Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

Allan and I have differed, but so what? The coach is what matters. If Allan is keen to save the DCCL Cleminson, I make this unequivocal promise here and now. Whatever practical help I can give him or anyone else, they can have it. I can provide detailed drawings and more than that, the source data going down to a fraction of an inch on many components that was too detailed to include in the drawings in our MNR book. There are pages of notes on the double Cleminson joint itself, and I also have an original Cleminson joint and an end truck bearing.

As I said in the reply to Marshall5, the footboard stanchions are missing, but ours are present, and can act as patterns. Grab handles, door handles, all sorts of things I will help Allan with or anyone else.

I have been trashed in this forum for campaigning for the coach. I want to see it saved. I do not mind whether it runs in the IOM or anywhere in the British Isles. If the DCCL comes to their senses and wants to restore it, I will help them despite the way they trashed us.

I invite anyone who wants to save the coach to say so on the forum, or if they are nervous about getting tarred with the same brush by associating with the notorious hendry, and trashed as I have been, to PM me. If I could take this coach on I would despite Marshall5's strictures about it. The big problem is how much it may have suffered at the hands of the DCCL since 2008, and I have seen it at a distance but that is all. If the stone throwers have their way, it soon will be an academic exercise.

Robert

 

Sorry Robert but your arguments are ridiculous and I refuse to be drawn into them any further.
I am sure most members,myself included,would appreciate brief updates on the restoration of the IOMR&TPS' Cleminson when you have something new and relevant to report.It is not necessary,or desirable,for you to dredge up old and sometimes controversial issues with every post. We are all quite capable of going back to re-read any of your numerous and lengthy posts should we so desire. Ray.

 

Wow! I am truly delighted to hear that. I think your score so far is "Nuff said" twice and today you "refuse to be drawn into them any further." I sincerely hope you mean it, and that it is third time lucky, but I expect to be disappointed, and have to deal with more of your mistakes, and I shall do so.

Every thing I said was correct about the coach. Its present state is the result of its history, and most of the changes originated in the 1920s. The reason it was selected in the 1960s was not blind chance. It was because of what happened forty years before. I was lucky enough to know the people concerned. I spent many hours interviewing Donald Shaw on the motive power and rolling stock of the IMRCo and other IMRCo employees. Unlike you, they was there, so they knew. They were kind enough to pass that knowledge on to me which was a great privilege.

I have only ever used a fraction of that data in my books. I also had access to many records that seem to have vanished since the DTL/DCCL took over. My late father was photographing IMR passenger and freight stock in the early fifties, and between us we photographed 87 out of the 89 passenger carriages ever to run on the IMR.

Older enthusiasts recall that there were four M wagons derelict behind the advert hoarding at Santon, but the numbers were so faded it was hard to know what they were. They were M14, M17, M36 and M39. Barry Edwards estimates correctly that the last two were broken up 1960-1964. IMRCo records do not give a date, but they were extant in 1963, and it was the winter of 1963-64 that they vanished. I mention this because this is the same time period that we are discussing over the DCCL Cleminson. The fate of four M-wagons at Santon is a bit more obscure than a passenger coach, but the photo I took of the M wagons proves the point.

You say my posts are lengthy. Yes they are. The unsubstantiated rubbish you produce takes a few lines to spew out. Dealing with it takes a lot of facts. Often on the IMR you need to know what happened in 1920 to understand what happened in 1960. If not, you get it wrong, and I imagine that is why you usually do get it wrong. When I am confronted with rubbish, I shall respond with the facts.

Looking on the bright side, accurate data on the fate of five H wagons and 4 M wagons is now in the public arena for the first time, and I suppose I would not have looked it up had it not been for you. Just for the fun of it, I mentioned that H5 was broken up in 1958. It was one of four H wagons broken up at St John's on 1 May 1958.

