Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

Guard_jamie - In defence of the Isle of Man threads the Railways on the Isle of Man are very different from other preserved lines. They are presently owned by, and operated by, the Isle of Man Government. Realistically they do not form part of an integrated transport strategy and operate really as a tourist/heritage attraction.

This means that it is difficult for groups such as the IOMSRA and the IOMRTPS to make an active contribution. As a result the supporters of the Railways on Island can become very frustrated with the decisions and priorites imposed by the Government. This is especially true when there is a massive amount of pressure to reduce costs throughout the civil service.

There also seems to be a small, but growing, number of people who are opposed to Government money being spent on the Railways at all nevermind undertaking significant preservation work for what would appear to be little return in terms of visitor numbers.

It is my understanding that the IOMSRA is making progress with the DCCL in offering voluteers to support the operation of the Steam Railway. I do not know the details of what that will be but they have already undertaken small scale projects successfully.

Sorry for diverting the post away from the Cleminsons but I thought it needed to be pointed out.

 

jmolyneux - a point I was aware of. My main issue was that amongst IoM enthusiasts there seems, from my outside position, to be a lot of finger-pointing and factionalism when a united voice may have better dealings with the Govt and Govt. operated railway.

However, water under the bridge now, as far as I'm concerned anyway. I hope that my recent posts may somehow prove useful to active restoration.

 

Now that we seem to have gotten to a peaceful state where ideas on teak and mahogany are floated, lets hope it stays that way and we can all work together to hopefully restore TWO Cleminson coaches, one on the Island, and one at Southwold! They were not exactly numerous 130 years ago and if the NRM does not have one on display that speaks volumes!

As we get into the project, we are discovering lots of odd things. For example there is a very good chance that our body is part teak and part mahogany, and I suspect the same will apply with the DCCL coach! I think I know why, but the explanation is (as usual) quite involved and I do not want to bore folks. The history does not matter too much, but for the future I suspect it rules out a varnished wood livery as we will end up with a patchwork quilt of teak and mahogany!

Robert H

 

Out of interest, what was Cleminsons's patent? From what I can gather, some form of unified movement in the bogies for corners?

 

The Cleminson system was applied to 6 wheel stock only, and was subject to a detailed patent application which I have read and to later write ups in which some logical flaws were pointed out. To explain it without taking pages calls for some of these to be ignored.

Short Wheelbase 4w carriages do not ride well, and 6-wheelers were better but some could be over 40 feet long and on sharp curves, the wheels on a rigid 6-wheeler remain at right angles to the coach, not to the rails. When a wheel is forced round a curve at an angle to the rail, rolling resistance and wear are increased. AT some point if the forces are too great, the coach will override the rail and come off.

The perfect arrangement would be for the wheelbase to constantly adjust to the track, and this is what Cleminson set out to do. The Centre wheel set is carried in an independent sub frame or truck that moves transversely in slides. The end trucks are in effect a two wheel bogie with a centre pivot, but a bogie has 4 or even 6 wheels to keep it at right angles to the track. A two axle truck could go in any direction! When I was a youngster, I invented just such trucks on a six wheel carriage I was building. It would not even stay on when on straight track! Dad told me to go and look underneath the nearest Cleminson!

Cleminson fitted a longitudinal beam to the trucks, connecting the centre truck to the end trucks by a double joint. The centre truck moved outwards on a curve, so the double joint also moved outwards. As it was connected to the end truck, that moved radially. In theory, as the coach was on a uniform curve, the centre axle was as far to the outside as need be to ensure that two outer axles were following a radial path, and if you drew imaginary lines from the three axles they should meet at the centre of the curve. Try it on a piece of paper for yourself. Draw a sharp curve. Draw three wheel sets equally spaced and put square boxes for the truck frames around them. Draw the centre lines on all three trucks, and you will find that it all joins up about two thirds of the way towards the end trucks.

Reality is nothing like that, as railways with perpetual curves do not exist and the coach has to cope with transitions and even reverse curves, which is why the double joint is needed. The description is not strictly logical, as the first truck to 'feel' a curve is the leading truck not the centre truck, so the trucks interact with one another. In theory as a wheel set on a 4 wheeler enters a curve, the wheel will try to go straight on but cannot because of the annoying rail in its way! The rail would prefer that the wheel was at right angles to it if it could express its opinions, so they both try to force one another to meet their wishes. Even on a rigid vehicle a wheel will take a very slightly radial path, the axles pressing hard against the axleboxes on opposite sides. Cleminson's system was devised to remove these stresses and it nearly did it, but only nearly!

