Trends in Pre-Grouping Coach Livery

[Edwardian]

17 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Except, there was a similar practice of painting the buffer beams of locos vermillion. This was almost universal until the end of steam. The only exceptions I know of are LNWR tenders and streamlined locos. The latter seems to me to suggest there was some sort of legalise along the lines of 'a flat plate at the leading end of the locomotive' . 

 

I'm not saying there was not such a recommendation, or such a practice arising from one. What I am suggesting is that it probably didn't have the force of law. Between us Stephen and I have come up with what we think were the only two areas of compulsion. Each was a power conferred by an Act of Parliament.  Only pursuant to the 1889 Act did the BoT have the ability to make orders with the force of law.

 

Pre-1889 Act, it seems to me that the BoT simply had no power to order such things as red headstocks or van ends.

 

If there is somewhere a list of BoT pre-1889 recommendations, I haven't found it. 

 

Assuming, which is reasonable, especially in the case of buffer beams, there was a BoT recommendation, compliance with it could vary from company to company. 

 

 

 

EDIT: GER G15 and C53s had blue buffer beams, another exception to prove the rule. 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

EDIT: GER G15 and C53s had blue buffer beams

 

I didn't see that one coming, but then neither would someone walking the line...

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I didn't see that one coming, but then neither would someone walking the line...

 

If you couldn't step out of the way of something that slow, you might end up eased out of the way with a cowcatcher!

 

Wouldn't fancy trying it, mind you.

[Miss Prism]

Maybe part of the thinking in favour of red ends for brake vans was to improve visibility and thereby reduce the possibility of a goods train being 'rear-ended' by another train? (Such an objective would have become less pressing as signalling and block systems improved.)
 

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Maybe part of the thinking in favour of red ends for brake vans was to improve visibility and thereby reduce the possibility of a goods train being 'rear-ended' by another train?

 

Red indicated "stop". A red-ended brake van ahead would be a rather effective stop signal.

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, billbedford said:

When people describe loco liveries, how many include the red buffer beam?

Ok.

But that still leaves the question unanswered:

Where is the evidence of this regulation you mentioned in your assertion?

I am not disagreeing with you, nor discussing whether or not people commented on something that was common practice.

You made an assertion about a regulatory requirement which was news to most of us, and you were asked to supply evidence of it.

If diversion and distraction is your only answer to this request, was your assertion just supposition?

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Ok.

But that still leaves the question unanswered:

Where is the evidence of this regulation you mentioned in your assertion?

I am not disagreeing with you, nor discussing whether or not people commented on something that was common practice.

You made an assertion about a regulatory requirement which was news to most of us, and you were asked to supply evidence of it.

 

I too would be fascinated to see anything from the BoT that may have encouraged companies to paint things red.

 

2 minutes ago, Regularity said:

If diversion and distraction is your only answer to this request, was your assertion just supposition?

 

So, you think Bill Bedford might be a Russian cyber warrior trying to undermine Western morale by spreading fake stories of Nineteenth Century Board of Trade railway regulations? 

 

I wouldn't put it past them, the Dastardly Curs!

[Regularity]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

So, you think Bill Bedford might be a Russian cyber warrior trying to undermine Western morale by spreading fake stories of Nineteenth Century Board of Trade railway regulations? 

 

I wouldn't put it past them, the Dastardly Curs!

Well, last time I saw him, he had a big red beard, and it was from their red hair that Nordic settlers from what we now call Sweden gave their name to various peoples in the area: the land of the reds, (Rus). 
He might be Kievan-Rus, rather than Muscovite-Rus, of course, which puts a different spin on it all…

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Ok.

But that still leaves the question unanswered:

Where is the evidence of this regulation you mentioned in your assertion?

 

To turn this around. How could a practice, like this, become almost universal without legislation of some kind? And those railways that are known to have red brake vans were not necessarily the most brilliantly profitable companies. 

 

[Schooner]

From my neophyte position, there seems to be some debate about its universality.

 

Helping other, more knowledgeable, minds towards the relevant regulation would a) be of interest to lots of us, and b) allow the conversation to move on...

 

...c) let me know what to do with your Kirtley Brake when it arrives :)

[Edwardian]

30 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

To turn this around. How could a practice, like this, become almost universal without legislation of some kind? And those railways that are known to have red brake vans were not necessarily the most brilliantly profitable companies. 

 

 

We seem to be going round in circles.

 

However, I assume you mean red buffer beams, as red brake ends were nowhere near universal.

 

Point us to legislation mandating that.  Of any kind.