Robert H

 

Have you decided on a livery for the stock yet,

The Melter

 

We have three possible liveries.
From 1879 to c1898 the MNR used varnished teak
From 1898 to 1905 they LNWR style purple lake and white (a photo exists in the Railway Magazine article of 1899 showing this)
The IMRCo adpted an all over milk chocolate brown.

Some of the panels are probably originals, some are 1970s replacements. Although I stand to be corrected here, I believe that matching the different ages of wood could be difficult and if varnished teak is done badly it looks dreadful

The coach is currently in the second "LNWR style" livery and when restored in 1976 looked very smart

The later IMRCO livery was very plain but I recall the stock in these colours and others may do so.

WHen we get to the stage of deciding on the livery we may well invite the views of our members and also of our friends of the Southwold Railway Trust. In that way we will involve the people who have contributed to the project in the decision making.

Robert H

 

Robert you and I have differed that is true. As regards restoring N41, yes I am certainly interested in saving the coach and would certainly take any help from any quarter. The first job would be a full survey to ascertain the condition of N41 and how much is salvagable. It may turn out to be more expedient to launch a 'double' project - ie to built a complete cleminson replica for running purposes and restore N41 to as close to 'original' condition as is possible.

In that case might I suggest as you have suggested that a significant amount of the frames of N42 wil need rebuilding that if you consider a steel newbuild if I can scavenge the parts from the original underframe (if it's possible to keep it either as intact or in kit form as possible), which could then be united with the restored body of N41 (if it is not a possible runner) which would then become a preserved 'original' cleminson. That way we get three cleminsons for the price of two - we get a replica for use on Island, you get your rebuilt N42 and we save N41 as a complete replica for display on Island.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan?


One thing which is of great concern to those of us on Island is the conditions which N42 is being stored under. As I understood it is under lock and key but is awaiting construction of some sort of shelter for it (does this mean it is outside)? I notice you have posted a reply on the Southwold Blog, but it is possible to have some sort of pictorial evidence depicting how the Cleminson is being stored at the moment? As I said a proper 'blog' in the style of Southwold with regular up to date pictorial reports would be a step in the right direction. I am sure whilst you may not be computer literate you must be able to find access to someone in your group (or a friend or relative of theirs) who is able to provide IOMR&TPS with an online presence. A great example of a project website showing ongoing progress with a reconstruction project (ableit a waterwheel not a railway vehicle) is here :- Laxey | Isle of Man | Snaefell Water Wheel | www.snaefellwheel.com | www.manxmines.com You will see the regular picture updates of the project. As we all know a picture speaks a thousand words and cannot lie (well rarely unless your name is Stalin?).

As regards the IOMRTPS, could you go about making yourself more publically accesible so that those of us on Island can consider joining and getting involved with saving our heritage on Island? You still have items here and those items need attention too...

 

(My emphasis)

It's probably a bit of a semantic point, but I think you probably mean "conserve" rather than "restore", if vehicle N41 is beyond being a possible runner.

The issue to face is that doing a "restoration" may result in replacement of so much original material that too all intents and purposes you end up with a new vehicle, and you certainly destroy a lot of the archaeological value of the original. So if the long-term intention was to build a replica of N41 for running purposes, it suggests the best long-term heritage outcome for N41 is to preseve as much as possible of the existing fabric of the original and disturb it as little as possible. So - depending on its condition - that might mean treating to stop the spread of rot and other things that would lead to long-term decline; and it would certainly mean finding secure storage; but it wouldn't - for example - mean wholesale replacement of structure, especially if that meant removing original components and structure. Whereas for a "restoration", that is almost inevitably what would happen.

It is the same argument on the Bluebell that is leading us to think about building replicas of our three Craven-era carriages (1850s/1860s) and conserving the remains of the originals, rather than restoration of the originals to running condition, since doing that essentially means a new build replica anyway. And - as I understand it - the same reason why the L&B coach in the NRM is left in an "as found" condition rather than "restoring" to some semblance of its original condition.

There are finely balanced arguments either way, but if you are already thinking about building a replica for running, then that suggests that the original should be conserved, not restored, so as to preserve as much as possible of its historical integrity. Of course, you do at least have a pattern to base your replica on!.

Just my $0.02, looking at this from a comfortable distance away!

Tom

 

From your post you're obviously not aware that N41 was slightly rebuilt during the time it was used as a storehut including the removal of some partitions (which may have occured earlier in its working life according to Robert) and the removal of its seats,plus the general removal of some glass and boarding up of some windows. So yes it would have to be rebuilt/restored to resemble itself either as first built, or doing the second period in its life which Robert refers to prior to it being grounded as a mess.

However if we're getting to the stage where a major structural rebuild is necessary to get it to running condition and the IOMR&TPS is also undergoing major restoration then it makes sense to save the bits from the N42 restoration to produce an as close as possible 'original' with maximal conservation and minimal rebuild, whilst also using the knowledge gained from both 'rebuilds/conservations' as possible. It seems crazy to dump 'surplus' bits in a skip when they've survived this long if they could have a display useage.

So rebuild or conservation, call it what you like, some substantial work and filling in the gaps will be necessary to return N41 to a semblance of an original cleminson. Hence why my suggestion is a double edged project - conserving N41 with the scrap bits from the N42 project, whilst also producing a new coach based on the original cleminsons for a 21st Century MNR Heritage train to run on Island (we're fast approaching the 150th Anniversary of the IMR and a few years later of the MNR - I would like to see IMR No1 Sutherland rebuilt to as close as possible to original condition (with some fine tuning under the bonnet to give it the umph for modern running) with some 4 wheel coaches and also an MNR heritage rake (depending on what stock can be aquired) consisting of the Foxdale coach and at least one Cleminsons (if the two Hurst Nelsons and the other Cleminsons could be aquired even better) to run with Cale. Of course these are big projects and so a lot of financial backing is needed.

Of course as it's the 150th and Sutherland needs a fairly major rebuild anyway it makes sense to make the investment( I was given a ballpark figure of £150,000 for the Sutherland rebuild - sounds a lot but that's actually on 150 donors each pledging £1,000 each), which will hopefully draw enthusiasts to see something and recoup the investment.... Anyone interested in putting their hands in their pockets?....


In addition some parts will need to be aquired to make N41 a complete cleminson (I'm guessing the wheelsets are staying on N42 or are they being replaced too?), and if they're cast in conjunction with a newbuild project then it's more cost effective. Plus if we can get a really co-ordinated approach and even bring in the owner of the other MNR Cleminson on Island, plus even possibly the Phyllis Rampton collection then you have even more cost effectiveness involved with rebuilding a number of cleminson's at the same time...

 

Why restore to 'original' (what is original, after all?) Why not conserve 'as is', thereby preserving the long history and story of the carriage rather than altering it back to a point in its timeline. Make the replica 'original'. Everyone wins.

 

Because otherwise, unless it is given some attention and stored inside it's going to secumb. no-one is going to value it as a former storehut. As the 'original' representitive of an item of rolling stock of the MNR of the rare cleminson type then it has more value.
It's a bit like 72/73, no-one would have gone to see it as a bungalow containing a pair of cable cars, but restored it adds an attraction which people visit.

 

I never suggested that it isn't given attention, I suggested that it be conserved. Stored inside, temperature and humidity controlled, careful work by trained conservators (which are different to restorers), and you have an exhibit that tells a story - it's why 'ex-loco' nameplates go for more than restored ones.

Value: Please define value. You say it will have more value as an "'original' representitive" [sic]. I would contend that, short of monetary value, value is subjective. You think it would be more valuable as a heavily restored, with all the part replacement that entails, working example. I would contend as an artefact telling a story it carries more value.

