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

[melmerby]

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.
 

 

But will they be accurate to any company's diagram?

We already know the answer - No, but they will have a passing resemblance to many.

Me? I don't think I would have any GWR livery either as I am working up a small fleet of Ratios along with a couple with Shirescenes sides.

However, maybe another livery? Southern perhaps.

.

[Bedders]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

But will they be accurate to any company's diagram?

We already know the answer - No, but they will have a passing resemblance to many.

Me? I don't think I would have any GWR livery either as I am working up a small fleet of Ratios along with a couple with Shirescenes sides.

However, maybe another livery? Southern perhaps.

.

 

I think this sums up the appeal of these carriages to some people.  Not accurate enough for their main interest, but maybe good enough for to fill in for a minor one

[Edwardian]

Well, I think I have hinted that my purchases, which I hope would run to a couple of train's worth, would be for use as freelance carriages, but with an eye to further purchases where conversion to a real coach seems feasible; after all, people for decades have been finding inventive ways to convert the old Triang clerestories  These are broadly GW-style (but not matching any GW diagram).  I have seen them successfully converted to a variety of Southern constituent coaches over the years.  I have hacked two GWR Van Thirds to different diagrams out of them; kippering the Hattons coaches is likely to open up a number of possibilities. So I would view the Hattons coaches in that light and, as I say, they are priced reasonably enough for that. 

 

But that's just me, and I am not remotely sniffy about anyone using these OOB in whatever livery Hattons care to produce.  Quite the contrary, in fact. It's not as if anyone was queuing up to deliver these sorts of coaches for a particular railway company, so I believe that it's these or nothing if you want an RTR coach of this ilk. As I said way back on page 1, these will fulfill a need by giving the purchasers of RTR pre-Grouping locomotives something to run with their locos and encourage interest and stimulate the market. Some modellers may, as a result, get more into the period and upgrade to more specific vehicles with kits and conversions in time.  Many others won't, and that's fine too, but, in any case, these approximation rakes will look a lot better than a string of Mark Is behind many RTR locos!  Perhaps these are the Exleys for our generation.  

[James Harrison]

Well, looking at my current roster of coaching stock, I'm hard-pressed to find any that bear more than a "close enough according to a blind man on a racehorse on a dark night" resemblance to exact prototypes.  I've got re-roofed Triang clerestories masquerading as GCR suburban stock.  I've got 1970s OO Graham Farish and Mainline carriages with matchboarding scratched onto the sides passing as Robinson mainline rakes.  I'm sure those last two sentences have just thrown some hair-shirted types into an apopleptic fit but so what?- they're my models, it's my railway, and they look convincing enough to me.  Anyone who diasgrees can feel free to keep their opinion to themselves, unless of course they've modelled the same subject as me (post-WWI GCR) and done it better.  I am tired (actually sick to death) of everytime a new product is announced 'the usual suspects' (usually those who by their chosen scale/ subject/ ambitions are well outside of the target audience) start their sniping that it's not good enough and anyone who buys it is not a proper modeller/ just playing trains/ not worthy/ bringing the hobby into direpute.  Anyway.    

 

So in that vein these carriages will fit in with the rest of my 'stuff' and I'm looking forward to seeing them in the flesh.  Would it be possible to have an unfinished or unpainted option made available too, as I would be wanting GCR teak/ oak and I'm not sure I'd have the heart to obliterate a perfectly acceptable existing finish.  

[RailwayRibaldry]

15 minutes ago, James Harrison said:

Well, looking at my current roster of coaching stock, I'm hard-pressed to find any that bear more than a "close enough according to a blind man on a racehorse on a dark night" resemblance to exact prototypes.  I've got re-roofed Triang clerestories masquerading as GCR suburban stock.  I've got 1970s OO Graham Farish and Mainline carriages with matchboarding scratched onto the sides passing as Robinson mainline rakes.  I'm sure those last two sentences have just thrown some hair-shirted types into an apopleptic fit but so what?- they're my models, it's my railway, and they look convincing enough to me.  Anyone who diasgrees can feel free to keep their opinion to themselves, unless of course they've modelled the same subject as me (post-WWI GCR) and done it better.  I am tired (actually sick to death) of everytime a new product is announced 'the usual suspects' (usually those who by their chosen scale/ subject/ ambitions are well outside of the target audience) start their sniping that it's not good enough and anyone who buys it is not a proper modeller/ just playing trains/ not worthy/ bringing the hobby into direpute.  Anyway.    

