Armstrong Whitworth Factory Elswick Newcastle Female Uniforms

[David Radford]

Below is a photo postcard that my grandmother Thomasina Uren of Burnopfield, near Newcastle, England send to her uncle in May 1915 who was on active service in France.

On the front side of the postcard was this photo of Thomasina and three of her sisters. On the other (reverse) side was the typical address to the right of the card with a space for the sender’s message on the left hand side.

What is very intriguing to me is the fact that the 4 girls are very similarly dressed and that this photo does not appear to have been taken inside a photographic studio. The background appears to be brick/block walls. This is not typical surely of a studio setting.

Further, the outfits of each of the 4 girls are very similar to the outfits that the females are wearing in the other photo below which was taken at Armstrong’s factory in Elswick, Newcastle, England in 1916.

Could anyone on this forum please let me know if they are aware of such postcards being produced by Ordnance Factories in WW1 for the workers to then send to their loved ones on active duty - and do they have one they can share on this forum?

If the postcards were not produced by the factory, then commercial photographic studios would have done this. But did they have this capability so early in the war? 

Many thanks in advance,

David

 

 

 

[Alan24]

I would expect that it could have been arranged for commercial photographers to visit factories and make photos en mass, like the modern day school photo.

I do a have picture of 2 munitions girls posing with an unpainted 18 pounder shell case. I don't think they would have been allowed to have taken that out of the factory, so must have been inside.

Quite a few girls in the second photo are wearing necklaces, not something you'd expect in a factory.

 

Edited 6 August , 2023 by Alan24

[David Radford]

Alan,

Many thanks for your reply - much appreciated. I have now seen 3 similar photos each with female staff wearing different colour dresses. In my photo, the lady seated (my grandmother) is wearing what may be a beige coloured dress whilst her 3 sisters are each wearing what may be navy coloured dresses. Does this indicate a level of seniority here? In the group photo again, most of the ladies are wearing darker coloured dresses while just one appears to be wearing a lighter colour.

It appears to me that there was a dress code for office workers though the ladies appear to be able to use a different style of blouse.

As far as necklaces are concerned that would clearly have been off limits and prohibited for munition workers and supports the claims that these ladies are all office workers.

Again, below, different coloured dresses being worn! What was a Master Trainer Machinist’s role at Armstrong? (Sewing machines, metal working machines?)

[FROGSMILE]

11 hours ago, David Radford said:

What was a Master Trainer Machinist’s role at Armstrong? (Sewing machines, metal working machines?)

Armstrong-Whitworth were a principal armaments manufacturer who made guns, their associated fitments and ammunition.  Presumably that required many kinds of machinery to make parts of varying size and purpose.  From an Army viewpoint they have a significant part in the development of gun maintenance because as part of the initial contract to provide Armstrong guns for use by the Royal Artillery they negotiated a monopoly to train and quality the gun fitters appointed in a new trade group, as Armaments Artificers, who were initially employed in a discrete corps of their own.

That the ladies are being trained by a Master Trainer “Machinist” suggests at least that the requirement is associated with machinery based manufacture of some kind.  As they’re all rather well-to-do looking ladies, unlikely to have been involved in such work prewar, perhaps in this case it was felt initially that the company did not wish to photograph them, as a group, in unflattering working overalls. 

Edited 11 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[ianjonesncl]

Could the photograph have been taken in Burnopfield (or elsewhere) with them dressed in their work uniforms rather than at the factory ? 

[FROGSMILE]

5 minutes ago, ianjonesncl said:

Could the photograph have been taken in Burnopfield (or elsewhere) with them dressed in their work uniforms rather than at the factory ? 

I don’t know how many establishments Armstrong-Whitworth operated from during the war, but it certainly seems possible that the photograph could be associated with one where smaller machinery operated.  Was Burnopfield the company headquarters?

Edited 11 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[ianjonesncl]

15 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Was Burnopfield the company headquarters?

Burnopfield - Durham Mining Village

On 06/08/2023 at 19:22, David Radford said:

Armstrong’s factory in Elswick, Newcastle, England

 

My recollection of the photographs I have seen of the Elswick Works seemed to show most of the buildings are neat brickwork. The OP photograph shows the brick / stone work to be quite rough. The traces of the works that are left are all neat brick structures.  However it was a massive works, so pure conjecture. 

 

Edited 11 August , 2023 by ianjonesncl

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, ianjonesncl said:

Burnopfield - Durham Mining Village

 

My recollection of the photographs I have seen of the Elswick Works seemed to show most of the buildings are neat brickwork. The OP photograph shows the brick / stone work to be quite rough. The traces of the works that are left are all neat brick structures.  However it was a massive works, so pure conjecture. 

