Edwardian Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 A great deal of effort has been put in by Stephen, yielding some really worthwhile conclusions. He deserves collective thanks. And well done to Hattons for putting the designs 'out to consultation' 18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 I'm still amused that 'generics' can be "genuinely 'typical'", especially given the wide range to which they apply, and the limited range from which they come. Perhaps there's a degree of over-expectation here? 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 17, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, truffy said: I'm still amused that 'generics' can be "genuinely 'typical'", especially given the wide range to which they apply, and the limited range from which they come. Perhaps there's a degree of over-expectation here? "Typical" as in "being representative of a type"; having no feature that is strikingly odd or unusual. All things to all men. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Since Hatton's is very kindly consulting I would like to request sprung buffers, please. I grant you that it is something that would be redundant for those who use tension locks or Kadees but for the three of us (or more?) who want to use other couplings such as screw link or Dinghams on the six wheelers in particular, sprung buffers would expand the range of curves the coaches could be used on. Oh, and while I'm here, could the W irons accommodate the wider gauges too, please? Cheers, David 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 10 hours ago, Compound2632 said: As far as I can see, Hattons' design work has not yet extended beyond the sketches we have seen, so I'm thinking that at this stage there is still everything to play for to get these carriages into a shape that will be genuinely "typical". To me, that means avoiding features that look odd or unusual, rather than necessarily replicating a particular prototype exactly. That flat topped guards ducket will have to go as well, far more typical to have the curvy top, so the profile is a a curve out at the bottom and a curve back in at the top.... Andy G 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2019 7 hours ago, davknigh said: Since Hatton's is very kindly consulting I would like to request sprung buffers, please. I grant you that it is something that would be redundant for those who use tension locks or Kadees but for the three of us (or more?) who want to use other couplings such as screw link or Dinghams on the six wheelers in particular, sprung buffers would expand the range of curves the coaches could be used on. Oh, and while I'm here, could the W irons accommodate the wider gauges too, please? Cheers, David I think we also need to bear in mind that these carriages have to meet a price point - £30 isnt an awful lot, and Hattons need to make a profit on them too. Sprung may just be a bit too far. Making it easier for the owner to replace the existing buffers with their own choice of sprung buffers might not, though. 2 11 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, uax6 said: That flat topped guards ducket will have to go as well, far more typical to have the curvy top, so the profile is a a curve out at the bottom and a curve back in at the top.... Andy G That's another hornet's nest. Having looked through my "library" there isn't any typical style, every company seems to have a different pattern. Flat top, 45 degree top, single radius top, double radius top. Likewise at the bottom and not necessarily the same as the top. What about the height? anything from about a third height to full height. IMHO ducket free would be more typical as most companies seem to have had vehicles like that, they could always be added later. Edited October 18, 2019 by melmerby 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, JohnR said: I think we also need to bear in mind that these carriages have to meet a price point - £30 isnt an awful lot, and Hattons need to make a profit on them too. Sprung may just be a bit too far. Making it easier for the owner to replace the existing buffers with their own choice of sprung buffers might not, though. On most models, anyone capable of fitting screw couplings shouldn't have any real difficulty in adding sprung buffers. In this instance, it just needs Hatton's to avoid incorporating anything that makes it trickier than necessary, like dummy buffer springs. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, uax6 said: That flat topped guards ducket will have to go as well, far more typical to have the curvy top, so the profile is a a curve out at the bottom and a curve back in at the top.... Andy G 26 minutes ago, melmerby said: That's another hornet's nest. Having looked through my "library" there isn't any typical style, every company seems to have a different pattern. Flat top, 45 degree top, single radius top, double radius top. Likewise at the bottom and not necessarily the same as the top. What about the height? anything from about a third height to full height. IMHO ducket free would be more typical as most companies seem to have had vehicles like that, they could always be added later. Could not things such as duckets be produced as an add on with two possibly three different styles? Hattons are going to offer different roof furniture and battery boxes according to the type of lighting depicted. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Just now, PhilJ W said: Could not things such as duckets be produced as an add on with two possibly three different styles? Hattons are going to offer different roof furniture and battery boxes according to the type of lighting depicted. Which they then need to paint to match the various livery styles they supply them in. Supply them as sets and how do you fit them? Can of worms? Craig W 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Craigw said: Which they then need to paint to match the various livery styles they supply them in. Supply them as sets and how do you fit them? Can of worms? Craig W I meant produced already fitted to the body sides in the factory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Just now, PhilJ W said: I meant produced already fitted to the body sides in the factory. Which type though? If you have several types the variations - and the logistics of it become a nightmare. I suspect that the final result will be one type! Craig W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Saunders Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Alas it is descending into I want this and that ; that's not correct it should be like this! Sorry to say but it has became a cross between a "Camel" and the "curate's egg"! Mark Saunders 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 15 hours ago, truffy said: You make it sound so easy. Which it would be, if not for the lining. Maybe your Rule 1 impoverished Southern Railway was still running four and six-wheelers in the late thirties when they abandoned lining for panelled stock ??!? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 16 hours ago, BackRoomBoffin said: DOn't know about Mersey Rly, but here's a possible impression of a Wirral Railway train in what looks like light brown / teak... https://www.travellingartgallery.com/landscape/historic/detail/H016.html Without checking back through thirty eight pages, I don't think anyone's sketched THAT arrangement of compartments & van in the leading brake !!?! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 29 minutes ago, Craigw said: Can of worms? ... free with every order! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said: Alas it is descending into I want this and that ; that's not correct it should be like this! Sorry to say but it has became a cross between a "Camel" and the "curate's egg"! Mark Saunders I was thinking about a committee designing a horse and ending up with a camel. While it is easy to talk about common features, the reality is that very few of the railways had that many common features. Designing something from no starting point and trying to make it "typical" is a very tough thing. There have been a lot of useful points raised but deciding which to use is hard and doubtless some will not be pleased with the outcome. I have stated my dislike of generic coaches and my opinion on that has not changed but I have found the discussion on prototype features interesting. Regards, Craig W 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 One of the distinctive and prominent visible features of this kind of 8' bodywidth stock are the footboards. Typically (and thanks to Compound's figures), the width over prototype boards is between 8'8" and 8'11". In model terms, there is a potential overhang problem on curves, more so with the longer 6-wheelers. Hattons has chosen a very conservative 8', which is understandable to an extent, but it leaves precious little of the footboard remaining, particularly when bearing in mind the necessarily overscale thickness of a model solebar. As a comparison, Hornby felt confident enough to adopt 8'6" footboards on its AA15 Toad, which is of comparable length to these 4-wheelers. The footboard width cannot of course be divorced from positioning of the solebar. In this respect, Hattons has fortunately chosen a metal solebar. This is not so much as an 'anti wooden solebar' stance, but a reflection of the necessity of being able to get model wheelsets in and out of model W-irons. There is scope for more finessing in this matter for bearing slotting underneath the axlebox, but on balance, I think Hattons has made a reasonable pragmatic choice of 23.8 for the dimension between W-iron faces. For the 4-wheelers therefore, I feel Hattons could push the boat out a bit and go for a 8'8" footboard width. The 6-wheelers however present a different and far more problematic situation. The longer footboards, if kept at 8'8" width, would inevitably cause significant loading gauge infringements on 2nd radius curves. Bevelling off the fronts of footboards at their ends, which was a dodge many companies were forced to adopt (primarily on bogie vehicles) as platforms began to be raised up to a standard 3' above rail level in the late Victorian and early Edwardian eras, looks a bit naff on 6-wheel stock, especially if the model footboards are undernourished in the first place. For the 6-wheelers, I would suggest Hatton's choice of 8' footboards is probably a lot safer. On the 6-wheelers, the other pressure on the solebar and axlebox spacing is the sideplay requirement on the middle axle. On 2nd radius (438mm) curves, the versine over a 21' wheelbase is approx 2.3mm. This is really bad news, alleviated only by the natural slop (say 0.75mm) an 00 wheelset has on a 16.5 TG. Either way, the sideplay requirement, on both sides of the chassis, is probably not less than 1.5mm. As currently envisaged, there is no way a 26mm pinpoint can move laterally 1.5mm further into the middle axleboxes on either side. Even if there was more lateral space, any pinpoint axle would have little or no vertical restraint as it moved laterally, and would therefore be derailing at the slightest excuse. The easiest solution would probably be a couple of weak cantilever springs bearing down on the middle axle just inboard of the wheel centre. I have no idea whether Hattons envisage their footboards might be part of the chassis moulding, or will be moulded separately and 'added on'. The former approach looks horrible around axleboxes, but is cheaper of course. Your expectation of what you are going to get for your £30 is a pertinent factor here. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) One way round 2nd radius curves would be to use an inside-bearing Cleminson arrangement, although this would increase the end overthrow as the effective wheelbase would be the distance between the Cleminson pivot points - say 2/3 - 3/4 of the actual wheelbase. The NEM socket would be part of the Cleminson inside bearing unit, which would be an advantage in keeping the coupling nearer the centre line of the track. On the other hand, Hornby's solution (with the Palethorpes sausage / LMS milk van) of a floating centre axleguard / spring unit, whilst hideous in their implementation, might be doable if obscured by the footboards. A dodge used on some prototype designs was to attach the centre axleguard to the outside of the solebar. On the model, this would allow for thinner axlebox/spring, increasing the width available for the centre axle unit to slide. @Miss Prism, thank you for drawing attention to the steel solebar solecism - wood would be much more typical. If there's one thing we're growing to understand from this thread, it's why this hasn't been attempted before! Edited October 18, 2019 by Compound2632 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Even from here I can hear @Hattons Dave muttering "I don't know why we bother!" 2 4 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: @Miss Prism, thank you for drawing attention to the steel solebar solecism - wood would be much more typical. Accepted, particularly for the 4-wheelers, but wood doesn't do any favours on the model front - either the rear position of the solebar has to be compromised, or the front has to be compromised. The former makes the W-iron situation worse and the latter makes the footboard situation worse. The lateral position of the footboard hangers is also a tricky compromise setting, but we won't know much more about this until Hattons reveals its cross-sectional detail. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) On real carriages, the spacing of the axleguards and inner faces of the solebars is independent of the solebar material and is determined by the journal centres. For a steel solebar, the bottom flange has to be wide enough to support the spring shoe / J-hanger casting, which in practice means it has to be as wide as a typical wooden solebar, say 4.5" - 5". If I understand correctly, what @Miss Prism is suggesting is that modelling a steel solebar would enable the position of the axleguards to be fudged, bringing them further apart - presumably at the expense of skimping on the depth of the spring and axlebox. But that's a fudge that can be done just as well modelling a wooden solebar. Edited October 18, 2019 by Compound2632 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Saunders Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 For a steel chassis see this link. https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsrailwaywagonphotographs/e540b3a6a Mark Saunders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted October 18, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2019 27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: One way round 2nd radius curves would be to use an inside-bearing Cleminson arrangement, although this would increase the end overthrow as the effective wheelbase would be the distance between the Cleminson pivot points - say 2/3 - 3/4 of the actual wheelbase. The NEM socket would be part of the Cleminson inside bearing unit, which would be an advantage in keeping the coupling nearer the centre line of the track. On the other hand, Hornby's solution (with the Palethorpes sausage / LMS milk van) of a floating centre axleguard / spring unit, whilst hideous in their implementation, might be doable if obscured by the footboards. A dodge used on some prototype designs was to attach the centre axleguard to the outside of the solebar. On the model, this would allow for thinner axlebox/spring, increasing the width available for the centre axle unit to slide. @Miss Prism, thank you for drawing attention to the steel solebar solecism - wood would be much more typical. If there's one thing we're growing to understand from this thread, it's why this hasn't been attempted before! I've always considered that the least troublesome solution to r-t-r 6-wheelers is probably the old dodge of having the axle at one end fixed with the remaining two mounted on an inside-frame bogie that can turn within the axleguards. The wheels only need to move by +/- a couple of mm to deal with No.2 curves. Just avoid the dog's breakfast that Dapol employed on the Stove R they did for Hornby Magazine please Hatton's. That was completely compromised in appearance by fitting undersize wheels in order to create about five times more flexibility than anyone needs. John 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: presumably at the expense of skimping on the width of the spring and axlebox. Yes, a bit of that, but the biggest skimping is on the width of the footboards. There's lot of fudging needed on every lateral. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts