'Genesis' 4 & 6 wheel coaches in OO Gauge - New Announcement

[RLWP]

10 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

I would absolutely LOVE to see accurate late GER 6 wheelers produced by someone.

 

I wonder if there is an opportunity to get Worsley Works to make GER bodies to fit reworked Hatton's chassis?

 

Richard

[spamcan61]

12 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

It's a curious move in a world where accuracy is King and samples are torn to pieces to go down this route.

 

Only by a tiny but loud proportion of potential buyers....

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Hattons Dave said:

Afternoon all,

 

I've made some amendments to the drawings based on feedback we have received so far and would be grateful if you could let me know your thoughts on these.

 

Changes include: lower beading, removed brakes on centre wheels (6 wheel) and altered compartment spacing.

 

4 wheel 4 compartment

Original

Amended

 

4 wheel 5 compartment

Original

Amended

 

4 wheel brake

Original

Amended

 

6 wheel 4 compartment lavatory

Original

Amended

 

6 wheel 5 compartment

Original

Amended

 

6 wheel brake

Original

Amended

 

I've also included a view of the various ends which I know people were interested to see.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

Credit should be given the Hattons for their encouragement of feedback and for their responsiveness to it.  Essentially, Hattons have treated us like grown-ups, and, on the whole, have been rewarded by constructive comments. It's good to see such synergy between manufacturer and audience.

 

These are significant improvements.  Thanks.

 

The adjustment to the compartment end panels is more prototypical.  Some tweaking may still benefit the 4 wheel 5 compartment and I note Miss P's suggestion.

 

The treatment of the 4 wheel 4 compartment is particularly effective, and now represents an ideal 1st/2nd Composite, answering a silent prayer for me. 

 

I don't favour the changes to the 6 wheel brake. This had great compartment spacing for a typical brake third.  This characteristic appearance has been lost on the amended version. I suggest that the widening of the compartments is not the way to go. The extra space gained by reducing the compartment end panel could be carried over to the sectin between the compartments and the lookout, diving this equally into 3 or 4 vertical panels.   

 

The 6-wheel full brake is extremely welcome.

 

Frankly I'm now looking at two rakes, doubling up on my Triang hacks.  If anyone had said to me that any, let alone, say, 25% of the West Norfolk Railway's coaching stock would be repainted RTR, I'd have expressed voluble incredulity!

[Joseph_Pestell]

What would be the last year that it would be reasonable to run these: i.e. when did the last 4-wheel and 6-wheel carriages operate in revenue-earning service the UK (not counting NPCCS).

 

Just thinking that they would look rather nice in BR Crimson.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

No, he was commiserating with someone who has spent ages building a set of coaches and then seen a RTR equivalent suddenly appear. "But making these was more fun than buying some would be?" is an amusing tentative silver lining.

 

Amazingly, some of us like making things and really DO get more pleasure out of building something than simply buying it. If that offends you, perhaps I should take my kit-built J72 chassis and get out of here. As it is, I see railway modelling as a multi-faceted hobby that offers something for everyone. The attitude that has bedevilled it is the "My way is the ONLY way." one. You prefer buying and operating to building, I care little for operating but love building. I think that both of us can be right.

 

Indeed, as I understood it. 

 

The Hattons coaches facilitate more variety in coach types. Much as I enjoyed the Triang conversions, some combinations are not particularly easy to achieve.  For instance, doing 1st/2nd composites is a little awkward (the Triang brake coach has good 3rd Class Compt. spacing, and the non-brake has good 2nd Class Compt. spacing, so a First compt requires an extra fillet).  Variations like centre lav. or luggage compartments are not that easy with the Triangs. 

 

So, I could use these Hattons coaches OOB, but I'm also thinking of what I could do to them with a razor saw and some filler.  Possibilities must be close to endless. 

[Bucoops]

28 minutes ago, RLWP said:

 

I wonder if there is an opportunity to get Worsley Works to make GER bodies to fit reworked Hatton's chassis?

 

Richard

 

I believe they are very much a you want it we'll do it so possibly - presumably minimum cost/order quantity applies.

[Bucoops]

27 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Only by a tiny but loud proportion of potential buyers....

 

True

[Skinnylinny]

Wow. Looking very nice. Thank you for the updates, @Hattons Dave. It's excellent to see suggestions being taken on board, even on a generic carriage. If I may offer a thought or two on the ends?

