Jump to content

Hattons Dave

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

 

Right now, the foremost two are both claiming they can do the latter in ways that would only work if they had cracked the former. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_jester.gif

 

John

 

I'm not going to say anything political!

 

Rather like the Institute for Fiscal Studies!

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
15 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

I'd be interested to know how you came up with a figure of 5000 pounds. I suspect you picked a figure at random, I bet manufacturers would love your system of magical development costs. It would transform the hobby.

 

An estimate based on costs for an Aussie company to modify existing tooling of similar complexity.

 

Terry Flynn.

Share this post


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

 

I'd suggest the reluctance of the r-t-r trade (up to now) to offer almost anything with a pre-group flavour is *due (at least in part) to* the bewildering array of options they need to wade through. The BR Regions and the Big Four are easy enough, but once you go back further than 1923, the four becomes around thirty and there isn't the depth of existing loco models whose popularity can provide the hints the manufacturers (and commissioners) need to make commercially sensible choices.  

 

 

What is consistently swept under the carpet is the extent to which pre-Grouping carriages remained an essential part of the scene right up to the 1950s - not 4- and 6-wheelers but 20th century bogie carriages. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

Share this post


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

I'd be interested to know how you came up with a figure of 5000 pounds. I suspect you picked a figure at random, I bet manufacturers would love your system of magical development costs. It would transform the hobby.

About 25 years ago, I enquired of a manufacturer (low tech) the costs to produce tooling for an HO goods wagon kit.

 

That was £5,000 back then. So probably about £20,000 now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

What is consistently swept under the carpet is the extent to which pre-Grouping carriages remained an essential part of the scene right up to the 1950s - not 4- and 6-wheelers but 20th century bogie carriages. 

True, but the issue of rebuilding and modifications by the Big Four also come into the equation. For example, by 1948, very few pre-1923 GWR corridor coaches seem to have remained unmolested and I'm guessing the same will be true (to a greater or lesser extent) across the board. 

 

Hence Kernow's Gate Sets and Hornby's mid-thirties rebuilds of LSWR stock, whilst of pre-group origin, are unsuitable to offer in LSWR livery. The Southern in particular went in for extensive recycling before the word had even been coined. This involved re-combination of compartments taken from withdrawn pre-group stock onto new, longer underframes (as in the Hornby models), the creation of large numbers of suburban electric units and extensive modifications to vehicles that did retain their original underframes for use on the Isle of Wight, By nationalisation, few ex-LSWR passenger vehicles remained in recognisably pre-group condition bar the 56' stock and the Ironclads, neither of which pre-dated the grouping by all that long.

 

Even Bachmann, who could arguably have chosen earlier, shorter SECR Birdcages that would have been much more useful for pre-group modellers and those whose interest runs to 1930s branch lines, went (perhaps predictably) for the sixty-footers that survived into the second half of the 1950s in substantial numbers, but were very much main line stock for most of their pre-BR careers.      

 

There is also the issue of panelling being sheeted over by the Big Four and BR to repair rot and/or create an illusion of (relative) modernity. It was often applied inconsistently between different examples of the same coach type, making it difficult (= expensive) to offer authentic models for pre-1923, Big Four and BR periods from a single suite of tooling.

 

Even early-grouping coaches and those that straddle 1923 are yet to be tackled in r-t-r; LMS Period 1 and 2 stock springs instantly to mind as do the aforementioned Ironclads.

 

The problem has always lain in the numbers, with the bigger players having (probably justifiable) concerns that the level of sales wouldn't cover the development costs quickly enough. Modern design, tooling and production techniques are gradually making feasible what was previously too esoteric to be considered and the lowest-hanging (1930s) fruit having already been plucked is another factor coming into play. Hatton's Genesis project amounts to a significant step down that path, but those who expect the r-t-r trade to deliver a broad spread of pre-group diversity will (at least in the short term) continue to be disappointed.

 

John     

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

 

Even early-grouping coaches are yet to be tackled in r-t-r; LMS Period 1 and 2 Stanier stock springs instantly to mind as do the aforementioned Ironclads.

