Jump to content

Hattons Dave

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

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, mozzer models said:

 

 

I was aware of the Radley Models Dreadnoughts - though I think they retail at about £70 for a kit? They are resin -which implies pretty low production volumes  - but I wasn't certain if they were currently available. Resin kits tend to come and go in small batches. 

 

You'd probably want at least 4 to give a sensible train for a Met Bo-Bo. Have these sold like hot cakes since Heljan released the MetroVick Bo-Bo?

 

I wasn't aware of the etched kits, but these do provide a genuine test of some of the theories being floated here... Have London Road Models seen good sales of the Ashbury kits since Heljan released the locos? There are Met loco kits from SE Finecast, so there ought to be a market for stock they can pull.

 

If there aren't strong sales of the MET coach kits now I don't think Hattons coaches will be undercutting the kit market. I have a suspicion that most of SE Finecast loco kits sold are for 1950s LT layouts

 

We don't see Met layouts (I did once sketch an adaptation of a CJF plan to represent a Met outer suburban terminus at Oxford with representative goods interchange to GW , as if the Brill branch had really been carried through to Oxford as hoped for..but concluded the work involved in building the stock was totally impractical for me, never mind the space..) . But Brill is iconic , Verney Jnc legendary - yet no layouts..

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 08:34, Skinnylinny said:

 

Now there's an excellent idea - A small detailing sprue of brake pipes, a vac cylinder, a Westinghouse cylinder, a gas tank (for gas-lit carriages), a battery box (for electrically-lit examples), maybe even a tail lamp? With moulded locating holes in the bottom of the floor. Another advantage being that all of these parts would likely be moulded in unpainted black plastic (possibly a blast of white paint for the tail lamp, though this could be left to the modeller).

 

Might even be a neat thing to sell as a separate accessory for those looking to detail up their Hornby 4-wheelers/Triang clerestories/Bachmann red coaches etc.

 

(I await the inevitable "what's the point of that?" reply that shows up whenever anyone mentions improving the Hornby 4-wheeler)

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

 

1) Those whose interests lie in pre grouping modelling, to the best possible fidelity, and who had by embarking on their chosen subject more or less accepted they would have to kit build, or scratch build, or at best kit bash, generally have received the announcement with disappointment, but in reality are no worse off.
 

 

I have a theory whereby a lot of us are looking for something truly unique for our layouts or a layout based on some period/place outside the RTR mainstream that would be truly unique. Odd prototype locos have been in demand for years but once an R-T-R model is done, it ceases being truly unique. Thousands of people now have a Garrett or DP2 so running one at a show is no longer as eye catching when there were only kits.

Pre-grouping is an area spoilt for choice - and spoilt for superb liveries, is  largely untouched by RTR, so if suddenly RTR is filling a gap, pre grouping may not look so unique anymore. But still what exists in RTR barely scratches the surface of pre grouping and being unique is quite feasible although maybe instead of seeing just one or 2 layouts at a show representing some old pre grouping company, we now have several, one finely made with kits and scratch building, the others using RTR.

That said I suspect BR and modern image will still dominate especially given that grouping layouts are not as common as BR ones. In the end, I suspect we will see the odd preserved pre grouping train appearing on  BR or later layout and the true pre-grouping layout being a rare beast.

 

I want to do a true SECR layout but - seriously - from RTR it is not possible. Full Wainwright livery had all but gone when Bachmann's birdcages appeared and we are left with locos in a simple grey livery. Many wagon kits represent types from around 1920 and are not too different to many SR versions. There are other kits out there. But it will take time to gather and build them. As I said before, these will make nice stand-ins for the various RTR locos we now have.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Have London Road Models seen good sales of the Ashbury kits since Heljan released the locos? There are Met loco kits from SE Finecast, so there ought to be a market for stock they can pull.

 

If there aren't strong sales of the MET coach kits now I don't think Hattons coaches will be undercutting the kit market. I have a suspicion that most of SE Finecast loco kits sold are for 1950s LT layouts

 

We don't see Met layouts (I did once sketch an adaptation of a CJF plan to represent a Met outer suburban terminus at Oxford with representative goods interchange to GW , as if the Brill branch had really been carried through to Oxford as hoped for..but concluded the work involved in building the stock was totally impractical for me, never mind the space..) . But Brill is iconic , Verney Jnc legendary - yet no layouts..

