Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wombatofludham said:

 

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" 

Get it right - 22 so-called grown men kicking a bag of wind around a rough old field

 

Stewart

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

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

 

You forgot to mention that the P4 turnout will work but the S4 turnout will not.:jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zunnan said:

 

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.

Having designed a number of 4mm etched loco, carriage and wagon kits, I have found that there are compromises for all three 4mm gauges and, for locos, the compromises for OO and to a lesser degree EM, are the greatest.

24 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

You forgot to mention that the P4 turnout will work but the S4 turnout will not.:jester:

 

There are several modellers who have built S4 layouts, including Ray Hammond, who have proved otherwise.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Any chance another gauge war could have a thread all to itself rather than clutter up an already busy thread about these carriages?

 

It has been done to death and back again many times on RMWeb but if folk really want to do it again, it really doesn't have to be here, does it?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, t-b-g said:

Any chance another gauge war could have a thread all to itself rather than clutter up an already busy thread about these carriages?

 

It has been done to death and back again many times on RMWeb but if folk really want to do it again, it really doesn't have to be here, does it?

 

I actually launched as a reminder that even the most fervent modeller has to make compromises. It's the amount of compromise you are prepared to accept that probably separates us all

 

My compromises don't extend to pretend L&NWR carriages, it's completely OK with me if other people do

 

Richard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve only just caught up with this thread. A lot of opinion, but the majority of it is positive, which is my shared view. Hattons should be commended, I think this will tick several boxes for a lot of modellers - I’ve been looking for quite a while at ways of getting/creating a couple of 6 wheelers a’la the ones on the Mid-Suffolk that survived until 1952. Therefore the LNER brown versions will be perfect, and I shall have a brake and a composite.

 

I do think some of the hand-wringing about the generic nature of these to be mildly amusing, considering the vast majority of us don’t model real locations, and actually loosely model a freelance/generic location in a certain region and era - similar to the principles behind the choice to make these generic coaches in different company/regional liveries!

  • Like 7
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2019 at 09:35, cctransuk said:

 

The Hachette Mk.1 was a model of an actual coach, which was not dimensionally compromised.

 

The compromise was in the level of detail, which could easily be improved; it will not be easy at all to turn a model of a non-existent coach into one of an actual prototype.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

It may be reasonably straightforward to fit etched sides for a 30' or 30'1" LNWR coach to a 30' donor vehicle. What amendments might need to be made to the underframe I don't know - it might be useful to know whether such etched sides already exist, and what the issues are with the relevant underframe designs. Six wheel underframes have a reputation for not being the easiest things to get to work, so I can see some obvious benefits to going down this route

[Unfortunately I've now spotted that the Hatton's 6 wheelers will be 32' . Which knocks the LNWR on the head. What lengths were GE 6 wheelers??]

 

Shirescenes etched sides for Ratio kits are the obvious parallel

 

The Hachette Mk1 had question marks over its side profile, and one or two posters were making "wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" remarks in the relevant thread. I bought one, hacked out the solid trussing and replaced with an NNK plastic truss. But that was for my steam age fleet , which is strictly an exercise in giving various kettles acquired for sundry reasons a chance to do some useful work - what David Jenkinson classed as "funny trains" and well outside the layout's actual period. It doesn't have to run with my "proper" blue and grey Bachmann Mk1s , and I was out of work at the time...

 

I can see some similarities - with people having acquired engines in pretty pre-grouping liveries which can now run occasionally with a train. In particular I can see a sudden surge in Edwardian Kentish branchlines - Birdcage stock was very much mainline stock when built , and with the Hattons P, Hornby H and Bachmann C a SECR branchline is now very much on... Similarly, there is now a distinct possibility of building an Edwardian South London suburban layout - and something like that would need quite a few coaches to support intensive operations.

 

The GE still needs RTR Buckjumpers and preferably Gobblers before a similar operation north of the Thames comes into view . But when it does, you'll need plenty of coaches - 4 etched brass kits really won't cut it if you're trying to represent any GE suburban operation

 

And a lot of GN Singles and Met Bo-Bos have been sold. Whatever the question marks over this stock, there's nothing even half way sensible to run behind those locos - unless you're willing to contemplate cardboard Chesham stock

Edited by Ravenser
Hatton's proposed coaches will be 32' long not 30'
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

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.

