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

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Hattons Dave said:

Morning all,

 

I've been reading through the feedback we've received and have made several more improvements, including:

 

• Roof overlap
• Full length footboards (on 6 wheelers)
• Coach ends - vertical beading only
• Brake pipe centered and handed on each end
• 4w 5 compartment has had the compartments re-spaced
• 6w brake has had the compartments re-spaced and duckets centralised
• Full brake doors re-spaced
• Rain strips added
• Vac pans added (in lieu of air cylinder)
• Emergency brake equipment added
• Buffers changed to more realistic length and design
• Drawbar hook plates added
• J hangers added
• Oil pots on roof moved to more prototypical positions

Gas and electric lighting will also be included on relevant liveries with associated gas tanks/battery boxes.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

Important improvements, especially the vac brake gear and the nice long coach buffers.

 

I really like the inclusion (seen on the non-step ends of the first two drawings) of the chain communication gear. 

 

Others' comments about vac pipe location noted.

 

A few further comments, if I may:

 

-  The 5-Compartment 4-wheel: If there are to be just two lamps, as shown (which is fine), the compartment partitions should really be half height in order to provide (some) illumination to all compartments.

 

- The 6-wheel brake (third) looks odd for not having a door for the guard.  Ideally there should be a door for each compartment (in this case 3), double luggage doors for the luggage, and a single door for the guard. Typically that might be either immediately fore or aft of the guard's lookout. Just, in fact, as shown on the drawing of the 6-wheel full brake below it. 

 

-  The 6-wheel brake (third) would most likely have the lamp located above the guard's compartment (again, as per the drawing of the 6-wheel full brake below it), rather than over the luggage. 

[Miss Prism]

 

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, ClaughtonSteve said:

Well, if it's good enough for Jim at Connoisseur Models in 7mm, it's good enough for me...

 

But that's ALLOWED....

 

You have to build those yourselves, so it's modelling!

 

 

1 hour ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

Unhelpful thought: I am reminded of the 'tea' on DOuglas' Adams Heart Of Gold. But better.

 

Just don't bring in the British East India Company, otherwise everything will grind to a halt!

 

[The Stationmaster]

54 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

The position of the vacuum pipe was laid down by the Railway Clearing House to ensure compatability across the network. It should be to the left of the drawbar as stated. As I said, rather than shoot the messenger , look at the millions of photos out there.

Not having access to RCH specifications for vehicles in interchange traffic I don't know what they said in respect of vacuum pipes and bags.  But it is interesting t study photos although admittedly most of these are of preserved vehicles and barely a minute or two doing that produced some interesting results because some coaches had the vacuum bags to the left of the drawhook, some had it to the right of the drawhook, and some had it in line with the drawhook.   Which suggests either such vehicles never worked in interchange service (if the ruling applied to interchange service - and that seems the only logical reason for it) or various companies simply went ahead and did either what they or their vehicle builders happened to like or come up with for any particular design.  However I looked in one of my books about a particular Pre-Group Railway and it contains pictures of 4 wheel and 6 wheel passenger stock c vehicles - both of which had the vacuum pipe above the drawhook and at least one of which wouldl have worked regularly coupled to vehicles owned by two major Pre Group Railways.

 

Hattons latest design currently has the vacuum pipes and bags central, above the drawhook and on a generic vehicle that seems to me as good as any other position and  accurate in at least two instances both of which happen to be in the proposed range of liveries.

 

PS Are the RCH interchange specifications online anywhere do you know?

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, sem34090 said:

Perhaps we need to do a poll on this

A referendum might result in someone sticking on corridor connections?

 

 

 

[Hitchin Junction]

It took a while, but this thought finally welled up into my consciousness. 

 

What would the comments on this  thread have been like if it was back at the time when the idea of using 16.5 mm instead of 18.8 mm gauge for the then brand new 4mm scale was first proposed?

 

And who looking back, thinks that was the correct decision?

