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

[Nick Holliday]

Another thought, just to put things into perspective, is that much of the work in the carriage shop would be carried out with few or no drawings.  Whereas on a locomotive it was vital that certain elements, at least, were built to critical dimensions and tolerances, and required the input of several different departments in the works, the bulk of a carriage was, at least at the time we are talking about,  in the hands of the joiners.  As long as the chassis was constructed so that the wheels were correct in relation to the track and underframe, what went on top was down to the carpentry, and even the length of the chassis could be simply varied as required.  So, perhaps, a design would have been specified as 5 third class compartments, and a guide dimension between partitions.  So, as we see on the LBSC, a five compartment third is built as 30' long, and anything more complex, or with larger compartments might be 32', generally, or any other dimension that made solved the current equation. It could also depend on when or where a particular vehicle was built - it seems to me that the NER, for example, was producing six wheeled coaches in at least two slightly different styles, although to the same basic design, over the same period. There is also the fact that many of the timber elements would be fabricated for a particular vehicle, or in small batches, and if the cutting department was having an off-day, there might be small errors in the lengths of timbers, and I would think that, rather than condemning the pieces, the joiners would work round the problem, resulting in, perhaps, compartments of slightly different sizes, or minor variations in the overall length.

As modellers we also tend, I think, to see the coaching situation in a simple way, with large numbers of identical designs being produced, yet, taking the LBSC for example (sorry, yet again) tucked away in the system are various 4  wheel oddities such as a one compartment brake first and a two compartment brake first, Also photographic evidence can come up with design variations which didn't get to the drawing board, such as a full brake which is 2 feet longer than all the rest.  In addition, as time went on, many coaches were modified to suit new conditions of service, and, again, the Brighton would convert a full first into a brake first, or reverse the process and turn a second brake into something completely different, not to mention the gradual down-grading of classes so that by the end of their service a full first might be classified as a full third, via several iterations of composites. So it is impossible to be too dogmatic about whether any design did or did not exist - there is too little photographic evidence, unfortunately, the opposite, to a degree, of the situation with locos, where the subtle changes are often fully documented on film.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Nick Holliday
Various spellings

[Nick Holliday]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Nick, I'd be very pleased and not in the least offended if you would identify the chaff in my long post; I'm sure there is some - on brakes in particular I think I've said some things that may not stand up to scrutiny. The more the merrier!

 

Thanks to the generosity of assorted RMWebbers, I have assembled material on the panelling dimensions for assorted pre-Grouping companies that used the panelling style adopted by Hattons. I'm planning to tabulate this so we can see what dimensions (if any) can be regarded as typical.

Stephen

I was really including you in the 100% pure wheat section! Your arguments are always well reasoned and explained, and you always emphasise that you are generally quoting from your own knowledge base, and that there are alternatives.  The chaff are those who make definitive statements based on a single source, and then claim that this is how it should be, or cite just one variant example, whereas there were many others to be found. I didn't want to identify those issues to prevent causing offence to the posters concerned. The length of this thread makes it difficult to follow all the arguments, and to understand where we were up to!

[Compound2632]

@Nick Holliday, I really do doubt that things were as you describe, at least in the carriage shops of the larger companies by at least the beginning of the 1880s. As witness, I call upon the collection of carriage & wagon drawings and other documentation from the Midland Railway's Litchurch Lane works held by the Midland Railway Study Centre. To a great extent our knowledge of the rolling stock of the different companies is at the whim of fate in terms of how much documentation has survived.

 

EDIT, cross-posted, thank you for your confidence! I hope you will excuse me picking up on instances where I suspect you of generalisation - and in that last post you did make clear that you had the Brighton in mind - a line of whose carriages I know little, though I understand that before Lancing Works was established in the 20th century, carriage building was probably being carried on under less than ideal conditions at Brighton - that's from my reading of G. Bixley, An illustrated history of Southern wagons (OPC, 1985). But the same source reminds me that Stroudley was a pioneer of standardisation, "applying it as much to the goos stock as to locomotives and carriages" - you see I'm really a wagon man!

Edited October 12, 2019 by Compound2632

[RLWP]

7 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

Another thought, just to put things into perspective, is that much of the work in the carriage shop would be carried out with few or no drawings.  Whereas on a locomotive it was vital that certain elements, at least, were built to critical dimensions and tolerances, and required the input of several different departments in the works, the bulk of a carriage was, at least at the time we are talking about,  in the hands of the joiners.

