Jump to content

Hattons Dave

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

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

I could see quite a considerable a market for the chassis without the bodies as bases for home made 3D printed bodies, or special etched sides. That way the "exact" models could be available for those who want to be historically "perfect" or have "unique" models, without the engineering hassle of making precision chassis.

 

Tim

 

Define "considerable".

 

I was joking about being able to buy a body without the chassis. If I want one, I'll buy one and flog the underpinnings if required. Remember that selling a chassis on its own will need a special box, extending one of the production runs and all the hassle of another product line in the range that won't shift as fast as the others. How many people are really going to want to buy one to put a 3D printed body on top that they will have to paint? I doubt sales would hit 3 figures. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Today, I am imagineering a small through station, island platform, junction at one end, single line the other, two short turntable fiddleyards and some GW and some SR 4/6 wheelers to go with my Gate Stock and a couple of Maunsell LSWR rebuilt stock.

Ahh.  I reckon a resin kit of an LSWR road van would go beautifully with that...

 

Or wait for Kernow's one, of course.

 

Pete T.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amazing news, I was chuffed to bits when my email cam through earlier!

Im amazed to see that some folk are already calling for bodies and chassis to be available separately, why not just buy the coach and sell the bits you don't need!?!

 

@Hattons Dave or any other Hattons people - with the six wheeler versions, could you please copy the Fleischmann/Roco method of sliding centre wheel sets? These are really reliable unlike the old "Stove R" effort produced by one of the magazines, (Hornby?) They were dreadful!

Thanks and cheers,

John.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good idea, so good it should have been done thirty years ago before I moved to O scale, I might just have stayed with OO. Ah well, too late now, but if I have to downsize to go into a care home, I might want to have a couple of these coaches to go in with me.

Two things, why offer the wheel option? By and large Mansell wheels were standard on these originally, and I can’t see folks being too precious about it anyway. The most obvious variation is in the roof profile, I suppose the tooling would make it out of the question, but a good option would be either 3centre (cove) or single radius roof profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These carriages will be ideal for those modelling a Colonel Stephens light railway and for those who wish to recreate the vintage trains that run on preserved railways such as the Kent & East Sussex and Bluebell railways.

 

We are spoilt for choice in terms of liveries, but no London, Brighton & South Coast Railway livery is quite surprising, considering the ready-to-run LBSCR locomotives that have been produced such as the Terrier and the E4 0-6-2T. No doubt Hatton's will be persuaded into producing one at some point.

 

This looks an excellent project and will be a step up from Hornby's generic 4-Wheel carriage.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I am sure purists would like accurate representations of each company but I like this announcement very much.

 

Really good product, looking forward to this.

 

Does this hint perhaps at where Hattons might see itself making locomotives - pre-grouping

 

 

If nothing else, they'll do very nicely as affordable placeholders until somebody produces the exact things everyone wants (or we get round to making them for ourselves).

 

Brilliant idea, but can we have the 6-wheel chassis on its own, please, so we can put something decent under our Dapol-for-Hornby-Magazine Stove R's without too much effort. It seems a waste to chop up a whole coach and there's a limit to how many grounded coach bodies I'll ever need.:jester:

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Define "considerable".

 

I was joking about being able to buy a body without the chassis. If I want one, I'll buy one and flog the underpinnings if required. Remember that selling a chassis on its own will need a special box, extending one of the production runs and all the hassle of another product line in the range that won't shift as fast as the others. How many people are really going to want to buy one to put a 3D printed body on top that they will have to paint? I doubt sales would hit 3 figures. 

 

Well, I'll buy any spare 6-wheel chassis you don't need!

 

We are certainly in the world of fantasy here, more so in some cases than in others. The LNWR panel style has been mentioned. The Met door.  The GNR had a distinctive roof profile and square panel style, and it would take more than a squint to will those 4 and 6-wheelers to take on the appearance of the massive 12-wheel ECJS clerestories that the GNR Atlantics might be seen with in Edwardian times. 

 

But no one is making that sort of thing RTR.  Quite possibly no-one ever will, not while injection moulding is the norm. 

 

Surely there is something for everyone here, and, frankly, the more adventurous you are prepared to be, the more fun you'll have.

 

I suspect that this release will sell to at least two markets: (1) Those who want an appropriately liveried RTR rake to complement a loco they have; and, (2) The bodgers, tinkerers and freelancers. 

 

These coaches represent a great opportunity IMHO.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, just what my light railway layout needs!

 

Hope these prove a hit.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @HattonsDave looks a very exciting project. I've just preordered an LMS rake. Wondering how long 6 wheelers kept their Midland livery in the LMS era now. Might have to invest in some Essery and Jenkinson reading....

 

Don't agree with the critics saying they are too generic, this is a great start to pre - grouping r-t-r coaching stock. It may also spur me on to some of those lovely Slaters kits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Invicta Informant said:

no London, Brighton & South Coast Railway livery is quite surprising

 

second that. 

 

Also not forgetting the E1 in the pipeline from Model Rail

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is certainly an interesting development, and certainly not one many would have foreseen. I think I have to broadly welcome the idea, even though, for me, I won't be buying any, but thats because they don't have a hope of looking like any of the vehicles I need to model.

Having said that, I can see them being a boon to a very large majority of the modelling family, and may serve enough of a purpose into getting the pre-grouping era much better represented across the board.

 

They are obviously based on the stock that now resides on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway, and have some features on the underframes which are highly specific, and not generic at all. Take the four wheeler, that arrangement of truss rods on the LMS is something that I've only seen on PMV's and other Southern stock, but yet it only appears on the vehicles in LMS red livery, the Southern green ones don't have it? How odd!

The 6 wheelers also have an odd feature, and one that although it did happen, not many companies used, that of centre wheel brakes. With an axle with a lot of side play, having working brakes acting upon it wasn't seen to be overly important, the BoT requirements being met by having the out axles braked. Talking of brakes, it appears to my eyes that the brake cylinder represented is actually a Westinghouse Air one. Note the rods going into the ends of the 'blob' on the underframe, vacuum cylinders hang down, and work vertically, with cranks to convert the motion to a pull. Again air brakes were not overly common with most pre-grouping companies.

 

Looking at the roofs, the GWR version has what look like the highly individual GW pot oil lamps nicely represented.

The GN, LNWR and SECR rakes have a strange looking lamp top with looks like the top to a gas lamp (ish), but the underframe has no gas tanks (will the ends have representation of gas feed pipes on these vehicles?)

The LMS, LNER, SR and departmental versions have some very strange thing on the roof. Is that to represent electrically lit vehicles? Is so I would have thought it highly unlikely that these vehicles would ever have been converted thus. These would have been high on the list for breaking up by the time they arrived with the Grouping companies, so converting them to elastictrickery would not have happened. Also they would need a dynamo and battery box on the underframe.

 

Having said all that I think that they will sell well, filling a gaping hole in the pre-grouping area. Its a bit of a shame that they are being passed off with body shells that will be wrong for the companies with more distinctive coaches. Maybe leave the SER, LNWR and L&Y out of the generic re-liveries, and actually tool up a low waist version for the first too, and a very plain version for the latter (the L&Y was very distinctively plain too). And then add is a 'Scottish 3 panel' version for all those lovely Scottish locos that seem to be the rage now?

 

I'm sure that they would sell just as well, if not better if they actually looked like more correct.

 

Andy G

 

Edited by uax6
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks Hattons for taking the plunge with these, 6 ordered - had been trying to psych myself up for building a rake of Ratios so you've saved me the embarrassment of wonky joints, glue splodges and an iffy paint job :wacko::wacko:

 

P.S. can I echo the request for some in LB&SCR teak, scumbling is even further from my capabilities :lol::lol:

 

Edited by chrism993
(edited for wishlist)
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is thrilling stuff.  I now have a year to make some space to run these delights.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Define "considerable".

 

I was joking about being able to buy a body without the chassis. If I want one, I'll buy one and flog the underpinnings if required. Remember that selling a chassis on its own will need a special box, extending one of the production runs and all the hassle of another product line in the range that won't shift as fast as the others. How many people are really going to want to buy one to put a 3D printed body on top that they will have to paint? I doubt sales would hit 3 figures. 

 

I'd be amazed of the same chassis are not common to the entire range. Hence they would need to be produced in larger quantities more or less continually and independently of the bodies anyway.  There are only two types that would possibly need retail "safe  to handle" boxes. But most likely would they would sold mail order only, in just plastic bags,  to modellers and OEM users.

 

Peter's Spares appear to be doing OK with a similar philosophy.

 

Tim

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Im amazed to see that some folk are already calling for bodies and chassis to be available separately, why not just buy the coach and sell the bits you don't need!?!

 

Sadly I'm not amazed, just disappointed, that within hours of being offered something no-one had yesterday that some want something different from what's being offered. If you want them that much there's other (traditional) ways of getting what you want.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 15
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All jolly good stuff, but I share the puzzlement of a couple of others in noting no LBSCR versions - despite the heading photo showing an Improved Engine Green terrier hauling typical coaches of the generic design. With Hornby's terrier already on sale, and Rails's version not far away, one might think their owners would be a prime target for such vehicles.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might they be leaving the field clear for Dapol, who, IIRC are going to make Stroudley coaches in 0, and would logically want to go down to 00 too?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

 

......      *let's face it, there can't be enough people wanting to model the Isle of Wight Central Railway to justify a full production run...

 

.

 

You just wait, there'll be hundreds of them crawling out of the (teak) woodwork now !

 

.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Sadly I'm not amazed, just disappointed, that within hours of being offered something no-one had yesterday that some want something different from what's being offered. If you want them that much there's other (traditional) ways of getting what you want.

 

Or this is good marketing feedback. :)

 

Tim

Edited by Hitchin Junction
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rowsley17D said:

Just pre-ordered the four unlit LMS six wheelers. Now I'll need to order another Midland 1P tank.

 

I see no connection between those two statements...

 

I stood in uffish thought in a holly thicket sheltering from a heavy shower of rain, pondering the design principles of 6-wheeled and 4-wheeled passenger carriages and how they relate to Hattons' proposed models. Given the longish lead-time, I wonder if there is scope for making them a bit more "likely". 

 

From what I know of the late nineteenth century carriages of the principal lines, the basic design unit is the compartment length between partitions.

 

For stock built in the 1880s/90s, this is typically in the region of 5'9" - 6'0" for a third class compartment. With partitions around 1.5" thick and ends about 3.0" - 3.5" thick, this gives a basic 5-compartment third around 30' - 31' long over end panels. (It also gives a bogie 7-compartment third around 41' - 43' long or an 8-compartment third 47' - 49' long.) A brake third would typically be similar to the 5-compartment third, with the guard's and luggage compartments taking the place of two or three third class compartments.

 

If your company is particularly parsimonious, or we're looking back to the 1870s/80s, or at carriages built for high-density suburban services in the London area, that third class compartment dimension might come down to as little as 5'3". This gives a 5-compartment third around 27' - 28' long - likely to be a 4-wheeler, or a 6-compartment 6-wheeler around 32' - 33' long - the Highland had some like that, I believe.

 

A first class compartment was typically somewhere in the range 7'0" - 7'3" - giving a 4-compartment carriage around 29' - 30' long over end panels - a bit long for a 4-wheeler so probably a 6-wheeler but on a shorter underframe than the 5-compartment first. In the older category, maybe only 6'9", i.e. 28' long, matching the thirds. For a 6-wheeler, a composite is an alternative arrangement. Here a very common arrangement was to have third class compartments at the ends, flanking first class compartments which were themselves either side of a luggage compartment or a pair of lavatories (or quite often the former being converted to the latter sometime in the 1890s). The first class compartments were nearer the middle to give a smoother ride - leaving the third class passengers to be tossed around as the carriage waggled along. This layout enables the same underframe to be used as for the 5-compartment third, resulting in a luggage compartment around 4' long - room for double doors.

