Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

 

As the sides are separate it should be relatively easy to replace them.

 

 

 

Now that makes things interesting. Replacement sides with appropriate doors would certainly be of interest to me. And as I'd likely be repainting anyway, I could do myself a nice District set...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

The problem for me is the Hattons offering does not have the characteristic roof profile of the GNR, thus they are unacceptable for those of us non experts who have noticed this significant easily observed difference.  They will loose sales because of this.

 

Fine scale means its not coarse scale.  

 

Cheers,

Terry Flynn.

 

Scale is a size ratio of a model to its original. If that ratio is different in some parts of a model compared to others, then it isn't a scale model by definition. The terms fine and coarse are relative adjectives for size, substance or value, that don't affect an abstract mathematical ratio.  1:76 is neither coarse nor fine, just bigger or small than some other ratio.

 

I'm not sure what's coarser or finer than out of the box RTR, unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.

 

Regardless of other attributes, All common forms of RTR in the smaller scales have wheel flanges that are considerably overscale compared to the scale of the body.  I've seen a lot of published hobby material where that is used as a definition of coarse.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One possible advantage of building a pre-grouping layout to run the Hattons four wheel coaches on is that it may be possible to build a comprehensive continuous run layout in a limited space.

 

In the 1960s you could build a comprehensive Tri-ang or Hornby Dublo layout on an 8' x 4' board. Now, with most locomotives only able to manage 17" radius curves and really needing 24" curves, you need a space of about 12' x 5' to build a meaningful layout. Many people do not have that space and would struggle to take that layout to an exhibition.

 

The Hornby Terrier is one of the few model locomotives that will run on radius 1 track. Hopefully the Hattons coaches will be able to do so as well so it should be possible to design a small layout for these models. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Scale is a size ratio of a model to its original. If that ratio is different in some parts of a model compared to others, then it isn't a scale model by definition. The terms fine and coarse are relative adjectives for size, substance or value, that don't affect an abstract mathematical ratio.  1:76 is neither coarse nor fine, just bigger or small than some other ratio.

 

I'm not sure what's coarser or finer than out of the box RTR, unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.

 

Regardless of other attributes, All common forms of RTR in the smaller scales have wheel flanges that are considerably overscale compared to the scale of the body.  I've seen a lot of published hobby material where that is used as a definition of coarse.

 

Andy

 

 

I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall. 

 

A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.

 

Terry Flynn.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall. 

 

A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

The word generic also seems to be a concept that some people

seem to have difficulty understanding!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 14
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The pre-grouping railway with the best coverage in terms of locos is the SECR . Accurate coaches are available - but the Birdcage stock from Bachmann represents post WW1 main line stock and isn't  suitable for an Edwardian branchline . Bachmann chose the prototype because they were very much used on rural lines in the 1950s. IE it's a model aimed at the post war /interwar modeller, with a special run in SECR livery 

 

The next best served in terms of locos is the LB&SCR, followed by the GC

 

I do expect a modest upsurge in Edwardian branchlines in Kent and Sussex, or Edwardian South London suburban

This is a good reply to those people who point out that there were about 126 pre-grouping companies as opposed to only four grouping. If a manufacturer were to think of producing accurate pre-grouping stock rather than generic, it makes sense to produce it for the companies best served by locomotive models. It also makes sense to me (if no-one else) to produce more locomotives for companies which already have RTR locomotives, at least until there is a representative cross-section of types.

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

18 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

......., unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  ......

I suspect some people might be swapping the Gibson wheels on their Rails SECR box vans for something more appropriate for - shall we say - trainset pointwork ................ but that'll be a rarity.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

This is a good reply to those people who point out that there were about 126 pre-grouping companies as opposed to only four grouping. 

 

... of course not all carriage-owning. In fact there were no more than two dozen or so in mainland Britain, depending on how and when you choose to count. Of those, only 14 or so could really be considered large - appearing in the top 50 for numbers of employees in 1907, for instance. Of those, only two are missing from Hattons' announced liveries - both Scottish.

 

 

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

23 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

More than one roof profile means a new end profile and new sides to match so making it it's own separate tooling project in its own right. I can never see this happening as it would push the prices up overall and not for specific versions as there will be complaints about why a specific livery is more expensive than the rest. 

 

The key point of my earlier post (suggesting that those who think that a different roof profile alone will make all the difference should prove the point by making a single roof of their own, including the top portion of each end, so that it will fit accurately on the original ends if these are cut down to a straight line at "top of side" level, and then proceed to multiply by simple, low effort, home resin casting) was that the need for different ends does not then figure and DIY manufacturing costs (excluding time) are low. But that solution to the problem is only open to those willing and able to try to do something for themselves. I'm not sure that those who can't / won't try have any special right to argue that a commercial manufacturer should make exactly what they want.

 

I won't be trying the idea because I don't regard a new roof profile alone as an adequate way to make a sufficiently convincing GNR (for instance) carriage out of the proposed generic items, and I have a lot of other things to do that I consider to be good or necessary uses of my time.

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

2 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

The word generic also seems to be a concept that some people

seem to have difficulty understanding!

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

Good luck with court case then!

  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The discussion seems to have got bogged down in a misunderstanding of the word "generic" - which does not mean, suitable for all purposes. It's really rather straightforward - if these are not the carriages you are looking for, avert your gaze!

  • Agree 14
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/generic

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

26 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 - if these are not the carriages you are looking for, avert your gaze!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Terry:

 

I'm afraid you will need to accept that the GNR in the Stirling era is not a major sub-niche within "pre-grouping" . I say that as someone who grew up in ex GN territory away from the ECML, and who has a sneaking suspicion that in the 1880s the GN may have been the world's best railway. Most people modelling ex GN lines are in fact modelling the ECML, and the Singles had basically gone from the ECML by 1900. 6 wheel coaches were being cascaded out of ECML after 1898. The Edwardian GNR is a world of Ivatt Atlantics and early Gresley coaches, at least on the ECML - and in matters GN the ECML has always overshadowed everything else . The remaining singles were exiled to the East Lincolnshire line after 1900 (and if you want to model the E Lincs  line before WW1 I commend Alford  and Firsby to you as prototypes...)

 

In 1922 the GN represented about 5% of the total network. A GN 6 wheeler therefore leaves the bulk of the market unserved. On the GN , 4 wheelers were strictly suburban stock

 

We have agreed that the Hatton's coaches are not suitable for the LNWR and GNR . They will serve as good or reasonable representations for the LBSCR, MR,  GCR (ex MSLR), NER, and arguably as representations for the GWR, GE and SECR,  All of those have several locos available RTR in OO,  and are much more realistic propositions for layouts than the GN . Some already have some support for stock from plastic kits


 

Thanks to LRM and Ratio, the LNWR is well supported with carriage kits . The GN before Gresley isn't.

 

I would suggest likely "follow ons" from this project are someone doing a resin or 3D body for an SECR 6 wheel birdcage full brake, - and some GN 6 wheelers, either as replacement bodies or a small expensive RTR range . The first will be a much easier safer proposition commercially than the second.....

 

The Locomotion Stirling Single is not really the bulls-eye this project needs to hit , even though you own one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

some GN 6 wheelers, either as replacement bodies or a small expensive RTR range 

 

I think this is what Terry's looking for:

 

 

If he wants them RTR, I'm sure he could find a someone willing to build them for him, for the appropriate fee.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

The definition of a generic model is one that draws elements from a number of prototypes without claiming to accurately represent any one of them. Hatton's will not be making GNR coaches, just generic (effectively freelance) ones, some of which will be finished in a representation of GNR livery. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?

 

Therefore no generic model should (other than by sheer coincidence) look exactly like any prototype. One that did, would not be generic!

 

All versions of these coaches will be "wrong" to a greater or lesser degree. Some will be lucky and get models that are reasonably close to their desired prototype. Others (like you) will be offered items that are too far off to be acceptable, but nobody is forcing you to buy them.

 

I'd suggest that you have been hammering away at Hatton's plenty long enough for them to capitulate if they were ever going to and, as you evidently want coaches to run with a loco produced by Rapido, maybe you should be chasing them for something more appropriate?

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think this is what Terry's looking for:

 

 

And I thought he wanted the moon on a stick.

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If he wants them RTR, I'm sure he could find a someone willing to build them for him, for the appropriate fee.

 

Oh, I see, he does!

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Being curious, I followed the links back to Mike Trices GNR coaches, but getting onto the Shapeways site, nothing found?? I like the concept of doing them as a flatpack kit, rather than a one piece body, just the wrong scale.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

At Warley on Sunday I called in on the Hatton’s stand and by chance met the indomitable Dave. What a charming fellow. I thanked him for his patience and the way he was driving forward this imaginative project. He said he found most RM contributors helpful and positive. In my view Hatton’s have been creative both in the way they are securing input and in their basic idea. 
 

He asked if I had preordered any and I told him I had the Full Brake in SR Olive and was interested in 6 wheelers in similar livery or LSWR. He confirmed the SDJR versions were still several years off. All in all very positive overall. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall. 

 

A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Preamble


Mechanical part tolerances are always expressed as numbers, or a recognized name that refers to a table of numbers standardized by a recognized authority -  Usually an association of relevant manufacturers, or a relevant government department.


e.g.  UNC and UNF for machine screws., The purpose being to ensure interchangeability, without necessarily having to list the several different dimensions and tolerances necessary to fully define a practical fine or coarse screw thread.


Where numbers are used, the tolerance is expressed as a positive or negative numeric value or percentage allowed deviation from a target value. E. g  6 mm +/- 0.1 mm. for a symmetrical allowance. and  6.1 mm +0.0/-0.2 for an asymmetric allowance. The former example describes a 6mm nominal target, whereas the latter describes a 6.1 mm maximum target.


When fitting two toleranced parts together, the values with the worst case tolerances must not overlap, lest two separate pieces of material try to occupy the same space.


Main Point


If you are working with a scale model, then adding a tolerance to the scale, means that all parts in the model will have same tolerance. The problem with RTR is that for practical reasons, some parts are made to targets that are a vastly different scale. So tolerance settings for those parts have to have to be set separately as they will not fit in the generally smaller tolerance allowance of the main model.


Using the AMRA "HO fine" standard for example, the main scale is 1:87. But the specification target for the model wheel width is 2.1 mm minimum, instead of the 1:87 scaled down value of 1.6 mm. The 2.1 mm value equates to a model wheel width "fine" scale of 1:66.  Using the 1:87 overall model scale, then the tolerance on the 1:87 wheel will be 1.6 mm +>0.5/+0.5 which would be sloppy if applied to the body of the model and quite ridiculous if specified as a percentage. E.g 1.6 mm + >31%/31%.


Similarly, the AMRA "HO fine" model wheel effective flange width and depth is 0.70/0.65 mm.  Whereas the 1:87 scale for the 1" depth of the prototype works out to be 0.29 mm. Using the 1:87 overall model scale, this equates to a model wheel flange "fine" scale of 1:38.  Re-stating those values as a tolerance on 1:87 scale gives a flange size tolerance of 0.29 mm +0.41/+ 0.36. Or 0.029 mm +140%/+124%. Using that tolerance on the body of the scale model would make it nearly two and a half times bigger than it should be.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of coarse/fine in model railway terminology is not engineering based and Andy has eloquently explained why.  I think it derives principally from the look of the model, particularly the under-gubbins.  Coarse (in 4mm-ish) normally seems to refer nowadays to Hornby Dublo, Trix-Twin, Tri-ang, and Triang-Hornby.  Commercial models post Airfix GMR don't appear to have a designation but have got progressively finer to the extent that opening the wheels will sometimes do for EM, which normally considered among the finescale group.  I think most modellers have a notion of what finescale means to them but I doubt if agreement on a definition could be reached.

 

Alan

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...