l.n.e.r. teak carriages

[jolynn]

hello, can anyone tell me what happened to the above carriages, were they rebranded or just scrapped, also if they were can you tell me when. thankyou, regards, john

[gresleybear]

Hello. The LNER passed most of its teak coaches on to British Railways, who repainted them in blood and custard and later in the maroon livery. Almost all had been scrapped by the mid '60's, but a very few vehicles, notably full brakes and buffet cars, survived to wear the blue livery. Hope this helps.

[stembok]

jolynn: There were still good numbers of the Gresley teak bodied stock around in the early 1960s, mainly in relief rakes kept for peak travel such as holiday times. My last journey behind the famous 60022 'Mallard' was in a Gresley teak bodied open at Easter,1963. The rationalisation brought about by Dr Beeching saw a mass slaughter of much of the pre-BR stock. I believe that around 1959 some 6,000 B R carriages were only actually employed on a handful of occcasions each year at peak summer holiday weekends and perhaps Christmas, yet they had to be stored and maintained for the rest of the time. Beeching, quite sensibly, put a stop to that. When the wooden bodied vehicles were scrapped the scrapmen often just fired the teak bodies as they were only interested in the metal content. I remember King's of Norwich - a major scrap dealer -offering the water colour prints from the compartment walls for sale for around 15/- or £1.00 each, in railway publications around 1964.One or two sleepers and refreshment vehicles gained blue livery and may, I seem to remember, have survived into the 1970s.

[Malcolm]

To see some Gresley (and other LNER coaching stock) in early BR days, go to:

http://gallery6801.fotopic.net/c850046.html

Malcolm

[industrial]

One of the reasons that the teak coaches and other coaches were scrapped so rapidly in the mid 60ies that they were wood bodies so were scrapped for that safty reason mainly so this accounts why the Thompson Coaches also had a short life span.

[hq1hitchin]

Not sure it was entirely that - I seem to recall a dictat came out from the BRB stating that all pre-nationalisation designed loco hauled passenger stock was to be withdrawn by a certain date (that eludes me for the mo - but I reckon it would have been sometime in 1968). Thompson stock, for example, would probably have been more 'crashworthy' than the screw coupled DMUs which worked a lot of suburban services in those times often running at speeds of 70 mph over fairly lengthy distances, in the case of the ST Pancras - Bedford workings. In truth though, most LNER designed stock was looking pretty shot by 1968 and not a good advert for the railway.

.

[Bryan]

For details of the stock held by the LNERCA see the following link.

http://www.lnerca.org/stock.htm

There are some more at the Severn Valley Railway as well.

[Trestrol]

I disagree that Thompsons were more crashworthy than a Gresley. How many Thompsons survive? answer- not many! why ?because they were built with rubbish timber, the TK belonging to LNERCA at the NYMR has had to have 90% of the body framing repaced because the hardwoods used when built were not teak so rotted more easily.There were also some design flaws that didn't help as well,condensation built up in the corridor windows due to the lack of heating and ventalation. The windows didn't have drainage channels and pipes at ther bottom of the windows so the water just ran down the walls. Another point about teak bodied coaches was their underframes. The basic design of these dates back to 1908 and were updated only when electric welding was introduced although that realy only affected the design of the truss frame. In Kieth Parkins BR Mark1 coaches states that the LNER underframe achieved over 60% of the end load strength to wieght ratio specified by BR forty years later. LNER coaches survived to be painted in Blue/Grey livery(This is actually basicly amodified LNER livery having being used on the Tyneside electrics) the buffet car in the NRM was the last "wooden wall" to be withdrawn from BR service in 1977.

[hq1hitchin]

Errr - sorry, who is saying that Thompson stock was more crashworthy than the Gresley equivalent - I was comparing the former with the awful R-R DMUs operating into PX? Do not forget the effectiveness, relatively speaking, of buckeye stock in keeping a derailed train in line compared to their screw-coupled brethren. I still think the ordinary loco hauled seating vehicles had gone by 1969 at the very latest but remember the LNER EMUs - Shenfield and Glossop stock, when did they go ? - much later, certainly I travelled to work on the former in 1977. Speaking personally, I would rather be in any modern vehicle in the event of a collision, Pacers excluded lol

[Trestrol]

I agree with your comments,what i was getting at was that don't think that because Thompsons looked more modern that they would be better in a crash than a teak bodied coach. Because i don't think they would. I agree that an all steel coach is stronger but as you say that is not everything its the Buckeyes and Pullman gangway that are the most important safety feature. As you pointed out the Hatfield -Glossop emus lasted into the 1990's and we musn't forget the Shenfield 306 emu either. Lots of BR built emus also had gresley bogies as well a testement to their good design

[Bill Bedford]

Errr - sorry, who is saying that Thompson stock was more crashworthy than the Gresley equivalent - I was comparing the former with the awful R-R DMUs operating into PX? Do not forget the effectiveness, relatively speaking, of buckeye stock in keeping a derailed train in line compared to their screw-coupled brethren. I still think the ordinary loco hauled seating vehicles had gone by 1969 at the very latest but remember the LNER EMUs - Shenfield and Glossop stock, when did they go ? - much later, certainly I travelled to work on the former in 1977. Speaking personally, I would rather be in any modern vehicle in the event of a collision, Pacers excluded lol

I believe the Shenfield and Glossop stock had all steels bodies, the 1938 Tyneside stock certainly were all steel. OTOH the Thompson stock had steel panels on wooden frames, and this was the reason for their early retirment.

[stembok]

Some years ago I read that Jo Grimond a former Leader of the Liberal Party used to always try, if possible, to get a sleeper in a carriage riding on Gresley bogies for the more comfortable ride they gave at that time. As his constituency was Orkney and Shetland he had in those days to travel lots by the ECML and like most seasoned travellers soon got to know all the best moves to ensure comfort and convenience.
The application of the exterior finish to the LNER teak stock was a painstaking, lengthy and labour intensive process, what with the number of coats applied and the rubbing down necessary between coats. In BR days it was found that the teak did not cope well at times with a spray painted finish in terms of durability.

[hq1hitchin]

I believe the Shenfield and Glossop stock had all steels bodies, the 1938 Tyneside stock certainly were all steel. OTOH the Thompson stock had steel panels on wooden frames, and this was the reason for their early retirment.[/quote]

Not sure that was the entire reason either, all the old loco hauled passenger stock went at once but EMUs with steel panels and wooden frames like BIL and COR stock lasted longer - 1971/2? - it was that BR found itself with surplus coaching stock and got shot of the oldest loco hauled stuff as they were by then little used, wheras the SR EMUs had a significant role still to play until replacement stock could be built. Both Shenfield and Glossop stock all steel, certainly but even the archaic Altrincham stock lasted until 1971.