Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, RichardLong said:


The FYN one was LSWR no. 734 but the current Hornby one seems to be LSWR no. 735 - but even if it were 734 it doesn’t have a Drummond boiler so would be inaccurate for how it ran on the IOW.

Might have to live with it.

I do not think Hornby or Rails will have provided tooling for this variation.

 

All the best

Ray

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

  • RMweb Gold
On 23/02/2021 at 14:35, Hattons Dave said:

Hi all,

 

genesisgwr_email1.jpg.dd898c065eb9d6256cf48e50c5b688bb.jpg

We are pleased to share images of the decorated samples for our GWR chocolate and cream liveried coaches. The images here also showcase the lighting system which will be available with our Genesis coaches. 

 

We have updated our current delivery estimate to Q3 2021. We are working hard to get our coaches in to stock sooner than this and we’ll keep you updated as soon as we have more accurate dates.

 

Find out more HERE

 

 

  • Like 16
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Hauling the coaches through a ladder was good. Propelling them back was even better.  Convincing performance in real-layout configurations. 

 

Better still, sent some to Sam's Trains to run on his carpet layout.:D

  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never, never before has a GWR livery sample model made me actually spend money....Very well done indeed Hattons! I think we all knew these were going to be good from the effort put in with the design and the quality of those EPs, but seeing them in paint elevates them so much higher. Whether you accept generic stock or not, there is no denying that Hattons has pretty much nailed it where others fell short.

 

Salivating waiting for the LMS liveried samples now.

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

19 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

One huge gap between them with those couplings


I suspect the long buffers between non-gangwayed carriages don't help here - I see the bufferheads look maybe 1-2mm apart when being propelled backwards through the 2nd radius points, which, given that these will be expected to negotiate a 1st radius set-track reverse curve, is probably about as close as can be expected. There are plenty of alternative closer-coupling options available, I'm sure!
image.png.a06ee091aeca1ea16326fc8665be2274.png
 

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

  • RMweb Premium

There was a photo posted on one of these two threads a while back, a side-on view of a train of LSWR 6-wheelers. Someone remarked on what seemed to them the enormous cap between the carriages. It's all a question of adjusting your late-steam expectations to the reality of the 19th century railway - like the difficulty people have had coming to terms with the lack of stuff cluttering up the space below the solebars.

 

Consider that with 2 ft buffers and screw couplings done up tight, there will be 4 ft between the headstocks of adjacent carriages. For carriages with end-turn under, that would come down to around 3 ft 6 in between the carriage bodies but for these flat-ended carriages, it's 4 ft between bodies. Now allow for going round 2nd radius curves...

 

One solution might have been unprototypically short buffers but that would generate a different set of grumbles! I wonder whether it is possible to apply the principle of the Keen system and other close-coupling systems used on bogie carriages here, to close up the gap when on the straight?

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

There was a photo posted on one of these two threads a while back, a side-on view of a train of LSWR 6-wheelers. Someone remarked on what seemed to them the enormous cap between the carriages. It's all a question of adjusting your late-steam expectations to the reality of the 19th century railway - like the difficulty people have had coming to terms with the lack of stuff cluttering up the space below the solebars.

 

Consider that with 2 ft buffers and screw couplings done up tight, there will be 4 ft between the headstocks of adjacent carriages. For carriages with end-turn under, that would come down to around 3 ft 6 in between the carriage bodies but for these flat-ended carriages, it's 4 ft between bodies. Now allow for going round 2nd radius curves...

 

One solution might have been unprototypically short buffers but that would generate a different set of grumbles! I wonder whether it is possible to apply the principle of the Keen system and other close-coupling systems used on bogie carriages here, to close up the gap when on the straight?

I've used them on Airfix LMS non-corridors and there's no difference to the way I used them on their corridor coaches.  The only potential issue with a 4/6-wheel coach is having sufficient room for the base of the unit.

 

If that proves to be inadequate, the Symoba equivalent with bases a tad under 12mm square is small enough to fit almost anything, though it's rather more pricey. Roco also make some but theirs are fairly large, too.

