Vintage vs Mk 1

Am i right in saying that at one time there was a worry that Mk1's would be banned from network rail but this never came to pass and now even barrier vehicles are not required.
In a way that is good news for the Rail tour operators, but bad for the preserved railways as the cascade of mk1 's into preservation is now a trickle... and when these vehicles are retired it will because they are completely gone and not viable to repair... Certainly a supply of suitable underframes for ' Vintage stock' and the tracking down the last remaining coach bodies that have ended up as huts/ homes/club houses, cinemas etc is becoming a top priority..

 

I think the barrier vehicle requirement is no longer there as it's been argued that TPWS/OTMR offers a greater protection now against a rear end collision.

I think there will be pretty much nil Mk1/2's availible (servicable ones anyway rather than wrecks) from the Mainline Charter Market as they have nothing to replace them with as most trains in the last 30 years have been Multiple Units and Mk3's are still very much in demand by TOC's, that and Air Braked/Air Con stock is very unpopular with the enthusiast market, and then you have to consider you need a certain number of Vac/Dual braked vehicles which dictate Mk1 or early Mk2.

In theory with the barrier coach restrictions lifted, certain pre Mk1 vehicles on the mainline is now possible, but with other considerations to take into account (lack of buckeye couplings in such cases, possible lower top speeds leading possible pathing issues on non steam legs) means it probably won't happen in any great numbers, if at all.

 

Interesting comments - thank you. Never having been involved in carriage restoration first hand, but having observed from the sidelines, I've often wondered whether the older wooden bodied vehicles are easier to restore (and cheaper). Also, the smaller 4 wheelers have perhaps half the number of doors and compartments to restore, and whilst half the size, can get finished quicker than the 10 compartment bogie carriage, and so earn their keep sooner. There may be more work in restoring two 4 wheelers, compared with one bogie coach, but progress will seem quicker if you can get one of them in service - which is encouraging to the workers as well.

Well done the IOWSR for their policy in maintenance - this is often the bit that is less glamorous and gets put to one side until it's too late. I've pointed out elsewhere the high availability of the Tal-y-llyn's stock, and they can get most of it (all of it?) under cover every night. Proper accommodation for passenger stock needs to be a priority.

Steve B

 

I am involved with coach restoration at Tenerden, and if built from scratch , ie 85% new then it is easier, actually the last 4 wheeler was easier than a mk1, but once you start on repairing a woodern bodied coach it becomes harder, for instance, our District coach has needed a full replacement side because it had rotted out the top rail and pillers and our woodwork man had to make these from scratch and fit each one where as with a mk 1 you can fabricate panels and trim to fit a lot easier where as to make the pillers and top rail including the mouldings takes a person with very very good wood working skills, i certainly couldnt do it

 

I would probably say that restoring 4 wheelers is a relativley easy, but time consuming task. If the main framing is structually sound and not distorted then the task becomes one of stripping and renovation. The victorians certainly built them to last, in contrast to MK1's which were really designed with a finite life in mind.

In terms of the underframe this can oftern be the major stumbling block. On GWR 216 we were fortunate to have an ex MK1 horsebox, which was exactly the right length (28 ft). The major advantage of this underframe is that it will be pretty easy to obtain spare parts (e.g new set of wheels) in future should they be required. As 28ft is a common length for 4 wheelers there is some merit in a "new build" batch of MK1 horsebox underframes" if sufficient restorers could club together.

Another essential is a good carpender who knows what he is doing if new doors etc are required. The other thing is that some coach restorers have taken shortcuts to get the coaches running i.e again on GWR 216 we will have foam seats with a red material- not genuine GWR but to have the springing done, uphosletry woven etc we are taking a fair pot of cash. Other coach restorers adopt this method as well- in the interests of getting a set running and costs.

Again with GWR 216 we have found that getting castings done, such as door handles and grab handles are much easier these days with railways such as the SVR having patterns and the ability to make non standard ones too if required.

The cost of restoring anything can be reduced with a commited volunteer workforce, but it will generally be at the expense of time.

