Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Hattons Dave said:

 

 

H4-46Pack-101_RMweb.jpg.568da7a3d4c611de854a4458ef941a0f.jpg

 

I like the subtle difference in the livery crests of the 1st class and 2nd/3rd class coaches (which I believe is correct) :D

Edited by JeremyKarl
Deleted excess text
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MarkSG said:

Long wheelbase 6-wheelers will always be a problem on train set curves (and, let's face it, most of us have got train set curves), so it will be interesting to see how Hattons approach this. A sliding centre axle is probably the obvious choice, but that's not as easy on a relatively detailed model as it was on the old, coarser stuff such as the Hornby Palethorpes van. The idea of a pivot mechanism is intriguing, but I'm struggling to visualise how it works. Does anyone have any links to models where it's in use?

 

That said, it won't stop me buying one. The layout I'll be using it on, at least initially, is a simple straight end-to-end so, possibly a little unusually for me, it doesn't actually have any train set curves. I'm sure it will be fine on that, but I'll also see how it runs on the test oval. If that's not a problem either, then I may shell out on a couple more for other possible scenarios.

 

If they can engineer it, a Cleminson arrangement would work fine. I once built 3 Cambrian 6-wheelers with a rigid chassis and needless to say they'd hardly go around anything. So I rebuilt one with a Cleminson arrangement, and low and behold it would go around 12" radius curves, no problem.  The nice thing about Cleminson is that not only are the individual wheelsets following the curve more, but the end wheels are pivoted to be much flatter against the rails. I'm sure Hatton's could do this if they wished; better a slightly more complex arrangement which works than a half-hearted one which doesn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it ironic that while these are intended to be and actually are generic coaches,  the livery is being discussed as if the models are prototypical.  I can understand the modeller's "need" to be as accurate as is possible,  however, these are not scale models.  I applaud Hattons for their bravery in releasing generic models as no doubt they knew that they would be in for some criticism,  mostly of which is constructive.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NCB said:

 

If they can engineer it, a Cleminson arrangement would work fine. I once built 3 Cambrian 6-wheelers with a rigid chassis and needless to say they'd hardly go around anything. So I rebuilt one with a Cleminson arrangement, and low and behold it would go around 12" radius curves, no problem.  The nice thing about Cleminson is that not only are the individual wheelsets following the curve more, but the end wheels are pivoted to be much flatter against the rails. I'm sure Hatton's could do this if they wished; better a slightly more complex arrangement which works than a half-hearted one which doesn't.

The sliding centre axle arrangement has been working just fine on continental r-t-r models longer than these for decades. The outer wheels aren't an issue unless you still use 13-inch radius Tri-ang Series 3 track :huh:. My LNER CCT and SR BY vans (both Hornby r-t-r and Parkside kits) all run quite happily round No.2 radius curves and they are at least as long in the wheelbase as these coaches. 

 

Admittedly, it doesn't use the Cleminson arrangement, but the wholly excessive flexibility provided in the Dapol-for-Hornby-Magazine Stove R is why it looks rubbish unless its underpinnings are hidden behind a platform. The thing has the potential to go round curves that would look daft in OO9, let alone OO but requires silly 11mm wheels to make it feasible. Had they used a similar arrangement but with only sufficient movement to go round No.2 curves, they could have used the proper 14mm diameter.

 

An ostensibly crude but practically (and visually) superior solution features in the Chivers LMS Fish van kit; a non-rotating middle wheelset with flats on the bottom to clear the rails. You actually don't notice the con unless observing at track level from eighteen inches away and I'm copying it on the new chassis I'm building for my Hornby Palethorpes van.

 

I'll be happy so long as Hatton's don't go down the Stove R route, and from what I've seen so far, they have no such intention.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

I do find it ironic that while these are intended to be and actually are generic coaches,  the livery is being discussed as if the models are prototypical.  I can understand the modeller's "need" to be as accurate as is possible,  however, these are not scale models.  

 

I see no irony. When the casual observer looks at a train going past, its the colour scheme that is noticed, not the fine detail of window and door arrangement, roof profile etc.

