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

[Pint of Adnams]

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:36, Ravenser said:

It would be useful to have some references for the GC Section and GN Section or the LNER Scottish Area (or indeed somewhere other than the GE in Essex...)  as they clearly had much more 6 wheel stock left in 1934 than the GE.

The GER brought by far and away the most coaching stock to the LNER Grouping party and its 6-wheel stock was still running into the 1950s. The biggest inroads into the ex-GE 4- and 6-wheelers were made in the late 1930s with the introduction of Gresley steel-panelled stock to and for the GE Section.

[Ravenser]

31 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

The GER brought by far and away the most coaching stock to the LNER Grouping party and its 6-wheel stock was still running into the 1950s. The biggest inroads into the ex-GE 4- and 6-wheelers were made in the late 1930s with the introduction of Gresley steel-panelled stock to and for the GE Section.

 

I would have thought the biggest inroads would have been made in the mid 20s with Quint-Arts replacing the disintegrating suburban fleet?

 

While I believe the GE was the only LNER constituent where passengers accounted for more than 50% of revenue, was their carriage fleet that much bigger than the GN or the NER? The GN had substantial London suburban interests too

[Compound2632]

On 24/10/2019 at 20:25, Ravenser said:

Harris , LNER Coaches (Amadeus Press Huddersfield for Atlantic, Penryn, 1995) reports under 1933 CBP:

 

  "It was agreed to build five trains of Tourist stock, in part replacement of GN four-wheelers that had been used for excursions"

 

and under 1935 CBP :

 

"There was no doubt that some of the carriage stock of the LNER was in dire need of renewal. A special meeting.... was held at Kings Cross on 6 November 1934 with Gresley as chairman, This was to consider the replacement of all four and six-wheeled stock by the end of 1936 except for "third-rate branch lines, miners' and workmans' trains". On completion of the 1934 breaking-up programme there would still be 247 four-wheeled and 2,632 six-wheeled carriages"

 

The position by Area and Section is then reported:   

 

NE Area - no 4 or 6 wheeled stock

GE Section - 4 wheeled stock being broken up. 130 x 6-wheeled coaches in booked workings, more as loose stock

GC Section - after completion of the 1934 breaking programme  588 six-wheeled coaches, 276 of them in booked workings

GN Section - 527 6-wheeled coaches after completion of 1934 breaking programme

Southern Scottish Area - 272 x 6-wheelers, 78 in booked workings

Northern Scottish Area - 301 x 6-wheelers and 24 x 4-wheelers. 112 6-wheelers and 23 four-wheelers still oil-lit

 

( Harris, Chapter 3 , p27-8)

 

It's striking just how much 6-wheeled stock there was on the GN and GC Sections and in Scotland at this late date

 

 

41 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

The GER brought by far and away the most coaching stock to the LNER Grouping party and its 6-wheel stock was still running into the 1950s. The biggest inroads into the ex-GE 4- and 6-wheelers were made in the late 1930s with the introduction of Gresley steel-panelled stock to and for the GE Section.

 

2 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I would have thought the biggest inroads would have been made in the mid 20s with Quint-Arts replacing the disintegrating suburban fleet?

 

While I believe the GE was the only LNER constituent where passengers accounted for more than 50% of revenue, was their carriage fleet that much bigger than the GN or the NER? The GN had substantial London suburban interests too

 

Trying to reconcile these posts - does not compute? The data @Ravenser quotes from Harris indicates that the largest number of 6-wheelers still in service (booked workings) at the end of 1934 were either on the GN (no figures for number in booked workings) or the GC section (though this does not necessarily imply that these were ex-GN or ex-GC carriages), with comparatively few on the GE section (given the size of the GE system).

 

What surprised me there was the complete elimination of 6-wheelers from the NE section, given the 1,400-odd 32 ft 6-wheelers built from 1881 onwards. But the NER was the only really prosperous company in the LNE group; it's quite possible that, working on a 20 - 25 year service life, the NE had replaced a great many of them before 1923 - over 1,000 bogie clerestory carriages were built 1895-1906, along with 244 arc-roofed bogie carriages and 778 elliptical-roofed bogie carriages from 1906 on. That's a lot of carriages. If the Great Eastern had the largest carriage fleet, the North Eastern must have been running it a close second?

 

Ref. J.B. Dawson et al., North Eastern Record Vol. 2 (HMRS, 1997). 

