Gresley teak after nationalization.

[billbedford]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That is said to be why the Midland didn't repaint LT&SR stock in crimson lake after the 1912 takeover. Am I right in thinking that apart from that, all the companies with varnished teak carriages were in the LNE group? Which would perhaps make the choice of livery inevitable on economic grounds, quite apart from Doncaster influence.

 

Only 3 out of 7 had a teak livery at grouping*. That's ECJS, GNR and GCR. The GER changed to Crimson lake in ~1920. 

 

* OK 4 out of 8 if you include the Hull and Barnsley. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by billbedford
Typo

[Bittern]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

The GER changed to Crimson lake in ~1920. 

How much had actually been painted?

 

I suspect the main reason is that most of the Gresley-era LNER main-line carriages  were direct descendants of GNR and ECJS designs  and so just kept using the same materials and finish.

[terry.ecmr]

On 10/12/2021 at 17:04, Compound2632 said:

 

Fair dos! Although the Met wasn't grouped, so there was no question of another livery being applied over the teak. My point was that the LMS, Southern, and Great Western did not inherit a significant fleet of teak carriages in 1923. (The LT&SR teak carriages were by the grouping steadily being replaced by new-built Midland stock, not teak-panelled and so painted in the standard livery, a process continued by the LMS. But that reminds me that the NLR had had teak panelled carriages, that I think remained unpainted after the LNWR assumed control in 1909. But there was a similar story of construction of replacement standard stock.)

In the late 1950's the remaining ex Met teak coaches used on the Chesham shuttle were over-painted brown.