Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

Thank you very much 61624.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. If I could move the coach to restorers tomorrow, I would do so, but in the past couple of weeks I have been learning about the massive variations in "marine ply" from mediocre to high quality and if we opt to use Marine ply I need to specify the right material. Varnish varies from low grade stuff and I suspect that is why so many paint jobs on IMR coaches in the 1990s started peeling so quickly. I need to specify the correct grade of varnish.

I have a better idea of how much I do not know, but to get the restoration right, I need the answers but the day cannot come soon enough for me when I can place a restoration contract. I am not going to say it will be next month or the month after, as I do not know, but as soon as I can, I shall place the contract, and that will be a happy day.

Give us the time we need to get it right, and we will do so, and if I do not deliver, you have every right to condemn me, and far more important, our members have every right to condemn me. In saying 'I'. I ought to say 'we' as it is a society project, but I AM the chairman so the buck stops with me.

As to the idea of the critics taking on the other coach I agree, and if the DCCL gives them an easy ride, I will be delighted, as it is a means to save it. I have said that I will give all the help I can. For example the only detailed drawings of a Cleminson chassis are in the MNR book my late father and I wrote, but the rough sketches survive and often give dimensions down to an eighth of an inch! Even if we did not have the Cleminson trucks with our coach we could build a perfect replica. If someone will take the DCCL coach on, tell me what you need and if I can help I will.
Robert H

 

tl;dr - which just about sums up the politics fest that is this thread.

 

For us oldies, having looked this up, he means ...........

tl;dr (abbreviation for too long; didn't read) is an internet slang expression commonly used in discussion forums as a shorthand response to previous.

 

That's fine by me.
RPH

PS thanks to Sheff for translating it into English.

 

Excellent!

PH

 

He's learning ......

 

Thank you Robert, for an informative post#180 but I wish you would stop referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a "stone-thrower". However I have to agree with several of the points you raised in this post. In the case of Laxey I think you would be hard pressed to find any railway enthusiast who is in favour of the proposed changes - personally I can't see the point of it and certainly can think of better things to spend the money on. As regards Port Erin the IOMSRSA has submitted alternative plans which,I believe,are being considered sympathetically. We also agree that there should be some sort of legally binding legislation passed to protect the existing railway infrastructure. In fact I, half tongue in cheek, suggested we seek UNESCO World Heritage Site status (like the DHR) both to protect it and to encourage visitors from further afield. One for a sympathetic MHK I think.
I was very interested in your reference to the Cumbres & Toltec as the current operator wished to make major changes which brought him into conflict with the owners and he has now announced his intention to terminate the contract.
As regards the DCCL Cleminson - yes the IOMSRSA has more more members and as you know is in the process of restructuring to be less Groudle-centric and more supportive of the IMR. We are working on a series of proposals including N41(although the railway may also have plans for it) and trying to prioritize them. I believe an announcement will be made shortly along with a recruiting drive for new members. I hope this allays your fears that nothing is being done. Ray.

 

Ray, I am delighted to see we agree over Laxey and your suggestion of trying for UNESCO World Heritage Site status would have my backing as would a statutory conservation study. I know a lot of people throw stones at Bill Jackson, but when I put it to him in the 1980s, he thought about it for a moment or two and said that if he had that it would lay down a rigid framework that had to be obeyed. He was shrewd enough to see that no one could then blame him for wanting the money. He said he couldn't lose and he would back it! Sadly I could get no politicians to do so!

A US friend of mine told me a good deal about the Cumbres & Toltec, as he hailed from those parts. Anything I can do to promote the cause of binding legislation that will stop things such as Laxey will have 100% backing from me.

If you can take on N41, the offer I have made stands. Restoring the coach is what matters and as I said, hard words are so much water under the bridge if people will DO something. Even if we, as a society, did not have the Cleminson trucks for our coach, we have enough date to build a perfect clone. You will need that data. If I have the data then it's yours.

As to Sheff's comment, "he's learning", I did not think Guard Jamie's remark merited more than four words, so why waste more effort on it. I've replied in more length to your comments because they are one of the most encouraging things I have seen on this forum. If you can drive your UNESCO dream to fruition you will deserve the respect of everyone on this forum. You will certainly have mine. Maybe we will stand one another a drink when two Cleminsons are up and running!

The forum I am working on is progressing, but I believe that useful work on the coach comes ahead of the PR side. The whole of today has been spent looking at plywood and varnish and ways to replace the white lead that was used to bed every joint on Victorian wooden coach underframes. The IMR required two coats of best white lead on all surfaces, but we can't use that today!

Robert

 

Alas Sheff, it does not seem he is learning at all. Understandably he does not like people "throwing stones" at him but this does not inhibit him from doing exactly the same to others. What a pity, for his own idiosyncracies are in danger of getting in the way of a worthy project.
P.H.