[Ravenser]

Some GC and GN references:

 

Oakwood's LP154 The Spilsby to Firsby Railway by AJ Ludlam (Oxford, 1985) had three relevant shots, though two are 19th century.

 

At P4 we have a fine glass-plate side view of a train at Spilsby station dated 1886 with a Sturrock large 2-2-2 hauling four GN four wheelers , and details are given on p21 : 3 compartment birdcage brake 3rd no 414, luggage composite 1293 (built 1872 withdrawn 1892), 5 compartment all third 1647 (built 1875, withdrawn 1898), and another 3 compartment birdcage brake 3rd (built 1875, withdrawn 1891). These are arc-roofed carriages though the waist panelling seems deeper in GN style. No idea of lengths 

 

At p20 there is another photo, dated 1890, with a Sturrock 0-4-2WT hauling six-wheelers:  a pair of 33' 10 3/4" brake thirds built before 1884 sandwich a composite with end luggage compartment, 35'3" long on 24'4" wheelbase built 1881. These have the typical GN flat roof with round corner profile.

 

An interwar photo, undated, shows what appear to be a pair of 4 compartment brakes with GN roof profile , (brake 3rds?) hauled by a C12 (I think...) These must be 6 wheelers. A third coach is parked in the loop, again with GN flat roof profile. My guess is that the allocated branch set in the 1920s/30s was much the same as that shown in the 1890 photograph, though the actual vehicles would probably have been built a decade or more later than those seen in the earlier photo. No meaningful comment can be made about the exact finish of the coaches - the photo was quite possibly taken with a Box Brownie (it features one of the branch's firemen)

 

This branch lost its passenger service on 1st Sept 1939 as a war emergency measure and never regained it. Ludlam makes no comment on vehicles used in the 1930s or whether bogie stock was ever introduced

 

Finally there is a rough but very early photo from 1869 showing a rebuilt Sharpie 2-2-2WT hauling three very archaic three compartment four wheelers. This shows something far earlier than we have been discussing - these coaches might have been bought for the opening of the GN in 1850

 

Oakwood's Louth Mablethorpe & Willoughby Loop LP162 - Ludlam , Oxford 1987 adds a little material:

 

A photo on p 25 shows "LNER Camping Coach at Theddlethorpe" - a former 5 compartment all third 6 wheeler with arc roof and torpedo vents. Slight rounded top corners to the windows, but could be taken as square. Think this might be ex GC, and might be approximated with a Hattons coach. P27 shows "A peak arrival at Mablethorpe in LNER days" - this seems to be made up of GN 6 wheelers, with a 4 compartment brake nearest and a 5 compartment all ?3rd next. Two more short carriages visible. Confirmation that these old coaches were being used for excursion and holiday trains.

 

P38 - D2 4379 at Sutton on Sea in 1927 . A bogie lavatory composite is followed by two 5 compartment 6-wheelers, ex GN, and a ? 6 wheeler, possibly full brake, with what looks like a central ducket. A 1945 view at Sutton shows what looks to me like a pair of GN 6 wheelers rebuilt as an articulated pair (5 compt + 4 compt brake) between a 9 compt all 3rd (ex GC?) and a bogie brake ?third behind the inevitable C12

 

Oakwood's LP198 Railways to New Holland & the Humber Ferries (Ludlam again - Oxford 1996) has several photos . On p69 there are three photos of trains standing at Immingham Dock station. The top one dates from GC days - a 4 compartment 6-wheel brake 3rd with arc roof and flat-top duckets /end windows with "arch" windows (round top/square bottom corners) is visible as the first coach behind an outside frame 4-4-0 no. 439. I think this coach may have oil lights.

 

A view from 17/3/1934 below shows D7 no 5683 with a train of 3 x 6 wheelers, awaiting departure for New Holland, formed of a 4 compartment brake , 4? compartment composite with ? centre lavatory, and another 4 compartment brake. The front vehicle may have square corners to all windows and it certainly has torpedo vents - otherwise it's very similar to the 4 compartment brake third in the earlier photo. I'm struggling to make out detail but the centre composite just might have "arched" windows and also has torpedo vents. I'm not even going to guess at the last brake. (The third photo is post war with an A5 on 3 bogies, (probably 8 compt , with the last a clerestory brake) + an LMS 12T van)

 

Finally p52 has a photo of D7 5709 awaiting departure from New Holland Pier in 1930 with a local train. The leading vehicle is not bogie and has more than 4 compartments closely spaced , though I can't see a centre axlebox so it might just be a 4 wheeler. Probably an all third , and low arc-roofed. Possibly this is a local to Immingham Dock?

