The LNER Encyclopedia

I was more interested by the unusual angle, the clear view of the shape of the door vent, the illustration of how far the commode handle projects from the side, the step effect of the lav toplight on the window. Colour is far too subjective an area to get into.

I agree Jonathan that we have too few detail photos from obscure angles of early carriages that allow us to create models
that stand out from the run of the mill.

Paul

An aspect of the teak panelled coaches that is hinted at in both what LNER period colour photos we have, and some monochromes, is decorative effects achieved by choice of timber. The carriage sets for major services appear to have been very carefully matched when produced, while on some non-gangwayed all compartment side door stock there is a hint of a repeating contrast between the door and body side panels. (This wouldn't be a surprise from skilled joiners, looking for the best result possible from the timber stock available at the time for the job.) Never seen anything written about this, is there an account from someone who worked on GNR or LNER carriage production?

john coffin wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 2:07 pm Jonathan,
whilst I agree that these photos are all useful, they do not reflect the truth of life in either the GNR or LNER,
where the varnishes were not as UVB protective as they can now be, plus of course there was much more coal about
and hence sulphorous steam. Even the Steve Banks photos show carriages not in the spring of their lives.

Plus we all need to remember Scale colour.

Paul

I think in some ways the natural resin varnishes used in the days of yore, were more flexible than the modern synthetic resin yacht varnish.

Sawdust.

Thanks Jonathan, good to see some more stuff on these pages. Funny I was looking through
here the other night.

Very pleased to have chanced upon this thread again (usually get hooked by the Model Railways topics) particularly the connector photos posted by drmditch on 18th March 2018 as I am currently trying to replicate the various coach end detail shown so well in these shots. A helpful addition to photos and info Dave J has sent separately.

And all excellent to refer back to when my Isinglass d95 kits arrive as I'm determined to improve on my earlier teak painting efforts.

Graeme Leary

sawdust wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:30 pm

john coffin wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 2:07 pm Jonathan,
whilst I agree that these photos are all useful, they do not reflect the truth of life in either the GNR or LNER,
where the varnishes were not as UVB protective as they can now be, plus of course there was much more coal about
and hence sulphorous steam. Even the Steve Banks photos show carriages not in the spring of their lives.

Plus we all need to remember Scale colour.

Paul

I think in some ways the natural resin varnishes used in the days of yore, were more flexible than the modern synthetic resin yacht varnish.

Sawdust.

As Sawdust mentions the older varnishes dried but because of their makeup would stil have been fairly flexible so would have resisted cracking.

As they were affected by the sun the resins would yellow and act as a sort of UV filter though at the same time whites particularly would become cream coloured and then slowly head towards a sort of dirty watery tea colour, darkened by soot and grime.

The general layer of grime would tend to slow the aging effect of the sun down. Black soot actually both absorbs UV and reflects sunlight so to some extent protecting what is underneath. Though against that UK coal contains a high level of sulphur so the grime would be acidic especially when wet so attacking the finish and making it dull. That is why the corners of the panels lose their shine and then start discolour and rot first as the acid in the grime eats through the varnish.

There is an old chest of drawers in my family that was made by my great grandfather. He was a pianoforte belly maker - a joiner.
The varnish on that is almost certainly original so would date to about 1870 - it is still in remarkable condition. No cracking, no crazing and still has a sheen to it, though it is no way glossy. I wonder how many modern varnishes would last that long.

Alan

I think it is difficult to compare the varnish on a cabinet that is indoors, with that applied to something like a carriage
or a yacht, which spends its life outdoors and in difficult weather conditions.

Experience shows that many internal items have faded as a combined result of sunlight, and either a coal fired internal
heating system, or now even worse, central heating. Grandfather clocks are particularly prone to this, so if your family
one has not been touched for that long, you are very lucky.