 

On some railways, perhaps. Like many things they made. L&NWR carriage doors are interchangeable between vehicles because Wolverton built on a production line with jigs. 

 

There must have been a time when what you are suggesting was true, this is the problem with lumping 100 years of development into a time called 'pre-grouping'. It's not like 25 years of 'Big Four' for instance

 

Hattons seem to be moving their project along nicely

Richard

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

I am very pleased to hear that Hatton's are consulting with people on RMweb, like Compound2632, but I hope they are able to sort the wheat from the chaff. There seem to have been a number of blinkered broad-brush statements that, if taken at face value, would lead the design development down some blind alleys, specific to one particular company or another.

As a Brighton enthusiast, I am very fortunate to be able to call on the recently published detailed research of others, and I could claim that, for instance, because it was the way it happened on the LBSC, bolections only appeared in 1890, although I know that they were being fitted much earlier than that elsewhere. Brighton fans are also blessed that, once the carriage design had progressed from the stage coach variety, via the square panelled style which seems to have been driven by the carriage building companies such as Oldbury, the LBSC, like the LNWR to a great extent, settled on a panel styling which they continued to use up until grouping, with only a couple of aberrations along the way, whereas many lines seemed to adopt a variety of designs along the way. (For Stephen Lea's benefit, the depth of the lower panel was 6 inches between mouldings.)

 

 

I tend to agree.  I hope I am not part of the chaff, as I have tried to look at features that seem to be found on a number of companies' coaches, so would be more typical for the purposes of a generic product. 

 

The panelling style is an interesting point.  My perception is that Stroudley's early 1870s 4-wheelers were very modern for their time, and with that panelling style, must have looked it. If you compare them with coaches in service and built by other lines around this time (1872), this will become apparent.

 

Just as you say, other companies had a variety of styles and, to the extent that the panelling style adopted by the Hattons coaches became general and common, it's more typical of the 1890s than the 1870s and, therefore, with gas or electric lightening than oil.

 

Hatton's chosen style, which is IMHO a good choice because it became fairly common and avoids close identification to specific companies, features horizontal recessed panels along the eaves and waist and recessed vertical panels between. There are small radius curves to all 4 corners of panels and windows.

 

However, it was not always thus; before Genesis, there was Evolution!

 

1850s-1860s see quite a number of examples of square cornered panelling and windows, which I shall refer to as 'lights'. A particular feature of the period is the raised square-cornered beading to the waist section.  See, for example, the 1860s Oldburys built for the IoW, a NER example of 1871,Gloucester Wagon Co for the Midland, 1860s GER coaches, and LB&SCR 'group 9' coaches. 

 

 

Many companies next adopt curved tops to lights (often only quarter lights). Typically lights have square corners at the bottom and large radius curves to the top corners.  In many cases the vertical panels above the waist are treated this way.  This is typically seen in combination with raised square-cornered beading to the waist section.  Examples include late Craven types for the LB&SCR, and the Stroudley panelling style is quite a noticeable break from that.  Elsewhere, lights with large radius top corners, combined with raised square-cornered beading to the waist section remains typical of the 1870s, see, for example, the GER 1870s 4-wheelers produced by Eveleigh creations.

 

 

Contemporary with Stroudley's new suburban coaches and block sets were LSWR block sets built from 1872.  Initial sets were built by the Metropolitan C&W Co and these were absolutely typical in combining large radius top corners and square bottom corners to quarter lights with raised square-cornered waist beading.  Soon, the SW started to build the coaches in-house, and quarter lights and vertical panels were given 4 small radius corners, but were still combined with square-cornered waist beading. it was not until a 28' 6-wheel composite of 1878 that the SW applied small radius 4-corner panelling, including on recessed waist panels. Similar to these are the Metropolitan's coaches for the Midland in the early 1870s.

 

 

Elsewhere, while the raised square-cornered beading was steadily abandoned in favour of recessed waist panels with small radius corners, but lights and panels with square bottom corners and large radius top corners remained typical throughout the 1870s and 1880s.  Examples include the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire, LT&SR, L&YR (though with a paucity of recessed panelling), and the Great Eastern, in fact, the GER adhered to this style right through to 1896/7, when it adopted its 'square light' style.

 

 

Elsewhere, other companies followed the LB&SCR (1872) in adopting the small radius corner style.  Clayton marked this change on the Midland (c.1874) and I have mentioned the SW (1878). The early Claytons have deep eaves panels, however, so are not a match with the Hattons' style.

