Jump to content

New coaches at preserved lines


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, rab said:

As the sign above the loo roll said:

The job isn't finished till the paperwork is done!

The kind of job you have to be very thorough with the paperwork.

 

Also known as a jobbie :bo_mini:

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
Argh
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Just take the engines out of a few pacers and pull them along - they are pretty indestructable.

Ah i wouldn't want to inflict that on innocent tourists.

 

Besides. Wouldn't that wreck the track? What would we do with the coach bodies?

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If modern "rules" mean that coaches have to be built to the standards that we are used to on the mainline with modern stock, then how come we have replica coaches in (intermittent) use around the country, as well as "rescued" bodies, which surely can't have grandfather rights? I'm thinking Beamish for example, or the NRM "Rocket" blue coaches. I'm sure that if there is a will, there is a way to technically do it with official approval. That of is after the need for them, and financial side of things have been sorted.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

Yes I don't know how many differences there are between Bulleid, Mk1 and Maunsell underframes but if there are drawings available (Indeed I do think there's an underframe the Bluebell uses to store coach bodies on) or produce engineering drawings from an existing frame. After all, they practically rebuilt several Bulleid and mk1 coaches up from their skeletons so it can't be that hard for their restoration teams who, lets face it, produce works of art. If funds are in place, which is as others have said, the biggest obstacle.

 

Update: The underframe the Bluebell have is a Bulleid one. It currently has the two halves of ex SECR Pullman car no. 33 'Constance' sitting on it

 

 

If you want something to modern standards, it needs designing from scratch. The underframe should be easy enough. It is getting the body to a good standard which is the challenge (and fixing the body to the underframe). One area that certainly needs thinking about is the ends. Does one keep end doors and make that a sacrificial crumple zone? Or does one put doors at 1/3 & 2/3 (rather like a Thompson carriage) which is inherently stronger?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

By far the biggest hurdle is that thing called money. People don't want to know if it's for rolling stock. Most heritage railways struggle to upkeep their present stock. I'm afraid that most enthusiasts are very loco centric when it comes to donating money.

 

However new coaches are being built all the time. Look at the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railways. They've got loads of new coaches up to modern standards.

 

Personally I would prefer them to restore genuine vehicles while we still have them rather than starting to build new. We can build them anytime. When the original stock has deteriorated, it's gone forever.

 

I think the Festiniog/WHR build new because their stock gets worn out; it has a level of utilisation/mileage covered that dwarfs most preserved railways.  It's also why they keep building new Fairlies.  But they also rebuild a lot of heritage locos and stock and do use them, but sparingly.

 

Totally agree though about enthusiasts though and how far their "enthusiasm" stretches.  They will complain vociferously if an ex-main line steam loco stands awaiting overhaul for more than  couple of years but are much more reluctant to fork out for a shed to protect the coaches that passengers actually pay to travel in.  Full marks to railways like the SVR and the Bluebell who have managed to sell such an appeal successfully. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

If you want something to modern standards, it needs designing from scratch. The underframe should be easy enough. It is getting the body to a good standard which is the challenge (and fixing the body to the underframe). One area that certainly needs thinking about is the ends. Does one keep end doors and make that a sacrificial crumple zone? Or does one put doors at 1/3 & 2/3 (rather like a Thompson carriage) which is inherently stronger?

It probably depends on what you're planning to use it for. If it's going onto the modern network it'd definitely need to be to modern standards, although crash worthiness at 25mph on a preserved line might be different, remember that most of the damage in the Clapham Junction crash happened at a 35 mph impact with the brakes fully on*. Cannon Street at 5mph so yes that would have to be a consideration.  Herritage trains on a preserved line might be doing 10 or so in station limits and they work on token block generally so maybe the safety case would be different if they are not intended to venture onto BR metals.

 

It also depends what it is you're building as if it's something specific then you'd want the doors in the correct place/s

 

*AFAICR

 

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
The endless drudgery of the typo
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

for the average paying passenger, the comfort of the ride and the ability to look out the window at the views is more important than the authenticity of the carriage, the Ffestiniog builds with this in mind, you will get more passengers with comfy seats and large windows than if they just used the heritage stock with small compartments and small windows, this as already said also reduces the usage and wear on the heritage stock meaning less repairs and replacements and as much as possible remains original for the discerning enthusiast to experience at special weekends. giving the best of both worlds and the most passengers resulting in more revenue. most people go to the FR/WHR for the steam and the countryside and sitting in a cramped old carriage might put them off coming back or recommending it to others. though originally in the 1970's the FR needed more carriages than they had for the growing passenger numbers so building new was the only way to go for them and then this developed into the experience factor

 

Middlton rly in Leeds built a wheelchair friendly carriage about 2 years ago

Edited by sir douglas
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I raised this idea some months ago on another thread, mainly as a reaction to the awful state of much rolling stock (BR Mk1 mostly) on many preservation railways.

 

 

 

I would flip your statement actually. A lot of preserved railways in the so called Premier league, IE the top 10 that people always seem to refer to. Have an awful lot of pride and take a lot of care over the C & W. 