The most common (and thus generic) style of beading I've come across on carriage ends is much as in your drawing, but without the horizontal beading at the waist or top of the end, just continuous straight beading, as here: 



This seems to be especially the case with the rounded style of beading you've gone for on the sides. I've also taken the liberty of adjusting your brake pipe so that it is central, above the coupling hook. I agree with Miss Prism that there ought to be a roof overlap also.

[Miss Prism]

 

[Vistisen]

42 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

Wow. Looking very nice. Thank you for the updates, @Hattons Dave. It's excellent to see suggestions being taken on board, even on a generic carriage. If I may offer a thought or two on the ends?

The most common (and thus generic) style of beading I've come across on carriage ends is much as in your drawing, but without the horizontal beading at the waist or top of the end, just continuous straight beading, as here: 



This seems to be especially the case with the rounded style of beading you've gone for on the sides. I've also taken the liberty of adjusting your brake pipe so that it is central, above the coupling hook. I agree with Miss Prism that there ought to be a roof overlap also.

Just wondering whether this could be the first hybrid rtr/scratch build product. What about producing a plain version with no ribbing and including the option to download 3d print files that we can print ourselves ( or at some print shop) to add details. That way we can chose the details to fit the version we want. I would think that the sides should contain windows, but be moulded is such a way that the upper 'half' of the coach can be removed, and replaced with an alternative printed window arrangement if wished.

 

I have enough trouble getting good quality stock to run om my shoddy hand built points. I don't fancy my chances of building a 6 wheel chassis that can do better.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Vistisen

[Miss Prism]

6-wheel 5-compartment - suggest re-centre oil pots over the new door positions.
6-wheel brake - suggest centre oil pots over the three compartment doors.
Full brake - suggest centre oil pots over luggage doors.

 

[howardb]

Maybe not totally accurate but have ordered 5 for my planned SR (ex SESR) layout where they will provide an acceptable impression of the occasional pre-grouping stock that may have been seen on the line.

 

Many thanks to Hattons and also hope the D Class turns up as well

[NHY 581]

I think these coaches are aimed at people like me who model with a broader brush than some. 

 

I've long held a desire to have a pre-grouping layout and it looks as if these will enable a modeller who is RTR based to finally do this. 

 

I work on the basis that if it looks right, it probably is. Therefore a few of these with suitable motive power will fit the bill. 

 

In addition, a knock on effect could well be that we see more locos released in pre-grouping liveries by the likes of Hornby and Bachmann. 

 

I'm not a fan of Hattons but they are to be applauded for this bold decision.........what's next? 

 

Further run of the 48xx/58xx with a redesigned chassis that works?  

 

Now that would look charming with a rake of GWR 4 wheelers.

 

Rob. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by NHY 581

[Miss Prism]

 

[Mark Dickerson]

3 hours ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

And frankly, I could cope with 'generic' pre-group locos, (but not with badly detailed out of scale 'toy train ones, which is what we've had before -- that's the difference!) but maybe I'm not very classy.

 

I'll have an 0-6-0 with 19mm wheels, an 0-4-2 with 22mm wheels and a 2-4-0 with 25mm wheels please (this being OO). Roundtop firebox, Ramsbottom safety valves, dome, unsuperheated, round spectacles on a short cab (not bothered about side profile).

 ...In black with three lining options (red / green / blue), no numbering or lettering.

"Dear Hornby Railroad. Although you've missed an opportunity..."

 

Were I to name this range on the basis of this thread perhaps Revelation might be more appropriate. And I thought the first RTR decent OO industrial was a sign of the End Times. Wow.

 

 

[BackRoomBoffin]

I've just realised that 'Genesis' is a pun on 'generic'. Cor, I'm slow.

 

However, I had been wondering if the name had been chosen as it's an attempt to find a common (possibly mythical) ancestor for multiple divided warring tribes, and people will be debating for years to come what the original intention was, and whether those who revere the end-product are ignoring certain problematic elements in its composition.

(I speak as one who is currently supposed to be writing a sermon/homily thing for usage under live-fire conditions this coming Sunday)

Edited October 9, 2019 by BackRoomBoffin

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I am sure somebody will come up with some examples but...

 

I can't think of any brake ends where the layout is passenger compartments, lookout, guard's luggage doors. The lookout is usually at the end of the carriage.

