Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

Phil, thanks for a very helpful post. I am reluctant to say much, not because you will be unreasonable but there are people out there who have closed minds. Everything you say makes sense, so I think it merits an explanation.

You are right that I have little experience of forums and wish I had a lot less! We have had some useful PMs. That made the abuse a small price to pay. I believe in having firm facts to put before people, otherwise it is guff. That is why I asked for time, but our critics refused that. I know one sole bar is cracked in 3 or 4 places, so must be replaced. The other one is borderline. If our critics had wanted to discuss this, I would have done so, with the caveat that I am not an engineer, so I want proper advice.

We want to set up a website but I want it to be factual and not guesswork.

I realise Lottery funding is not guaranteed, as there are many worthy causes, so we cannot assume we will succeed, but we will try. If we do, great. If not our “guesstimates” suggest we can do the job, but it will be harder.

Volunteers – yes, and having the coach on the mainland where most members are is a help. SRT have also expressed interest, but we need to know what work is required first. You can only cut wood when you know where to cut!

No 7. We should have had several parts that came with the chassis when we bought it, which allegedly vanished or were broken up, or were withheld. The DCCL signed an agreement with us on 1–04-2009 over No 8 and then forgot to return out copy, and later used that as an excuse that no agreement existed! The DCCL only agreed to our ownership of many parts on MER 23/26 that have vanished over the years when I sent them photos of the loco at handover showing the parts. They could not wriggle out of that! Suspicion is not a good way to go through life, but we have cause to be wary!

I want to be wrong but we anticipate no co-operation. This will massively increase the cost. Relinquishing our three engines was not of our freewill. Effectively the IOM government blackmailed us. My late father said that with a standard fleet, parts could be moved from loco to loco, ringing the changes and locos could be loaned to the Irish lines which are still in their infancy, but in his day were largely a dream. Alas there is a faction in the IOM that prefers items broken up or rot, than to be saved elsewhere. Such an imaginative idea would be anathema to them. Anyway it is now history.

Thank you for your good wishes.

 

Progress Report No 1 MNR Cleminson carriage

I said on this thread that I would keep readers informed of progress. It is not quite a month since the Isle of Man Railway & Tramway Preservation Society rescued our coach from the threat of dumping by the lineside to rot in the Isle of Man.

Although many of the messages on NP were not intended to be helpful such as the series of three insults from one writer, including one relating to my late father, there were several very helpful private messages which have led to some invaluable contacts, and I would like to thank the people who messaged us intending to help. One even came in as I was typing this progress report.

At a Board meeting yesterday, 10 November 2012, it was decided to divide the project into three phases.
A) From the solebars downwards.
B) Bodywork structural elements from floor upwards.
C) Interior

For obvious reasons phase A needs to be tackled first. Two preliminary surveys were to hand. These were not fully detailed structural assessments, but were sufficient for initial planning. The board also took advice from our Hon Chief Mechanical Engineer who worked in rail engineering and aero-space as a design engineer.

At the time the coach was moved to Southwold on 15 October 2012, the maximum the board felt able to allocate to the early phases project was £25,000. After a careful review of society finances, the board increased this to £30,000 at their meeting yesterday.

Consideration will be given to seeking appropriate grants when a detailed structural survey, a fully costed restoration package, and tenders for Phase A of the project are to hand. Quotations have been sought from three companies with facilities to tackle chassis restoration.

For obvious reasons I am not able to give details, but if anyone knows of potential companies who might be able/interested in taking on Phase A of the project, I would welcome such advice.

The contract specification for Phase A involves full restoration of the Underframe and Cleminson sub units to running order with replacement of all defective materials, refurbishment of usable materials and fitting of air brakes, all work to comply to current HMRI requirements, and to be completed to the satisfaction of our CME. The work will need to be to a sufficient standard to meet grant eligibility requirements of such grant sources as the IMR&TPS may approach.

It has been suggested that some work might be suitable for an apprentice training scheme at a technical college or similar. This is possible. The coach is 30 ft long x approx 8 ft 3 ins over steps x 9 ft 6 ins high. If anyone knows of any apprentice training scheme that would be suitable, will they contact me please.

