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

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

It certainly wasn't a criticism, merely an observation on process. And I, and most others, would be unlikely to spot the Company influence anyway. I am in no way less likely to be a purchaser than before. These will be fun. 

 

It wasn't taken as such; I understand where you're coming from, but I just thought that, having seen what Stephen is doing in collating stats from a spread of companies, I could give some reassurance that there wouldn't be a particular bias.

[JohnR]

54 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I don't see the need for the separate guard's door. It's not a very large van section in the vehicle anyway. I think a dual-purpose guard's / luggage door forming half of the pair of doors would be seen as less wasteful of space in the van as well as probably cheaper to build and maintain, an ever important consideration for the less affluent of the pre-group companies....

.

 

Did we not do the reverse several pages ago? 

[truffy]

18 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Did we not do the reverse several pages ago? 

 

I'm rather glad that it's too generic and out of my era to invoke Rule#1. Except, perhaps, for the SR tool van, for which I could make a space.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

Did we not do the reverse several pages ago? 

 

Tastes differ, depending, to some extent, on the practice of those companies one is most familiar with. However, what I would say wrt brake-ended vehicles, is that the layouts of guard's and luggage compartments and doors were presumably arrived at by long experience of the practicalities of station work. So, any given actual example is almost certainly a better arrangement than one one doodles for oneself.

 

Nevertheless, I dare say there were some designs that were continually cursed by the staff.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Compound2632

[Skinnylinny]

Speaking of guard's doors, were these not usually arranged to open inwards? This to allow the guard to watch a train out of the platform without ripping the door off on bridge parapets or knocking over unsuspecting passengers on the platform. Certainly the LBSC had on their Stroudley 26-foot brakes a pair of double doors to the guard/luggage van, with one having a bottom slightly higher than the other. On BR Mk1 brake coaches, the guard's door has a noticeably higher bottom, in order to clear the floor inside the vehicle.

[Mikkel]

5 hours ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

Oh, and Dave is effectively now working as CME / Chief Draughtsman to a railway of roughly the period 1880 to 1900 that that never existed. (Hattonshire Union Railway?)

 

As a business strategy, I believe it's called co-creation. Meanwhile the competition is engaging in a spot of influencer marketing. The model railways business is suddenly looking very plugged in 

[Steamport Southport]

12 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

Speaking of guard's doors, were these not usually arranged to open inwards? This to allow the guard to watch a train out of the platform without ripping the door off on bridge parapets or knocking over unsuspecting passengers on the platform. Certainly the LBSC had on their Stroudley 26-foot brakes a pair of double doors to the guard/luggage van, with one having a bottom slightly higher than the other. On BR Mk1 brake coaches, the guard's door has a noticeably higher bottom, in order to clear the floor inside the vehicle.

 

Not usually.

 

The reason BR ones open inward is that BR Mark 1's don't have duckets. Apart from BGs.

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

Speaking of guard's doors, were these not usually arranged to open inwards? This to allow the guard to watch a train out of the platform without ripping the door off on bridge parapets or knocking over unsuspecting passengers on the platform. Certainly the LBSC had on their Stroudley 26-foot brakes a pair of double doors to the guard/luggage van, with one having a bottom slightly higher than the other. On BR Mk1 brake coaches, the guard's door has a noticeably higher bottom, in order to clear the floor inside the vehicle.

 

They might, or they might not. You never can tell with vans.

 

(With apologies to Pooh.)

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

BR Mark 1's don't have duckets. Apart from BGs.

 

 

Exactly emulating Midland practice 1875-1896, but those didn't have inward opening doors.

 

Working practices changed down the years. Watch the stationmaster at 2:20 onwards in this short film of 1897:

 

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-railway-traffic-on-the-lnwr-1897-online

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not usually.

 

The reason BR ones open inward is that BR Mark 1's don't have duckets. Apart from BGs.

 

 

 

Jason

BR Mk 1 BGs don't have duckets either, though I think some had periscopes.

 

John

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

BR Mk 1 BGs don't have duckets either, though I think some had periscopes.

 

 

You'll be getting us on to birdcages next...

 

Actually, I have a question: how did the guard get up to look out of a birdcage?

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You'll be getting us on to birdcages next...

 

Actually, I have a question: how did the guard get up to look out of a birdcage?