 

 

If true, that might explain why Hattons don't seem to be proposing an LBSCR livery for their generic coaches at present...

  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

And a lot of GN Singles and Met Bo-Bos have been sold. Whatever the question marks over this stock, there's nothing even half way sensible to run behind those locos - unless you're willing to contemplate cardboard Chesham stock

 

Locomotion have said that they were looking at doing rolling stock for the single (and doubtless C1 for that matter). This could actually kill Locomotion from engaging resources to produce accurate models. That said the cost of accurate models might kill it anyway. 

Met Bo-Bos were seen with warwells. An issue with this class is the need for 4 rails, so you end up with a layout that is totally dedicated to the met. Someone going that far might do accurate stock. Still these are good stand ins. Sarah Siddons rail on 3 rail with mk 1s in the 80s so there are ways for people to run the model realistically.

I'm for an SECR batch as stand ins until I can build or do something better. Though not sure if I need  all15 stand ins that are currently proposed. 8 should be suffice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

And a lot of GN Singles and Met Bo-Bos have been sold. Whatever the question marks over this stock, there's nothing even half way sensible to run behind those locos - unless you're willing to contemplate cardboard Chesham stock

Something like these?

metropolitan004.jpg.2bbfa162f2ab9c4f528d96bda1bbaded.jpg

Complete with a Bo-Bo before they were re-imagined.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

And a lot of GN Singles and Met Bo-Bos have been sold. Whatever the question marks over this stock, there's nothing even half way sensible to run behind those locos - unless you're willing to contemplate cardboard Chesham stock

there is a lot more kits about for the MET

Jubliee Stock

5874077096_ba8ee07fcc_c.jpg4mm Metropolitan Rly Jubliee stock by brian mosby, on Flickr

 

Dreadnought Stock

5552579359_89ae0b7442_c.jpg4mm Metropolitan Rly Dreadnought 7 compartment Brake 3rd built from the Radley Models kit a by brian mosby, on Flickr

 

Ashbury Coach

5552578109_c1b9129f5b_c.jpg4mm Metropolitan Rly Ashbury Coach set built from the London Road kit by brian mosby, on Flickr

 

Metropolitan Rly & London Transport Models built by Me

 

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to throw my view in, but haven't had the time to a) read through the thread, and b) actually compose a post of my own. Don't expect anything revolutionary though!

 

My initial thoughts on hearing the announcement were of the 'meh' variety. I could see it had potential, and obviously a market, but it just didn't leap up at me screaming 'buy me!' I was however curious as to what the coaches would look like, being generic and if there would be any potential uses further down the road.

 

After reading through the full announcement post and the first few responses I was still luke warm to the prospect, but then a post caught my attention. One way back in the early stages mentioned the representative train that the LNER ran with Stirling Single No1. Now, this was formed from genuine ex-GNR stock with the appropriate roof shape and such, but, it was a generic train. A quick check highlighted that the vehicle types are all covered by the Hattons range. 'Oh dear' says my wallet, though at present I've got nowhere to run them, so I've not succumbed to a pre order just yet!

 

I've thought of a couple of other useful applications for the vehicles too, so may add several over time. A nice, detailed pair to run with a certain blue North Western tanks engine for starters!

 

Anyhow, I've also been confused by the other side of the thread's fence and all the negativity coming from it. Now, there has been some very useful advice and ideas offered, and it's great to see this being taken on board and the drawing being ammended. There has also been some completely pointless and thoroughly unhelpful interjections. I can see for example why people would want an actual range of genuine coaches as opposed to a generic one, but then which do you choose? It's all very well and good saying 'produce the London, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Shrewsbury coaches and then just pump them out in other liveries'. Sure, one group is happy, but then the Altrincham, Rotherham, Maidstone & Scarborough modellers won't be interested as their stock never had the specific double beading on the second door from the left. It's also not often that an item of stock is released that everyoneis happy with, so if it isn't spot on, then both the ARMS and LEGS loose out. 

