Jump to content

Hattons Dave

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

No, on that ONE measure they are unacceptable only to those people who want GNR coaches !  Any other company's "expert" may note the difference, but also understand the meaning of the word "generic".

 

Most people here understand the fact that Hattons announced these as GENERIC coaches, and that if they looked too much like a single company's coaches then many prospective purchasers would ignore the offering, whether that company was the GNR or even the SECR !

 

I doubt if many people (other than ultra collectors) will want to buy more than two company's coaches (IF they model a station, or line, where two company's overlap) but overall many people with "pretty" pre-grouping locomotives (or with unaccountable pre-grouping tendencies) will buy generic coaches and let the liveries spell out the differences.   I look forward to the many different layouts with many different liveries.

 

.

 

 

For me, it's the places where companies overlap that interest me. My favourite pre-Grouping company is the Metropolitan. I doubt I'll be buying the Metropolitan generics because I know Met coaches well enough that the differences from the prototype would bug me (mostly the shape of the doors - to be honest, I could probably live with differences in panelling and suchlike). But for companies that met the Met, I'd just like a representative train. Life's too short to spend ages making a set of carriages that aren't overly important to me, when I could be working on stuff that does interest me. Therefore, I might well grab a set of Hattons LNWR coaches.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

I have consistently stated to do more than one roof profile. That means more coaches that look right. Kits are irrelevant to RTR sales. I have no intention to purchase unmade UK kits. I have enough unmade NSWGR H0 kits to satisfy my kit building urges.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

 

More than one roof profile means a new end profile and new sides to match so making it it's own separate tooling project in its own right. I can never see this happening as it would push the prices up overall and not for specific versions as there will be complaints about why a specific livery is more expensive than the rest. 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

For me, it's the places where companies overlap that interest me. My favourite pre-Grouping company is the Metropolitan. I doubt I'll be buying the Metropolitan generics because I know Met coaches well enough that the differences from the prototype would bug me (mostly the shape of the doors - to be honest, I could probably live with differences in panelling and suchlike). But for companies that met the Met, I'd just like a representative train. Life's too short to spend ages making a set of carriages that aren't overly important to me, when I could be working on stuff that does interest me. Therefore, I might well grab a set of Hattons LNWR coaches.

 

39 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

Did you ask them about doing different roof styles?

 

Terry Flynn.

I intended to but forgot. I was going to suggest the option of a flatter, lower roof profile with the option of a clerestory. It all depends on the sales of the initial production, if they fly off the shelves a few more options could well be considered.

 

11 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

For me, it's the places where companies overlap that interest me. My favourite pre-Grouping company is the Metropolitan. I doubt I'll be buying the Metropolitan generics because I know Met coaches well enough that the differences from the prototype would bug me (mostly the shape of the doors - to be honest, I could probably live with differences in panelling and suchlike). But for companies that met the Met, I'd just like a representative train. Life's too short to spend ages making a set of carriages that aren't overly important to me, when I could be working on stuff that does interest me. Therefore, I might well grab a set of Hattons LNWR coaches.

 

As the sides are separate it should be relatively easy to replace them.

 

 

Edited by PhilJ W
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Craigw said:

 

I am not missing the point at all. I was one of the people who started the NSW "Early Days" Workshops which is a real niche even now. 

 

As the market for the main modelling era is becoming more saturated SDS have been adventurous and released models for earlier periods.  The thing that the RTR manufacturers have not quite got a handle on is that they decide what people will model despite the protestations of modellers. "If" a set of coaches accurate for one railway had been done (preferably one with locos already available) then people would have modelled that railway if they wanted to model an earlier period.  

 

My personal suspicion is that the main interest in pre grouping is the occasional brightly coloured loco and many do not care in the slightest what it hauls. These models will fill that void, but I doubt very much that there will be an upsurge in interest in pre grouping modelling (sorry fellas)

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

 

The reason that the manufacturers haven't "got" this is that RTR in OO has become so comprehensive in the last 20 years that in practice very few subjects post 1923 are now off-limits

 

The pre-grouping railway with the best coverage in terms of locos is the SECR . Accurate coaches are available - but the Birdcage stock from Bachmann represents post WW1 main line stock and isn't  suitable for an Edwardian branchline . Bachmann chose the prototype because they were very much used on rural lines in the 1950s. IE it's a model aimed at the post war /interwar modeller, with a special run in SECR livery 

 

The next best served in terms of locos is the LB&SCR, followed by the GC

 

The generics are pretty close to Stroudley and Billinton coaches of the LB&SCR. They will pass for GC (ex MSLR ) 6 wheelers, or some MR 6 wheelers. They are being made available in SECR livery

 

I do expect a modest upsurge in Edwardian branchlines in Kent and Sussex, or Edwardian South London suburban

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

 

As the sides are separate it should be relatively easy to replace them.