 

Allan Thomson and I differed but he said he wanted to do something and Marshall5 and I have differed, but as I said his last post suggested action over the DCCL Cleminson. If he and the IOMSRSA are able to preserve it, that will be wonderful. It was one of the most valuable contribution to this thread. As far as I am concerned if I can help with drawings, photographs, data on our coach, or patterns, it will be a pleasure. Saving both coaches is what matters, and to me hard words are so much water under the bridge.

"tl'dr" was just a cheap trendy jibe. What does it contribute to the debate? I don't think anybody learns from rubbish like that. My retort "That's Fine by me" showed my contempt, but lets us be quite frank, neither comment contributed anything to saving the DCCL coach. Allan and Ray are trying to do that. I want them to succeed. I would rather get on with helping them and working on our coach than wasting my time on rubbish like tl dr. That sort of rubbish never preserved a door handle let alone a coach.

Robert

 

It was so trendy I had to look it up before I used it. A pretty cheap hit I admit, but I felt a point needed to be made. Really Robert, this thread and it has to be said all the others on here about the IoM make for very sorry reading.

Everyone involved seems to use 30 words where they could use 3, hate each other and get off on petty jibes, downright obfuscation and finger-pointing. You are not the only one, so don't think this is a diatribe aimed just at you. There are so many wonderful preservation stories, and there's a word behind every one: Teamwork. There are countless failed projects, and there's one word behind them too: Politics. Until the IoM supporters learn to compromise and reach consensus, you are just going to lose sympathetic enthusiasts like myself who will check out and go and find something better to do, and nothing will ever get done.

As you know, I contacted you a while back privately with regards to joining your association and actually getting involved, maybe even preserving a door handle! I had high hopes, as you seemed to be doing, not just ranting. But I 'hung fire' when I saw the way this thread was going - the way of all others IoM - and decided to step back and leave you all to it.

 

The posts on this forum fall into two categories, a few very helpful ones and numerous splendid Private Messages from practical C+W preservationists who have been there, done that and are glad to help us, and the success of the restoration will in no small way be dependent on them.

Those are the positive side of the forum and they have given us a valuable lead on sources of alternative timber to teak, etc, leads on what to avoid with Marine Ply and a good source of yacht varnish. This means I can prepare a much better specification to go to the selected contractors. I am immensely grateful to every one of the people who have offered sensible useful advice.

Ray and Allan were both critical at first, but have said they want to save the DCCL Cleminson coach. Maybe that means we will end up with two carriages saved, and if so I will give them all the help I can, as saving BOTH coaches is what matters. It is my sincere hope that Allan, Ray and everyone involved with the DCCL coach and our team can work together to save both these coaches. We will do all we can to help people who are willing to DO rather than just complain. If out of adversity team work can arise with 'do-ers' that is fantastic.

After that there are a large number of posts that have contributed nothing at all to saving either coach, and there is no way rubbish like "tl dr" or snide comments like "he's learning" could help the coach. If you had useful advice on air brakes, mahogany, oak, teak, marine ply, or a score of other things that would be USEFUL. If you do not have anything useful to contribute then if you want to step back, as you say, be my guest.

We are rebuilding a coach. It is just a matter of getting the details right first time. I have seen the effects of using inferior wood, paint, varnish etc, and I do not want to do that, but there are hundreds of details to deal with.

We have a six page Victorian coach specification as a start point, and it lays down hundreds of requirements. Some we can repeat. Others must be amended. For example good practice was that all joints were to receive two coats of best white lead before they were made. Today white lead is a dirty word, so we cannot specify that. I need to find a modern way to achieve this result. Oak and iron or steel can interact, and we have iron flitch plates and if we use a wood frame, we need a barrier, but it needs to be a modern material, but what? Materials can have odd side effects.

Instead of 'tl dr' that is the dialogue I was seeking when I opened this forum, but it was hijacked and the useful element was driven underground. Thankfully it had come in, and the dross is a small price to pay for the gold underneath.

 

Might I suggest contacting the National Trust with regard to obtaining Oak. They are a significant landowner and have a large forestry department that is only too happy to enhance its income with sales. Air brakes: the VoR occurs to me as the closest air-brake user to you in terms of size. They might be willing to share their information. No joke, no ulterior motive.

But please, succinctness is a virtue!

 

I did reply to this, but it seems to have escaped, so this is a repeat. Thank you for a couple of helpful suggestions. I will look into the National Trust but one problem with new felled timber would be seasoning. The big carriage builders such as Metropolitan or Ashburys held massive timber stocks so they had timber ready for use. I have been shown photos of timber used in a carriage that was not properly seasoned and the results were not pretty. The trouble is that we cut seasoning times far too tight as timber that is seasoning is money that is not earning anything!