 

Tim

[t-b-g]

Sorry but many railways had the vacuum pipes above the coupling as per the drawings. See my earlier photo as evidence!

 

There is no "right" or "wrong" on this point. Just differences and a choice to be made.

 

I don't know what date the RCH ruling was made but in earlier times, railways worried little about compatability between systems! Which is why vehicles used on through services often had to be dual brake fitted.

 

 

[t-b-g]

Just now, Hitchin Junction said:

It took a while, but this thought finally welled up into my consciousness. 

 

What would the comments on this  thread have been like if it was back at the time when the idea of using 16.5 mm instead of 18.8 mm gauge for the then brand new 4mm scale was first proposed?

 

And who looking back, thinks that was the correct decision?

 

Tim

 

Perhaps a matter for a different thread?

[AlfaZagato]

In regards to the vacuum pipes, I would look to make certain the material used is flexible enough to adjust.   Given commentary herein, I would default to vertical, straight, and left-of-drawgear.

Edited October 11, 2019 by AlfaZagato

[Miss Prism]

Perhaps everyone could be equally offended if the vacuum pipes on the 4-wheelers were central and those on the 6-wheelers were offset?

 

[Dunsignalling]

24 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

It took a while, but this thought finally welled up into my consciousness. 

 

What would the comments on this  thread have been like if it was back at the time when the idea of using 16.5 mm instead of 18.8 mm gauge for the then brand new 4mm scale was first proposed?

 

And who looking back, thinks that was the correct decision?

 

Tim

The gauge came before the scale - the latter was increased from 3.5mm to make room for the motors of the day to fit into smaller UK locos.

 

So, strictly speaking, where OO is concerned, it's the scale that's wrong, not the gauge.....

 

John

[PenrithBeacon]

Can I look forward to Hatton's producing a generic steam engine to pull these?

Bearing in mind the outcry whenever one of the RTR suppliers makes a mistake on a loco I find the enthusiasm for these models a bit odd

[Wickham Green]

2 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

The one to the left looks a lot more natural

 

 

https://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/SECR/LCDRcarriages.html

 

Richard

Don't forget this is a preserved vehicle* on an S.R. parcels van frame so don't take all features as 'gospel' ........ and while this picture is in front of you, take a look at the L.C.D.R. square-cornered panelling : Hattons coaches will NOT be right for this railway, however many times it's been postulated above.

 

* I nearly said 'chicken shed' - but it was a bungalow / petrol station !

[Hroth]

32 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Can I look forward to Hatton's producing a generic steam engine to pull these?

Bearing in mind the outcry whenever one of the RTR suppliers makes a mistake on a loco I find the enthusiasm for these models a bit odd

Why would they do that, when they've produced a well-received pre-grouping loco already, which would go well with these carriages?  Anyhow, if they're not for you, then that's ok, just ignore them and go your own way, rather than berating people for not having your aesthetic sensibilities. 

 

(Must remember, don't feed the trolls...)

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Hroth

[Ryde-on-time]

35 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Can I look forward to Hatton's producing a generic steam engine to pull these?

Bearing in mind the outcry whenever one of the RTR suppliers makes a mistake on a loco I find the enthusiasm for these models a bit odd

Hattons are presumably making these coaches as they see sufficient demand to make money on them (and the enthusiasm for the coaches from most on this thread backs that up)

 

I don't see a market for a generic loco (so why would Hattons make one) but perhaps other iconic pre-grouping locos might now be produced?

Edited October 11, 2019 by Ryde-on-time

[Compound2632]

I was contacted by Hattons following my early posts in this thread, inviting further input. Apologies that it has taken a while to respond; I'm afraid this post doesn't take into account the revised drawings posted by @Hattons Dave today. Also, apologies that I will be repeating comments made by others, if I fail to acknowledge you by, please bear in mind that this has rapidly become a very long thread and hunting back to reference every comment would take an unfeasibly long time. 

 

The approach I've taken is to look at the published drawings and interpret them as if they were diagrams of real carriages, in particular in terms of the interior layout, compartment dimensions, etc. The test is, are these consistent, realistic, and typical? 

