Jump to content

Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

To save cost (which we have to accept is an imperative for all manufacturers and some such compromises have to be expected) Hornby has evidently used the same roof on the 4-wheel brake third and the 4-wheel full brake.  Actually what Hornby has done is produce a single roof that suits neither type of coach.

 

However if they based the brake third on an as built Stroudley D34 (Which is what it is, the number is that of a D34) then they got the lamp arrangements on the roof correct. (They got the windows wrong, but we can't have everything from generics)

 

Gary

 

436645478_2021-01-0914_04_52.jpg.ba691887a0fa1406cf3788864bd67ce9.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GreenGiraffe22 said:

It's actually so frustrating how close to a prototype these are. Damn it Hornby! So near yet so far :laugh_mini:

There's nothing to stop you modifying them. In fact I'm expecting plenty of 'how to' articles and blogs both here and in the model railway press once these coaches (and the Hattons ones) become available. Then we will get the arguments as to whether the Hornby or Hattons is better for a particular application.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

There's nothing to stop you modifying them. In fact I'm expecting plenty of 'how to' articles and blogs both here and in the model railway press once these coaches (and the Hattons ones) become available. Then we will get the arguments as to whether the Hornby or Hattons is better for a particular application.

 

and which mix'n'match of Hattons and Hornby parts will give the result you want to achieve.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hroth said:

 

and which mix'n'match of Hattons and Hornby parts will give the result you want to achieve.

I was thinking of modifications to make them more closely representative of a particular company, minor tweaks or even major surgery to achieve that end.

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

Why does the pseudo-NBR liveried brake third lack class designations on the doors and have ENG CARLISLE at the LH end?

 

It's an anagram, denoting that its Grace Neill's private saloon. 

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I was thinking of modifications to make them more closely representative of a particular company, minor tweaks or even major surgery to achieve that end.

 

Major surgery. Then you need to paint them (which I assume is the problem most people want to avoid).

 

You may as well just buy the kits of the proper versions if you are going that far.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Why does the pseudo-NBR liveried brake third lack class designations on the doors and have ENG CARLISLE at the LH end?

 

ENGineers CARLISLE. Presumably.

 

Probably meant to be a Departmental vehicle. Possibly copied from a similar vehicle which had been downgraded.

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

 

However if they based the brake third on an as built Stroudley D34 (Which is what it is, the number is that of a D34) then they got the lamp arrangements on the roof correct. (They got the windows wrong, but we can't have everything from generics)

 

Gary

 

436645478_2021-01-0914_04_52.jpg.ba691887a0fa1406cf3788864bd67ce9.jpg

 

 

They got the windows right if it's a D45!

 

Your point, however, may well explain it, but the problem is threefold.

 

First, this only works well where there are no partitions higher than the seat backs.  This is one of the early ones that did not even bother with twin quarter lights for that reason (though I accept that such stinginess wasn't confined to the long light coaches).  I suppose you could have full height partitions with a cut out for the lamps, but, again, if possible, how common across the network and, if so, for how long ?

 

Second, the fact that there is "a prototype for everything" is not the point here.  We are judging this on being typical and prototypical, as we must if it is a generic coach. How appropriate is a given feature on a generic coach, which must, necessarily, avoid (i) the rare (ii) the distinctive (ii) features not perpetuated throughout the life (build period and service life) of such vehicles.  More thought could have been of benefit here, but, if they did not make a start in earnest (if at all) until after the Hattons announcement ... 

 

The above example is hardly a very typical arrangement for a generic coach.  Further, it is more likely to be found on early coaches, from the '60s and '70s.  Don't forget, this panel style was very modern when Stroudley adopted it in the early '70s.  As, IIRC, Compound pointed out earlier, it became much more widespread in the late Nineteenth Century (though by no means ever universal).  Thus such a lighting arrangement on a coach of this appearance is unlikely to be typical/prototypical more generally or for non-Stroudley coaches in the same broad style. 

 

Also, don't forget, it's not clear what there will be by way or interior, but unless Hornby produce this coach with no compartment partitions above the seat backs, it will be less probable, for all it's generic.

 

Finally, on the point of improbability/untypicality, coaches built or upgraded later would almost certainly get better lighting provision, and don't forget the same point applies to the gas lit example. 

 

Third, it does not match the treatment on the 4-wheel All Third, where the centre compartment has a lamp over the centre compartment and the outer compartments share one, matching the D44 below. 

 

Conclusion?