 

 

The GWR also seems to have settled on this style by the 1870s, but the typical GWR coach of the 1870s-1880s still had much deeper eaves panels; the 'typical' GWR look we get from the Triang clerestories and the Ratio 4-wheelers is a thing of the 1890s.  

 

 

A style very close to that of the Hattons coaches was also established on the NER by the 1880s.

 

Then there are companies that maintained very distinct alternative approaches. Some companies retained square-corner panelling, most obviously the GNR, which developed a style distinctive of the line. The LC&DR retained square panelling. Others went for a style of panelling that involved deep vertical panels without horizontal eaves or waist panelling. The SER did so, perpetuated by the SE&CR, as did the LNWR and the Furness, the latter two placing lights in the centre of such panels, rather than framing them with beading. These styles don't have much relevance to the Hattons coaches.

 

This is nowhere near close to a comprehensive survey, but it does, I hope, highlight some of the trends in body styles across the 1860s-1890s. and shows the Hattons coaches becoming more typical/representative by the 1890s than in earlier decades.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[PhilJ W]

I have to disagree with Nick on one point. Rolling stock was built to the same exact standards as the locomotives. A compartment carriage can have between 8 and 16 doors. No doubt when new they would be identical, not only on the individual coach but often on the entire coaching stock. The reason for this is simple, carriage doors are the one component likely to be damaged more often. It is essential therefore that if damaged they can be replaced quite easily and to this end they must me constructed accurately. The same applies to the openings in which they fit. The usual practice in carriage works was to use templates so that things such as tumblehome and roofs were the same. 

[Miss Prism]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I think @Miss Prism's comment on the panelling has been misinterpreted - see my long post.

 

My quickie sketch was done before Hatton's better definition drawings became available, but having thought about it, I agree with you that the only way to have five compartments in a 26' vehicle would be to have no panels between adjacent quarterlights. (The GWR did have some widebodied Metros of that style , and it seemed they had full-height partitions, but I'm not quite sure how!)

 

The GWR 4-wheel Ratio 5-compartment S9 has a generous 28' length.

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Miss Prism
trouble with editing a url

[Tramshed]

6 hours ago, Trog said:

With small parts like the brake pipes, steam heat pipe, vac/air cylinder etc could they be supplied loose in a detailing pack? With alternative designs so the punter can fit the option that steers the coach most towards his chosen era and company. The extra expense to hattons of a slightly bigger detailing moulding being balanced by them not having to pay to glue them on.

Agree with Trog and Skinnylinny on this. The only way Hattons can control 'specification creep' and keep the price in the £30 target area while trying to please most people most of the time. £30 sounds cheap for a coach by today's standards but given they are shorter vehicles probably work out the same per unit length of train.  As has been pointed out by several contributors, multiplying the number of body styles to suit examples from (say) 12 pre-grouping companies just ruins the economics. Congratulations to Hattons.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

My quickie sketch was done before Hattons' better definition drawings became available, but having thought about it, I agree with you that the only way to have five compartments in a 26' vehicle would be to have no panels between adjacent quarterlights. (The GWR did have some - widebodied Metros, and it seemed they had full-height partitions, but I'm not quite sure how!)

 

 

It's not unusual, I think. The particular example I had in mind was the 27 ft 4-wheeled stock the Midland built in 1884 for Metropolitan suburban services - equivalent to the services those Great Western Metro carriages were built for and also wide-bodied - 8'6" rather than the standard 8'0" - the extra 6" was supposed to allow one extra passenger per side to squeeze in! These departed from the Midland's standard compartment dimensions of the time, having 5’2½” third class compartments. There's a gap of only a couple of inches between the bolection moldings of adjacent quarter lights and at the ends, a blank space about 4" or 5" wide. Photo here.

 

Further to @Edwardian's post on panelling styles, it may be helpful to take a look at how the bodies of these carriages were constructed. These two crops from the Midland drawing of 1882 I linked to earlier illustrate this well:

 

 

The vertical section is through a door, showing the arrangement of the droplight and ventilator and also the construction of the eves and roof. The plan section is at window level. This is a first class compartment!

 

The body is constructed of a timber framework to which wood panels, in this case ¼” thick, are attached - nailed I believe. The joints between these panels are covered by molding pieces, typically ⅜” thick and 1½” wide on the straight sections, quarter-round on the exposed edges - it's these moldings that give the "panelled" appearance.  

 

Here are couple of photos of mine of a grounded body of a Midland carriage. These are both of a door, as this carriage had been converted to a mess van, with the droplights removed and replaced with vertical tongue-and-groove boarding.