Given that the Americans were using bogie coaches by the 1840s, why bother. The simple answer is Not invented here! Long bogie cars were an American invention and might be OK for the Wild West but not for Surbiton or Harrow! In fact there are many other reasons. On a 35 foot six wheeler, there are three axles, supported by three W irons and spring sets. Draw it on a sheet of paper and you will see that the maximum unsupported distance for the frame is less than six feet. Now take a 35 foot bogie coach with bogie centres at 26 feet, and you have a 26 foot unsupported span. Hold a heavy weight by your side, it is easy, hold it at arms length and it is much 'heavier'. The shorter the unsupported span, the lighter the framework you need, and the longer the span the heavier it is. Bogie coaches required very heavy chassis and that means dead weight to tow about. Six wheelers could be much lighter and if you cut tare weight you saved on fuel costs.

Robert H

 

Nicely explained Robert. I've often wondered how those long rigid 8-wheelers on the Metropolitan coped with curves? Any idea? Ray.

 

I suspect (don't know) that the answer is that they didn't cope. Didn't the GWR have some similar coaches that were rebuilt as bogie coaches?

Also germane: just reading DL Bradley's book on the locomotive history of the LCDR. Apparently, in the mid-1860s, the Vale of Neath Railway bought two 0-8-0 tank engines from Avonside for use in South Wales. Seeing those engines, Archibold Sturrock on the GNR bought two similar engines for use on the Metropolitan Widened lines. They had all eight wheels flanged, but the leading and trailing axleboxes had 5/8" of sideplay, controlled by springs according to an invention of Monsieur Caillet, a French engineer. On the LCDR, Martley in turn proposed buying two similar engines, but with the two centre sets of wheels flangeless.

However, in March 1866, the first of the GNR engines was delivered and set to work on the Metropolitan line. Although capable with regards power and adhesion, complaints of damage to the track and culverts were soon received from the Metropolitan Railway civil engineer, who promptly banned the class. Hearing that, Martley cancelled the order from Avonside, and thus no such locos came to the LCDR. I don't know what became of the GNR ones: presumably banished to working freight on a straighter section of line.

Tom

 

Pleased to see things back "on track" (sorry about that!).

The Cleminson system seems to be very complicated. That said I am not at all surprised that there was resistance to taking up an American idea and instead to search for a 'home-grown' alternative.

 

For Ray - thanks, and as far as the Met coaches were concerned, it always puzzled me. My guess is that there was a lot of lateral play in the axleboxes on the outer wheelsets, but that it a guess.

For jmolyneux - The Cleminson system is a bit like a spiral staircase, quite simple in reality but almost impossible to describe to someone who hasn't seen one, and by 'seeing' I mean crawled about underneath it! I was about ten when I made my 6-w chassis that would barely stay on straight track when standing still. I asked my father why it did not work and he suggested I have a look underneath a Cleminson. I quickly decided that it WAS too complicated for my ten year old skills. Within twelve years, I had seven model Cleminsons in service and they ran far better than rigid six-wheelers.

I suspect that "Not invented here" was a factor in the slow uptake of bogie stock, but Victorian engineers were not fools. Victorian carriages were much lighter than we tend to think, otherwise the tiny engines could never have coped. I have stood beside GN No 1 in steam and wondered how such a small locomotive could possibly have been a front line express engine for years! If you look at the dramatic change on the GN from Stirling singles to Ivatt large boilered Atlantics and the way that the small Webb compounds were swept away by 4-6-0s in a few years it is a dramatic change. Then look at the stock they were pulling? To a large extent 6w in 1890, and massive bogie carriages with corridor connections, side aisles, dining cars, vacuum brakes, etc etc. The loco engineers did not build big engines for fun and then build big coaches to justify them. The sudden transformation in passenger stock pushed tare weight per passenger thru the roof!

I believe the importance of the Cleminson coach is that it was an avenue that was explored in an effort to keep tare weight down. In some ways it was a bit like Bulleid's 'Leader' or the Norfolk * Western RR, "Jawn Henry", an option that was worth exploring, and what would be give to be able to see the 'Leader' today?

Robert

 

I had always wondered why the MNR decided to buy Cleminsons when the Festiniog had been successfully running bogie coaches since 1872 - maybe it was just a case of "not invented here" as Robert says.
Tom's post got me thinking how different railways tackled the problem of eight coupled engines. The GWR used "thin" flanges on the centre wheelsets of the 2-8-0's. On the 42xx tanks the rear axle had lots of sideplay with,I think, special coupling rod bearings. The Germans used the Krauss- Helmholz truck whereby the "pony truck" was connected by links to the leading driving axle which slid radially.Ray.

