Rolling stock, restoration and new build projects

I think with LNWR coaches, what has survived has tended to be exotic stuff like 12 wheel Sleeping cars and Royal Saloons etc. The more ordinary 8 wheel carriages have not really survived. A lot were converted to Camping coaches and the two books I have about BR Era camping coaches it shows dozens of these ordinary LNWR carriages survived in use as Camping coaches until about 1973 and then when LMR decided to stop doing Camping coaches, they were all scrapped on site. There is a number of colour pictures of their demise including some of them being burnt as part of the scrapping. Shame they didn't last just that little bit longer to get preserved.

 

A tree that is 120 years old will yield timber of greater length and width and depth than one that is felled at 60 or 80 years old. The problem is that many trees are felled at a younger age because the timber from them is suitable for the vast majority of uses.

A manufacturer of teak garden furniture is not going to require logs 2 feet square and 18 feet in length or longer.

Sawdust.

 

The wood yard where I get all my own stuff is Oscar Windebanks (next to Box tunnel) and it is quite unusual in that you can look through their stacks of timber and say I want that piece and that piece and they will move it with a forklift so you can get the planks you want. I understand at some other yards you can't do that and you say what you want and they go and get it for you. It comes in various widths and thicknesses, say 1", 2", 3" and so on, so you select it in widths and thicknesses depending on what you plan to make with it and look for straight, non twisted pieces, no splits etc.

I know with some of the Oak, they had graded it themselves into 3 different qualities/prices, ie bits without any knots one price etc so this can be a factor. You want the best, are you willing to pay for the best ?

When you are making something you make it such as to avoid any splits in the wood, and try and avoid knots at edges etc if you can and also to try and use the materials economically.

 

Confession time. I only plumped for the LNWR as a change from my usual Southern related examples (and as most post-Stroudley LBSCR stock was, with the exception of the "Balloon Stock", fairly unremarkable). Now if I'd suggested LSWR "Gate Stock" .....

It's very fortunate that the IWSR has so much pre-grouping stock, which stopped me suggesting the IWC Lancaster bogies, the ex-S&C (Midland) or Hurst Nelson converted railmotor carriages (although I'd love to travel in a vehicle with one 7ft and one 8ft bogie .... imagine the sound over rail joints!). I'll just have to settle for the 4mm scale versions I'm plotting.

The old Highland had some pretty attractive stock, but as it doesn't look as though the Jones Goods is likely to steam again anytime soon .....

 

There may be some C&W experts on here so I guess this is as good a place as any to field these questions:
1: To the best of my knowledge, most railways which have both Mk1s or equivalent, and vintage rolling stock (thinking of places like Butterley, Embsay, Foxfield and the like) use the Mk1s in regular service and then use the vintage trains only on special occasions, when I think the general public would enjoy travelling in a coach from the Victorian or Edwardian era more than one from the 50s or 60s. Is that because vintage coaches are genuinely more fragile than Mk1s, or is that just a perception, or is it simply because corridor bogie carriages will have higher capacity and are more convenient to travel in than a rake of 4 wheelers?
2: Are vintage coaches genuinely more difficult to restore than Mk1s? For example, at the GCRN we have 4 ex GC Barnums, 2 ex GC suburbans and a GC Clerestory (all bogie carriages), none of which have run in preservation and all of which are stored in the yard, aside from one Barnum which is in the shed. We also have a rake of Mk1s which have been the backbone of the fleet, but also some stored Mk1s in similar states of dilapidation as the GC stock. Will it genuinely consume more time, money and effort to restore a GC coach than a Mk1, or is the cost and complexity of the woodwork needed to repair a GC coach likely to be similar to the cost and complexity of the metal work needed to repair a Mk1?
Basically, what I'm getting at is, are vintage coaches really as fragile as they are perceived to be? Or, to approach it from the other direction, are Mk1s really as robust and indestructable as they are perceived to be?

 

1. The NYMR uses the LNER carriages turn and turn about along with the BR ones.
2. I'm my experience no. BR carriages have historically had an advantage in being complete internally, while many earlier carriages are ex departmental with, missing interiors. Recreating interiors accurately is hugely expensive. However age is equalling the playing field, to those who say you can't mig weld wood, I'd say you haven't seen what you can achieve with epoxy resin based timber adhesive systems.
I think history shows that all carriage interiors need some degree of refreshing periodically, if used hard regardless of the original age of the carriage.
The interior of Gresley buffet 641 has had over 20 years use on the NYMR and is probably about as tired as it's original interior was when replaced by BR in the 50s.

Sawdust.

 

There are much greater experts on here than me, but as the owner of about a bogie and a couple of compartments of a pre-Mark 1 coach (and very much the 'Sorcer's Apprentice when assisting with its restoration many years ago), I think there are a couple of factors:

1. A number of lines only have saloons and similar vintage carriages operational, which are better suited to 'special' services (I am particularly thinking of Stephen Middleton's fleet based at Embsay but in use in various places).
2. In many cases, where pre-BR coaches have come via departmental service, they lack much or all of their interior and replacing this makes restoration more expensive, difficult (but has been done many times) and protracted.
3. So, restoration might be harder, more expensive and take longer than a Mark 1 but, if well restored and properly looked after, and because of the depth of work needed anyway, are likely to need less regular work into the future than a Mark 1. In other words, not sure they really are 'more delicate' - or perhaps, Mark 1s should be treated as being more delicate than they tend to be!

