Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Especially if it's on coaches with the notorious 'pot' lamps which had a reputation for being near useless. 

 

Which also raises a question: for daylight running, shouldn't the oil lamps be taken out and the bungs put in?

[Frank Sharp]

Hornby did this with Rails. Rails announced a Terrier and Hornby quietly did theirs to arrive just before. Whether that's co-incidence or an active policy to stop the dealers from becoming manufacturers only time will tell. In this case of the coaches Hornby could have complimented rather than rivalled by producing a similar set but of Victorian/Edwardian bogie coaches.

Now  we've got these coming what locos are there that would look right pulling them. Terrier, Beattie Well tank suitably back dated, Dean Goods, but very few. 

It has been a boom year for hobbies as we cannot go out and some still have money coming in. Bear in mind that all this money the government is spending will have to be recovered, that means more tax, less disposable income. Hornby and others are riding a fragile bubble.

[PaulRhB]

55 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Trouble with factory-fitted coach lighting is that it's usually four or five times too bright.

 

53 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Add some masking tape over the lights, you can put acrylic paint on clear tape to if you want a tint.

Watch Phil’s video on page 1, they look quite subdued already  

I won’t bother with it as I don’t run in the dark but it’s the best looking light level I’ve seen on any manufacturers coaches straight from the box, that’s including all the usual European manufacturers. 

[Dunsignalling]

24 minutes ago, Frank Sharp said:

Hornby did this with Rails. Rails announced a Terrier and Hornby quietly did theirs to arrive just before. Whether that's co-incidence or an active policy to stop the dealers from becoming manufacturers only time will tell. In this case of the coaches Hornby could have complimented rather than rivalled by producing a similar set but of Victorian/Edwardian bogie coaches.

Now  we've got these coming what locos are there that would look right pulling them. Terrier, Beattie Well tank suitably back dated, Dean Goods, but very few. 

It has been a boom year for hobbies as we cannot go out and some still have money coming in. Bear in mind that all this money the government is spending will have to be recovered, that means more tax, less disposable income. Hornby and others are riding a fragile bubble.

Quietly?

[wainwright1]

Did any of the Stroudley 4 wheelers end up on the KE & SR and so could operate with their terriers ?

Or perhaps any of these standard designs from other railways with a suitable re-paint. Possible scope for Hornby.

Ray

[Paul.Uni]

Video from Railway Modeller:

 

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, Frank Sharp said:

Hornby did this with Rails. Rails announced a Terrier and Hornby quietly did theirs to arrive just before. Whether that's co-incidence or an active policy to stop the dealers from becoming manufacturers only time will tell. In this case of the coaches Hornby could have complimented rather than rivalled by producing a similar set but of Victorian/Edwardian bogie coaches.

Now  we've got these coming what locos are there that would look right pulling them. Terrier, Beattie Well tank suitably back dated, Dean Goods, but very few. 

It has been a boom year for hobbies as we cannot go out and some still have money coming in. Bear in mind that all this money the government is spending will have to be recovered, that means more tax, less disposable income. Hornby and others are riding a fragile bubble.

 

You make a good point.  Generally we assume that it is a lack of suitable rolling stock that holds us back, particularly from earlier periods (I think the Bachmann Birdcages are the only RTR pre-Grouping coaches out there in OO).

 

Yet how many locos released need pre-Grouping liveried 4 and 6-wheel coaches in a choice of generic coaches?

 

You mention the Adams Radial: This was produced as preserved in Adams livery (easily amended) and not yet in Drummond. There have been Ltd edition M7s in Drummond and Urie livery.

The GWR Terrier (from what, 1940?) is hardly ideal for GW 4 or 6-wheelers in pre-1927 livery. No Small Metro, no 517, no pre-War 4800 even.  Meanwhile, in GW small locomotives, the manufacturers are still busy with Hawksworth, so, again, no great matches in the offing.

 

The Oxford N7 in GE grey could be matched with GER crimson versions, but I don't think either party has announced those.

 

To the extent that we have any choice for most of the announced coach liveries, we are relying on goods engines. Let's hope some at least of these were fitted for continuous braking, or the BoT will have something to say! Only the LB&SCR and the SE&CR really seem to be ready for these generics.

 

Yet, if you are going to compromise by having a generic coach in a real livery, can you, should you, not also compromise in terms of the suitability and period of the loco paired with them? Isn't that going to be part of the fun?  In a way it's quite liberating to go back to the tinplate days of generic locos or Exley coaches. For that is what we are doing here.

 

Much as I welcome generic coaches, I cannot help thinking that, in some ways the better option (certainly better than a second range of generics) might, as  has been said, have been to produce one or two of the more relevant and popular historic ranges.  One thinks immediately of the Stroudley 4-wheelers as there are 3 Terrier models (and the passenger fitted Model Rail E1 in the offing) to go with these.  

