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

[wainwright1]

Deleted

Edited April 17, 2021 by wainwright1
Duplicated

[wainwright1]

15 hours ago, Budgie said:

A bit to the north-east of Tonbridge, East Peckham is a bit of a way from Peckham Rye. 

 

I would not want to walk there from here !!!

 

All the best

Ray

[truffy]

On 16/04/2021 at 20:11, Edwardian said:

 

Someone should explain to Boris the difference between a road map

 

 

And a timetable

 

Bojo likes pretty pictures. And it means that his carers don’t have to explain lots of ikkle numbers to him. 

[SteamingWales]

On 16/04/2021 at 19:11, Edwardian said:

 

Someone should explain to Boris the difference between a road map

 

 

And a timetable

 

 

But you can make plenty of U turns on a road map

Edited April 19, 2021 by SteamingWales
Grammar

[Cor-onGRT4]

I have 8 GWR coaches in pre order looks very nice , the GNR teak look great too, from which periode were these teak GNR coaches?

[gr.king]

You'll find it stated in other places too, there were no GNR coaches that looked like these in any period. The roof shape is completely wrong and the style of the panels is completely wrong for GNR 4 wheeled and 6 wheeled carriages.

[Les1952]

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

You'll find it stated in other places too, there were no GNR coaches that looked like these in any period. The roof shape is completely wrong and the style of the panels is completely wrong for GNR 4 wheeled and 6 wheeled carriages.

 

But for those modelling "freelance" light railways the teaks are very pretty and the GNR lettering will presumably come off without disturbing the teak finish underneath-

 

at least if it won't it will be a first in my experience.....

 

les

[Joseph the L&YR lover]

10 hours ago, gr.king said:

You'll find it stated in other places too, there were no GNR coaches that looked like these in any period. The roof shape is completely wrong and the style of the panels is completely wrong for GNR 4 wheeled and 6 wheeled carriages.

yes, they are generics meant to represent those coaches, he is asking for what time period would the lettering be from

[gr.king]

What qualifies you to re-interpret his words in that way? That is not what his words say, he asks about the coaches as a whole, not just the livery. To indicate that they might be "correct" for any period would be completely wrong and very misleading for the less-informed.

 

GNR livery is suitable for the pre-1923 period, or allowing for the time taken to get things re-painted, isolated examples might be seen for a couple of years after that, but GNR livery is NOT correct for coaches in this style, just as Caledonian Railway livery would be wholly incorrect on a Kriegslok.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, gr.king said:

What qualifies you to re-interpret his words in that way? That is not what his words say, he asks about the coaches as a whole, not just the livery. To indicate that they might be "correct" for any period would be completely wrong and very misleading for the less-informed.

 

GNR livery is suitable for the pre-1923 period, or allowing for the time taken to get things re-painted, isolated examples might be seen for a couple of years after that, but GNR livery is NOT correct for coaches in this style, just as Caledonian Railway livery would be wholly incorrect on a Kriegslok.

 

These models do not represent the carriages of any particular railway company with any great degree of fidelity, though they are consistent with typical carriage-building practice of the time. From that point of view, all the liveries in which they are presented are incorrect. They are "generic" carriages presented in various company liveries. The best question one can ask is: if the carriage painters of a given company had been charged with painting carriages of this type, would they have done what Hattons have done?

 

Obviously in a case such as the Great Northern, where the company's style of carriage building differed significantly from the "generic" represented by these models, that is a challenge. I think the questions to be asked are:

• is this a good representation of Great Northern varnished teak?
• is the lettering correct in style and placed in typical locations?
• is the lining a sensible compromise?

I have no particular knowledge of Great Northern carriages beyond knowing one when I see it - by its distinctive panelling style and roof profile, so these are questions for others with the knowledge.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Compound2632

[Nick Holliday]

19 hours ago, Cor-onGRT4 said:

I have 8 GWR coaches in pre order looks very nice , the GNR teak look great too, from which period were these teak GNR coaches?