 

Well, if anything the Brake Third better resembles a Stroudley D45, so the happy medium would have been to put a pot over each compartment divide on the Brake Third.

 

The Big Point, though, is that being too wedded to specific Stroudley examples leaves them less typical and, therefore, less credible as generic coaches, IMHO.  But, again, it may be fairly argued that, for most purchasers, these will not be concerns.  I had a niggle.  Your post, which was entirely fair comment, required a fuller and more nuanced answer.  That looks rather like labouring a point, which is not what I want to do, because this is a minor concern and one easily rectified by anyone who minds! :D 

 

Stroudleys.jpg.7f5cbe9b0f5947e1672cbd8ca54909c5.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Plenty of through carriages, certainly from the larger companies, and reaching well beyond places where they had running powers. For example, in 1903 the Midland had through carriages or portions to:

  • Dover & Deal, via Kentish Town, Met Widened Lines and the LCDR/SECR - with in SECR days a reciprocal arrangement with a SECR brake composite running through to Manchester;
  • Southampton, from Bradford/Leeds via Cheltenham and the M&SWJR;
  • Bournemouth, from as far afield as Newcastle, via Bath and the S&DJR - with a reciprocal arrangement by which some S&DJR carriages were used for semi-fast services between Bristol, Birmingham, and Derby, to balance the mileage;
  • Various GWR west country destinations, including Weston and even Penzance at one time, via Bristol;
  • Swansea, from Birmingham - Swansea was a Midland outpost but the through carriage was worked by GW train between Worcester and Hereford;
  • Aberystwyth, from Hereford via Three Cocks Jn and the Cambrian;
  • Llandudno, from Nottingham;
  • Bolton and Blackburn, from London via Manchester Victoria and the L&Y;
  • Blackpool and Southport, via L&Y (not checked route);
  • Barrow, from London via Leeds, Carnforth, and the Furness - connecting with steamers from Ramsden Dock;
  • Coniston, from Leeds via Carnforth and the Furness;
  • Windermere Lakeside and Whitehaven, as above, from London;
  • Newcastle, from Bristol, Birmingham, Derby etc.;
  • Hull, ditto;
  • Harrogate, as above plus London;
  • Bridlington, from Sheffield;
  • Edwinstowe LD&EC, from Manchester
  • Lynn, Cromer, and Norwich, from Birmingham and Leicester, via the M&GN;
  • Great Yarmouth ditto plus Liverpool and Manchester, Derby and Nottingham;
  • Ipswich from Birmingham and Leicester; Harwich from Manchester, via Peterborough and the GER;
  • Southend and Tilbury (P&O boat trains) from London via LT&SR.

If one is prepared to count joint stock under the Midland heading (and the joint stock was supplemented by Midland vehicles, including sleeping cars), then via the G&SWR:

  • Glasgow, Stranraer, Ayr, and Greenock;

and via the NBR and Highland, all via Edinburgh:

  • Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, Inverness, and Fort William.

 

That's all very well, Stephen, but you've missed the portion of "the Leicester" that ran, via South Lynn (MGN) to Castle Aching and Birchoverham-next-the-Sea.

 

It's bad enough that most maps miss the West Norfolk Railway off altogether. You're just making things worse!

  • Like 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

What about a blue Class 08 and some of these generic carriages in blue/grey. Then all bases are covered...:dancing:

 

No, they need to make the train look plausible.... Hollywood style!

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

. Yes, I do know the J83 is post 1924 condition. But some will buy them.

 

I did not think it was post any condition. This 70s toy looks more generic than the generic coaches.

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

 

I did not think it was post any condition. This 70s toy looks more generic than the generic coaches.

When I was young and shameless, I sprayed one BR black and numbered it as an ex-LSWR G6, to which it bears a (very) vague resemblance.

 

I actually got a few complimentary remarks about it and I think at least one person copied the idea! 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

ENGineers CARLISLE. Presumably.

 

Probably meant to be a Departmental vehicle. Possibly copied from a similar vehicle which had been downgraded.

 

 

I understood that, but why? Why?

 

It's in part an anagram of GENERIC but SALL is left over. One can't quite get GENESIS, which perhaps says something.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

 

Without wading through reams of posts, has anybody been able to identify the lengths of all the coaches in both the Hattons and Hornby ranges so that we can work out which ones might be nearest to accurate of the generic offerings ?

 

From my limited knowledge I know that the L.C. & D.R. had 28ft and 30ft 6 wheeled coaches (with I think one exception), but of course they converted a lot of them to 4 wheelers later in life. Did any other companies do the same thing ? They also had square panelling which I do not think is covered by any of these offerings so far. Which other companies used square panelling ?

