NER Clerestory carriage kits

[Danby Wiske]

As I've always understood it, there was an early attempt to scrape the NER paint off and varnish the wood that beneath, but the LNER quickly gave up on that.

I doubt that very much, as I believe NER carriages were made of mahogany, not teak. The reason teak-panelled carriages were usually varnished rather than painted is because the oils in the teak stop the paint adhering - numerous photographs of Gresley stock in BR days show peeling paintwork!

[Daddyman]

As I've always understood it, there was an early attempt to scrape the NER paint off and varnish the wood that beneath, but the LNER quickly gave up on that.

I doubt that very much, as I believe NER carriages were made of mahogany, not teak. The reason teak-panelled carriages were usually varnished rather than painted is because the oils in the teak stop the paint adhering - numerous photographs of Gresley stock in BR days show peeling paintwork!

Well, the D.53 shows that the NER wood could be varnished...

Otherwise, are you suggesting straight to brown paint?

[JASd17]

'As I've always understood it'. You are part of the problem Daddyman, a North Eastern modeller who thinks he knows about LNER matters.

And I doubt you have studied the very early NE Express articles, from the Hull area in particular, where it is clear from first hand accounts that 'teak finish' was a shock to the system.

The finish applied to mahogany NER stock was painted, just like the NER livery - except a teak grained effect -, nothing to do with varnish, with which all painted stock would have been finished with as a top coat.

What is required is a document which states what sort of finish will be applied to old non-corridor carriages in the LNER period, post 1928, at least. Nothing has been found by Dave or myself thus far, nor by any previous researchers.

The D53 photo asks more questions than it answers; was this an unusual finish full stop? Was it unusual to see such a very ordinary carriage finished in such a fashion, or did it just stand out because it was new out of the shops? I cannot answer any of those questions.

I have some ideas, but NO firm evidence.

John

[Danby Wiske]

Well, the D.53 shows that the NER wood could be varnished...

Definitely not. As John has pointed out, the "teak" finish is painted on - your use of the phrase 'ersatz teak' in an earlier post suggested that you were already aware of this. It's the same finish the LNER used on steel-panelled carriages to make them look wooden.

[Daddyman]

So, if I've understood correctly:

1. The first LNER livery for some or all ex-NER carriages was simulated wood.
2. Some or all of them later received a plain brown paint finish, but no one knows when or how widespread this was.

Does the photo at Scarborough in LNER Locomotives in Colour (p.38) suggest that simulated wood lasted fairly late (1938) and was quite widespread? Or is the colour rendition in that shot so off that it's no use as evidence of anything?

I must admit, my first thought on hearing the simulated wood finish could have been more widespread, and survived later, was extreme scepticism. The finish on carriages in the 1930s, I thought, looked too flat. However, in the special NER edition of the BRJ, there is a second shot of the D.53 at York on the same day, from a different angle, and the finish looks as flat as all the 1930s carriages that I thought were in plain brown.

Again, if I've understood correctly, there's a chance that these carriages are not in plain brown but in simulated wood?

[Danby Wiske]

So, if I've understood correctly:

1. The first LNER livery for some or all ex-NER carriages was simulated wood.
2. Some or all of them later received a plain brown paint finish, but no one knows when or how widespread this was.

With the lack of documentary evidence, I think that's about as much as it's possible to say.

It should be remembered that not all stock would be repainted immediately when there was a change of policy. How often would old carriages in secondary service have been shopped? If some received simulated teak in the mid 1920s, they may well have stayed like this until the late 1930s, amongst other more recently painted stock in plain brown.

[Daddyman]

So, if I've understood correctly:

1. The first LNER livery for some or all ex-NER carriages was simulated wood.
2. Some or all of them later received a plain brown paint finish, but no one knows when or how widespread this was.

With the lack of documentary evidence, I think that's about as much as it's possible to say.

It should be remembered that not all stock would be repainted immediately when there was a change of policy. How often would old carriages in secondary service have been shopped? If some received simulated teak in the mid 1920s, they may well have stayed like this until the late 1930s, amongst other more recently painted stock in plain brown.

Thanks for the clarification. Well, that's a real turn-up for the books! I still think I'll carry on with the brown paint on my late 1930s train - and promise to dunk it in cellulose thinners if evidence ever comes to light.

Any thoughts on the ColourRail Scarborough shot?

Incidentally, it was Ken Hoole who told my dad (John Addyman) about ex-NER carriages being stripped back to wood and varnished by the LNER.

[billbedford]

'The D53 photo asks more questions than it answers; was this an unusual finish full stop?

Yes, it doesn't have any lining on the panelling edges, as on this GNSR six wheeler:

[Daddyman]

Just found this in Express 115:28 (August1989):

In the North Eastern period the full 'North Eastern Railway' was shown on the panels above the windows with the number on a waist panel and
'THIRD' on each door at waist level. From 1923 they were painted imitation teak with a '3' on the lower portion of the doors and during the second
war most were painted flat brown.

I still can't believe this...

It's a pity this information wasn't passed on to D&S, whose instructions are the source of so many errors in models of these carriages.

[mick b]

David

A obvious question, what actual evidence (photos) is there to back up that statement.

I find it very strange that there a so few photos of "Teak" LNER period ex NER vehicles , the only good photo I have ever seen is the well known Diagram 53 @ York, plus one other a very dark one , of Teak scumbling on a Door of a ex NER Clerestory.

99.5 % of Coaches I have ever seen in photos, are very obviusly plain Brown . I looked at the colour photo you mentioned earlier in LNER Locos in colour. The first Coach the Third maybe "Teak " as a very light Orange colour, the others look plain Brown and/or very dirty, all are in different Brown/Mud shades.

cheers

Mick

[Daddyman]

David

A obvious question, what actual evidence (photos) is there to back up that statement.

I find it very strange that there a so few photos of "Teak" LNER period ex NER vehicles , the only good photo I have ever seen is the well known Diagram 53 @ York, plus one other a very dark one , of Teak scumbling on a Door of a ex NER Clerestory.

99.5 % of Coaches I have ever seen in photos, are very obviusly plain Brown . I looked at the colour photo you mentioned earlier in LNER Locos in colour. The first Coach the Third maybe "Teak " as a very light Orange colour, the others look plain Brown and/or very dirty, all are in different Brown/Mud shades.

cheers

Mick

What evidence there is is indeed the obvious question, Mick. The problem is that the NERA of the time are giving 3 different messages out:

1. Ken Hoole to my dad on multiple occasions saying that under the LNER ex-NER carriages had their paint stripped and *if* it was in good condition it was varnished; if not it was painted brown. He said it so often to my dad that he has it verbatim - he repeated it yesterday in the same words I've always heard. What's the "evidence" for this claim? Ken spoke to all manner of ex-NER employees.
2. Dave Fenney (presumably) telling D&S that carriages went from NER crimson straight to brown in LNER days, which is what we get in the instructions. Those instructions credit Dave Fenney and a "Dave" Sadler. Well, there's no such person as Dave Sadler. I spoke to *Ian* Sadler yesterday and he said he didn't advise Dan on LNER liveries as he had no expertise/interest in that area.
3. John Dawson in the Express August 1989 (quoted a couple of posts ago) saying the livery sequence in the life of these carriages is 1. crimson 2. simulated wood 3. brown. What evidence does he have for that? Well, he was a lifelong carriage enthusiast and I think his dad was station master somewhere up the Wear Valley, so he saw these trains all his life. He may have had more evidence but I believe the NERA didn't hear of his death until a fair while afterwards, by which time much of his collection had been lost.

What's odd is that Dawson credits Ken Hoole with help on the 1989 article, so Ken was obviously aware of the simulated wood idea.

As I see it, the evidence is as follows:

The case against simulated wood
1. When Gresley and Thompson carriages are teak or painted in simulated teak graining is apparent in the vast majority of photos. Why, then, is no graining apparent in all but one of the photos we've seen of ex-NER carriages in LNER days?
2. The Whitby photo that I posted excerpts from above, which can be seen in greater detail by googling "the transport library ns204951" (and indeed bought from the TL for 99p) shows a clerestory in 1936 side-on, with absolutely no trace of graining (and that in a photo in which the lining on the loco is apparent, which may or may not say anything about the photo's fidelity). The body is also considerably darker than the solebars, whereas in the D.53 photo there is less contrast; this might suggest the Whitby body is in a darker colour - or it might just suggest a dustier underframe.

