"Newbuild" carriage stock

Many of the shorter lines are restoring 30ft vintage coach bodies where they wouldn't have a role on the Severn Valley or West Somerset due to capacity issues. Think of the projects at Swindon and Cricklade, Gwili, Foxfield etc. These bodies do not have the work required on a toplight for example and provided they are structurally sound are eminently restorable.

Under frames are more of an issue for these carriages and the ideal solution (as we have done with GWR 216) is a MK1 horsebox under frame which is of the right length and has standard components. There is a decent argument for producing a new batch of these underframes given that there are not a huge number of original Horseboxes in preservation.

There is then the option (as per Statley Trains) of producing a functional interior rather than a wholly authentic one and upgrading as time and money allows. No it's not better than a full blown authentic job but probably better (IMO) than a new build.

 

One shouldn't also disregard wagon underframes for short 4 wheel coaches. Both the 1830 replica carriages at manchester started out as BR box vans. The Manchester Birmingham coach also sits on a wagon underframe though the underframe is pre BR.

 

Considering how often "the cost of an overhaul" is banded about for locos, and how "everybody knows" that every overhaul costs £500k plus on a steam loco (all of which is a sweeping generalisation that is probably wrong more often than it is right), it is perhaps surprising that few seem to know the costs of carriage work. Indeed, I suspect it is actually worse than that - many organisations don't even properly record or cost carriage overhauls!

From observation of resources used and knowledge of the costs of those resources, I can comment.

Mark 1 overhauls can be complex and time consuming but many Mark 1s (though probably not the ones PaulH is suggesting are used for building replica coaches) are either complete internally and externally or the parts needed can be obtained from other vehicles. On the face of it, nothing new needs manufacturing as would be the case for an ex-departmental pre-1948 carriage.

Hence the materials cost for an extensive overhaul of a Mark 1 can easily be under £10k, especially if it is one that has been running and is complete. Reupholstering may well be the biggest materials cost.

Labour is a very different matter. Frame and other body repairs, external and internal, do need large amounts of manufacture and integration of new material - metalwork and woodwork (though not vast quantities of the material). This is fiddly and time consuming work and a thorough overhaul can easily, even when it is paid personnel working on it amongst other work such as annual exams, maintenance, periodic exams, FTRs and failure repairs, take well over a year. As I say, not continuous work but 2 or 3 man years will easily go into a major overhaul.

You are probably, with some allowance for consumables such as power and cutting gas, looking at £75,000 plus for the overhaul of a carriage - in house but with mainly paid staff. Just like locomotives, this will increase the more contractors you use and decrease the more volunteers - there is never "the cost of an overhaul".

From my colleagues in the LNERCA, I know that you are taking £100k to £150k for restoring am ex-departmental pre-BR coach. The amount again depends on mix of own staff, contractors and volunteers and that in turn can depend on funding. With grants, work can progress in 2 to 3 years and use lots of contractors, assisted by volunteers. Otherwise, you are talking 8 to 10 years - limited in part by the ability to raise money, as specialist wood work will often still need contracting out.

These are all figures for steel under-framed bogie coaches. Rebuilding bodies and fitting to new or adapted underframes is a different matter all together.

So, a Mark 1 overhaul, even from a wreck taken from the sidings, is 1/2 to 2/3 of the overhaul of a similar pre-BR vehicle. However, that pre-BR vehicle is almost certainly more likely to attract funding through donations or grants.

Timber body coaches need not be assumed to "have to be kept under cover" any more or less than Mark 1s - Mark 1s suffer from the weather probably more the LNER all Teak vehicles. One factor is consistent - if a coach has been inside for years being restored and hence has, if timber, fully dried out, and then starts to live outside, any faults in the paintwork will all too readily let the damp back in and cause the timber is expand, cracking more paint. However, such surface problems will cause less damage to hardwood framing than the steel frame of a Mark 1 once holes appear in the skin.

Generally, the teak coaches probably last better being kept outside and certainly, once thoroughly restored, need less major work at each "intermediate" overhaul than the Mark 1s, but the Mark 1s, like steam locomotive boilers, benefit from a real "bottoming" of problems which sets them up for over a decade before such extensive work will be required as universally again.

Of course, the real problems with "replicas on Mark 1 chassis" is, as has been pointed out - they would look completely wrong - wrong length ion most cases, wrong tyre of gangways and bogies, different design of underframe bracing. look at a Triang Hornby 1970s "Thompson" (Thompson type side on a Mark 1 chassis, ends and roof) alongside a Bachmann model and you will get the idea!

Steven

 

To which vehicle are you referring? 7864? I think restoring a unique carriage that will see a lot of use, and bring in money in catering sales, is a far better use of funds and resources than a new build coach on a Mk 1 underframe.

 

Thanks for your thoughts; they are just the sort of response I had hoped to generate! One small point of disagreement. There are a number of vehicles running around on replacement underframes which have been modified to suit and only a rivet counter would either (a) notice or (b) quibble at this use.

Thanks again,

Paul H.

 

Much, much, too expensive and time consuming.

PH

 

It's a matter of opinion of course, and people will put their money and/or time where they want to. From what little I've read of 7864 (and also what I saw of it close on 35 years ago) it will probably end up with a huge amount of new material in it, as well as being built on a correct underframe, so why would this be too much, and yet a new build not be?

I agree very much with what has been said about rescuing/restoring the rotting hulks scattered around. Some are at least protected by tarpaulins, but some not. I don't normally want to mention specifics in a negative way in my posts, but yesterday, following a visit to the Narrow Gauge Model Railway show in Telford, I drove past the Telford Steam railway site at Horsehay and stopped for a look. Not open on a Saturday, but clear for all to see was the 1906 built GWR auto-trailer that has run in preservation, but has now deteriorated to the point where the roof is sagging and this is pushing out one of the sides in places. Some of the window frames appear almost non-existent and there is no protection for it from either the weather or vandals. I don't know what plans there are for it, but if the railway has no resources to deal with it (and I suspect they don't) perhaps there are some amongst the members of Nat-pres who could put together some package that could help preserve this carriage before it's too late. And no, sadly I don't have the money to put where my mouth is.

Steve B

 

As for 7864 it is simply because the "default set" on the same railway has at least one vehicle where the upholstery is so worn so as to make the mocquette little more than a stain on the backing and some doors which don't work. Not good. Perhaps 7864 represents "jam tomorrow" at the expense of rather less "jam today".

I really don't want to comment specifically on the instance quoted by you as I have never visited the site. However I can think of other similar instances.

Paul H.

 

Exactly! That's not to say that the occasional Mk1 shouldn't be adapted to suit the needs of heritage railways or railtours or bits of a scrapped one used to make a diesel brake tender (!) but on the whole I think if a Mk1 (or Mk2 or whatever) is a viable rebuild for use in the heritage sector, it's best to keep it reasonably authentic.

 

Thanks Paul. I don't know what plans for refurbishment there are, or even what state individual carriages are in as I haven't been there for a quite a while. But it also raises the question that is relevant to this discussion as to the need for for railways to balance the need for repairs and renewal with the restoration of additional carriages or the creation of "new builds". And this is an area where I might try a few guesses, but I'd be interested in the views of those "at the sharp end" of making those sorts of decisions.

Steve

 

We tend to do almost exclusively renewal, but some "renewals" it might as well be a first time restoration. It generally depends on th time of year and requirements. Now that our days where we need 3 rakes are over for another year, I imagine we'll be focussing on some of our long term projects, come the winter shutdown right up until next May and our galas it'll be lots of quicker jobs to try and turn around as many coaches as possible for use, maybe coming back to them more comprehensively later in the year, as we have done.