The LNER Encyclopedia

I recently acquired a set of North Eastern Railway Coach Group newsletters from the 1970s.
Thought this might be of interest from issue 8 dated August 1978 written by Pete Brumby. The notes related to a picture of 945Y (presreved on the NYMR), taken in 1924(as new) that 'apparently' shows the carriage as being painted and with NER lining around the moulding edges but lettered LNER.
However further down the paragraph it reads-
"Why the coach should have been finished in this way is a bit of a mystery. It was certainly varnished natural teak at some stage - only a few weeks ago I removed a bubble of old paint from the body framing next to a door and uncovered a well preserved area of varnished teak!"

Now I cannot believe that the carriage would have been painted in NER crimson lake then shortly after stripped down to bare wood and varnished. That does not make any sense. If 945 had teak panels rather than mahogany then I think it must have been varnished from new (York works did produce varnished teak carriages in NER days for ECJS services). Perhaps the infant LNER had not decided on a style of lining and since the carriage had NER style mouldings York works just applied the NER style of lining over a varnished finish?

Can you put up a photo please? Might be able to comment then.

Sorry no I don't. It is an NRM copyright one.
I have seen it in a magazine and like a lot of official works photographs from the 1920's even on carriages that you know are varnished teak, it is difficult to see the wood graining.
This is why we think it is possible 945Y was varnished teak rather than painted. After all it was already LNER branded and outshopped with Gresley bogies and Pullman gangways.

945Y was built in 1924 and was fitted from new with Gresley bogies and pullman gangways. The end windows were also suppressed. So It may have been built with teak panels. However the photos I have of the 1924 builds don't show signs of them having a teak finish. This may, of course, be an artefact of the photography. They do have full NER lining.

P.S. official photos first published before 1941 are out of copyright.

Bill is quite right about the copyright of LNER and earlier official photos providing they do not have an NRM backstamp in which case they are Crown Copyright and a totally different ball game!

Fortunately because of the costs involved in getting prints, most photos in circulation are indeed original LNER officials which for this forum and elsewhere are OK to put up.

We went through this learning curve when David Jenkinson went to the new NRM at York in 1974/5.

2512silverfox wrote:Bill is quite right about the copyright of LNER and earlier official photos providing they do not have an NRM backstamp in which case they are Crown Copyright and a totally different ball game!

If it was Crown Copyright then the stamp on the back would say so.

Fortunately because of the costs involved in getting prints, most photos in circulation are indeed original LNER officials which for this forum and elsewhere are OK to put up.

The copyright restrictions would be the same what ever the source, though only the ultimate copyright owner would be able to enforce them. No that I've ever heard of the NRM trying to enforce their copyright on a forum.
You might want to have a look at this http://data.gov.uk/blog/new-open-government-license and decide whether old photos come within it's scope.

I'd thought I would resurrect this old thread. 945y is currently under cover at Spennymoor and waiting for next work to take place. Restoration is well advanced although the LNERCA are not committing to any finish dates.
I enclose the ex works photo with my attempt to colourise it using some online software. to the right of the bar is supposedly colourised. As you can see because the finish is so dark the results are very inconclusive. I have tried scanning in pictures of NER carriages that I know were in crimson lake and LNER ones in teak to try and do a comparison but all get very similar results.

Wavey, have a look here; https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-a ... ining-cars and read the section about orthochromatic film.
945 could very well be either varnished teak or scumbled in this photo and the grain would not show in the photo.

Mr. Awkward aka Sawdust.

Since the question has been asked elsewhere, is it possible to tell from any surviving panelling whether it was ever scumbled or varnished wood or always painted?

All we have is some snippets of information from the NERCG from the 1970's. It had some remaining teak panels but no traces of varnish or scumble on those. They did find evidence of varnish on one of the door pillars which was made of teak. We know from a record by G. Hemingway who rode on 2945 when ex works c1936 having new LNER moquete and painted in a scumbled teak finish.
My theory is that it was built with NER style mouldings which would have been in stock and made from mahogany and possibly had some mahogany panels on from new. As it was a mixture of different timber they scumbled it from new or even varnished the teak and painted the mahogany bits.
As Sawdust says it is impossible to see wood grain on the orthochromatic photographs of that time.

The evidence that it was painted from new to me is the Hemingway report. The LNER would surely not have painted a carriage in 1936 that was only 12 years old and teak panelled. Surely they would have cleaned it up, sanded down and re-varnished it?

Only a theory of course! An interesting discussion topic though.

Hello

As you say an interesting discussion.

At least there seems to be a 1936 eye witness account for scumbled teak on this 1924 coach. I have struggled to find anything definitive - most accounts talk about teak paint, which could be a number of finishes, and photos seem rare for the 1930s. Was there any information about the lining by any chance? Did the LNER maintain the NER style?

Now I wonder if the same finish was applied to a 1908 built example!

Jon

Is the Hemingway account published anywhere?

So the debate rumbles on, will we ever know the answer.

My understanding is.
If the carriage was made from mahogany then it was either painted brown
or scrumbled depending on it's age at grouping. If teak then varnished, until to old and
then painted brown.
I always understood that if the carriage had linging in LNER days it was
scrumbled or varnish teak, if no lining then brown paint.

That seems to work for me anyway, please correct if you know differently as I
would love to know the answer.

Nice try Wavey, I would say as it's lined scrumble or teak.

Dave wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:01 pm I always understood that if the carriage had linging in LNER days it was
scrumbled or varnish teak, if no lining then brown paint.

Well I am not sure about that. I have posted this image on RMweb before. I think the ends are black, so no lining. The finish is scumbled, note the difference between the sides and the solebar. I have always thought that more NER carriages had this finish than many modellers are prepared to admit, simply because brown paint is a much easier finish.
John

If I may add this. 945 was one of two built in 1924 and was Modified with Gresley features. The end windows were removed, Pullman gangways replaced British Standard And it had Gresley bogies. There were two others of the same diagram built in 1922 to standard NER mainline spec. The drawing office would have to have redrawn the diagram to facilitate the fitting of Pullman gangways as the the end frame of both body and underframe need to be radically different to take the buffer forces. I conclude if they went to all that trouble to modify these carriages to LNER mainline spec why paint or scumble them. They would spec them in teak even with NER style mouldings made in teak and varnished. We know the NERCG found varnished teak on a door frame, but would the LNER really have varnished the ends but stumbled the rest of the body. I think not. If I remember correctly other pre grouping carriage orders were continued by the LNER but non were modified in the same way as 945 and her sister. We will probably never know.