Now don't get the wrong impression and think I'm calling for this carriage to go to the NRM. I'm not, and I know your strong views on the repatriation of these carriages to the country of their manufacture. But, and oh boy has this discussion happened before on here, take a look at the L&B carriage in the NRM. It is conserved. Decay arrested, but no restoration to working order. And thereby the vast majority of its structure is pre-preservation, which to me constitutes original. It may not be very effectively interpreted at the moment, but it is a fascinating carriage with a wonderful history to tell that can be told. As a runner on the rejuvenated L&B, it would be just another carriage.

When you say that no-one would go to see this carriage, I say to you: prove it. Moreover, I must point out that at Holt on the North Norfolk Railway a grounded carriage body, that was turned into a bungalow on withdrawal many years ago, has been preserved as such. And it is a very popular exhibit.

 

Jamie,
If you go to the IOM Steam Railway Supporters Association website and follow IOMSRSA forum>locomotives and rolling stock>passenger coaches>N41 Reply#19 you can see what I had in mind - we are obviously thinking along the same lines. Regards Ray.

 

I am delighted to see that my pleas over saving the DCCL Cleminson may at last be bearing fruit, and I would like to offer Allan Thomson every good wish if he is able to get the project off the ground. I hope that Allan does not face the same sort of criticisms as we have done, and I think his remark above is 100% sound.

If we get into the ‘original v replacement’ argument, as some purists would like, we need to be very careful what we do mean. What is original? If someone was to build a new chassis, a new boiler, new wheels and new tanks for the lost No 2, Derby would that be an original IMR loco? Of course not, it would just be a replica. What if they fitted the original 1873 nameplate to it. No of course not!

In that case what do we class No 4 Loch as? David Lloyd-Jones makes a good case that No 4 acquired the 1929 replacement frames from No 7 many years ago. It has a new boiler, tanks, cab, bunker, tyres, safety valves, chimney etc. It is doubtful if even the wheel centres are original! So is No 4 any more original than my hypothetical restoration of No 2! In all probability No 4 has its 1874 plates but precious little else, and if they make it an ‘original’ 1874 engine, then No 2 could come back to life with just as much originality. The only difference would be that the changes on No 4 were spread over a longer period. It is psychological rather than real.

Donald Shaw was of the opinion that some spares in the workshops at Douglas hadcome from Ramsey in 1905 and were for Ramsey or Northern. If they still survive, by the same logic that makes No 4 original, we could have an ‘original’ MNR Sharpie if something can be found in the stores. It is the crossing keeper’s broom that is as good as new after twenty years, with a new handle every summer and a new head every winter. But, it you replace both on the same day, it is new!

When my father and I studied the IMRCo records that used to exist forty years ago, we found rebuild dates for all but five of the 42 MNR wagons, some with two major rebuilds. In some cases details existed as to what was done. Rebuild could include new solebars, new headstocks, new floor, sides, ends and reuse of ironwork. Was this a ‘rebuild’ or a new wagon? Purists may shudder but these are in fact accounting decisions, as the way you treat rebuilds and new build is different!

To what extent did this apply to coaching stock? Because of the patchy survival of records even 40 years ago, it is not possible to give the same details on carriage rebuilds as on wagons, but they were subject to similar conditions and built of the same material. Looking at our Cleminson, most of the roofsticks have been spliced, which indicates rot where they join the cantrail, so the cantrail would be no better. Is it the original and sacred 1879 cantrail or one from 1889, 1899 or 1909? If it is a 1909 cantrail, it is not original, so does it matter if we replace it or Allan replaces his?

The argument that we must not replace original material, when we have no idea whether the material is original or not, is just a distraction. From the day a loco, coach or wagon goes into traffic, it starts to decay. Bits need renewal, and a 2013 part is no more and no less valid than a 1960 part or an 1890 part.

Rather than splitting hairs on conservation or restoration, which is not of any value, can we not say ‘go for it’ to Allan? I think that trying to restore the mess hut for static display in ‘original’ condition whatever that may mean, and to build a modern replica at the same time is probably too ambitious.

