L&B Coach at the NRM

The coach has the last remaining bit of L&B brown if we're going to froth.

It's also not the only unrestored coach at York and if it were to go back to the L&B there's no undercover space for it at present.

 

As regards the 2 'origional coaches' on the WHHR, the Gladstone coach has about 10% origional timbers in it, the rest is brand new and some of the brand new has already been replaced, and the origional bit on coach 42 is the frames.
So this need to take a complete, rare coach, rip it to pieces, scrap lots of it because it is rotten and build what ends up more a replica than origional is intelligent and cost effective.
The L&B coach at the NRM is in fact representative of what the brilliant coach restorers start with, what would boost the exhibit is to have a restored NG coach next to it to show punters the end result.

 

Now that really is an excellent idea. The SVR have a similar display in the Engine House - a faux section of carriage, with an original 'un-restored' compartment seat on one side - tired wood, stripped varnish, broken bakelite fixtures, mangy ripped and faded seats etc., and a duplicate on the other side 'restored to former glory'. The L&B coach would then be telling two stories - post-operational service life, and the 'before' section of the restorer's art.

 

I have plans to do exactly that Ian and Jamie, but with a different coach - but you are right, a before and after display would be great and could also show the difference between conserving and restoring. Barry wreck anyone?

 

as someone else has commented on the WHHR original carriages i need not say anything. as for the FfR Vintage set, are these carriages not Rebuilds?

AFAIK the Talyllyn Carriages 1, 2, 3 and 5 are more than 65-70% original, anyone who has traveled in them may have noticed that some of the windows have graffiti on them with various dates on them most are pre 1950 this too me is a fantastic look into the past as they are mainly 'original' alright the balcony has gone from Van 5 so the Van isn't 'as built' but is a pre-preservation Modification circa 1900.

Carriage No.4 known to railway staff as 'limping lulu' has had its Frames renewed in 1957-8 ish but i believe the majority of the wood is still original.

there are some people in the know who accredit it with the title 'oldest complete train in the world' with No.1 or 2 at the front. i dont know the truth in this though.

cheers

AT

 

That's not quite true for the Bluebell at least - it looks likely that the Craven era coaches (from the 1850s) will be preserved as they are, on the grounds that any "restoration" would essentially require so much replacement as to be a new build anyway. So if in years to come you ever get into an 1850s carriage at the Bluebell behind an 1850s loco (as is a long term aspiration), it will be 100% new build.

With regard the L&B coach: I'm basically in the "preserve as is" camp, and build a replica if you want an operational carriage. I don't think the situation is quite as it is with other Victorian coaches. Generally, it is right that some are preserved "as is" to preserve for the future the archaeological information they contain; and some are "restored" to give future generations an opportunity to experience transport from another era - albeit with compromises on underframes, brakes, lighting, heating etc. So the question is which vehicles do you put in each camp. With many Victorian bodies (bearing in mind that hundreds still exist), restoration is a better option for the long term preservation of the body (because the choice might be restoration or scrapping - museums can't take on everything, and operational preserved railways can't afford the undercover space to store a vehicle unless there is a commercial return - which means putting it in service). But if a body has made its way to a museum that can ensure its long term future, and especially if the vehicle has considerable historical value by virtue of rarity (like L&B No 1), connection with an historic event (such as 34051), preservation "as is" is the best option, IMHO.

Tom

 

So let's assume it is going to be restored. How much will need to be replaced? Quite a lot is my guess. It was sitting outside at the rectory for a long time before going to the NRM. My guess is most of the body timbers and doors will be showing signs of rot, but this isn't easily determined without a complete strip down. Then there is the underframe and running gear. It would almost certainly need new bearings, brake gear, wheels reprofiling. Then all the glass and upholstery would probably need replacing before a complete repaint. It would be more cost effective, as a useable vehicle, to build a replica, but who is going to pay for all this? Not the new L&B, which has other priorities for spending whatever money it can raise. Nor the NRM, for similar reasons, even discounting their (laudable) stance to conserve this coach in its current condition.

Having paid for it, where is it going? No covered space or immediate use at L&B. Ffestiniog? Maybe, but where's the relevance, other than to undulge the current generation by pairing it with Lyd? It would most likely stay at the NRM - what a waste of money!
Far better to keep it where it is, in the condition it is in now. It's unique, it's safe, and when the L&B has recreated whatever it can of the old line maybe a controlled environment museum can house it there (along with the long lost remains of Lew, if they are ever found!)

 

Some thoughts from a former colleague who was involved in creating the display back in 1995 - he's not on here, but has given me permission to repeat here:

A reflection on the display of L&B coach 6692.

The exhibition was experimental in a number of ways. We wanted to allow visitors to explore the idea that the carriage had a number of ‘lives’ throughout its history, and that it meant diverse things to different people at different times. The idea was that by displaying the coach in a garden setting, it would immediately signal that this was something apart from the rest of the Great Hall. That sense of difference was reinforced by the appearance of the coach in its unrestored state which contrasts arrestingly with the rest of the objects on display around it. This, we hoped, would raise some questions in the minds of visitors and encourage further enquiry. To this end we provided a range of resources which visitors could use to find out more about the vehicle, most notably, albums of photographs which showed the vehicle as railway carriage, auction lot, summer house, and latterly as museum exhibit. We also provided a second album of photographs of 6693 which had been rebuilt and subsequently ‘built back’ to something approaching L&B condition by the Ffestiniog Railway. We hoped that this might go some way to at least raising the idea that vehicles that have found their way not only museum displays, but also into mainstream railway preservation, have almost without exception had a interesting time getting there. It also suggests that each has been subjected to a range of scenarios and decision making processes, all equally valid, but which can lead to varying outcomes, including destruction, as happened of course with many other L&B vehicles. We provided some photographs of L&B vehicles being broken up to suggest how close 6692 might have come to a similar fate.

The display was far from perfect. With a limited budget being just one factor, perhaps we asked too much of it. However, at the time, and perhaps even now, the display was innovative, even if imperfect. But let’s be clear. The vehicle remained unrestored not because of its inclusion in the display. Rather the reverse was true. The decision had been taken to conserve the coach in ‘as received’ condition, at least for the time being, and this display was a product of that decision. Conserving and stabilising such a delicate artefact is an active process – it certainly doesn’t equate to ‘doing nothing’ – and it requires considerable professional judgment, skill and experience to get right. From our point of view, the fact that this it was a narrow gauge vehicle that found its way into the display is an accident of history; it could equally have been any other unrestored, historic but complete railway carriage. But that’s the issue. Such vehicles are unbelievably rare, so when one does present itself, any intervention needs to be undertaken only after considerable reflection and thought. In no sense was there any notion that we could ‘get away’ with this because it was ‘only’ a narrow gauge vehicle. Far from it. We were keenly aware that here was a vehicle that was significant on so many levels - a real gem - and it should be treated with the utmost respect.

The display was put together some considerable time ago, and perhaps it has now run its course. I would like to think that whatever the future of that display might be, perhaps it has generated something of a legacy during its lifetime. For example, the display was fully written up and published and when combined with the other means by which the ongoing experience of that display has been communicated, it might have gone at least some small way to informing our thinking across the sector when confronted with such an important survivor. I believe at least one heritage railway is considering rebuilding one of its grounded carriage bodies as it was when it was a dwelling, in order to better tell the story of many of its now fully-restored carriages. Might that approach have been informed by what we did with 6692? Who knows? Might this and similar such decisions by others inform what the NRM decides to do with 6692 in the future? I have no doubt.

 

There have been some interesting posts on this thread over the past feew days, and that from Anthony Coullis on the thinking behind the original display was particularly so. That this coach survived at all is no less than a small miracle, and although I agree the NRM display is a little tired right now, retaining the artefact in its present condition does serve a useful purpose. (If the exhibit display information is to be revived, perhaps the L&B may be able assist with original photos of the coach in service (it is surprising how many L&B photos are still coming to light) and modern photos and descriptions of the reconstruction of coach 17, to show how coach 2 was built? )

Had the L&B remained in use, and the coach remained in service, it would no doubt by now have had much of its originality restored out of it. In fact, it was far from original even in 1935, having been repainted and repaired inside and out (including re-upholstering, I believe) several times during its service life. Despite that, it is by far the most complete original of the 17 L&B carriages. Coach 15 (now on the FR as no 14) was very much changed, with a completely new interior layout and fittings, as well as a reprofiled roof and end corridor doors.
Coaches 7 and 17 are being "restored" from a fairly small percentage of original parts (coach 7, mainly the central open observation section; coach 17, about one third - the brake van section) Both will run on new, modern underframes and bogies, and are really replicas (panelling is in aluminium, for example, rather than steel, making the coaches considerably lighter, as well as less prone to rust) incorporating some original materials, rather than true restorations (many will be upset by that, but that is how I see them). Having said that, the work is being carried out to extremely high standards by a very small group of artisans and craftsmen, and will be a close representative of the originals.

