Mid Hants Preservation Society Gifted LBSCR Coaches

No.

 

No.

 

Opinion noted. But on that basis, surely the SVR should send its teak set to the NYMR?
The Bluebell should send its Maunsells to the MHR? etc, etc.......

The fact that the MHR now have an opportunity to work on and create a vintage train based on trust that they will do a good job is in my eyes an excellent endorsement on how far the line has come since the turmoil years. The fact they do not have an appropriate loco is immaterial at the moment. The coaches won't be ready for many years yet. Plenty of time to look at and enter negotiations into appropriate motive power either on a permanent or hired in basis.

Personally I would have loved to have seen the old Maunsell stock that was previously held on the line restored and running out of Alresford, but previous regimes saw fit not to persue that. All the line can do now is move on and that is exactly what they are doing. Who knows, maybe one day we will see a rake of ironclads being hauled by an S15 passing a rake of Bulleids hauled by an unrebuilt WC at Medstead! That's the thing about this game. Nothing stays the same for ever!

 

Whilst it's getting away, slightly, from the thread, I find this discussion on restoration skills very interesting and relevant.

I'm very envious of those railways which apparently have volunteers queuing up to learn skills! I find that most youngsters have limited interest in anything more physically demanding than operating a keyboard. Moreover, now that metalwork and woodwork are no longer taught in schools, most are unfamiliar with the concept of working with these materials and, to make things worse, working with tools is widely regarded as dangerous and thus best avoided. The only area where this seems not to apply is PW, where it is regarded, by some, as an alternative and cheaper way of exercising than the gym, but without the distraction of any yummy mummys to ogle.

So far as older volunteers are concerned, I dread those recent retirees who turn up saying " I don't have any skills, but I'm willing to learn!" You soon find out that there are good reasons why they have managed to get through life without having picked up some sort of useful skill!

We do not permit anyone to operate powered tools unless they can demonstrate, to my satisfaction and not necessarily by means of a "paper" qualification, that they have the necessarily experience. We are fortunate in having (just) sufficient skilled manpower to do what is necessary, but how we shall get on in future is a concern. The issue of passing-on skills is not a matter of people being clique-ey, or of being unwilling to pass-on their skills, it is the fact that training the un-skilled takes so much time. A skilled man can do the job so much faster, and you can trust what he has done, whereas the trainee takes an age to do the job, and the skilled man will probably have to re-visit the job, or even re-do it! Can you afford that level of risk and delay? I know it's short term-ism, but it's reality.

Another point that was mentioned earlier in the thread was the issue of people using their own tools. So far as powered tools is concerned, I only permit this under exceptional circumstances, i.e. when the volunteer has a tool that the railway has not and then, only after proper inspection and testing. We had a chippie whom I caught using his own electric drill, an ancient, metal bodied, Black & Decker. I took him to task over it, he replied that he liked using it, he'd had it since he was an apprentice and it was his "good luck" drill. "Here, have a go" he said. I pressed the trigger, and received a jolt. "See, gets you going in the morning!"

Finally, especially for nick813; over the last 60 years (I started driving heavy horses at 10 and tractors at 13) I have operated most types of vehicle- tractors up to 350hp, combine harvesters, heavy track-layers, diggers, loaders, etc., etc. Oh, and steam and diesel locos! Not to mention 50 years experience with chain-saws, welding and cutting gear of various types........ the only paper qualification that I have is a driving licence, yet I havn't (yet) killed myself, or anyone else!

 

are you saying Maunsell coaches aren't appropriate to the Bluebell line....? Somehow they are more approriate to the MHR? Odd opinion that is!

 

It was just an analogy and I couldn't think another better one except for the SVR's teaks. All I was eluding to was that the preservation of loco's and rolling stock is not exclusive to lines for which they would have seen daily service when built as implied by PolSteam. To have the LBSCR coaches at all available for restoration is one to be celebrated whether that be on the MHR, the Bluebell or even on the KWVR!

 

The Mets would be the obvious example, though interestingly, like a lot of Bluebell rolling stock, they have been owned by the Bluebell for longer than any other previous owner! Which begs the question "what exactly does realism mean?" Probably one for a different thread.

The Bluebell is also, AFAIK, the only place where you can actually ride in a LSWR carriage - on an ex-LBSCR line...

But in general, I agree with the general point: that such vehicles are preserved is the primary concern - where is secondary and is irrelevant if the primary objective isn't achieved!

Tom

 

it's going to be several years before any of these coaches are going to be available any way, as said before, the railway isnt going to run them everyday, so when they do, a hire loco from the bluebell or anywhere else is always a possibility, as would be the loaning out of them to another railway depending on what deal may be,, They were gifted to the MHR, so the Hayling island Railway, must trust them to do it, they could have also chosen either the IOWSR, or the Bluebell, i dare say some of the froth is because they didn’t chose eiher of those 2, but what would Gary Walker had done if 4 more coach bodies arrived, they already have more waiting than they can ever hope to deal with, without adding to the list, so at least they are safe at Eastleigh, and one day in the future, who knows, you might see a terrier, at the head of 4 Brighton coaches on the MHR,especially if it was 872 in A1 condition, once overhauled, and the bluebell's own Brighton stock,

 

For all we know 15-20 years in future the NRM could give the MHR a long term loan of their Terrier "Boxhill", wouldn't that be a sight!

