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

[BackRoomBoffin]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm afraid that was my reaction too.

 

In my experience, pre-Grouping modellers are usually 'uber-anal' about correct detail - see the endless debate / argument over the two versions of the 'Terrier'.

 

Yet these 'never-wazzers' seem to be being welcomed with open arms - does accuracy end at the face of the loco's rear buffers?

 

.... or is there a new breed of pre-Grouping modellers, who like the pretty liveries of the locos and couldn't care less what they are pulling - so long as the stock liveries are also pretty? 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

a) I think there is a new breed of pre-grouping modellers, tempted in by the interest in light railways and -- as I said above -- limited space

b) I think it's dismissive to say such people 'couldn't care less'

c) I care, but having tried several abortive projects, I have little time

d) I want enough affordable and plausible stock to get something running, and then I can ornament that core stock with stuff I have built myself and is prototype-accurate, as I improve. Also, I can research and specialise in things I particularly like, ... like, I don't know, parcels stock, or whatever, without feeling under pressure to make multiple kits before the whole thing looks halfway finished.

e) I'm not going to start a new layout from scratch with handmaking every single item of my own stock for a pre-group era only to find it can't run. Baby steps, you know.

f) that is a need the Ratio and Hornby stock could have previously met, but its 60s / 70s engineering is now getting far behind and jarring, it's getting harder to argue it's plausible behind any thing at all.

g) Phil Parker and looooads of other people have talked about how they started out running and bashing airfix and Dapol and Hornby stock and locos, as they developed their skills, iteratively.

h) this -in my view - may offer a possible modern answer to the same skills-development problem. I don't think people should be regarded negatively for taking the option.

 

Again, people seem to think this is a zero-sum game -- either the 'purists' or the 'toy-train-fanciers' win. That's a ridiculous false dichotomy.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by BackRoomBoffin
some overly combative language I now regret has been toned down.

[RLWP]

4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I really cannot believe that there are people on this site who are very capable of building accurate models of their chosen specific prototype are up in arms because Hattons have chosen to design a range of affordable 4 and 6 wheel coaches.

 

Not up in arms exactly, just a bit bemused by the reaction.

 

Richard

[RLWP]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That is the thing with us pre-grouping modellers. We are either uber anal or we just don't care. there is nothing in between!

 

Plus we only do it because the trains are pretty colours.

 

Sorry chaps, we have been rumbled!

 

To hell with your pretty colours. All locomotives will be black!

[BackRoomBoffin]

7 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I really cannot believe that there are people on this site who are very capable of building accurate models of their chosen specific prototype are up in arms because Hattons have chosen to design a range of affordable 4 and 6 wheel coaches.

 

No-one is forcing anyone to accept these and only these models on their pre-grouping models, we all have a choice, I think Hattons have taken a very good route for those of us happy with RTR.

 

I wouldn't expect to see them on some of the stunning railways on the exhibition circuit that represent pre-grouping but in my little old house with my little old OO railway they will be just fine.

 

As I pointed out, there are stunning railways on the exhibition circuit with region- and railway-specific buildings repainted into other companies' liveries. I just don't see the difference. No one thinks it's 'perfect' or the ultimate goal. Loads of people think it's acceptable and good enough, to get started until eternal tinkering completes the picture with something more accurate.

[Nearholmer]

“What is that strange mixed-gauge track?”

 

Thats proper electrified track, like real railways have used for over a century, not that strange two-rail electrification, which was tried and found wanting by real railways as long ago as the 1880s.

[woodenhead]

11 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Plus we only do it because the trains are pretty colours.

 

Certainly beats just Olive, Malachite, Crimson or Teak.

 

The GWR did try and break the monotony.

[The Black Hat]

15 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm afraid that was my reaction too.

 

In my experience, pre-Grouping modellers are usually 'uber-anal' about correct detail - see the endless debate / argument over the two versions of the 'Terrier'.

 

Yet these 'never-wazzers' seem to be being welcomed with open arms - does accuracy end at the face of the loco's rear buffers?

 

.... or is there a new breed of pre-Grouping modellers, who like the pretty liveries of the locos and couldn't care less what they are pulling - so long as the stock liveries are also pretty?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Perhaps its more that some people get everything and others get nothing. Pre-grouping has been lucky to dream of the odd pre-grouping engine, with some for some areas being done alongside the ranges of engines that lasted into the BR transition period. As a result you have people using these types to model them at their very beginning and have taken an interest. Yes some might be specific on detail but others are willing to compromise to get something that can be run, especially at the price that RTR allows.