 

One thing perhaps not already covered, is that there is still plenty of scope for both manufacturers to expand their ranges and produce more variants, including differences in panelling and perhaps roof styles if they can be accommodated presumably using alternative end mouldings. 

 

I am sure that some of the suspect roof arrangements with incorrect positions of lamps etc can be corrected, and Hornby might even upgrade their brake gear a bit to improve the appearance.

 

At the end of the day, you can pay your money and make your choice, but there is going to be plenty of mileage in these models.

 

Ray

Edited by wainwright1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wainwright1 said:

Hi All.

 

Has anybody been able to identify the lengths of all the coaches in both the Hattons and Hornby ranges so that we can work out which ones might be the most accurate of the generic offerings ?

 

I know that the L.C. & D.R. 

 

The Hattons Genesis carriages are 32ft and 28ft. Other key features are: round corners to all panels, with waist and eves panels throughout; and flat ends.

 

LCDR carriages had square-cornered panelling, at least the ones known to me.

The panelling style rules out at least LNWR, SER/SECR, FR, LYR, GNR, GER, NBR, HR...

Of those that the panelling style generally fits, the flat ends rule out at least GWR, MR...

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

 

I understood that, but why? Why?

 

It's in part an anagram of GENERIC but SALL is left over. One can't quite get GENESIS, which perhaps says something.

 

I also love the fact that a departmental vehicle, as the designation implies, in somewhat modern and workaday lettering, gets the full glory of the company's crest, which many railways reserved for First Class coaches/compartments on stock still in revenue earning service.  It's very odd!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

This may be better asked elsewhere, But I'll try here first.   

 

In the pre-grouping era, were inter-railway trains common, or were they mostly confined to their own rails.   Obviously where railway companies had joint running rights (say out of a terminus) there would be a mixture of trains, but elsewhere ?

 

I am thinking of something like Redhill where you might get a train from Ashford, or Tonbridge, and trains down the Brighton line, and also trains from Reading, or Guildford, or Basingstoke - so trains from at least three companies.   But unless passengers had to always change, it would make sense for trains to have running rights over other sections, such that passengers could go from Ashford to Basingstoke without changing ?

 

.

There were cetrainly 'inter-company' through trains in the pregouping era, the obvious examples being the ECJS and WCJS stock.  My (in)famous (great)unlce Ted, demobbed after WW1 which he'd spent as an army cook at Aldershot and neve saw a shot fired in so much as a fit of pique, never mind anger, worked as a steward on the Barry-South Shields 'Port to Port Express' which was a double home job with GW Canton stock and a reciprocal NER set from Gosforth, the men lodging overnight before working back home.  Barry loco ecs Canton-Barry and return to Cardiff General, GW Cardiff-Banbury, GC Banbury-Sheffield, NER Sheffiel-Newcastle, with guards from those comapnies on those runs as well..

 

There were also a lot of 'through coaches', uncoupled off one train and attached to another.  A particualr piece of Edwardian insanity was a through coach from Cardiff to Aberystwyth, running Taff Vale Cardiff Bute Road-Treherbert, Rhondda & Swansea Bay Treherbert-Neath, GW Neath-Carmarthen-Aberystwyth.  An alternative was Bute Rd-Merthyr-Brecon-Moat Lane.  One wonders how many travellers availed themselves of this torture. 

 

You could book through  tickets as a result of RCH argeements as well, and the ticket offices were instructed to route you by the soonest arrival at you destination.  Because of  the tides in the Bristol Channel and the vaguaries of the connections with English Channel ferries, at certain times a through ticket from Cardiff to Paris would see one routed via Barry Pier, Burnham on Sea, Evercreech Jc, Bournemouth, Poole, and Caen,.  Again, I doubt anyone with any idea of what he/she was in for would have undertaken such a journey when you could arrive at Gare du Nord a little later, but having spent the night in comfort in a hotel in London or Dover and only one  bout of seasickness instead of two; Poole-Caen being a 10 hour voyage and paddle steamers being notorious for their upchuck inducing motion in heavy seas!

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

 

The Hattons Genesis carriages are 32ft and 28ft. Other key features are: round corners to all panels, with waist and eves panels throughout; and flat ends.

 

LCDR carriages had square-cornered panelling, at least the ones known to me.

The panelling style rules out at least LNWR, SER/SECR, FR, LYR, GNR, GER, NBR, HR...

