Jump to content
 

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


Hattons Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would offer this thought. Whether or not one accepts the idea of a generic coach is one thing.

 

How well a coach serves as a generic coach is another.  

 

Hattons serve well because they are:

 

(a) 'prototype literate' in that they reflect how actual coaches of their ilk were designed, constructed and fitted out;

 

(b) finely detailed quality models, not mere crude facsimilies;

 

(c) a well-thought out synthesis of typical styles and features so that some of the most common design aspects are featured and anything too distinctive is avoided. 

 

The benefit of this approach is clear when one contrasts what Hattons has shown with the Hornby product, which is not so well realised in any of the above three respects.

 

Hattons have been able to produce convincing and, dare I say, realistic generics because they:

 

(1) Had the will and intent to do so - to get it right - and took the time and care necessary; and,

 

(2) Sought, received, considered and applied constructive advice from a number of hobbyists who, between them, brought knowledge of a variety of different company's practice. 

 

It's a well conceived and well executed product that is a credit to Hattons and I, for one, have been impressed with the results we've seen so far.  

  • Like 6
  • Agree 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Proper fly shunting is different, and usually prohibited for obvious safety reasons.  It involves a loco pulling a wagon, which is uncoupled, then the loco accellerates away and pulls up beyond a set of points which are thrown after the loco passes over but before the wagon reaches it, so that the wagon passes the loco on a different road.  It requires skill, split second timing, and a bit of luck to succeed. and would be next to impossible to model!

 

Easier to model if you really want to than to get it right on the real thing - motorised wagons fitted with DCC decoders combined with a cute bit of code on something like iTrain to get the timing right. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I would offer this thought. Whether or not one accepts the idea of a generic coach is one thing.

 

How well a coach serves as a generic coach is another.  

 

Hattons serve well because they are:

 

(a) 'prototype literate' in that they reflect how actual coaches of their ilk were designed, constructed and fitted out;

 

(b) finely detailed quality models, not mere crude facsimilies;

 

(c) a well-thought out synthesis of typical styles and features so that some of the most common design aspects are featured and anything too distinctive is avoided. 

 

The benefit of this approach is clear when one contrasts what Hattons has shown with the Hornby product, which is not so well realised in any of the above three respects.

 

Hattons have been able to produce convincing and, dare I say, realistic generics because they:

 

(1) Had the will and intent to do so - to get it right - and took the time and care necessary; and,

 

(2) Sought, received, considered and applied constructive advice from a number of hobbyists who, between them, brought knowledge of a variety of different company's practice. 

 

It's a well conceived and well executed product that is a credit to Hattons and I, for one, have been impressed with the results we've seen so far.  

 

A valiant effort at getting the discussion back on course. We could really, really do with another livery sample or some such please, @Hattons Dave

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

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Proper fly shunting is different, and usually prohibited for obvious safety reasons.  It involves a loco pulling a wagon, which is uncoupled, then the loco accellerates away and pulls up beyond a set of points which are thrown after the loco passes over but before the wagon reaches it, so that the wagon passes the loco on a different road.  It requires skill, split second timing, and a bit of luck to succeed. and would be next to impossible to model!

 

 

I have told this tale before but in the mid to late 1970s I used to trainspot at Stainforth and Hatfield, northeast of Doncaster. One day, an up goods stopped on the slow line and the leading vehicle was fly shunted into a short loading dock just opposite the platform. The Brush 2 (we didn't call them 31s back then) accelerated away from the rest of the now stationary train with just the one wagon, the loco brakes went on, the wagon was uncoupled, the loco accelerated again and the points were changed after the loco had passed and the wagon drifted serenely into the dock with a man jumping up and down on the handbrake. It stopped a yard short of the buffers, exactly opposite where I was standing on the platform.

 

It was a gunpowder van.

 

For many years I presumed that it was being used for some other traffic until I met a chap who told me that was the way explosives for the nearby colliery arrived.

 

Nothing to do with Hatton's carriages but a tale that I enjoy telling!

  • Like 8
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The Brush 2 (we didn't call them 31s back then) accelerated away from the rest of the now stationary train with just the one wagon, the loco brakes went on, the wagon was uncoupled, the loco accelerated again and the points were changed after the loco had passed and the wagon drifted serenely into the dock with a man jumping up and down on the handbrake. 

 

I'm trying to picture this - from your description, it sounds as if the wagon must have been uncoupled whilst in motion? Also, a facing point into the dock?