 

 

Not to up-to-date specifications, but we have had the ex-Mainline Period 1 corridor composite and brake third, the ex-Airfix Period 2 lavatory composite and brake third, and ex-Airfix/Dapol Period 2 composite dining carriage. Not but that a wider range of pre-Stanier LMS carriages wouldn't be welcome. The next step back from that would be late LNWR carriages, that set the pattern for LMS stock in terms of interior layout, even if the detail design was chiefly Midland. The LNWR was by a considerable margin the biggest passenger carrier in the LMS group; its carriages were widely cascaded, even onto Midland services.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

Rather than going round in circles with the same old argument I would let Hatton's get on with producing what they have already announced. Then if they prove to be a huge success we can suggest additions or improvements to the range.

 

I'm rather enjoying this "vamp til ready"!

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not to up-to-date specifications, but we have had the ex-Mainline Period 1 corridor composite and brake third, the ex-Airfix Period 2 lavatory composite and brake third, and ex-Airfix/Dapol Period 2 composite dining carriage. Not but that a wider range of pre-Stanier LMS carriages wouldn't be welcome. The next step back from that would be late LNWR carriages, that set the pattern for LMS stock in terms of interior layout, even if the detail design was chiefly Midland. The LNWR was by a considerable margin the biggest passenger carrier in the LMS group; its carriages were widely cascaded, even onto Midland services.

 

And yet the Ratio LNWR coach kits don't seem to get built , while the MR  kits do (I have a pair of Ratio LNWR coaches in traffic). I don't quite understand why

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not to up-to-date specifications, but we have had the ex-Mainline Period 1 corridor composite and brake third, the ex-Airfix Period 2 lavatory composite and brake third, and ex-Airfix/Dapol Period 2 composite dining carriage. Not but that a wider range of pre-Stanier LMS carriages wouldn't be welcome. The next step back from that would be late LNWR carriages, that set the pattern for LMS stock in terms of interior layout, even if the detail design was chiefly Midland. The LNWR was by a considerable margin the biggest passenger carrier in the LMS group; its carriages were widely cascaded, even onto Midland services.

True, and I have examples of all those, either in use, currently under the knife or awaiting improvement.

 

John 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

And yet the Ratio LNWR coach kits don't seem to get built , while the MR  kits do (I have a pair of Ratio LNWR coaches in traffic). I don't quite understand why

 

 

The Ratio kits represent the 50 ft arc-roofed carriages built 1898-1902, the first mass-production of corridor carriages by the LNWR. The D268 corridor thirds were in fact the largest single diagram of LNWR corridor carriage with 244 built. These carriages can be seen in main-line trains into the 1930s. Jenkinson* doesn't give withdrawal dates which I suspect means few survived as LMS stock at nationalisation, although some that were transferred to the M&GN section did.

 

However, the LNWR carriages I was suggesting are the 57 ft elliptical-roofed carriages built from 1907 to grouping.

 

*D. Jenkinson, LNWR Carriages (2e, Pendragon, 1995).

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

The Ratio kits represent the 50 ft arc-roofed carriages built 1898-1902, the first mass-production of corridor carriages by the LNWR. The D268 corridor thirds were in fact the largest single diagram of LNWR corridor carriage with 244 built. These carriages can be seen in main-line trains into the 1930s. Jenkinson* doesn't give withdrawal dates which I suspect means few survived as LMS stock at nationalisation, although some that were transferred to the M&GN section did.

 

However, the LNWR carriages I was suggesting are the 57 ft elliptical-roofed carriages built from 1907 to grouping.

 

*D. Jenkinson, LNWR Carriages (2e, Pendragon, 1995).

 

A very useful link there as my 2 coach LNW set is supposed to be ex M&GN and is painted brown. Justifying one in the E Midlands seemed a stretch but the layout is supposed to have trains to Birmingham. Its a little disconcerting when a comment on your blog is being quoted as a source - I assume the reference to "another source in RM website" is in fact Bill Bedford's comment on that blog posting

 

So why do folk happily build the M R clerestory kits but not those for the more numerous LNW vehicles, which lasted a little longer?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

An estimate based on costs for an Aussie company to modify existing tooling of similar complexity.

 

Terry Flynn.