 

London Road Models haven't, AFAIK, seen any significant impact on coach kit sales following any RTR pre-group locomotive introduction, with the exception of the L&Y six wheel carriages when the  Bachmann 2-4-2T became available. The L&Y coaches had a simpler two tone livery with little or no lining, more readily achieved than that of the LNWR or MR.

 

My experience, through conversations with modellers over the years, either when displaying London Road or with LRM at shows, is that "complex" lined liveries are a significant deterrent to building coach kits. I think that is supported by the initial reaction to Hattons Genesis coaches, where people are willing to accept a generic carriage design that is already painted with a "difficult" livery and to (presumably) the level of finish achieved on RTR locos.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One little thing for @Hattons Dave, my understanding from GWW is that for this pre 1906 style livery the GWR firsts would have had a garter crest rather than the entwined monogram, but doubtless this isn't your top concern right now...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

London Road Models haven't, AFAIK, seen any significant impact on coach kit sales following any RTR pre-group locomotive introduction, with the exception of the L&Y six wheel carriages when the  Bachmann 2-4-2T became available. The L&Y coaches had a simpler two tone livery with little or no lining, more readily achieved than that of the LNWR or MR.

 

My experience, through conversations with modellers over the years, either when displaying London Road or with LRM at shows, is that "complex" lined liveries are a significant deterrent to building coach kits. I think that is supported by the initial reaction to Hattons Genesis coaches, where people are willing to accept a generic carriage design that is already painted with a "difficult" livery and to (presumably) the level of finish achieved on RTR locos.

 

 

 

Interesting. 

 

I think LNWR carriage livery is "scary" - I've done a couple of Ratio kits , but they went into LNER brown (via M&GN)

 

Teak is notoriously problematic, but the scope for re-lettering over a teak RTR base is interesting for minor ratilways. Given the way trade support for the Met has improved in recent years I'm surprised we aren't seeing the models or the layouts. Really the pre-1933 Met main line cries out as a subject... Perhaps LRM could stimulate the market by offering a free DVD of Betjemen's "Metroland" to anyone who presents at the stand at a show with at least 3 completed Ashburies, and a purchase receipt for at least one of them??? 

 

MR livery is at least plain single colour , and Mike Trice's threads on doing teak are inspirational  Mike Trice teak painting

 

Maybe we could see a surge of NER layouts - the coach livery was a single crimson red colour and apparently these coaches are will be fairly close

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12 October 2019 at 10:16, Compound2632 said:

@Nick Holliday, I really do doubt that things were as you describe, at least in the carriage shops of the larger companies by at least the beginning of the 1880s. As witness, I call upon the collection of carriage & wagon drawings and other documentation from the Midland Railway's Litchurch Lane works held by the Midland Railway Study Centre. To a great extent our knowledge of the rolling stock of the different companies is at the whim of fate in terms of how much documentation has survived.

 

EDIT, cross-posted, thank you for your confidence! I hope you will excuse me picking up on instances where I suspect you of generalisation - and in that last post you did make clear that you had the Brighton in mind - a line of whose carriages I know little, though I understand that before Lancing Works was established in the 20th century, carriage building was probably being carried on under less than ideal conditions at Brighton - that's from my reading of G. Bixley, An illustrated history of Southern wagons (OPC, 1985). But the same source reminds me that Stroudley was a pioneer of standardisation, "applying it as much to the goos stock as to locomotives and carriages" - you see I'm really a wagon man!

 

On 12 October 2019 at 10:16, RLWP said:

 

On some railways, perhaps. Like many things they made. L&NWR carriage doors are interchangeable between vehicles because Wolverton built on a production line with jigs. 

 

There must have been a time when what you are suggesting was true, this is the problem with lumping 100 years of development into a time called 'pre-grouping'. It's not like 25 years of 'Big Four' for instance


Richard

I suppose I should have thought about doors and windows. Of course, they would tend to be standardised items, for ease of maintenance etc., but I was thinking more about things like compartment dimensions, and the way panelling was treated. Some people get worked up when they see a large plain panel divided into the "wrong" number of sections, whereas I suspect that this would be influenced by the width of the boards available at the time.

I have received the impression that often the design would be simply a specification for the number of compartments and their class, to fit within the assigned underframe, and the foreman would sketch out his proposals for the men to work to. Yes, there were lots of drawings produced, many of them thankfully saved, but I understand that many might have been drawn after construction, with the draughtsman measuring a finished vehicle, the drawing being more for record purposes, preserving in aspic any quirk that the selected coach had. In a lot of cases we have detailed drawings for the underframes on their own, which are the vital bits, and comprise many different types of components, with the superstructure drawings somewhat sketchier in nature.