 

 

 

Now that makes things interesting. Replacement sides with appropriate doors would certainly be of interest to me. And as I'd likely be repainting anyway, I could do myself a nice District set...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

The problem for me is the Hattons offering does not have the characteristic roof profile of the GNR, thus they are unacceptable for those of us non experts who have noticed this significant easily observed difference.  They will loose sales because of this.

 

Fine scale means its not coarse scale.  

 

Cheers,

Terry Flynn.

 

Scale is a size ratio of a model to its original. If that ratio is different in some parts of a model compared to others, then it isn't a scale model by definition. The terms fine and coarse are relative adjectives for size, substance or value, that don't affect an abstract mathematical ratio.  1:76 is neither coarse nor fine, just bigger or small than some other ratio.

 

I'm not sure what's coarser or finer than out of the box RTR, unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.

 

Regardless of other attributes, All common forms of RTR in the smaller scales have wheel flanges that are considerably overscale compared to the scale of the body.  I've seen a lot of published hobby material where that is used as a definition of coarse.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possible advantage of building a pre-grouping layout to run the Hattons four wheel coaches on is that it may be possible to build a comprehensive continuous run layout in a limited space.

 

In the 1960s you could build a comprehensive Tri-ang or Hornby Dublo layout on an 8' x 4' board. Now, with most locomotives only able to manage 17" radius curves and really needing 24" curves, you need a space of about 12' x 5' to build a meaningful layout. Many people do not have that space and would struggle to take that layout to an exhibition.

 

The Hornby Terrier is one of the few model locomotives that will run on radius 1 track. Hopefully the Hattons coaches will be able to do so as well so it should be possible to design a small layout for these models. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Scale is a size ratio of a model to its original. If that ratio is different in some parts of a model compared to others, then it isn't a scale model by definition. The terms fine and coarse are relative adjectives for size, substance or value, that don't affect an abstract mathematical ratio.  1:76 is neither coarse nor fine, just bigger or small than some other ratio.

 

I'm not sure what's coarser or finer than out of the box RTR, unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.

 

Regardless of other attributes, All common forms of RTR in the smaller scales have wheel flanges that are considerably overscale compared to the scale of the body.  I've seen a lot of published hobby material where that is used as a definition of coarse.

 

Andy

 

 

I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall. 

 

A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.

 

Terry Flynn.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall. 

 

A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

The word generic also seems to be a concept that some people

seem to have difficulty understanding!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 14
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The pre-grouping railway with the best coverage in terms of locos is the SECR . Accurate coaches are available - but the Birdcage stock from Bachmann represents post WW1 main line stock and isn't  suitable for an Edwardian branchline . Bachmann chose the prototype because they were very much used on rural lines in the 1950s. IE it's a model aimed at the post war /interwar modeller, with a special run in SECR livery 

 

The next best served in terms of locos is the LB&SCR, followed by the GC

 

I do expect a modest upsurge in Edwardian branchlines in Kent and Sussex, or Edwardian South London suburban

This is a good reply to those people who point out that there were about 126 pre-grouping companies as opposed to only four grouping. If a manufacturer were to think of producing accurate pre-grouping stock rather than generic, it makes sense to produce it for the companies best served by locomotive models. It also makes sense to me (if no-one else) to produce more locomotives for companies which already have RTR locomotives, at least until there is a representative cross-section of types.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

......., unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable.  (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former :rolleyes: ).  ......

I suspect some people might be swapping the Gibson wheels on their Rails SECR box vans for something more appropriate for - shall we say - trainset pointwork ................ but that'll be a rarity.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

This is a good reply to those people who point out that there were about 126 pre-grouping companies as opposed to only four grouping. 

 

... of course not all carriage-owning. In fact there were no more than two dozen or so in mainland Britain, depending on how and when you choose to count. Of those, only 14 or so could really be considered large - appearing in the top 50 for numbers of employees in 1907, for instance. Of those, only two are missing from Hattons' announced liveries - both Scottish.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

More than one roof profile means a new end profile and new sides to match so making it it's own separate tooling project in its own right. I can never see this happening as it would push the prices up overall and not for specific versions as there will be complaints about why a specific livery is more expensive than the rest. 