Firstly, Allan will require a workshop, and as the coach is 30 ft x 7 ft, it needs to be larger than that! As a replacement chassis will have to be assembled and that cannot readily be done underneath or above the body, that is another 30 x 7 feet. If he wishes to build a replica as well, we have a third 30 x 7 space. He then needs working space of perhaps 10 feet between vehicles. He also needs an overhead crane, so he requires a space that is in excess of 40 x 50 feet with a travelling crane, electricity for power tools etc. For those of you who think in metres, this is 13.3m x 15.4m, or 205 sq m. Industrial unit costs are from £330-£500/sq metre, so excluding tools and land, the new build cost would be around £82,000

The reason we are looking at a commercial restoration of the chassis at the very least is for these reasons. I looked into costs and we estimate £50-£75K for returning N42 to running order. I also have a ballpark figure of £115K for a replica coach. Allan could cut the costs by using volunteers, but the population of the Island will make finding many volunteers a hard task.

I am not trying to pour cold water on Allan’s enthusiasm, far from it. Instead I am saying he will need a lot of help and will have to walk before he can run. I would recommend to Allan that he concentrates on the existing coach, rather than takes on too much. He needs suitable storage and to raise a minimum of £50,000 just for one vehicle.

Whether it is just for static display or for use is in part dependent on condition, but is also a value judgment. Original is an overworked word as I have tried to point out, but if Allan can restore the DCCL Cleminson, it may be more original than the latest steam engine on the Island, i.e. No 4 Loch of 1929!

If, as we work on the chassis of N42, we find that any parts we remove are beyond use for service but are good enough for static display and that is what Allan opts for, I would have no problems in letting him have them, but I do not want to make him a repository for rotted wood. That would be doing him no favour.

Finally, and this is specifically for Allan, if you want to discuss things off the forum, that is fine. I am saying you have to be realistic, and if you can get sufficient support I shall be delighted. I will help in such ways as I can, but I have enough on my plate that I can’t throw money at you.
Robert H.

 

The choice of the L&B coach for a "conserve versus restore" argument is an inappropriate one in my view, because it is not representative of what one generally finds. It was more or less complete and in the condition in which it was last used, so virtually all the original material was there, and that is a very rare situation. In most instances restorers are faced with a situation where there is some original material, but much has been lost - this is particularly the case when restoring ex-departmental carriages or former bungalows, for example. The Cleminson coach still on the IoMR is in that sort of condition - it has lost its underframe and been knocked around inside and so whilst it should be saved it offers little that is worthwhile to the scholar and is therefore a candidate for restoration. The privately owned example with 3/14 may be a different case, but without seeing it it is hard to tell, and it is of course the owner's call. Similarly the coach now at Southwold, but since that is intended to be used then I think the only course there is to restore as accurately as possible whilst acknowledging that changes will have to be made to make it safe for use.

 

An excellent summary, in my view. The decision to restore or conserve is made more difficult when there are so few examples still around.

The "Railway Heritage Register Carriage Survey Project" (Railway Heritage Register Carriage Survey Project) for standard gauge carriages is very useful as it records the originality and authenticity of the vehicle, both internally and externally. Is there a similar list/database for narrow(er) gauge carriages?

Richard

 

That's a good argument; however it was the comment from Allan that there was a possibility of building a replica for running, and "restoring" the original for static display. At that point, I question whether "restoration" is actually the correct outcome, rather than "conservation". Even if some of the original coach is missing (such as the underframe) there is still an interesting story to tell about the uses carriages were put to after their service lives were over. And there is always archaeology, even if it is just preserving details of paint finishes and finding sections of paint in the original colours. Once you get out the nitromors, such information is lost forever.