 

6-wheelers for SE&CR (Ps, Hs. Cs), LNWR (Coal Tank, especially if Bachmann can ever be persuaded to line one out) and GNR (Stirling Single) would also seem sensible.  

 

The problem is coaches for some of the larger/later engines are bogie coaches that we are never likely to see produced RTR: For the GN and Brighton Atlantics, the GCR Improved Director, the LNWR Precedent, the SE&CR D Class as built and fully lined (you can perhaps just overlap the 1912 Birdcages with locos awaiting their first post 1910 repaint).   No one in their right mind is going to tool for a Folkestone Boat Train or the Hastings Car Train, 12-wheel ECJS clerestories or the 2pm Ltd, or, even, a set of Barnums.

 

Short generics will have to be all things to all engines for a long time to come.

 

But, I do see colourful pre-Grouping generics as a 'gateway drug' to models of at least some actual pre-Grouping prototypes in due course, so, everything is still all good.  

 

   

[Mr chapman]

I'm liking the lights in these. I would expect these to become standard practice for lighting. I had this sort of thing before. I fitted magnetic gantries to the fiddle yard so the lights are tuned off on entry and back on when leaving. 

[Tony Burgess]

On 05/01/2021 at 12:44, Mr chapman said:

The fact is if the hattons model is better (lighting and other niceties) they don't need to worry. The Hornby model will sell well as it can reach other shops that perhaps the hattons model won't. Pity they can't use the efe distribution route as that bridge is burnt. Good luck to both as I'm sure they'll be in profit. 

Yes, the approach to coach lighting is an important distinction.  As far as I understand the Hattons coaches come with track pickup via the wheels and a DCC socket (& presumed plug for use on DC), whereas Hornby have innovated with a battery + magnetic switch.  Pricing for 'with lighting' coaches an additional approx £6.

I can see modellers wanting lit coaches going in several additional ways - 2-wire connections between coaches for a rake of Hattons on DCC so as to avoid the cost of a decoder for each coach, and adding wheel pickups and a full wave rectifier (and possibly a voltage stabiliser) to each Hornby coach.

The battery option of the Hornby coaches makes for great play value for children, and I hope their parents start buying 2032 cells in quantity as I imagine the lights will often be left switched on inadvertantly!

[mozzer models]

13 minutes ago, Tony Burgess said:

Yes, the approach to coach lighting is an important distinction.  As far as I understand the Hattons coaches come with track pickup via the wheels and a DCC socket (& presumed plug for use on DC), whereas Hornby have innovated with a battery + magnetic switch.  Pricing for 'with lighting' coaches an additional approx £6.

I can see modellers wanting lit coaches going in several additional ways - 2-wire connections between coaches for a rake of Hattons on DCC so as to avoid the cost of a decoder for each coach, and adding wheel pickups and a full wave rectifier (and possibly a voltage stabiliser) to each Hornby coach.

The battery option of the Hornby coaches makes for great play value for children, and I hope their parents start buying 2032 cells in quantity as I imagine the lights will often be left switched on inadvertantly!

on the Hornby film is says the battery last around 200 hour if I remember righty

[Tony Burgess]

10 minutes ago, mozzer models said:

on the Hornby film is says the battery last around 200 hour if I remember righty

Yes, just over a week when left on, as has been pointed out by someone else!

[stephennicholson]

55 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

You mention the Adams Radial: This was produced as preserved in Adams livery (easily amended)

 

Out of interest what is the easy amendment? I have two Adams liveried examples (Oxford) that could benefit from being "backdated"

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Paul.Uni said:

Video from Railway Modeller:

 

 

Shouldn't the coaches have partitions as they are compartment stock?

[Pre Grouping fan]

15 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

Shouldn't the coaches have partitions as they are compartment stock?

Some early 3rd class coaches only had basic bench seats leaving the portion from the bottom of the windows up fully open. As these are modelled on LBSC coaches they may follow this practice. 

 

Looking back at the video Phil Parker did for World of railways. The coach he looked at did have full compartment partitions so it appears different interiors for different coach types have been tooled. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Pre Grouping fan

[Jol Wilkinson]

14 minutes ago, Tony Burgess said:

Yes, the approach to coach lighting is an important distinction.  As far as I understand the Hattons coaches come with track pickup via the wheels and a DCC socket (& presumed plug for use on DC), whereas Hornby have innovated with a battery + magnetic switch.  Pricing for 'with lighting' coaches an additional approx £6.

I can see modellers wanting lit coaches going in several additional ways - 2-wire connections between coaches for a rake of Hattons on DCC so as to avoid the cost of a decoder for each coach, and adding wheel pickups and a full wave rectifier (and possibly a voltage stabiliser) to each Hornby coach.