 

I'm a Midland enthusiast and my knowledge of carriages of the late 19th century is biased towards the northern lines. @Edwardian quite early on reckoned that Hattons may have drawn inspiration from LBSCR diagrams. I'm not very well-informed on Brighton carriages, so it's quite possible that I will identify some features as untypical to my eye that are in fact typical of Brighton practice, in which case I'm very happy to learn. I'm not grinding a Midland axe and I'm certainly not going to say that these carriages should closely follow Midland practice, though I will reference it.

 

As in all modelling, observation of the prototype is key and I'd like to suggest that Hattons go out and look at some preserved carriages in the flesh - preferably ones that have retained their original underframes and running gear - and talk to someone involved in carriage restoration such as Stephen Middleton of Stately Trains, to get a real feel for how carriages of this type are constructed. To my mind, the most convincing freelance modelling is that which is based on close observation of the prototype. So, these note are written in the hope that they will contribute to making the Hattons freelance carriages credible.

 

Please bear with my hand-annotated and wonkily-scanned versions of the Hattons drawings. I tried correcting the wonkiness but the result was a degradation in image quality.

 

I will start with the six-wheelers and also some general observations on features of the models, at least as far as they can be gleaned from the drawings.

 

6-wheel 5-compartment carriage

 

This represents the most generic (and numerous) type of 6-wheeled carriage, the bog-standard 5-compartment third - and also second, for those lines retaining three classes. 

 

 

I have dimensioned the drawing using the 42 mm + 42 mm wheelbase as reference. This gives a length over headstocks of 128 mm, i.e. 32'0". The length given by Hattons is 129.2 mm. From the drawing, the extra 0.6 mm on each end, overhanging the headstock, looks as if it might be the carriage end component. My understanding from my conversation with Hattons is that the sides and ends are to be separate components, so that the same ends can be used for all the carriages - and also providing scope for further different sides in the future. To my mind, the carriages will look better if the ends were inside the sides, as they are on the well-known Ratio carriage kits. In what follows, I'm going to ignore the extra 0.6 mm at each end and take the 120 mm or 104 mm sides as being the length of the carriage.

 

The distance between the hinge side of the doors of adjacent compartments scales to 6’4¼”. Allowing 1¼” as a typical partition thickness, this gives a compartment length of 6'3" - reasonably generous for a third class compartment but by no means unusual. The 32' length points anyway to a carriage of the mid-1880s - late 1890s, rather than the knee-lockers of the 1870s. The only slight snag with these dimensions is that (without the extra 0.6 mm of the end piece) they give an end thickness of only 2", where 3¼” - 3½” would be more typical - consider the thickness of the framing timers. The NER thirds, with which this carriage has some features in common, had 6'2½” compartments, giving an extra 1¼” thickness to the ends. 

 

Before moving on to the other carriage types, I will draw attention to some details of carriage construction that don't appear on the drawing, in particular the raised bolection mouldings of the fixed quarter-lights and the droplight frame for the doors. This photo of a Midland carriage illustrates these features:

 

 

NRM DY 1954, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

The man in the carriage has lowered the droplight in order to lean out; a raised droplight can be seen in the next compartment door along. Note that the droplight frame is quite wide - around 2½” in this case. Note the way the door waist panel molding is shaped to accommodate the door handle and also the bulge in the vertical molding for the carriage door deadlock - this takes a square key that the railway staff can use to lock the compartment out of use. The middle hinge, at waist height, incorporates a pair of door stops - these have an insert of, I think, rubber, and stop the door swinging back against the carriage side - don't want the handle scraping the paintwork! On some carriages, these stops were separate fittings and spaced a bit further apart.

 

Note also that the ventilator sits withing the door eves panel, rather than taking the place of the panel. This was, I believe, the more typical arrangement. The eyelets along the gutter of the roof are for the external communication cord that was in use until c. 1898. This was replaced by an RCH-agreed internal communication cord system linked directly to a valve on the brake pipe - carriages in post-1890s condition should have the gear for this on one end - usually, I think, the opposite end to the steps. 