 

The LNWR six wheelers were rarely, if ever, end brake compartment vehicles, although the 28 ft 4 wheelers usually were.

 

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Theres plenty of scope for 'chopping' these models. Some 'chops' of the Triang/Hornby clerestory coaches have been illustrated.

I wonder if many people would want to chop these. The usual reason given for not building pre-group carriages is recreating the livery, so cutting up a finely painted RTR coach may not be what many buyers would contemplate, if they don't feel confident they can maintain/restore/conserve (take your pick) the paintwork and finish satisfactorily. The majority of buyers, judging by this thread, will be content to accept that these coaches looks near enough and so happily justify their purchases.

 

One of the characteristics of the LNWR was the variety of their stock in terms of compartments, brake or luggage compartment location, etc. This is one of the things that, for me,  makes modelling the LNWR so interesting. The attached gives some idea of the differences that could be seen in their six wheel stock (from left a full brake, brake third, picnic saloon, bogie picnic saloon and a luggage composite). 

 

[JSpencer]

34 minutes ago, howardb said:

Maybe not totally accurate but have ordered 5 for my planned SR (ex SESR) layout where they will provide an acceptable impression of the occasional pre-grouping stock that may have been seen on the line.

 

Many thanks to Hattons and also hope the D Class turns up as well

 

You wish (also mine too) for a D class could well be answered in 2020 from what I've heard - except from another company beginning with H.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

What would be the last year that it would be reasonable to run these: i.e. when did the last 4-wheel and 6-wheel carriages operate in revenue-earning service the UK (not counting NPCCS).

 

Just thinking that they would look rather nice in BR Crimson.

Probably not late enough for BR to justify the cost of repainting anything other than full brakes into crimson. I will definitely want a couple of the latter to operate under Rule 2.

 

One of the announcements is of a Brake 3rd in crimson or Engineer's red which should look good in a breakdown train or re-railing unit, though it will possibly need to "lose" its duckets for that.

 

I'll also be getting a couple of green 6-wheelers to work over as camping coaches similar to the photo posted earlier. I'm reckoning on making dummy chassis for them to release the underframes for my Stove Rs. 

 

There'll also be a set (livery yet to be decided) for when I want to run in "light railway" or "preserved" mode.... 

 

John

 

PS: Rule 2 = You can never have too much NPCCS.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[Martin S-C]

20 hours ago, Craigw said:

Freelance or generic rolling stock is trading purely on the fact that many people do not really care a great deal about coaches as long as they match the loco.

 

But does this benefit Pre-grouping modelling in anyway? Not really.  It certainly will not create a RTR market for accurate coaches as people are now likely to say "I have an LNWR coach, I do not need more"

 

Craig W

I suspect that generic rolling stock is trading purely on the fact that highly accurate rolling stock of one pre-grouping railway would not sell enough units to make it financially viable. It would also still be pulled to ribbons by the rivet counters.

 

But does this benefit Pre-grouping modelling in anyway? Who knows. Possibly. It might create an RTR market for accurate coaches as people are now likely to say "I have a generic model, I wonder what the actual ones it is supposed to represent are like?"

You see how that works? Why be so negative when actually anything is possible and we cannot know the outcome.

 

In addition, below the body, these models could very easily become a mainstay of kit builders and kit bashers for years to come.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Martin S-C

[Miss Prism]

 

[Mark Saunders]

Personally I would go for a range based on the drawings of a particular builder or company and release them in assorted liveries rather than make things up as you go along!

 

Mark Saunders

[FelixM]

From https://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/00-app3-4/ap3-coach.htm:

 

I see the different roof types and think Hattons may do a trick in providing more than one.

[Martin S-C]

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

But to my mind none of these excellent arguments in favour of the generic carriage idea is an argument against making them accurate for one pre-Grouping company, rather than none.

I think the argument that these will sell well to average modellers, freelancers and those who rate historical accuracy lower than #1 on their list while an accurate model to one particular company's design would sell fewer units is probably the most compelling one.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, FelixM said:

I see the different roof types and think Hattons may do a trick in providing more than one.

 

Different roofs means different ends, which increases the production costs. Although I hold onto my view that turnunder ends would be more generic for the 6-wheelers though flat ends are fine for the 4-wheelers, I can see that having the same type of ends for both makes economic sense. 

 

@Hattons Dave, I'm mulling over the revised drawings; will comment tomorrow.