Replica Coaches?

[Joseph_Pestell]

One of the things that lets most preservation lines down is the rolling stock - usually very down-at-heel BR Mk1. The recent incident on the Dart Valley of a Mk1 missing part of its floor was an extreme example but many others are little better.

 

With many locos now being recreated from scratch, is it not time also to start building some replica carriages. The skills are out there when you see the total rebuilding that has been done on some historic carriages.

 

Apart from the passenger experience, a further bonus would be the availability of suitable carriages for film & TV work.

[Vanguard 5374]

One of the things that lets most preservation lines down is the rolling stock - usually very down-at-heel BR Mk1. The recent incident on the Dart Valley of a Mk1 missing part of its floor was an extreme example but many others are little better.

 

With many locos now being recreated from scratch, is it not time also to start building some replica carriages. The skills are out there when you see the total rebuilding that has been done on some historic carriages.

 

Apart from the passenger experience, a further bonus would be the availability of suitable carriages for film & TV work.

 

There are plenty of replica coaches around in the Narrow Gauge scene, the Corris Railway and Lynton & Barnstaple come to mind.

[Marshall5]

I assume we are talking about standard gauge stock? Whilst a fair number of Victorian 4wh. carriages have been restored (mainly from grounded bodies) over recent years there is a dearth of restored stock from the Big4 particularly non-corridor stock.  At the moment I can't think of a single item of ex LMS or GWR non-corridor stock in regular use on any preserved railway. Considering that most of our heritage railways were branch lines that seldom, if ever, saw corridor stock BR Mk1's are not really representative.

However, before considering building replicas perhaps we should look at the number of derelict/disused pre-nationalisation vehicles rotting away at many heritage railways but, as always, economics come into play. (e.g. http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=209 ) Restoring wooden bodied coaching stock is expensive, time-consuming and certainly not 'sexy' so doesn't attract the funds and volunteers that loco restorations do. Most lines started with Mk1's as they were cheap and ready to use so were regarded as 'disposable' but with age and reduced availability more and more of these vehicles are requiring extensive and expensive repairs. So maybe the time will come when the cost of restoring older pre-1948 will seem more attractive and give the host railway a new USP?

Ray.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Marshall5

[Joseph_Pestell]

I assume we are talking about standard gauge stock? Whilst a fair number of Victorian 4wh. carriages have been restored (mainly from grounded bodies) over recent years there is a dearth of restored stock from the Big4 particularly non-corridor stock.  At the moment I can't think of a single item of ex LMS or GWR non-corridor stock in regular use on any preserved railway. Considering that most of our heritage railways were branch lines that seldom, if ever, saw corridor stock BR Mk1's are not really representative.

However, before considering building replicas perhaps we should look at the number of derelict/disused pre-nationalisation vehicles rotting away at many heritage railways but, as always, economics come into play. (e.g. http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=209 ) Restoring wooden bodied coaching stock is expensive, time-consuming and certainly not 'sexy' so doesn't attract the funds and volunteers that loco restorations do. Most lines started with Mk1's as they were cheap and ready to use so were regarded as 'disposable' but with age and reduced availability more and more of these vehicles are requiring extensive and expensive repairs. So maybe the time will come when the cost of restoring older pre-1948 will seem more attractive and give the host railway a new USP?

Ray.

 

While non-corridor stock might be more appropriate for a former branchline, I can see that it is difficult operationally (e.g. ticket checks).

 

Restoring wood bodies is indeed time-consuming. But if one were building a batch, today's technology makes it possible to machine many of the pieces needed from CAD drawings. And I was not thinking just of timber bodied stock but steel bodies.

[PenrithBeacon]

New builds have steel framed bodies with wood cladding to meet current engineering standards.

Railways are not allowed to mix steel and wooden underframed vehicles in a train. Most if not all 19th coaches so far restored have used PMV or tube wagon u/f in their restoration but have kept the wagon springing. As much as I admire the bodies the u/f tend to look odd to me.

IIRC one (at least) coach has been restored with a channel section u/f so it looks like a wooden u/f not a steel one

Edited June 27, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[Titan]

Railways are not allowed to mix steel and wooden underframed vehicles in a train.

 

Where does it say that?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I fully accept that such replicas might involve quite a lot of "cheating". Would not please the purists perhaps but I think it an option worth exploring rather than ploughing money into ageing Mk1s that are not really representative of the right era.

[298]

One of the things that lets most preservation lines down is the rolling stock - usually very down-at-heel BR Mk1. The recent incident on the Dart Valley of a Mk1 missing part of its floor was an extreme example but many others are little better.

