NER Clerestory carriage kits

[mick b]

Comparison with

https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/1 ... ry-coaches . I wont post his photos.

Not a lot different from Precision LNER Teak shade .IMHO

Mahogany has very little grain variation compared to Teak and only little variation in "shade" , compared to the variations in colour and graining of Teak.

[MikeTrice]

There is an official photograph of NER Non-Corridor 3rd No 704B to Diagram 178 as part of Order No 198. The solebar marings show it was Painted 17/7/1923 intended for the South Scottish Area. The lining style is identical to the ex NER Dynamometer Car in LNER days.

The original photo is quite dark however there do look to be some horizontal graining to the lower panels. However the vehicle is varnished and is standing on sidings which could possible result in them being reflections of the adjacent tracks.

The same image was then adjusted by lightening the tones:

And again changing Contrast:

Not conclusive but I do get the impression it is grained rather than just showing reflections.

[Atlantic 3279]

I get a faint impression of vertical graining of the panels next to the compartment windows.

Unless definitive proof of a universally applied policy is discovered at this late stage, when it has eluded others for decades, it would seem that it is never going to be possible to correctly tell a modeller that his carriage livery is "wrong", whether plain brown or subtly grained, providing that the finish is good. That might save some from a shocking disappointment, although I imagine that those in both camps who "know" that their opinion is "correct" will continue to argue.

I suspect the finish applied to some models will depend purely on the time, skill and motivation possessed by the maker.

[Daddyman]

There is an official photograph of NER Non-Corridor 3rd No 704B to Diagram 178 as part of Order No 198. The solebar marings show it was Painted 17/7/1923 intended for the South Scottish Area. The lining style is identical to the ex NER Dynamometer Car in LNER days.

The original photo is quite dark however there do look to be some horizontal graining to the lower panels. However the vehicle is varnished and is standing on sidings which could possible result in them being reflections of the adjacent tracks.
IMAG0184.JPG

The same image was then adjusted by lightening the tones:
IMAG0184 - Lightened.JPG

And again changing Contrast:
IMAG0184 - Contrast.JPG

Not conclusive but I do get the impression it is grained rather than just showing reflections.

That's useful, Mike, thanks.

This is an interesting photo from the same BRJ special on the NER. The carriage on the left is in a paler colour than the other three carriages in the train, which look to be in the usual rich brown. Normally this could be put down to this carriage being a bit dustier than the others; however, there is a clear satin sheen on the paler carriage, suggesting two different treatments, both in good condition. The satin is only just visible in my snip, but if anyone has the BRJ special it's on p.50. There's no date but the J26 in the foreground looks fresh in LNER livery and was shopped in 1927, 30 and 32 while at York; it has post-wrist-breaker toolboxes and the sharp edge to the front of the smokebox has been altered. Someone with the magazine may be able to date the photo from the infrastructure - sunken ash pits, signal box, etc.

[Daddyman]

Well, I've tried taking photos outside, including with the Precision tin in shot to show the difference, but they've come out too dark in full sun. So all I can offer is this - indoor shot of my D.127 with my dad's Tri-ang practice piece.

[billbedford]

The photos of the D.178 are interesting but largely irrelevant. The paint date quoted is 2 years before the decision was made to give pre-grouping coaches build of mahogany a painted teak finish. There are a number of photos in BRJ 34 of coaches built at York 1923-5 where the livery matches that of coaches built before the grouping. The lining on the coach in the photo shows typical NER lining rather than that applied during the LNER period. The difference is that the LNER applied lining only to the waist panels and the verticals only. of the upper panels. Cantrail panels, if present were not lined.

eg on this GNSR Saloon:

I spent some time looking through old Locomotive Illustrated magazines looking for any evidence of graining on LNER coaching stock during the interwar period and found none, This includes coaches that were obviously built of teak and varnished.

Looking through the copies of Doncaster carriage "officials" none show any evidence of graining.

The two GNSR photos I've posted have been taken from "Great North of Scotland Railway Album" published by Ian Allen in 1980. This has six carriage "portraits", four show graining and lining as in the photo of a six-wheeler I posted earlier this week, one is indistinct and the other is the saloon above. This has a solid coloured body with lining evident.

The takeaway from all this, for me, is that the films used by most of the trainspotters in the interwar period were not sufficiently panchromatic to show any sort of wood grain, whether natural or painted. The GNSR photos shown here seem to be an exception. This means that photographic evidence as to the prevalence or otherwise of a painted teak finish is not likely to be found.

[Dave]

I didn't know the NER had a varnished Mahogany livery as stated by Banks, is he correct, I don't think so. I always understood that from 1885 Crimson Lake was the NER livery for carriages. The locomotive committee July 1854 says Fletcher had 1st, 2nd & 3rd class carriages painted, 1st & 2nd in white, with dark plumb lower panels, 3rd's and brakes white with olive green lower panels. No mention of varnished Mahogany. York built ECJS and GN & NE stock were varnished teak. In 1891 excursion carriages were to be painted and grained teak, but these were old 4 wheel stock.

[john coffin]

There seem to be no real records of NER carriage liveries, as Dave says, but one specific note states
that the light teak colour was known as "flat brown", at which time, the livery was Dark Lake with
vermillion lining. See NER record Vol2

It is important to remember that the LNER early days were mainly influenced by Doncaster, and
mainly to save money the LNER chose no longer to ""paint" their carriages. As the GNR had discovered
in 1850, the time it took to paint a carriage compared with painting was as much as a week.
Few people understand the treatment of various woods for outside use, and whilst Mahogany is
a hard wearing hard wood, its lifespan is not that of teak, without proper protection.
However, it does and did take paint in a way that was not possible with Teak.