Railways that don't look after their rolling stock are the ones putting people off visiting other heritage railways. The other aspect of maintaining a good standard of maintenance and upkeep on rolling stock is always helpful when the ORR come knocking. 

 

Back OT though. Having checked through some regs from work. If a body can be produced to an already accepted design then it may well be acceptable. 

On the SVR we have modified 2 Mark 1s with double doors for Wheelchair access. We have had to produce drawings and photograph any modifications. As long as you're not fundamentally changing the structure of the coach. It is acceptable.

 

3 hours ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

Yes I don't know how many differences there are between Bulleid, Mk1 and Maunsell underframes but if there are drawings available (Indeed I do think there's an underframe the Bluebell uses to store coach bodies on) or produce engineering drawings from an existing frame. After all, they practically rebuilt several Bulleid and mk1 coaches up from their skeletons so it can't be that hard for their restoration teams who, lets face it, produce works of art. If funds are in place, which is as others have said, the biggest obstacle.

 

Update: The underframe the Bluebell have is a Bulleid one. It currently has the two halves of ex SECR Pullman car no. 33 'Constance' sitting on it

 

 

Maunsells were on 59' chassis's as where the first lot of Bulleid all compartment coaches as they used under frames built before the war. The Bournemouth line stock were on 62' 6" under frames, a length perpetuated with the Mark 1s. 

There also has to be the will to do it. Not just the money. 

 

It is the crash worthy side of things that will be one, if not the biggest stumbling block. Preserved railways are governed by the same standards as the big railway but with exceptions through grandfather rights. Also modern standards may also include, as it would be new works, retention tanks for the toilets & central door locking.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I remember reading somewhere that the A1 Tornado/Prince of Wales group were considering building a rake of "fake teak" modern carriages to run on the main line behind their locos. By which I mean that they were going to be built to comply with modern requirements but done to look like older stock.

 

Would this be finished in a similar way to the London Underground 4TC set?

https://www.svrwiki.com/London_Underground_4TC_set

 

I was under the impression that the Tornado group were thinking of refurbishing Mark 3 stock for their use, but that was a few years ago.

 

One example of a new-build carriage (using an existing underframe though) is the DVLR’s Sylvia: https://dvlr.org.uk/?page_id=3176

It doesn’t seem to be based on any existing design, and was locally built rather than at the railway itself. Virtually all narrow gauge lines use new-build stock as there has never been a readily available source of coaches in the way that there has been for standard gauge, although on some this is rebuilt or modified from wagons or older coaches rather than completely new. Have a look at Leighton Buzzard’s coach 8 for a really unusual example of rebuilding/modifying.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

One particular issue with the PRM requirements is that of livery - wheelchair ramps etc can, and have, been integrated in such a way as to avoid substantially changing the appearance of the stock, but the requirement to have, for example, doors in a contrasting colour, cannot. You wouldn't want to go to all the effort of building a replica Bulleid coach and then have to paint it in a totally unauthentic livery. The Ffestiniog don't have this problem as their new coaches aren't replicas of older vehicles - so they've adapted the design and livery to incorporate end vestibule doors in a different colour, while still fitting the heritage styling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick C said:

One particular issue with the PRM requirements is that of livery - wheelchair ramps etc can, and have, been integrated in such a way as to avoid substantially changing the appearance of the stock, but the requirement to have, for example, doors in a contrasting colour, cannot. You wouldn't want to go to all the effort of building a replica Bulleid coach and then have to paint it in a totally unauthentic livery. The Ffestiniog don't have this problem as their new coaches aren't replicas of older vehicles - so they've adapted the design and livery to incorporate end vestibule doors in a different colour, while still fitting the heritage styling.

Is railtour stock somehow exempt from this? I was wondering whether it was considered less important on heritage lines because platform dwell time is longer and doors can be located and opened by staff but I thought railtour coaches would have to have contrasting doors because they run on the national network. Similarly the Island Line tube stock seems to still have an all over colour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Is railtour stock somehow exempt from this? I was wondering whether it was considered less important on heritage lines because platform dwell time is longer and doors can be located and opened by staff but I thought railtour coaches would have to have contrasting doors because they run on the national network. Similarly the Island Line tube stock seems to still have an all over colour.

I always say that contrasting colours on doors is useless as people with limited eyesight need the contrast when they are open, otherwise they'd be just as likely to walk into the closed door. Try telling  a committee that though, although if their sight is that bad they should have an assistant with them which means the reason behind contrasting colours would be redundant anyway...

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Ffestiniog's new build carriages are actually built in such a way as to skirt around the legislation and restrictions that new design's have to comply with.   

 

Carriage 122 was a genuine new design in 2003 and does not comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations Act 1998 which new designs have to meet.  As a result there is an exemption order (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1687/contents/made) which was required before it was put into service, as far as I know this is only valid until 2026.

 

The latest carriages are a wooden bodied variant of 122's design but the initial carriage (103) is an 'accounting rebuild' of the 1968 built 103 which I believe avoids the need to comply with the legislation through grandfather rights.  Since then a series of new carriages to largely the same design have been produced some as 'rebuilds', others with new numbers but I believe that as they are variants of 103 they continue with the same grandfather rights, even the observation carriages which have completely different bodies.

