Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

I do wonder about this aspect that some have suggested.

Maybe these will stimulate interest in pre-grouping (or, as some have suggested, my own favoured area, light railways), but is it really feasible that there will ever be a time when anyone could actually model a pre-grouping company realistically without at least some kit-building?

Surely there's too many of them, over too long a period for manufacturers to supply the necessary stock for that r-t-r?

(Unless, maybe, a big maker or two decided to concentrate specifically on one company)

 

If RTR ever does do pre-grouping on a significant scale then I'm pretty sure it will concentrate on the bigger companies, and focus on a fairly restricted timescale. But the fragmentation of it isn't all that dissimilar to 21st century privatised TOCs. And modern production techniques make relatively limited runs of different models more practical than it would once have been.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

Hell a Precedent and generic six wheelers might even turn up at Dolgellau which would really get me a Fatwa from the Finescale Mullahs.

 

They'll accuse you of playing trains with your trainset!

 

Just thinking, what DO the "Finescale Mullahs" call their trainsets?  Can they cope with a "layout" or do they go all flowery and Melvyn Bragg, hiding it under a layer of obscutative winespeak?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

They may also be a reasonable approximation of MR arc-roof Bain 6 wheelers - someone who knows the LMS may comment , but I get the impression those were the main element of LMS non-bogie passenger stock. (The LNWR flirted with 42' 4 axle radial stock very early,  went to bogie coaches in the early 1890s , and had money to replace its coaching stock - how many ex LNWR 6 wheelers really made it to the LMS??)

 

 

Since the question has been put...

 

The Midland's 6-wheelers were in two groups: the arc-roofed 31 ft round-panelled carriages built 1884-95, around 1,300 vehicles not counting saloons of various sorts, and some 33'6" and 31" clerestory square-panelled carriages of 1896-1900, 149 passenger vehicles and 271 full brakes. All these were built when T.G. Clayton was carriage & wagon superintendent. Even on the Midland, these were by no means the dominant type of carriage at the time they were built, at least on long-distance services. The Midland was the pioneer in the widespread use of bogie carriages, with 943 arc-roofed carriages built 1878-1896 and 729 8-wheeled clerestory square panelled non-corridor carriages built 1898-1902, along with a small number of 12-wheelers. About half of the clerestory 6-wheelers lasted to 1933, with some lasting to 1937-9, but withdrawal of the arc-roofed carriages had begun in Midland days. Even so, on 31 Dec 1922, there were still 47 composites and 528 thirds in service. [R.E. Lacy and G. Dow, Midland Carriages Vols. 1 & 2 (Wild Swan, 1986).]

 

At 3 Dec 1909, the LNWR's carriages stock (including NPCS) totalled 8,167 vehicles counted as capital stock and around 1,200 as duplicate stock. Between 1887 and 1894, 1,598 30'1" 6-wheel carriages were built, of which 827 were 5-compartment thirds, though many of these were converted to brake thirds and other types. Discounting withdawals, they therefore accounted for about 17% of LNWR passenger stock in 1909; there were still 818 of the carriages built as 5-compartment thirds in service at grouping, reduced to 301 by 1933. [P.A. Millard, London & North Western Railway 30 ft 1 in six-wheeled carriages (L&NWR Society, 2008).]

 

So, at grouping, the LNWR 6-wheelers were more numerous than the Midland ones (having been more numerous in the first place), though of course LNWR ones would be predominantly found on ex-LNWR lines and Midland ones on ex-Midland lines. In both cases they were considerably outnumbered by non-corridor bogie carriages at the grouping, many of which had been built well after the last 6-wheelers were built and so had many more years of life in them - up to the 50s in some cases.

 

As for the 42 ft carriages, flirting with radial axles is an understatement, as 490 carriages were built with them in 1886-1892, but from 1890 bogies were generally used. I haven't counted up the number of bogie 42 ft carriages; most radials were rebuilt with bogies, though some were still running as radials up to at least 1910. [P.A. Millard and I. Tattersall, L&NWR non-corridor carriages (L&NWR Society, 2006).

 

I don't have much information on the quantities of L&YR 6-wheelers; they were evidently numerous, though the single most numerous type of L&Y carriage were the 49 ft arc-roofed bogie 8-compartment thirds, of which 808 were built. The total L&Y carriage fleet numbered 4,360 vehicles [L&YR Society], so those bogie thirds made up 18% of the fleet.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

There is a rather nice, very well painted,  00 LNWR 14 wheel D9 diner on ebay at present,

 

 

How many? !

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2019 at 01:18, Craigw said:

 

The pedantry over a generic coach is the realisation that most of the railways had very different design factors and while they usually had some similarities it is tough to find common features across all railways. Hence what may seem to be generic enough to followers of some railways does not appear so to those with an interest in others. Trying to make something freelance that covers everything is a tough ask.

 

The discussion over liveries is because that is the supposedly tough part to do and people want that right. A generic coach in an incorrect livery for the railway it purports to be  a "close enough" design for is more than a little pointless.

 

I find the talk about cutting them up somewhat to be somewhat amusing as destroying the paint finish goes against the whole reason for doing them in the first place. I make an exception for Clive who has the ability and desire to cut anything up and turn it into something else!

 

Craig W

I think you and others miss the point completely. They are GENERIC models. There is no right or wrong. These coaches will be hugely popular with a very large percentage of people who enjoy buying RTR models and operating them. They are NOT aimed at those who want Dia X coaches in correct livery for Sept 1915 or whenever. As such, they don't appeal to me personally BUT I commend Hattons for filling a huge gap in the hobby. Instead of slagging them off and having totally pointless discussions on what is right or wrong, why don't the self appointed expert's use the time more productively and build the coaches you require.

This thread has become extremely tedious with what amount to almost childish tantrums.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 11
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

 

They'll accuse you of playing trains with your trainset!

 

Just thinking, what DO the "Finescale Mullahs" call their trainsets?  Can they cope with a "layout" or do they go all flowery and Melvyn Bragg, hiding it under a layer of obscutative winespeak?

 

Those "finescale" modellers that I know (the majority of my modelling friends and acquaintances model in EM, P4 or S7) call them layouts. I don't think I've ever met any "Finescale Mullahs" and wonder if they are the figment of the imagination of some RMweb members, indulging in a sort of inverted snobbery.

 

I call my P4 layout just that, "a layout", but also have a Hornby Dublo trainset, with printed generic carriages, wagons and an 0-6-2T LNER/GNR loco masquerading as an LMS engine.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hattons Dave said:

Afternoon all,

 

A huge thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - your views are much appreciated.

 

Thanks to @Compound2632 's great work in showing the panelling sizes and other dimensions, as well as his new overall dimension suggestions.  

 

We have added 2 feet to the 4-wheel coach which gives more appropriate compartment sizes and is a lot more ‘prototypically literate’.

 

I have updated all drawings to show the latest style.

 

We feel we have now captured the coaches as best as we can, incorporating as many different companies ‘styles’ as possible without veering too far into one design.

 

As always we would like feedback on any changes you think would improve them.

 

4 wheel, 5 compartment

H4-4W-T1_v5-01.jpg.8a4f8a521a6eff5ac0f89acaaf301258.jpg

 

4 wheel, 4 compartment

H4-4W-T2_v5-01.jpg.4330cb0744483f8ec857a36855cec4f5.jpg

 

4 wheel brake

H4-4W-T3_v5-01.jpg.53c5d660ad87b309f11c6dd13096f06f.jpg


6 wheel, 5 compartment

H4-6W-T1_v5-01.jpg.4f15638b824add6d97727387c487ecf3.jpg

 

6 wheel, 4 compartment lavatory

H4-6W-T2_v5-01.jpg.1f063c0e581875ad17df14fe4d63913c.jpg

 

6 wheel brake

H4-6W-T3_v5-01.jpg.6637589b8041c4e715ed309f33dd0d7e.jpg

 

6 wheel full brake

H4-6W-T4_v5-01.jpg.1527143806a220c293ef4de5f7dacd4f.jpg

 

Cheers, Dave

 

I think that's a significant improvement, and one that I'd hoped for. I feel that I can certainly make prototypical trains including First, Second and Third classes, with these.

 

Well done to Hattons and to Stephen Lea.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

L&Y 6 wheelers were built upto about 1899, and totalled 1651 vehicles, the majority being 745 thirds. 864 were existent at grouping, 27 remained at 1933.

 

What is interesting is that a lot of LNWR and MR PBV's were transferred to Scotland after grouping to replace older stock, for the first ten years or so after grouping most Highland Railway branch trains had a MR 6 wheel clerestory PBV in it, and there are plenty of shorts of the LNWR 6 wheel version as well.

 

But this also happened with the passenger vehicles:

The Dornoch branch had in the 1930's a train that consisted of MR clerestory 6wh PBV, 6wh LNWR compo (with 1/2 third at one end) and a MR arc roof third. The Hopeman branch had in 1926 MR clerestory PBV, MR arc roof 3rd and HR cove roof compo all with 6 wheels.

Straphpeffer in 1926 had ex HR cove roof luggage compo, MR arc-roof third, MR clerestory PBV (all 6 wheeled) and a ex LNWR 42ft bogie lav luggage compo (still in LNWR livery).

There is a shot of an Ex-LYR 6wh compo as the sole passenger accomodation in a mixed train at Wick in the early '20s.

 

So anyone modelling the Highland (and other Scottish railways too) needs a good selection of 6 wheelers..

 

Yes the Highland was a bit unusual for this mix of stock, but get any decent railway book out and really look at the pictures and you will see that these sort of trains were actually out there.

 

Would these trains look as nice all modelled with the same generic coaches? I would say no as the texture of the vehicles would be wrong, but, and its a big one, if you were not exhibiting a layout would they be acceptable as a 'fix'?

Well in my mind yes, as long as they were in LMS red, and not pregrouping colours that don't match what the real carriages were like.

 

Andy G

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

GSWR_6wh_full_brake_.jpg.b23556d93ad350e099810a500228a5fb.jpg

H4-6W-T4_v5-01.jpg.1527143806a220c293ef4de5f7dacd4f.jpg

 

Well look at that! Its almost an exact copy of the G&SWR one! Just four small things to sort out:

The cantrail panel needs to extend over the ducket.

The luggage door windows need removing

the end's pannelling needs to be changed to the GSWR (and most other railways!) style of beading

Longer centre J hangers (This needs to aply to all of the 6 wheelers)

 

The other bits could be all bashed quite easily. If the above features were sorted I'd be ordeing one of these, Hell even if not, as long as it doesn't suddenly vere off to look completely different to this, I will still buy one, in LMS red of course (the red to match BMC/Rover Damask red obviously!)

 

Andy G

(A Scottish 6 wheeler Whoopee! I never thought I'd see anything as close as this ever rtr!)

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Shouldn't the 4 wheel 5 compartment have a lamp over each compartment?

 

Yes, unless we are assuming half-height petitions, in which case you could save on 2; have one over the centre of the centre compartment and one over the partition between each end pair of compartments.

 

As I suspect Hattons will tool for a single full height partition style of compartment, one over each as you say.

 

Either way, on this and on the others, I feel that the lamp 'pot' should be placed centrally over the door/partition, not slightly to one side as shown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, uax6 said:

 

GSWR_6wh_full_brake_.jpg.b23556d93ad350e099810a500228a5fb.jpg

H4-6W-T4_v5-01.jpg.1527143806a220c293ef4de5f7dacd4f.jpg

 

Well look at that! Its almost an exact copy of the G&SWR one! Just four small things to sort out:

The cantrail panel needs to extend over the ducket.

The luggage door windows need removing

the end's pannelling needs to be changed to the GSWR (and most other railways!) style of beading

Longer centre J hangers (This needs to aply to all of the 6 wheelers)

 

The other bits could be all bashed quite easily. If the above features were sorted I'd be ordeing one of these, Hell even if not, as long as it doesn't suddenly vere off to look completely different to this, I will still buy one, in LMS red of course (the red to match BMC/Rover Damask red obviously!)

 

Andy G

(A Scottish 6 wheeler Whoopee! I never thought I'd see anything as close as this ever rtr!)

 

 

And the brake third looks very close to the ex GC brake thirds seen at Immingham Dock, though I don't know the length of the latter, and the guards ducket was at the end ....

Edited by Ravenser
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

They'll accuse you of playing trains with your trainset!

 

Just thinking, what DO the "Finescale Mullahs" call their trainsets?  Can they cope with a "layout" or do they go all flowery and Melvyn Bragg, hiding it under a layer of obscutative winespeak?

 

 

Bring it on, I've had that argument quite a few times and never lost it.

 

And as for Finescale Mullahs, they are not a figment of my or anyone else's imagination.  I've met them face to face and had to go into my best "how to deal with stupid" mode so as not to lose my rag, as I do have a tendency not to suffer fools.  I'd not long joined this site when some person decided to virtually accuse me via a pm of being feckless when I commented that I have a mental block when it comes to soldering.  Some forty five years of various people with the patience of Job trying to show me how not to destroy whatever I'm practicing on to no avail makes me think it's not a skill I am about to suddenly have some Damascene conversion to, but this individual, who didn't know me or my particular work ethic or skills base, took it upon himself to have a pop.  So they are out there.

On a positive note though, the way some on here have helped Hatton's to get a better result and have been able to put any misgivings about the introduction of a "generic" design to one side, has been good.  Of course it would be nice if there was a range of pre-grouping models in a variety of railway designs but realistically that is a long way off, if it ever arrives.  Commercially you'd be looking at some serious cash investment, into the millions of pounds, to satisfy the existing range of pre-grouping RTR locos available, let alone any others in the pipeline.  The fact Hatton's have listened to a range of sensible comments and are clearly keen to get these coaches as close to reality as a generic design can be is to be welcomed.

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My interest is 7mm BR (W). Reading this and other similar 00 discussions is something of a guilty pleasure: on a par with Love Island.

 

Like many I have a passing interest in all railways. To my eyes these latest Hattons proposals look very convincing. They should sell a fair number to run with the Hornby Pecketts on fictional lines, let alone behind the various pre-grouping locos.

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

Non bogie on the Southern.

Gone by 1932 I believe with much being rebuilt into bogie electric vehicles.

This was generally aided by the  extensive London area electrification which released successive fleets of suburban stock to replace the older vehicles elsewhere.

The exception was the Isle of Wight which received an extensive fleet of 4 wheelers in the 20's.  (Note:  no 6 wheelers however  many had  been these prior to downgrading to suburban use and loosing the centre wheelset).  The Island 4 wheelers were themselves replaced with bogie carriages in the mid to late 30's the last everyday sets being done in 1938.

The very last Island 4 wheelers in use was the Freshwater line mail set  (3 vehicles) which did have a few passenger compartments for public use.  The replacement of this was delayed due to WW2 and they remained in traffic until 1949.  These actually made it into  SR Sunshine  Malachite  livery

 

Pete

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hattons Dave said:

...

I have updated all drawings to show the latest style.

...

6 wheel full brake

H4-6W-T4_v5-01.jpg.1527143806a220c293ef4de5f7dacd4f.jpg

 

Cheers, Dave

 

Hi Dave,

When can we order the full brake on Hattons web site? Also, I presume these small changes won't affect existing pre-orders (as I still want them despite changes to the drawings). I am really looking forward to these coaches.

Thanks,

Jeremy 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Is everyone happy with the footboards?

Are they a typical height, too high or too low?

 

The lower footboards look ok to me. The height of lower footboards tended to be very similar across companies, but I can't find a common dimension at the moment.

 

Upper footboard heights are a more complex situation, and their height settings was subject to change over the years, reflecting and following the increasing rise (and standardisation) of platform heights. I generalise of course, but in crude terms:

 

solebar-steps-rising.png.8f22892aebd8597b380cecd60ab012b0.png

 

Hattons has chosen a middle setting, which seems a reasonable choice reflecting an era typical of this style of coach IMO.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I'm quite happy with the way these look, I'm mainly interested in the underframes but want to see what these look like painted, mainly GCR.

 

I don't know if there's been discussion of some more diagrams for the 6 wheelers?  The likes of a Family Saloon would be rather interesting.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't care. It's more that there are things I would prefer to do with my (finite and seemingly diminishing) modelling time and budget than spend weeks cutting wobbly rows of supposedly identical windows in styrene sheet, sticking plasticard doilies to themselves and adding to the profits of Messrs Swann-Morton. Would anyone care to estimate how many reasonably accurate cuts would be required to scratchbuild the sides and ends of a modest rake of, say, five panelled coaches? Because I make it several thousand. Deciding to forego that in favour of something I, personally, enjoy more isn't laziness, it's sensible allocation of resources.

 

Similarly, I'm quite capable (and rather enjoy) building brass kits to a standard acceptable to me. However, it still takes time and more money than I can currently devote to modelling. Again, it's not that I don't care, it's that there are other things about which I care more.

  • Like 9
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium


I make my sides with a computer controlled cutting machine (silhouette portrait), which takes much of the effort out. Mind you I still reckon that it takes 20-30 hours a carriage to assemble fully.

 

Going back to carriage ends, the late David Jenkinson (who is still regarded as a carriage modeller par excellance) included this diagram in the first of his two volumes ‘British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century’ (David and Charles, a pair of volumes that really should be on any modellers book shelf if they have no other carriage books) entitled ‘typical arc roof profile’ although shown on a CR vehicle, this style of end panelling was what I would call typical or generic, and actually what I would expect to see on these generic carriages.

 

 

519218D1-570E-433D-8207-131F41BD655E.jpeg.ac1bf467f8936afb535b237edff56ebb.jpeg
 

Andy G

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Synch said:

Generally I'm quite happy with the way these look, I'm mainly interested in the underframes but want to see what these look like painted, mainly GCR.

 

I don't know if there's been discussion of some more diagrams for the 6 wheelers?  The likes of a Family Saloon would be rather interesting.

I suggested the same several pages of this thread ago. Also that an unpainted version of each moulding/casting be produced. The issue of unpainted/unmarked models in the diecast world has been quite successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Hattons Dave said:

Afternoon all,

 

A huge thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - your views are much appreciated.

 

Thanks to @Compound2632 great work in showing the panelling sizes and other dimensions, as well as his new overall dimension suggestions.  

 

We have added 2 feet to the 4-wheel coach which gives more appropriate compartment sizes and is a lot more ‘prototypically literate’.

 

I have updated all drawings to show the latest style.

 

We feel we have now captured the coaches as best as we can, incorporating as many different companies ‘styles’ as possible without veering too far into one design.

 

As always we would like feedback on any changes you think would improve them.

 

4 wheel, 5 compartment

H4-4W-T1_v5-01.jpg.8a4f8a521a6eff5ac0f89acaaf301258.jpg

 

4 wheel, 4 compartment

H4-4W-T2_v5-01.jpg.4330cb0744483f8ec857a36855cec4f5.jpg

 

4 wheel brake

H4-4W-T3_v5-01.jpg.53c5d660ad87b309f11c6dd13096f06f.jpg


6 wheel, 5 compartment

H4-6W-T1_v5-01.jpg.4f15638b824add6d97727387c487ecf3.jpg

 

6 wheel, 4 compartment lavatory

H4-6W-T2_v5-01.jpg.1f063c0e581875ad17df14fe4d63913c.jpg

 

6 wheel brake

H4-6W-T3_v5-01.jpg.6637589b8041c4e715ed309f33dd0d7e.jpg

 

6 wheel full brake

H4-6W-T4_v5-01.jpg.1527143806a220c293ef4de5f7dacd4f.jpg

 

Cheers, Dave

These are looking amazing!

 

One change I would suggest is to remove the end windows from the 6-wheel brake - because you've arranged it with the guard's compartment towards the centre of the vehicle and the luggage area at the end (wheras the 4-wheel one has the duckets at the end suggesting that the guard's area is at the end, so it would have end windows).

 

I'd also like to repeat my earlier call for a version in unlettered teak - as I suspect it would be difficult to remove the lettering from a teak finish without damaging the finish, and a plain teak finish could be used with appropriate transfers for loads of different small companies (and some big ones!)

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...