 

A BoT recommendation is not legislation. Of any kind. But I'd like to be pointed to one, nonetheless.

 

I am aware of Acts in 1841 and 1868, IIRC, that conferred only specific powers/mandates specific things.  Thus, you are not addressing the point that, in the period you were talking about (pre-1889 Act) the BoT had no power to make law, as only that latter Act conferred upon the BoT to make Orders, i.e. secondary legislation.

 

If there is a BoT recommendation for red buffer beams, and I have conceded from the start that that is a reasonable supposition, I'd still like chapter and verse before it is admitted as a fact. 

 

It is not necessarily the case, however, that the practice could only have arisen as a result of an injunction from the BoT.  Further, the BoT would have had no power to compel, so, if the practice became "almost universal" on a voluntary basis, that suggests nearly all companies thought it was a good idea. It could be that such an obviously sensible, yet inexpensive, safety feature was adopted without the need of a BoT recommendation.

 

What about other "almost universal" practices adopted from the mid-century. How many railway companies used red signal arms?

 

Did they do it because it was an obvious warning colour, or did they do it because the BoT opined that they should? Either could be true, as in the case of red buffer beams or brake ends.

 

It would, indeed, be good to know which.

[Compound2632]

Of course a standard industry practice need not arise as a result of government compulsion. It could equally well arise through agreement within the industry, facilitated by that industry's trade association; in this case the Railway Clearing House. 

[Mikkel]

Regarding trends and two-tone schemes, here's an October 1899 view by the staff writers of the Railway Magazine. It's a bit rambling and not exactly systematic, but I'm quoting the whole piece for the sake of completeness.

 

"A study of the colours adopted by various railways for painting rolling-stock is an important one, far too extensive for discussion in the short space at our disposal. There is, however, one point worthy of note, viz., the decrease in the number of railways adopting the dingy red-brown shade for passenger rolling stock.

 

At one time the railways could be roughly divided into two groups, so far as the colour of the carriages was concerned, the red-brown and the teak, leaving a few other lines, such as the Great Western and London and North Western, each with distinguishing tints of its own. In Scotland, with the exception of the Highland, the red-brown was universal; but we are glad to observe that the newer vehicles of such enterprising lines as the Caledonian and Great North of Scotland are painted in lighter and more artistic shades of colour. But whilst these Scotch lines are taking steps to give their passenger carriages a more inviting exterior, the North Staffordshire Railway has gone over to the red-brown colour and adopted it as its standard, whilst on the other hand, the Furness Railway has, under Mr. Aslett's managership, adopted a very effective tint for its coaches. The new colours of the Great Central Railway carriages are a loss to the " teak " group. The Midland and South Western Junction Railway is the only modern line that has adopted the red-brown shade. The South Eastern Railway some seventeen years ago also commenced to paint the upper as well as the lower panels of its carriages red-brown, the upper panels having previously been painted a peculiar tint of a salmon character It is, however, interesting to note that Mr. H. Wainwright, the Locomotive and Carriage Superintendent of the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways, is experimenting with a view to deciding upon colours that will be both pleasing to the eye and more in keeping with the artistic taste now obtaining, when compared with the existing South Eastern colour. By the painting of South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover vehicles the same colour, the number of railways that own allegiance to the " natural teak " colour will lose the support of the erstwhile London, Chatham and Dover Railway.

 

The somewhat extended use of the various red-brown shades is apparently based on the fact that they do not so readily show the effect of dirt and climate, nor need such careful workmanship when repainting is necessary. After all, what is really required is that each railway should adopt a colour or combination of colours that will at a glance distinguish its rolling stock from the vehicles of all other railways, whilst to keep the exterior as well as the interior of the vehicles well cleaned should also be a consideration."

 

My emphasis. The last para is unusual for the Railway Magazine, whose writers often pontificated on the importance of attractive liveries.

[Mikkel]

PS: With the benefit of historical hindsight and available literature, a more systematic timeline could be made showing livery changes of the pregrouping companies in comparison over time. An interesting little exercise for a rainy day or five.

[Caley Jim]

As far as CR passenger loco livery is concerned buffer beams were crimson lake, as were the buffer bases, with a vermillion panel between the buffers, a white line separating this from the lake.

 

Goods brake vans had vermillion ends. Passenger brake vans which had the guards compartment at the end also had this end vermillion, but the jury is still out on the colour of the ends of brake composites which had the guards compartment in the centre and whether the ends of the duckets were vermillion on these. 

 

Jim 

[Regularity]

16 hours ago, billbedford said:

To turn this around. How could a practice, like this, become almost universal without legislation of some kind? And those railways that are known to have red brake vans were not necessarily the most brilliantly profitable companies.

Which companies with red brake van [ends] are these? How are they known?

”Almost universal” would suggest either a shared practice, a recommendation, or limited legislation.

 

But that’s not the point: you said it was a requirement (regulatory or legal, it amounts to the same if it is to be enforceable). I am not disagreeing with you, it’s just that I hadn’t heard of this before and want to know where and when it happened, and if various clauses for smaller journeys applied, and why it appears that some railways  (not always smaller ones) didn’t do this.

 

You didn’t assert about a “practice”: you asserted about something legally enforceable, so tell us where we can find this reference - not so much for you to be able to prove you are right, but so that we can digest it and improve our understanding of railway operations in the pregrouping era.

[Edwardian]

Yes, this practice of a vermillion panel between the buffers, bordered by lining, crops up in quite a few companies' locomotive liveries.

[Compound2632]

Railways Archive has a pdf of the Requirements etc. Board of Trade in regard to the Opening of Railways, the 1885 version (1892 imprint) marked up with changes for the 1902 version - looking very like Word's "track changes" but all done in type! The phase "to be" is used where now one would write "must be" to indicate a legal requirement, though there are some instances of "must". There is also much use of "should be" to indicate a legal requirement, though many of these have been crossed out in favour of "to be". 

 

Section D, Recommendations as to the Working of Railways, is relevant to the present discussion. One notes the use of the word "recommendations" rather than "requirements", i.e. the items in this section are not legally enforceable but the Board of Trade's view of best practice. (Though this section includes communication, which as seen could be enforced by the Board of Trade under the 1868 Act; the words "as required by the Legislature" have been struck out - did the 1889 Act modify this? The paragraph on continuous brakes has been struck out in its entirety, as being superseded by the 1889 Act.)

 

Anyway, paragraph 1 states: There should be a brake vehicle with a guard in it at or near the tail of every train; this vehicle should be provided with a raised roof and extended sides, glazed to the front and back; and it should be the duty of the guard to keep a constant look-out from it along his train. Nothing about colour.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Compound2632
close parenthesis

[Edwardian]

My two-tone survey so far:

 

Great Western Railway, c.1850-1908, white & brown

The famous chocolate and cream seems to have started off with white, perhaps darkening to cream with varnish over time.  It was replaced with all-over brown, then lake, lined chocolate and cream not returning until 1923 (to 1927). 

 

LNWR, 1868/1872 by 1862-1922, dark purple lake & ‘flake’ white

 

WCJS, 1863-1922

Introduced in 1863 with white upper panels

 

LSWR, mid-late 1870s-1922, salmon & brown

After all-over, included painted, teak, yellow upper panels reported from early 1870s.  The classic salmon upper panels date from the mid or late 1870s.

 

Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1877-1922, carmine lake & tan

 

Rhymney Railway, 1882-1906, purple brown & white

 

Cambrian Railways, 1883-1908, bronze green & white

 

Taff Vale, brown & white

 

Caledonian Railway, c.1890-1922, purple lake & white

One of those companies that in the early years had different colours for different classes.  This included possibly white upper panels to Second Class and this may have become common practice before ceasing in 1869 in favour of all-over lake. The re-introduction of white upper panels in the ‘modern’ CR livery dates from c.1890. 

 

GNoSR, 1896-1922, purple lake & white

 

Highland Railway, 1896-1902, dark olive green & white
White upper panels were Peter Drummond’s first carriage livery before reverting to all over green from August 1902.

 

Great Central Railway, 1897-1908:
1897-1902: Brown & French grey
1902-1908: Brown & cream

 

Furness Railway, 1897-1914, ultramarine blue & white

 

LB&SCR, 1903-1910, umber & white
White upper panels with umber introduced in 1903 by Billinton on mainline stock after several years of the company trialling experimental liveries.  Not all stock was probably repainted in it before its discontinuance in 1910.

Maryport & Carlisle Rly, 1904-1914, chrome green & white
 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Edwardian
correction

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

LNWR, 1868/1872-1922, dark purple lake & ‘flake’ white

 

You are aware, I'm sure, of the photographic evidence that this livery goes back to at least the early 1860s:

 

 

Sutton Coldfield, possibly on the opening day, 2 June 1862, and certainly before the addition of the refreshment rooms and extension of the canopy a couple of years later.