 

I've marked the drawing up with the panel heights. My feeling is that the carriage is too high-waisted and the eves and waist panels are not wide enough. For comparison, the Midland carriage in that photo has lower panel 1’10⅛” high, waist panels 5", upper panels 2’7¾”, and eves panels 8½”. (The window glass is 15" x 29" in the quarter lights and 15" x 25" in the droplight.) The exact dimension vary from company to company and I haven't checked many in detail, though I think Great Western panelling is quite close to Midland; North Eastern at this period had deeper waist panels. I think that deeper than 4" will help when it comes to applying liveries that have the class designations etc. written in the waist panels.

 

I'm not going to make many comments on the underframe - more observation of the prototype will help. The 7' springs are typical, but a closer look is needed at how the ends of the springs are supported. By the 1890s J-hangers were becoming usual, with longer ones for the centre spring, to aid in flexibility. Solebars and headstocks would be of timber, 11" x 4½”  or thereabouts, sometimes with a flitch-plate of iron, typically ⅜” thick. With typically 6'1" between the inside faces of the solebars, the width over their outside faces would be around 6'10" - 6'11". There's a splendid drawing with lots of underframe and running gear detail on the Midland Railway Study Centre website.

 

6-wheel composite with lavatory

 

Composite carriages with a centre luggage compartment were very common, those with a centre pair of lavatories, less so. Quite often they were conversions from centre-luggage composites made in the 1890s, when the railways were competing on both facilities and speed - one way of accelerating long-distance services being to shorted station stops. So, in the late 19th century they were very much main-line carriages, only being demoted with the rise of the gangwayed side-corridor carriage in the early 20th century. They could be either first/third or firs/second composites, or even tricomposites, but with the middle two compartments with lavatory access being firsts, as the middle of the carriage gives a steadier ride. (Putting lavatories at the ends of a carriage is a bad idea, as anyone who has tried to go in a Mk 1 at 90 mph will remember.)

 

 

Scaling from the drawing again, we find compartment dimensions that are rather parsimonious for the 1890s and a rather generous amount of space given to the lavatories. (There were conversions were a third or even first class compartment was converted to lavatories but that idea doesn't fit this case, as the original carriage would have had a rather odd distribution of compartments with a third or second in the middle.) Should these 6-wheelers be thought of as being built to standard dimensions? The larger companies' carriage works were geared up to mass-production methods with stocks of standard components; even smaller works such as Highbridge on the S&DJR were building carriages with consistent component dimensions. If we take this view, the composite should be based on the 5-compartment third, with the variation being in the middle three compartments. I've cut-and-pasted a couple of carriages with 6'3" third/second compartments and 7'3" firsts:

 

 

If I was in Hattons' shoes, I'd go for the centre luggage composite as being more typical form branch line / secondary use. 

 

6-wheel third brake

 

Another very common type of carriage but capable of endless variation! Can also be a brake second.

 

 

The third class compartments scale to 5'8". There isn't a separate door for the guard - some designs have one, others make him use the luggage compartment doors, as here. There's nothing particularly strange about this design, though the steps would usually be at the brake end - that's not incompatible with having windows in the end, though in any case I think those are a less typical feature, although characteristic of some companies. 

 

Thinking along the same principles of standardisation as for the composite, I've cut-and-pasted some variations based on the 6'3" compartment spacing of the all-third. I've not bothered to give dimensioned plans.

 

This one is inspired by a Great Western diagram:

 

 

There's a question as to what the other side looks like - does the carriage have mirror symmetry - i.e. on the other side the guard's door is to the left of the ducket, with the duckets being exactly opposite each other, or does the guard's compartment have rotational symmetry, so that  the guard's door is always to the right of the ducket? I think the Great Western went for the latter. The luggage compartment doors might not have windows - roof lights being fitted instead.