The L&B currently has no facilities to undertake any restoration of the coach 2, and certainly nowhere to display it securely, and although that may change in years to come, the most likely expansion to the coach fleet before any attempt at coach 2 will be completion of up to five (total) original coaches, plus a small number of goods wagons, and a fleet of modern design, modern construction coaches with a similar size and shape to the originals, but catering for modern transport and leisure needs. in the meantime of course, there is plenty to do in restoring and expanding the route!

There is also one other salient point, Coach 2 belongs to the NRM, not the L&B, so any decison as to what is or isn't done with the coach is theirs and theirs alone!

Like Lynton&Barnstaple, and despite my username, I don't speak on behalf of the L&B Trust, in fact their policy is not to comment on forum discussions, so please don't take anything I've said as official, although I do believe it to be fairly accurate! Please do have a look at the website though - see my sig...

 

Just want to say that I heard the L&B do have plans to store coaches 7 and 17 undercover when they are finished so they wont be left outside to the mercy of the elements. So if coach 2 was restored and returned to woody bay, it would also be kept undercover.

 

Not having been to the NRM since it moved from Clapham, can I ask if there is a similar display showing a decrepit steam locomotive in Barry Scrapyard condition to illustrate the heritage restoration points raised above?

 

It has to be noted that the Buffet Car on the WHHR was restored in a way that preserved as much original timber as possible. This was only an option in more recent years as modern adhesives enabled parts of the original wood work to be bonded to new wood in a grafted form rather than whole scale wood replacement. I think the condition of the Buffet car was decayed/damaged far beyond that of the L&B coach when recovered. While it has been restored as a working carriage it is dry stored in our museum for most of the year, and only makes it into the train set on special occasions.

The Gladstone car is more of a working restoration and I am sure a couple of rebuilds down the line very little original material will remain.

The toast rack and the Ashbury corridor coach No.25 are very good replicas and I am sure most members of the public will be hard pushed to point out the difference between the original and replica carriages in our rake.

Because it is so hard to tell the difference between replica and original, I think the L&B coach should remain in the NRM, maybe the L&B could offer to help with improved interpretation of the exhibit which may result in more trade for the L&B in a way that does not divert funds from the NRM

I also have to fly the banner for the FR and how amazing the restoration and maintenance of their heritage fleet is. I look forward to the day that the WHHR and FR heritage NWNGR/WHR trains can be passed side by side on the RhE (there might need to be a bit of through piping required to link differing braking systems...)

 

There is currently sufficient space in the carriage/loco shed for coaches 7 and 17 (in place of the Thorpe Park coaches currently stored there). There isn't room for another coach. The situation will change in the coming years, when the railway is reinstated back to Blackmoor, but for the time being, there is no room at the inn.

 

The underframes for L&B 7 & 17 (built at Boston Lodge) are dual-brake fitted, with both air and vacuum systems, allowing them to be used with a greater variety of locomotives. see HERE , HERE and HERE

 

It's an interesting debate and one that I do have mixed feelings on. There are a couple of points that I'd like to raise:

1) It is a shame that a worn out carriage is largely all there is to show for narrow gauge at the NRM
2) The L&B really does need or have room for Coach 2 at the moment
3) That said, it is a shame that such a historically significant coach has been left like this rather then something more common. Why couldn't a less important coach be used instead?
4) Railways are are in the history scene in that that are kinesthetic. We go and we stand in a Gallery and look at paints of historical significance because that is what you do. Railways are moving, they should move, and for you to really appreciate and admire a railway artificat it should be doing what it was born to do. Seeing an A4 in steam is something very different to looking at it cold and stationary in a Mueseum. It's the difference between being engaged with learning, or sitting down learning dates through a chalk and talk. These things are meant to be enjoyed on the move, that is when they are alive. Don't get me wrong, I admite and love the NRM, but IF there is an opportunity to restore something, to do what it was created to do, then I think that should be taken
5) As others have said, it is not historically accurate now and I would argue there is very little "original" left, even between it's construction and the 1930s
6) If it is going to stay at the NRM (and I am sure that it is the right place for it at the moment), then there should be a lot more interpretation around it, saying exactly what it is, why it's there, and more then that, discussing the L&B and highlighting the restoration that is going on now.

