Historical enquiry

[BushBaby]

Hi, all.
I've got an ancestor working out of Newcastle upon Tyne whose death certificate - in 1910 - states he was the driver of either a 512/1 or S12/1 locomotive driver.
Can you please tell me which it is is? And what sort of engine that was?
Thanks.

 

[contrex]

A scan might be helpful. It is unlikely that (1) a driver would be restricted to only one type or class of loco, and (2) that it would be recorded as such on their death cerificate.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Very much agree with @contrex.

If it helps, the two main sheds in Newcastle were Gateshead and Heaton. I think Heaton worked duties mostly northbound towards Berwick and Edinburgh, Gateshead towards the south, both sheds including express work. (I'm no expert on NER matters, however! There are many around though.)

But there were other sheds scattered around, eg I think Dunston had one, and there was Tyne Dock on the south bank too, and probably some on the north Tyne loop back in those days. What he did and drove could be indicated by where he worked, eg Percy Main would almost certainly have been a freight shed, where I imagine most duties would likely have been coal trains and some shunting.

 

[Gloster]

The NER had an S1 class of 4-6-0 (later LNER B14) of five locos built 1900 to 1901. They were originally used on the top passenger trains, but from 1907 were on fast freights, including fish trains from Scotland. I am not sure about the 2/1.

But agree with #2.

Source:Wikipedia and LNER Encyclopaedia.

 

[stuving]

In the 1911 census, occupation codes were added by GRO clerks, usually visible on the copies available online and often in green ink. This is one of those codes:
512 Railway Engine - Drivers, Stokers, Cleaners

That looks too similar to be a coincidence, but I don't remember ever seeing this kind of code in a death record or certificate. The GRO did process death statistics, and may have used occupation codes internally to do so. Since the GRO was involved in both, it's quite likely they would use a version of the same codes, and 521/1 would make sense for a driver. But that's guessing! And there is still no obvious reason to write the code on the source document.

Note that "death certificate" is used rather loosely; strictly speaking it is a copy taken from the register books, handwritten or typed, on a form with "CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY OF DEATH" printed at the top. Now, we can get images of the register books from the GRO online, which are not certificates in the full sense but are often called that. The reasons a code might get written down are different for the two cases.

 

[6Gman]

In the 1911 census, occupation codes were added by GRO clerks, usually visible on the copies available online and often in green ink. This is one of those codes:
512 Railway Engine - Drivers, Stokers, Cleaners

That looks too similar to be a coincidence, but I don't remember ever seeing this kind of code in a death record or certificate. The GRO did process death statistics, and may have used occupation codes internally to do so. Since the GRO was involved in both, it's quite likely they would use a version of the same codes, and 521/1 would make sense for a driver. But that's guessing! And there is still no obvious reason to write the code on the source document.

I'm sure this will be the explanation. An overzealous Clerk (who, perhaps, had also been working on census work) automatically entering the census code on a certificate?

Or, maybe, a supervisor who - for whatever reason - decided that on his patch codes would be used.

We probably will never know, but I'm sure it's a matter of local bureaucracy and nothing to do with what type of locos he drove.

 

[stuving]

Looking for anything about occupation classification nearer that date, I came on a GRO report about the new system introduced for the 1961 census. In the introduction it says:

From that it does appear that, at least by 1951, some statistical processing of death records was done using the same occupational coding as the last (or perhaps the next) census. I do not know whether that was meant to involve writing the codes on death registers (which at the GRO HQ would I think be loose copy sheets bound into books), but it sounds unlikely. Also, from that quote it sounds like it was not done routinely, just (in that case) to check how variable recorded occupations were. But someone used to working on censuses, where the codes were usually written on the source sheets, does sound likely.

And ...
I do have a load of death records I should have looked at, though only a few around 1910. But, looking at those, I can find just one that does have the occupation code: 140 for a farm labourer. The other three men and all four women (none working) do not have the codes. In addition, the one with a code and one of the women have a number at the bottom of the age or sex column. I suspect that codes the cause of death, though I have not found a list of those yet. But I have found it noted that such codes based on the international ones (ICD) were in use in Britain from 1901.

So not that rare, after all ... but easy to miss!

 

[70014IronDuke]

What an interesting thread. Who'd have thunked it?

 

[swt_passenger]

And ...
I do have a load of death records I should have looked at, though only a few around 1910. But, looking at those, I can find just one that does have the occupation code: 140 for a farm labourer. The other three men and all four women (none working) do not have the codes. In addition, the one with a code and one of the women have a number at the bottom of the age or sex column. I suspect that codes the cause of death, though I have not found a list of those yet. But I have found it noted that such codes based on the international ones (ICD) were in use in Britain from 1901.

So not that rare, after all ... but easy to miss!

I just checked a couple of dozen death register entries (mostly scanned pdfs) I have from about 1900-1920 without finding any codes. I’d be wondering about the handwriting, and whether it’s a later addition. The 1911 codes sheet uses 511-519 for various railway roles, but 512/1 would suggest a further division of 512, which is more than shown in most online listings of the codes?

 

[stuving]

The period 1901-1921 was when codes were introduced for occupation and cause of death; both had a major revision in 1921. At the same time the GRO started to use punched cards and mechanical sorting for the census. From 1921 there were decennial reports on occupational mortality, and I can't see anything similar before that. In 1911 there was a smaller revision from ICD1 to ICD2, and for occupations coding was used for the first time in the census. Then for 1921 classification and codes were introduced for industries, and the occupational ones had to be changed to suit this new concept. Of course a lot of railway jobs didn't exist in any other industry, so the grouping was the same, but the numbers all changed.