Tom

 

Railways differed greatly in the care they took of their stock, but climatic conditions in the British Isles were not markedly different, except perhaps in the West of Ireland where they were more extreme, but it was of degree and nothing more. From the research I have been able to do into MER and IMR/MNR stock, it is doubtful how much original material exists in any of these "historic" vehicles. Eddie Barnes reported that the steel frames on the MER 10-13 series cars were corroded by the 1920s and needed replacing and the same applied to the 4-9 series by the late Twenties. Eddie wanted to replace the tunnel car bodies with 10-22 lookalikes to create an operationally convenient uniform fleet. From an engineering perspective it was commonsense. Wooden panels were being replaced at an early date although much of this stock only ran in summer!

MNR wagons that were built between 1884 and 1900 were having virtual 100% replacement of wood in 1914. I think the IMR did not do that for fun or just to spend money so they needed to do it. If MER passenger cars with a relatively sheltered life and MNR wagons lasted less than 25 years without MAJOR renewals which made them virtually NEW vehicles, that suggests to me that we have a fleet of crossing keeper's brooms that are a reasonable replica of their as new state. Is there some 'historic" point at which the last handle became sacred and the last head became sacred? Is it 1922, 1952, 1982 or 2012?

61624 makes a very sensible query about the state of ALL the surviving Cleminsons. I went over (and under in some cases) every Cleminson coach at St John's in 1975 prior to us buying MNR No 3, N42. The reason was quite simple. We could afford one coach and as we were first in the field we could go for the best. As between N42 and its composite sister N43, it was a foregone conclusion. N43 was a lot worse. The mess hut was not a candidate as it was in Douglas so that left one all first which was preserved by Peter Rampton, but was in much poorer state than N42.

That left the all thirds, of which there had been ten, but three had vanished by 1975. Of the seven, N45, which Julian Edwards later preserved was comparable in condition to N42. In some ways it was a little better. In other poorer, but you could not say "definitely that one". If someone else had stepped in ahead of us and taken N42 and N45, my next choice would have been N51 which was the best of what was left and Peter Rampton took it. Peter did not have the choice of N42/45 so he took the next best coach.

Taking 1975 as the 'start' point, N42/N45 were just about equal, N51 came next and then the rest. I am not saying this on a 'yaa boo' ours is better than yours basis, but to point out that when these four coaches went into preservation they were in comparable or poorer state than N42. In each case a number of panels were missing as was beading which had to be replaced. Oddly enough the most costly wood to replace were the quarter round beads at the rounded corners of the first class windows as these required a skilled pattern maker.

Such few MNR records as do survive suggest that the MNR was replacing body panels by the late 1890s. It is worth noting that the MNR replaced both the contemporary 4w passenger brakes of E-vans in 1895. The MNR and the Blackpool & Fleetwood Tramroad under John Cameron did not waste a penny if they could avoid it. Cameron would only have replaced the vans if he HAD to. They were sixteen years old and usage would have been identical to the passenger stock. The body style was identical.

No I cannot prove beyond all doubt that the coaches have had substantial renewals but there IS documentary proof that every comparable vehicle, MER cars, MNR wagons, and MNR E-vans did undergo major rebuild/renewal.

What I do come back to is that rather than a debate on semantics, restoration or conservation, is it not time someone else said "How can we help you Allan". Allan has not been very pleasant about me, but the guy wants to do something. I disagree strongly with some of his ideas, but I respect his enthusiasm. Rather than playing with words, how about helping him. I said I thought two vehicles was overambitious. That was not to 'cut him down to size'. It was because raising funds for IOM projects is hard work. (Been there, done that!)

Please can we move on from word games to helping the guy. I have a formidable job, but I have a great team to work with. We've raised funds before. We restored a boiler. So far as I know, Allan does not, so how about support instead of semantics for the guy.

If you want an example of good heritage railway action look at the superb 4w stock on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway. They were all chalets etc so everything below the floor is new, but they look convincing and they delight passengers and encourage an interest in railways. Had they been conserved as chalets a few enthusiasts would have drooled over them, but it would have been 1 in 1000 if that. Instead they are useful.