 

 

  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

I see no irony. When the casual observer looks at a train going past, its the colour scheme that is noticed, not the fine detail of window and door arrangement, roof profile etc.

 

 

Oh dear. A good deal of effort has been put in to getting details of the panelling and bolection molding etc. authentic (in the sense of being typical of the practice of the time) but Hattons could have gone with flat printed sides all along!

  • Like 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Oh dear. A good deal of effort has been put in to getting details of the panelling and bolection molding etc. authentic (in the sense of being typical of the practice of the time) but Hattons could have gone with flat printed sides all along!

 

I think that is a little harsh, the panelling, moulding, etc, are all very important, and would be 

very noticeable by their absence.

You can fool the eye by clever paintwork, but get the paintwork and lining 'out' and it will be 

really obvious, doesn't matter how good the relief work is.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One obvious thought struck me after reading some of the 81 pages of discussion - if there is so much interest in this generic product, wouldn't it be worth someone producing models of actual prototype coaches (at least for the major companies GWR, LNWR, MR)? 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

 

I think that is a little harsh, the panelling, moulding, etc, are all very important, and would be 

very noticeable by their absence.

You can fool the eye by clever paintwork, but get the paintwork and lining 'out' and it will be 

really obvious, doesn't matter how good the relief work is.

 

As has already been thrashed out, these aren't models of xxxxx coaches, they are models representing typical coaches of the era, finished in xxxxx livery - within practical limits. 

 

In the case of the GWR livery, the shape of the Hatton's ducket doesn't match the curvy pattern used by that company, so it isn't possible to finish the upper panel and lining exactly the way Swindon did it.

 

Something will be "wrong" with all of these coaches for one reason or another as, by definition, a generic model will only conform to a particular prototype by sheer luck. In this case, it doesn't and the livery application will only be as "right" as they can get it within the constraints of the moulding.

 

Back to cutting and splicing Ratio 4-wheeler kits or old Tri-ang clerestories for GWR fans who notice?

 

 

John

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fezza said:

One obvious thought struck me after reading some of the 81 pages of discussion - if there is so much interest in this generic product, wouldn't it be worth someone producing models of actual prototype coaches (at least for the major companies GWR, LNWR, MR)? 

 

There are kits. One of the attractions of pre-grouping modelling is that one isn't presented with everything on a plate. (Although that's really the case for any era, once one looks closely.)

 

How would you choose? I think it would have to be a question of developing a train set - locomotive with appropriate carriages. Triang did this effectively over half a century ago!* The only pre-Grouping companies for which there is really a critical mass of locomotives are the companies that went into the Southern group - and behold: Bachmann's SECR birdcages (admittedly late pre-grouping, but most RTR pre-grouping locomotives are in "late" condition anyway). 

 

From a commercial point of view, whilst a range of, say, Midland carriages would no doubt create demand, a range of generic carriages will I am sure outsell such a specific range - being near enough for many people, even if only as place-holders until they summon up the courage to get out the soldering iron and bow pen.

 

*An then used the GW shortie clerestories as generic - passing them off as Midland (!) and LNER (ex GER) - quite apart from being used as GCR carriages by a very reputable modeller, and cut and shut into ex-LSWR carriages  by others.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Oh dear. A good deal of effort has been put in to getting details of the panelling and bolection molding etc. authentic (in the sense of being typical of the practice of the time) but Hattons could have gone with flat printed sides all along!

 

I didn't say that. I said I see no irony. ;)

 

20200827_092712.jpg.85d67813d829a499e0d7112b70a682f9.jpg

Edited by Colin_McLeod
To add picture.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

I didn't say that. I said I see no irony.

