ECJS Restaurant Third 189

[Wavey]

The teak clerestory carriage located at Wabtec Doncaster will shortly be passed into the ownership of the LNER Coach Association following the sucessful award of a Prism acquistition grant.
See news section on \\www.lnerca.org
It is planned to remove the body from the Gresley suburban underframe it currently resides on and modify the underframe from a Gresley Corridor coach (which is currently in store) which will allow 189 to receive pullman gangways and buckeyes. This will allow it to run in the teak set on the NYMR (subject to acceptance of the vehicle).
This is a very important vehicle and possibly one of the oldest dining cars in existance. The LNERCA would welcome any donations towards the cost of the underframe modifications which are likely to be the major costs - details on the web site. The restoration of the body and interior are very advanced so the carriage could be running very quickly with the right funding.

[Wavey]

The NYMR Trust Board have deferred a decision on allowing 189 to be located there. This will be put to the Carriage Policy Sub Committee but as a final decision is now not likely until the next full Board Meeting in Feb 2010, the LNERCA is possibly looking at another site to store 189 until then. Dependant on the final decision it may be that the LNERCA may be looking for another Heritage Railway to accomodate this vehicle. If anyone knows of one who have capacity or may be interested please contact the LNERCA at lnerca@btinternet.com.
Thank you.

[Wavey]

Permission has now been granted for ECJS 189 to be located on the NYMR and it will shortly be leaving Doncaster.
Gresley TK 23896 will also shortly be leaving Carnforth and heading for Pickering. The latter is externally restored and will be the next major project in the restoration shed once Thompson TK 1623 is completed.

[Wavey]

Just thought I'd update everyone on 189. The LNERCA now has a Corporate Fund Raising Officer and will be actively looking for funds for both ECJS 189 and Thompson CK 18477 as we wish to start work on both of these vehicles next year. As a contrast and complete coincidence these are the oldest (1894) and youngest (1950) passenger carrying vehicles in the LNERCA collection.
Details will be published on the LNERCA web site in due course (www.lnerca.org).
Externally 189 is largely complete from when in Stephen Middleton's ownership but the major funds are going to be required to modify a standard 60' Gresley turnbuckle underframe (reduce in length by approx 5') to fit. This will then allow 189 to have standard Pullman gangways and buckeye couplers.

As an aside I wondered if anyone had any details/photos of 189 in the era when it was under preservation at Holme-on-Spalding Moor by Malcolm Ford? I am researching the history of the ECJS bodies that survived into the 1970's. In addition Malcolm also saved another ECJS body from Deighton south of York. This was 1893 Oldbury Built 1st class diner 196 (later NER 2647 when rebuilt with clerestory and had kitchen added). The carriage then went back into ECJS stock as 196 1n 1898. This body seems to have disappeared and was not present when Stephen Middleton saved 189 in 1998.
Does anyone knows what happened to it or whether it still exists?

[majormagna]

...modify a standard 60' Gresley turnbuckle underframe (reduce in length by approx 5') to fit.

Does this mean you finally found someone with an "O-level in Gresley underframe shortening"? If so, I'm amazed.

[Wavey]

...modify a standard 60' Gresley turnbuckle underframe (reduce in length by approx 5') to fit.

Does this mean you finally found someone with an "O-level in Gresley underframe shortening"? If so, I'm amazed.

We'd settle for a CSE grade if they could do the job! Don't fancy doing a 'cut and shut' myself though!

[third-rail]

...modify a standard 60' Gresley turnbuckle underframe (reduce in length by approx 5') to fit.

Does this mean you finally found someone with an "O-level in Gresley underframe shortening"? If so, I'm amazed.

We'd settle for a CSE grade if they could do the job! Don't fancy doing a 'cut and shut' myself though!

easyest way would be to take it out of the middle there would be to much buffing /drag box bogie pivot struts and bracings to move,the worst part would be the dismantling and rethreading of the truss bars, or if made of angle remake from new.
the the chassis gives the coach mainly lateral and longditudinal strength the wieght is taken by the trussing under the floor.