 

If you have little, because polls and people keep shoving the same areas of the market front and centre, and companies jumping to fill every gap of a range of engines that all overlap the same region and time period, then you have market over saturation and others getting little. In that case, when some people get something that even hints at their area and niche interest being covered then they are more willing to compromise over something more generic as a coach that will hopefully spur more pre-grouping engines and stock. They are already up against it by having a more limited area and time span to choose to model, and these coaches can meet half way to get people often overlooked something they can take as a product aimed for them that will also benefit others with similar interests.

 

Its easy to be picky, when you get everything you want. Some ideas have reasons that are equal or better than engines are selected for model but get ignored as they don't fit with the range of an area being given everything it wants in the hope of piggy-backing sales as part of being part of that broader range. Problem then is saturation and people cant afford to buy everything released, so Hattons turning and opening up this area makes perfect sense and is being welcomed as such.

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Craigw said:

 

Surely a generic 2-2-2 would fit the bill, after all "average modellers, freelancers and those who rate historical accuracy lower than #1 on their list while an accurate model to one particular company's design would sell fewer units is probably the most compelling one."

 

It's called "Jenny Lind"

[RLWP]

10 minutes ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

 

As I pointed out, there are stunning railways on the exhibition circuit with region- and railway-specific buildings repainted into other companies' liveries. I just don't see the difference. No one thinks it's 'perfect' or the ultimate goal. Loads of people think it's acceptable and good enough, to get started until eternal tinkering completes the picture with something more accurate.

 

That's because you have a different approach to modelling to most pre-grouping modellers. That's absolutely fine, this is a hobby, it's supposed to be relaxing and fun

 

To me, six wheeled pretend carriages are not fun, they aren't for me or I suspect for most modellers of pre-grouping companies. I/they are really, really interested in detail differences between items 

 

Richard

[HonestTom]

40 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Go back to what I said earlier, make a model of the real thing rather than a model base on what you think it should look like!

 

Mark Saunders 

 

Which company's stock is the most deserving of this treatment? This is the problem as I see it - you'll maybe get a handful more sales from the modellers of that company, but everyone else is no better off. If a model is really glaringly of one particular company (e.g. it has round-topped Metropolitan doors), that may even put other modellers off. That's long been the complaint about those who use Ratio 4-wheelers, that the coaches are obviously GWR.

 

I'd say that far from making a model based on what they "think it should look like," Hattons have demonstrated on this thread that they're keen to make the models as accurate as possible within the limits of the generic concept and the need to produce something reasonably typical.

[Aire Head]

A lot of snobbery going on from all sides here.

 

Wether you run a Merchant Navy with a rake of Mk4s round a setrack 2nd radius curve or meticulously model a real location down to the most minute detail you are all just a bunch of mostly grown adults playing with little trains.

[HonestTom]

1 minute ago, Aire Head said:

A lot of snobbery going on from all sides here.

 

Wether you run a Merchant Navy with a rake of Mk4s round a setrack 2nd radius curve or meticulously model a real location down to the most minute detail you are all just a bunch of mostly grown adults playing with little trains.

 

How dare you, I refuse to grow up.

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

No as a Railroad range is a one that should have been retired but is perpetuated as an entry level!

 

This is one that should be a non starter!

 

Mark Saunders

1.  I don't think purchase of any of these will be compulsory.

2.  if you want as accurate as you can get r-t-r passenger stock for a particular Pre-Group Railway all you need to do is all the necessary research, then contact a factory in China (plenty still looking for work), mortgage your house, and away you go.

3.  It seems you know taht what you want will be a rip-roaring commercial success so you will make a nice profit on your initial vehicles which will enable you to plough the money back into more.

 

So it really is all very simple - you either buy or don't buy what the trade offers.  And if you are really keen to get what you do want to the standard you want in r-t-r form you do exactly what Hattons are doing and research and finance it yourself.  I suspect the difference is that Hattons have taken a pragmatic view of what will inevitably be a very diverse market area when it comes to Pre-Group passenger stock and have gone for something which will sell in sufficient numbers to justify their investment.  If they had gone for whichever Company you care to name there would no doubt be even more moans in this thread saying they had chosen the wrong one along with another group in the 'it's  no use to me' camp. Thus far the balance of this thread seems to be favourable to their proposal even if it might seem like a step backwards to some people.   But if they've got it wrong they'll be the ones who have taken the risk and will get the financial hit.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

 

....

e) I'm not going to start a new layout from scratch with handmaking every single item of my own stock for a pre-group era only to find it can't run. Baby steps, you know.

f) that is a need the Ratio and Hornby stock could have previously met, but its 60s / 70s engineering is now getting far behind and jarring, it's getting harder to argue it's plausible behind any thing at all.

g) Phil Parker and looooads of other people have talked about how they started out running and bashing airfix and Dapol and Hornby stock and locos, as they developed their skills, iteratively.

h) this is the modern answer to the same skills-development problem. Deal with.