The Board is conscious that this coach is a RARE example of Nineteenth Century Welsh coach building, as it came from Swansea in 1879. Very few Welsh built carriages have survived into preservation. If anyone can suggest any Welsh sources of heritage funding or possible engineering/apprentice schemes that might be interested in helping us to conserve this important part of the Welsh industrial heritage I would be pleased to hear from them.

As I have said before, I prefer to say “we have done” rather than we are going to do, but was savagely criticised for that. Since the DTL removed the coach from public exhibition in 1998, we have made countless attempts to reverse this absurd idea. All were thwarted by the DTL/DCCL. I have no doubt that such a negative attitude would have persisted.

Instead of criticising Mr Longworth for his dumping threat that could have seen a unique piece of railway heritage lost forever, maybe we ought to thank him! At the time, it seemed a disaster. A month down the road from saving the coach, we have made more progress than was possible in the previous 14 years when we were shackled to the DTL/DCCL. We have turned a shameful act of would-be vandalism into a catalyst for positive action. I look forward to the day when new material starts going into our coach.

I do repeat my call for action this day over the Cleminson coach that the DCCL is allowing to rot. If the DCCL care so little for this marvellous piece of Victorian heritage, could they not offer it to the Welsh Nation as it is a rare example of Welsh engineering. As I have said on this thread, most of my ancestors are Manx, but I do count Welsh ancestors but it is a long time ago. I feel a sense of sadness that the DCCL is wilfully allowing Welsh engineering heritage to rot. If the IOM cannot be bothered, can they not give it to a Welsh museum or Welsh enthusiasts to save? As I have said, we have enough on our plate with one Cleminson and a loco, but I will gladly help in any way I can to save the DCCL Cleminson.

Robert H

 

Excellent to learn of progress. If the way ahead continues be emphasised and the problems of the past, if not forgotten, at least not resurrected regularly, then it all seems promising.

 

Robert

You may struggle to get apprenticeship funding, Modern day apprenticeships are offered by companies (but with training generally administered via FE colleges), and there has to be the expectation of a full time job at the end of the period of the apprenticeship. So if a company suitable to carry out the work just happened to plan to take on an apprentice, as training towards a full time job, then they could in theory utilise that apprentice working on your carriage. However, what you couldn't do is take someone on as an apprentice for a fixed duration contract if you didn't reasonably expect them to have a full time job at the end of the period of training. On those grounds, I assume it would be difficult for your society to act as the sponsor of the apprentice, since you wouldn't be in a position to offer a long term job once the work on the Cleminson carriage had finished. Another commercial entity could sponsor the apprentice, but that would then be their decision about which projects they worked on - though presumably would be a negotiable point.

Whether a local FE college would take the project on as a student project I don't know (I work in an FE college, but not one that offers courses in those sorts of areas). It is possible; the issue you would have is that you swap one set of problems (financial) for another (maintaining quality). Not to say that students couldn't turn out very high quality work in some cases, but you would have to have a more rigorous process of quality monoitoring in place than, perhaps, if you sent it to a workshop as a commercial job that had a track record of restoring old carriages commercially. (Cranmore, Boston Lodge etc etc)

Tom

 

I don't think apprenticeship or FE opportunities ever fell off trees, so it has always been if you happened to have the right contacts. None of my contacts could come up with anything, but it was worth seeing if anyone out there might be able to help. If they could it was worth looking at. If not, then there was nothing lost.

The other reason was the hope that someone might want to save the DCCL Cleminson in Douglas. If we were not heavily committed, I am sure our members would say yes, go for it, but we took on a lot in the past and our reward was "you should have done more sooner" criticism from people who never raised a finger to help us years ago. With twice as much support in 1975-1985 we could have done a lot more. Instead we almost lived from hand-to-mouth. I know as I had to schedule what we spent against what came in! We had less than £100 in the bank on one occasion!

I suppose "you should have done more" is easier to say than getting on with saving something, so my guess is that the DCCL coach will rot away. We can look back at the preservation scene years ago and say how outrageous it was that X or Y was allowed to rot. In thirty years time, the kids of today who will be the preservationists of tomorrow may say. "We were kids then, so we were too young to do the job, but you let us down, and we can never get it back."

