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

[nathan70000]

Definitely in all photos I've seen of small pre-grouping coaches in the LNER era, they've been brown. The photo above is the first time I've ever seen an NER non-ECJS coach in teak actually. I think I'll be ordering the brown ones, useful substitutes for ex-NER and GE coaches that don't even seem to exist in kit form at the moment.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Hattons Dave,

 

I know that these things have nothing to do with the real world but I do have a querie born out of curiosity about the made up world logic that the carriages inhabit.

 

Why bother to produce LNER phoney carriages? The LNER didn't build any four or six wheel carriages in the real world. If they are intended to be pre grouping stock in LNER livery, are they supposed to be phoney NER, GNR, GER or GCR etc. If that is the case, which ones and why are they in plain brown? To provide just two examples, GNR carriages were teak and NER carriages were painted by the LNER in phoney teak. Wouldn't phoney teak be the most appropriate livery for phoney carriages, rather than plain brown, even in the logic of their own world?

 

P.S. Why do the LNER phoney carriages have electric lights?

 

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Nothing wrong with phoney, faux etc, It's the truth. I don't have any interest in these carriages as products but I find the internal logic around them quite fasinating.

Because the word is faux, 'phony' suggests a fraud and it's overuse in a paragraph looks in this case to be a swipe at Hattons product. 

[2mm Andy]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

I saw Queen Adelaide's Saloon in the NR|M a few weeks back. What's this about woodworm?

 

That's a different carriage. The ex-LSWR and Shropshire & Montgomeryshire Railway saloon carriage went to Longmoor but was scrapped due to rot/woodworm. I think there was a similar vehicle that ran on the Kent & East Sussex Railway, but that too was scrapped.

 

Andy

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

 

Because the word is faux, 'phony' suggests a fraud and it's overuse in a paragraph looks in this case to be a swipe at Hattons product. 

 

More of a swipe at the logic, including my own. Obviousley there is no real logic, they could be any colour.

[Headstock]

16 minutes ago, nathan70000 said:

Definitely in all photos I've seen of small pre-grouping coaches in the LNER era, they've been brown. The photo above is the first time I've ever seen an NER non-ECJS coach in teak actually. I think I'll be ordering the brown ones, useful substitutes for ex-NER and GE coaches that don't even seem to exist in kit form at the moment.

 

Afternoon nathan 70000,

 

I've got a folder full of pictures, I could keep posting all day but for copyright. My Father stood on the platform at Leeds new station and saw teak painted NER stock. It was so good that the only way you could tell it from the GN carriages, is that, the painted teak didn't weather in the same way that the real thing did.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Headstock
add info

[Ravenser]

16 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Not sarcastic at all.

 

There are plenty of surviving documents, painting schemes, traffic minutes, signed off by the great and the good, as well as plenty of fantastic photographs that confirm that the LNER intended to repaint all non teak passenger carriages in painted teak and this is what they set out doing. Plain painted brown carriages were a minority, even as their numbers increased in the late thirties and during the war. The idear that the LNER painted all, or a majority of its pre grouping stock brown is a creation of lazy railway modellers or researchers. I include a photograph of a NER carriage, formally in crimson, repainted into the so called 'faux teak' you claim never existed, or at least reserved only for steel articulated stock. The rest of you comments are not worth commenting on  at present, perhaps you could supply useful evidence in support.

 

 

 

 

As this point has wider application - there's no doubt that any pre-grouping stock inherited by the LNER in teak would stay that way. This obviously covers the GN, the ECJS, and inherited GC stock. What state any ex MSLR 4 and 6 wheelers would be in by 1923, after going through "burnt sienna and french grey" is a moot point 

 

Photographs, with the greatest respect, can only prove the state of a given vehicle at a specific time - it can't really prove the existence of an intention to paint other vehicles in a livery...

 

You've found an ex NER - not ECJS - coach in "faux teak". That's useful reference , but doesn't establish that this was the norm for all ex NER coaches . For comparison - a few ex LMS Porthole brakes were repainted into blue/grey to make up WCML sets in the new Corporate livery. That's not evidence that all ex LMS coaches carried blue/grey

 

I think you have read my posting very casually if you think I suggested either that "faux teak" livery didn't exist (it did) or that it was only applied to the Gresley steel articulated stock. It was the livery for all LNER-built  Thompson steel coaches as I understand it. How far it was applied to elderly pre-grouping stock is a question well worth exploring. In particular - 

 

Quote

Plain painted brown carriages were a minority, even as their numbers increased in the late thirties and during the war.

 

That chimes with the comment from several sources that coaches went to brown paint when the teak could no longer be "revived" with bleach and revarnishing.