 

The replica heritage carriages such as the recently completed 21 or the Welsh Highland Pickering currently under contract construction look as if they also have grandfather rights so it may be that a replica of an existing but vanished design would be ok to build and use.

 

Martin

 

 

Edited by mcowgill
Typo
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mcowgill said:

My understanding is that the Ffestiniog's new build carriages are actually built in such a way as to skirt around the legislation and restrictions that new design's have to comply with.   

 

Carriage 122 was a genuine new design in 2003 and does not comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations Act 1998 which new designs have to meet.  As a result there is an exemption order (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1687/contents/made) which was required before it was put into service, as far as I know this is only valid until 2026.

 

The latest carriages are a wooden bodied variant of 122's design but the initial carriage (103) is an 'accounting rebuild' of the 1968 built 103 which I believe avoids the need to comply with the legislation through grandfather rights.  Since then a series of new carriages to largely the same design have been produced some as 'rebuilds', others with new numbers but I believe that as they are variants of 103 they continue with the same grandfather rights, even the observation carriages which have completely different bodies.

 

The replica heritage carriages such as the recently completed 21 or the Welsh Highland Pickering currently under contract construction look as if they also have grandfather rights so it may be that a replica of an existing but vanished design would be ok to build and use.

 

Martin

 

 

This is probably where a lot of the paper work and the big ball-aches come in. So really we'd be looking at

 

1. A lot of money to raise

2. More paperwork than is good for you

3. Use of accounting rebuilds

4. A lot more paperwork

 

Then you can start the design work...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, mcowgill said:

The replica heritage carriages such as the recently completed 21 or the Welsh Highland Pickering currently under contract construction look as if they also have grandfather rights so it may be that a replica of an existing but vanished design would be ok to build and use.

 

Martin

 

 

The Pickering coach is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I started the thread. That and Bulleid 3-sets/Tavern cars. It's an attractive looking coach as well.

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcowgill said:

My understanding is that the Ffestiniog's new build carriages are actually built in such a way as to skirt around the legislation and restrictions that new design's have to comply with.   

 

Carriage 122 was a genuine new design in 2003 and does not comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations Act 1998 which new designs have to meet.  As a result there is an exemption order (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1687/contents/made) which was required before it was put into service, as far as I know this is only valid until 2026.

 

The latest carriages are a wooden bodied variant of 122's design but the initial carriage (103) is an 'accounting rebuild' of the 1968 built 103 which I believe avoids the need to comply with the legislation through grandfather rights.  Since then a series of new carriages to largely the same design have been produced some as 'rebuilds', others with new numbers but I believe that as they are variants of 103 they continue with the same grandfather rights, even the observation carriages which have completely different bodies.

 

The replica heritage carriages such as the recently completed 21 or the Welsh Highland Pickering currently under contract construction look as if they also have grandfather rights so it may be that a replica of an existing but vanished design would be ok to build and use.

 

Martin

 

 

Like I posted earlier up the thread....where there is a will.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Referring back to the OP on replacement crash pillars, new ends etc are a standard part of mk1 rebuilds and have been for many years most of them are so good you would never know it has beenbeen done.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Boris said:

Referring back to the OP on replacement crash pillars, new ends etc are a standard part of mk1 rebuilds and have been for many years most of them are so good you would never know it has beenbeen done.

 

Exactly. The work that is done is amazing and quite often to better-than-new condition. So if the crash pillars are standard replacements, what else is? There must be enough drawings somewhere in some dusty (Or oily) drawer somewhere, scattered around the preservation world for a complete mk1 coach, underframe and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are carriages around that are essentially new-build - though including a few rescued parts - but in essence follow the original design (although some may used recycled frames and running gear. The Knotty Trust and the Lynton & Barnstaple carriages spring to mind. So there really doesn't seem to be a problem for railways worked under LROs or whatever their modern equivalent may be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that newer coaches like Mk2s, Mk3s & Mk4s don't get overlooked.

Their seats may not be as bouncy but Mk3s gave a vastly superior ride to Mk1s as well as being much stronger in an accident. In 50 years time, these will also be just as much an important part of history & it would be a shame if enthusiasts' desire for older stock lets these go to waste.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Don’t some of the L&B coaches have new metal frames (rather than the original wood)?

 

I believe they all have new frames made at Boston Lodge; I'm afraid I don't know whether the original frames were wood or steel. The framing of the bodywork is all timber, as far as I am aware. There are construction photos on the East Group's part of the website.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I hope that newer coaches like Mk2s, Mk3s & Mk4s don't get overlooked.

Their seats may not be as bouncy but Mk3s gave a vastly superior ride to Mk1s as well as being much stronger in an accident. In 50 years time, these will also be just as much an important part of history & it would be a shame if enthusiasts' desire for older stock lets these go to waste.

I agree that they are an important part of our railway history.

 

But not for being hauled by steam locomotives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I agree that they are an important part of our railway history.

 

But not for being hauled by steam locomotives.

 

Agreed. They would look a bit silly to anyone knowing that they are from different eras & air con coaches also require air brakes & ETH.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.