Whilst looking through Russell Volume One for inspiration, I came across one diagram where the measurements were down to thirty-seconds of an inch - less than one millimetre! With all the best will in the world, I cannot believe that they would be working to that level of accuracy, when the pencil they would be marking things out with was probably wider than that.

Going slightly off-topic, Russell also finally drove home to me a point that people like Miss Prism have been trying to make for a long time, that the prototypes for the Ratio GWR four wheelers were a relatively modern design, dating from the twentieth century, and thus rather different from the concept of the Hatton's range, which seem to be twenty or so years older in design. The GWR, like the LNWR, LBSCR and Caledonian, and possibly others, all built modern four wheelers to replace antedeluvian stock that was no longer fit for purpose, adopting new methods of construction and design concepts that allowed them to be longer, wider and/or taller. For the GWR this meant a coach length similar to that only achievable with six wheels in Victorian times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

 

Going slightly off-topic, Russell also finally drove home to me a point that people like Miss Prism have been trying to make for a long time, that the prototypes for the Ratio GWR four wheelers were a relatively modern design, dating from the twentieth century, and thus rather different from the concept of the Hatton's range, which seem to be twenty or so years older in design. The GWR, like the LNWR, LBSCR and Caledonian, and possibly others, all built modern four wheelers to replace antedeluvian stock that was no longer fit for purpose, adopting new methods of construction and design concepts that allowed them to be longer, wider and/or taller. For the GWR this meant a coach length similar to that only achievable with six wheels in Victorian times.

 

Yes, and the fact that the panel style adopted by Stroudley and the beginning of the 1870s was not adopted by the GW in a recongisably similar form until 20 years later. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

I have received the impression that often the design would be simply a specification for the number of compartments and their class, to fit within the assigned underframe, and the foreman would sketch out his proposals for the men to work to. Yes, there were lots of drawings produced, many of them thankfully saved, but I understand that many might have been drawn after construction, with the draughtsman measuring a finished vehicle, the drawing being more for record purposes, preserving in aspic any quirk that the selected coach had. 

 

I'm afraid this just isn't right, Nick. Otherwise the windows and seats wouldn't fit

 

By the late 19th century, this was a mass production industry. Somewhere in this thread is a reference to the hundreds of identical six wheel third class carriages Wolverton built. And I mean identical

 

ISTR when the Picnic Saloon Trust  got themselves a 30' 1" underframe for their body, even though they had never been together the fixing bolt holes aligned perfectly

 

There are some good pictures of the standardised parts the LNWR used on their site

 

Richard

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

 

 

Whilst looking through Russell Volume One for inspiration, I came across one diagram where the measurements were down to thirty-seconds of an inch - less than one millimetre! With all the best will in the world, I cannot believe that they would be working to that level of accuracy, when the pencil they would be marking things out with was probably wider than that.

 

All sheet metal workers worthy of the name that I have ever come across could work to 1/32".

They were fully aware of how to use a pencil or a scriber for marking out dimensions accurately.

We had to calibrate tapes against a master for these people and rejected about half of these tapes. They were not thrown out as chippies could use them! 

This gave rise to a big problem when metrication came in as tapes were not marked in 0.8mm increments.

It meant that all drawings had to be gone through to see if tolerances could be slackened off if possible and the essential dimensions had to be tightened up to 0.5mm. 

Given that in Victorian days workers probably had a lot more time to do the job, I can assure you that there is no reason why such tolerances could not be maintained.

Bernard

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd strongly prefer to see the guard's duckets of the 6 wheeled 3 compartment brake located where, instead, the luggage doors currently are, the luggage doors then going  "somewhere" in the main portion of each van side. The main point though, is that so long as the sides are made in such a way that they can be split into sections with a razor saw then re-assembled in a different arrangement, without having all sorts of problems with previously interlocking parts that no longer fit, or glue-resistant plastics that won't bond, then the vehicles will be much more versatile and adaptable.

 

I don't see that running numbers starting with 4 on the LNER brown vehicles, or teak liveries with GNR insiginia are going to fool anybody into thinking that these really look anything like the kind of six-wheelers built by the GNR from the 1870s as both the very obvious roof profiles and the panelling styles are nothing like the same. There's a little more hope perhaps of persuading potential buyers that these look like something once owned by some of the other LNER constituent companies, but they won't convince many people seeking truly suitable stock to pair with a Stirling Single or Ivatt Atlantic.