To get back to the original question, in a simplistic answer, GNR coaches were in teak until grouping.  Whether the teak finish is "correct" is very subjective, and will always be debatable, but if they look right to the buyer, that's all that really matters. The lettering used on both the Hattons and Hornby versions looks pretty accurate for a period from 1870 to at least 1905, with written class designation and the GNR monogram on each door.  In 1905 Gresley became responsible for coaches and introduced much larger lettering, with, in certain cases, Great Northern in full, and numerals on the doors.  However, these changes were mainly confined to the bogie stock, the 4 and 6 wheelers generally retained the older style of lettering, but the monograms gradually disappeared. So the models in both ranges are accurate in that respect for a period from building to, say, the beginning of the Great War, and, without monograms, to 1923 and a bit beyond. 

As others have said, the panelling details are completely different from the GNR style, which has a much deeper waist panel, and, with the models' much shallower waist, this means that the Gresley style of lettering could not be accommodated on the model, even if it were appropriate.  It is interesting to note that  the early Hattons' drawings show the lettering below the waist moulding, in an attempt, I presume, to replicate the lower position of the prototype lettering, but the more recent engineering samples have the lettering in the waist panel, incorrect for level, but a sensible compromise with the way they have dealt with the raised mouldings and lining.

Information courtesy of Nigel Digby and his useful quartet of livery books.

[Compound2632]

36 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

It is interesting to note that  the early Hattons' drawings show the lettering below the waist moulding, in an attempt, I presume, to replicate the lower position of the prototype lettering,

 

They would be neither the first, nor perhaps the last:

 

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They would be neither the first, nor perhaps the last:

 

So are Hattons going to bring out generic clerestories ?  The genesis range has been very well received and seen as a significant advance over Hornby's offerings.

 

On the basis of  the success they're having with 4/6 wheelers I'm sure they could produce something marketable with 8/12 wheelers ... how about some nice sleepers and dining cars in ECJS/WCJS colours.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So are Hattons going to bring out generic clerestories ?  The genesis range has been very well received and seen as a significant advance over Hornby's offerings.

 

On the basis of  the success they're having with 4/6 wheelers I'm sure they could produce something marketable with 8/12 wheelers ... how about some nice sleepers and dining cars in ECJS/WCJS colours.

 

Clerestories are, frankly, not very generic. One might just get away with something drawing common features from early GW, very early Midland, NE, possibly GE? I think they'd be best off focusing on ordinary types which can be reasonably "generic" - the more esoteric types are much more company-specific in appearance and frankly less useful to most modellers.

[Cor-onGRT4]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

To get back to the original question, in a simplistic answer, GNR coaches were in teak until grouping.  Whether the teak finish is "correct" is very subjective, and will always be debatable, but if they look right to the buyer, that's all that really matters.

Thanks an simple answer on an simple question, that is what i want to know.

I know all these liveries are not to the right diagrams, but it is much,much better than was available over the past.

If Hattons for all these liveries made the right diagrams, it would cost millions of pounds, but they have taken much effort to make something to please lot of us.

There are many specialist with knowledge among us, but for the average modeller, these models will do.

TBH, they look compared to Hornby ones much better with the finesse they have.

Look at the floting axels at Hornby 6 wheelers non of the axels are in the axelpots, but all of these are also generic, maybe a bit more Stroudley

as i read here on this topic.

Your added information says more over the period with these teak livery, so very informative to.   

I find these very nice coaches and a variety on all those bogie coaches, even they are not correct in general.

 

[The Johnster]

The Triang shorty clerestories were originally based on, but not accurate models of, Dean non-gangwayed GW coaches to go with Lord of the Isles.  They were even then (1961 IIRC) 'generic' though that would not have been the term used in those days, in that not only were they the wrong length (a compartment too short) and did not represent actual coaches, but also had what I would describe as generic bogies and underframes, the underframe details being seperate mouldings based on the concurrent 9" mk1s but with gas tanks, and the bogies being the BR B1 that Triang attached to everything in those days.  The livery was incorrect for coaches intended for use with LOTI, which was in full Dean lined out while the coaches were in a simplified 1920s version of choc/cream. 