 

 

I'd put the Dart Valley issue down to inadvertently following the modern big railways concept of a train where all of the maintenance is undertaken at the same time (so something like a Pendolino is out of action for the most part of a day whilst the glue sets on one window), when (and this is the inadvertent bit) they should have had a spare coach available*.

 

If a railway looks down at heel, it probably is- in which case, how can they afford the purchase price of several new coaches that will probably have to use heritage fittings and fixings, with the same resultant issues...?

 

*I recall the fleet availability was hampered by a replacement being out of service for a long time, and the temporary repair wasn't effective or checked often enough for security.

[Phil Bullock]

http://www.lnersvrcoachfund.org.uk/index.html

 

http://gw-svr-a.org.uk/whats_new.html

 

To quote but two - is there not a strong argument that all of these projects create something akin to Trigger's broom and are therefore as good as new builds?

 

Phil

[Oldddudders]

Our hobby is famously loco-centric. Be it steam, diesel or electric, the average enthusiast wants to see what is hauling/propelling, not what the train itself consists of. As has been noted, Mk1s were ready for disposal when many preserved lines got going, and they enabled services to run. And a good thing, too. For some of us, sadly, Mk 1s remained the vehicle of our daily commute until less than 20 years ago. Thus spending up to £20 to be conveyed in one on a preserved line does seem less than thrilling, frankly. Particularly if we were expecting steam, and got a diesel on the front.

 

Some lines are richer than others, some have a bigger user. The relatively-affluent Bluebell comes to mind as one that specialises in coach restoration, but others do similar sterling work, I am sure. And the fact is that Mr&Mrs Average, taking the bambini for a ride - and they are the backbone of the income on all preserved lines - couldn’t care tuppence whether it is a Mk 1 or an exquisite Pre-Grouping restoration.

 

Unless we, as individuals or groups, have the big bucks to commission a restoration or replica, it’s the way life is.

[Steamport Southport]

I thought the Dart Valley incident was to do with someone "not in the know" unlocking the door and not checking it when it was "out of use". In other words, human error rather than the state of the stock. The rest of the carriage was fine and the lavatory was under repair so was closed off.

 

As regards using non corridor stock, then the main problem is you want people to visit the buffet car and spend money. They can't do that if they are cocooned in a compartment. Maybe not relevant on small branchlines that go a mile or so. But very significant on the longer lines such as the WSR, NYMR and SVR. It's also a known fact that families prefer a table which is why TSOs are so popular.

 

 

 

But it all comes down to cost and manpower. Far better restoring what we have rather than dumping them and building new ones. I can see new build happening eventually, but not yet.

 

 

 

Jason

[woodenhead]

But do most people who travel on preserved railways actually care as long as the coach looks sufficiently not modern.

 

They want to see and hear steam engines

[Reorte]

But do most people who travel on preserved railways actually care as long as the coach looks sufficiently not modern.

 

They want to see and hear steam engines

They may not know and will generally be satisfied but I'd hazard a guess that a fair number who are interested enough to visit the railway in the first place wouldn't be averse to learning more. So maybe ignorance is bliss, both for visitors and the railway.

 

For people my age (even though Mk Is were still in service when I was younger) the MkI coach is already quite different from what we can mostly recall and what we experience today (seats lining up with the windows!)

[Steamport Southport]

But do most people who travel on preserved railways actually care as long as the coach looks sufficiently not modern.

 

They want to see and hear steam engines

 

Not really.

 

If you go to heritage railways most people don't care what they are pulled by. In fact many of them prefer the diesels including DMUs. Just look at places like the NYMR, the trains are packed regardless of what's on front. The same at places like the WSR, Ffestiniog and Snowdon.

 

You're looking at things from an enthusiasts angle rather than the general publics viewpoint.

 

 

 

Jason

[Reorte]

You're looking at things from an enthusiasts angle rather than the general publics viewpoint.

Not an unreasonable assumption for a heritage railway, why would anyone who isn't at least a bit of an enthusiast even go in the first place?

[coachmann]

If Joe Public and his missus dont give a damn, one could in theory attach a load of old Nodding Donkies to a loco and they wouldn't know the difference. As regards non-corridor coaches, it was different when the public grew up with nothing else on commuter trains and day trips to the seaside and peeing out the window was normal (it was in Lancs). Imagine that on heritage lines when even a 12 mile trip takes ages.  

 

Mk.I coaches will not last forever, so I wonder if there is any mileage in building new bodies to Big Four designs on Mk.I chassis and using the Mk.I interior and roof. If this works, then maybe something more ambitious could be done. A panelled coach for instance.  Safety standards could be based on a vehicle not going faster than 40mph rather than current mainline standards.