AFAIK, there was a raised section (or sections) incorporated into the floor for the purpose.

 

John

[Simonsteel]

Brilliant work in terms of developing the 4 and 6 wheel coaching stock! Will definitely have to invest in multiple sets purely for some lovely colour schemes. May end up rocking the boat (sorry!) but wonder whether success would lead to more respective variant coach patterns? Or maybe even "Genesis" Style non corridor bogie stock in the future? Cannot wait to see the model EP's...

[PhilJ W]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You'll be getting us on to birdcages next...

 

Actually, I have a question: how did the guard get up to look out of a birdcage?

 

11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

AFAIK, there was a raised section (or sections) incorporated into the floor for the purpose.

 

John

There is a NLR brake 3rd body at Chappel that has a raised floor under the birdcage section beneath which is a dog box for canine passengers. There is  a film of similar vintage to Compound2632's post above showing a NLR train with the guard clearly visible standing in the birdcage. 

[sem34090]

Well, all I know is that Bulleid coaches didn't have inward-opening guards' doors as we have one on the MHR that caught me out a few times when I started (shutting the Guard's door, mistaking it for a standard one. Can't see the lettering from behind!) LMS Portholes don't seem to have had the inward-opening feature, nor GWR Hawksworths so it would seem that it wasn't adopted that widely right up until the MK1s appeared. 

[Steamport Southport]

37 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

BR Mk 1 BGs don't have duckets either, though I think some had periscopes.

 

John

 

Doh! Elementary error I'm afraid. 

 

Probably looking at too many LMS versions recently.

 

 

 

Jason

[philip-griffiths]

when I first saw the email from Hattons announcing these coaches, I thought good idea, but not for me.  Then I started reading this thread at around 11:00pm, it is now 12:50am and I think I'm going to order some of these.  why? You have to acknowledge that Hattons are trying to help and economics means that they cannot produce separate carriages for all these pre-grouping companies.  The manner in which they have responded to comments and suggestions is fantastic.    I was wondering if Miss Prism was having fits with all those unanswered postings.....

 

It led me to dig out some drawings I did 15 years ago for LNWR coaches.  I am in need of some 28' 4-wheelers to represent those that the LNWR introduced into South Wales around 1900.  They were electric lit from the start, close coupled (was wanting to throw darts at Miss Prism when she started on buffer lengths), and lasted until the mid 1930s.  I don't know if they were used on excursion trains to Barry from Tredegar, there is documentary evidence that these started after WWI and I have photographic evidence of excursion trains of 4-wheelers on the Sirhowy line, so South Wales modellers could use a set of these for a fictitious outing from Tredegar :-).   The train packs are a bit far-fetched, but a nice idea.  I would need the following to make something similar to the South Wales sets - all four wheelers, BT, third, composite, third, BT, so I was wondering if they would be willing to do other varieties of sets?

 

I had a conversation with John Redrup at Scaleforum as I've been hoping for some time that he would produce the South Wales versions of his 28' LNWR 4-wheelers . He has always told me that the under frames were wrong for South Wales and that he would be drawing up the South Wales under frames. Well I told him last month that as I was possibly the only person who would be wanting the South Wales under frames I'd take the North London sets under frames anyway. John however informed me that he will be drawing up the under frames, as he has evidence that the London and Birmingham sets received the newer under frames at some stage. So when he does, I'll be buying a set of the etchings as well.

 

The other use of these coaches would be as representatives of the miners trains used in South Wales.  They were known to be very long and had to be pulled up twice at certain stations. This one below is of LNWR stock, but there are pictures of North London Railway stock used for the same purpose in South Wales, with up to 15 carriages in a train (http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/Mystery/index.php?display_base_mystery_mobile=45).

 

 

Below are some of the drawings I did of LNWR 28' stock.  some of this may answer Miss Prism's comments about moulding on the 5 compartment carriages.

 

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, philip-griffiths said:

Below are some of the drawings I did of LNWR 28' stock.  some of this may answer Miss Prism's comments about moulding on the 5 compartment carriages.

 

As I've previously stated Philip, 5 compartments over 28' is no problem. It's when the span comes down to 26', which is what we are dealing with here for the 4-wheeler, that the nasty squeeze occurs.