 

A general comment - in all these books nearly all the photos are post war. often in the last 2 years before closure. Inter-war material is fairly limited

[JohnR]

I know quite a few ex-GE coaches ended up on other parts of the LNER, and maybe that squares the circle?

[PatB]

The major revelation I've had from this thread is just how late, and in what substantial numbers, non-bogie stock hung on in revenue service in some areas. 

 

I suspect that's partly because much of my railway historical information has come from model literature, where such stock has been widely ignored. Presumably because, apart from Ratio 4-wheelers and Hornby's abomination, obtaining such stock in model form has been firmly in the "advanced" category until now. 

[Hal Nail]

6 hours ago, PatB said:

Hornby's abomination. 

They started as accurate Stroudleys - then RMWeb got involved!

[rovex]

I wonder if these might inspire Hornby to replace their own two wheelers with something a little more realistic?

After all, apart from the two versions of clerestories, it's probably the only coach they haven't updated.

Edited October 27, 2019 by rovex
After thought

[Pint of Adnams]

15 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I would have thought the biggest inroads would have been made in the mid 20s with Quint-Arts replacing the disintegrating suburban fleet?

 

While I believe the GE was the only LNER constituent where passengers accounted for more than 50% of revenue, was their carriage fleet that much bigger than the GN or the NER? The GN had substantial London suburban interests too

On Grouping, the principal constituents contributed coaching stock as follows:

                                                                       Passenger                 Inc. NPCS

Great Central                                                 1700                         2727

Great Eastern                                                3907                         5548

Great Northern*                                            2607                         2639

Great North of Scotland                                453                           766

North British*                                                2358                         3576

North Eastern (inc. Hull & Barnsley)*^         3163                         4065

* Includes relative proportion of Joint Stock

^ Includes Tyneside Electrics

Data extracted from The Railway Year Book, 1923, based on the Official Annual Returns

[Paul Cram]

At the end of 1922 the NER 6 wheel carriage stock numbers were as follows:

First                  39

Composite      78 of which 2 H&B

Third              469 of which 4 H&B

At the end of 1923:

First                  34

Composite       60

Third                340

Source NER Carriage stock 1919 originaly allocated to Sir Vicent Raven

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Paul Cram said:

At the end of 1922 the NER 6 wheel carriage stock numbers were as follows:

First                  39

Composite      78 of which 2 H&B

Third              469 of which 4 H&B

At the end of 1923:

First                  34

Composite       60

Third                340

Source NER Carriage stock 1919 originaly allocated to Sir Vicent Raven

 

 

... which indicates that they were being withdrawn rather rapidly around this time. The H&B carriages are a bit of an oddity, as that company only ever had 4-wheelers and bogie carriages, apart from a brief period when it hired some Midland 6-wheelers for the Sheffield trains. Perhaps 4-wheelers are in fact included in that list? According to North Eastern Record Vol. 2, ten of the 4-wheelers passed to the North Eastern bu all were condemned by the LNER in 1923 - the discrepancy could be accounted for if four of these were full brakes.

 

For the record, the H&B 4-wheelers were 27 ft long on 16 ft wheelbase, with 5'3" thirds, 6'1" seconds, and 7'0" firsts, and square-cornered panelling of a slightly unusual style - since they were specified by William Kirtley, I assume they were basically LCDR designs. They dated from 1884/5 but by 1909 the Board minutes noted that "even when new they were of an antiquated type" [J.B. Dawson et al., North Eastern Record Vol. 2 (HMRS, 1997)].

[Paul Cram]

50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... which indicates that they were being withdrawn rather rapidly around this time. The H&B carriages are a bit of an oddity, as that company only ever had 4-wheelers and bogie carriages, apart from a brief period when it hired some Midland 6-wheelers for the Sheffield trains. Perhaps 4-wheelers are in fact included in that list? According to North Eastern Record Vol. 2, ten of the 4-wheelers passed to the North Eastern bu all were condemned by the LNER in 1923 - the discrepancy could be accounted for if four of these were full brakes.

