Jump to content

Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I presume that's an external hand brake visible on the left. Is that something that would have been added for departmental use?

 

Yes, There is (or perhaps was) a brake standard in the guard's compartment. I wonder if it was removed and replaced by this external brake wheel - presumably there was also one on the other side. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It is the reason I will not be buying Hornby 4 wheel Brake Thirds, and I doubt I am unique in this, so they are denying themselves potential sales from the 'generic' market.  This patter(n) of brake van end  is peculiar to and highly suggestive of the Brighton, and specifying in this way is not really ideal in a 'generic' model. 

 

The Brighton wasn't unique in this sort of ducket arrangement. @brossard is building an NBR vehicle with a similar layout, although closer to the Hatton's version, and several other lines had similar examples, but of course the roof profile (semi-elliptical?) is very different, but quite common throughout the UK, perhaps another "generic" failure from the manufacturers?

911531260_brossardnbrbrake.jpg.5541dae4779f26f087cb81e999ed021c.jpg

 

12 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Or, indeed, side on; the ends are flat, there is no turn-under to the ends as was GWR practice (as there is, e.g. on the Ratio 4-wheelers and Triang clerestories).  

Although the end turn-under was the GWR general practice, they did built flat-ended examples in the 1870's which also had a simple arc roof. There are a number of examples on @Penrhos1920 website, as this snapshot shows. (I hope Penrhos doesn't mind) Originally built as a six wheeler, it would seem that many were converted to four, and they were probably formed into close coupled sets, hence the flat ends.

1521489284_gwrsecond.png.87107800cd59c6f2ec8005e8e428f04c.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

but of course the roof profile (semi-elliptical?) is very different, but quite common throughout the UK, perhaps another "generic" failure from the manufacturers?

 

The 19th century 4 and 6-wheeled carriages of the LNWR, MR, GER, NER, LYR, and MSLR had arc roofs. The 4 and 6-wheel carriage stock of those companies alone accounts for a large majority of such vehicles in England and Wales. To this we can add carriages of the GWR and LSWR dating from before the (mid?) 1890s, along with the carriages of various smaller companies, notably NSR, FR, and Cam Rys. So I think one can safely assert that the arc roof is "generic".

 

The GNR, LSWR and GWR from the 1890s, and SER in I think just the very last years before the working union, used higher roof profiles - these were not semi-elliptical but three-centred, having a uniform large radius over most of the width with a tighter radius curve at the eves. A similar profile was used for the lower roof of the LNWR's dining saloons from 1893 Midland's clerestory carriages from 1896; it became standard for a few years in the Edwardian period on the LNWR, where it is referred to as a "cove" roof, before giving way to the true semi-elliptical roof, which is definitely a 20th century thing.

 

I'm not so well up on Scottish carriages but I think only the NBR made widespread use of the three-centred arc roof in the 19th century. I'm not aware of any Irish examples.

 

I'd confidently assert that the three-centred arc roof was unusual in the overall context of late 19th-century carriages, although of course highly characteristic of a handful of companies but not, with the exception of the GWR, those with the largest fleets of carriages.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

The Brighton wasn't unique in this sort of ducket arrangement. @brossard is building an NBR vehicle with a similar layout, although closer to the Hatton's version, and several other lines had similar examples, but of course the roof profile (semi-elliptical?) is very different, but quite common throughout the UK, perhaps another "generic" failure from the manufacturers?

911531260_brossardnbrbrake.jpg.5541dae4779f26f087cb81e999ed021c.jpg

 

Although the end turn-under was the GWR general practice, they did built flat-ended examples in the 1870's which also had a simple arc roof. There are a number of examples on @Penrhos1920 website, as this snapshot shows. (I hope Penrhos doesn't mind) Originally built as a six wheeler, it would seem that many were converted to four, and they were probably formed into close coupled sets, hence the flat ends.

1521489284_gwrsecond.png.87107800cd59c6f2ec8005e8e428f04c.png

 

Yes, GER is another line with a similar brake end arrangement.

 

Regarding the GWR, if one accept generics in the spirit they were intended, I see no problem. 

 

If , on the other hand, one wants to suggest that the generics are a particularly good match for the GWR, which is how I took the post I was answering, then, no, they are not.

 

As you say, your example is an earlier design (1870s), with very deep eaves panels. Not a great match for the 'generic' panel styling. Neither generic range particularly represents coaches as old as the '70s terribly well.  As has been mentioned often, Stroudley seems to have pioneered the panel style found on the 'generics'.  It is not widespread and typical until much later in the Century. For instance, by the time the GWR had a body panel style close to that of the generics, it (a) built them with end turn-unders (my earlier point), (b) built them with elliptical roof profiles and (c) had stopped building 6-wheelers.* 

 

So, the combination of features found on the generics is not a particularly good match for the GW at any stage of their coach development. Just pointing out one consistent feature doesn't affect that.

 

However, I think the main point here is that some people will embrace them as 'good enough' in general appearance, which is the intent behind these products. I have absolutely no problem with that. 

 

* I daresay there is the odd oddity or absorbed coach that defies this generalisation, but there is no virtue in offering the exception as the rule.

 

 

 

.  

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The 19th century 4 and 6-wheeled carriages of the LNWR, MR, GER, NER, LYR, and MSLR had arc roofs. The 4 and 6-wheel carriage stock of those companies alone accounts for a large majority of such vehicles in England and Wales. To this we can add carriages of the GWR and LSWR dating from before the (mid?) 1890s, along with the carriages of various smaller companies, notably NSR, FR, and Cam Rys. So I think one can safely assert that the arc roof is "generic".