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

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm trying to picture this - from your description, it sounds as if the wagon must have been uncoupled whilst in motion? Also, a facing point into the dock?

It looks like the dock came off a non running line:

image.png.74294b47c3898361b0815cd8fdde0834.png

 

 

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

On 28/04/2021 at 16:32, Compound2632 said:

 

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

 

And (with considerable surgery) into Isle of Man carriages by the Manchester Model Railway Society!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm trying to picture this - from your description, it sounds as if the wagon must have been uncoupled whilst in motion? Also, a facing point into the dock?

 

It was. I don't know if there was a shunter or if it was one of the loco crew or the train guard but they rode on the buffers (it was going quite slowly but fast enough to kill somebody if they slipped) and as the loco braked, the coupling went slack and was uncoupled. The same person then jumped down, ran ahead of the loco and changed the point into the dock by hand after the loco had passed. The loco then reversed back onto the train. It saved quite a bit of time compared to running round and shunting "properly".

 

The track diagram shows the dock very clearly. The train arrived on that line, the wagon was detached and the train went on its way. I always thought it was some sort of up relief or slow line but from the plan it looks to be part of the good sidings. It was about 45 years ago and I was a schoolboy, so at the time I had little understanding of such things. The train arrived from the north east on that line, then departed across the crossover by the signalbox back onto the running line.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Do generic and the Genesis range share the same etymology ?

If they ever produce an analogous range of bogie stock, should that take a name from the New Testament?

At the risk of attracting a "groan" emoji, that might be quite a Revelation.:rolleyes:

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Also known as Apocalypse - so be careful what you wish for.

Does than mean we get them Now?

Edited by melmerby
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, melmerby said:

Vacuum from the Latin vacuus meaning empty.

Now normally pronounced vac-yewm, (especially when refering to cleaners) in UK but should really be and used to be vac-yew-um, as in continuum

 

 

Agree but many railwaymen used the vernacular word vack-um although that was also probably also a consequence of Regional accentsl as it definitely wasn't universal even on the WR.

 

The term 'loose coupled' applied to any unfitted freight train or part thereof so properly applied to the unfitted part of a train with a fitted head when used in the correct context.  The term 'fly shunting' (instead of loose shunting) was used in some early Rule Books, for example it is used in that context in my 1877 GWR/LNWR Joint Rule Book.  But by 1904, if not earlier, it had been replaced by the terms 'Loose Shunting' and 'Double Shunting' in the RCH standard Rules (Rule 113) - the earliest Rule Book I have which confirms that is my 1904 GWR Rule Book.  

 

Fly shunting was not separately identified in the Rule Book until 1972 when it was transferred from the General Appendix to the Rule Book but it had been defined in the General Appendix since at least February 1911 - that being the earliset dated reference I can find in GWR publications.   In some cases it seems the pre-1904 understanding might well have passed down to later generations but from the early 20th century Fly Shunting had been very clearly defined together with a warning about its dangers and the requirement for it only to be undertaken by experienced Shunters.  You'd need to be well out of date on your shunting Rules and Regulations to be calling loose (or double) shunting  fly shunting - probably because such people had never been involved in fly shunting.  

 

However there might be an older derivation as there was a very early GWR everyday term used by some people to describe their local freight trip as 'the fly'.  Oddly although it had long been in the Rules the term double shunting was, in my experience, invariably never used in everyday railway conversation.

 

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

It looks like the dock came off a non running line:

 

 

 

I would be amazed if it didn't.  Fly shunting is difficult enough as everything needs to be very carefully timed to do it right.  And that means it is really impossible over points worked by a signal box because the Signalman can't see the correct moment to change the points and handsignalling him to do so would cost time that wasn't available

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

We're drifting a bit, even by my standards...

 

Railway vernacular, both professional and enthusiast, would be a pretty comprehensive subject in it's own right.  I learned 'vackum' both on the job and on the Guard's Training Course.  The instructor, I've forgotten his name now, was a Yorkshireman who insisted that 'vackum' was the correct way to enunciate this particular word, but as I say I'd already had it drummed into me by local railwaymen.  Only scientists, I was told, said 'vacyewum', and they were the b*ggers responsible for the atom bomb...

 

Our Yorkshire instructor had a rather lovely habit of describing ground signals, which we knew as 'dummies', as 'dollies' (actually quite reasonable as signals were on dolls).  I recall a yarn of his about a driver who'd 'it a dolly over at Wath wi' an electric'.  Trouble at t'mill, it's grim oop north...