Robert H

 

If you want an example of good heritage railway action look at the superb 4w stock on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway. They were all chalets etc so everything below the floor is new, but they look convincing and they delight passengers and encourage an interest in railways. Had they been conserved as chalets a few enthusiasts would have drooled over them, but it would have been 1 in 1000 if that. Instead they are useful.

I quite agree, and if the Douglas Clemminson was conserved as it stands, how much interest would there be in a squalid former mess hut - you don't have to go far in industry even today to find squalid mess huts!

I'm not in a position to offer much other than advice to Allan, but I'll offer this (based on hard won experience)- get an efficient fundraising scheme set up first of all, because you're not going to get very far without it, unless you personally have very deep pockets! Even if you go for grants you normally have to have some matched funding in place.

 

Hi 61624;

I could not agree more. The Isle of Wight Coaches are superb and if they are mounted on cut down SR 4-w Utility van chassis that is a sensible way to get an affordable chassis and they work well, and look right. The IWSR have a selection of bodies that they rescued and these are stored next to Haven St station. I studied them as examples of Victorian coach building, and when they can do them up, it will be wonderful, but as huts they do not have that much appeal to the public. To the connoisseur it may be a priceless historic hut, but to most people a hut is a hut.

As to fund raiding your advice to Allan is exactly what I feel he needs. He also needs a good team who will back him. I am incredibly lucky with a great team. I collect most of the flak, but the successes are "we" successes and they always have been. The only addition I would make to your advice to Allan is that he needs a good team, and if he is half as fortunate as I have been, he can count his blessings.

We were in an odd situation that as an English company we were not eligible for any Manx grants, and as our stock was all in the IOM we could not apply for mainland grants! Allan is on the Island. He needs a Manx registered organisation and the coach is on the Island but I am sure he will need matching funding.

At times I have despaired at the 'lets throw stones' element, but JMolneux provided the launch for this part of the the debate, Allan has followed up and you have offered some useful advice to him. Maybe we can save the DССL Cleminson after all. If so, this thread will have repaid setting it up.

Robert H

 

I think people are misreading what I (and one or two others) are advocating here.

I am certainly not saying that every surviving vintage carriage must pre conserved, and none restored. Just like the IoWSR, we on the Bluebell have a fleet of 4-wheelers, in commercial service. For our LCDR carriages, they have generally survived in good condition (a tribute to the original building, and selection of materials!) albeit without underframes. They are also fairly common survivors. So a restoration to running condition, with a new PMV-based underframe makes sense as the best heritage outcome for them. But equally, our Craven era coaches are generally in much poorer condition, and cannot sensibly be restored without essentially replacing the entire structure. At that point, building a replica is the most sensible way to obtain the objective of seeing one runnning, but you are then faced with what do you do with the original, since it will only serve as a pattern and none of it will be incorporated in the replica. At that point, conservation with as little change as is possible while stabilising the structure and preventing further decay is the historically responsible thing to do - in my opinion.

So there are two possible outcomes: restore the original to an appearance that represents it at some point in its working life, and accept that that will mean replacement (and ultimate destruction) of some original material. Or build a replica, and then conserve the original with as little further damage as possible. Since the plan outlined by Allan was to build a replica, he seems to be suggesting option two - but at that point, my feeling is that it is most responsible to conserve the remains of the original as close to their curent state as they are. (OK, there is the point about the how much of those remains are "original" and how much "replacement", but whatever the answer, doing a restoration would inevitably swing that balance even further towards "modern replacement"). The best outcome for any given vehicle will depend on its rarity, and an assessment of the condition of the surviving remains, and therefore potentially how much needs replacing.

I can see the logic of doing a restoration to running condition, with the inevitable compromises that entails. And I can see the logic of building a replica, and then conserving the original "as is". What I can't see the logic of is building a replica and restoring the original to non-running condition. That's my point - not, as people seem to be saying, "preserve everything as squalid mess huts".

Regardless of the above, I'd agree that an underlying fundraising structure is paramount. Without money, it's all an irrelevant argument anyway.

Tom