastings]

I have records of 684 boats owned by Fellows, Morton & Clayton Ltd. of which I have 113 that I can not allocate a fleet number to (yet). Most of my F.M.C. Ltd. records are sourced from the company's own 'Boat Register' and 'Docking Book' (2 separate documents) and are supplemented by gauging records and health registers.

 

F.M.C. Ltd. fleet numbers go from 1 to 361, with numbers 285 to 361 all being motors, although 297, 298, 299, 303 were allocated to boats that were not built (I have their names) and 308 missed out altogether. Fleet numbers from 1 to 284 are a combination of everything else and includes boats that were built new and boats acquired from other carriers - both wide and narrow beam.

 

What is clear when all of these details are studied is that all boats were fleet numbered when entering the new fleet of F.M.C. Ltd. from 1889. Boats were apparently fleet numbered randomly and in no particular order, and boats later built in 'classes' were not numbered sequentially either (fleet numbers 1 to 260). To complicate matters F.M.C. Ltd. reused all of their fleet numbers up to 258 inclusive, as well as reusing boat names, but what they never did was reuse both a fleet number and boat name on a second or third generation boat of the same fleet number or boat name. As an example I have four F.M.C. Ltd. boats that carried the fleet number "1" with all four carrying a different boat name.

 

Fleet numbers and boat names became vacant as a boat was disposed of and usually both the fleet number and boat name were reused within a few years.

 

edit - attempt to improve clarity.

Pete -

 

Many thanks for your comments, which explain well why I couldn't work out any decipherable logic in the FMC fleet numbering. But as you explain it, there appears to be a logic, and I presume that detailed work on which boats left the fleet and joined it would show that boat numbers were reused as vacated, etc. But it doesn't make life easy for simple folk like me to understand, one hundred years on!

 

At least, knowing that the whole thing was pretty haphazard is satisfying, and I won't look for any further inner meaning!

 

Peter

[Derek R.]

I don't suppose 100 years ago the commercial business of fleet management had much thought to those who followed 100 years hence! I wonder how many people today are cataloging their actions with a view to future historians ability to decipher ways and means?

[pete harrison]

When looking at fleet numbering, I suppose some study must be made of the constituent operations that is James Fellows (with Thomas Bagnall), William Clayton, Fellows Morton & Co, London & Staffordshire Canal Carrying Co to name a few. Was there complete renumbering at one point say from 1889, or for example was the FM fleet the basis. Then there are other absorbed fleets so was there ever a unified fleet numbering strategy.

 

Ray Shill

The original F.M.C. Ltd. fleet did indeed incorporate boats from the constituent operators of Fellows, Morton & Co. and William Clayton, and undoubtedly it is these boats that would have carried the earliest fleet numbers. Equally these earlier boats are the hardest to find fleet numbers for and consequently represent the largest gaps in the F.M.C. Ltd. fleet numbering sequence.

 

As other operators boats were absorbed into the F.M.C. Ltd. fleet they were given available fleet numbers that were rarely sequential. These boats were often also renamed with a name of a boat recently disposed of.

Pete -

 

I presume that detailed work on which boats left the fleet and joined it would show that boat numbers were reused as vacated, etc.

 

Peter

There is no need for any detailed work as most of it already exists in the F.M.C. Ltd. 'Boat Register', of which I have a detailed transcript. There was usually a few years between an F.M.C. Ltd. fleet number becoming vacant and it being re-allocated - the same with boat names.