In the same way that the the 1960 report I quoted above said that some death registrations and census forms had been analysed to guide the major revision of codes in 1961, I imagine something similar would have been done prior to 1921. So yes, it would be retrospective, using recent data as sources - and probably only a sample. There is no reason why the codes used might not be more detailed then the ones used in the census, perhaps to see if that produced better data.

GRO reports etc. ought to be available on the histpop database, but that's still not running well enough to be usable. LSE's Digital Library has a lot of GRO reports, though I'm finding these big image files slow to work with. Vision of Britain has some relevant material, though I can't find the full text files they promise. They do reproduce the Guide to Census Reports, published in 1977, and the section on Occupation and Industry covers the history of this topic.

 

[BushBaby]

A scan might be helpful. It is unlikely that (1) a driver would be restricted to only one type or class of loco, and (2) that it would be recorded as such on their death cerificate.

Scan attached. A

A scan might be helpful. It is unlikely that (1) a driver would be restricted to only one type or class of loco, and (2) that it would be recorded as such on their death cerificate.

Scan attached. As you see, unlikely as you might think, it's *exactly* what was recorded in his death certificate. Hope that helps.

 

[BushBaby]

Very much agree with @contrex.

If it helps, the two main sheds in Newcastle were Gateshead and Heaton. I think Heaton worked duties mostly northbound towards Berwick and Edinburgh, Gateshead towards the south, both sheds including express work. (I'm no expert on NER matters, however! There are many around though.)

But there were other sheds scattered around, eg I think Dunston had one, and there was Tyne Dock on the south bank too, and probably some on the north Tyne loop back in those days. What he did and drove could be indicated by where he worked, eg Percy Main would almost certainly have been a freight shed, where I imagine most duties would likely have been coal trains and some shunting.

Thank you. He did indeed live in Heaton.

 

[contrex]

The period 1901-1921 was when codes were introduced for occupation and cause of death

Spot on. The /1 must have been some kind of sub group. These codes were among those used in the 1911 census:

Maybe 512/2 was a 'stoker', and /3 a cleaner? I see a hierarchy of grades there, I think.

510 - railway officials, clerks
511 - railway ticket examiners, collectors, checkers
512 - railway engine drivers, stokers, cleaners
513 - railway guards
514 - signalmen
515 - pointsmen, level crossing men
516 - platelayers, gangers, packers
517 - railway labourers (not railway contractors)
518 - railway porters
519 - other railway servants

What looks like the full list here:

1911 census occupation codes | findmypast.co.uk

www.findmypast.co.uk

 

[stuving]

Scan attached. AView attachment 158140

Scan attached. As you see, unlikely as you might think, it's *exactly* what was recorded in his death certificate. Hope that helps.

That is interesting. To make the process entirely clear, starting with the registration process itself, the registrar wrote down in the register (a big book) what the informant told him, and then wrote out an exact copy of that page on a form. Those forms were sent off to the GRO (head office) at the end of each quarter, and used in creating the national index of deaths - in which the main task was putting all the names in alphabetical order. Those sheets were then bound into big books, to be used at GRO for producing certificates when requested.

The "certificate" seen here is a recent digital image from one of the GRO's copies, cropped to show only one row. It should be an exact copy of the original register, but the two code numbers have been added later. The "512/1" is not in the same hand as the main text - compare with the "5" in the age of 75. And there is another code number, 64.2, under "male". That too is in a more upright hand than the main writer's more sloping one. 64.2 (or possibly 642) is, I'm sure, a cause of death code, but I have not yet found the right list for those - probably an adaptation of ICD2, which was published in 1908 and used in some form from about 1910.

 

[BushBaby]

This is very interesting, thanks all. (Ignorantly) I had assumed that 512 was a type of locomotive but this was far more interesting. Fascinating, in fact. Well done, guys.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Thank you. He did indeed live in Heaton.

In that case, very likely that he worked from there. As far as I know, Heaton together with Haymarket, worked most (all?) the East Coast expresses between Newcastle and Waverley, and probably the stopping services too.

But they would have had many other duties, I should imagine - possibly including the North Tyne loop before electrification. I remember bunking Heaton in Sept 1967, and by then all the old electrics had been withdrawn, with many of them stored at Heaton - so I assume it had been the main maintenance depot for the electrics when they were in service, and that makes it quite likely that Heaton provided traction back in steam days.

There is an LNER email group which has a whole bunch of experts in it - including quite a good bunch from the NE. In truth, I'm a member, but I haven't logged on for years, and can't remember the official name. Googling it should bring it up - but I see now we have a 'modern' LNER that's not so easy. I see there are a couple of facebook groups too these days.

 

[D6130]

But they would have had many other duties, I should imagine - possibly including the North Tyne loop before electrification. I remember bunking Heaton in Sept 1967, and by then all the old electrics had been withdrawn, with many of them stored at Heaton - so I assume it had been the main maintenance depot for the electrics when they were in service, and that makes it quite likely that Heaton provided traction back in steam days.

IIRC, the main maintenance depot for the North Tyneside electric units was South Gosforth, which was later used as a DMU maintenance/servicing depot and is now the Metro Depot. I suspect that the redundant electric units were stored at Heaton in 1967 prior to being towed away for scrapping in order to free-up space at South Gosforth.

 

[70014IronDuke]

IIRC, the main maintenance depot for the North Tyneside electric units was South Gosforth, which was later used as a DMU maintenance/servicing depot and is now the Metro Depot. I suspect that the redundant electric units were stored at Heaton in 1967 prior to being towed away for scrapping in order to free-up space at South Gosforth.

Ah! South Gosforth does ring a bell now. And you are probably correct in the reason for storing at Heaton too. Apologies for possibly sending our OP off track!