ECJS Restaurant Third 189

[Wavey]

[/quote]

does any body know what happened to tho body that was at humshaugh,the last i saw it ,
it still had doors inside with what appeared to be also tooled leather panels still insitu[/quote]

More than likely scrapped which is a great shame considering how rare these carriages are. There is a picture on the Disused stations web site taken in 1991 and although all teak panels gone the teak frame looked in good condition.
It was 1898 York built Open Third no. 14.

[PinzaC55]

does any body know what happened to tho body that was at humshaugh,the last i saw it ,
it still had doors inside with what appeared to be also tooled leather panels still insitu[/quote]

More than likely scrapped which is a great shame considering how rare these carriages are. There is a picture on the Disused stations web site taken in 1991 and although all teak panels gone the teak frame looked in good condition.
It was 1898 York built Open Third no. 14.[/quote]

I'm not sure if it's the one I am thinking of but my family and I used to holiday near there in the very early 70's and there used to be the skeleton of a coach at one of the stations but I am sure that even then it was beyond repair.

[Trestrol]

That's the one Wavey is on about, we know it was still there in the early 90's but are not exactly sure where it was. If you could point us in the right direction Pinza we would be gratefull. Was it near the station? if so which side of the road bridge?

[PinzaC55]

LMAO I am talking about 38 years ago when I wore a Tank Top and Oxford Bags!!
As far as I remember it was on the south side of the bridge, west side of the line. I'm pretty sure I have seen a photo of it somewhere....

[PinzaC55]

Here you go http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/hu ... dex6.shtml
Count it as an early Christmas present!

PS if you need further details the photographer can be contacted by clicking his name and scrolling down the list of contributors to the site.

[sawdust]

but since you are replacing what was originally a wooden underframe with a basically metal one, you could surely be more creative
at each end there was a massive american oak buffer beam, at least 11inches deep by 4.5 inches wide.

based on the data in Hoole's book the underframe should be 52 4.5 over the headstocks, buffer beams, so once you take off the 9 inches for the beams, you end up at 51ft 7.5in of metal work which seems to suggest it would be much easier using a shorter gresley underframe, rather than cutting down a 61ft6 one. i realise this assumes that 51 ft6 underframes are available

the other thing of course is to find some fox bogies

research shows that lancaster carriage built some, and indeed oldbury too, but Hoole is pretty certain that doncaster built 189.


nice photos though
paul

We do need to have buckeyes and pullman gangways for operating with Mk1 and LNER mainline stock. We also have satisfy the NYMR CME, also we have to keep in mind future operation on NR metals to Whitby and Battersby. So planted timber headstocks are out I'm afraid! Also the design of dragboxes and side buffing are very different between Gresley suburban and mainline stock. As an aside the Beavertails have one of each type!

Sawdust.

[john coffin]

whilst i understand that you need, if you want to run it, to comply with other carriages. it is sad that you are not actually going to provide a proper underframe. i trust that you will make sure this is documented properly for future reference.

paul

[Wavey]

The point is that we don't have the original underframe! This was scrapped in 1927 when 189 became a grounded body. Putting 189 on an all steel one will allow this 1894 vintage dining car to be used and enjoyed by many people, and can be used as originally designed as part of a dining train.
If it was still on the original wooden one it would only have limited use and spend most of the time as a static exhibit. I know what option I would prefer.
At the end of the day, with some additions to the underframe (like footboards along the length), and provision of fox bogies (hopefully), it should look not too dissimilar to the original one.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

Wavey, the MOST important thing is that this coach can run as often as possible!

"Historical Accuracy" surely comes second. Do these guys actually believe that the 4472 preserved is the engine that rolled out of Donny Plant in 1923?

[john coffin]

i am not saying that historical accuracy should restrict usage, only that in view of the untruths that go around the railway business of so many things, we need to ensure that the accurate information is available, and saved. in looking at gn tenders for instance, we know that some of them are not covered by drawings from donny, or york, but it is only by searching that you find out.

i realise that all steam engines are like grandads' scythe or hammer, 9 shafts, and 7 heads, but in his possession for all the time. doesn't mean when things are changed we should not note it, and ensure it is part of the written record.

yes it is good to get the coach moving again, but personally i think a more creative approach could be taken for some external underframe views.

paul

[60044]

In that case you should join the LNERCA and offer to help with the necessary research. Anyone who offers to help will be made welcome. I'm due have a meeting on Monday with a potential contractor for the job, though, so don't delay! PM me to start a dialogue.

[sawdust]

i am not saying that historical accuracy should restrict usage, only that in view of the untruths that go around the railway business of so many things, we need to ensure that the accurate information is available, and saved. in looking at gn tenders for instance, we know that some of them are not covered by drawings from donny, or york, but it is only by searching that you find out.

i realise that all steam engines are like grandads' scythe or hammer, 9 shafts, and 7 heads, but in his possession for all the time. doesn't mean when things are changed we should not note it, and ensure it is part of the written record.

yes it is good to get the coach moving again, but personally i think a more creative approach could be taken for some external underframe views.

paul

I really don't see what the problem is? The original underframe doesn't exist, we don't know if the drawing for the frame exists (probably not as Doncaster works was bombed during WW2). Nothing we are going to do is irreversible as far as 189 is concerned and is no less respectful to the historic artefact than it is to all the four and six wheelers that have been placed on steel frames.

Sawdust.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up, Sawdust!

I don't see the problem meself. But then, I'm a pragmatist. Like yerself, I reckon!

[West_Stanley]

Any updates on this? Is it close to completion?

[jwealleans]

Based on my visit over the last Bank Holiday weekend, there's a great deal of work to do. I wouldn't be reserving a place on the diner anytime very soon.

Thoroughly looking forward to enjoying my dinner in it in the fullness of time, though.