 

So in that vein these carriages will fit in with the rest of my 'stuff' and I'm looking forward to seeing them in the flesh.  Would it be possible to have an unfinished or unpainted option made available too, as I would be wanting GCR teak/ oak and I'm not sure I'd have the heart to obliterate a perfectly acceptable existing finish.  

 

I couldn't agree more, James. It strikes me that if the accuracy police want to be taken seriously they should lay their track to prototypical radii. 6-wheelers put a whole new slant on that. Let's face it, I started with TINPLATE Hornby Dublo, printed windows and details. I want to derive satisfaction PLAYING with my trains. That makes me wonder, when does a toy graduate to a model? 

[PhilJ W]

Might I suggest another body style? An invalid/family saloon or with an open veranda at one end as an inspection saloon. Though I can see many reaching for the razor saw when these become available.

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, James Harrison said:

Well, looking at my current roster of coaching stock, I'm hard-pressed to find any that bear more than a "close enough according to a blind man on a racehorse on a dark night" resemblance to exact prototypes.  I've got re-roofed Triang clerestories masquerading as GCR suburban stock.  I've got 1970s OO Graham Farish and Mainline carriages with matchboarding scratched onto the sides passing as Robinson mainline rakes.  I'm sure those last two sentences have just thrown some hair-shirted types into an apopleptic fit but so what?- they're my models, it's my railway, and they look convincing enough to me.  Anyone who diasgrees can feel free to keep their opinion to themselves, unless of course they've modelled the same subject as me (post-WWI GCR) and done it better.  I am tired (actually sick to death) of everytime a new product is announced 'the usual suspects' (usually those who by their chosen scale/ subject/ ambitions are well outside of the target audience) start their sniping that it's not good enough and anyone who buys it is not a proper modeller/ just playing trains/ not worthy/ bringing the hobby into direpute.  Anyway.    

 

 

And good work you do, James.

 

And did not Peter Denny convert GCR clerestories out of those Triangs?  He even made them to a slightly less inaccurate track gauge!

 

Well, if it was good enough for him ....

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, RailwayRibaldry said:

 

It strikes me that if the accuracy police want to be taken seriously they should lay their track to prototypical radii. 6-wheelers put a whole new slant on that. 

 

 

Any model seeking to depict the real railway involves some compromise. The question everyone has to decide for themselves is, what compromises are they happy to settle for? I've accepted the compromises involved in 00 but that choice of gauge etc. does not, it seems to me, dictate any particular compromise on the appearance of my models above solebar level, shall we say. Any compromises there are down to my limited modelling skills.

[RLWP]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Any model seeking to depict the real railway involves some compromise. 

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

[Denbridge]

On 11/10/2019 at 20:22, Nearholmer said:

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 .......

The success of the P class in preservation shows they were far from "next to useless" numbers 27 and 323 kept the Bluebell railway alive in its early days. They have proven themselves to be extremely strong and capable machines for their size and confounded the historical experts in service.

[Budgie]

20 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

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).
 

 

Sorry, my mistake, you are right.

[Budgie]

37 minutes ago, RLWP said:

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Who drives the trains in EM and P4? When a train stops in your station, how do the passengers get in and out of the carriages? I could go on listing more and more compromises, but I would much rather play with my OO train-set, which gives me great pleasure as an impression of a raiway in 1:76.2 (or thereabouts) size.

[Zunnan]

2 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

 

Material thickness tolerances, increased clearances for valve gear on steam locomotives, over width on splashers and outside frames to allow for extra lateral play on axles. Just some of the problems encountered when trying to build a Midland 700 class. Very difficult to keep it to key dimensions in P4, but just about doable with EM and the tender has to be compromised full stop due to the limitations of brass and nickel as a construction material, you simply can't get the suspension in and sitting correctly without compromising.

