Vintage Coaches. Pre and Post 1948 Carriages

The subject of this thread is carriages, repeat carriages. Actually I don't have a problem with Halls etc. on the G.C.R., an ertswhile mainline but I once encountered a G.C.R. member who did. He was much more critical than I am about using large machines on duties well within the capability of their 2MT 2-6-0.

As for 41298 and 41313 photographs exist of them in service all over Southern Englnd hauling, you've guessed it, passenger stock of S.E.C.R. and L.B.S.C.R. origin. Interestingly this includes Lewes to East Grinstead.

Now lets get back to carriages

 

I feel sure I could come up with just as flimsy an argument for many occurrences of WIBN, but there we go. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you have different personal preferences and priorities when it comes to carriages and locomotives, but that is all it is, a personal preference.

 

?

 

Anyway. One railway which I'm surprised hasn't appeared in this thread is the Tanfield railway. A line which has no mark 1s and never has. It currently has a very impressive collection of restored pre grouping stock.

 

Actually it has and a similar point already made.

 

Just caught up with thread, must have missed it.

 

I love what Tanfield have done in recreating a Paddy Train with old wooden coaches. These old four and six-wheelers are not exactly restored, though. Certainly not to original condition. That would have been a much more expensive undertaking, and in any case not in line with what The Tanfield is all about.

 

You apply different standards to priorities; on carriages, you prioritise vintage stock that enthusiasts find more interesting above everything else and aren't worried about the cost. On locomotives, you prioritise economics (or your perceived version of steam loco economics, which has been questioned by people with greater insight than you or me but lets not go there) above locos that enthusiasts find more interesting.

On Tanfield, yes, they've done well with their vintage stock, and as a result, it is somewhere I'd most definitely like to visit. However, on Wikipedia I count 7 carriages in service that could be described as vintage, plus a few other "bits and pieces". They do what they do very well, but they're a very different outfit compared to, say, the MHR or GWSR. The coaching stock on the Tanfield would not be able to maintain the service required on those two lines. Which is why what the SVR and Bluebell as prime examples have done is so impressive, they've managed both, but that takes us back to my earlier arguments of being around at the right time and with different circumstances.

 

Yet again you could not be more wrong. What matters is showing visitors something of how rural railways were (It's impossible to be 100% correct) which has to be tempered with the sort of catering, childrens entertainment and sanitary facilities which customers expect in a modern attraction. Passengers ride in carriages and not on locomotives and can be surprisingly acute about what they are riding in without any kind of detailed knowledge thereof.

Plenty of lines have Educational Charities somewhere in their structure and they need to bear this in mind. No matter what equipment a line started operations with, the important matter is what they have now, particularly if they have been around for f0rty or more years. Erstwhile main lines like the G.C.R. can operate "main line" equipment quite appropriately but most of the rest cannot.

 

Very correct Tanfields fleet would not be able to maintain a service on those lines. But it doesn't have too, it has cut its cloth to fit. It's also one of the reasons I prefer tanfield to the larger outfits named above. But personal taste etc.

 

Absolutely, no criticism of Tanfield was implied. Just noting that it's doing something different, so comparisons of the like "Railway A is doing such and such, so why can't Railway B?" are of limited relevance in many circumstances when it comes to operations and what stock is run as each railway has unique circumstances and aims, both historic and present, geographical, economic, commercial etc.

Why? Why only rural railways? Sure, most railways are educational charities and plenty also happen to occupy rural branchlines, but very few are as narrow as that. We have a diverse collection of railway equipment that has been preserved in this country, it would be daft to put the bits that don't quite fit on your generic rural branchline away in a box rarely to be used.

I'll use Didcot as an example as it's most obvious here substitute "rural railway" for "typical steam shed" and you get the idea. Didcot is run by the GWS, which aims to preserve all aspects of the GWR. however, its site is a GWR Shed. that doesn't restrict its activities to just those relevant to a GWR shed plus the catering and other modern trappings you noted. No, it goes much wider than that. In my view a scheme's setting need not be it's limiting factor.

To take another example, the aim of the Bluebell Railway is not, as far as I know, to recreate a typical LBSCR branchline, but to be a mecca to Southern steam. The former is encompassed in the latter, but the latter allows it to portray so much more.

You seem to place more importance on the occupied line's former status as a branchline or mainline than you do the original owning company. Perhaps this explains your thought processes better? That just about explains why you're satisfied with the Ivatts and Austerities on the IoW, and unsatisfied at the use of slightly larger than necessary locomotives and I guess Mk1s in use on branchlines too. As a litmus test for this theory, what would you say would be more out of place on the SVR, a GWR Hall, or an LNER tank engine. I suspect the vast majority of people would say the LNER tank engine, as the Hall was at least GWR, and a better representation of a GWR scene could be made with a GWR loco on a GWR line. But would you say the Hall, on the basis that the LNER tank engine could give a better representation of a "Rural railway" scene?