 

Without wishing to be pedantic, though, CCUs increase the gaps on curves, rather than closing them up on straight track. Most types self-centre, and the straight/short position is the "at rest" mode. The Keen ones don't, but that happens automatically so long as adjacent pairs are properly locked together.

 

My preferred method is to use the Keen ones within sets and Symobas on the outer ends , though it's often possible to "steer" the Keen ones off the bogies as they turn. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've used them on Airfix LMS non-corridors and there's no difference to the way I used them on their corridor coaches.  

 

Likewise. They make all the difference.

 

12 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

If that proves to be inadequate, the Symoba equivalent with bases a tad under 12mm square is small enough to fit almost anything, though it's rather more pricey.

 

Interesting. I'd not come across these but have just had a look without being any the wiser as to how they work!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Likewise. They make all the difference.

 

 

Interesting. I'd not come across these but have just had a look without being any the wiser as to how they work!

They are essentially similar to the Keen Systems ones, just smaller and fully enclosed, with the addition of a self-centreing spring. 

 

John

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

  • RMweb Gold

Another possibility for sets that can be permanently coupled and left on the layout is James’ Trains couplings, 3D prints available through Shapeways.  These a a single piece print of the coupling, various types being available, with NEM beetle antlers each end to fit into the NEM pockets on the vehicles.  I use these on my mineral rakes, which need to be propelled through a no.2 radius curve.  Buffers are about 1mm apart on the straights. 
 

No connection happy customer, but they are a bit brittle for frequent handling, which is why I suggested them for sets that can be left on the layout permanently.  There’s sufficient sideways flexibility bur they don't like being being stressed in the verta al plane or twisted.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2021 at 17:58, Skinnylinny said:

These look lovely, with lovely filigree lining, but shouldn't the centre lavatory have frosted windows?

 

 

These are only samples and not guaranteed to be the same as the final version.  Hattons Dave will have picked up on the comment....

 

Les

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 26/02/2021 at 13:16, RichardLong said:


Pretty sure I’ve read that - based on the photographic evidence - they didn’t always have the right loco matched up with the right coaches!

 

Incidentally, the FYN’s Terrier was a bit of an oddity as it had a Drummond boiler (fitted when it was owned by the LSWR).  I’m not sure either Hornby or Rails would have the tooling to accurately represent that?

I believe the Manning Wardle was dual-braked, so could work with either set. The Terrier was vacuum-only, so could only legally work with the vacuum set. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happened though...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2021 at 15:09, RichardLong said:


It was originally leased from the LSWR and apparently ran in full LSWR livery - with no changes to number or lettering -  for several years.  Most sources seem to agree that it was repainted in a new “bright green” livery with black & white lining and FYN lettering circa 1916.

According to Bradley 734 arrived on hire 25 June 1913, and was eventually purchased less than two years later, in February 1915. Apparently then painted apple green with dark green bands and yellow lining. 

The Manning Wardle was dual fitted, so could haul both types of rolling stock, when required, the Terrier being confined to the ex-MSLR coaches until the Southern added the longer bunker and changed the brakes back to Westinghouse in 1924, the ex-MSLR coaches being similarly converted at the same time, running for another seven years as a set on the Freshwater line.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly the photography/lighting, but I feel the droplight and bolection colour for the GWR samples is far too red (like Hornby's!). Here are a few suggestions for 'indian red/mahogany':

 

indian-red.png.f0e86d2c3138a9ae8d06e9bd64b07a06.png

(rgb: r129, g32, b16)

 

 

indian-red-2.jpg.167103bbf8019154304c8ec96223f52f.jpg

(rgb: r150, g53, b37)

 

edit:  the following addition is the colour used in the livery page of Penrhos Junction coaches:

 

indian-red-penrhos.png.871ff5723eb1a80a1a0d3f61d5e5c178.png

(rgb: r102, g0, b0)

 

Variations in the 'indian red/mahogany' shade were normal. Originally, droplights were real mahogany, varnished. The colour of real mahogany varies considerably, depending on species. Later, when real mahogany became scarce, a non-mahogany wood was used (oak or teak, I guess) which was painted.