 

In the present context I really question whether anyone would have spent the time effort and money applying "faux teak" to elderly 4 and 6 wheel coaches after 1923 - when the vehicles were at least 25-30 years old and obsolete . The GE suburban 4 wheelers were - according to Bulleid's report on them in 1924 - literally falling to bits by then . That's what a GE grey livered N7 would need to be pulling

 

As for my statements that the LNER still had plenty of 4 & 6 wheel stock in excursion sets in the mid 1930s , the reference is Harris LNER Coaches, discussing the genesis of the well-known Tourist stock (I don't have the book immediately to hand, so can't cite the exact numbers). As for the existence of the railcar trailers  , that's documented here: Clayton 4 wheel railcar trailers  They aren't what Hattons are making, but they were ordered by the LNER and apparently one hung around until 1968 (not in passenger service). They are  also documented in Harris' book

[Ravenser]

31 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon nathan 70000,

 

I've got a folder full of pictures, I could keep posting all day but for copyright. My Father stood on the platform at Leeds new station and saw teak painted NER stock. It was so good that the only way you could tell it from the GN carriages, is that, the painted teak didn't weather in the same way that the real thing did.

 

We've established that some ex NER stock carried "faux teak" [ Coachmann's term, and amongst other things he was around in the 1940s]

 

I would expect that to have been applied in principle to the most modern bogie NER stock used in the best trains . How far that was pushed down the batting order is an interesting question [Think chocolate and cream on Mk1s here..]. And how far the practice of the NE Area was followed by the Southern Area and Scottish Area is another interesting question. For example Edward Thompson seems to have had something of a free hand at Stratford rebuilding GE 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s

 

But the existence of LNER brown is not in doubt , and it's vastly more likely than "faux teak"  as the livery for what was, realistically, the dregs of the LNER's carriage stock.

 

I'm still waiting for comment on what livery that Cambridge Inspection saloon is carrying in BR days - carmine, brown or black?

 

Photographs may provide a skewed sample. There were 20 times as many O4s as A4s - but I'm sure there are far more pictures of A4s in existence. People photograph the glamorous stuff - Cambridge's "Royal" Claude was a popular subject for photographers and was even captured in 1930s colour. Similarly any PO wagon with original livery showing was an obvious target for the post-war photographer. They are likely to be heavily over-represented in the photographic record

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ravenser

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

We've established that some ex NER stock carried "faux teak" [ Coachmann's term, and amongst other things he was around in the 1940s]

 

I would expect that to have been applied in principle to the most modern bogie NER stock used in the best trains . How far that was pushed down the batting order is an interesting question [Think chocolate and cream on Mk1s here..]. And how far the practice of the NE Area was followed by the Southern Area and Scottish Area is another interesting question. For example Edward Thompson seems to have had something of a free hand at Stratford rebuilding GE 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s

 

But the existence of LNER brown is not in doubt , and it's vastly more likely than "faux teak"  as the livery for what was, realistically, the dregs of the LNER's carriage stock.

 

I'm still waiting for comment on what livery that Cambridge Inspection saloon is carrying in BR days - carmine, brown or black?

 

 

 

Don't take my word for it. the relevant traffic committee reports are available in the NRM, If you contact the NRM you can get a date to get into the archive, search them out and read them yourself. You can trawl through the Doncaster, Darlington and York carriage photo albums and information contained in the relevant carriage stock diagram books contained in the archive and draw your own conclusions. It's a good day out. What source material are you quoting, were are you getting your information from? Harris? Not even first hand material. My advice is go look at the genuine material. There are even vintage carriages, that when the paint has been stripped back, a layer of painted teak has been revealed.

[Ravenser]

5 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Don't take my word for it. the relevant traffic committee reports are available in the NRM, If you contact the NRM you can get a date to get into the archive, search them out and read them yourself. You can trawl through the Doncaster, Darlington and York carriage photo albums and information contained in

contained in the archive and draw your own conclusions. It's a good day out. What source material are you quoting, were are you getting your information from? Harris? Not even first hand material. My advice is go look at the genuine material. There are even vintage carriages, that when the paint has been stripped back, a layer of painted teak has been revealed.

 

For the sake of clarity - are you now denying the existence of LNER coach brown?

 

If your reading of archive material is as accurate as your reading of my words above  I would be cautious about such statements

 

Quote

the relevant carriage stock diagram books

 

Since when have those been accurate references for what livery was applied in the field by 6 different works across a quarter of a century? The livery is not relevant to the purpose of a diagram book.

 

The relevant BR committees never authorised the GE Section's practice of painting pre-group vehicles brown into the 1950s - but it happened. And Works photo albums will naturally focus on the new /best stock...

 

Quote

There are even vintage carriages, that when the paint has been stripped back, a layer of painted teak has been revealed.

 

Name them, please. Which companies, what stock, bogie or 4/6 wheelers, and what build dates?  If you insist others should provide chapter and verse reference in support of their statements I think this cuts both ways 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

For the sake of clarity - are you now denying the existence of LNER coach brown?