 

I don't think there's much it it regarding basic repairs to Mk 1 v wooden framed stock, the big diffference is that most wooden stock has led a departmental life before preservation and there is usually little left of the interior. It then becomes a question of building new rather than refurbishing and that's where the real costs lie - all those luggage racks to cast, seat frames to make and so on. For instance, the LNERCA is nearing the end of rebuilding Thompson TK 1623 and the cost of rebuilding what was a largely gutted shell has probably been in excess of £100,000. Our next project, restoration o a similar vehicle (albeit a CK) is likely to cost a fraction of that because it has a complete, original interior which just requires refurbishment.

 

I remember Stephen Middleton calling this approach "pragmatic restoration", and I think he's quite right. Far better to get a vintage coach running and earning its keep with some interior details missing, than for it to continue to rot in the sidings. After all, this approach doesn't prejudice authentic details being added later as funds permit.

Personally, I'll always pick a vintage coach over a Mk. 1 if I can. I think that the point made at the start of this thread about inter-war carriages was very valid; I think pre-1948 bogie stock is sometimes "squeezed out" between Mk. 1s and Victorian 4-wheelers. Yet such vehicles are essential if the 1900s - 1950s period is to be convincingly recreated.

It's a tragic shame that so many wooden coach bodies have been lost since 1948 through fire damage or neglect. Nevertheless, a quick look through the VCT survey suggests that there are still a lot of restorablle bodies out there. I think it should be a priority for the preservation movement to restore as much as possible before it is too late.

Since I know the magazine editors read these forums: how about a magazine appeal? Steam Railway's appeals, in particular, have always achieved great success, but (apart from the Windcutters) they have always focused on locomotives. I think carriage projects just struggle to achieve the same profile as locomotive restorations - despite the fact that (as this thread suggests) many of use actually rather enjoy travelling on them. If one of the magazines got behind, say, the WSR's vintage train project or the final stage of the Bluebell's operation undercover, they could really help to push things forward. (And, yes, I would contribute!)

One final thought. Some of the posts in this thread suggest that many "restorations" of wooden-bodied stock are in fact largely new construction. If so...why not start from scratch? New-build loco projects are always justified on the grounds that existing locos will become more and more expensive to maintain. As others in this thread have noted, that will apply to coaches too - especially Mk. 1s. If we're going to have new locos, doesn't it make sense for them to be pulling new coaches? The narrow-gauge lines (especially the FfR) have a proven track-record of building replica vehicles; and where they lead, the SG lines usually follow. It might also allow some of the aforementioned sad losses of the preservation era to be recreated - who'd like to see the Bognor Buffet again?

 

I think that's a fair point Muztrem. In the future, perhaps we will see rakes of NER/GWR Clerestories at some of our premier heritage lines such as the NYMR and the SVR? It wouldn't half look good

This "Pragmatic Restoration" sounds to me simply like common sense - get the carriage in service, get it earning, get it into the line's day to day maintenance of running vehicles (thereby taking pressure off the restoring group) and start the fundraising for final fitting out.

There are one or two LNER teaks on the SVR in such a position, with largely salvaged Mk1 interiors, and funds are currently being raised to finish them off inside. Nevertheless they are still in day to day service, earning their keep, and providing the railway with the seats it needs to carry the passengers who pay the fares that maintain the railway and restore the locos. Incidentally, the LNER teaks are noticeably popular amongst the punters - they see the wooden bodies and think 'vintage!' and it genuinely appeals to them. It is the only vaguely enthusiast-like question I've ever been asked by a 'normal' punter whilst on platform duties - 'how do we find out when they are running?' Far be it from me to tell them the LMSs are far more comfortable!

 

On replica carriages at Manchester this was possible as the dimensions of a Liverpool Manchester carriage happened to fit the same dimensions of a British Rail goods van.

These have been rebuilt over the years. For restoration completed there is the Manchester-Birmingham 1840s coach. (used very very occasionally)

I do like travelling in vintage carriages. Had a great day out with 1920s Bluebell Stock a while back. It is something different and does add variety.

Duncan

 

*Drools*

 

The Bluebell already do this on occasion, using the 4 wheelers and the Mets. Most commonly it is done at Christmas as part of the "Victorian Christmas" product (kind of upmarket Santa specials), but we have also occassionally done it at other times branded as a "land cruise", normally in summer evenings using just the 4 wheelers when we have had a visiting small engione such as FR 20 or the Manning Wardle that came a couple of years back.