Genuinely curious, after 6 years arguing perhaps I've finally understood the underlying logic behind it all! or maybe not...

 

Speaking of Tanfield. To be honest they haven't set out to restore their collection of former chicken coops to their original format. Rather restore them to their for want of a better term twilight/industrial condition. Once sold out of "mainline" service many of these type carriages had basic or freelance interiors fitted.

 

You still haven't got it. Actually Didcot is an extreme example of what I had in mind. A "King" on the shuttle train? Yes, I know about the access difficulties but I cannot imagine that without such difficulties they would waste a nanosecond before hiring in something more suited to the purpose.

I understand (open to correction) that in B.R. days there were severe restrictions on what was allowed on the S.V.R. on account of geological problems. Neither of the types you mention would have been entertained. Indeed I don't think there is an L.N.E.R. equivalent to a large prairie or a 3MT but if there were, I would not object. The S.V.R. has had its problems with the track formation in the preservation era.

Now how about a replica G.W.R. or Midland clerestory utilising Mk.1 running gear to bring (a) some much needed variety to the rolling stock pool and (b) this thread back to its topic.

 

Well you could always build yourself a V1 / V3 suburban tank engine. I don't think many people would object to that idea!

 

And yet you admonished me for writing "Great Western Railway" on a leaflet holder!
On a serious point, I don't see how that proposal addresses any of the reasons I've put forth as to why vintage carriages aren't currently restored. Coming up with a way of doing it that utilises the metal frame and body work of the Mk1 as well would be the only way to negate even some of those problems, but then what do you end up making if not a Frankestein coach no better than the awful butchered veranda coach on the GCR?

 

Turning to the principal issue, the I.O.W.S.R. is by no means the only line to start life with pre-Nationalisation rolling stock. What makes it unusual is in its eschewing the quick fix. There was such a quick fix around at the time as referred to earlier, in the form of redundant emu stock.

I would agree that "forty years on" it is a little late to review the supposed "quick fix."[/QUOTE]

Paul, the EMU's where in fact B.R. class 207 East Sussex vehicles, but not complete units, just the driving trailer and the center composite, at 8ft 6" wide they look like they could have fitted the Island loading gauge, how ever their length might have counted against their use! 64ft for the D.T.S and 63ft 6" for the Composite. A usable set could have been made up as follows D.T.S,+C+D.T.C using the driving cabs as brake/guards van giving a total seating capacity of 24 First, 194 Second plus one seat no one could use on the island the Lavatory!
The idea was to run these vehicles until they fell apart, by which time it was hoped that restored vintage stock would be available, then to use the underframe for some of the grounded bodies. Why this scheme never went ahead I do not know, two things I can think of would be heating/lighting issues, plus the big one, Asbestos!

 

Paul, the EMU's where in fact B.R. class 207 East Sussex vehicles, but not complete units, just the driving trailer and the center composite, at 8ft 6" wide they look like they could have fitted the Island loading gauge, how ever their length might have counted against their use! 64ft for the D.T.S and 63ft 6" for the Composite. A usable set could have been made up as follows D.T.S,+C+D.T.C using the driving cabs as brake/guards van giving a total seating capacity of 24 First, 194 Second plus one seat no one could use on the island the Lavatory!
The idea was to run these vehicles until they fell apart, by which time it was hoped that restored vintage stock would be available, then to use the underframe for some of the grounded bodies. Why this scheme never went ahead I do not know, two things I can think of would be heating/lighting issues, plus the big one, Asbestos![/QUOTE]

How were Class 207's available 40 years ago?

 

Had thought of these but would they not be a trifle heavy?

 

Paul, the EMU's where in fact B.R. class 207 East Sussex vehicles, but not complete units, just the driving trailer and the center composite, at 8ft 6" wide they look like they could have fitted the Island loading gauge, how ever their length might have counted against their use! 64ft for the D.T.S and 63ft 6" for the Composite. A usable set could have been made up as follows D.T.S,+C+D.T.C using the driving cabs as brake/guards van giving a total seating capacity of 24 First, 194 Second plus one seat no one could use on the island the Lavatory!
The idea was to run these vehicles until they fell apart, by which time it was hoped that restored vintage stock would be available, then to use the underframe for some of the grounded bodies. Why this scheme never went ahead I do not know, two things I can think of would be heating/lighting issues, plus the big one, Asbestos![/QUOTE]
I thoought the stock was from further north but have no details.

 

Merely a chance to add a modicum of patina.