 

If Hornby announce that they are only going to produce their Stainer period 3 coaches from now on, but just throw other company liveries would that wash with those who are bemoaning Hattons for their decision? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer!

 

There are also railway companies where kits are no longer easily available, NER and GNR spring straight to mind (from my own experience) so having something even not 100% accurate is definitely better than nothing!

 

On the whole, I welcome the announcement after reading into it and thinking it over. I'm pretty sure I'll be acquiring some eventually, but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing them develop. I'm also intrigued by the SECR D and the LNWR Precedent from the formations diagram! Put me down for one of each of them!

 

Cheers

 

J

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken, more than a few GCR modelers have been happy to use repainted Triang clerestories. The give a good impression of the equivalent GCR coaches. Are they accurate models of anything. NO. (Not even GWR) But short of spending way too much money and effort on hard to build kits, they allow us to recreate an impression of something long before any of us were born.

 

You could say the same of many private owner wagons. The liveries do not necessarily match the exact wagon types. Or the liveries may not be correct either, considering that the source material in many cases is a black and white photo on orthochromatic film.

 

Yes, I can and do build kits, and have a large library of all best reference books. (Thank you Internet).

 

But since I am probably not going to live to 150, I shall be purchasing quite a few of these where they match the general panelling style of the railway in question.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, sparaxis said:

If I am not mistaken, more than a few GCR modelers have been happy to use repainted Triang clerestories. The give a good impression of the equivalent GCR coaches. Are they accurate models of anything. NO. (Not even GWR) But short of spending way too much money and effort on hard to build kits, they allow us to recreate an impression of something long before any of us were born.

 

 

I believe Peter Denny did when they first came out. Indeed, wasnt one of the reasons he chose to model the GCR in the first place was that there would be fewer "rivet counters" to spot his mistakes?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2019 at 09:44, Nick Holliday said:

I rediscovered on my hard drive a series of railway company drawings that I had acquired some time ago.  I thought they fitted this generic design exercise quite well.  Perhaps the experts can tell which company they belong to?

412280157_allthird.JPG.f321694ae670d334054f1cf8e79b8600.JPG

Note that, as with several companies, the full third is shorter than the other designs - you don't want your third class passengers to get used to large compartments.  Some managed to squeeze six compartments into 32' or so!

1561341704_allbrake.JPG.772f553fdbd1544c4a55193170b3114d.JPG

I thought I'd throw this last one in, just to show how things might be mixed and matched - a lavatory composite, with luggage compartment and coupe end compartments to boot!

2086115448_allmixed.JPG.ffaad3e826aead64ff18e6939d7b59ba.JPG

 

Nobody seems to have been tempted to stick their neck out and try to identify these yet - which makes me wonder whether Hattons could have made accurate copies of something like these ( except, perhaps the twin coupe luggage composite which is a real oddball ) and had exactly the same reaction from both sides of the generic/non-generic fence without having the bother of inventing something themselves. If they hadn't TOLD anyone what these were nobody would have known - except those in the know, of course.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, mozzer models said:

What period are these all teak coaches for?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mozzer models said:

 

 

I was aware of the Radley Models Dreadnoughts - though I think they retail at about £70 for a kit? They are resin -which implies pretty low production volumes  - but I wasn't certain if they were currently available. Resin kits tend to come and go in small batches. 

 

You'd probably want at least 4 to give a sensible train for a Met Bo-Bo. Have these sold like hot cakes since Heljan released the MetroVick Bo-Bo?

 

I wasn't aware of the etched kits, but these do provide a genuine test of some of the theories being floated here... Have London Road Models seen good sales of the Ashbury kits since Heljan released the locos? There are Met loco kits from SE Finecast, so there ought to be a market for stock they can pull.