 

This one is inspired by some S&DJR third brakes:

 

 

This only has two passenger compartments, the middle one being for the guard, whose compartment is separate from the luggage/parcels area - probably not a full partition, but screens on either side. Note that the double doors are on the centre-line of the luggage space.

 

Since the third bears some similarities to those very numerous North Eastern examples, here's a North Eastern third brake:

 

 

This makes the double doors serve for the guard as well as luggage. Note that the ducket is on the centre-line of the carriage.

 

6-wheel brake

 

This completes the quartet of very common types. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that more revenue was earned from the contents of the van than from the passengers in the rest of the train. Hattons' first drawing has some oddities:

 

 

As has been noted and altered, the double doors were rather near the ends. The position of the ducket and guard's door are offset from the centre line; again we have the question of what the other side looks like.

 

I've cut-and-pasted a couple of alternatives, which have the guard's compartment plumb centre flanked by equal-length luggage / parcels compartments that have their double doors on their centre line:

 

 

This one again raises the question of symmetry, whereas my second version, with the ducket on the carriage centre line, is clearly the same on both sides, which will please Hattons' accountant. With its extra fixed window, it's a bit Midland-inspired, though not exactly like any Midland vehicle:

 

 

Some full brakes would have windows to the double doors, others not - in which case roof lights were often used - small greenhouse-like structures. 

 

These 6-wheelers are characteristic of carriages built at the time companies were starting to introduce gas lighting, I doubt they would ever have had oil lamps. Of course gas lighting involves more roof and end detail, as the gas pipe has to run up one end and along the roof; from the late 1890s there might also be a second, smaller diameter pipe for the pilot. But perhaps these are refinements for the purchaser to add.

 

4-wheel 5-compartment third

 

A real knee-locker - it could be a carriage of older vintage - mid 1870s to early 1880s - or built specifically for high-density suburban trains, like @burgundy's lovely Brighton set. If earlier than the 6-wheelers, it's likely the running gear would be different...

 

 

The compartments scale to 5'0". There's not enough space for a panel between the quarter-lights or at the ends. For a livery like that of the Great Western or Midland, where the moldings were painted black, edged gold, these spaces would be black, not body-colour. The one change I would make to the panelling would be to carry the lower, waist, and eves panels up to the end in the usual way, as I've sketched in, rather than having them stop in line with the window. Partitions are only half-height, so only two lamps needed - should they be directly above the partition, or on the centre of the second and fourth compartments?

 

4-wheel third/second brake

 

This has slightly more generous compartments:

 

 

That could be indicative of less standardisation back in the 1870s, or maybe it's a brake second, or perhaps in the mad scramble for seats those in the know would make for the ends of the train! An alternative, for really high-density work, would be a 4-compartment third brake based on the 5-compartment third, with the end compartment replaced by a compact guard's compartment - there's just room for the guard's door and the ducket.

 

On both these carriages the ends work out to be a sensible thickness.

 

4-wheel composite

 

@Edwardian has shown that this is a dead ringer for a Brighton vehicle.

 

 

The end compartments are almost up to main-line standards for a third or second, leaving the firsts slightly on the small side (and the ends a little thin). I wonder how this compares with the LBSCR diagram? The firsts could be increased to 7'0" and the thirds/seconds shrunk to 5'7", leaving 3⅛” ends.

 

The ends

 

With the modular approach, there are only three ends, with and without steps, and a brake end with windows:

 

 

The roof radius is about 8', it should certainly be no smaller, without the carriages looking too modern. I agree with those who would do away with the horizontal moldings, especially the one at the eves height. The curved molding is, at 4½” wide, characteristic of LBSCR, NLR and some others, but something narrower would be more typical. Also, for a carriage with round-cornered panelling on the sides, I would expect the end panelling to be round-cornered too. There are seven vertical panels; for an 8' wide carriage, five or six would be more usual. The headstock is drawn 8' long. It need only be 7'6" long, matching the width of the body at floor level. Some companies left it square ended, others used a convex curve; the North Eastern had a rather fancy three-knobbed pattern carved in the end. 