[Wavey]

easyest way would be to take it out of the middle there would be to much buffing /drag box bogie pivot struts and bracings to move,the worst part would be the dismantling and rethreading of the truss bars, or if made of angle remake from new.
the the chassis gives the coach mainly lateral and longditudinal strength the wieght is taken by the trussing under the floor.

You are correct in that it would be the easiest way to do it. The alternative would be to remove everything from the underframe and cutting a section off one end and reattaching the headstock. This would maintain the longtitudinal strength of the solebars but would require everything including the queen posts being moved along and spaced out according to the new shorter length. This would be a major undertaking.
We are consulting a few 3rd parties on getting ideas on cost for getting this done and certified for use.

Unless of course anyone knows how feasible it would be to convert a Gresley suburban underframe to take pullman gangways and buckeyes.

[coachmann]

Would it be simpler to build a new welded chassis from girder section and plant all the equipment on it off the old chassis? Or simpler still, lengthen the wooden coach body to suit the 60ft chassis.

[Blink Bonny]

[Wavey]

Would it be simpler to build a new welded chassis from girder section and plant all the equipment on it off the old chassis? Or simpler still, lengthen the wooden coach body to suit the 60ft chassis.

I don't have enough technical expertese to comment on building a new underframe but I doubt whether such a construction would be simpler (or cheaper) than modifying an existing underframe. I think a 'new build' has to go through more rigorous certification process to ensure that it is safe for passnger use. Original underframes are proven design.

I certainly would not be in favour of modifying the body of a unique 1894 clerestory dining car. Even if it was not considered sacrilege the process would not be a simple task. Half the body would need to be taken apart to put in new lengths of top and bottom rails to ensure structural integrity of the body.

[hq1hitchin]

You are correct in that it would be the easiest way to do it. The alternative would be to remove everything from the underframe and cutting a section off one end and reattaching the headstock. This would maintain the longtitudinal strength of the solebars but would require everything including the queen posts being moved along and spaced out according to the new shorter length. This would be a major undertaking.
We are consulting a few 3rd parties on getting ideas on cost for getting this done and certified for use.

Unless of course anyone knows how feasible it would be to convert a Gresley suburban underframe to take pullman gangways and buckeyes.

This procedure is the one that the Bluebell decided upon for their four wheeled stock when they adapted some Southern Rly van underframes - a BY etc to accommodate the restored passenger bodies. Everything was removed from the underframe and then one end lopped off to suit. The HMRI were happy enough with the end product.

[Bill Bedford]

easyest way would be to take it out of the middle there would be to much buffing /drag box bogie pivot struts and bracings to move,the worst part would be the dismantling and rethreading of the truss bars, or if made of angle remake from new.
the the chassis gives the coach mainly lateral and longditudinal strength the wieght is taken by the trussing under the floor.

That would put the queen posts in the wrong place. Any extra length has to be taken from between the bolsters and the queen posts else the truss rod won't support the frames correctly.

[60044]

Detailed design hasn't been looked at yet, but the working plan is to rmove the excess length from the middle and reposition the queenposts of the trussing. The anchor points will have to be adjusted as well because the angle of the trussing will be more acute. There were 52'6" Gresleys with turnbuckle underframes and this one will actually end up around 53'6" so it should be do-able. A preliminary meeting with a design engineer is to take place in early October and there should be some more information available after that.

I hope that everyone reading this will realise what a lovely and important vehicle this is - one of the earliest Restaurant cars still extant - and will support the project.

[majormagna]

I have a couple of questions; firstly, were ECJS coaches used on internal trains? (I.e. not travelling between NER, GNR etc. territories)

Would be interesting seeing it paired with the NER clerestory brake from Beamish, shame that doesn't have gangways.

Secondly, what are the plans for livery? I assume it will be outshopped in LNER livery, rather than... whatever livery it carried in the pre-grouping years.