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

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Agree but many railwaymen used the vernacular word vack-um although that was also probably also a consequence of Regional accentsl as it definitely wasn't universal even on the WR.

 

The term 'loose coupled' applied to any unfitted freight train or part thereof so properly applied to the unfitted part of a train with a fitted head when used in the correct context.  The term 'fly shunting' (instead of loose shunting) was used in some early Rule Books, for example it is used in that context in my 1877 GWR/LNWR Joint Rule Book.  But by 1904, if not earlier, it had been replaced by the terms 'Loose Shunting' and 'Double Shunting' in the RCH standard Rules (Rule 113) - the earliest Rule Book I have which confirms that is my 1904 GWR Rule Book.  

 

Fly shunting was not separately identified in the Rule Book until 1972 when it was transferred from the General Appendix to the Rule Book but it had been defined in the General Appendix since at least February 1911 - that being the earliset dated reference I can find in GWR publications.   In some cases it seems the pre-1904 understanding might well have passed down to later generations but from the early 20th century Fly Shunting had been very clearly defined together with a warning about its dangers and the requirement for it only to be undertaken by experienced Shunters.  You'd need to be well out of date on your shunting Rules and Regulations to be calling loose (or double) shunting  fly shunting - probably because such people had never been involved in fly shunting.  

 

However there might be an older derivation as there was a very early GWR everyday term used by some people to describe their local freight trip as 'the fly'.  Oddly although it had long been in the Rules the term double shunting was, in my experience, invariably never used in everyday railway conversation.

 

I would be amazed if it didn't.  Fly shunting is difficult enough as everything needs to be very carefully timed to do it right.  And that means it is really impossible over points worked by a signal box because the Signalman can't see the correct moment to change the points and handsignalling him to do so would cost time that wasn't available

 

As I understand it, the brakes start to come on once the integrity of the vacuum is compromised, so it would seem it's all about an 'integrity vacuum'

 

I think I might know someone who is a specialist in that area, and, fortunately, I have his mobile 'phone number .... 

  • Funny 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

I would be amazed if it didn't.  Fly shunting is difficult enough as everything needs to be very carefully timed to do it right.  And that means it is really impossible over points worked by a signal box because the Signalman can't see the correct moment to change the points and handsignalling him to do so would cost time that wasn't available

Quite so - and if you throw an FPL into the equation as Compound2632 was inferring, the time required would be even worse.  Even a MR economical FPL takes longer to move than a ground lever in the yard.  You need a ground lever with a bloke waiting for exactly the right moment - and being prepared NOT to throw it if the gap wasn't big enough.

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

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Michael Hodgson said:

Quite so - and if you throw an FPL into the equation as Compound2632 was inferring, 

 

I'm ashamed to say I hadn't thought about the interlocking aspect particularly but it was obvious once mentioned!

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Fly shunting was not separately identified in the Rule Book until 1972 when it was transferred from the General Appendix to the Rule Book but it had been defined in the General Appendix since at least February 1911 - that being the earliest dated reference I can find in GWR publications.   In some cases it seems the pre-1904 understanding might well have passed down to later generations but from the early 20th century Fly Shunting had been very clearly defined together with a warning about its dangers and the requirement for it only to be undertaken by experienced Shunters.  You'd need to be well out of date on your shunting Rules and Regulations to be calling loose (or double) shunting  fly shunting - probably because such people had never been involved in fly shunting.  

The LBSCR Appendix to the WTT for 1891 lists three modes of shunting -

  1. Single Shunt - propelling one lot of wagons coupled together - but uncoupled from the engines propelling them - from one line of rails to another line of rails
  2. Double Shunt - propelling two lots of wagons - uncoupled from each other and the engine - from one line of rails on to two other different lines of rails
  3. Fly Shunt - While an engine is drawing wagons attached to it towards a set if facing points, the wagons are uncoupled from the engine and the engine is run on to one line of rails and the wagons are run on to another line of rails. Must only be resorted to when there is no other means of doing the works and then only by experienced men.

I don't know what they called moving the wagons when coupled to the engine, if there was a special term for it.

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

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I recall a yarn of his about a driver who'd 'it a dolly over at Wath wi' an electric'.  Trouble at t'mill, it's grim oop north...

Reminds me of a Yorkshire man I knew who used to talk of 'Arrow ont'Ill.  Nobody knew where he meant!

Edited by Michael Hodgson
  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...