 

 

These show how the moldings are also nailed in place. When the carriage was built, the nail holes would have been filled and rubbed down so as to be invisible once the carriage was painted and varnished.

 

The cross-headed screw is a relatively modern addition!

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Compound2632

[Dana Ashdown]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't caught up to speed yet. Will there be a full passenger brake? These were common on pre-grouping trains and so would be a useful addition.

 

Dana

[Budgie]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

The GWR 4-wheel Ratio 5-compartment S9 has a generous 28' length.

 

 

Ratio's GWR 4-wheelers have two chassis lengths. It is possible that the 5-compartment S9, being on the longer chassis, was built as a 6-wheeler, with the middle axle being removed later.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Budgie

[gwrrob]

12 minutes ago, Dana Ashdown said:

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't caught up to speed yet. Will there be a full passenger brake? These were common on pre-grouping trains and so would be a useful addition.

 

Dana

 

Yes and when the artwork is completed they will be added to the website.

[Nile]

14 minutes ago, Dana Ashdown said:

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't caught up to speed yet. Will there be a full passenger brake? These were common on pre-grouping trains and so would be a useful addition.

 

Dana

Yes, you can see a work in progress here:

 

[Compound2632]

28 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

Ratio's GWR 4-wheelers have two chassis lengths. It is possible that the 5-compartment S9, being on the longer chassis, was built as a 6-wheeler, with the middle axle being removed later.

 

Thanks to the careful research of others (@Miss Prism et al.), a very quick bit of googling shows that the Ratio kit represents diagram S9, 85 of which were built as 4-wheelers in 1891-1902.

 

28' is relatively long for a 4-wheeler but short for a 6-wheeler. I'm sure @Miss Prism can tell us when the Great Western last built a 6-wheeler; my impression is that they'd abandoned them in favour of bogie carriages by at least 1890, with these long 4-wheelers coming in in the 90s for branch line use.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

My quickie sketch was done before Hatton's better definition drawings became available, but having thought about it, I agree with you that the only way to have five compartments in a 26' vehicle would be to have no panels between adjacent quarterlights. (The GWR did have some widebodied Metros of that style , and it seemed they had full-height partitions, but I'm not quite sure how!)

 

The GWR 4-wheel Ratio 5-compartment S9 has a generous 28' length.

 

 

The standard 26' length for 4-wheelers is suggestive of Stroudley.  Stroudley built 5-compartment Thirds to this length.  Originally there was a single window between doors, spanning the compartment divide.  This, of course, is made possible by half-height partitions.

 

Later he built them with quarter lights and, yes, the frame between them had no recessed panel.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thanks to the careful research of others (@Miss Prism et al.), a very quick bit of googling shows that the Ratio kit represents diagram S9, 85 of which were built as 4-wheelers in 1891-1902.

 

28' is relatively long for a 4-wheeler but short for a 6-wheeler. I'm sure @Miss Prism can tell us when the Great Western last built a 6-wheeler; my impression is that they'd abandoned them in favour of bogie carriages by at least 1890, with these long 4-wheelers coming in in the 90s for branch line use.

 

I'd always had this down as the 2-compt. T47, with the Shire Scenes etch giving you the 3-compt. T36 option.  However, I will now check!

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I'd always had this down as the 2-compt. T47, with the Shire Scenes etch giving you the 3-compt. T36 option.  However, I will now check!

 

You're thinking of the brake (sorry, van?) third.

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, Budgie said:

Ratio's GWR 4-wheelers have two chassis lengths. It is possible that the 5-compartment S9, being on the longer chassis, was built as a 6-wheeler, with the middle axle being removed later.

 

That is possible, but I don't think there is any record of that. Btw, the S9 is the shorter of the two Ratio chassis, the T47 being 31' (also a 4-wheeler).
 

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

28' is relatively long for a 4-wheeler but short for a 6-wheeler. I'm sure @Miss Prism can tell us when the Great Western last built a 6-wheeler; my impression is that they'd abandoned them in favour of bogie carriages by at least 1890, with these long 4-wheelers coming in in the 90s for branch line use.

 

Correct.

 

The last GWR 6-wheel coach was c 1887 I think.

 

There were a small number of 26' 6-wheel saloons, being the exception, but generally, 6-wheelers were 28' plus, with the later standard being 31'.
 

[Edwardian]

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You're thinking of the brake (sorry, van?) third.

 

Yep, that's me responding in haste, sorry.  It was the reference to the longer chassis that I focussed on, because, as Miss P says, the 5-compartment Third uses the shorter Ratio chassis, so same length as the 4-compt. Compo (both approx 28', whereas the Brake Thirds are approx 31', IIRC). 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Correct.