The battery option of the Hornby coaches makes for great play value for children, and I hope their parents start buying 2032 cells in quantity as I imagine the lights will often be left switched on inadvertantly!

At the risk of upsetting some people, it isn't the lack of rollingstock, it is the lack of willingness to build what is already available in kit form. The pre-group railways are, and have been for quite a while, well provided by the 4mm kit producers, in moulded plastic, cast w/m (manly wagons), etched brass and latterly 3D printed. 

 

Assembling a rake of Ratio or Slaters wagons isn't too difficult and opens up a wide range of modelling opportunities. Powsides even supply Slaters POW wagon kits ready painted with transfers applied. In the context of this thread, plastic moulded carriages are less readily available but the no longer produced PC pre-group carriage kits with pre printed sides ,appear from time to time on Ebay.

 

For those willing to try building an etched kit, then there is a wonderfully wide range, but that requires rather more commitment, although I don't consider the processes involved beyond the majority of us.

 

If these coaches from Hornby (and those from Hattons), inspire people to really get into pre-group modelling - rather than just waiting for the manufacturers to produce what they want - then it would be great. 

 

 

[phil-b259]

 

5 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

At the risk of upsetting some people, it isn't the lack of rollingstock, it is the lack of willingness to build what is already available in kit form. The pre-group railways are, and have been for quite a while, well provided by the 4mm kit producers, in moulded plastic, cast w/m (manly wagons), etched brass and latterly 3D printed. 

 

 

The biggest problem is not building the kits - its applying the ornate lining so that it doesn't look out of place when hauled by a RTR loco with Tampo printed fine lining!

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

The biggest problem is not building the kits - its applying the ornate lining so that it doesn't look out of place when hauled by a RTR loco with Tampo printed fine lining!

 

 

I agree that the LNWR livery isn't easy, but some others are more straightforward. Even a simplified livery with the two colours can work well, especially at "layout viewing distance". For example the L&Y carriage livery was quite straightforward "two tone".

 

I tend to take the view that, if I could learn to do it (or more accurately be shown how), then most people can. 

 

I find it intriguing though that people happily buy a highly detailed RTR loco, and then are comfortable to pair it with inaccurate carriages, even if they have "correct" lining (and I still have reservations about the Coach Lake colour on the Hornby and Hattons coaches)

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

I've always thought the reason pre-group modelling is less pursued, and why (for most) kit-building is not seen as an option, is applying the complex liveries to locos and coaches. 

 

R-t-r, generic or not will enable those with less dedication to enjoy something that looks the part (within their level of knowledge) but doesn't demand they learn the skills required to do it for themselves or acquire the wherewithal to pay a professional to do it. 

 

It's not pre-group modelling, as pre-group modellers understand and practice it, but its a step in that direction.

 

What I do consider a massive pity is that Hornby have chosen to duplicate products expected from elsewhere, rather than producing generic bogie coaches of 45 to 50 feet. Many (including me) would have wanted both but it's unlikely that the total sales of 4/6 wheelers will be any greater than would have been achieved by the Hatton's ones unopposed.

 

Hornby have reduced matters to a zero sum game in which the only real choice is the colour of the box....

 

Petty, unimaginative, vindictive, stupid. IMHO

 

John

Edited January 6, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[PaulG]

If you are going to produce a non prototypical carriage, why try and paint it in GNR, LNWR etc prototype livery, why not just make up an equally fictitious railway company name and livery, who are you try to fool?

Edited January 6, 2021 by PaulG

[PaulRhB]

34 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

At the risk of upsetting some people, it isn't the lack of rollingstock, it is the lack of willingness to build what is already available in kit form. The pre-group railways are, and have been for quite a while, well provided by the 4mm kit producers, in moulded plastic, cast w/m (manly wagons), etched brass and latterly 3D printed. 

I dunno about upset but for many it’s the fear of seeing such well finished models and thinking they can’t match their rtr stablemates. Acquiring those skills can be stopped in its tracks by those fears, I know a supremely talented electronic and computer engineer who won’t touch diy or anything but rtr models as he can’t achieve his perfectionist standards! Additionally several friends simply don’t have the time to build stock due to family commitments and their layouts to run the rtr stuff have been slowly moving for years. They see kit building as a luxury for retirement, it’s just horses for courses  
I’ve built a lot of locos and stock but I can’t say it’s anywhere near my favourite part of the hobby, I particularly dislike valve gear as I find it so fiddly.