 

The key point of my earlier post (suggesting that those who think that a different roof profile alone will make all the difference should prove the point by making a single roof of their own, including the top portion of each end, so that it will fit accurately on the original ends if these are cut down to a straight line at "top of side" level, and then proceed to multiply by simple, low effort, home resin casting) was that the need for different ends does not then figure and DIY manufacturing costs (excluding time) are low. But that solution to the problem is only open to those willing and able to try to do something for themselves. I'm not sure that those who can't / won't try have any special right to argue that a commercial manufacturer should make exactly what they want.

 

I won't be trying the idea because I don't regard a new roof profile alone as an adequate way to make a sufficiently convincing GNR (for instance) carriage out of the proposed generic items, and I have a lot of other things to do that I consider to be good or necessary uses of my time.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 

The word generic also seems to be a concept that some people

seem to have difficulty understanding!

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

Good luck with court case then!

  • Funny 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion seems to have got bogged down in a misunderstanding of the word "generic" - which does not mean, suitable for all purposes. It's really rather straightforward - if these are not the carriages you are looking for, avert your gaze!

  • Agree 14
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/generic

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 - if these are not the carriages you are looking for, avert your gaze!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Terry:

 

I'm afraid you will need to accept that the GNR in the Stirling era is not a major sub-niche within "pre-grouping" . I say that as someone who grew up in ex GN territory away from the ECML, and who has a sneaking suspicion that in the 1880s the GN may have been the world's best railway. Most people modelling ex GN lines are in fact modelling the ECML, and the Singles had basically gone from the ECML by 1900. 6 wheel coaches were being cascaded out of ECML after 1898. The Edwardian GNR is a world of Ivatt Atlantics and early Gresley coaches, at least on the ECML - and in matters GN the ECML has always overshadowed everything else . The remaining singles were exiled to the East Lincolnshire line after 1900 (and if you want to model the E Lincs  line before WW1 I commend Alford  and Firsby to you as prototypes...)

 

In 1922 the GN represented about 5% of the total network. A GN 6 wheeler therefore leaves the bulk of the market unserved. On the GN , 4 wheelers were strictly suburban stock

 

We have agreed that the Hatton's coaches are not suitable for the LNWR and GNR . They will serve as good or reasonable representations for the LBSCR, MR,  GCR (ex MSLR), NER, and arguably as representations for the GWR, GE and SECR,  All of those have several locos available RTR in OO,  and are much more realistic propositions for layouts than the GN . Some already have some support for stock from plastic kits


 

Thanks to LRM and Ratio, the LNWR is well supported with carriage kits . The GN before Gresley isn't.

 

I would suggest likely "follow ons" from this project are someone doing a resin or 3D body for an SECR 6 wheel birdcage full brake, - and some GN 6 wheelers, either as replacement bodies or a small expensive RTR range . The first will be a much easier safer proposition commercially than the second.....

 

The Locomotion Stirling Single is not really the bulls-eye this project needs to hit , even though you own one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

some GN 6 wheelers, either as replacement bodies or a small expensive RTR range 

 

I think this is what Terry's looking for:

 

 

If he wants them RTR, I'm sure he could find a someone willing to build them for him, for the appropriate fee.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

If he wants them RTR, I'm sure he could find someone willing to build them for him, for the appropriate fee.

Well he does say he is prepared to pay more.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see this thread really challenging the negative stereotype and public perception of railway modellers...

  • Like 1
  • Funny 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent.  The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.

 

Terry Flynn.

The definition of a generic model is one that draws elements from a number of prototypes without claiming to accurately represent any one of them. Hatton's will not be making GNR coaches, just generic (effectively freelance) ones, some of which will be finished in a representation of GNR livery. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?

 

Therefore no generic model should (other than by sheer coincidence) look exactly like any prototype. One that did, would not be generic!

 

All versions of these coaches will be "wrong" to a greater or lesser degree. Some will be lucky and get models that are reasonably close to their desired prototype. Others (like you) will be offered items that are too far off to be acceptable, but nobody is forcing you to buy them.

 

I'd suggest that you have been hammering away at Hatton's plenty long enough for them to capitulate if they were ever going to and, as you evidently want coaches to run with a loco produced by Rapido, maybe you should be chasing them for something more appropriate?

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think this is what Terry's looking for:

 

 

And I thought he wanted the moon on a stick.

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If he wants them RTR, I'm sure he could find a someone willing to build them for him, for the appropriate fee.

 

Oh, I see, he does!

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being curious, I followed the links back to Mike Trices GNR coaches, but getting onto the Shapeways site, nothing found?? I like the concept of doing them as a flatpack kit, rather than a one piece body, just the wrong scale.

  • 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.