"Newbuild" carriage stock

There seems to be a plethora (dictionary definition "an unhealthy over-sufficiency") of new build locomotive projects. How about utilising the somewhat similar plethora of decaying Mk. 1's as a source of underframes for some more interesting replica stock. As the years go past there will be ever more of these not especially interesting vehicles which will need expensive overhauls merely to keep them running. If we seized the opportunity to replicate lost vehicles from the past, using these underframes, what would NP contributors suggest? My nomination would be the L.B.S.C.R. Marsh elliptical roofed stock.

P.H.

P.S. Can we, unlike some loco. projects, be a little bit sensible please?

 

Hmm, I seem to remember having arguments about carriages with you before PH, but oh well.

You say overhauls will get more expensive for a start. To a certain extent they will, it makes sense that the longer a coach is rotting in one of your hated sidings (the same ones that I find incredibly interesting as I go past on the train) the costlier it will be to restore, I certainly won't disagree with that, but what about stock that has been restored and will be restored again? on the GWSR (sorry, but that's what I know) we carry out more complex repairs now than we ever could before due to better skills available (not by me I hasten to add, skilled metalworkers and carpenters etc. not a shoddy painter ). As a result, yes, costs have increased buying equipment and facilities to allow that work ot be carried out, but this is really an investment that could be paid for itself eg now, or at least very soon we won't need to be sending nearly as many things under the solebar away for repair to places like the WSR as we will be able to do it in house, bringing costs down. Further to this, as coaches have been better restored, the next time they come round they don't need as much work done, so again, less cost.

Also, I can't help thinking that when you talk in loco threads, you complain about MNs on heritage services s they are too uneconomical, preferring what might be seen by some as a more boring standard tank or whatever. Although I don't agree completely with you on this (sometimes a bigger loco brings more people thus paying for its more expensive coal consumption, which again has been contested in the past) I can see where you're coming from. So you want railways to be economical even if it means losing a little interest for some of the enthusiasts regarding big named locos. Fair enough, as I said, I see your point. So how does this translate into carriages? Mk1s are the coaching equivalent of a standard tank, being more economically sound - better capacity so more bums on seats and more fares, and cheaper to maintain and restore. So why is it different from locos to carriages PH, it seems you're applying one rule to locos and one rule to coaches. Either viewpoint has it's merits and I understand the arguments for both, it just seems a little hypercritical to me to apply one rule to coaches and another for locos.

Therefore, applying your rule of thumb about locos on this thread, I can only suggest a new build MK1 body on top of a MK1 frame. However, applying my view of locos onto this thread, I'd like to see, hmm, well, actually, anything that fits would be wonderful, I really like older wooden stock, much more interesting than Mk1s as you say, so anything as long as it is cheaper or the same to maintain than a MK1, and can carry more people or the same than a MK1.

Sorry if this post seems a little confused, as I now am about your views about economical heritage, I thought it was cut and dry regarding your views, now I'm not so sure. Also rather tired having just got back from RAF camp, I suspect I will read this tomorrow morning and see it makes no sense, nevermind...

 

one option may be the underframes from the Br mk1 suburbian stock, they are unlikily to be restored because of the problems you get with bodies , so would be a very usable starting point as regards bodies thats down to what ever railway would want to rebuild what ever coach, as a southern man, i would love to see another 2 or 3 Bullied coaches including a tavern car. i believe MK1 sub are built on a 57ft underframe but using a woodern frame and construction simular to the methods used in the originals you should have a coach that should be light on maintance and less weight than a mk1 tso

 

What exactly do you consider makes a Mk 1 not worth restoring ? They are constructed of steel panels on steel frames with interior joinery & of course do deteriorate, but I have yet to see one defeat the c & w lads at our railway.
Furthermore I think you'll find that Mk 1's , particularly the open types, are becoming pretty scarce , and even poor examples are changing hands for big money.

Bob.

 

might well be less weight (so cheaper to haul) but what makes you say light on maintenance? I don't know as I have nothing to do with wooden stock as we don't have any, but every single time the subject has arisen over elevenses at C+W, the reply has simply been "We'd love to, but we've nowhere to store them" the railways that do have somewhere to store them tend to already have vintage carriages anyway - (SVR, bluebell etc.) whilst railways just running MK1s often have to store them outside. the two are linked together, if a railway can afford to have a nice coach shed it can afford to have vintage coaches as they will be cheaper to maintain if undercover. railways with only MK1s might not spend money on a coach shed is it's less needed, and thus don't have vintage stock as there's nowhere to store it.

Regarding Bob's point, I understand where PH is coming from, vintage tock is more interesting than boring MK1s, but for the reasons outlined above there are plenty of reasons they are so popular, and why now they are becoming worth big money.

 

I don't see a 4MT as being a less interesting locomotive but I do see a Mk.1 as being a less interesting carriage and boy there are some tired specimens around, on some surprising lines. Costings need to be done to ascertain whether a rebuild is cheaper than a full renewal. If the latter is the cheaper then this would be an opportunity to get a bit more variety.

PH

 

That's part of my point, you might not but many people do, I've overheard plenty of people on various railways complaining about not having a "proper" steam engine ie. one with a tender, although we are quite happy with a 4MT. Equally many people only care about the loco at the top and don't give a second thought for the carriages, as long as they look nice and have a bit of wood in them then they are vintage

I accept your point that some MK1s are skanky, but take our maroon rake for instance. this time 2 years ago it was pretty naff on the outside with faded and chipped paintwork; every time we saw it go past at teatime it would be an embarrassment to us (even if it didn't bother many of the passengers, and looking at reviews and talking to people by and large it didn't). now two years later there's only a couple left that haven't come in to have a facelift. Imagine how much longer and more expensive it would have been to convert them into something like your LBSCR coaches you suggested? If we were to do that to our very tired coaches as you seem to imply, there would have been no third rake at our galas this year, we'd still be busy converting the first one I'd suspect. instead, our third rake is about as fully refurbished as our second, with just a couple needing attention. Come next year or probably the one after, they won't be known as the first/second/third rake, just rakes that can be interchangeable rather than having them ranked in order of quality. This could not have happened if we were to be busy converting even one MK1 into something else.