 

The last GWR 6-wheel coach was c 1887 I think.

 

There were a small number of 26' 6-wheel saloons, being the exception, but generally, 6-wheelers were 28' plus, with the later standard being 31'.
 

 

The latest I can find is S6, a 6-wheel Third of 1886, and S7 Third of 1887, but we're there or there about.

 

S9, as Stephen rightly says, is a 4-wheel Third (of 1891).

 

This brings me back to my earlier exercise concerning coach styles and, specifically, the rate of adoption by various companies of the style that Hattons' coaches represent.

 

On the GWR, 6-wheeled coaches had pretty much ceased production by the time the Hattons style had been adopted by the GWR.  The exception to this might be the 6-wheel S7, which appears to have uniformly narrow eaves panels.

 

Otherwise, the 6-wheelers are not a stylistic match. Yes, the GWR had adopted horizontal recessed panels along the eaves and waist and recessed vertical panels between, all, including the lights, with small radius curves to all 4 corners.  However, the GW's the 1880s coaches have deeper eaves panels, or, one of a couple of transitional styles whereby eaves panels are alternatively deep and shallow.

 

So, with the exception, I think, of S7, the Hattons panel style would only apply to GW 4-wheelers from c.1891.   To use them you have to be happy that the lengths are a little out from the GW coaches. The GW are typically 28' and 31' for 4-wheelers to Hattons 26'.  The extra 2' of the shorter GW 4-wheelers mean that, unlike Hattons' and Stroudleys 5-compt. coaches, there is room for a recessed panel between the quarter lights. 

 

The 6-wheel S7 is a 28' 5-compt. Third, as is the 4-wheel S9, so actually they are pretty similar save for the extra axle!   That leaves the S7 looking very different from Hattons 32' 5-compt. 6-wheeler due to the compt. spacing.  So, in other words, the 6W S7 is closer Hattons' 4W coaches, whereas Hattons 6W coaches are closer to the 31' GW 4W coaches! 

 

The other factor is that the GW coaches with the similar panel style to Hattons - the 4-wheelers and the S7 - have 3-radius not single arc roofs.

 

BTW, I've omitted a whole bunch of diagrams with semi-circular door vents, as they are obviously not a fit with the Hattons style.

 

This is not meant to be critical of a generic design, but it does show how difficult it is to match more than one company's designs, even where the panel style is substantially the same.

 

EDIT, I wonder if there is a majority of companies that favoured slightly longer 4W bodies that the Stroudley/Hattons 26'? 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Zunnan]

Don't forget, the Hattons generic 6 wheelers are intended to be designed so that the centre wheelset can be removed.

[Edwardian]

9 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

Don't forget, the Hattons generic 6 wheelers are intended to be designed so that the centre wheelset can be removed.

 

So, yes, that makes, say, the 6W 3-compt. Brake able to approximate a GW 31' 4W Brake Third.

 

(though I still think the revised spacing leaves the compartments for this coach too wide for what is perhaps best thought of as a Brake Third). 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Edwardian

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, Dana Ashdown said:

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't caught up to speed yet. Will there be a full passenger brake? These were common on pre-grouping trains and so would be a useful addition.

 

Dana

 

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Yes and when the artwork is completed they will be added to the website.

I would like to see a 4 wheel luggage van without a guards compartment. I have a few suggestions as to variations such as providing window openings in the doors that can be glazed, fitted with a blank panel or even louvres for a milk/perishables van. Two pairs of doors each side with either both doors glazed, one door glazed and both doors panelled or louvred.

Edited October 12, 2019 by PhilJ W

[Miss Prism]

55 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

[snip]

 

The GWR didn't have any single-arc roofed coaches with 7" door vent panels. These Hattons things, and I hope my posts here show I am supportive of their efforts, will never be accurate to any GWR diagram, because they are not intended to be accurate to any GWR diagram.

 

I have no desire to change them into GWR. It would be impossible to do so.
 

 

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

The GWR didn't have any single-arc roofed coaches with 7" door vent panels. These Hattons things, and I hope my posts here show I am supportive of their efforts, will never be accurate to any GWR diagram, because they are not intended to be accurate to any GWR diagram.

 

I have no desire to change them into GWR. It would be impossible to do so.
 

 

 

Well, indeed, but given that Hattons will produce these in GW livery, I saw no harm in pointing out the limits of the similarities and what the better matches might be.