.....

 

Some confused thinking here, IMHO.

 

'Baby steps' involve being prepared to try, and fall in the initial stages. Whatever you produce initially is going to be something of a disappointment - but all subsequent attempts will be a little better. I fail to see how an RTR model of something that never existed can be preferable to a model of an actual prototype, produced using "60s / 70s engineering"; (which is essentially identical to that used today).

 

As to being "the modern answer to the same skills-development problem" it is demonstrably the opposite - if inaccurate RTR is the answer, where is the incentive to acquire any skills at all?

 

".. they started out running and bashing airfix and Dapol and Hornby stock and locos, as they developed their skills, iteratively". Quite - they produced, by modelling, the best possible models of actual prototype within the constraints of what was available. What they didn't do was take off-the-shelf GWR clerestory coaches, repaint them, and pretend they were, say, LSWR coaches. How using RTR models of non-existent coaches can be compared with their ingenious modelling escapes me!

 

There is no 'modern' way to gain skills - you try, are disappointed, try again, improve. There is no short-cut to acquiring modelling skills!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited October 10, 2019 by cctransuk

[HonestTom]

Oh boy, people have started using the phrase "deal with." Next it'll be "end of," and then it really is time to take cover.

[Ravenser]

Well: 

 

These will certainly appear very much to all builders of freelance minor light railways . That's a noticeable little niche

They will pass for archaic Departmental stock on 1950s layouts

The 4 wheelers seem to be close to LBSCR stock. The 6-wheelers might be close to LBSCR Billinton stock , or possibly LCDR 

They might do for the Isle of Wight

The LNER was still using clapped out 6 wheelers as excursion stock until the mid 1930s

Some look close to Cambrian 4 wheelers, surviving into the mid 1930s

They might pass for MR stock. 

 

They won't really do as GNR (roof profile wrong, panelling wrong) or LNWR. Door profile is wrong for the Met , body style is wrong for NLR

 

Not quite right for GER but might pass as representational. (Similar comments for GWR)  Possibly fairly close to MSLR. 

 

Less so for Scottish lines. Wrong bodystyle for Maryport & Carlisle - but hardly anyone knows . Not suitable for Furness

 

North Staffordshire????

 

Could pass for rebuilt 4 wheelers on a preserved railway

 

 

That's a respectable set of modest niches. At this stage I'd say the 4-wheelers look a better proposition than the 6 wheelers 

 

The LMS and Scotland seem least served , the SR well served, and the LNER to a degree

[phil gollin]

.

 

When people talk about "Tri-ang Clerestories", I assume they mean the Hornby R4913 and R4914  ?

 

Hornby also do R4899 and R4900 longer (scale length ?) better detailed Clerestories.   

 

Does anyone what dates the two types date from ?  And, I assume that people recommend kit-bashing the "Tri-ang" ones just because they are cheaper/cruder ?

 

Thanks

 

. 

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

They will pass for archaic Departmental stock on 1950s layouts

 

The 6-wheelers might be close to LBSCR Billinton stock , or possibly LCDR 

 

They might do for the Isle of Wight

 

Some look close to Cambrian 4 wheelers

 

They might pass for MR stock. 

 

Not quite right for GER but might pass as representational. (Similar comments for GWR)  Possibly fairly close to MSLR. 

 

North Staffordshire????

 

Could pass for rebuilt 4 wheelers on a preserved railway

 

 

In my youth, a Tri-ang Princess could pass for a Black Five - but only after considerable modelling.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited October 10, 2019 by cctransuk

[HonestTom]

2 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

When people talk about "Tri-ang Clerestories", I assume they mean the Hornby R4913 and R4914  ?

 

Hornby also do R4899 and R4900 longer (scale length ?) better detailed Clerestories.   

 

Does anyone what dates the two types date from ?  And, I assume that people recommend kit-bashing the "Tri-ang" ones just because they are cheaper/cruder ?

 

Thanks

 

. 