 

The GNR, LSWR and GWR from the 1890s, and SER in I think just the very last years before the working union, used higher roof profiles - these were not semi-elliptical but three-centred, having a uniform large radius over most of the width with a tighter radius curve at the eves. A similar profile was used for the lower roof of the LNWR's dining saloons from 1893 Midland's clerestory carriages from 1896; it became standard for a few years in the Edwardian period on the LNWR, where it is referred to as a "cove" roof, before giving way to the true semi-elliptical roof, which is definitely a 20th century thing.

 

I'm not so well up on Scottish carriages but I think only the NBR made widespread use of the three-centred arc roof in the 19th century. I'm not aware of any Irish examples.

 

I'd confidently assert that the three-centred arc roof was unusual in the overall context of late 19th-century carriages, although of course highly characteristic of a handful of companies but not, with the exception of the GWR, those with the largest fleets of carriages.

 

To add to what m' Learned Friend has just said, the LB&SCR would be another arc-roof 4 and 6-wheel coach builder.  As to the LSWR, we can place that company fully in the arc-roof camp so far as 4 and 6-wheel carriages are concerned; when bogie carriages were introduced by the SW in the '80s, they too were arc-roofed.  The SW elliptical roofs didn't come in until about 1893, IIRC, on bogie carriages.  

 

The arc roof is an apposite choice for a generic coach. IMHO.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

there is no virtue in offering the exception as the rule. 

 

 

Indeed it is a vice; moreover a vice the Hattons carriages seek to avoid.

 

(Which of the two threads is this?)

  • Like 3
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 5 from Derails as soon as they came out.

 

I like them. But the light bleed on my examples is terrible especially the 6 wheel brake. I shall probably take them apart and paint them.

 

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

No sign of them in the detail pack either 

 

I shall probably contact derails later today about it. 

 

Cheerho all

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

For instance, by the time the GWR had a body panel style close to that of the generics, it (a) built them with end turn-unders (my earlier point), (b) built them with elliptical roof profiles and (c) had stopped building 6-wheelers.* 

 

Six wheeled coaches were banned from several GWR tertiary lines on which 4 wheelers were permitted.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby have posted this video of the coaches on their YouTube channel 

 

 

Can't help but notice the colour of the lbsc livery coaches looks odd to me, compared to the prototype 1st 661 from the bluebell. Kernow also have a couple of then in stock and their photos also show the odd colour.

Perhaps it's the thickness of the lining? Or the need for a coat of varnish maybe as all the others look great. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

To add to what m' Learned Friend has just said, the LB&SCR would be another arc-roof 4 and 6-wheel coach builder.  As to the LSWR, we can place that company fully in the arc-roof camp so far as 4 and 6-wheel carriages are concerned; when bogie carriages were introduced by the SW in the '80s, they too were arc-roofed.  The SW elliptical roofs didn't come in until about 1893, IIRC, on bogie carriages.  


Not quite right I'm afraid - there were definitely elliptical-roofed LSWR 6-wheelers, including the 30' passenger brake van (Fig. 4.17 in Weddell book 1) and the 24' 4-wheel luggage van of 1894. The 1900/01 6-wheel block trains also had elliptical roofs, as did (and I'm aware this is an obscure one!) the hearse vans used on the Necropolis trains.

Edited by Skinnylinny
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:


Not quite right - there were definitely elliptical-roofed LSWR 6-wheelers, including the 30' passenger brake van (Fig. 4.17 in Weddell book 1) and the 24' 4-wheel luggage van of 1894. The 1900/01 6-wheel block trains also had elliptical roofs, as did (and I'm aware this is an obscure one!) the hearse vans used on the Necropolis trains.

 

Fair enough, I had overlooked the 20th century! 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

Those coaches have oil lamps on the roof, so no need for gas tanks. It looks like the sample photos have them fitted by mistake.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Best thing to do with it, all things considered.

 

Well, I only generally read and re-read two chapters of Weddell!

  • Like 3
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats correct they do indeed have the oil lamp fittings in the roof. 

 

So that makes sense. Hornby need to update their product pictures. 

 

The bottom looks very errrrr naked though. Mys eyes keep being drawn to its bareness.......lol

 

Cheers for that Nile

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

I got 5 from Derails as soon as they came out.

 

I like them. But the light bleed on my examples is terrible especially the 6 wheel brake. I shall probably take them apart and paint them.

 

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

No sign of them in the detail pack either 

 

I shall probably contact derails later today about it. 

 

Cheerho all

 

Has anyone tried fitting a resistor to reduce the LED output, given that oil lamps were presumably not very bright in real life (never seen a 1:1 in action)? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

The bottom looks very errrrr naked though. Mys eyes keep being drawn to its bareness.......lol

Agreed, the 6-wheelers don't even have an air-brake cylinder to relieve the openness.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My missing Brake Third arrived yesterday to complete my BT-F-T-BT 4-set. Light bleed through the body side paintwork is definitely an issue in total darkness but not too noticeable in the lowest light I operate under. With a terminus to fiddle yard setup I find shunting three link fitted wagons too difficult in the dark! I may investigate reducing the brightness in a few days time but for now I'm having too much fun running them in my temporally challenged world!

 

DSCF5109crop.jpg.6aec17bd3e008b974902cc345a30ed5e.jpg

 

DSCF5086crop.jpg.4363c7f1f74f95d99ddd36a4fc36b173.jpg   

Edited by SR Chris
Added another picture because I could!
  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be contrarian, but do lights really add that much? You can't really see them in the day and they wouldn't be on anyway. So unless you're running your layout exclusively at night or have a night themed. I struggle to see the exact benefit. Though please tell me if I'm wrong. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

As a work of acknowledged fiction those are smart and attractive vehicles. Only the knowledgeable would recognise their implausibility. 

I've always favoured plausibilty.....certainly lowers the stress levels...

  • 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.