 

In many ways they were the original generic RTR coach, being released by Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby over the years in various liveries as (I think) Midland, LNER. and early BR crimson/cream as ex GER stock (I have no idea if any such stock ever carried this livery).  Hornby are still producing them and presumably sales are healthy enough to support this; they may not be super accurate scale models, and to be fair do not claim to be, but are adaptable to cut'n'shut workups that can produce tolerable 'layout' models.  The panelling is nicely moulded and the tooling is still turning out crisp well defined models, full of character.  Like the current Hornby Brightongenerics and the Hatton's 4/6 wheelers, they are attractive vehicles and will 'do' nicely for anyone who simply wishes to suggest vehicles from that era on their layouts. 

 

Cwmdimbath has a lengthened BT in filthy brown austerity livery as a miner's workmen's coach, a nod to the clerestories that saw their service lives out on the nearby Glyncorrwg branch in the mid 50s.  This working may also feature Hatton's 4 wheelers in future; it already has a Ratio 4 wheel third as a running mate.  Glyncorrwg also saw the last revenue workings of these as well.

 

Another survivor from the early 60s at Cwmdimbath is a Roxeyfied GLV, shortly to be taken out of service in favour of the new Hornby.  Another coach with a lot of character, B1 bogies, and the 9" underframe details

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

In many ways they were the original generic RTR coach, being released by Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby over the years in various liveries as (I think) Midland, LNER. and early BR crimson/cream as ex GER stock

 

... and pressed into service as Great Central carriages by no less a modeller than Peter Denny. 

[gr.king]

But in the case of the Triang clerestories (correctly pronounced as "clear-stories", not with four syllables) the style of panelling was virtually perfect for the GC bogie stock built in the early Robinson period, which featured round-cornered body panels throughout, unlike the earlier stock with straight, square-corned beading on the lower bodysides. The shapes of the carriage ends were about right too. With ornate grab handles removed carefully, plus new roof and underframe fittings the Triang items are fairly convincing Edwardian GC bogie coaches.

Denny used them simply because they were actually good enough. 

By contrast, the generic 6 wheeled offerings don't match up in key respects to the styles of the GNR, the MS&L, the LDEC, the GER and the NBR. Also, as far as I can currently see, there isn't a simple or easy way to tinker with them to make them match. A new roof with rounded eaves might produce something approximating to NBR style, but I wouldn't like to say that other features would be correct, and I don't think the teak livery would be applicable.

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, gr.king said:

A new roof with rounded eaves might produce something approximating to NBR style, but I wouldn't like to say that other features would be correct, and I don't think the teak livery would be applicable.

 

The NBR panelling style in common with that used on the Caledonian at one period (1880s?) and Highland, was a three-layer style - a version of the GNR / LNER style of panelling but with round-cornered beading. So the generic carriages, with their GWR / MR / NER / LSWR/ LBSCR style of panelling, will not be a good match. NBR carriage livery was claret.

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, gr.king said:

correctly pronounced as "clear-stories", not with four syllables

 

 I have taken advice on this point from the editor of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. She says that either pronunciation is acceptable since it is in widespread usage. One might favour the "clear-story" pronunciation in the context of ecclesiastical architecture but as the "clerry-stree" pronunciation is in widespread use in the context of railway carriage architecture, it is de facto correct. 

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 I have taken advice on this point from the editor of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. She says that either pronunciation is acceptable since it is in widespread usage. One might favour the "clear-story" pronunciation in the context of ecclesiastical architecture but as the "clerry-stree" pronunciation is in widespread use in the context of railway carriage architecture, it is de facto correct. 

So, have we got the story clear now?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

So, have we got the story clear now?

 

No, we've got the stree clerry.

[Mark Saunders]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

So, have we got the story clear now?

Reading and reading

 

[Oldddudders]

1 minute ago, Mark Saunders said:

Reading and reading

 

As in Uni Challenge "Huntley and Palmers, reading Biscuits"

[Mark Saunders]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

As in Uni Challenge "Huntley and Palmers, reading Biscuits"

Or the real intellectual “reading and writing “