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

[GNR Dave]

3 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

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

 

Because producing a set of carriages unique to the SECR for their P class would have a very limited market.

This thread has made 28 pages in 4 days. (Is that a record ?) I'm guessing Hattons are covering more bases, keeping more modellers happy (your good self aside ) and maximizing profits.

[57xx]

On 08/10/2019 at 17:04, Hitchin Junction said:

 

I'd be amazed of the same chassis are not common to the entire range. Hence they would need to be produced in larger quantities more or less continually and independently of the bodies anyway.  

 

 

As the bodies are common to the entire range and are just having different paint jobs, the number of bodies will match the number of chassis produced accordingly.

[IWCR]

Excellent  News.

I  to like  authenticity  however  these  will  be  a  very  good  interim to  me  building  correct  kits  (ie  for  years).  They  certainly  give  the  right   impression  and  I  will  go  for  some  in  SR  green.

Note  re  Passenger  Application  Valves,  communication  cords  were  only  mandatory  for  vehicles  running  more  than  20  miles  between  stops  hence  many  suburban / branch  carriages  were  never  fitted.  By  Edwardian  times  few  4  wheelers  were  in  principal  main  line  services  but  many  6  wheelers.   Suggest  PAV  for  the  6  wheelers  but  not  for  the  4  wheelers. 

 

Pete

[PenrithBeacon]

23 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

"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.

I bought the P Class and I think very highly of it. It's an outstanding model. I do think that it's a pity that it won't be accompanied by equally outstanding coaches.

[Nearholmer]

“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?”

 

Pretty much as now, but with some mystification as to what this newfangled “plastic” material might be, I suggest.

 

The arguments in the “mags” from the mid 1920s to the late 1930s were couched in very similar terms to those on RMWeb, with people on either side of the several divides (3.5mm vs 4mm; 16.5mm vs 19mm; etc) exchanging views in terms of thinly-disguised mutual contempt for some of the time, and mutual incomprehension all of the time.

 

Human nature? Certainly British nature.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

As the bodies are common to the entire range and are just having different paint jobs, the number of bodies will match the number of chassis produced accordingly.

 

I think its clear that there will be two underframes, one 6-wheeled and one 4-wheeled, three different ends and a quantity of different sides - 9 by my reckoning, allowing for the opposite-handedness of the brake vehicles. That looks like a very frugal approach.

[Miss Prism]

10 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I bought the P Class and I think very highly of it. It's an outstanding model. I do think that it's a pity that it won't be accompanied by equally outstanding coaches.

 

I'm not an SECR fan, but the Bachmann Birdcages look very tasty to me. Or am I missing the point here?

 

[phil gollin]

.

 

Several people are wishing for/recommending coaches more like xxxxx company, and I understand their ideas.  HOWEVER, I would strenuously urge Hattons to keep with the "generic" nature of these models, otherwise the rivet counter wars will put potential purchasers off.

 

I agree that any egregious errors should be eliminated and that some choices will make the models vaguely favour one company (or grouping of companies) over others, but such is life.

 

Keep them "generic".

 

.

[PaulRhB]

Ok so all we need now is Phil & Andy to interview Dave for their next video about the reasons for why generic design made sense over choosing one design and just offering it in all the liveries?

 

As the pre group stuff is a bit of fun for me I treat it a bit like my tinplate trains and happily accept the glaring discrepancies yet when it comes to my main interests I am probably as pedantic. Some friends run random stock in their G scale trains but I like to keep it to accurate sets. It doesn’t bother me at all in the garden but I wouldn’t exhibit a layout like that. That’s where the line lies for me and it’s just a personal choice. Much like I don’t take along my 80’s Scottish locos to plonk on friends 90’s NSE layout at a show. At home though I run my a Metropolitan Electrics on LNER short teaks because I don’t intend building a layout so I’d rather spend the time building and detailing exhibition stock  

 

[Ronny]

Thanks to all for providing knowledgeable feedback to Hattons and thanks to Hattons for reacting. I'm very impressed. Such mature behavior should be rewarded!!