Edited June 27, 2018 by coachmann

[pete_mcfarlane]

At the moment I can't think of a single item of ex LMS or GWR non-corridor stock in regular use on any preserved railway.

Probably not quite what you were thinking of, but I had a very nice trip up the Vale of Rheidol in a set of GWR non-corridor coaches the other week. 

[Steamport Southport]

Not an unreasonable assumption for a heritage railway, why would anyone who isn't at least a bit of an enthusiast even go in the first place?

 

For the journey. For the views. Because it was in a film. Because it was on television. For a meal. Just to kill a few hours. There are loads of reasons why people go to heritage railways.

 

It was estimated that something like 90% of visitors to heritage railways aren't enthusiasts. I can't remember the source though. But that seems about right.

 

 

It's certainly not for nostalgic reasons. You have to be over 60 to really remember steam, yet many visitors I see are young families whose dads don't even remember steam.

 

 

 

Jason

[Phil Bullock]

Harry Potter is another big influence.

 

Have often heard the public say "Oh good heres a Harry Potter coach" on boarding compartment stock - be it Mark 1 or prenationalisation design

 

Phil

[Marshall5]

New builds have steel framed bodies with wood cladding to meet current engineering standards.

Railways are not allowed to mix steel and wooden underframed vehicles in a train. Most if not all 19th coaches so far restored have used PMV or tube wagon u/f in their restoration but have kept the wagon springing.

Sorry to disagree but there have been numerous narrow gauge new build bodies, IMR F54 for instance, with timber body framing.  Whilst Network Rail may have a ban on wooden bodied coaching stock I don't believe there is any such ban or the mixing of wooden and steel underframed stock on heritage railways.  The IMR daily operate trains of mixed underframed stock and, IIRC,the KWVR operate wooden underframed heritage stock from the VCT. Not all the restored C19th coaches are on PMV or wagon underframes as there many examples of restored examples still running on their (original) wooden underframes. Tanfield has some do they not?.  I'm sure a trawl through the VCT carriage register would reveal further examples.

Ray.

[AMJ]

I like and appreciate many of the none BR designed coaching stock due the scarcity such as at SVR and Others.

 

Mk I are notorious for being rust buckets with asbestos insulation. There are some of the Mk I diagrams that no longer survive and potentially could be recreated from a donor coach.

 

To most passengers they would not realise the difference between say a Thompson and a Mk I.

[Compound2632]

There are plenty of replica coaches around in the Narrow Gauge scene, the Corris Railway and Lynton & Barnstaple come to mind.

 

It's an interesting question whether the Lyton & Barnstaple carriages are restorations or new builds. They contain varying amounts of timber from the original carriages. But if they're not restorations, then neither are, for instance, the Knotty Carriages at Foxfield. But I do think it's the way to go, as I've said recently on another thread that covers much the same ground as this one.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It's an interesting question whether the Lyton & Barnstaple carriages are restorations or new builds. They contain varying amounts of timber from the original carriages. But if they're not restorations, then neither are, for instance, the Knotty Carriages at Foxfield. But I do think it's the way to go, as I've said recently on another thread that covers much the same ground as this one.

 

Apologies for inadvertently duplicating a theme. I tend not to follow threads about TV programmes.

 

I take the point about Mk1 coaches being perfectly suitable in many ways for preservation/tourist railways. But many are in severe need of work if they are to continue in service.

 

Is it better to put money into them or to recreate (albeit with many short cuts) earlier steel-bodied coaches? We enthusiasts might not like them but that 90% of non-enthusiast travellers would be better served.

[Marshall5]

Were there any "earlier steel-bodied coaches" - I can't think of any.  AFAIK all carriage bodies pre- Mk1 were wooden framed with steel (or wooden previously) panels screwed on.

Ray.

[coachmann]

Were there any "earlier steel-bodied coaches" - I can't think of any.  AFAIK all carriage bodies pre- Mk1 were wooden framed with steel (or wooden previously) panels screwed on.

Ray.

'Steel bodied' included steel-clad coaches such as Collett, Stanier and Maunsell stock. 'All-Steel' coaches included those built by the steel industry for the LMS in the 1920's and early 1930's,  the LNER and of course the BR Mk.I's.

 

By using Mk.I chassis, interiors and roofs as donors, one could build coaches that resembled LMS and GWR designs but of course they would be longer than the original Big Four designs and have flat ends. Framework would be of timber, which is within the scope of tradesmen used to working with wood, and cladding could be ali or galvanised steel sheet. Interested parties from all the heritage sites could club together to have proprietary sliding windows produced in bulk. Such windows would be suitable for producing GWR and LMS look-alike stock. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by coachmann