 

One consequence for the external appearance is that, for the panels between the windows, those at the carriage ends will be about half the width of those between the compartments, plus the end thickness of about 3". The elevations shown in the OP fall down on this, making the end panels about as wide as the panels between the compartments. That's the thing that sticks out to me as "wrong" more than anything else. The old Triang clerestories had this defect too; I presume it's a manufacturing difficulty, getting the windows of the end compartments close enough to the corners.

 

By the 1880s/90s, flat ends were unusual, turned-under ends (with the same profile as the sides) were usual, with the consequence that the length of the underframe over headstocks would be about 5" - 6" less than the length over end panels. The 4-wheelers, whether more ancient or for the London area, might well still have flat ends.

 

Those lines that continued to build carriages with second class accommodation into the 1880s/90s generally used the third class compartment dimensions, but with better furnishings. On the abolition of second, these would be downgraded to third or, if you were lucky, thirds would be upgraded to second class standard! Composites might be first/second. 

 

So, for what it's worth, if I was planning to make a range of "generic" late 19th century non-bogie carriages, I'd go for:

 

6-wheelers:

 

124 mm over end panels, 122 mm over headstocks: 5-compartment third, 2 or 3-compartment brake third, third/first/luggage/first/third composite (or second/first), full brake;

 

or:

 

120 mm over end panels, 118 mm over headstocks - 5-compartment third, 2 or 3 compartment brake third, 4-compartment first, full brake;

 

and

 

4-wheelers:

 

112 mm long, flat ended - 5 compartment third, 2-compartment brake third, 4-compartment first or composite (third (second)/first/first/third (second)), full brake.

 

As to formations, there was some discussion of this recently on @Skinnylinny's thread, where the conclusion was that around 25% - 33% of compartments would be first class and if second was still in use, as many second class compartments as firsts. 

 

The radius of the roof would be in the range 10' - 8', the larger radius, flatter roofed carriages being older, naturally. 

 

No such thing as a generic clerestory! They're all different and characteristic.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

All jolly good stuff, but I share the puzzlement of a couple of others in noting no LBSCR versions - despite the heading photo showing an Improved Engine Green terrier hauling typical coaches of the generic design. With Hornby's terrier already on sale, and Rails's version not far away, one might think their owners would be a prime target for such vehicles.  

 

I'm hoping this apparently glaring omission is because they know something that we don't about something to fill that hole in the market. Strange to include LBSCR and LCDR as the leading photo when not producing them, particularly when two SECR liveried carriages run behind a P class.

 

Brilliant idea though. My experience of railway modellers in other areas of the internet (twitter for example), is that most buy what they like, because they like the look of it. Building pre-grouping kits are too far down my list, but an easily accessible rake of Victorian-looking carriages behind a reliably running tank engine in a nice livery, quietly pootling around my loft/office whilst I get on with my studies/life admin? Count me in!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really good news. For years I've thought that someone should make some pre grouping 4 wheeled coaches. Up until now I've just been building Ratio 4 wheel coaches and painting them in SECR pre grouping liveries.

 

Going for a generic coach type with a variety of different liveries is good in my opinion. Part of this hobby is having fun and I don't think it matters too much if they aren't based on one specific coach. Most the 4 wheel coaches in preservation today aren't how they would have been when they were built, most being on the shortened/lengthened chassis from a PMV. So I see it at fine that Hattons are using the same chassis for different body types and liveries. 

 

Personally I'm really pleased with this news from Hattons and I will probably be buying multiple rakes once they release. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

One consequence for the external appearance is that, for the panels between the windows, those at the carriage ends will be about half the width of those between the compartments, plus the end thickness of about 3". The elevations shown in the OP fall down on this, making the end panels about as wide as the panels between the compartments. That's the thing that sticks out to me as "wrong" more than anything else.

 

Agree.

 

  • Thanks 1

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.