Find that difficult to believe . Additionally you are wanting Hattons to design and make entirely new tooling for your own requirements, not modify an existing tooling.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

About 25 years ago, I enquired of a manufacturer (low tech) the costs to produce tooling for an HO goods wagon kit.

 

That was £5,000 back then. So probably about £20,000 now.

 

Sorry to mislead you into thinking Australia manufactures any RTR model railways these days.   Only cottage industry model railway stuff is done here. The 5000 pound extra tooling cost is based on H0 models produced in the last year in China. Manufacturing of RTR today is cheaper in real terms due to computeriseration. 3D cad drawings are cheap to change and easy to check if you have the skill. CAD CAM combined with CNC  machining makes it quicker and more accurate to machine. Chinese labor is still relatively low cost. Although the cost to produce an injection moulded kit is less than for RTR tooling the market is minimal compared to RTR and not an efficient way of making any money.

It's not a big cost for Hattons to get a quote for extra roofs at the moment. Even if the extra cost is 10,000 pounds it still is a minimal cost increase per wagon sold.

 

Terry Flynn.

Share this post


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

Find that difficult to believe . Additionally you are wanting Hattons to design and make entirely new tooling for your own requirements, not modify an existing tooling.

 

No tooling exists at the moment as far as I am aware, so changes to the project are cheap to do. A new roof and ends is not a modification to existing tooling, but a modification to the proposed tooling. Yes it is a different design, but the same tool with extra parts would be used. I'm still talking about a generic coach, not a finescale coach.  

 

Terry Flynn.

Share this post


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

 

No tooling exists at the moment as far as I am aware, so changes to the project are cheap to do. A new roof and ends is not a modification to existing tooling, but a modification to the proposed tooling. Yes it is a different design, but the same tool with extra parts would be used. I'm still talking about a generic coach, not a finescale coach.  

 

Terry Flynn.

I would like to see round topped doors as fitted to Metropolitan stock. I appreciate that to have the tooling adjusted or new tooling to produce such a variation is just not viable. If I wanted to go down that route I will have to accept either etched or 3D printed replacement sides. What you are proposing, altering both the ends and roof is even less viable. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

 

No tooling exists at the moment as far as I am aware, so changes to the project are cheap to do. A new roof and ends is not a modification to existing tooling, but a modification to the proposed tooling. Yes it is a different design, but the same tool with extra parts would be used. I'm still talking about a generic coach, not a finescale coach.  

 

Terry Flynn.

Clouds and cuckoo's spring to mind

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we’re wish-listing variants for Hattons to tool, could I put a request in for a carriage with a giraffe poking its head out of the roof? :jester:

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 12

Share this post


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

If we’re wish-listing variants for Hattons to tool, could I put a request in for a carriage with a giraffe poking its head out of the roof? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_jester.gif

It's about as relevant as asking for company-specific details to be added to a generic model. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's maybe a bit late, but I'm thinking it would be fairer to Dave @ Hattons to have a separate - Hatton's could even do 4 and 6 wheel ****** . . . speculation thread.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

It's maybe a bit late, but I'm thinking it would be fairer to Dave @ Hattons to have a separate - Hatton's could even do 4 and 6 wheel ****** . . . speculation thread.

 

Andy

Agreed, he's probably been despairing of this one for quite a  while.:jester:

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I would like to see round topped doors as fitted to Metropolitan stock. I appreciate that to have the tooling adjusted or new tooling to produce such a variation is just not viable. If I wanted to go down that route I will have to accept either etched or 3D printed replacement sides. What you are proposing, altering both the ends and roof is even less viable. 

 

It's viable as are the extra coaches added to the project

 

Terry Flynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, truffy said:

If we’re wish-listing variants for Hattons to tool, could I put a request in for a carriage with a giraffe poking its head out of the roof? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_jester.gif

 

8 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

I already have one!

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Terry is yours a Great Northern carriage?

Is the giraffe generic?

 

:)

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

 

Terry is yours a Great Northern carriage?

Is the giraffe generic?

 

:)

A semi-elliptical, teak panelled giraffe eh ? ..................... nah, not very generic.

  • Funny 5

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.