Robert H

 

As far as seeking quotes is concerned, what I have done up to now is to seek opinions of other preservation groups who have experience of a particular builder. So far that has given us four potential sources. I have first hand experience of the SVR loco shops at Bridgnorth as they did a superb job on the boiler for Fenella. This was ordered and paid for by our society.

If the SVR carriage shops are as good, and I expect they will be, I would have no qualms in using them. What I would welcome would be any comments from preservationists who have used the SVR or FR services, as every supplier of services no matter how good may shine in some respects, but be outperformed by someone else in some other field. Delivery time, closeness to estimates, quality of metal and woodwork, finish. There are a myriad of factors.

As far as the DCCL Cleminson is concerned, if I was, on behalf of the IMR&TPS in a position to take it on, I would do so, but we have most of the funding in hand or secured to cope with our existing Cleminson. As far as the DCCL Cleminson is concerned, I am only too willing to HELP, but I cannot reasonably take it on. We had too much "you should have done more' flak to tackle another project that would be years before it could be started or would push No 7 into that category. Lets face it, the guys who trashed us would love another chance to have a go at us! That is a sad but realistic "once bitten, twice shy" response to what has appeared here and elsewhere.

It is clear that the DCCL do not care what happens to the coach, as conserving the Island's rail heritage is not their forte, as evidenced by the current destruction of the character of Laxey station, their plan to do so at Port Erin with a totally out of keeping piazza, and the bizarre impediments they are putting in the way of folks who want to preserve diesel No 17 Viking.

We had to sacrifice three steam locos to blackmail pressure for £1, so it would not be unreasonable if the DCCL were to agree to sell their Cleminson for one pound to any group that will preserve it, on or off the Island. It would be nice to see it run in the IOM, but the way the DCCL blackmailed us must act as a dire warning to any group thinking of putting money into any project on the Island. Given my Manx ancestry that goes back 800 years, I feel deeply ashamed of the way the Island authorities have betrayed our members.

We have contacts with the DCCL headquarters at Illiam Dhone house, and it was through them that we were able to safeguard the future of MER 23 and 26 and save the Cleminson coach and NO 7 as meaningful negotiations with the transport division were impossible. If any group wanted my assistance in seeking to secure the coach for preservation, I would gladly do whatever I can to help save this vehicle, but it is in that capacity rather than taking on the project myself.

The Manx authorities claim that export off the Island would need an export licence. Although the legal basis for this is dubious to say the least, it is simpler to go along with it. If any group wishes to seek a licence I will be happy to assist, as we obtained the necessary licences. Survival is what really matters, rather than the bizarre attitude advanced in some quarters on the Island that it is better to rot in Manx rain than be treasured off the island!

As I have said before, if some group is prepared to act, I will be happy to offer such advice and help as I can over acquiring the vehicle, obtaining the dreaded export licence and in technical issues such as drawings, patterns for various missing parts and so on. This even includes original Cleminson radial joints and truck connection linkages.

Our coach was driven from the Island by the antics of the DCCL. It would be nice if this one could run on the Island, but so long as it survives somewhere that is my bottom line. I have known it for over fifty years and I dont want to see it rot away thanks to the current antics of the DCCL.

If anyone wants to discuss a rational preservation future for the DCCL coach with me, I would love to hear from them.

Robert

 

I have followed Robert's posts with interest and am pleased that his recent ones have taken on a more positive direction towards actually doing something with the IOMR&TPS' Cleminson. Unfortunately his latest post has slipped back into the familiar rant against the DCCL of the IOM gov. Robert - get over it, we've heard it all before - ad nauseum and it does you no favours. Personally I would be reluctant to have anything to do with any organisation whose chairman repeatedly accuses a government department of blackmail and who constantly refers to "our enemies" and the threat of "asset strippers". 'Nuff said. Ray.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. Time to move on.

 

OK "The sale took place under extreme duress"

Now let's NOT call a spade a spade, as that can be so embarrassing, instead let's wrap it up. Let's not say the DCCL coach is rotting away, as that paints a negative picture, so what other word shall we use? I looked in the dictionary to find the antonym for rotting, but the concept of "un-rotting" is so demented that nothing suitable seems to exist. In the end I decided that in due deference to Marshall5 we might say that the

"The DCCC, which exerted extreme duress on our society has adopted a storage and conservation policy towards the coach which negatively impacts upon its life expectancy. As I am concerned at the negative impact on the life expectancy of the coach, I exhort readers of these forums to take steps to minimise the negative impact on the life expectancy of the coach."