Edited by gr.king
initial omission of one word
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hattons Dave, looking at many different pre-grouping designs the paneling lines above and directly below the windows look to narrow to me; wider panels would match a lot more designs and therefore look more generic.

 

Genesis.jpg.4e789cca2852df1f9c228a7f98dc4599.jpg

Edited by stonetown
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stonetown, I agree, I also believe they're are too high-waisted to be "typical".

 

I'm putting together a tabulation of panel dimensions etc. for 6-wheelers of 1880s/90s vintage from the various companies that used this all-round-cornered panelling style. I have data for MR / S&DJR, NER, LBSCR, B&M, Cambrian, GSWR, LSWR. Oddly, I don't have good data for the Great Western - I only have diagrams, which are too crude to quote measurements from with confidence.

 

Data for the carriages of any other companies, British and Irish, that used this panelling style, would be very helpful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For late-pattern GWR clerestories/4-wheelers*, i.e. LE7 in Lewis classification, typically 5.25" for the waist panel, 7" for the eaves panel. (Both dimensions between mouldings.)

 

* the wide-bodied Metros however, which were amongst the last of the 4-wheelers, had 4" eaves.
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any relevance to the 'Genesis Revisited' Tour advert at the base of this page ? ( it'll be gone by the time you look, of course. )

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: for this generic type of coach for this wide period, should be bottom of the door include the bottom rail or should it sit separate, on top of the bottom rail?:

 

hattons-generic-17.png.6335e99abea6c8c8ef60f5192b64ef6e.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit  on  top,  by  this  time  platforms  were  higher and  heights  of  running  boards  etc  fairly  standard.

 

Pete

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @IWCR says, but not, I think, for the reason given. The height of the beading along the bottom edge of the side, typically 2", is the thickness of the floor. Unlike "modern" construction (I'm thinking of the 4VEPs I used to commute on) , the door does not overlap the floor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After recent rails/locomotion announcement did Hattons know something Before everyone else. 
 

big james 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After recent rails/locomotion announcement did Hattons know something Before everyone else. 
 

big james 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amusing the amount of discussion about what features and dimensions a Generic coach should have!

 

Mark Saunders

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Big James said:

After recent rails/locomotion announcement did Hattons know something Before everyone else. 
 

big james 

 

It wouldnt surprise me. After all, these coaches will also be available through other retailers that stock Hattons products, such as Rails. 

 

I also note the absence of the LBSCR livery from the first three phases, despite there being the Terrier to pull them. I wonder if Hattons know that something else is on the way.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

I find it amusing the amount of discussion about what features and dimensions a Generic coach should have!

 

Mark Saunders

I think Hatton's have been rather clever. They managed expectations from the get-go by explicitly stating the vehicles would be generic. While that left some people steaming, the dialogue that has since gone on may mean that the vehicles will have significant similarities to a number of actual prototypes. And in encouraging input on here, Hatton's have increased the buy-in of more people, further increasing the likelihood of sales success. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

It wouldnt surprise me. After all, these coaches will also be available through other retailers that stock Hattons products, such as Rails. 

 

I also note the absence of the LBSCR livery from the first three phases, despite there being the Terrier to pull them. I wonder if Hattons know that something else is on the way.

 

To be honest, that announcement means that the Birdcage stock now has an appropriate mainline loco to pull it.

 

The basic point is that the Edwardian SECR is now very firmly on as a subject . By this I mean that something more substantial than the typical "loop and 2 sidings" 4mm finescale plank , with its service of 3 trains a day each way and a daily pick up "if required", can now be built . SECR branchlines and suburban operations are now eminently do-able.A suburban terminus run flat out in the peaks is perfectly possible . So is a more substantial branch terminus or a secondary main line. A holiday resort in Thanet on a summer Saturday becomes conceivable.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

To be honest, that announcement means that the Birdcage stock now has an appropriate mainline loco to pull it.

 

The basic point is that the Edwardian SECR is now very firmly on as a subject . By this I mean that something more substantial than the typical "loop and 2 sidings" 4mm finescale plank , with its service of 3 trains a day each way and a daily pick up "if required", can now be built . SECR branchlines and suburban operations are now eminently do-able.A suburban terminus run flat out in the peaks is perfectly possible . So is a more substantial branch terminus or a secondary main line. A holiday resort in Thanet on a summer Saturday becomes conceivable.

 

Wonder how long it'll be before we get a SECR brake van RTR... Mind you, the Cambrian "Dancehall" kit isn't exactly hard to come by or difficult to build.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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.