[melmerby]

8 hours ago, Bedders said:

 

I think this sums up the appeal of these carriages to some people.  Not accurate enough for their main interest, but maybe good enough for to fill in for a minor one

If i hadn't started on a rake of Ratios I would probably be looking at some to approximate to a GWR branch train.

As i said a few in Maunsell Green wouldn't go amiss.

[Robin Brasher]

I have heard that another well known manufacturer is planning to produce some four and six wheel London, Brighton and South Coast Railway coaches to match their Terrier tanks.  If I was modelling that railway I would probably buy those coaches in preference to Hattons' generic coaches. This rumour may have no basis but different firms can identify a gap in the market and produce similar items.

 

As my main interest is in the London and South Western Railway and its successors I will be perfectly happy with Hattons' generic coaches which are a considerable improvement on Hornby's well painted four wheel coaches and the Hatton's coaches will be sold at a reasonable price.

 

Darstaed did produce some tin plate generic six wheel and eight wheel generic pre-grouping coaches in 0 gauge which sold very well and I think they are now sold out so I expect Hattons' coaches will also sell well.

 

 

[PhilJ W]

39 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If i hadn't started on a rake of Ratios I would probably be looking at some to approximate to a GWR branch train.

As i said a few in Maunsell Green wouldn't go amiss.

This highlights a slight drawback of a genetic model. If you run stock on your layout representing two different companies you need to have a few more differences other than livery. They only have to be small differences, the easiest would be the type and amount of light fittings, as proposed by Hattons. But other items such as step boards and grab handles could also be changed.

[wombatofludham]

7 hours ago, RailwayRibaldry said:

 That makes me wonder, when does a toy graduate to a model? 

 

Never.  Children's toys graduate to more expensive, more detailed and fragile toys but they are adult toys nonetheless.  And so what?  I play with trains.  I don't give a monkey's what people think of that.  Compared to spending thousands to sit in a draughty shed watching 22 multi-millionaires have a kick-about on a lawn whilst eating mechanically recovered meat products, always under the risk of the added frisson of possibly getting into a fight with some other tribal fans, playing trains seems positively grown up, especially as for many it involves some sort of craft or creativity even if they are avid RTR and RTP users.

Actually that's given me an idea for a passive-aggressive teeshirt to wear at next year's Dolgellau exhibition season. 

"I play trains.  Get over it" 

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

Electric motor in the loco, dummy cylinders that are just along for the ride, out-of-scale axle-loading...

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

 

Actually that's given me an idea for a passive-aggressive teeshirt to wear at next year's Dolgellau exhibition season. 

"I play trains.  Get over it" 

I always liked the one for the long-suffering 'er indoors : "My husband collects trains. Pray for me!"

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, RailwayRibaldry said:

 

when does a toy graduate to a model? 

 

I'm regretting starting to think about that...

 

Should stick to model railways at my age.

[Hitchin Junction]

7 hours ago, RailwayRibaldry said:

 

I couldn't agree more, James. It strikes me that if the accuracy police want to be taken seriously they should lay their track to prototypical radii. 6-wheelers put a whole new slant on that. Let's face it, I started with TINPLATE Hornby Dublo, printed windows and details. I want to derive satisfaction PLAYING with my trains. That makes me wonder, when does a toy graduate to a model? 

 

When it's primary purpose is to show OTHER people something.

 

Tim

[NHY 581]

20 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

When it's primary purpose is to show OTHER people something.

 

Tim

 

Maybe that's the intention but the viewer will take away what they want.......

 

If that happens to be an overall impression of a nice layout with some very nice looking six/four wheel coaches then so be it......

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

Pretty well everything, it's just the degree of compromise which makes them P4

 

 

[Hroth]

40 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

If that happens to be an overall impression of a nice layout with some very nice looking six/four wheel coaches then so be it......

 

Must make myself one of those one day!

 

Perhaps the coaches will help? 

[Hitchin Junction]

6 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

 

Richard

 

That's  easy. In S4 you can build an absolutely accurate and thus realistic model of a turnout. In P4, you can build one that's almost accurate and difficult to tell apart from the S4 version. And in EM (and 00) you can't build an accurate model one at all, because the flange ways are always too wide. All other differences/compromises follow from the flange way width issue.

 

Tim

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Hitchin Junction
extra clarity