Who could of predicted that 850 and 925 calling the Mid Hants home this time 8 years ago?

 

Who would have thought 8 years ago that 925 would be a working engine once more, it was once said that Schools dont like hills well i've yet to read anywhere yet about 925 slipping to a standstill on Medstead bank, and as regards boxhill, how many wagons can you hang behind a terrier

 

Well I had a catastrophic clip behind 925 last year leaving Highley on the SVR, we had to go all the way back again for another run up!

I have mixed feelings about these coaches - on the one hand vintage coaches being restored is great news, but on the other I do wonder how much they'd be used and so whether they'd be worth the effort. Perhaps in the future a swap could be done with the Bluebell for their LSWR coaches; they've got some that they've no interest in restoring as not suitable haven't they? It would make sense, but I don't know how similar condition they are/conditions of the donation etc.

At the end of the day though, we'll have three more vintage carriages in service, and that means less dreary Mk 1's that everyone hates.

As for skills, I do find Polsteam's opinion that you don't need bits of paper rather disconcerting - of course you do! That's just how it is nowadays.

 

My fastest run up the bank from Grosmont to Goathland at the Moors was behind 30926, and that was a few years ago when its tyres were in a bad way.

It'll be good to see something more appropriate on the LBSCR coaches at MHR, rather than the Ivatt 2 or similar.

 

i would say its more to do with insurers wanting to cover their own risk, in their view, bit of paper = not our fault = no claim, where as in previous times you prooved you had the skill, the ability to pass an exam doesnt mean you are competent, or safe in operating anything

 

That's not quite true: the LSWR carriages have an equal footing in the long term plan as any of the other carriage sets: the issue (as always, and as the MHR is doubtless about to find out) is that restoring vintage carriages is not a five minute job, so it becomes a matter of priorities. At the moment, the Bluebell C&W priorities are (AFAIK) to finish the three four wheelers currently in the works, followed by strengthening the Maunsell and Bulleid sets.

That said, LSWR carriages are the poor relations in preservation terms, relative to the (comparative riches) of ex-SECR and LBSCR carriages in operation on several railways. It would be nice if one of the preserved former-LSWR lines took up the cudgels for the old South Western!

Tom

 

Sorry, I was being lazy, I should have said that they were much lower down the list compared to coaches more suitable for the line (which is completely understandable) As I've understood it from previous reading. Out of interest, what is the condition of the LSWR coaches, similar to the LBSCR coaches at Eastleigh/worse/better?

 

Difficult to say, as the Eastleigh bodies seem to have varying conditions so difficult to give a condition "scorecard". Of the three unrestored LSWR vehicles we have, 25 (the 6 wheel family saloon) is probably in the best condition, but needs replacement sides in places where they were cut out by the previous owner, but a lot of the interior is intact as well as the doors. 320 (the bogie lavatory third) requires a complete new bottom, but is of significance to the railway as one of the original two coaches on the line. 494 (the corridor third) is said to be "structurally in poor shape". The two bogie coaches obviously still have original underframes - 25 will need a new underframe, though these days that isn't much of a hinderance.

Tom

 

Yes it's a shame the Mid Hants couldn't have taken this opportunity now it has its new workshop. There is already one Ironclad on the line. With several other seemingly unloved LSWR coaches around the country, it shouldn't be hard to get hold a couple more to form a train.

Yes I know the LBSCR coaches were free, but what is the market value of a LSWR coach in unrestored condition? Very little I would imagine.

So for very little extra cost they could have a LSWR train. Much more appropriate and useful for the line, no need to wait for an appropriate loco to be hired in.[/QUOTE]

 

It is not a question of what Gary Walker thinks, as I more than happily work within the Railway' s policy guidelines. I imagine that had the IOWSR had been offered the bodies the answer would have been thanks but no thanks. The Railway's policy is clear, every coach except one has actually been used on the Island by their previous owners, the exception being one that is of the same type as 2 that were used. We are lucky that we can have some very accurate recreations of Island trains of the past.

But yes you are correct, we do have enough to deal with.

 

Why does the MHR need to wait for the appropriate loco. The visitor base is largely gernal public at every perserved railway and I would think they wouldn't mind what loco is at the front of these coaches has long has its a steam loco. We need to move on from the argument about what loco goes behind what coaches and be grateful these coaches have been saved from a bonfire. It also doesn't matter who's got them.

It's going to be some years before we see them running in service. what would be great if people from the Bluebell and IOWSR came and help pass their skills on to gets these coaches up and running. Maybe one day the MHR,BB and IOWSR could take turns in having them.

 

Better fit air brakes then!

<evilThought>Then the Class 50 could haul them. Or Bittern... </evilThought>

Tom