I was always told to say it as it is, but if you prefer "negative impact on life expectancy", one of the beautiful things about democracy is that you can say that, but I shall continue to say rotting, and if someone threatens to dump our stock to rot to bring pressure to bear on us, I shall call it something that you may not like, because that is what it was.

I cared enough about the Cleminson coaches to save one in the 1970s and to raise money for external restoration. Other projects intervened, as I have said, so restoration did not go further until the last month when we have made more progress than in the previous fourteen years.

I also care about the coach in the ownership of the DCCL that is subject to a storage and conservation policy which negatively impacts upon its life expectancy. I HAVE tried to do something about it. How about you, Marshall5? DO you just want to complain about US, or are you going to do something about the coach, or would that be too much to expect? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

Robert Hendry

 

Sure - forget about the Cleminson coach in Douglas. Time to let it rot. Oh dear, I used a bad word, I should have said it is time to do nothing to protest against a storage and conservation policy that has a negative impact on the life expectancy of the coach.

We fought hard to save OUR coach when the DCCL proposed to adopt an " etc etc" policy (can't use the R word!). I want to save the DCCL coach and thank you so much for supporting that proposal. When the coach ceases to exist, you and Marshall5 can proudly say we threw stones at someone who fought to save it.

 

No its time to get on with the vehicle you do have control of and divert the energy expended on fulmination into organisation and restoration. Like other posters I regret, deeply, the regression into "soap-box" mode.

PH

 

Oh for goodness sake. We have read about the history between your organisation and the various authorities ad infinitum. You really do not need to repeat it every time you post. What people might be interested in is the future - i.e. any potentially viable plan to SAVE the other coach. But whilst you continue to regurgitate your grievances then you are just turning people off in droves.

One obstacle to progress some people on here pointed out was the lack of a contact email address. You reckoned setting one up was too difficult, so I did it for you. You then claimed you could post to it, but would have to spend time working out how to send from it. Next thing, you tell me you have managed to change email address, but still aren't sure how to send from it. As most people on here will know, this is all hogwash. To be able to change an email address you clearly know what you are doing.

So please do as you promised and stick to the progress reports as we've had enough of the history lessons, self-pity and obfuscation.

 

Robert,
Your post infers that I am some sort of "armchair preservationist". Nothing could be further from the truth - my track record(if you'll excuse the pun) is well known to several members of Nat.Pres. I have personally owned AND restored three full-size steam engines (both road and rail) and assisted in the restoration of four others both here and at a major preservation centre in the U.K. - more than you have in fact.
It appears I also have a more pragmatic approach to preservation and try to avoid seeing things through rose coloured spectacles. Some things are always going to beyond practical restoration and I honestly believe that the IMR's Cleminson may be too far gone already. It does not however mean that it should not be CONSERVED - there is a difference. For the benefit of those not familiar with the condition of this vehicle, its chassis was scrapped in the 60's,the interior was stripped and it served as an outside mess hut for decades with little or no maintenance. To suggest that the task of restoring it would be in any way comparable with that of your own coach is simply ridiculous. About the only thing we agree on is that the coach body should be placed under cover as a matter of urgency.
I hope this answers your question although I suspect it was not the one you expected. BTW I am currently working with the IOMSRSA on a project and give up 2 days`a week to operate (at my own expense) the railway at the Wildlife Park owned by your arch enemy the DCCL. Ray.

 

As far as the DCCL coach is concerned, we might as well get the facts straight. The coach was removed from the Cleminson trucks in the 1960s and mounted on a concrete plinth in front of Douglas steam shed where it served as a mess hut. The Cleminson trucks were put on the siding behind the carriage shed and sold for scrap in 1974. The body received periodic repaints right through to David Howard's time so was not totally neglected as Marshall5 implies.