 

If your reading of archive material is as accurate as your reading of my words above  I would be cautious about such statements

 

 

Since when have those been accurate references for what livery was applied in the field by 6 different works across a quarter of a century? The livery is not relevant to the purpose of a diagram book.

 

The relevant BR committees never authorised the GE Section's practice of painting pre-group vehicles brown into the 1950s - but it happened. And Works photo albums will naturally focus on the new /best stock...

 

 

Name them, please. Which companies, what stock, bogie or 4/6 wheelers, and what build dates?  If you insist others should provide chapter and verse reference in support of their statements I think this cuts both ways 

 

In reply,

 

You know and everybody else reading this knows, that I'm not denying that the LNER painting carriages plain brown, You are the one in denial. No painted teak, on pre grouping stock, you've put it down in black and white. I provide a photo, It dosn't count says you. I could go on all night posting and you would pull another excuse out of you hat.

 

If the annotated paint shopping dates match that of committee documentation then it is relevant if that information is in a diagram book.

The 1950's is irrelevant.

Works photos  were taken of repainted pre grouping stock you know.

You haven't supplied your own source material for a single thing that you have said yet. Evidence that non teak pre grouping carriages were all painted plain brown if you please.

[Nile]

Google found a similar, but more civilised, discussion on another forum.

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3464

It features some familiar names.

[Oldddudders]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

It's the truth. I don't have any interest in these carriages as products

Once again, we have people who aren't potential customers telling Hatton's what they should or should not do. 

 

Aren't forums wonderful?

[chris p bacon]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Once again, we have people who aren't potential customers telling Hatton's what they should or should not do. 

 

Aren't forums wonderful?

 

There are some who have posted to make them a better product,  but are unlikely to buy them. Should they not offer any help or advice ?

[Mark Saunders]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Once again, we have people who aren't potential customers telling Hatton's what they should or should not do. 

 

Aren't forums wonderful?

 

No one has told Hattons what to produce or anyone what to buy and have put their views forward!

 

Everyone is a potential customer!

 

Mark Saunders

[Ravenser]

Quote

 You haven't supplied your own source material for a single thing that you have said yet.

 

I've certainly supplied photographic evidence for the Clayton 4 wheel trailers purchased by the LNER. So far the only primary source material you've supplied is a single photograph of a pre-grouping coach in "faux teak". Everything else has been generalised statements of what you claim primary documents (not readily accessible) indicate.

 

So - the Oakwood Press monograph on the Saffron Walden branch (edition of 2017). The cover features a 1956 colour picture of a G5 hauling two elderly non-corridor bogie coaches. These appear to be brown not red. They certainly aren't "faux teak" And before you jump on my use of 1950s material - how on earth did this GE Section practice arise in BR days if it wasn't a continuation of pre1948 Stratford practice??? These vehicles are ex GE stock from the late 1890s - a black/white photo of E63423 (ex GE 520 built May 1897) , a brake composite with centre guards compartment converted to push-pull driving trailer matches the rear vehicle in the colour photo on the cover.

 

Now we go backwards in time.. 

 

Your position in your initial post in this thread was that plain brown would be a false livery for 4 and 6 wheel stock under LNER ownership:

 

Quote

Wouldn't phoney teak be the most appropriate livery for phoney carriages, rather than plain brown, even in the logic of their own world?

 

P58 of The Saffron Walden Branch has two photos of the branch train in 1929 and May 1930. The train consists of a 2 coach set , with a bogie clerestory composite "dating from 1901 survived in traffic until 1955" according to the caption, and a 6 wheel brake third with 3 compartments. Both photos show the coach sides a relatively dark colour, but in different lights . Neither look to me at all like the "faux teak" of the photograph you posted. I suggest they are in "teak paint" otherwise LNER brown paint . 

 

We finally get to coaching stock near the back of the book. This reports that the vehicles used were LNER 63472 (formerly GE 584) - bogie, and 62305 (ex GE 781 of 1897) - 6 wheel brake third to dia 519, withdrawn Aug 1937 and sold to the North Sunderland Railway. It also reports that dia 533 brake thirds were also used and that these "did not become extinct in East Anglia until 1952" (p219) . Diagrams for these are reproduced on p214 - neither give any indication of the livery carried (contra your claim above that carriage diagrams are a livery source) . These were 34'6" long over the body.

 

Prior to this, during the 1920s, we are told that 3-4 coach sets formed of 6 wheel vehicles from GE diagrams 200 (compo), 403 (all third), and 511 (brake third) dating from the 1880s were used . Dias 200 and 511 were 31'6" long bodies with 20' wheelbase. How far could Hattons coaches be a representation of these?