 

'Not invented here" is something we cannot ignore, but I have a hunch that costs were the determining factor. The MNR originally planned to order thirty carriages and passenger brake vans, but by late 1878, reality had set in, and money was tight. The order was revised to 14 carriages and two 4-w brakes.There were five tenders, Swansea Wagon, Brown Marshalls, Ashbury, Birmingham and Bristols, the prices for the compo, as per N42 ranging from £303 to £395. Swansea were the cheapest on the overall contract by £60, and agreed to accept deferred payment, and that mattered by early 1879. The all 3rds were as little as £256 each, and this has some relevance as we shall see!

The IMR had acquired its first bogie stock from Brown Marshalls in 1875, so the MNR had no need to look as far as the Festiniog, as bogie stock was already on the Island. In 1880 the IMR was considering more stock and quotes for all thirds were obtained from Ashbury (£375), Brown Marshalls (£550) and Metropolitan at £541 15s.
By March 1880, Brown Marshalls were actually suggesting an alternative cheaper design using the Cleminson system, which they said, "We think the Cleminson system just as good as the Bogies and its cheaper too"

The design was unusual as the coaches were to have demountable bodies so that the chassis could be used for goods wagons in winter, and by late 1881 this idea had been abandoned and the price had come down to just over £500. The IMRCo talked about £402 as a target but Brown Marshalls said a decent job could not be done for that price!

So we have price discussions a year after the MNR order was placed at £500 for an all third, with the IMR suggesting £402, as against £256, and Brown Marshalls saying Cleminsons were as good as bogies and cheaper. If we take the £256 and £500 figures, it suggests pretty clearly why the MNR opted for Cleminsons. You got two for the price of one!

On rereading this, I should have added that Ashburys were a lot cheaper that Brown Marshalls or Metro, but they were still £100 over the Cleminson price. The IMRCo 1881 order was split with F7/8 from Ashbury and F9-12 from Brown Marshalls. The IMRCo were NOT happy with the Ashbury stock and never ordered another coach from Ashburys

Robert H

 

I wish your Dad had been about when Dapol designed their LMS Stove R (have a look at one if you get a chance). Sounds fairly similar to the concept Hornby had on their six-wheeler LMS vans, except the beams from the centre axle went to the tension-lock couplings at each end to keep them in line with the stock next to them.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Our model six wheelers comprise six MNR coaches and there we use tension lock couplers and I extended the truck beams to carry the couplers, and one standard gauge coach with 'conventional' centre hook and side buffers, and in that case the end beam is not extended.

With model railways I often learned how not to do things, and my self-derailing six wheeler was a classic example. The good side of it was that although I abandoned dreams of six-wheelers at the age of ten, a decade later I knew how NOT to do it and the Cleminsons were still around, so as well as measuring up the bodies, I crawled around underneath them.

On that basis it just occurred to me that I must have been crawling around underneath Cleminson coaches for over half a century now. They seem to run every bit as well as bogie stock and that is more than I can say for the rigid six wheelers we have which are a pain in the neck.

I think I May have mentioned that when our coach was moved at train speed from Ballasalla to Port Erin, Donald Shaw the IMR Loco supt invited my mother, myself and our Tibethan spaniel to travel in it! As it had not run in decades it suggested he had a lot of faith in it. It had NO glass, someone had stolen quite a few body panels and some door handles so some doors were tied shut with string, but it rode MUCH better than the IMR bogie stock.

I had assumed it would be a dreadful ride, but it was superb, and I want to relive the experience when we have a coach that had all the normal bits such as windows. Mind you the lack of windows did have advantages. It was not in the least stuffy, and my mother could lean out of one quarter light, the dog could stand on the seat leaning out of the other quarter light and I could lean out of the door drop light.

When we went over level crossings, some motorists looked a little startled for some strange reason. Maybe it was seeing a dog looking out of the window!

There are some theoretical problems with the Cleminson system, including a tendency not to fully correct, but a rigid 4-w bogie does not go round a curve ideally and whenever someone has devised radial trucks, as was the case of tramways, the complexity, weight and so on usually ensured they were a pain in the neck.

The perfect system to go round curves seems to be a bit like the Lartigue monorail. You save one rail at the expense of adding two more rails, A frames, and drawbridges and you wonder why the guy bothered in the first place. James Cleminson produced something that was quite simple and worked pretty well, but I suspect it was only worthwhile if the curves were quite severe.