 

For the record, the H&B 4-wheelers were 27 ft long on 16 ft wheelbase, with 5'3" thirds, 6'1" seconds, and 7'0" firsts, and square-cornered panelling of a slightly unusual style - since they were specified by William Kirtley, I assume they were basically LCDR designs. They dated from 1884/5 but by 1909 the Board minutes noted that "even when new they were of an antiquated type" [J.B. Dawson et al., North Eastern Record Vol. 2 (HMRS, 1997)].

You are right they were 4 wheelers. It was a pencil note at the end of the list of 6 wheelers so I didn't pick it up/

[phil gollin]

.

 

Shall we start a new thread on the Hattons generic 4- and 6-wheel coaches, and leave this thread to the "Northern" squabblers ?    

 

 

.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

Shall we start a new thread on the Hattons generic 4- and 6-wheel coaches, and leave this thread to the "Northern" squabblers ?    

 

 

I see no squabbling - merely a drawing out of the facts relating to 6-wheeled stock on the LNER. Since it has been established that 6-wheelers disappeared more quickly from the North Eastern Area than the Southern Area, I fail to see how the epithet "northern" applies!

 

I hope Hattons are enjoying this thread as much as I am... 

[RichardLong]

8 hours ago, rovex said:

I wonder if these might inspire Hornby to replace their own two wheelers with something a little more realistic?

After all, apart from the two versions of clerestories, it's probably the only coach they haven't updated.

Probably depends on whether or not they see Hattons 4-wheelers as a threat to sales of their existing product.

Edited October 27, 2019 by RichardLong

[NCB]

Only just got stuck into this thread. Wonder how many non-bogie coaches made it to British Railways in revenue service. Quite a few is my guess. Certainly the Tanat Valley line was running ex-GW 4 wheelers along with a Dean bogie brake until the passenger service ceased in 1954.

 

I like this project. For those modellers more interested in creating an overall scene, having typical, if generic, coaches available is a boon if they want to try pre-grouping. Stick the LNWR ones behind a Bachmann LNWR coal tank and they should look great, just the job for a North Wales branch, say.

 

Wonder if its possible to do a run of unpainted examples. Or even coaches knocked down as far as possible into their basic parts. Much easier to convert to something else.

 

My own wish would be for some in bronze green and white panelling, i.e. the Cambrian Railways!  Do a generic Sharps Stewart 0-6-0 based on the Cambrian ones as well.

 

Oh well, back to modelling ...

 

[uax6]

7 hours ago, NCB said:

 Stick the LNWR ones behind a Bachmann LNWR coal tank and they should look great, just the job for a North Wales branch, say.

 

 

But that's the problem, they just won't look right. Anyone modelling an LNWR branch will at least have one photo of an LNWR train, and you will instantly see that they are of completely wrong panel design, however pretty the paint scheme will be. In fact just how is that paint scheme going to be designed to look like the long panels with no waist?

 

Andy G

[JohnR]

6 minutes ago, Craigw said:

 

No, what he means is they will not look right. No amount of wishing will make them look right for all (or any) prototypes.

 

What you really mean is some people will not care about that and Hattons thinks there are enough people so inclined to make this viable.

 

Craig W

 

What you mean is that will not actually BE right. And that is of course, indisputable. But what they look like to many people is that they will LOOK right. And it wont be that they "dont care". To many people, OO "looks right", the reason they dont model in P4 isnt because they dont care. 

 

[uax6]

4 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

What you mean is that will not actually BE right. And that is of course, indisputable. But what they look like to many people is that they will LOOK right. And it wont be that they "dont care". To many people, OO "looks right", the reason they dont model in P4 isnt because they dont care. 

 

 

I think you have hit the nail there: The majority of modellers 'don't care'. They are happy to play trains with whatever they can get rtr, and don't want to develop their skills.

 

Andy G

(who does build his own)

[PaulRhB]

Will I run them behind my Coal tank? Yes! Would I exhibit a layout with them at a show? No.

 

It’s not that I don’t care it’s just they’ll look ok with the three foot rule for an eclectic part of my collection running at home. I won’t be modelling it as LNWR. On my Harz layout I won’t run Saxon coaches in HSB livery at a show either, for the reasons Andy, Craig and others mention, but it doesn’t make me a collector or lazy modeller that I choose to indulge a little sideline interest with these. I don’t have time to kitbuild everything I like so in the ‘art of compromise’ I’ll accept that I’m unlikely to get specific rtr models to match my LNWR, SECR, LSWR and IoW locos these will do. If I then decided in the future to build a layout it would be worth the effort to spend time on accurate models and these can become fictional light railway or industrial coaches. 

So Hattons aren’t cheating anyone out of my business now and in the long run may have started something that will entice me to others accurate kits!  

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

 

I think you have hit the nail there: The majority of modellers 'don't care'. They are happy to play trains with whatever they can get rtr, and don't want to develop their skills.

 

Andy G

(who does build his own)

 

Terrible sweeping generalisation. Model Railways is full of compromises. We power our trains using electricity in the rails, not an onboard diesel generator or coal fired boiler. We have track that is too narrow, and stations that are too close together. As modellers we all make compromises. And for many, that means not spending months building kits of coaches and locomotives. Saying the majority of modellers "dont care" is actually rude and arrogant. 

 

[PhilJ W]

12 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

Terrible sweeping generalisation. Model Railways is full of compromises. We power our trains using electricity in the rails, not an onboard diesel generator or coal fired boiler. We have track that is too narrow, and stations that are too close together. As modellers we all make compromises. And for many, that means not spending months building kits of coaches and locomotives. Saying the majority of modellers "dont care" is actually rude and arrogant. 

 

I agree entirely, I will repeat what has been said often on this thread. These are GENERIC if that doesn't suit you its just too bad.  

[uax6]

11 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

Terrible sweeping generalisation. Model Railways is full of compromises. We power our trains using electricity in the rails, not an onboard diesel generator or coal fired boiler. We have track that is too narrow, and stations that are too close together. As modellers we all make compromises. And for many, that means not spending months building kits of coaches and locomotives. Saying the majority of modellers "dont care" is actually rude and arrogant. 

 

 

Here we are sat in a topic where overwhelmingly it has been accepted that these coaches, in any colour scheme, will be great, and you have a go at one of the few who have tried to make them more representative?

 

If this topic shows anything, then it is the majority of modellers don't care what these look like, as long as they are in pretty colours...

 

It's taken me a long time to be called rude and arrogant so a big 'Thank You' for that, that's one thing off my bucket list.

 

Andy G

(who is going to stop feeding the troll now)

[Wickham Green]

On 25/10/2019 at 23:52, Willie Whizz said:

 

I have no dog in this fight, nor have I done any research in 'primary' sources.  But pretty much every description of LNER practice I've ever read - which includes works by people who have done such research - agrees that the phrase I've put in bold above is correct as regards carriages which were originally varnished teak.  It is perfectly feasible, therefore, that the old carriages which were selected to run behind the Stirling Single were chosen precisely because they were still in good external condition and easy therefore to 'revive' with a couple of coats of varnish.  That does not mean they were typical of those which remained in stock of their kind by the late 1930s, before or after revival.

 

As regards vehicles which were not originally varnished teak, my best recollection of the sources is that they tend to be frankly somewhat vague on the issue as regards vehicles which were still going to be in first-line service for some time; but that they pretty much universally agree that for vehicles expected to be used on lesser services, when they required external refurbishment they would usually be painted brown on grounds of cost-effectiveness, i.e not just that it was cheaper but that also it was reasoned it wasn't worth the effort of attempting a faux-teak finish on a non-teak surface when the result was not going to be very satisfactory or long-lasting.  

Michael Harris ( Gresley’s Coaches : David & Charles 1973 ) puts it thus : “As the appearance of elderly teak-panelled coaches deteriorated, it was not considered worth-while continuing with the varnished finish nor to paint them imitation teak. These vehicles were then outshopped in overall ‘teak paint’ – as was nearly all pre-grouping wooden stock not of teak construction after the 1930s.” ......... so, yes, choose your date and appropriate finish - or employ Rule 1 ....... simples.

[PhilJ W]

8 minutes ago, uax6 said:

 

Here we are sat in a topic where overwhelmingly it has been accepted that these coaches, in any colour scheme, will be great, and you have a go at one of the few who have tried to make them more representative?

 

If this topic shows anything, then it is the majority of modellers don't care what these look like, as long as they are in pretty colours...

 

It's taken me a long time to be called rude and arrogant so a big 'Thank You' for that, that's one thing off my bucket list.

 

Andy G

(who is going to stop feeding the troll now)

The trolls do not need feeding, they need something to keep them occupied. I will check to see if I have any bags of rivets for them to count.