 

Plus a thumbs up to Hattons' formation poster. Most attractive in itself plus very useful when coming time to place orders. Looking forward to the batch 2 and batch 3 versions. With LBSCR of course

Edited October 11, 2019 by Ronny
fix smiley

[Dunsignalling]

21 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I bought the P Class and I think very highly of it. It's an outstanding model. I do think that it's a pity that it won't be accompanied by equally outstanding coaches.

 

10 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I'm not an SECR fan, but the Bachmann Birdcages look very tasty to me. Or am I missing the point here?

 

The passenger hauling abilities of the P Class were very rapidly outstripped by increasing traffic and heavier coaches and they spent the vast majority of their careers on shunting and light goods work.

 

The SECR vans from Rails would go rather well for those who had the foresight to order some.

 

It is also the case that the Birdcages chosen by Bachmann are very late pre-grouping designs, in order to be legit in BR livery.

 

John

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I'm not an SECR fan, but the Bachmann Birdcages look very tasty to me. Or am I missing the point here?

 

 

I'm not very well up on the SECR either and bow to your judgement on the Great Western but I don't think I'd run a 517 Class 0-4-2T with a string of 70 ft Dreadnoughts, no matter how excellent the models of either. 

[57xx]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think its clear that there will be two underframes, one 6-wheeled and one 4-wheeled, three different ends and a quantity of different sides - 9 by my reckoning, allowing for the opposite-handedness of the brake vehicles. That looks like a very frugal approach.

 

Yes only two type of chassis, 7 different basic body styles from what I could see (unless I missed some more announcements buried in the 28 pages), the 6 originally announced plus the full brake. My point was that they were not going to be making dozens and dozens of physically different variations of those 7 body types whilst churning out "larger quantities" of chassis to go under them.

[Nearholmer]

P coaches?

 

Take the sides of al Ratio Midland suburban third and a brake third,  a razor saw, a craft knife, and small files.

 

OK, it probably won’t be exact, but better for the job than a big birdcage, possibly.

 

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

6 wheeler, BR days, tool van - prototype for everything and appears to have a central vacuum pipe.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

The passenger hauling abilities of the P Class were very rapidly outstripped by increasing traffic and heavier coaches and they spent the vast majority of their careers on shunting and light goods work.

 

The SECR vans from Rails would go rather well for those who had the foresight to order some.

 

It is also the case that the Birdcages chosen by Bachmann are very late pre-grouping designs, in order to be legit in BR livery.

 

John

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm not very well up on the SECR either and bow to your judgement on the Great Western but I don't think I'd run a 517 Class 0-4-2T with a string of 70 ft Dreadnoughts, no matter how excellent the models of either. 

 

Very much my thought. The 60' Birdcages are of 1912 vintage and when introduced would have been on mainline services.

 

I doubt a P ever pulled one, and would probably fall off its wheels trying to haul a 3-set fully loaded! 

 

The Ps tended to pull push-pull services using 6-wheel 3-sets or a pair of short bogie coaches.

[uax6]

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I@Hattons Dave

 

 

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:

 

 

I'm not sure that the 4 or 5 small panels actually looks any better than the 3 larger panels that the latest Hattons drawing has. Actually from a generic point of view the three larger panels probably matches the other coaches rather better than these smaller ones.

 

Having said all that, its beginning to look all a bit Drummond Highland Railway PBV, and that has four panels (and the lovely Scottish three level panelling, thats the normal two layer panelling that will be on the generic coaches, with the bottom panel having its base layer at the same height as the waist beading. The beading on this bottom panel therefore sticks out further than the waist beading.....):-

 

Note that this drawing shows the van dual fitted (well at least piped for air). It also shows the 'cold frame' roof glazing and steps on both ends. Ignore the safety chains on the buffer beam, they were lost quite early one. Note the spring hangers, long J's for the centre axle, but small brackets for the two outer ones. The step boards extend beyond the solebars as well. Note that the luggage doors have no windows, but at least one van did get droplights later in life when it was in use as a tool van. Note the lamp irons positions.

The drawing comes from the Model Railway Constructor donkeys years ago, and may be by Peter Tatlow.