The case for simulated teak
1. The lesser known shot of the D.53 (in the NER edition of BRJ) shows that the (fake) wood graining on this carriage, known to be in simulated teak, becomes absolutely invisible in a photo taken on the same day from a different angle.
2. The Scarborough photo seems to show the vast majority of stock in what looks like real or simulated wood colours (I disagree with you, Mick, that only one seems to be so). I'd always put that down to a very iffy colour rendition, but if the carriages were painted in simulated wood that might explain why they appear orange. To me, this is the most compelling piece of evidence, and I keep coming back to it, but then looking at the Whitby photo and thinking "no way", then back to the Scarborough photo and almost reaching for the cellulose thinners...

As for the brown itself, I'm not convinced by Precision's "LNER manure" (I think they perhaps call it "teak brown"). I painted my D.116 in it initially and my dad agreed it looked b. awful. He sent me home with a carriage he painted in LNER brown in the 60s or 70s and told me to match that. This is somewhere between chocolate and toffee. I've mixed it using Humbrol dark brown (gloss 10), Humbrol 18 (gloss orange) and Humbrol 174 (satin red) and it meets his approval, and compares well with the Huntriss cover. My dad used to see Ken Hoole every Tuesday night, and regularly took models there to be critiqued by Ken and others in his circle. Twice Ken sent him back to repaint things in a more authentic shade, but the carriage passed muster.

Is any of this evidence of anything? I dunno. But sometimes you have to risk interpretation. For my part, last night I continued putting transfers on my late 1930s ex-NER carriages in LNER brown (albeit Addyman brown, not Precision).

But then, as we all now know, I'm "part of the problem"...

[MikeTrice]

I appreciate it might be a special case so might be irrelevant but the ex NER Dynamometer Car was painted in simulated teak and lined by the LNER.

[Danby Wiske]

1. Ken Hoole to my dad on multiple occasions saying that under the LNER ex-NER carriages had their paint stripped and *if* it was in good condition it was varnished; if not it was painted brown. He said it so often to my dad that he has it verbatim - he repeated it yesterday in the same words I've always heard. What's the "evidence" for this claim? Ken spoke to all manner of ex-NER employees.

This is a tricky one - if this was the case then why is there absolutely no photographic evidence of ex-NER carriages in varnished mahogany? If it was official policy then surely there would have been official photos? As you say though, Ken Hoole knew what he was talking about, so it's difficult to doubt his testimony...

[mick b]

A great shame that Ken Hoole is no longer with us.

David please show a photo of the Hoole approved Brown please.

Campling's Book says little re ex NER Coaches Livery.

quote
"Where stock was too badly marked or impractical to strip the paint and/or varnish . Then the body was painted with "Teak" paint, this applied particularly to old NER and GER vehicles".

NER Coaches I havent checked, many would have been at least 20 years old at the grouping . I believe they were built from Mahogany as well not Teak ?

The same book has one photo of ex NER Stock in LNER days

Corridor 3rd . Plain Brown body all in one colour, no hint of any graining .

[Daddyman]

This is a tricky one - if this was the case then why is there absolutely no photographic evidence of ex-NER carriages in varnished mahogany? If it was official policy then surely there would have been official photos?

Yes, but as we've seen, there's very little evidence of simulated teak either - unless someone is squirrelling it away somewhere?

Just to throw spanner in the works, this is Steve Banks' varnished mahogany carriage - rich, darker brown with no visible graining. https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/1 ... ry-coaches

As you say though, Ken Hoole knew what he was talking about, so it's difficult to doubt his testimony...

Yes, but at the same time working on an article with JD which states simulated teak.

"Where stock was too badly marked or impractical to strip the paint and/or varnish . Then the body was painted with "Teak" paint, this applied particularly to old NER and GER vehicles".

OK, but what happened when the body wasn't too badly marked?

David please show a photo of the Hoole approved Brown please.
[...]
Corridor 3rd . Plain Brown body all in one colour, no hint of any graining .

True, but as said, a photo of the simulated teak D.53 on the same day but from another angle shows no sign of graining. My dad says a photo in Jenkinson (not sure which book) shows a Gresley teak carriage with little sign of graining. But that's clearly a one-off, an anomaly of the photo. So why does the graining occasionally disappear in photos of Gresley/Thompson stock and almost always (if it's there) on ex-NER?

Will post a shot if the light holds. It's sunny so far... I might try to get a scrap carriage side done in Precision too for contrast.

I appreciate it might be a special case so might be irrelevant but the ex NER Dynamometer Car was painted in simulated teak and lined by the LNER.

Every little helps, Mike!