 

No indeed. By mentioning the PC sides, I was agreeing with you. It's just that for a number of these models, it's the livery that is the most wrong thing, considering the models as typical of the style of construction of the time. Those liveries are the ones that were devised for carriages whose style of construction was furthest from this generic style of construction - the Great Northern being perhaps the most extreme example. But @chris p bacon identified some early GNR carriages that pre-date the "classic" GNR / LNER panelling style, though when those were withdrawn might be a relevant question.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback so far! A couple of updates on a few discussion points:

  • RE the middle axle on the 6 wheel coaches - we understand the need for these coaches to run well through both Setrack curves and finescale track, and we've based our mechanism on successfully running models made for the European market. Thoroughly testing this design is part of the extensive testing that will be carried out when we receive the first Engineering Prototypes of the coaches.
  • Buffer shanks - thanks for the comments on these and these will be corrected to an authentic black colour.

Cheers,

Dave

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fezza said:

One obvious thought struck me after reading some of the 81 pages of discussion - if there is so much interest in this generic product, wouldn't it be worth someone producing models of actual prototype coaches (at least for the major companies GWR, LNWR, MR)? 

Maybe one day, but that first requires somebody to decide it's commercially sensible. Perversely, the Hatton's project makes it both more and less likely to happen.

 

More because it should both stimulate interest in earlier periods and give everybody a much better idea of its true extent. Less because the immediate prototype inspiration behind the present wave of interest was a preservation-era "lollipop" model. Many therefore formed the opinion that the main market for pre-group models is "collectors" and "Rule One runners" without prototype "allegiances", rather than students and devotees of particular companies who might be inclined to shell out more if offered "the real thing". They, out of necessity, have become accustomed to building their models (or paying others to do it) and many may not be interested in anything that's not soldered together. 

 

"The trade" may well be correct in their estimations and, whatever our opinions, they do work at knowing their clientele. These generic coaches, through economies of scale, should cost half or less what fully prototypical models would, and thereby satisfy the bulk of what might be described as "non-fundamentalist" demand.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

An ostensibly crude but practically (and visually) superior solution features in the Chivers LMS Fish van kit; a non-rotating middle wheelset with flats on the bottom to clear the rails. You actually don't notice the con unless observing at track level from eighteen inches away and I'm copying it on the new chassis I'm building for my Hornby Palethorpes van.


Thank you for giving our kit a mention. When I have ideas I sometimes produce a prototype to see if I can do it and whether customers will accept my solutions. The fish van was produced exactly for this purpose with a view to a series of further 6w prototypes. What seemed an easy body on my idea for the chassis. I say seemed easy, but I think I remember it was much more difficult to get the uncluttered appearance right. I was told by my finescale friends that the idea works well on their larger radius curves because the dummy wheel doesn’t appear to lose contact with the rail as it does on very sharpe curves. The non appearance of more prototypes can be summed up in the phrase increasing self doubt. Can you tell if my chassis fits under the sausage van, or is the length/wheelbase wrong?

 

Turning to these coaches, I applaud these introductions. Firstly their bravery in moving away from the crushing adherence to ever increasing finescaleness. Secondly a personal reaction. When I first saw the pictures, I asked myself why I would want any, and suddenly there they were Selsey Tramway coaches! Well possibly not quite, but near enough for me. So now we need to petition them to make a Manning Wardle K class especially one with the name Ringing Rock on it. 
 

Roger 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, finelines said:


Thank you for giving our kit a mention. When I have ideas I sometimes produce a prototype to see if I can do it and whether customers will accept my solutions. The fish van was produced exactly for this purpose with a view to a series of further 6w prototypes. What seemed an easy body on my idea for the chassis. I say seemed easy, but I think I remember it was much more difficult to get the uncluttered appearance right. I was told by my finescale friends that the idea works well on their larger radius curves because the dummy wheel doesn’t appear to lose contact with the rail as it does on very sharpe curves. The non appearance of more prototypes can be summed up in the phrase increasing self doubt. Can you tell if my chassis fits under the sausage van, or is the length/wheelbase wrong?

 

Turning to these coaches, I applaud these introductions. Firstly their bravery in moving away from the crushing adherence to ever increasing finescaleness. Secondly a personal reaction. When I first saw the pictures, I asked myself why I would want any, and suddenly there they were Selsey Tramway coaches! Well possibly not quite, but near enough for me. So now we need to petition them to make a Manning Wardle K class especially one with the name Ringing Rock on it. 
 

Roger 

Hi Roger,

 

Unfortunately, your chassis is the right length, but the Hornby van is too short.

 

To make it "look" right, mine will have the overall wheelbase reduced from 21' to 20'.

 

I really enjoy your kits and have most either built or awaiting it, and would appreciate more should you ever be inclined to resume.

 

John  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Maybe one day, but that first requires somebody to decide it's commercially sensible. Perversely, the Hatton's project makes it both more and less likely to happen.

 

More because it should both stimulate interest in earlier periods and give everybody a much better idea of its true extent. Less because the immediate prototype inspiration behind the present wave of interest was a preservation-era "lollipop" model. Many have formed the opinion that the main market for pre-group models is "collectors" and "Rule One runners" without prototype "allegiances", rather than students and devotees of particular companies who might be inclined to shell out more if offered "the real thing". They, out of necessity, have become accustomed to building their models (or paying others to do it) and many may not be interested in anything that's not soldered together. 

 

"The trade" may well be correct in their estimations and, whatever our opinions, they do work at knowing their clientele. These generic coaches, through economies of scale, should cost half or less what fully prototypical models would, and thereby satisfy the bulk of what might be described as the "non-fundamentalist" demand.

 

John

I see what you mean. I have more than enough to do without tackling a kit. I remain unwilling to purchase Hatton’s generic coaches but if Dapol were to produce the 0 scale Stroudley coaches in 00, I’d be very interested. Only my opinion – others differ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:


Continental HO gauge has used the sliding central axle with success for years ....detail notwithstanding.

 

The freight car in my Trix Palatine Railroad pack around era 1900 has the middle axle mounted into a sliding cage. Total lateral movement is 4mm

 

_DSC1192_00001.jpg

_DSC1194.JPG

_DSC1195.JPG

_DSC1197.JPG

Edited by maico
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Hi Roger,

 

Unfortunately, your chassis is the right length, but the Hornby van is too short.

 

To make it "look" right, mine will have the overall wheelbase reduced from 21' to 20'.

 

I really enjoy your kits and have most either built or awaiting it, and would appreciate more should you ever be inclined to resume.

 

John  

 

 

 

In which case, go directly to www.five79.co.uk ...  (it’s a safe place to go and will probably make you very happy)

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, maico said:

 

The freight car in my Trix Palatine Railroad set era 1901 has the middle axle mounted into a sliding cage. Total lateral movement is 4mm

_DSC1195.JPG

_DSC1197.JPG

 

That's very interesting. Assuming the wheels are at 14.5 mm back-to-back, scaling off your photos, the wheelbase is 42 mm + 42 mm, the same as the Hattons carriages. Also, the width over stepboards is about 35 mm - at 4 mm/ft scale, that's 8'9" which is typical for a British carriage of the 1880s/90s with 8'0"-wide body, though, I think, a bit wider than the width over the Hattons lower stepboards. Trix have managed to avoid the gap in the stepboard that the Hattons carriages have. This may be because their axleguards/axleboxes are more slender than Hattons'. The Hattons centre axle unit is designed to be removeable, for conversion to 4-wheeler.

 

@maico, could you run a ruler over your Trix 6-wheeler to confirm the wheelbase and width over lower stepboards?

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Lea, your estimate of the measurements are bang on!

 

One thing to note is the middle axle ends are held firmly in the axle boxes, there is no additional play.

 

The wheelbase of the 2 axle carriages is 70mm

_DSC1211.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

In many respects it is the liveries that are going to sell these coaches. After all, people like Smallbrook offer reasonably accurate kits, but even if I build them my paint finish will not approach the factory result on the loco, or of RTR rolling stock elsewhere on the layout. Generic models in gorgeous colours are a lot better than authentic models that look drab at best. 

 

Couldnt agree more. A point often missed by those who want exact prototypes available rtr. I have muddled through building the smallbrook  stroudleys and a roxey balloon coach. The only finish I was able to achieve was all over umber (wrong I think for stroudley 4 wheelers- but suited my purposes!). I have not attempted any lining - because I think none was better than it badly applied. Also transfers are difficult to source.   

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
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.