 

I understand that the argument for bashing the Triang ones is that they have moulded panelling, whereas the Hornby ones have panelling printed on. There was also a series of articles on how they could be modded into various Southern constituents' coaches.

[wombatofludham]

9 hours ago, Darryl Tooley said:

Both the Kelvedon & Tollesbury and the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway used six-wheelers until the Autumn of 1951.  'Tank engine' and 'rag bag collection' suggest the Tollesbury line.

 

D

Tollesbury rings a bell, thanks.  Surprising that such venerable (probably a better term than "rag bag"!) coaches lasted so long but as others have said, the financial situation of the LNER plus of course the war will have helped - and at least they were trying to keep some sort of service going.

[BackRoomBoffin]

11 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Some confused thinking here, IMHO.

 

'Baby steps' involve being prepared to try, and fall in the initial stages. Whatever you produce initially is going to be something of a disappointment - but all subsequent attempts will be a little better. I fail to see how an RTR model of something that never existed can be preferable to a model of an actual prototype, produced using "60s / 70s engineering"; (which is essentially identical to that used today).

 

As to being "the modern answer to the same skills-development problem" it is demonstrably the opposite - if inaccurate RTR is the answer, where is the incentive to acquire any skills at all?

 

".. they started out running and bashing airfix and Dapol and Hornby stock and locos, as they developed their skills, iteratively". Quite - they produced, by modelling, the best possible models of actual prototype within the constraints of what was available. What they didn't do was take off-the-shelf GWR clerestory coaches, repaint them, and pretend they were, say, LSWR coaches. How using RTR models of non-existent coaches can be compared with their ingenious modelling escapes me!

 

There is no 'modern' way to gain skills - you try, are disappointed, try again, improve. There is no short-cut to acquiring modelling skills - deal with! 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I apologise for the overly-combative use of 'deal with' which I shall remove.

 

But I think my point is there is an untapped group of people who want to model pre-group, want to get something running as a priority, and then turn to kit- and scratch- modelling as an ornament to an existing viable layout. This option has been offered to grouping and BR- era modellers for, well, ever. Just because it's not been done with pre-grouping era stock, because of the much larger variation in pre-grouping era stock, does not mean it should not be done.

 

I'm not saying I WON'T model my own now this option exists. I'm saying this option makes it easier for me to contemplate modelling my own.

 

Some people seem to be assuming that the market for all pre-group rtr models is the sum-total of all people currently modelling pre-group, and therefore this project won't fly. I am saying that may be an error.

 

[Steamport Southport]

7 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

When people talk about "Tri-ang Clerestories", I assume they mean the Hornby R4913 and R4914  ?

 

Hornby also do R4899 and R4900 longer (scale length ?) better detailed Clerestories.   

 

Does anyone what dates the two types date from ?  And, I assume that people recommend kit-bashing the "Tri-ang" ones just because they are cheaper/cruder ?

 

Thanks

 

. 

 

The Triang ones are from the late 1950s, whilst the "newer" ones date from about 1980 and came in to match the GWR County and MR Compound 4-4-0s.

 

 

 

Jason

[t-b-g]

I was thinking about this. I wondered if I had, say, a Midland railway 4 wheel carriage and a SECR 4 wheeled carriage in front of me, both unpainted and in plain plastic, would I be able to tell the difference?

 

Now a follower of the Midland or the SECR might (I am neither), but in all truth, the differences would be in the small detail. The differences between, say, a Gresley or a GWR Toplight design are much more obvious than the differences between many earlier carriages, which in all possibility were standard Metro Camm or Brown Marshall designs. 

 

I was looking at some old magazines the other day and there was a "mystery loco" photo, of an old 2-4-0T. The photo was clearly pretty ancient. No livery was visible in the photo and nobody knew. It was almost a "generic" loco and would have looked equally as good in a number of pre-group liveries. Railways from "back in the day" are much less documented than say from the 1930s onward. Even though I have followed the pre-grouping scene for many years, I still find photos of locos and vehicles I didn't know existed. If they don't have a visible livery, it is sometimes impossible to tell which company they are from.

 

As nobody is being forced to buy these carriages, those who don't want generic carriages can surely just exercise their right to carry on building their own accurate carriages as they have always done. Those who want to moan about the trade not producing exactly what they want have always been around and that won't change!

[Miss Prism]

11 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

Does anyone what dates the two types date from ?  And, I assume that people recommend kit-bashing the "Tri-ang" ones just because they are cheaper/cruder ?

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/protriang.html
http://www.gwr.org.uk/kits4rtrcoaches.html
 

[Miss Prism]