There are no records of NER carriages made of Mahogany being treated with varnish only, as Dave states.
The records like Carter's stated that passenger stock was in old GNR teak.
What is certain is that after the coal strike of 1926, the LNER looked for many ways to save money,
and lining out and graining would have cost about £15.00 per carriage, hence with the volume of
stock from all the old railways still in need of re-painting that would be a considerable saving.

The idea that all the pre-grouping carriages were all repainted within the first two years is unrealistic.
So anyone modelling the period between 1923 and 1928 has I would suggest a wide choice of suitable
livery, the only difference being the use of the letters LNER, which was a cheap and easy fix.

Paul

[john coffin]

Just checked my version of Tomlinson's History of NER, and it is a weird book, supposedly being
1884 to 1922, but in reality very little about the post 1890 NER.

Certainly no details of later liveries for carriages or wagons.

Paul

[john coffin]

The whole area around carriage and loco and even wagon painting after grouping is fraught with difficulties
in terms of available and found data. I prefer in my research to try and find documents to give me a better
understanding.
However what is certain is we have to be cautious of the knowledge of Ken Hoole, it is worth remembering
that he was born in 1916, interestingly in Doncaster, and so by the end of 1922, he would only have been 6.
I am sure few of us can accurately and in a considered way, remember the things of our early years,
particularly during the years of hardship that followed both world wars. Mr. Hoole's earliest published
memories are his travels at the age of around 12, when he commuted by train around Bridlington and
Scarborough, SO NOT in NER times. Whilst he might well have met and known many ex NER men, he had no
first hand experience of many of the the historic events of the NER. Does this make his research wrong,
not necessarily, but it does suggest one needs to take a cautious approach to all his pronouncements, unless
backed up by documentation from the railway, which is strangely, more likely to be available now than
contemporaneously for him.

Are his books a good starting point absolutely yes, but only a starting point, and frankly trying to make
decisions on livery by interpreting black and white vintage photos is really pushing the limits of feasibility.

Paul

[Dave]

Interesting Paul, I had been having the same thoughts about KH and his age at the time of grouping. I thought that his recollections on stripping and varnishing could not have been from first hand observation in the works due to his age in the early days of the LNER. So must have come from others, and could be open to interpritation, so is not a primary source of info, how ever many times it was repeated by him.

[JonBates]

Something that I wonder about is the use of the word teak by eye witnesses. I wonder if Teak finish could really cover

• stripping and varnishing the underlying wood ( presumably only possible if the wood was teak)
  
  Stripping, and then painting, an imitation teak finish
  
  Stripping and painting in “teak” brown....potentially a.k.a. Coach brown

After the grouping, eye witnesses would see carriages changing from Lake to a brown finish and they may simply have called it “teak”. That word may be covering a number of different finishes.

Just a thought.

[john coffin]

Jon,
its a lot more difficult than that.
Teak is a golden brown, whilst Mahogany is a reddish colour.
Thus,
1/ Strip off all original paint.
2/primer
3/ fill and sand back any errors.
4/ undercoat, cut back after drying.
5/ put coloured varnish on sand ack
6/ use the "teak" colour (or as called by NER Flat Brown)
7/ knock back, probably use teak colour again
8/ start process of creating Teak effect, which is a 3 stage, at least process.
9/ top varnish, and probably buff back
10/ final varnish coat.
That's is a lot of days work, and a lot of carriages standing around drying, so hence an expensive job.
which is why the LNER moved to renewals being of Teak which was then not so expensive, and more
importantly not a protected wood as it is now.

The introduction of metal carriages presented another problem, but since they all needed a paint covering
the obviously the various style of stages above would have been normal to protect the metal, but I am led
to believe that the saving in days of construction covered the extra cost of painting, plus of course, the
safety features post Quintishill.

Paul

[billbedford]

Something that I wonder about is the use of the word teak by eye witnesses. I wonder if Teak finish could really cover
stripping and varnishing the underlying wood ( presumably only possible if the wood was teak)

Not possible with coaches built of mahogany, since that timber has an "open" grain that holds traces of the original paint, and then such traces would be mainly undercoat.

The coaches that I expect to have been given a simulated teak finish would be the corridor stock which were in front line service until around 1932, though I've not seen any photographic evidence of this. Thirty-year-old non-corridor stock I would not have thought would have been high on the list of carriages to be given an expensive livery, though photos show that Inverurie did manage to give much of their stock a painted teak livery, there is little evidence of a painted teak livery of coaches maintained by Stratford.

[john coffin]

Where oh where do you get your information Bill, obviously not from doing practical woodworking, or
wood refinishing, maybe a scrap of cardboard?

In the woodworking trade, old growth, Honduran and Cuban and other Central American Mahogany that would have been used until around 1930
are defined as "CLOSE GRAINED" wood. That is why so much furniture was made of Mahogany during the 18th/19th and early 20th Centuries,]
it is easier to fill the grain, and then polish up the top surface under shellac to produce the high gloss well known in that trade.

Many railways used Mahogany panels for the outside surface because, being an Old growth Hardwood, it is pretty long lasting,
but many of them were painted, and so converting them to Teak impression was part of the normal process.

However, I do agree that in the first stages of grouping, only First Line carriages would have been converted, since they were
the flag flyers in terms of publicity for the railway, whilst the suburban traffic was always pretty run down.

Paul