 

The equivalent OPC book on the Braintree branch has no photos of pre-war passenger trains. However it does report that "conductor-guard" operation was introduced on the line in 1922 using GER six-wheelers from dias 440 (full third ex dia 404 and 422, built 1889-92, 22 conversions, 6 withdrawn 1932-3, 16 withdrawn 1940);  dia 552 third (ex dia 1888-96 18 vehicles, 6 withdrawn 1932-3, 1 withdrawn 1937, 12 withdrawn 1940) dia  246 / 248 compo 20 vehicles, last withdrawn 1940). The diagrams are reproduced , once again there is no reference to livery on the diagrams nor is the panelling drawn, but they seem to have round top/square bottom windows.

 

Mid Suffolk: Oakwood LP22 (Nick Comfort  Oxford 1986) p4 , an Ian Allen shot of the branch train still in LNER livery 1948. . 3 x 6-wheelers , all very dark , do not look anything like faux  teak (normally a light coloured finish?) to me. I'm calling these as LNER brown. And - clincher! - p104 , a photograph credited to Real Photographs  captioned "the ex-GER "cattle-truck" six-wheeler coaches as delivered to Lazfield in early LNER days". They are a plain colour of a middling hue, they are glossy, it's an official photo taken in good side light , they are definitely not "faux teak"

 

Is that not a clincher? At least for the GE Section

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ravenser
To clarify the Mid Suffolk source

[Headstock]

16 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Once again, we have people who aren't potential customers telling Hatton's what they should or should not do. 

 

Aren't forums wonderful?

 

I was just curious to why teak hadn't been selected for the LNER version. Its a perfectly valid question and a perfectly valid livery both as real or painted teak. Admittedly, I find it amusing that, painted teak or phoney teak would perhaps be the most appropriate livery of all. There's nothing wrong with that is there?

[Oldddudders]

14 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

No one has told Hattons what to produce or anyone what to buy and have put their views forward!

 

Everyone is a potential customer!

 

Mark Saunders

But, as my quote shows, Headstock explicitly says he is not. 

[Ravenser]

55 minutes ago, Nile said:

Google found a similar, but more civilised, discussion on another forum.

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3464

It features some familiar names.

 

Very interesting . Now I can see where Headstock found his ex NER coach photo, and it does seem to be an outlier....

 

Slightly hair-raising is the discovery that the LNER proposed to put its new Shenfield EMUs (Class 306 in new money) into "faux teak"

[Compound2632]

For the avoidance of doubt, confusion, the spread of disinformation, and unnecessary argument, please can I make a plea that posters consistently provide references and/or clear evidence in support of their statements, rather than relying on assertion. 

 

[Headstock]

Another carriage in painted teak, this one survived into departmental service. At first glance you would think it was just brown, but no the graining effect is present.

[Ravenser]

Harris , LNER Coaches (Amadeus Press Huddersfield for Atlantic, Penryn, 1995) reports under 1933 CBP:

 

  "It was agreed to build five trains of Tourist stock, in part replacement of GN four-wheelers that had been used for excursions"

 

and under 1935 CBP :

 

"There was no doubt that some of the carriage stock of the LNER was in dire need of renewal. A special meeting.... was held at Kings Cross on 6 November 1934 with Gresley as chairman, This was to consider the replacement of all four and six-wheeled stock by the end of 1936 except for "third-rate branch lines, miners' and workmans' trains". On completion of the 1934 breaking-up programme there would still be 247 four-wheeled and 2,632 six-wheeled carriages"

 

The position by Area and Section is then reported:   

 

NE Area - no 4 or 6 wheeled stock

GE Section - 4 wheeled stock being broken up. 130 x 6-wheeled coaches in booked workings, more as loose stock

GC Section - after completion of the 1934 breaking programme  588 six-wheeled coaches, 276 of them in booked workings

GN Section - 527 6-wheeled coaches after completion of 1934 breaking programme

Southern Scottish Area - 272 x 6-wheelers, 78 in booked workings

Northern Scottish Area - 301 x 6-wheelers and 24 x 4-wheelers. 112 6-wheelers and 23 four-wheelers still oil-lit

 

( Harris, Chapter 3 , p27-8)

 

It's striking just how much 6-wheeled stock there was on the GN and GC Sections and in Scotland at this late date

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ravenser

[Headstock]

These GN six wheelers were never repainted into plain brown. They retained real teak throughout there lives. They received there original (close to original) branding to run with the Stirling single  and are pictured here1937 in somewhat weathered but welll varnished teak.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/133-teak-coaches

 

sorry, the link dosn't seem to work propely so I have had to inbed

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Headstock

[Headstock]

sorry, the link dosn't seem to work propely so I have had to inbed.

[Bernard Lamb]

45 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I was just curious to why teak hadn't been selected for the LNER version. 

Cost?

These are being built down to a target price.

Berbard

[truffy]

Just wondering how the SE&CR coaches might sit behind the K&ESR Terrier. Is this a terrible idea or inspired?