 

I like the double steps at one end and no steps at the other, though as mentioned steps should be at the brake end of brake vehicles and for post-1900 or so there should be the communication alarm gear at one end. For carriages in fixed close-coupled sets, it was often the practice to have steps only on the outer ends of the set, as there wasn't space to climb up between the carriages and the gap was small enough for the lamp-man to step across safely as he walked the length of the train.

 

I've also sketched on how the brake pipe might be opposite-handed at either end, if the pipe runs straight along the underside of the carriage. On the subject of brakes, since the Westinghouse cylinder will presumably be a separately-applied component, could carriages in the livery of vacuum-brake companies have a vacuum cylinder fitted instead?

 

That's everything I can think of to say for now; I'm sure I've forgotten something. I'm very happy to stand corrected on any errors of fact I may have made. I apologise for not providing references for all my statements; I would like to do so but I want to complete this post sometime today! 

 

I see that over 25 posts have been made to this thread since I started writing this post, so I apologise again if I am duplicating things already said.

 

I'm indebted to contributions already made by @Miss Prism, @sem34090, @Skinnylinny

as well as those already mentioned.

 

EDIT: I now see that the alarm gear has already been addressed.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Compound2632

[GNR Dave]

These will look far better and more prototypical than anything I could produce from a kit and cost far less, so count me in for several sets in various liveries. 

 

Well done Hattons

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The position of the vacuum pipe was laid down by the Railway Clearing House to ensure compatability across the network. It should be to the left of the drawbar as stated. As I said, rather than shoot the messenger , look at the millions of photos out there.

But not always as quite a few photos show.

A GWR 4 wheel S9 has the pipe to the right of the hook and the vehicle is in BR hands with the number W24.

A six wheel Clerestory coach, just taken out of service also shows a RH pipe in the 1930s

 

I would have thought that network compatability with many of these vehicles is the last thing one would be worried about!

Edited October 11, 2019 by melmerby

[Compound2632]

Has anybody quoted a date for this RCH instruction on brake pipe standards? And what about dual-fitted stock?

[melmerby]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Has anybody quoted a date for this RCH instruction on brake pipe standards? And what about dual-fitted stock?

From what I can find from photos in books LH was normal but RH was not unheard of on old stock even at a late date.

Maybe it didn't apply retrospectively? Many of the vehicles are from as early as the 1880s.

[GNR Dave]

Looking at the drawings, the style of panelling seems to be the same as Stoudleys four wheelers for the LB&SCR. Stange that this livery is not covered in the three batches of models.

[PenrithBeacon]

26 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Why would they do that, when they've produced a well-received pre-grouping loco already, which would go well with these carriages?  Anyhow, if they're not for you, then that's ok, just ignore them and go your own way, rather than berating people for not having your aesthetic sensibilities. 

 

(Must remember, don't feed the trolls...)

 

 

A pity then that they didn't produce a range of accurate carriages to go with the 'well received loco' 

[Oldddudders]

Just now, PenrithBeacon said:

A pity then that they didn't produce a range of accurate carriages to go with the 'well received loco' 

I believe this view has been put forward by several members over the course of the last 28 pages. Hatton's MD will have noted their and your disappointment. 

[Willie Whizz]

4 hours ago, LBRJ said:

 

...

 

Though I would suggest that, for example, Iain Rice's various light railways had a air or realism about them, to say the least.

 

Indeed so.  In fact, some of them (I think particularly of 'Tregarrick' and the 'East Suffolk Light') were more realistic and more believable than many examples modelled of the 'Real Thing' have ever been.

[Phil Parker]

5 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

A pity then that they didn't produce a range of accurate carriages to go with the 'well received loco' 

 

"A pity they didn't throw a few hundred thousand pounds at producing a range of carriages that we'd then say weren't good enough to go with the 'well recieved loco'"

 

Fixed it for you.