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

[Nile]

Just wait till the decorated samples appear, I predict a froth-gasm.

Build and they will come, and buy.

[Bucoops]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Annie and Clarabel are clearly non-lavatory.

 

Not even Bog Standard then?

[gwrrob]

10 hours ago, Legend said:

Certainly getting a fair bit of coverage on YouTube . Great marketing approach  from Hattons . I must admit I’ve gone from not being interested in these to “oh they look nice”  . A model that is so charming it generates its own market I think .  

 

That well known video blogger Sam's Trains has been given seven coaches to have a look at ,not review, after unboxing them on the carpet. Very nice too although if Hatton's want me to test the GWR versions on my layout they only have to ask.

[Neal Ball]

15 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

That well known video blogger Sam's Trains has been given seven coaches to have a look at ,not review, after unboxing them on the carpet. Very nice too although if Hatton's want me to test the GWR versions on my layout they only have to ask.

 

I can't see what all the fuss is about Sam Trains - why doesn't he build a baseboard like the rest of us! Oh! He can now.... when he tests the new Hattons baseboards lol

 

Look forward to seeing the 4 wheel test on ATNB @gwrrob failing that, I wouldn't mind road testing a few at henley on Thames... @Hattons Davelol

[Joseph the L&YR lover]

20 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

That well known video blogger Sam's Trains has been given seven coaches to have a look at ,not review, after unboxing them on the carpet. Very nice too although if Hatton's want me to test the GWR versions on my layout they only have to ask.

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put them behind a king class

[Neal Ball]

All joking aside though and I have said it before, these carriages are absolutely stunning.

 

No doubt they will be raising our expectations for the standards to be set elsewhere.... 

 

Lit versions and full interior detailing..... scale that up to a GWR Toplight carriage and what are we talking about £50 / £60 / £70 per carriage.... 

[Neal Ball]

1 minute ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put them behind a king class

 

I think a nice 517

[gwrrob]

22 minutes ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

i dare you to put them behind a king class

 

I was thinking more of the Kernow Models 1361 class 1363.

[PhilJ W]

18 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

All joking aside though and I have said it before, these carriages are absolutely stunning.

 

No doubt they will be raising our expectations for the standards to be set elsewhere.... 

 

Lit versions and full interior detailing..... scale that up to a GWR Toplight carriage and what are we talking about £50 / £60 / £70 per carriage.... 

Not necessarily so, the unit cost does not usually increase with the size of the item but with the complexity. The only complexity for a larger coach would be the bogies but then again the sliding centre axle on the six wheeler is just as complex if not more so. The thing that would make them more expensive would be to make them in 7 mm scale. The prices of RTR coaches in O scale really will make your eyes water.

[Budgie]

53 minutes ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put them behind a king class

 

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put 30 of them behind a king class

[Joseph the L&YR lover]

5 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put 30 of them behind a king class

that's how you go broke

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

when you test the coaches, i dare you to put them behind a king class

Prototype for everything. In the 1930's Doncaster used to test new A4 class locomotives on local services and there is a photograph of a brand new A4 in service with a train of two or three four/six wheelers.

[Neal Ball]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Not necessarily so, the unit cost does not usually increase with the size of the item but with the complexity. The only complexity for a larger coach would be the bogies but then again the sliding centre axle on the six wheeler is just as complex if not more so. The thing that would make them more expensive would be to make them in 7 mm scale. The prices of RTR coaches in O scale really will make your eyes water.

Perhaps you are forgetting how complex the Toplights are.... indeed how much they changed with various panels plated over.

Carriage no xxxx would be very different in say 1920 to the same carriage in 1950.

 

Thats where the cost could come in. 
 

But if you were to take a standard Hornby Collett carriage, add lights, add internal decoration, that would add to the price.... It could very easily add another £20 or £20 to the RRP

[Aire Head]

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But they're steel-panelled (like all Sodor standard gauge carriages) - so no beading. The best bet is a pair of Hornby LMS suburbans - composite and brake third. Not the Airfix / Dapol ones - Annie and Clarabel are clearly non-lavatory.

 

I was actually thinking of using a pair of Grafar suburbans

[Compound2632]

There are, I think, plenty of pre-grouping ordinary bogie carriages that are no more complex than the Hattons 6-wheelers, especially non-gangwayed types which were in the majority. In fact, stretch the Hattons carriages to say 44 ft (7 compartment third) or 50 ft (8 compartment third) and you've got a good range of generic pre-grouping bogie carriages.

[Hroth]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There are, I think, plenty of pre-grouping ordinary bogie carriages that are no more complex than the Hattons 6-wheelers, especially non-gangwayed types which were in the majority. In fact, stretch the Hattons carriages to say 44 ft (7 compartment third) or 50 ft (8 compartment third) and you've got a good range of generic pre-grouping bogie carriages.

 

If the 4/6 wheelers sell well, then perhaps thats the logical next step for Hattons?

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Prototype for everything. In the 1930's Doncaster used to test new A4 class locomotives on local services and there is a photograph of a brand new A4 in service with a train of two or three four/six wheelers.

Are you sure? I can't think of any such LNER vehicles at that time which would be in passenger service on any route compatible with an A4. It might be out on test with some ancient vehicles not in passenger service.

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Perhaps you are forgetting how complex the Toplights are.... indeed how much they changed with various panels plated over.

Carriage no xxxx would be very different in say 1920 to the same carriage in 1950.

 

Thats where the cost could come in. 
 

But if you were to take a standard Hornby Collett carriage, add lights, add internal decoration, that would add to the price.... It could very easily add another £20 or £20 to the RRP

Modifying existing tooling and/or adding extra processes/features to production of older models will always be more expensive than running items off from tooling that is designed to include them, even as options. 

 

Once alterations and additions reach a certain level, it becomes cheaper to retool from the ground up. The extra tooling costs are, at least in part, recovered from production economies.

 

Hatton's are starting with a clean sheet so the modest premium they are asking for lit versions of these coaches is considerably less than what Hornby would need to ask if adding these features to existing models. 

 

John

Edited October 3, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Skinnylinny]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There are, I think, plenty of pre-grouping ordinary bogie carriages that are no more complex than the Hattons 6-wheelers, especially non-gangwayed types which were in the majority. In fact, stretch the Hattons carriages to say 44 ft (7 compartment third) or 50 ft (8 compartment third) and you've got a good range of generic pre-grouping bogie carriages.

 

15 minutes ago, Hroth said:

If the 4/6 wheelers sell well, then perhaps thats the logical next step for Hattons?

Stick 'em on Fox bogies and the same basic design could cover many different companies! (Yes, I know that there were some smaller differences in sprlnging between different companies, but it would surely look nicely slightly-later pre-grouping). Probably only two types of lighting to tool for, too - can't imagine much demand for oil-lit bogie coaches? (Based on my limited knowledge of pre-grouping Southern carriages). That being said, the possibility of clerestory vs non-clerestory roofs. Hmmmmmm... 

And of course if only doing one range of bogie carriages, all that would be needed would be a Third, a Brake Third, and a Composite. One could even go all out and have a full first too! The 6-wheel full brake would go well enough with bogie carriages.

[Dunsignalling]

8 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

 

Stick 'em on Fox bogies and the same basic design could cover many different companies! (Yes, I know that there were some smaller differences in sprlnging between different companies, but it would surely look nicely slightly-later pre-grouping). Probably only two types of lighting to tool for, too - can't imagine much demand for oil-lit bogie coaches? (Based on my limited knowledge of pre-grouping Southern carriages). That being said, the possibility of clerestory vs non-clerestory roofs. Hmmmmmm... 

And of course if only doing one range of bogie carriages, all that would be needed would be a Third, a Brake Third, and a Composite. One could even go all out and have a full first too! The 6-wheel full brake would go well enough with bogie carriages.

Personally, I'd like them to include a 56' Lavatory Tri-composite brake.

 

John

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

 

If the 4/6 wheelers sell well, then perhaps thats the logical next step for Hattons?

 

 

Without a doubt. They can re-use much of the CAD work with respect to panelling and just add 3 or 4 compartments. Hatton's have used the term "generic" which is fair enough but perhaps these coaches might lead to a bit of a return to "freelance" layouts.

 

And for that it would be ideal to have some locomotives that were produced by the independent builders and sold to the smaller pre-group railways, Beyer Peacock being the obvious example. 

[Compound2632]

57 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

And of course if only doing one range of bogie carriages, all that would be needed would be a Third, a Brake Third, and a Composite. One could even go all out and have a full first too! The 6-wheel full brake would go well enough with bogie carriages.

 

Just to develop this idea a little further (and remember you saw it here first, folks!) there are two options, sticking with the arc-roof profile of the Genesis carriages:

1. First generation main line bogie carriages - introduced on the Midland in the late 1870s and spreading quite widely by the 1890s. These would be the 44 ft carriages. A 7-compartment third and a 4 or 5-compartment brake third, yes, but "a composite" - you must be joking! Factoring in the all-important brake composites (the through carriage to anywhere), the Midland alone had eight different designs in the 40 ft - 45 ft range; the LNWR a similar number of different designs of 42 ft composite (many on radial underframes). And that's before one starts throwing in conversions to include lavatories (from the early 1890s) or carriages built new with lavatories. But for "generic" purposes I'm sure one could home in on a lavatory composite: Luggage/T/F/F/Lav/T/T and a lavatory brake composite Brake/F/F/Lav/T/T.
2. Turn-of-the-century suburban sets of 50 ft carriages - here just a brake third, third, and composite would suffice. If representing one of the lines that retained second class into the 20th century, the brake third doubles up as a brake second, the third as a second/third composite, and the composite as first/second and first/third. Might need a full first too. The LNWR had sets made up with scarcely two carriages the same, e.g. Birmingham - Sutton: BS/S/S-F compo/F/F-T compo/T/T/BT. That's the sort of set that should warm the cockles of Hattons' bank manager's heart.

47 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Personally, I'd like them to include a 56' Lavatory Tri-composite brake.

 

That length is a bit too 20th century for the Hattons Genesis styling. We're starting to look at cove and high elliptical roof profiles here. Besides, the length does nothing to distinguish them from run-of-the-mill post-grouping carriages. Short is sweet, here.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Compound2632

[Skinnylinny]

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just to develop this idea a little further (and remember you saw it here first, folks!) there are two options, sticking with the arc-roof profile of the Genesis carriages:

1. First generation main line bogie carriages - introduced on the Midland in the late 1870s and spreading quite widely by the 1890s. These would be the 44 ft carriages. A 7-compartment third and a 4 or 5-compartment brake third, yes, but "a composite" - you must be joking! Factoring in the all-important brake composites (the through carriage to anywhere), the Midland alone had eight different designs in the 40 ft - 45 ft range; the LNWR a similar number of different designs of 42 ft composite (many on radial underframes). And that's before one starts throwing in conversions to include lavatories (from the early 1890s) or carriages built new with lavatories. But for "generic" purposes I'm sure one could home in on a lavatory composite: Luggage/T/F/F/Lav/T/T and a lavatory brake composite Brake/F/F/Lav/T/T.
2. Turn-of-the-century suburban sets of 50 ft carriages - here just a brake third, third, and composite would suffice. If representing one of the lines that retained second class into the 20th century, the brake third doubles up as a brake second, the third as a second/third composite, and the composite as first/second and first/third. Might need a full first too. The LNWR had sets made up with scarcely two carriages the same, e.g. Birmingham - Sutton: BS/S/S-F compo/F/F-T compo/T/T/BT. That's the sort of set that should warm the cockles of Hattons' bank manager's heart.

 

That length is a bit too 20th century for the Hattons Genesis styling. We're starting to look at cove and high elliptical roof profiles here. Besides, the length does nothing to distinguish them from run-of-the-mill post-grouping carriages. Short is sweet, here.

I'll grant you that you'd expect a fair variety of different diagrams for the mainline 44' carriages, I'm trying to limit the number of different toolings to a similar number to the 4- and 6-wheelers - we're not trying to represent a company's entire stock here!

A brake composite would be lovely - as you say, the all-important through carriages which allow an out-of-area carriage to realistically appear in a rake, and also fulfilling all the requirements of a train in one vehicle. A small tank loco  with a brake compo, or a brake compo and a brake third, would make a lovely little branch line train for later periods too. 

I think the idea of lavatory carriages is a nice one, and a lavatory compartment which is shorter than a third-class compartment would allow for the increased width of the first-class compartments while keeping vehicle length the same. 

So what we seem to be suggesting, for a reasonable range of rakes is (tooling only, printing to provide variants)
- Brake Third
- Full Third (may be lettered as a second or third/second composite)
- "Lav Composite" (First/Second, First/Third or even tricompo if going for some companies - careful design of compartment widths could work wonders here)
- "Lav First" (which might also be a First/Second)
- Brake (lav) Composite
- plus possibly a full brake

The use of lavatories does make life somewhat more tricky - some companies generally provided lavatories to all classes (see the wonderful 1897 LSWR 48' lavatory tricomposite - 6 compartments, each with their own toilet!) others at first only provided to first class. That being said, on various companies, non-lav compartment carriages lasted a surprisingly long time.

The question is also, how many modellers are going to want that many varieties of carriage at once? I'm personally looking at 3-4 carriage trains when it gets to bogie stock. I was thinking either BT/C/T/Brake or BT/C/BT or BT/T/BC. 

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Are you sure? I can't think of any such LNER vehicles at that time which would be in passenger service on any route compatible with an A4. It might be out on test with some ancient vehicles not in passenger service.

There is a photograph of one such working but I've searched the internet in vain for it. The photograph in question appeared in a late 30's edition of Railway Magazine and the caption stated that it was on a regular service being tested. Apparently it was common practice for Doncaster works to run brand new locomotives on the branch for testing. As I recall the locomotive was in Silver Link livery which might give a clue as to the date. The branch in question was IIRC closed long ago but was in easy reach of Doncaster works. Nevertheless one could always apply rule 1.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Without a doubt. They can re-use much of the CAD work with respect to panelling and just add 3 or 4 compartments. Hatton's have used the term "generic" which is fair enough but perhaps these coaches might lead to a bit of a return to "freelance" layouts.

 

And for that it would be ideal to have some locomotives that were produced by the independent builders and sold to the smaller pre-group railways, Beyer Peacock being the obvious example. 

I must admit to more than a little idle musing as to whether Hatton's might be considering such a follow-up.

 

The obvious candidate would be a Metropolitan 4-4-0T, which was probably the most widely used among pre-group companies.

 

Did anyone other than the LSWR buy the "Ilfracombe Goods" (new, that is) ? 

 

Another company well known for their "off-the-peg" main line locos was Sharp, Stewart & Co.

 

John 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Dunsignalling