 

If there aren't strong sales of the MET coach kits now I don't think Hattons coaches will be undercutting the kit market. I have a suspicion that most of SE Finecast loco kits sold are for 1950s LT layouts

 

We don't see Met layouts (I did once sketch an adaptation of a CJF plan to represent a Met outer suburban terminus at Oxford with representative goods interchange to GW , as if the Brill branch had really been carried through to Oxford as hoped for..but concluded the work involved in building the stock was totally impractical for me, never mind the space..) . But Brill is iconic , Verney Jnc legendary - yet no layouts..

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 08:34, Skinnylinny said:

 

Now there's an excellent idea - A small detailing sprue of brake pipes, a vac cylinder, a Westinghouse cylinder, a gas tank (for gas-lit carriages), a battery box (for electrically-lit examples), maybe even a tail lamp? With moulded locating holes in the bottom of the floor. Another advantage being that all of these parts would likely be moulded in unpainted black plastic (possibly a blast of white paint for the tail lamp, though this could be left to the modeller).

 

Might even be a neat thing to sell as a separate accessory for those looking to detail up their Hornby 4-wheelers/Triang clerestories/Bachmann red coaches etc.

 

(I await the inevitable "what's the point of that?" reply that shows up whenever anyone mentions improving the Hornby 4-wheeler)

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

 

1) Those whose interests lie in pre grouping modelling, to the best possible fidelity, and who had by embarking on their chosen subject more or less accepted they would have to kit build, or scratch build, or at best kit bash, generally have received the announcement with disappointment, but in reality are no worse off.
 

 

I have a theory whereby a lot of us are looking for something truly unique for our layouts or a layout based on some period/place outside the RTR mainstream that would be truly unique. Odd prototype locos have been in demand for years but once an R-T-R model is done, it ceases being truly unique. Thousands of people now have a Garrett or DP2 so running one at a show is no longer as eye catching when there were only kits.

Pre-grouping is an area spoilt for choice - and spoilt for superb liveries, is  largely untouched by RTR, so if suddenly RTR is filling a gap, pre grouping may not look so unique anymore. But still what exists in RTR barely scratches the surface of pre grouping and being unique is quite feasible although maybe instead of seeing just one or 2 layouts at a show representing some old pre grouping company, we now have several, one finely made with kits and scratch building, the others using RTR.

That said I suspect BR and modern image will still dominate especially given that grouping layouts are not as common as BR ones. In the end, I suspect we will see the odd preserved pre grouping train appearing on  BR or later layout and the true pre-grouping layout being a rare beast.

 

I want to do a true SECR layout but - seriously - from RTR it is not possible. Full Wainwright livery had all but gone when Bachmann's birdcages appeared and we are left with locos in a simple grey livery. Many wagon kits represent types from around 1920 and are not too different to many SR versions. There are other kits out there. But it will take time to gather and build them. As I said before, these will make nice stand-ins for the various RTR locos we now have.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Have London Road Models seen good sales of the Ashbury kits since Heljan released the locos? There are Met loco kits from SE Finecast, so there ought to be a market for stock they can pull.

 

If there aren't strong sales of the MET coach kits now I don't think Hattons coaches will be undercutting the kit market. I have a suspicion that most of SE Finecast loco kits sold are for 1950s LT layouts

 

We don't see Met layouts (I did once sketch an adaptation of a CJF plan to represent a Met outer suburban terminus at Oxford with representative goods interchange to GW , as if the Brill branch had really been carried through to Oxford as hoped for..but concluded the work involved in building the stock was totally impractical for me, never mind the space..) . But Brill is iconic , Verney Jnc legendary - yet no layouts..

 

London Road Models haven't, AFAIK, seen any significant impact on coach kit sales following any RTR pre-group locomotive introduction, with the exception of the L&Y six wheel carriages when the  Bachmann 2-4-2T became available. The L&Y coaches had a simpler two tone livery with little or no lining, more readily achieved than that of the LNWR or MR.

 

My experience, through conversations with modellers over the years, either when displaying London Road or with LRM at shows, is that "complex" lined liveries are a significant deterrent to building coach kits. I think that is supported by the initial reaction to Hattons Genesis coaches, where people are willing to accept a generic carriage design that is already painted with a "difficult" livery and to (presumably) the level of finish achieved on RTR locos.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...