The GNR asked for a total of 9 coats of varnish when building, including 5 of preparing varnish before the mouldings were installed,
so that in itself would have helped. Yet both ships and carriages had to live in an environment which always contained smoke.
These days we have what is claimed to be a stronger sun, but more importantly not shielded by the smokey layer, so the
strains on the stain are different. Shellac has basically stayed the same for many hundreds of years, except for the medium in
which it is mixed, and of course these days, people prefer to mix it with less petroleum based products.

Modern systems like West are designed to be used in hot climates on modern yachts, so they should offer a similar protection,
but nothing will stop wood fading if it spends its life outside.

Paul

I think many of the readers of this forum will also be LNER Society members; the two photographs on the edition of the Newsletter which arrived this morning are magnificent. For those who aren't members I apologise but they are of Thompson TTO 13803 and Gresley Buffet 644.

Two details which I hadn't seen before; the cornice on the TTO is lower so there are cutouts for the doors below the rain deflector and both vehicles have a small pipe at the end of each long rainstrip, leading water into a hopper then a downpipe down the end which ends at the bottom of the side. Are either or both of those preservation changes?

jwealleans wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:50 am I think many of the readers of this forum will also be LNER Society members; the two photographs on the edition of the Newsletter which arrived this morning are magnificent. For those who aren't members I apologise but they are of Thompson TTO 13803 and Gresley Buffet 644.

Two details which I hadn't seen before; the cornice on the TTO is lower so there are cutouts for the doors below the rain deflector and both vehicles have a small pipe at the end of each long rainstrip, leading water into a hopper then a downpipe down the end which ends at the bottom of the side. Are either or both of those preservation changes?

The cornice shouldn't be lower.
Rain water down pipes at the ends are common to all carriages with gutters and that have doors by the corner pillars.

Sawdust.

jwealleans wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:50 am Two details which I hadn't seen before; the cornice on the TTO is lower so there are cutouts for the doors below the rain deflector and both vehicles have a small pipe at the end of each long rainstrip, leading water into a hopper then a downpipe down the end which ends at the bottom of the side. Are either or both of those preservation changes?

The rainwater collector and downpipe do appear on certain carriages as built but not all and it would need a review of works and other photographs to identify any pattern, either by type, works or period. See attached examples and note that the Pantry Third is of later build but lacks the downpipes:

Hence my question - it doesn't appear on some of the vehicles on page 1 of this thread. I only saw this this morning so I haven't had time to look through the pictures I have, but I thought it was a question worth asking.

Andrew, or any of the other carriage restorers on here, why would you lower the cornice? Doesn't that make the job harder?

sawdust wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:01 am The cornice shouldn't be lower.
Sawdust.

I would agree. I cannot find any evidence of this in any of the official photos so it might be a peculiarity of the restoration:

jwealleans wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:15 am Hence my question - it doesn't appear on some of the vehicles on page 1 of this thread. I only saw this this morning so I haven't had time to look through the pictures I have, but I thought it was a question worth asking.

Andrew, or any of the other carriage restorers on here, why would you lower the cornice? Doesn't that make the job harder?

My guess would be that to of the steel panel is too low.

Sawdust.

jwealleans wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:15 am Hence my question - it doesn't appear on some of the vehicles on page 1 of this thread. I only saw this this morning so I haven't had time to look through the pictures I have, but I thought it was a question worth asking.

It's a good question JW and worthy of asking.

Initial conclusions re the rainwater downpipes based on limited evidence (e.g. page 1 of this thread) and Sawdust's information:

1. None on Gresley coaching stock, so a post-war introduction;

2. A substantial proportion of the post-war vestibule compartment stock together with the non-vestibuled stock do not have doors at the ends so the feature not deemed necessary for 'passenger protection';

3. That leaves the post-war open stock and catering and sleeping cars that are most likely to have doors at the end and the most appropriate subjects for checking and a quick flip through photographs to hand tends to confirm that, evident on the early batch of vestibule open thirds, although the sleeping car images in Harris are too dark to see the end detail!