 

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, philip-griffiths said:

I was wondering if Miss Prism was having fits with all those unanswered postings.....

 

On the contrary. I don't expect Hattons to go along with everything I've suggested, but Hattons has demonstrated a willingness to respond positively to a wide range of issues, and I'm enjoying the pace Hattons has set.

 

Actually, it's quite staggering to imagine a development cycle for other products (locos e.g.) if the progress was as rapid as has been shown here.

 

[Compound2632]

Yes but of course these are the LNWR style of panelling, which is different and distinctive (also SER / SECR, Furness, North Stafford).

 

@philip-griffiths, I'm sure you are familiar with P.A. Millard & I. Tattersall, L&NWR Non-Corridor Carriages (L&NWR Society, 2006). As well as underframe abd body drawings for the 28 ft stock, this has a dimensioned sketch of the panelling. However, the most detailed drawings for 19th century LNWR panelling I know are in P.A.Millard, L&NWR 30ft 1in Six-Wheeled Carriages L&NWR Society, 2008). Although this panelling style is not relevant to the Hattons carriages it's worth noting that the sides are 6'6¾” high, with 1'9" lower panels and, for the doors, 6" waist and 8" eves panels.

[philip-griffiths]

33 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

As I've previously stated Philip, 5 compartments over 28' is no problem. It's when the span comes down to 26', which is what we are dealing with here for the 4-wheeler, that the nasty squeeze occurs.

 

 

Yes That is true Miss P. it is a pity that it is not longer but there must be a good reason for this.

 

It reminds me of the decision process use when the Irish gauge commission determined on 5'3".

 

regards

[JohnR]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Tastes differ, depending, to some extent, on the practice of those companies one is most familiar with. However, what I would say wrt brake-ended vehicles, is that the layouts of guard's and luggage compartments and doors were presumably arrived at by long experience of the practicalities of station work. So, any given actual example is almost certainly a better arrangement than one one doodles for oneself.

 

Nevertheless, I dare say there were some designs that were continually cursed by the staff.

 

 

Its more a case of us going round in circles. A while back there were people saying how it should have a seperate Guards door, now we've got people saying the opposite.

[philip-griffiths]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes but of course these are the LNWR style of panelling, which is different and distinctive (also SER / SECR, Furness, North Stafford).

 

@philip-griffiths, I'm sure you are familiar with P.A. Millard & I. Tattersall, L&NWR Non-Corridor Carriages (L&NWR Society, 2006). As well as underframe abd body drawings for the 28 ft stock, this has a dimensioned sketch of the panelling. However, the most detailed drawings for 19th century LNWR panelling I know are in P.A.Millard, L&NWR 30ft 1in Six-Wheeled Carriages L&NWR Society, 2008). Although this panelling style is not relevant to the Hattons carriages it's worth noting that the sides are 6'6¾” high, with 1'9" lower panels and, for the doors, 6" waist and 8" eves panels.

hello,

 

Yes familiar with these books, though they post-dated my work.  I had input from LNWRS members in drawing up these and a number of other LNWR bogie coaches that were used in South Wales post 1935.

regards

[philip-griffiths]

24 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

On the contrary. I don't expect Hattons to go along with everything I've suggested, but Hattons has demonstrated a willingness to respond positively to a wide range of issues, and I'm enjoying the pace Hattons has set.

 

Actually, it's quite staggering to imagine a development cycle for other products (locos e.g.) if the progress was as rapid as has been shown here.

 

Hi,  Well it was more of a flippant comment as you were posting and there were no replies directly to your e-mails. Then one came along from someone else which suggested potential PM traffic.

 

regards

[gr.king]

11 hours ago, JohnR said:

 

Did we not do the reverse several pages ago? 

 

The "we" who had time to jump in very quickly and build the topic up to an almost unreadable bulk within a matter of days may have done that a few pages back. I still haven't had time to read it all and I doubt I'll ever find that much time, but that doesn't necessarily make that early "we" the majority of all those who might be interested. It does not automatically make their view of what is desirable or "correct" the only one or the definitive one.

 

Others who were too busy to contribute actively in the first few days, or who did not become aware of this immediately, or who may have been studying possibilities before adding comment, have the same right to ask for their opinions and preferences to be taken in to account by those intending to produce these models.