Like much of what he says, he gets most of his facts wrong. It was not stripped internally in the 1960s. In the 1920s, it was rebuilt for use as a saloon on the Mondays only cattle mart trains to Ramsey. The butchers travelled up to Ramsey in it, bid for the livestock and returned in the afternoon. They enjoyed a smoke, a drink and playing cards. It was originally divided into three ten foot long compartments. One partition was removed in the 1920s, not the 1960s as Marshall5 thinks, to make a very long saloon which acted as a drinking saloon and card den. An intermediate door was cut between the compartments to provide access between the big and small saloons.

Those familiar with pre-war railway travel will realise that it functioned in much the way that a club car worked on the runs from Blackpool and Southport to Manchester. This is why it is of particular interest, as it was the only example of a club saloon type vehicle on the IOM Railways as F75 was not used for normal traffic. It could be restored as a 'club car' although the smoking would be out!

Probably because the conventional part of the underframe was sitting on a concrete plinth with limited drainage, the wooden solebars rotted and were replaced by planks to hold the structure together. I had a look at the coach in 2008, and the body did not seem to me to be in materially worse condition to ours, but I have not had a chance to look at it since the conservationists of the DCCL dumped it outdoors.

I agree there is no underframe, but as I have said, one solebar on our coach is junk and the other is not much better. The transverse beams are generally sound but how good are the ends where they join the solebars? I have assumed that at least 50% of our underframe would need replacement if we were lucky, and it could be 100%. 100% of no underframe, or an underframe that probably required replacing in toto are not much different.

If you are confronted with a frame like ours, you have the problem of like-for-like or opting for modern ways of doing things. We are seeking advice on a like-for-like timber chassis using such parts as can be saved, or a steel chassis with cosmetic cladding. It would look the same. It would be immensely strong and would actually be cheaper! With the DCCL coach, the choice is simple and two engineers have said that with the drawings we have any competent steel fabricator could produce a new steel chassis more rapidly than a wooden one.

When it comes to the Cleminson trucks, our woodwork has been protected from the elements so seems reasonable, but all the running stresses are carried on the 8 x 2 longitudinal centre beams and the end trucks turn on pivot plates which are secured by four bolts through the wood. Those beams have to be in very good condition if we are to use them. An all steel truck could be fabricated for less than the cost of repairs to our own trucks.

We are in a situation where insults flow freely, but commitment to saving the DCCL coach is miserly. All I can really say to you and the other 'kind' people on this thread is "Throw stones if you want to. We had to do without your help years ago, and we will succeed over our coach with or without your stones today." While you are throwing stones I am trying to restore our coach and to save another one. If you think throwing stones is more fun, then throw 'em. I can think of a wonderful line from 'Gone with the Wind' but perhaps I had better not repeat it, though it was voted the number one film quote of all time by the American Film Institute a few years ago!

Sheff says he set up an email account for me. He did and it was most kind of him. I am not sure how I changed the name. There are various questions about passwords, security questions and so on, and it just happened. A friend had promised to sort things out for us in the new year with a website as well, but right now my priority is surveys, obtaining advice on what HMRI expects of us, the merits of a steel versus a wood chassis (which may come down to current safety requirements), what timber should be used in different parts of a coach, and what modern replacements are suitable, and seeking estimates.

IF we can persuade someone to take up the second coach I shall be delighted, but I can think of a few people who I am sure are too busy gathering stones to be bothered! Now I wonder what stones you will all throw at this? Have fun, but don't whatever you do make the mistake of preserving a coach. People throws stones at you for that!
Robert H.

 

I would have though a better quote for Mr. Hendry would be "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me".

 

What a splendid idea!

But perhaps not! I fear it overstates the importance that should be attached to our assailants.

I confess it is not pleasant to be the Aunt Sally to blind malice, and I do sometimes wonder if it has all been worth it, but I look back to the ten vehicles WE saved when others yapped and that seems a pretty good answer to me.

I also think of the support of our member over what will be 40 years in the Spring. We still have a number of members who go back to the first five years when it was a race to raise money to save things. When things looked their blackest a little while back and all I could give to our members was hope and the belief that we could pull through, I offered them a ballot on whether I should stay on, or whether they would prefer someone else. The vote was 95% that I should stay on.

Infamy? No, not really. I feel very humble to have been given such trust and loyalty from our members, and I will serve them to the best of my abilities. With that armor, why should I fear your stones?

