Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

The plural of 'fish' is only 'fishes' when the boat comes in.

 

I must apologise. I realise that my allusion was in error. When the boat comes in, one does not get "fishes", but a "fishy"

 

That's "fishy", as in "sturgeon"

 

 1920px-Acipenser_oxyrhynchus.jpg.26d2707d009a725574a9a25db80aaa4e.jpg

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sem34090 said:

I know the FYN had two sets of stock, one Vacuum fitted and one Air fitted, as per their two locos. I seem to recall someone telling me to Vacuum set was ex-Manchester, Sheffield & Lincoln.


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?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 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?

It was one of a pair that had been used unsuccessfully on the Axminster to Lyme Regis branch and they had been fitted with a mechanical form of push/pull gear which featured cranks etc on the rear of the cab roof, as seen in a picture in one or more of the Terrier books. I believe that the FY&NR one stayed in LSWR livery and just had the lettering changed.

 

All the best

Ray

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

I must apologise. I realise that my allusion was in error. When the boat comes in, one does not get "fishes", but a "fishy"

 

That's "fishy", as in "sturgeon"

 

 1920px-Acipenser_oxyrhynchus.jpg.26d2707d009a725574a9a25db80aaa4e.jpg

Hoots Mon ! No need to get political.

 

Ray

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wainwright1 said:

It was one of a pair that had been used unsuccessfully on the Axminster to Lyme Regis branch and they had been fitted with a mechanical form of push/pull gear which featured cranks etc on the rear of the cab roof, as seen in a picture in one or more of the Terrier books. I believe that the FY&NR one stayed in LSWR livery and just had the lettering changed.

 

All the best

Ray


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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 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.

Thanks Richard.

I cannot remember if that is the one that Hornby have already done, or was it the other one ?

Anyway, more variety for them.

All the best

Ray

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wainwright1 said:

Thanks Richard.

I cannot remember if that is the one that Hornby have already done, or was it the other one ?

Anyway, more variety for them.

All the best

Ray


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.

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

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 13
  • 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 5
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 5
  • Agree 4
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
 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.