 

 

Then there is this G&SWR PBV, this time from an ancient Model Railway News. This one has a j hangers all round, with longer ones in the middle. Unlike the HR one, the ends don't have turn unders, and I don't believe the G&SWR used the three panel Scottish beading style. Note that the van doors have no windows, but do have vents, and that the ducket is flat topped. The lamp irons are on the buffer beam this time.

Therefore this might be spot on for the generic design PBV, and if it is used would possible be the first time a G&SWR vehicle was ever made rtr!

 

Note the style of end beading on both vans....

 

Andy G

Edited October 11, 2019 by uax6

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

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

Neither the date nor the instruction (If it actually was an instruction as opposed to a recommendation) have been referenced or quoted.  Which was why I asked for a link to an online version;  a link to a version held by a library or the NRM would be just as useful if it's accessible.  But as there are plenty of contemporaneous pictures about of vehicles with centrally positioned vacuum pipes,  now including one posted in this thread, the unarguable fact is that they did exist whatever the RCH might have said.

[uax6]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Neither the date nor the instruction (If it actually was an instruction as opposed to a recommendation) have been referenced or quoted.  Which was why I asked for a link to an online version;  a link to a version held by a library or the NRM would be just as useful if it's accessible.  But as there are plenty of contemporaneous pictures about of vehicles with centrally positioned vacuum pipes,  now including one posted in this thread, the unarguable fact is that they did exist whatever the RCH might have said.

And for air braked stock the air bag is always on the buffer beam, so for dual fitted the arrangement is as in the drawing of the HR van above.

 

Interestingly I've been through my archive of carriage drawings from all over the country, and the only drawings that show an offset vac standard and bag is one for LBSCR stock (the SER had their's like every one else mounted over the drawhook)....

Edit: There is even a photo that confirms its offsettedness, and the other drawings for other companies show piccies of centreness.)

 

Andy G

Edited October 11, 2019 by uax6

[melmerby]

This one surely is right of the hook:

 

And another couple:

 

[RLWP]

They appear to be as close to centre as possible while avoiding the coupling hook, bending the pipe or introducing more joints

 

Richard

Edited October 11, 2019 by RLWP

[PenrithBeacon]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

The passenger hauling abilities of the P Class were very rapidly outstripped by increasing traffic and heavier coaches and they spent the vast majority of their careers on shunting and light goods work.

 

The SECR vans from Rails would go rather well for those who had the foresight to order some.

 

It is also the case that the Birdcages chosen by Bachmann are very late pre-grouping designs, in order to be legit in BR livery.

 

John

Very true, there is some evidence that they were never really up to pushing and pulling the two coaches shown in your photo. The loco is even smaller than the Terrier.

 

The market for the Southern Railway RTR has been gradually expanded over the last 15 years or so and I view this venture as a missed opportunity for further expansion. There is an enormous range of pre-group Southern-related coaching stock all with a wide variety of liveries available which should get the cash registers ringing for a supplier willing to do them. Having said that,  I do wonder if this concept of 'generic coaches' is really intended to reduce to next to zero the expense of researching a range of prototypes while profiting from the latent demand for this class of vehicle.

 

Regards 

[Off Tackle]

Really excited about this range, RTR pre grouping coaching stock (generic or otherwise) has seemed to me like a huge gap in the market following some of the recent loco releases.  I think they'll sell like hotcakes. The LNWR schemes are highly tempting, such a great livery! Also highly impressed with Hatton's responsiveness to constructive input and the revised coaches do look better than the original CADs - so good job to all those knowledgeable RMWeb members whose postings have contributed.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Off Tackle

[Nearholmer]

Staying OT, yes, I concur that P class were next door to useless, but if you want a coaches for one to struggle with .......

 

Not only are they smaller than a Terrier, there are all sorts of very clever design features of a Terrier, notably around Stroudley’s detailing of air flows into the firebox, that they didn’t have.

 

Oddly enough, I’ve never seen a picture of a P hauling four or six wheelers, except possibly on the KESR. Cue torrent of pictures .......

[darrel]

Brave move by Hattons. I'm sure kit builders and scratch builders will find the chassis useful. It will be interesting to see what people do with cut and shut bodies from these coaches.