1956 Regional Coach Liveries - Why no LNER variant ?

[Wickham Green too]

6 hours ago, Forward! said:

 As recently as 1952 the Harrow rail disaster had shown the latter up to be downright dangerous compared to their all-steel replacements.

As recently as 19?? Mk1s were shown to be downright dangerous compared to their Mk2 replacements. 

As recently as 19?? Mk2s were shown to be downright dangerous compared to their Mk3 replacements.

As recently as 19?? Mk3s were shown to be downright dangerous ........

 

 

.... best not to ram a carriage from behind anyway.

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

As recently as 19?? Mk1s were shown to be downright dangerous compared to their Mk2 replacements. 

As recently as 19?? Mk2s were shown to be downright dangerous compared to their Mk3 replacements.

As recently as 19?? Mk3s were shown to be downright dangerous ........

 

 

.... best not to ram a carriage from behind anyway.

Running Class 46s and Mk1s into the odd nuclear flask laying around across the track, was shown to be downright dangerous...  Just as well all the crew and passengers, had got off last stop!

[Forward!]

17 hours ago, Trestrol said:

Crash worthyness has of a carriage is more than what the body is made of. If I remember correctly all the corridor carriages at Harrow were ex LMS. So fitted with screw couplings and BS gangways. Buckeyes and Pullman gangways do provided better protection against telescoping and help keep carriages upright. Ramming a carriage from behind at high speed doesn't do a carriage any good no matter what it's made of.

 

Indeed, but that's not quite how public perception of safety works. After Harrow the inquiry suggested that the superior crash performance of the new BR MK.1 standard carriages limited fatalities in those carriages, and by equal measure it implied that all the wooden stock involved was a liability- noting that the oldest carriage involved in the accident dated to 1916- being 36 years old. There was much made at the time about the general state of Britain's railway stock, and calls to accelerate its replacement were made by the media and politicians. Indeed, the official inquiry recommended that the general replacement of wooden framed and panelled stock should be expedited.

 

I suspect the ER's decision not to re-adopt a scumbled teak livery, or choose some other regional livery for it's carriage stock was for mundane reasons- probably contemporary fashion (scumbled wood effects would be perceived as very old fashioned by 1956), and the fact that Mk1 carriages were introduced at a time that spray painting was being adopted. But I think it's probably also fair to say that by the mid 1950s nobody in BR would want the travelling public to associate new steel-framed carriages with their wooden predecessors.