Of those that the panelling style generally fits, the flat ends rule out at least GWR, MR...

 

MR 31' for 6-wheelers?  Also Clayron waist panels seem on the narrow side.

 

GWR building very few 6-wheelers by the time these panel styles are common, and having eaves panels in a variety of forms but often too deep for either generic range.  The 1890s GWR 4-wheelers, e.g. the Ratio kits, are probably the best match to the generics' pamel style than most. 

 

I note the Hornby solution to the GNR is to line them in such a way as to ignore the physical panelling style.  How effective this will appear at anything under a yard I'm not sure. 

 

There are, however, plenty of railways with coaches of which some of the generics coaches will give a generally good impression.  I do look forward to seeing strings of these brightening (or Brightoning) up layouts. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

When I was young and shameless, I sprayed one BR black and numbered it as an ex-LSWR G6, to which it bears a (very) vague resemblance.

 

I actually got a few complimentary remarks about it and I think at least one person copied the idea! 

 

John

 

I confess, when I was young and shameless, I expressed that in very different ways!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

and via the NBR and Highland, all via Edinburgh:

  • Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, Inverness, and Fort William.

The Midland had a share  in the Forth Bridge Railway, so they might as well use it!

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

 

MR 31' for 6-wheelers?  Also Clayton waist panels seem on the narrow side.

 

GWR building very few 6-wheelers by the time these panel styles are common, and having eaves panels in a variety of forms but often too deep for either generic range.  The 1890s GWR 4-wheelers, e.g. the Ratio kits, are probably the best match to the generics' panel style than most. 

 

 

Yes, most MR 6-wheelers of the 1880s/90s were 31ft, though 32ft was preferred for specials - saloons, family carriages, etc. There were a considerable number of 29ft and 30ft carriages dating from the mid 1870s, when Clayton first arrived at Derby from Swindon but before the new Litchurch Lane C&W works was built. These were all built by outside firms (though to Clayton's designs, so have a consistent Midland appearance, had flatter roofs than the later carriages (making them easy to pick out in train photos), and were built as 4-wheelers but converted to 6-wheelers in the early 1880s. They had mostly gone by the early 20th century.

 

I agree about the variety of eves panelling style of the GWR arc-roof carriages - a complex subject that @Penrhos1920 has tackled!

 

But that's the whole point of the "generic" idea - these carriages* are highly plausible without being too slavishly tied to a particular company's designs.

 

*Edit: Here I meant the Hattons Genesis carriages - I forgot which thread I was on.

 

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

There's nothing to stop you modifying them. In fact I'm expecting plenty of 'how to' articles and blogs both here and in the model railway press once these coaches (and the Hattons ones) become available. Then we will get the arguments as to whether the Hornby or Hattons is better for a particular application.

A repaet of  history, as this is pretty much what happened when Triang introduced the shorty clerestories.  They were 'close enough for Jazz' to represent a lot more pregrouping prototypes than were originally intended, and Triang/Triang Hornby'/Hornby turned them out in Midland and in NER teak, and I believe as ex GER coaches in BR crimson/cream at one time.  I think a lot of people, myself included, will be looking closely at both Hornby and at Hattons' 4 and 6 wheelers to represent coaches in liveries not provided by either company, and they are both highly suitable for freelance light railway or industrial 'paddy train' use.  It has occurred to me that my existing Ratio 4 wheeler South Wales miner's train might run satisfactorily on a Hornby or Hattons chassis; it has been out of service since my reversion to tension locks, another story, resulted in my using setrack curvature which the Ratio chassis cannot cope with. 

 

A judgement call will have to be made between a Hornby 4 wheeler (the square cornered windows of the Hatton's coaches are not suitable for this purpose) as is or a hybrid Ratby, or a combination; the brake 3rd will probably have to have a Ratio/Parkside body as the Hornby's Stroudley 'balloon' ducket roots are very 'non-GW', attractive though they certainly are.  My impression of the GW version of the 4-wheeler is that the all third and the compo are very similar in appearance to the Ratios, and these might be suitable 'as is' particularly in a dirty plain brown or early BR crimson livery, but I do not have the heart to paint over the superbly executed Hornby GW fully lined out panelled livery and would be buying plainer liveried coaches.  Pity Hornby have not seen fit to represent the GW plain brown workman's or BR plain crimson that the last South Wales 4 wheelers carried, but repaints are within my comfort zone...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • AY Mod unpinned this topic

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.