I’m much more a layout builder and operator and concentrate my scratch and kit building stock on 7/8ths, I simply don’t have time to kit build everything from my diverse interests. To that end rtr allows me to indulge stuff I like that I don’t see me ever building a show layout for. I’ve liked the LNWR since seeing Hardwicke way back in the 70/80’s but my main interest is narrow gauge so all bar one layout has been for that. I’ve admired the London Rd kits for years but they would simply have joined the stash which has only seen much progress in lockdown. I still have two DHR 0-4-0 etch kits to build for a one day layout. My OO was only ever intended to be an indulgence to run my collected OO and it has alternative buildings to use to bounce it from its main location in Dorset to London and the West Highlands!  

If I were to show my Coal Tanks and upcoming Precedent’s then yes I would try to build a layout and stock to suit but for my imagination at home these are ideal. 

[PaulRhB]

Just now, PaulG said:

If you are going to produce a non prototypical carriage, why try and paint it in GNR, LNWR prototype livery etc, why not just make up an equally fictitious railway company name and livery, who

2 minutes ago, PaulG said:

who are you try to fool?

are you try to fool?

Because they are to go with the varied pre group locos by others, that’s the market

There’s nothing to stop anyone doing it but why not keep the livery and just change the name?  
 

2 minutes ago, PaulG said:

who are you try to fool?

Er, no one?  

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Paul.Uni said:

Video from Railway Modeller:

 

 

If what we see in the video is the finished item, then the livery application - for Great Western - is pretty ropey. I'm not convinced I see any gold lining, only highlight reflections from the beading edges, while the beading itself should be black (also on the ends) and the bolection mouldings a varnished wood colour, or red to match the droplight - see, for example, this preserved carriage at Didcot. (As has already been pointed out, the grab handles are the wrong way round.) It has to be noted, however, that on the evidence of the RM video of the Bachmann Midland 0-4-4T, we're not necessarily seeing the production model - there was a livery correction on the production models.

 

Another very peculiar thing that now leaps out at me is the position of the footboard. This is pretty universally aligned with the middle or the bottom edge of the solebar, not 9" below. It is also common (though not universal) for there to be a second footboard lower down, roughly on the line of the axles.

 

 

57 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Shouldn't the coaches have partitions as they are compartment stock?

 

One can always find exceptions but pretty generally, yes they should.

 

I'm getting the distinct impression that if one was to put these side by side with the Hattons equivalent, one would conclude that either one is overpriced or the other underpriced! But of course we haven't actually seen a livery sample of the Hattons carriages in GW livery, to my knowledge.

 

 

 

[GWR8700]

I don't dislike the idea of generic coaches, particularly for people who arent too picky, maybe just getting into it, ideal for a starter set.

However, I do wish that given Hattons have already decided to make them, Hornby had made a more prototypical alternative.

I can understand repetition will sometimes happen but it looks far more intentional in this instance.

Needless repetition of products intended to spite retailers/manufacturers is getting a bit annoying as a customer.  It does come across as a little bit arrogant

Edited January 6, 2021 by GWR8700

[friscopete]

These will sell like hot cakes as there are only about 30 people on planet bothered by innacuracies  .Almost assured after all the codswallop on here .I seem to have read it all before .Maybe it was on the now loved Hattons thread.Hope some S&D come out before I kick off  due no doubt virus mutations and postmen who havnt read about any  distancing rules .

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

At the risk of upsetting some people, it isn't the lack of rollingstock, it is the lack of willingness to build what is already available in kit form. The pre-group railways are, and have been for quite a while, well provided by the 4mm kit producers, in moulded plastic, cast w/m (manly wagons), etched brass and latterly 3D printed. 

 

Assembling a rake of Ratio or Slaters wagons isn't too difficult and opens up a wide range of modelling opportunities. Powsides even supply Slaters POW wagon kits ready painted with transfers applied. In the context of this thread, plastic moulded carriages are less readily available but the no longer produced PC pre-group carriage kits with pre printed sides ,appear from time to time on Ebay.

 

For those willing to try building an etched kit, then there is a wonderfully wide range, but that requires rather more commitment, although I don't consider the processes involved beyond the majority of us.

 

If these coaches from Hornby (and those from Hattons), inspire people to really get into pre-group modelling - rather than just waiting for the manufacturers to produce what they want - then it would be great. 

 

 

 

Anyone who needs coaches for Hardwicke has the Ratio kits to use . Someone will correct me , but they might actually be correct for the 3 bogie coaches she was hauling on the final night of the race - certainly they are 1890s LNWR bogie stock. These are pretty buildable plastic kits of decent quality, readily available

 

The only difficulty is painting them in LNW livery. A bit like the only obstacle to walking from London to Paris is the bit between Dover and Calais

 

But I have always been struck by how much less we see of the Ratio LNW coaches, compared with the two MR ranges. The LNW coaches were more common , longer lived and lasted significantly later than the MR clerestories