There are suggestions that some Cleminsons on the mainland were eventually made rigid, but I have never seen any definite proof of this. If anyone does have details of Cleminson coaches on UK standard gauge railways, I would welcome that as the best known examples apart from the MNR are the NWNG and the Southwold.

Robert H

 

To supplement Robert's description, here's a picture:

LSWR Royal Saloon

and a contemporary account of a 65 mph jolly in the same vehicle.

P.

 

There was the South and West Clare system as well. They were in the UK when the vehicles were built. The later vehicles were rigid but I am not sure if the earlier ones were converted.

Paul H.

 

I know this is slightly off topic, but I'd remembered reading a little about this and dug it out - it's from "Steam to Silver", published by LT in 1970. Writing about the early 8 wheelers the author says:

"The original vehicles were 42 feet long and carried on four axles grouped in pairs but not provided with bogies. Flexibility at curves was provided by a translation movement of the radial axlebox attached to the mainframes by means of links hung from the ends of the springs at angles of about 30 degrees. The outer wheels of each pair were over 6 feet from the ends of the coach so that the vehicle, apart from the translation movement, was virtually rigid wheelbased. This arrangement varied on the different batches of stock and was finally modified on the introduction of the automatic vacuum brake." (Page 7)

They can't have been too disastrous in use as they ran from the 1860's until finally displaced by increasing electrification around 1905. Some were then sold on to other railways and remained in use for a while longer. Five were retained for use on the Brill branch until that closed in the 1930's. Interestingly though, from 1870 the Met introduced 4 wheeled coaches and built them (or rather had them built) up until the introduction of the bogie stock (as on the Bluebell) in 1898, so maybe there was a re-thinking on the issue. The Met and Circle lines have some pretty tight curves on them...

Steve B

 

There haven't been any posts in this thread for a while and I wondered how the restoration of the Cleminson is progressing? Does recent rejection of the planning application for the Southwold scheme have any bearing on work being done on the coach?

 

As a coach restorer myself I'd say they be going great guns if they've removed a few panels for closer inspection of the frame by now. Most restoration projects involving wooden bodied coaches carried out by volunteers tend to take a very long time. It's only once the money is there to pay full time contractors that progress speeds up, so given that it isn't that long since the coach arrived at Southwold its probably a bit too soon to expect significant progress!

 

Not wanting to reopen old wounds, but is there any further information as to how this is progressing as the Southwold Blog doesn't provide much information other than a post made on the 10th of February to say that the stock had been put under cover (bear in mind that they were removed to Southwold in the October of the previous year)?

The Southwold blog makes a reference to the Manx coach being put inside some sort of plastic tent "getting a much needed opportunity to dry out" - which seems to imply that the stock was stored outside on the Island, something which is very far from the truth, as it was kept in a dry and warm workshop along with items of IMR stock undergoing work. I don't think it's unfair to expect a constant update on the progress, but most of the Southwold blog seems to be concerned with the repeated objections to their attempts to establish some sort of railway at Southwold. A little concerning for those of us on the Island who are conscious that our history has been left outside over a wet winter, with no clear idea of how restoration is going on, or what the long term prospects for the stock are. In less time than the Cleminson has been off the Island, the IMR has totally rebuilt a previously at risk bogie luggage van with metal underframes for use with the saloon set, and returned the chassiless N41 to a secure base built in the location it was previously removed from, plus undertaken other work to protect it from the elements.

http://www.iomsrsa.com/six-whl
To link an image of N42 taken from the Isle of Man Steam Railway Supporters Association Website of the Cleminson in store in the workshops at Douglas. This is how it had stayed for the years inbetween its removal from the Railway Museum at Port Erin, and was there the last time I visited the shed a couple of months before its removal. So if it didn't get wet at Douglas, where did it get wet?

I've got to say that the future still looks worrying bleak for N42 to me. Is it possible that given the lack of progress at Southwold the IOMT&RPS would consider repatriating the coach and No7 to the Island and selling it for a sensible sum of money to a group which would have a serious funding and intention to restore it (if needs be if more cost effective the work could be undertaken in the UK before repatriation back to where it belongs). Incidentally significant work has been undertaken on a goodshed in Ballaugh in the Isle of Man, which is intended to be a heritage centre celebrating the Manx Northern Railway, and the goodshed looks very good now, having had windows replaces and repointing. The plan is to relay some track there (to connect with the track already in situ in the goodshed) to recreate some of what the station area looked like. Surely this would have been a significantly better place for the Cleminson to have gone to in the long run being in the place where it has the most connections, yet away from any issues between the society and the railway management?