Railway Carriage Significance Table 2003

Hello,
The Railway Carriage Significance Table was compiled in 2003.....some 11 years.
Various carriages have been restored on that list.
What might be included in an updated list?

http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/papers/significance.htm



There are plenty to choose from!


Nick

 

I must say I am, somewhat struggling with some of the concepts and comments behind this list (of which I was previously unaware - I do wonder if the owners of several sample vehicles are similarly unaware!)

If I have understood correctly, the aim is to decide how "deserving" vehicles are. However, the comments and one of the scores suggest that already being under restoration increases the extent to which a vehicle is seen as "deserving", whereas a unique vehicle which is stored out of use scores less well. I can fully appreciate that any funding organisation would need to believe an applicant could deliver what they promised, no matter how deserving the subject of the application, but that is surely not the point of such a scoring system, as it is largely independent of the individual vehicles and relies on their owners.

The paper also underlines the vast difference between a museum approach - where there are similar vehicles, only one is worthy - and "railway preservation" objective. Apart from the type of vehicles The Saggin Dragon mentions, trains in the UK tended to be at least 2 vehicles and to me one of the most interesting (and exciting) elements of say the GCR Barnums is that a full, 4 coach rake could be restored, presenting an entire (albeit quite short) authentic train. Recreating a reasonable representation of the past and sights lost is surely core to what railway preservation does and that isn't achieved by lots of unconnected, individual vehicles.

This point is arguably addressed with one of the other scores on being part of an established collection.

I realise the list is somewhat "unofficial" but I do wonder, if many of the vehicle owners do not know of its existence (and is there a more comprehensive version) or the system under which it was prepared, whether an update could actually provide impetus to some owners to make funding applications, having a simple system based on recognised methods to show the subject of their funding bid is "worthy".

Steven

 

For most railways the prime objective is to provide sets of roughly compatible coaches. The obvious reason being to provide seats for bums to sit on!
If in the act of providing working sets of coaches the spin off is to restore a vehicle of significance well that is a bonus.
The working railways C&W departments are providing coaches for the timetabled services, if that restores coaches from the 1860s' or unique and interesting coaches all well and good. Restoring purely for museum display purposes is something that few railways can afford to do.

Our current restoration projects are a 4 wheel LBSCR 3 compartment brake 3rd 4115 and a bogie LCDR 5 compartment brake 3rd also numbered 4115. Both are important to the IOWSR but the LCDR brake will be the first bogie LCDR coach to ever be restored. That is excellent but it is not the reason that it is a current project, we simply want to be able use it!

Should LCDR 4115 be on the list?

 

This has proved to be a very useful list, it was a key factor in the NNR getting the £500k from HLF to restore the Quad-Art set.

 

When the list was originally compiled, I think it was to provide the reasoning for awarding grant funding, but itwas written from a museum curator's perspective and therefore focused on individual coaches. It is somewhat of an ironic list, given the predominance of Royal and other specialist coaches in the NRM collection, and something of a bias towards LMS vehicles!

As has been stated, in the heritage railway sector, we have slightly different ideals and matching trains are more of a goal. Nevertheless there are forward thinking organisations out there, and the LNERCA is one - we have tried (and continue to) to assemble a collection that shows the origins and development of LNER coaches, from (currently)1894 to the early 1950s, with interior fishes ranging from classic stained and varnished wood via rexine to formica, The paucity of preserved LNER 1st class stock is one weakness, another being shortage of suburban vehicles, but we hope to address these in some degree. It is a collection that has been built in the face of some opposition from our host railway, though, where open stock is preserved over compartments, and corridors are a must!