 

Edited by Miss Prism
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/03/2021 at 16:57, Miss Prism said:

Quite possibly the photography/lighting, but I feel the droplight and bolection colour for the GWR samples is far too red (like Hornby's!). Here are a few suggestions for 'indian red/mahogany':

 

indian-red.png.f0e86d2c3138a9ae8d06e9bd64b07a06.png

(rgb: r129, g32, b16)

 

 

indian-red-2.jpg.167103bbf8019154304c8ec96223f52f.jpg

(rgb: r150, g53, b37)

 

edit:  the following addition is the colour used in the livery page of Penrhos Junction coaches:

 

indian-red-penrhos.png.871ff5723eb1a80a1a0d3f61d5e5c178.png

(rgb: r102, g0, b0)

 

Variations in the 'indian red/mahogany' shade were normal. Originally, droplights were real mahogany, varnished. The colour of real mahogany varies considerably, depending on species. Later, when real mahogany became scarce, a non-mahogany wood was used (oak or teak, I guess) which was painted.

 

I’d personally prefer the darker shade.

This isn’t because of any knowledge of the correct shade. 

But my thought was  that at least in the early days when they went away from varnished mahogany they would go for a  shade that to most resembled real aged mahogany than something freshly prepared.

 

Maybe later changing to a redder shade of paint when the link with real mahogany had gone?

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

  • RMweb Premium

Apologises if this has been mentioned before re the 4 wheel brake is the arrangement of the guards duckets at the very rear windows at the very rear of the coach unique  just to the LBSC railway or did any other companies have this arrangement?

 

I have ordered a number of sets (different companies) and am wondering if I should re-order some coaches singularly 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, rprodgers said:

Apologises if this has been mentioned before re the 4 wheel brake is the arrangement of the guards duckets at the very rear windows at the very rear of the coach unique  just to the LBSC railway or did any other companies have this arrangement?

 

Whilst characteristic of the LB&SCR, it's by no means unusual; LNWR 4-wheel brake thirds spring to mind. Of the liveries offered in batches 1 and 2, the only one I'd say categorically not is the Midland livery, since Midland arc-roof carriages of the 1880s-90s didn't have duckets at all, except for the 4-wheel passenger brake vans (i.e. without passenger accommodation). The Great Western had some 4-wheelers with the duckets at the very end but these didn't have the large windows in the end.

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/03/2021 at 16:57, Miss Prism said:

Quite possibly the photography/lighting, but I feel the droplight and bolection colour for the GWR samples is far too red (like Hornby's!). Here are a few suggestions for 'indian red/mahogany':

 

indian-red.png.f0e86d2c3138a9ae8d06e9bd64b07a06.png

(rgb: r129, g32, b16)

 

 

indian-red-2.jpg.167103bbf8019154304c8ec96223f52f.jpg

(rgb: r150, g53, b37)

 

edit:  the following addition is the colour used in the livery page of Penrhos Junction coaches:

 

indian-red-penrhos.png.871ff5723eb1a80a1a0d3f61d5e5c178.png

(rgb: r102, g0, b0)

 

Variations in the 'indian red/mahogany' shade were normal. Originally, droplights were real mahogany, varnished. The colour of real mahogany varies considerably, depending on species. Later, when real mahogany became scarce, a non-mahogany wood was used (oak or teak, I guess) which was painted.

 

I'd go for the darkest shade though as the coach weathered the shade would probably lighten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rprodgers said:

Apologises if this has been mentioned before re the 4 wheel brake is the arrangement of the guards duckets at the very rear windows at the very rear of the coach unique  just to the LBSC railway or did any other companies have this arrangement?

 

 

 

No, Great Eastern is another such. There are others,

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

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Whilst characteristic of the LB&SCR, it's by no means unusual; LNWR 4-wheel brake thirds spring to mind. Of the liveries offered in batches 1 and 2, the only one I'd say categorically not is the Midland livery, since Midland arc-roof carriages of the 1880s-90s didn't have duckets at all, except for the 4-wheel passenger brake vans (i.e. without passenger accommodation). The Great Western had some 4-wheelers with the duckets at the very end but these didn't have the large windows in the end.

I want a GER brake third. The end windows on the Hattons coach are more or less the right size and shape but the duckets are wrong. The Hornby offering has duckets that are right for the GER but the end windows are completely wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...