The VOR and air brakes is worth looking into but the decisions of air brake specs really belong with our friends of SRT, as it is their railway. In a curious way we are in the same situation that the coach was in back in 1879 as it needed to run on the metals of a separate body. Sadly the MNR engineer W H Thomas never bothered to check IMR standards and specified wheels that split the IMR points and chopper couplings that came uncoupled in motion! This did not please the IMR, so it could be said that a lack of co-operation has historic roots going back 133 years as far as the IOM is concerned! I have no wish to repeat the incompatibility game with our SOuthwold friends, so I will pass this on to them. Many thanks

Robert

 

Absolutely agree. I understood that one of the reasons for the failure of the tramcar builder G.F. Milnes was that they expanded very rapidly and started to use "green" timber for want of properly matured stock. As a consequence there was trouble with the vehicles and Milnes lost their reputation. Nothing new about corner cutting!

If you were to look at the replica Pickering carriages on the W&LLR you would see that it is still possible to get good timber (presumably at a price). Evidently Boston Lodge continues to source good material, for the rebuilt Metropolitan 353 looks utterly superb in photopraphs. They may be able to give information regarding suppliers.

Hope this is helpful.

Paul H.

 

It is and it is great to see things working well!

Part of the problem with Milnes was that the market for trams went thru the roof, and as you say they cut corners. Something that I would like to find out is what spec the Glasgow Corp Tramways Coplawhill works used to build and paint tramcar bodies, as the GCT built standards lasted forever but a batch of 80 cars from Gloucester Carr & Wagon Co all had to be repainted within two years AND suffered from unseasoned wood, and ever after were regarded as rubbish in GCT. Coplawhill clearly got the wood and the paint right and Gloucester did not.

Another detail I have to ascertain is what our coach is actually built of! Enthusiasts commonly regard any varnished wood stock as Varnished Teak, but this is not so. The GNR(Ireland) used Varnished MAHOGANY, and the IMR 1873 4-wheelers were mahogany bodies but painted, whilst the 1881 bogie stock were also Mahogany panels and mouldings. The founding father of the IMR and MNR was John Thomas Clucas, and the MNR borrowed heavily from IMR experience so was the original timber that went into the MNR stock mahogany, as was the IMR standard, or teak.

No original MNR spec survives for the 6-wheelers as W H THomas never bothered to supply it to the MNR, a deficiency that was an embarrassment to the MNR as early as 1882. The "if it's varnished it has to be teak" idea seems to have taken off a hundred years ago. We need to look at our body carefully! Some panels are ply so can be ignored but if we find a teak panel, is it a later replacement, ie pre 1939, or an original. It only becomes relevant if we opt for varnished "X" as a livery rather than the LNWR style, but I would like to know.

As an entertaining diversion, I do not know if any still exist but some lower panels on IMRCo stock were aluminium, and you could tell by the VERY smooth finish and by tapping them as they sounded quite different! One vehicle received enameled iron panels, the source being a discarded enamel advert, but the six wheelers predated the metal-clad era.

Many thanks
Robert

 

It might have been the poor timber in these vehicles which caused the paint to deteriorate rather than inadequacies in the painting itself. This is a factor I learned from someone who was in a position to know.

Paul H.

 

That is an interesting point. The Gloucester built cars were always regarded as rubbish in GCT and the need to repaint the lot within two years suggests big problems. They also had problems with the woodwork so it may be that the two were related. If you have any further details I would be glad to know. It is one of those cases where the more you know how not to do something the better chance you have not to goof it up.

I think we could put a spec together quite soon for the coach, BUT, I suspect there are too many rocks out there looking for a head still! I need to know where the rocks are, and the practical advice we are getting is a great help.

thanks

 

Can't be more specific I am afraid. It cropped up in a Facebook posting of all places and I would not have made particular note had it not been for the fact that the person concerned was certainly in a position to know.

Paul H,

 

On the Bluebell, the ex-LCDR carriages are teak and (depending on period they are being restored to) could be either varnished or painted. The Mets are varnished teak. The ex-LBSC coaches are mahogany and are painted.

One thing they have noticed is that where coach bodies have been grounded, teak stands up to such treatment much better than mahogany! I believe the oils in teak do a better job of preventing rot: unless the carriage has been very well supported in its life above ground level, the bottom rail tends to rot and then the various uprights rot from the bottom upwards. This is one reason why our C&W works seem to take an average of about 18 - 24 months to fully restore an ex-LCDR coach, but many years to do an ex-LBSC one - there is far more replacement to do on our Stroudley coaches than on the Chatham ones.

Finally, when they need to replace e.g. a bottom rail, particularly if in the end it is going to be painted rather than varnished, there is another wood they use called, I believe, "Utile". This is I believe another tropical hardwood, but is much cheaper than mahogany or teak and has good resistance to twisting and splitting etc. You can't buy it in the 24 - 30 foot lengths you would need for a full carriage bottom rail (at least not at any sensible price) but instead they make such components by laminating shorter strips.

Tom