Isle of Wight Steam Railway Carriage and Wagon updates

Thanks Adam for a very interesting question, the first part I can answer. We do have in mind future grounded body acquisitions to include C&NR, Met 8-wheelers and LSWR bogie composite, however we do have to wait patiently until they are offered to us.
As IWCR/FYNR stock as far as I am aware only the MSLR example exists, I do not think that anyone has actually thought about filling the gaps in the same way as 2403 has done. Perhaps something that we should think about?

 

Do you think that at a later date you will building "New" coaches for the railway for the missing coaches from your collection.

 

Sorry, but this is verging on "wouldn't it be nice", i.e. something for others to do the work/meet the cost of. All the bogie stock has suffered from the effects of salt water corrosion on the underframes and the 3 S.E.C.R. vehicles are out of service at present pending extensive/expensive repairs which include getting obsolete section steel girders specially rolled. The I.O.W.S.R. exists to run its equipment and it takes a great deal of effort to provide sufficient stock for service needs in addition to the re-building work such as is going on at present on two vehicles. There are plenty of carriage bodies awaiting attention (including an L.B.S.C.R. saloon) and the whereabouts of others not yet at Haven Street are, as I understand, well known.

In observing that all contributions would be gratefully received, I hasten to say that these views are purely personal ones.

PH

 

The guy asked a civilised question, Gary already replied in a civilised way with a detailed answer. There was no need for your little rant PH, it's becoming very tedious for you to pop up on every thread shouting 'no it's not economic', 'no that engine is too big', 'no we should've saved different locos 50 years ago'.

Please stop.

Please.

Keith

 

I get annoyed by the gricer equivalent of the person in the Kipling poem who thought gardens were made by crying out "how wonderful and sitting in the shade". Neither are.

PH

 

Good question & good answer, something for the forward planning & heritage committees to have a serious think about.

 

Well the answer to that is Yes! We have 6 original Oldbury bodies but not one is a brake so we need at least one build coach.

 

Gary and Nick have both managed to reply to the question with enthusiasm and positivity, while maintaining realism that such new builds and acquisitions are many years away from coming to fruition. I find it very strange that you cannot speak about your own railway with any kind of positivity or to encourage someone from visiting to find out more. I know that if I was considering visiting the IOW I would be really put off by your attitude to a simple, interesting and respectfully asked question.

Keith

 

Gary is more tolerant than I it would seem and his more emollient posting crossed with mine! A quick glance at the website will show the number of projects that await the attention of the restorers under the "grounded bodies" section and there are plenty of progress reports illustrating the amount of work and expense involved. A look at the L.C.D.Rly. body deliberately retained in its holiday home state (even this requires maintenance) and the condition of the Met. Rly. bodies on the Duiver at Bembridge should convince anyone that much more than wishful thinking is involved.
PH

 

A lot more than wishful thinking is required - you are right.

There has been a very very long de facto policy on the Isle of Wight of grabbing opportunities when they come up even if the long term outcome is uncertain. They haven't all worked out, but most have. Some examples:
Leasing the land from Havenstreet to Smallbrook when there was no money to think about extending the line;
Starting to collect carriage bodies in the mid 1970s when there was no concept of how to restore them;
Buying 10 PMVs straight out of traffic to use as raw material for carriage restorations.

In the interim some of the carriage bodies and wagons have decayed more than we would have liked, but at least they were secured and stored away (mostly) out of sight.

One that went wrong was the acquisition of two Pullman cars. Passing Fingall on to the Bluebell was the right decision.

In my view we should continue to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves and also look for others that meet the overall objectives.

 

Approx how many of those Met. Rly. bodies are still left on the island these days, as they will be interesting if the new underframe was built in the original condition.

 

There are a number on StHelens Duver approx 7 or 8, apparently some of the compartments are quite complete.

 

What the IOWSR have done is nothing short of miraculous, all of their 4 wheelers should in reality have never survived as long as they did, most were sold out of service in the 1930's so to recreate a typical island train of that period is nothing short of fantastic, for future needs then, where does rebuilding and building what would in effect be a new body differ? if there is no Ashbury Brake, then do you convert a body to a braked vehicle status or build a new body? to some, converting a 6 compartment third to a 4 compartment brake is not right, but then, how many would moan if you build an all new brake body?