Robert H

 

So Robert I've got my facts wrong again have I? The coach WAS removed from its chassis in the 60's so it's irrelevant to the condition of the body when the chassis was actually disposed of. It is well documented that it's interior was completely stripped for its use as a messroom - so your anecdotes about butchers' days out are,again, totally irrelevant. I said " LITTLE or no maintenance" - an occasional lick of paint does not make a liar out of me.
I was once told never to try to argue with a fool - I should have heeded that advice. Ray.

 

I was delighted to hear the progress being made on the Cleminson but I am concerned at the recent direction this thread/topic has taken.

Robert - You know someone who is very keen to save the DCCL Cleminson and that person would greatly benefit from your knowledge and experience of preservation. That person is the same one who prompted such a negative response originally. Sadly I am not in a position to help but I know that Allan is passionate and hard working.

My experience of dealing with you privately has been positive and I think that you do distrust people who post comments and replies on forums such as this. I do think this needs saying publically, however, I would (as I have done previously) encourage you to have a website and contact email setting up as soon as you can. This would help your efforst to promote the work of the IOMTRPS.

I had recently been pleased to see your updates on the progress you have been making and I really hope that continues.

 

As you so rightly say, yes you did get your facts wrong again, which is getting to be a habit. First of all, I knew this coach when it was still at St John's before it replaced the previous mess hut that was on the plinth. My father photographed it. Secondly I knew and interviewed several of the railwaymen, including Donald Shaw who selected that specific coach to replace the old mess hut. Now why do you think he replaced it. I know the reason. Do you? Donald told me that the OLD mess hut was in poor condition. He was quite right and we photographed it.

Why did he select this particular coach? Was it to make to make the job as hard as possible for himself? No there were two main reasons. Because it had been regularly used, it was maintained before the war and was in decent condition so it was in better condition than a lot of the other Cleminsons, but more to the point, it was to make the conversion as easy as possible. It was modified as I have described, used as I have described and selected by Donald, as it had been modified in that way. SOme of the doors had been sealed shut and the original seating had been replaced by perimeter seating which was ideal for the card school. Some of this was stripped out and a couple of tables were added and a cupboard when it was converted to a mess hut, so the men could put their bags somewhere and eat. That was basically what was done. Some windows were later covered with mesh due to vandalism and some were boarded.

You try to rubbish the coach and pretend all sorts of things about it, and when your gross errors are pointed out, you can only resort to bluster. You say "Little or no maintenance" - I have pictures of it in several different coats of paint. Perhaps they should have overhauled the non existent wheels or built a new underframe for it?

The work that needed to be done on a mess hut was to repair any missing panels, keep it painted and keep the roof from leaking. The bodywork when I last saw it in 2008 looked reasonable. To make sure I was not as deluded as you like to allege I am, I checked the photos I took of BOTH SIDES of the coach in 2008.

Ohh woe is me, the condition was worse than I had thought! All the footstep brackets have been removed and the eyelets for the safety chains have been sawn off! Calamity, whatever shall we do? Surely this condemns it as beyond the pale. Thankfully we do have patterns, so they could be replaced!

What of the three important maintenance goals I referred to, i.e. missing panels, paint and the roof? The two views show 75% of the side panels, the rest being obscured. Not one panel is missing on those that are visible. The end panels show no signs of cracking, and two of them even have the electric lighting clips. The roof looks to me to have been re-canvassed as the way it is canvassed does not resemble the canvassing on the other Cleminson stock.

If you want to keep on saying rubbish, I shall keep on correcting you. If you do want to argue, do please bear this in mind. The best account of IOM rolling stock is Barry Edward's Locomotives Trams and Rolling Stock Directory. It is a splendid book but Barry makes no reference to the actual disposal dates of most of the freight stock. For example the most elusive series are the H wagons, so how about the first five, H1-H5. They were broken up in 1959/1946/1954/1959 and 1958 respectively. OK those are wagons, but did F19 and F20 which almost identical have the same dynamos. You called me a fool, so you tell me, and by the way which of them had an 11 plate battery and which of them had a 13 plate battery.

Just at random you have a 50:50 chance of guessing right. Have fun.

Robert H