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You are aware, I'm sure, of the photographic evidence that this livery goes back to at least the early 1860s:

 

 

Sutton Coldfield, possibly on the opening day, 2 June 1862, and certainly before the addition of the refreshment rooms and extension of the canopy a couple of years later.

 

No, and I could not get sources to agree on a date.

 

In which case, it pre-dates the introduction of WCJS vehicles in the livery in 1863, suggesting that both the joint stock and the Caledonian followed the Premier Line, contrary to the information found, funnily enough, in my Caledonian volume! 

 

Great precision on all details is welcome. However, it does not perhaps affect the pattern that has already emerged of early adopters who carried two-tone on for a very long time as part of the company brand, and those who had a fin de siècle flirtation with it, and a few somewhere between these extremes.

 

BTW I have left out railways e.g. SER and NER, that had an early phase of two-tone, but did not keep it up in the late Nineteenth Century. 

 

Anyway, no celebration of two-tone seems complete without ...

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Great precision on all details is welcome. However, it does not perhaps affect the pattern that has already emerged of early adopters who carried two-tone on for a very long time as part of the company brand, and those who had a fin de siècle flirtation with it, and a few somewhere between these extremes.

 

Just my compulsive pedantry.

 

What about the Irish lines? One has to consider them on the same footing, for the pre-grouping period. The Midland Great Western had a brief go at blue in the first years of the 20th century, soon reverting to brown. The Great Southern & Western was mostly a classic claret line apart from some rather splendid boat train sets of the Edwardian era that aped the Great Central's chocolate and cream*, while the Great Northern went for varnished wood.

 

*Your analysis glossed over the fact that the Great Central's Brown and French Grey was a change from the preceding varnished wood.

[Edwardian]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just my compulsive pedantry.

 

What about the Irish lines? One has to consider them on the same footing, for the pre-grouping period. The Midland Great Western had a brief go at blue in the first years of the 20th century, soon reverting to brown. The Great Southern & Western was mostly a classic claret line apart from some rather splendid boat train sets of the Edwardian era that aped the Great Central's chocolate and cream*, while the Great Northern went for varnished wood.

 

Yes, I decided that Irish lines should be part of the survey, but only had the information for the MGWR, which you mention, and in the end I went to press without remembering to go back and include it (I know where my MGWR book is!)

 

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

*Your analysis glossed over the fact that the Great Central's Brown and French Grey was a change from the preceding varnished wood.

 

I was focused on the companies that adopted two-tone liveries and the periods over which they did so, rather than what came before.

 

You hint at the division between varnished wood and painted wood companies.  This throws up the interesting question of companies changing from one to the other.

 

Most of the companies listed above as having a period of two-tone livery preceded it with a period of a single paint colour, not a varnished livery. Often that colour, a dark colour typically a brown or lake or green, was retained and white or cream upper panels added to it. Sometime there was a change in colours completely, such as in the case of the blue and white liveries of the Furness and the MGWR.  Often due to economy and/or the War, companies later returned to a single painted colour.

 

What is rare is a two-tone painted livery following a varnished livery. Off the top of my head I can think only of the example you mention; MS&LR teak going into GCR brown and French grey.

 

This is simply a reflection of the fact that, certainly from the latter three or so decades of the Nineteenth Century, it was rare for any varnished wood company to change to a painted livery*. 

 

The other example that comes to mind is LCDR to SE&CR. 

 

In both instances, GCR and SE&CR, the key is a change of identity, and is less remarkable in the case of the LC&DR because the joint committee was faced with a choice between a varnished LCDR livery and a painted SER livery.  Save for a mercifully brief episode in which it tried to combine the two, it went for all-over lake. 

 

EDIT: * I exclude here those companies that painted coaches where a varnished effect could no longer be maintained, but nevertheless retained a varnished livery.

 

I have to think about how the LB&SCR fits within this pattern, having had mahogany, painted wood effect, painted single colour finish. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I was focused on the companies that adopted two-tone liveries and the periods over which they did so, rather than what came before.

 

The LMS flirted with cream upper panels, on its Director's Saloon. I've wondered if thoughts in that direction persisted, leading to the carmine and cream of early BR days.

[Edwardian]

34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The LMS flirted with cream upper panels, on its Director's Saloon. I've wondered if thoughts in that direction persisted, leading to the carmine and cream of early BR days.

 

Grouping is interesting, with the Big Four starting out with a reasonably representative sample of the main pre-Grouping livery styles:

 

- A teak company

- two lined single colour companies, one lake, one green 

- a lined two-tone company