(I used have thoughts of the Barnum brake being brake to a vintage dining train on the NYMR but sadly not to be - I have travelled on one of the other Barnums I think when it was on the southern part of the GCR).

Steven

(Was typing while a definite 'greater expert' was replying!)

 

An additional note, I've seen the same MK1s shopped two or even three times at Pickering now, often requiring similar or greater amounts of new steel each time, as age and rust affects affects areas that were ok last time. It's also not uncommon to see panels below the windows replaced each visit, with ones between the windows now needing to be done too.

Sawdust.

 

Give me a piece of wood any day to make/repair a part of a wooden bodied coach against a coach like a MK1, and it is surprising the small parts you can make of the off cuts from the larger parts.

 

Not scratch built from the ground up but one of the SVR Gresley brake coaches (the number of which escapes me) started life as a pigeon van and is now a BTK similar but not identical to a number of Gresley coaches. It is also mounted on a different chassis to the one on which it arrived.
GWR coach 5043, which has been a tool van / mobile workshop for many years so is little more than a gutted shell, is now in the process of being converted to a Wheelchair accessible buffet car and Mk1 wheekchair Saloon 80776 started life as a BG.

 

Similarly to Sawdust's comment the SVR use their pre MK1 coaches,, LNER, LMS, GWR coaches on normal regular services. A rake of GWR vahicles is often used on the more advanced levels of driver experience trains so they are not mollycoddled. Mind you when some of the latest GWR vehicles have been out-shopped and are sparkling clean inside and out you do feel a bit like "This too good to go in service". Then you climb back in from doing the brake test and leave size 9 footprints on the freshly painted floor. Sorry.

 

Interesting. I probably should have specified, from my perspective I tend to think of vintage coaches as being pre-grouping, I wouldn't call the Big 4 era rakes on places like the SVR, NYMR, Bluebell or wherever as vintage. Maybe that's wrong, but vintage in my thoughts tends to be those built before 1923, often non-corridor coaches, often 4 or 6 wheelers.
But your replies have been interesting and helpful, it seems (as it often is), the truth is neither of the polar opposite view points I posed as potentials, but is a combination of those and other factors somewhere in the middle!

 

Is that down to design, wear and tear, lack of undercover storage or a combination of all 3? Do you think a set of wooden bodied carriages would have fared better over the same period of time?

Keith

 

Early VW Beetles suffered galvanic corrosion at the joint between bodywork and wings, directly due to use of dissimilar metals which caused (an electrical) potential difference. Does (or did) any metal bodied stock have such problems (I ask as, IIRC, this was one of the non-asbestos related issues with the Park Royal class 103 DMMU's)? If so, has a work around been found?

 

A lot of the SVRs GWR coaches ARE pre-1923 as is the Great Northern coach which sees daily service in the summer.
But yes you were unclear, nationalisation happened 70 years ago so the big 4 era coaches definately are vintage!

 

The VCT web site has only these GWR coaches are pre grouping, 2624 corridor third still in use as a sleeping coach, 3930 corridor third in use, 9055 nondescript saloon in use and these non passenger coaches 1399, 1145 and 261. So there are only two in use and another passenger coach which could be restored back into use.

 

.... as, indeed, are many of us .... myself included. Discounting the output of Datong and Harbin, a frightening number of steam locos are younger than me. Where the hell have the last few decades gone?

 

I wonder whether one of the things that will hold back restorations in future is training on what to do. Having wood and metalworking and general DIY skills which seem to be getting less and less among younger people, especially as it is more rare doing this kind of stuff in their day job. I was always keen from being a child onwards to use tools and make models and stuff from wood etc so I grew up being able to use my hands, but it isn't the case with everyone.

From the volunteers I work with, you very quickly get to know who is really skilled restoration wise and who isn't. Most volunteers don't go near the restoration work at all. With some people they are almost limited to easy painting and so on because they can't do more and are reluctant to even attempt anything more difficult, With others the work is an obvious bodge job at much lower standard than the item would have been when new.
One really skilled person is worth 10 who are not as you can just give them a task and be confident they can get on with it and know what to do.

I think preservation has in the past benefitted from individuals who arrived already 'fully trained' but in future more training will be needed.

 

Definitely agree on this, although I'd add that in the preservation world the onus ought to be on the skilled volunteers to pass on their skills to newer volunteers, and in some cases those skilled volunteers are reluctant to do so for whatever reason.

When I had DT classes a few years ago in school, in lower school (so compulsory) we did some basic woodwork (tenon saw, scroll saw, shoulder joints, belt sander, pillar drill and engineering squares as I recall), and we learnt how to solder (which was incredibly useful for me as a railway modeller!). As far as I can remember that was all the "traditional" stuff we did; it was split about 50/50 with learning how to use CAD/CAM, mainly a laser cutter. When I took it for GCSE we did some very basic metalwork; we all learnt how to use a centre lathe, how to put a screw tap on metal rod, and some filing, and that was it. For our individual projects we could choose to use a band saw and milling machine if desired, and I did some rough finger joints.

So even the woodwork required for a Mk1 is beyond my comprehension really, let alone anything earlier.

Oh, and what you said about one skilled person being better than 10 unskilled applies just as much to painting!

 

I was thinking about an LNER Gresley articulated 3-car teak set.