Looking for soldiers that served prior to WW1? Find My Past is the best resource for finding information about Victorian-era Soldiers.
By far the best resource for WW1 research. WW1 Service Records, pension papers, medal index cards and casualty information.
Search through millions of archived British Newspaper Articles to find any references to your ancestors.

In early 1917 all soldiers of the Territorial Force were given ‘new style’ six figure service numbers. To understand why this was needed and how it was implemented I recommend this article on the Long, Long Trail website.

Those men who were at that time serving in the Territorial Battalions of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment were renumbered within the following blocks;

4th Battalion
200001 to 240000

5th Battalion
240001 to 265000

12th Battalion
265001 to 290000

14th Battalion
290001 to 315000

This is useful to know when attempting to research soldiers whose service/pension papers have not survived.

Paul McCormick
Contact me
Latest posts by Paul McCormick (see all)
(This post has been visited 201 times in the last 90 days)

3 Responses to 1917 Territorial Force Numbers

  1. Stephen D Burke says:

    Hi. Some very interesting information indeed on this site! Here’s something that’s puzzling me at the moment concerning the renumbering of the TF in 1917. I’ve just purchased a single 1914-15 Star (obviously from a broken trio) named to 200788 Pte Francis Burns 1/4th Bn LNLR. Clearly this number was allocated to the 4th Bn in 1917. The peculiar thing is that Pte Burns was KIA 15 Jun 15, when his original TF service number was 2886. He is in the medal rolls and CWGC under 200788. As that number wasn’t issued until 1917 why would they renumber a soldier who was dead? Checking through the medal rolls it looks like there were other deceased soldier of the battalion who received new TF numbers. I can’t make sense of it! I would have expected the Star to have his old TF number on it. Regards, Steve

    • Hi Steve, the fact he was issued a new 1917 numbers shows that Francis Burns was still officially classed as missing at that point rather than being confirmed as killed. Regards, Paul

  2. Stephen D Burke says:

    Thanks Paul. That seems to be the only explanation. Regards, Steve

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.