The main issue , at least how we do it, is that tickets are sold as whole compartments - they are quite reasonably priced based on six people for 1st class or eight for 3rd class, but it does mean you need to target it at groups, rather than individuals. I think that is the reason it is done as an occasional thing with clearly defined marketing push (e.g. at Christmas), rather than a regular, week-in, week-out service such as the Golden Arrow or Wealden Rambler. Relative to, say, fish and chip specials or rail-ale trains, I think they are definitely pushed as a premium product.

Tom

 

Do you sell it by compartment - eg £100 - so it's up to the buyer whether they choose to have 2/4/6 people travelling?

 

AFAIK that is how it is done. Just checking the website, the default package is 6 seats, but with an option to pay a supplement up to 8 people (i.e. 2 extras). The hamper comes with sufficient food for the number of occupents (i.e. 6 or 8), so I guess if you get a compartment just for you and one friend, you'll have a pretty big picnic!

Tom

 

There is another possible solution to the catering problem: just bring a tray of drinks and snacks to the carriage window during station stops. The Ffestiniog does this at Tan-y-Bwlch for the benefit of passengers in vintage coaches who can't access the buffet car.

 

Although not a fan of Mk.1s on account of their being charisma free, I could concede the advantages of corridor stock on account of being able to sidle away from badly parented children or dogs being allowed on seats by silly owners. Until this afternoon on the Mid- Hants that is! Now I think corridor stock is no more than a means whereby parents can move the screams and howls up and down the vehicle and, in an attempt to pacify their little monster, make sure everyone shares in the misery.

There were three howling urchins in my carriage. A couple of the two year olds were not so pre-occupied with howling as to give up on the chance of a bout of fisticuffs though! Quite the most disagreeable trip I have had on a tourist railway.

Perhaps railways are missing a trick though. Reserve the oldest and tattiest vehicle on the train for families with petulant children and people with snappy, smelly, dogs. Call it the W.C. Fields car in celebration of that well known "fan" of children and animals if you like.

 

May be not the OLDEST and tattiest vehicle, just the most expendable! Perhaps the horse-box that will provide the chassis for next year's grounded body restoration...

 

It is very hard to look at some of the little yobs in the world and think 'they're the future!' Scary, too. You get some right ones in all walks of life, if you deal with the public you're guaranteed them.

I had a few the other day, when I was manning a tram from 1880 at work. These three little oiks got on at one end, prodded me to see if I was real (I was in costume), proceeded to tell each other how 'lame' the tram was, and promptly walked through and out the other end. Their dad/uncle/male guardian said to them as they alighted 'what did you see in there?' to which they, in perfect unison, shrugged, sighed and ran off. He looked at me with a look that said 'Kids eh! Aren't they funny?!' to which I wanted to reply 'Bad parenting. Awful, isn't it?'

Anyway, back to topic. I was thinking more along the newbuild approach. I'm not sure what levels of derogation would be available, I reckon for heritage railway use only you could get away with wooden framing, but then you could use metal clad over and no-one would be any the wiser, and you could also fit automatic secondary locking on all (user operated, traditional) doors, actuated by the guard from his compartment. This may become a genuine need in the future, already you have people with no concept of door operation, and H&S is only going to increase.

 

It depends on the length of line and what you define as vintage. I would always ride in a bogie coach rather than a 4 wheeler whether Mk 1 or something older. 4 wheelers, especially those on cut down PMV underframes are not particularly comfortable. If I want a nice smooth ride I'll be looking for something on commowealth bogies!

 

Corridoor stock does have its advantages, but i find it a bit boring, and very often the interiours are faided and tired i recently had the chance to have a trip in our latest coach Petros and this shows what you can achieve the new interiour looks first class, the coach since it re entered service has been very well recieved not just by wheel chair users but by everyone, people have used it where other coaches have been half empty, so what does that tell you?
Very often the state of service stock is discusting, ive lost count of the number of railways ive visited and seen coaches with torn faided seats, or even worse they are filthy you sit on a seat and you have a dust cloud

 

The three W&LLR Pickering replicas are wooden framed (glorious things they are) and would have received derogation. However all doors used by passengers are inward opening. Oddly enough this is true of all W&llr passenger stock.

P.H.