All that said, do love the NRM!!

 

If I may respond?

Agreed.

Assuming you actually meant 'does not', agreed!

I would hazard a guess that, bizarrely, it was the good condition of this carriage that resulted in it being chosen for the display. Many carriages subjected to rigorous restoration are in far worse condition when they are saved. So by conserving this one, the NRM are conserving more original material than they might have with naught but a shell.

To an extent, I agree. There is much to be said for an A4 at 75mph, or an 0-6-0ST with 400tons behind the bunker attacking a 1 in 30. However, some items that enter preservation ought, don't you think, to be 'conserved' rather than 'restored'? Would you advocate the restoration to steam of 'Rocket', 'Puffing Billy' and 'Agenoria'?

Originality does not always mean 'as built' - it can mean 'as it was when it passed from being a used item to a historical artefact'. In this case, the carriage has not been touched except to arrest decay since it came into the NRM's ownership. All that you see before you when you look at it was done not by a restorer, but by an actual C&W craftsman. The worn and frayed seat fabric is original to the last overhaul conducted on the carriage in genuine service, not a perfect reproduction by a restorer. The paint is not a perfect reproduction by a restorer of SR olive - it is a rough and ready coat slapped on in the carriage's days as a rectory, with genuine SR paint underneath. In other words, the carriage's life story up to the point when it became an artefact is there to see, not lost in a restoration - for to restore is to take something back to as it was, and in doing so you lose much along the way. The craft of restoration is incredible, and in most cases is a worthwhile exercise, but on this carriage you would lose more than you'd gain, in my opinion.

Agreed.

 

It's rather like Stonehenge. Do you conserve as it is, an Iconic heritage site of Worldwide import OR do you crane all the stones back into the position they once were and create new sarcens to replace those broken up and taken away and then use it as a place of worship for Druids and all comers. To re-create what was would be better done with a replica in an interpretive centre, and the same applies to this coach and so much more in the National Collection and elswhere.

Preservation we call it, and yes it has saved many many items from destruction but it is focused on "playing with steam engines" and scant regard is given to other aspects such as coaches, which , generally, are used and abused and many have been used this way and scrapped.

 

Thanks - this debate is getting really interesting now and looking at some of the key issues we have to face, and see why museums are different to heritage railways. I'll try some basic answers too, though Jamie has done excellently (want a job?)

1) Also at York is a double Fairlie, an FRslate wagon, Wren, Dot and the Hunslet Channel Tunnel loco and wagon. Under restoration, Scaldwell ironstone wagon and loco Handyman, off site - Hudswell mines loco and Rhodesian loco at Shildon, Simplex, Ruston and skip wagons at Leighton Buzzard, Rhodesian sleeper car in store in York. So we don't ignore narrow gauge, but bear in mind a lot of material either doesn't exist any more or was already preserved when NRM was initially thought of. It's not a standard gauge museum - and do remember I have been involved with narrow gauge as a volunteer for 23 years. Jim Rees and I wrote a narrow gauge collecting policy back in 2007-8, so it hasn't been forgotten,

2) True it doesn't - believe me we have talked to each other about it

3) How do you measure less important? I can't think of any less important NG coaches out there that are available.

4) Movement is important yes, and in my book the best form of interpretation, look at all the objects we have that work or are being overhauled to run - but first and foremost we are a museum, and running eventually destroys that which you have saved. We actually run more than people think - and it's hard keeping up with it all, harder still to pay for it!

5) It's really really accurate now, and will lose accuracy/authenticity if rebuilt to run (which may happen one day if the state it is in deteriorated to require major intervention - there's been a lot of structural work on the underframe and bogies to prevent it collapsing - next time you're at York, have a look underneath - you'll be surprised!

6) Give us time! We have plans for the museum, changing all the time, but the L&B coach is a really important object (and I love it!) It's not going anywhere in a hurry.

 

Actually, I'd argue that it is the historical significance / rarity of this coach that justifies leaving as is. The fact that it is perhaps the most authentic remaining victorian narrow gauge coach in existence means that preserving as much of the fabric as possible for future generations to pore over in an archaeological way means that conservation is the best option. For example: want to know the exact shade of paint used by the L&B, and the sequence of layers of primer, undercoat, topcoat and varnish used? It'll be preserved under the later layers of domestic paint, and could be studied using the scientific techniques more commonly applied to old masters in our major art galleries. By way of contrast, were the coach to be restored, all that information might be stripped away with a dash of nitromors and once gone, it's gone forever.

Which is not to say that I think everything should be preserved in aspic. The Bluebell recently did a fairly major conversion on an LCDR brake 3rd to make it wheelchair accessible. This involved numerous structural changes, not least of which was removal of a partition and removing the brake duckets (*). So is that vandalism? I'd say no, on the grounds that several other identical coaches exist (including another on the Bluebell, and others on the KESR and I believe IoWSR). So more was gained by the conversion than was lost by destroying unique material. But had there only been a single LCDR coach in existence (rather than the many that do exist), I'd argue that the conversion would not have been justified.

So I think you have to consider both rarity and how much original (as opposed to modern) fabric exists when weighing up whether to restore or conserve. "Flying Scotsman" and "Rocket" are both unique survivors of their class. What remains of Rocket all dates from the 1830s or before, and significant components (such as frame, cylinders, boiler barrel) are the exact components that ran at the Rainhill trials. Whereas relatively little of Scotsman dates from the loco as built. Which suggests to me that the best outcome for Scotsman is for it to run, so people now and in the future can experience the machine as a living breathing thing. Whereas to even touch Rocket would be an act of cultural vandalism akin to overpainting an old master. I think the same argument can be applied to this coach: for many artefacts in the museum, restoring them, and even running them, is the best way to interpret them. But there will always be some artefacts of such rarity and originality that leaving them untouched is the most responsible action.

(To take another example: I'd love to ride on the LSWR tri-composite and see it paired with 1520 at the Bluebell. But as preserved, it is a testament to the quality of coach building on the SR immediately after the war, when it, along with the LSWR T3, was restored for the Waterloo centenary celebrations. The paint, moquette etc date from that period, and would inevitably be worn out and irretrievably lost, were it to be used. So the pragmatist in me has to recognise that the best option is for it to stay where it is, under rather subdued lighting).


(*) Edit: Should make it clear that though the duckets, which were in good condition, were removed, they weren't destroyed and will in fact find a place on yet another LCDR brake 3rd which survived but with its duckets basically rotten.

Tom

 

I think this thread has developed in to a really interesting discussion between Museums and Heritage Railways and it will always provide an emotive viewpoint depending on which side you are looking at it from.

From the side of the Heritage railway, having a vehicle that once ran on the line that could be placed in a trainset with other original coaches would be very valuable. However, the lack of an original engine would have some bearing on the chance to run a "Heritage" train. (Yes you could run it with Lyd, but that is a modified replica, Lyn too will be a Modified replica) so you will not - unless Lew is found and rebuilt (another thread entirely!) - have a full heritage trainset, it is simply not possible. So the railway will be able to run a replica trainset, consisting of at least 2 rebuilt original coaches which I have no doubt will look superb (as the W&L replica train does in my opinion!) If it was the only coach to have survived, then I can see the argument for restoration, but it is not. I also suspect the L&B guys have more pressing uses for cash at the current time.

From a museum point of view, there are a number of coaches that have been restored from the line, but this coach (I have to confess I haven't seen it in a number of years), offers an insight into a different time, showing something that has remained in reasonable condition since the railway closed and offers more of a link back to that time. As has been said before, it shows the sort of thing that happened to many vehicles, not just narrow gauge, when the railways had finished with them.

I think there will always be people in both camps, but for me it is a useful reminder, as with many things in the NRM and NGRM, of times gone by. If all these things had been restored, many would have been changed and had modifications to make them more useable in todays Heritage railway movement and we would have lost that link to the past. Replica's can be constructed at similar costs to restorations and 99% of the passenger railways see would never know the difference.

I think there has to be a place for both organisations to educate and provide a historical reference to our glorious railway heritage, with both running and static exhibits. However, it is a really fine line as to which items are which. I think, on the whole the custodians of such items do a pretty fine job to satisfy these criteria.

Rich.