 

Helped of course by the L.C.D.R. building their bodies from teak which seems almost indestructible. L.B.S.C.R. tended to use mahogany which is less durable. (Strange to think of mahogany as "inferior"!). In the case of the composite vehicle from the Ventnor West set (such style for an obscure branch line) things were helped by its sporting a thatched room during its service as a summer house.

Sorry if I have cramped Gary Walker's style!

Paul H

 

With reference to solebar material, the LNERCA have just had two 50ft lengths fabricated from anle and bulb flat. It would be interesting to compare costs with rolling. Welding the two sections was done on an automatic machine, and whilst there was some "curl" it is stated to be around an inch nover the 50ft length and we think there is sufficient flexibility in the material for it not to be an issue.

 

We are expecting our delivery of 6 solebars plus a spare within the next few weeks, will be very interesting to compare the results.

 

We couldn't find an available bulb flat that had the correct combination of bulb size and flat thickness. Current bulb flat has much bigger bulb relative to the flat size.

We needed bulb angle 9" x 3½" with a thickness of 5/8" and a bulb thickness of 1½" (including the plate thickness of 5/8")

Rolling was not economic, so ours has been hot extruded in Germany using a die made for us.

What sections did you combine to make your solebars?

 

I was interested to read the comments that PH and others have made to my questions: in reply, I will restrict myself to some specific points.

• Firstly, the IoWSR. exists for a number of reasons, of which one (very important) one is to 'run its equipment' – but of course it is not the only one.
  
  
• I believe my questions were purely fact-finding ones and, as such, did not in themselves represent 'wishful thinking'. It seems that PH may be 'annoyed' by the thoughts and opinions of 'gricers', presumably depending on the degree of 'wishful thinking' involved. I wonder how much PH believes that his annoyance and its expression contributes to the debate. Moreover, would PH agree that the validity of such thoughts and opinions should be judged according to their content rather than their source?
  
  
• I do not think anybody can fail to appreciate the great strides made in C&W on the IoWSR, nor the potential enormity of future challenges. There will always be more than enough work to do: as with anything, it is a question of prioritisation, planning, resource allocation, multi-tasking – and re-prioritisation / re-planning as circumstances dictate.

Having said this, there is more behind the questions I asked, as PH seems to have correctly surmised. The IoWSR is also there to secure and restore 'historically important' and 'heritage' aspects of the (island) railways. Does LBSCR 2403 help to achieve this? If so, what of the Austerities, or even 'Invincible' (and so on)? On that basis, surely there must be a case for considering non-island pedigree survivors that would nevertheless fill gaps, thereby better representing island railway history? Of course, there is an additional and particular imperative to consider: once they're gone, they're gone (although it seems this would not be so in the case of a brake for the Oldbury set?!)

So, here's the deal: no more talk of wishful thinking. I intend to put my money where my mouth is. I will pledge £500 towards the cost of recovery, transport etc. of any suitable surviving carriage body that would correctly fill a gap in the representation of IWCR / FYNR carriage history (in practice this would most likely be a 4-wheeled LSWR or GER vehicle, I think). The challenges for other readers of this forum are, then:

• Do any such vehicles exist? If so, where? What is their availability, condition, etc.?
  
  
• I have set the ball rolling. Who will join me in making a pledge? (PH, can I put you down for a fiver at least?)
  

 

I have no intention of treading on Gary Walkers toes in this way. He and everyone else involved, has enough to do as it is without wishful thinking of this sort getting in the way. The links attached to every one of his postings are well worth investigating as they show just what it takes. The current appeal is for a substantial sum to acquire specially produced steel to an obsolete section to rectify the ravages of salt water corrosion damage to the underframes of the S.E.C.R. vehicles. A much better use for £500 or such lesser donations as may be received.

No heritage railway is or can be 100% authentic but this is one of the better ones in this respect.

PH