 

Thanks Ian.  It’s very interesting to see the sheer scale, almost a barometer of our one time industrial might.  The Armstrong-Whitworth story and ruthlessness of Armstrong himself has always fascinated me.

[David Radford]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Armstrong-Whitworth were a principal armaments manufacturer who made guns, their associated fitments and ammunition.  Presumably that required many kinds of machinery to make parts of varying size and purpose.  From an Army viewpoint they have a significant part in the development of gun maintenance because as part of the initial contract to provide Armstrong guns for use by the Royal Artillery they negotiated a monopoly to train and quality the gun fitters appointed in a new trade group, as Armaments Artificers, who were initially employed in a discrete corps of their own.

That the ladies are being trained by a Master Trainer “Machinist” suggests at least that the requirement is associated with machinery based manufacture of some kind.  As they’re all rather well-to-do looking ladies, unlikely to have been involved in such work prewar, perhaps in this case it was felt initially that the company did not wish to photograph them, as a group, in unflattering working overalls. 

Hi Frogsmile,

A couple of the group photos taken with team leaders/management made specific reference to them being staff rather operatives. The different colour dresses they are wearing (beige and navy?) replicated in the 3 photos I have seen suggests to me that this is their uniform at work rather than about to start a shift as munition workers which would then involve a change of clothing. Thoughts?

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, David Radford said:

Hi Frogsmile,

A couple of the group photos taken with team leaders/management made specific reference to them being staff rather operatives. The different colour dresses they are wearing (beige and navy?) replicated in the 3 photos I have seen suggests to me that this is their uniform at work rather than about to start a shift as munition workers which would then involve a change of clothing. Thoughts?

Undoubtedly working at lathes, stamps and presses would have involved overalls and hair covered in mop caps or similar so as not to be pulled into machinery.  Supervising such manufacture could not be done at a distance either and required close attendance.  Ergo my conclusion would be they must either, have been photographed before putting on protective clothing, or that they are clerical workers.  If the latter I don’t see the rationale behind them being photographed with a Master Trainer Machinist, whose presence must surely be significant and for a reason rather than a whim.

Edited 11 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[David Radford]

2 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Undoubtedly working at lathes, stamps and presses would have involved overalls and hair covered in mop caps or similar so as not to be pulled into machinery.  Supervising such manufacture could not be done at a distance either and required close attendance.  Ergo my conclusion would be they must either, have been photographed before putting on protective clothing, or that they are clerical workers.  If the latter I don’t see the rationale behind them being photographed with a Master Trainer Machinist, whose presence must surely be significant and for a reason rather than a whim.

 

2 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Undoubtedly working at lathes, stamps and presses would have involved overalls and hair covered in mop caps or similar so as not to be pulled into machinery.  Supervising such manufacture could not be done at a distance either and required close attendance.  Ergo my conclusion would be they must either, have been photographed before putting on protective clothing, or that they are clerical workers.  If the latter I don’t see the rationale behind them being photographed with a Master Trainer Machinist, whose presence must surely be significant and for a reason rather than a whim.

Given there were some 20,000 employees at Armstrongs I would imagine there would be a requirement for significant numbers of clerical staff (wages, accounts, purchasing, print rooms etc)

[FROGSMILE]

1 minute ago, David Radford said:

 

Given there were some 20,000 employees at Armstrongs I would imagine there would be a requirement for significant numbers of clerical staff (wages, accounts, purchasing, print rooms etc)

Yes I agree and the ladies are certainly dressed appropriately for that kind of work.  It’s just the presence of the specialised instructor that seems an oddity.  It’s surprising that more detail hasn’t been recorded by the family as to the precise nature of the work.  If they stated they were ‘munitions workers’ then the machinery option seems more likely.

[David Radford]

In my first photo of 4 girls with one seated two of the girls standing are wearing bows in their hair. I doubt they would go to the trouble of bows if their hair was then to be contained in hair nets!

I’ve decided (!!) their dresses are navy for some girls and beige for others. White blouses, black brogue shoes. Finished with a navy bow would be quite a look!

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, David Radford said:

I’ve decided (!!) their dresses are navy for some girls and beige for others. White blouses, black brogue shoes. Finished with a navy bow would be quite a look!

I applaud your vivid imagination 😂👍
 

Your larger group photo with a lady reclining centrally on a leopard skin and gentlemen in three piece suits certainly looks like a group of clerical workers from a managerial office.

Edited 11 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE