Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

All this adapting and bodgery of generic models got me thinking, how's the Genesis MR 6 Wheel Third looking to be adapted to a MR Diagram 504 Third Brake? It would look more like the original and easier to blank out windows and colour match than hack the duckets off the Brake Third which, in any case, doesn't have as relevant compartment spacing, especially round the guard's area.

 

And on the original MR D.504, were there 3 or 4 third compartments as I've seen where "models" showing both arrangements with the 4th third as the guards compartment, as is.

Edited by MR Chuffer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

All this adapting and bodgery of generic models got me thinking, how's the Genesis MR 6 Wheel Third looking to be adapted to a MR Diagram 504 Third Brake? It would looks more like the original and easier to blank out windows and colour match than hack the duckets off the Brake Third which, in any case, doesn't have as relevant compartment spacing, especially round the guard's area.

 

And on the original MR D.504, were there 3 or 4 third compartments as I've seen where "models" showing both arrangements with the 4th third as the guards compartment, as is.

 

Well, the MR's tended to be 31' (Hattons 32') and the Clayton waist panels were narrower than most, but .....

 

Over to Stephen ..... 

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

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

All this adapting and bodgery of generic models got me thinking, how's the Genesis MR 6 Wheel Third looking to be adapted to a MR Diagram 504 Third Brake? It would looks more like the original and easier to blank out windows and colour match than hack the duckets off the Brake Third which, in any case, doesn't have as relevant compartment spacing, especially round the guard's area.

 

And on the original MR D.504, were there 3 or 4 third compartments as I've seen where "models" showing both arrangements with the 4th third as the guards compartment, as is.

 

 

Just now, Edwardian said:

Over to Stephen ..... 

 

I really think one would be better off tracking down the Slaters kits for D493 and D504! (Which might reappear...)

 

The diagram and photos are, I think, unanimous in showing three third class compartments and a 12'1½" long brake compartment.

 

Clayton's designs for brake compartments often include what externally looks like a passenger compartment together with a compartment with double "luggage" doors; sometimes basically the same body was used for a composite and a brake composite design: compare the 45 ft bogie composites of D513 (T/T/F/F/T/T/Luggage compt 5'4¼" long) and the 45 ft bogie composite brakes of D526 (T/T/F/F/T/Brake compt 11'5½" long) - the external elevations are identical, at least on the diagram, though generally a luggage compartment had windowless door whereas the double doors of a brake compartment had a droplight in the LH door. There were conversions of composites to brake composite, made by removing the partition between the luggage compartment and the adjacent the third class compartment, along with removing the seats and adding the hand brake.

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

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Clayton waist panels were narrower than most, but .....

 

5". Similar to Dean? Compared to Hattons, it's the eves panels that are noticably deeper.

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

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I really think one would be better off tracking down the Slaters kits for D493 and D504! (Which might reappear...)

... And @Edwardian, are we in danger of moving out of thread scope here? These are generic, they enable new modellers like me to jump start their coaching stock, I have a cupboard full of Ratio and LRM carriage kits to build and a MR Class 1532 1P to run them with - and I can't wait. So Hattons provides a compromise - amongst many I have on my layout (due to my advancing years) - so I can start passenger services later this year. They are ideally suited to modellers like me who will never be sharing my miniature world with anyone other than mildly interested non-railway visitors.

 

The detail Stephen has provided on Hattons/MR comparisons herein has enabled me, and probably many others, to adjust my expectations and make compromises I am happy with. And thanks to all others that also contribute, the range is generic but as is evident, with scope to increase fidelity. 106 thread pages and still the legs for more...

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Budgie said:

How would one go about making close-coupled sets with these coaches? Obviously one would have to remove one buffer from each end (which side?) or would one remove both buffers and replace one with a shorter buffer? Then one would have to find a shorter coupling, making sure the set will go round radius 2 curves with no trouble.

Anything else?

 

Hornby do a version of the Roco "close coupling" that fits in NEM sockets - I use them within sets of Maunsell coaches. Would they work with these?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Hornby do a version of the Roco "close coupling" that fits in NEM sockets - I use them within sets of Maunsell coaches. Would they work with these?

 

That's "close coupling" in the model railway sense. I too use the Roco type couplers within NEM-socketed sets of RTR bogie carriages; their particular advantage over tension locks is that there is no slack, so the whole rake moves as a single unit, as the real thing would with the screw couplings tightened up, or with buckeye couplers. (Tension locks are much better suited to replicating the motion of a loose-coupled goods train.) The Roco couplers can't themselves give significantly closer coupling as one is still limited by the clearances needed to avoid buffer-locking on curves. I see no reason why the Roco type couplers shouldn't be useable on the Genesis carriages - the NEM sockets are pivoted.

 

"Close coupling" on the real thing was a much more intimate affair.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MR Chuffer said:

... And @Edwardian, are we in danger of moving out of thread scope here? These are generic, they enable new modellers like me to jump start their coaching stock,

 

No, I shouldn't have thought so.

 

One can views these coaches in whatever way best suits one's attitudes and aims. You can take them as there are, characterful representations of your chosen company's coaches.  Or, you can look to those that are a good approximation to a given prototype and modify them to make them closer, or, you can view them simply as a resource, like the Ratio kits or the Triang clerestories.  Compared with an etched kit and all the extras, they're inexpensive enough to be used for bashing and bodging. 

 

In what way might these coaches get people more interested in earlier periods/equipment?  By comparing them with prototypes and by imaginatively fiddling with them would be two legitimate ways.  Or, by just glorying in a crisp moulding and a fine print job that looks the part. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's "close coupling" in the model railway sense. I too use the Roco type couplers within NEM-socketed sets of RTR bogie carriages; their particular advantage over tension locks is that there is no slack, so the whole rake moves as a single unit, as the real thing would with the screw couplings tightened up, or with buckeye couplers. (Tension locks are much better suited to replicating the motion of a loose-coupled goods train.) The Roco couplers can't themselves give significantly closer coupling as one is still limited by the clearances needed to avoid buffer-locking on curves. I see no reason why the Roco type couplers shouldn't be useable on the Genesis carriages - the NEM sockets are pivoted.

 

"Close coupling" on the real thing was a much more intimate affair.

The whole point of close-coupling linkages is that they incorporate cams so the coaches move apart on curves, hence no chance of buffer locking.

 

However, they are only wholly effective when used in conjunction with coupler heads that lock rigidly together (e.g. Roco, Keen, Fleischmann Profi) or solid bars (e.g. Bachmann). Then, buffers can and should be touching when the train is on straight track. Unless, of course the prototype coaches were buckeye-coupled, in which case the buffers would be retracted. 

 

Tension lock couplings, Kadees etc. don't lock together and gaps will be necessary where they are used. That's why I confine them to the ends of rakes. Gaps are also required if Roco heads are used in NEM pockets on the bogies. However, the lookalike Hornby heads are 2mm longer so will create a 4mm gap, which is probably sufficient most of the time, but may have issues with set-track crossovers.

 

This is really something that Hornby and Bachmann should explain to their customers, as the effect, when properly set up, looks so much more realistic. However, they seem content to leave us to work it out for ourselves, and few seem to bother. All a bit weird when one considers how deep some get into the minutiae of DCC....

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
59 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

However, they are only wholly effective when used in conjunction with coupler heads that lock rigidly together (e.g. Roco, Keen, Fleischmann Profi) or solid bars (e.g. Bachmann). Then, buffers can and should be touching when the train is on straight track. Unless, of course the prototype coaches were buckeye-coupled, in which case the buffers would be retracted. 

 

Coupler heads locking rigidly together are bad news, as that will result in derailments when the track twists, as it will when it curves going uphill or downhill, as in a helix. You shouldn't get buffer-locking if you only have one buffer on each coach end, and a rubbing-plate for the buffer to contact.

 

Quote

Tension lock couplings ... don't lock together

 

Oh yes they do, unless you run short trains; that's why they have the word "lock" in their name. I complained about them many times in the past when they caused derailments on my garden railway because they locked the train into a straight line and it wouldn't go round the 10-foot and larger radius curves on my garden railway.

 

I am looking to reproduce the SECR sets that there are photos of in "Railways of Beckenham".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Coupler heads locking rigidly together are bad news, as that will result in derailments when the track twists, as it will when it curves going uphill or downhill, as in a helix.

 

Not an issue for bogie stock, where there are additional degrees of freedom. In any case, the Roco type have enough "give".

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

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

Coupler heads locking rigidly together are bad news, as that will result in derailments when the track twists, as it will when it curves going uphill or downhill, as in a helix. You shouldn't get buffer-locking if you only have one buffer on each coach end, and a rubbing-plate for the buffer to contact.

 

 

Oh yes they do, unless you run short trains; that's why they have the word "lock" in their name. I complained about them many times in the past when they caused derailments on my garden railway because they locked the train into a straight line and it wouldn't go round the 10-foot and larger radius curves on my garden railway.

 

I am looking to reproduce the SECR sets that there are photos of in "Railways of Beckenham".

Different requirement altogether. Totally rigid couplers are indeed useless, but the Roco heads for use in CCUs just lock adjacent links together so they function as intended.

 

There's enough "twistability" in the links and flex in the heads themselves to cope with curves, gradients and helixes unless they resemble something off Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

 

Yes, tension locks do lock, but not in the way required to function properly in CCUs. 

 

John

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not an issue for bogie stock, where there are additional degrees of freedom. In any case, the Roco type have enough "give".

Yes for bogie stock. I had that problem with Hornby's 2Bil and 2Hal units running up and down the helix on my layout. My solution was to couple them within the units with Kadee 17s with the coupler pin cut off and inserted upside down into the NEM pockets

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, I have standardised on Hornby/Roco couplers on all CCM fitted stock between coaches including CCTs in the rake with Kadees on the outer ends, but I do avoid using them on bogie mounted NEM pockets like the Hornby Mk1s and older Bachmann DMUs. I also use them on the bogie of my 1532s to their usual 2 coach Hornby LMS subs, and those haven't derailed yet even when run on setrack pushing or pulling. The Hattons 4 and 6 wheelers look like they have a good swing to the NEM pockets, so I'll probably be using the Roco heads there as well. I have the barge pole deployed for the Hornby 4 and 6 wheelers, but they look to have a solid mount for the NEM pocket, so Kadees there methinks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 hours ago, Zunnan said:

. The Hattons 4 and 6 wheelers look like they have a good swing to the NEM pockets, so I'll probably be using the Roco heads there as well.


The Hattons coupling mount is fixed to the chassis. The NEM pocket is part of the specific mount which has a self centring spring. 
https://albionyard.net/2020/10/27/transformation-tuesday-genesis/

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

57 minutes ago, PMP said:


The Hattons coupling mount is fixed to the chassis. The NEM pocket is part of the specific mount which has a self centring spring. 
https://albionyard.net/2020/10/27/transformation-tuesday-genesis/

 

I was thinking I'd seen a photo of such an arrangement, glad to have it confirmed that I'm not going entirely loopy! That looks like it should work well with the various NEM bar/pipe/Roco/profi couplers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 17/01/2021 at 13:33, RJS1977 said:

- I've already got a rake of Triang clerestories (albeit which could do with replacement bogies to improve their running characteristics

Might I suggest Stafford Road Works 3D prints from Shapeways.  They do most of the GW types and are very free running with Hornby or Bachmann 14mm wheels, no need for brass bearings, and include NEM pockets.  No connection happy customer. 

 

My own clerestories run fine on their original Triang B1 bogies, which I have converted to ersatz 8'6" Deans by cutting out the tie bars and gluing footboards (Sainsbury's cafe coffee stirrers cut in half lengthways) to them; you make cutouts for the axleboxes and superglue 'em straight on.  I was a bit surprised that 1961 Triang wheels would manage Peco code 100 streamline flangeways, but they glide majestically through,  It's worth putting scale buffers on these coaches, it 'lift's them considerably, and I've given mine interiors and glazing in the clerestories as well.  Next job is to replace the bogies with the aformentioned Stafford Road prints, and cut and shut a 3 coach rake into 2 coaches of scale length.  All in good time...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 18/01/2021 at 18:23, Budgie said:
Quote

 

 

Oh yes they do, unless you run short trains; that's why they have the word "lock" in their name

A few words in defence of the venerable tension lock, at least in it's current form in an NEM pocket.  They look hideous, but the current type is not as bad as the old Triang, Triang Hornby, Mainline, and especially the awful Lima offerings. They are virtually 100% reliable, but the caveat is that certain conditions must be met. 

 

Firstly, a standard profile must be used, and despite it being alleged that all t/ls are compatible, which gives the impression that they are all built to a standard, they aren't.  There are differences in material, hook profile, bar profile, distance of protrusion beyond buffer beams and buffers (two related but separate issues)  and mounting.  They are supposed to go in pockets but the problem of mounting the pockets on rigid  framed locomotives, bogie vehicles, and 4/6 wheeled stock of different lengths prevents a workable standard being possible here.  There  are also different heights for the coupling bars, which are effectively the buffers when propelling.  So one has to as far as possible establish a single make for all one's stock; on my layout this is Bachmann because Bachmann supply the largest amount of stock of any RTR producer on my layout; this is not because of any brand loyalty but simply a result of them making more stuff that I want than any other RTR producer.

 

Secondly, it necessary for reliable operation of t/ls that track be laid level, and with smooth rail joints between adjoining pieces.  Obviously, the larger you can make your minimum radius curves the better, but this goes for the vertical plane curves at the top and bottom of gradients as well.  If this is not allowed for, the bars will override and buffer locking will result. 

 

Thirdly, it is necessary for each vehicle to be ballasted to a standard degree, again to preven bar overriding.  This is not the same as having all vehicles a standard weight, as this means that short wheelbase vehicles are proportionally heavier than longer ones, and it is not quite the same as establishing a standard axle loading across your layout.  I'd hesitate to give specifications on this, it's a sort of trial and error/getting it to feel right thing. 

 

Fourthly, all b2bs must be the same, and the wheels centred on the axles so that couplings line up properly with each other, and all wheelsets must run freely. 

 

This will give you very reliable running with tension lock couplings.  They have the advantage of automatic coupling, and I am easily able to uncouple them with a lit pole, a small torch with a piece of stiff wire superglued to it that goes beneath the hooks and between the bars so that the hooks can be lifted.  Spade type uncoupling devices are no good on my layout where access from the side is restricted by platforms and loading docks in some places. 

 

Where RTR stock is provided with NEM pockets, t/ls usually work well but you may run foul of the non-standard aspects outlined above.  I use Parkside PA34 coupling moutns on kits and Dapol stock (Dapol couplings droop and are useless, so are their wheelsets), as these can be positioned at a standard bar height by trimming or packing the mount, and can be positoned to achieve the corrent relationship of the bar to buffer heads, a point also to be considered if you replace buffers on older stock or kits with scale types that may protrude further out from the buffer beam than the original design of the model. 

 

It took a bit of faffing, following my decision to 'revert' to tension locks after my failing eyesight and trembling hands meant I could no longer cope with scale couplings, but I am now able to haul or propel any item or combination of items of stock anywhere on my layout with any loco without the couplings causing any problems, and my buffer separation, while not scale, is pretty good (remember Limas' 6 foot gaps?) and I can live with it..

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being very cheeky, is there any possibility that Hattons could take a few photographs of one of their tooling sample Genesis carriages coupled to one of the new Hornby 4- or 6-wheelers, to allow those of us considering "mixing and matching" to get the common pre-grouping phenomenon of differing carriage types in a train to get an idea of the difference in roofline, height etc?

  • Like 7
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The best of the tension lock couplings IMHO is the early Airfix ones, both compact and reliable. The worst are Lima, oversize and unable to couple to some other tension lock couplings. Even worse the crossbar is often moulded in situ with the chassis.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The best of the tension lock couplings IMHO is the early Airfix ones, both compact and reliable. The worst are Lima, oversize and unable to couple to some other tension lock couplings. Even worse the crossbar is often moulded in situ with the chassis.

I agree the early Airfix was the best and it has taken a quarter century for something like to become standard. It was a major setback when they adopted the more Triang Hornby type!

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...