 

I am probably doing you a disservice but it is the easiest thing to assume that ones own views coincide with those of the paying public. For instance I once encountered a couple, quite "sophisticated" people, who thought the ancient steam locomotive heading the train was a diesel done up to represent a steam machine. Needless to say I did not share this view!

I am not so much advocating conversion of stuff in running order, although when major, expensive, overhaul is needed it would be worth a consideration but the stuff which clutters up the "linear scrapyard". Also it is not "my" L.B.S.C.R. Balloon stock which is but one example of an interesting design which has not survived. I had thought of the L.N.W.R. "American Boat Train" stock but a glance at Hamilton Ellis' book reveals those to have been twelve wheelers. Take your pick but please no sleeping cars or diners!

PH

 

I can see where Paul is coming from, but i can see your point also, i'm not advocating rebodying perfectly usable MK1's but using the underframe of those that are not, such as the ones that are going to be to hard an ask, such as the kings cross sub mk1s, using new woodern frames would mean that you would in effect have all new bodies, so the maintance should be less on those coaches unlike the constant patching of current woodern bodied stock,

 

I hope you are joking - you couldn't build a vintage coach on a Mk.1 underframe with even the remotest chance of it looking authentic. Putting a new LBSCR Ballon-coach body on a Mk.1 underframe would be like building a steam outline replica on the running gear of a class 47!
There are plenty of vintage coaches awaiting rebuilding without resorting to a new-build - the situation is simply not remotely the same as locos. On the other hand, one could build a Bulleid tavern car on a Bulleid underframe - we have a couple of spare underframes, if you have 20 years and £100k (or 3 years and £500k) to spend on the project, and a workshop available to build it. Acutally a much more feasible conversion would be from a Semi-open brake third to one of the Diagram 2660 Kitchen/Restaurant Thirds. However, if you have that money to spend, please join us in restoring the sole surviving SR catering vehicle, Maunsell Restaurant Car/Dining Saloon No.7864
http://tinyurl.com/dining-saloon
We have already raised £41,000, and have a team of people and workshop space, with the intention of starting work in about three years once we've completed our current projects.
It will almost be a new build...

 

I've come across those sorts of people too, always gives me a chuckle. I'm not just saying these things about people's opinions on steam locos and carriages, I do talk to people. Sometimes during teabreaks I'll wander onto the platform and end up chatting with someone, sometimes when I'm on the train to or from Winchcombe I'll overhear or be in conversation with more often than not just average families. They like a big loco with a name, as we know from the P&DR who have exploited this by naming some of their smaller locomotives - much to the railway enthusiast's horror, and when I read reviews of railways it's very rare for the carriages to have more than a passing mention of "Coaches were clean and comfortable" or similar. Obviously this method of data collection isn't very representative, but I can be reasonably sure it's not just my opinion I'm projecting.

Also, I accept you're not suggesting converting running MK1s into older stock, but, and I am guessing here, could it be said that coaches with a body so far gone it would be more economical to replace it with a wooden body (which I find unlikely even if there was nothing there but rust) that its under frame would be pretty buggered too?

In reply to Martin, would an all new wooden bodied coach survive being stored outside anywhere near as well as a MK1? I don't think it would, the WSR are having to build a carriage shed to go with their GWR carriages they are acquiring, they can do that as they re a big railway, but I imagine the railways PH are referring to with lines of grotty MK1s are not in a position to do so.

 

Some of the rebuilds of grounded bodies are not far off being new builds...........

 

The point is that the underframe is the easy part - the IoW are building virtually new underframes for some of their bogie coaches. A carriage body on the other hand is a big project, which few who have never restored a wooden-bodied carriage can really appreciate how much skilled craftmanship is required. The timberwork is at the cabinet-making end of the scale. You are making a 60ft long, 8 ft wide, piece of fine furnature, not a 60'x8' garden shed.

 

Each of the four rebuilds of grounded bodies I've been involved with have been far less than 10% new build. They account for about 15 years volunteer work in total on my part. Those that are nearer a total new-build are both more expensive in terms of purchase and machining of new timber, and take longer to complete.

 

The Mk1 does what it says on the tin. No need to convert any to anything else at all.

 

Wouldnt say no someone building a Bulleid Tavern car they sound rather intresting am I right in thinking they had faux brickwork and fireplaces?

 

Now that does seem a peculiar use of resources, both human and financial!

PH

 

There are countless pre nationalisation coaches rotting away at railways around the country. I would rather see some of these restored than any new builds.

The fact is that patching up Mk1s is the cheapest option for most railways. Restoring pre 1948 wrecks is more expensive, so few railways do it. New builds would be even more expensive so just isnt going to happen.

 

The other fact is that the carriages that are in service need to be kept in service to earn the revenue. On many lines there is little surplus labour or cash to devote to new builds or heavy and complex restorations. Result is that more Mark 1s are kept going at the expense of the more exotic options. At least if the heritage vehicles exist and can be protected from further decay options are available for the future.

 

Facts and figures please. It is easy to assert things, not to mention assume them as well and eventually all those Mk.1's will need to have full general repairs done to them. It will be interesting to compare costs then. I agree about the "rotting" vehicles though.

PH