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

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Hattons Dave said:

Afternoon all,

 

A huge thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - your views are much appreciated.

 

Thanks to @Compound2632 great work in showing the panelling sizes and other dimensions, as well as his new overall dimension suggestions.  

 

We have added 2 feet to the 4-wheel coach which gives more appropriate compartment sizes and is a lot more ‘prototypically literate’.

 

I have updated all drawings to show the latest style.

 

We feel we have now captured the coaches as best as we can, incorporating as many different companies ‘styles’ as possible without veering too far into one design.

 

As always we would like feedback on any changes you think would improve them.

 

 

@Hattons Dave, it's very flattering to be singled out by name but I must point out that several others have contributed either directly to the topic or by supplying me with drawings etc., notably @uax6, @Edwardian, and @Miss Prism. I crave everyone's patience as I decline to rest on my laurels. I've run the ruler over the 4-wheel third - as an example; comments I have apply across the board:

 

 

Having niggled away at the vertical dimensions, there are a couple of points on the horizontal dimensions that now become more noticeable. The main point is the width of the quarter-lights - only 12", which is definitely on the parsimonious side; 15" would be more typical. These narrow quarter-lights suited the first, knee-locker, iteration of the 4-wheel third but applied across the board leave the panels between the quarter-lights looking too wide - on the 6-wheel third, for example. The effect of this is to make the carriage look too long. (On the 4-wheel third, 15" quarter-lights would take us back to no panel between the quarter-lights, as on the original version, which, as previously remarked, would not be unusual on what is still a cramped London-area carriage.

 

My second point is the panelling at the ends - the end beading should only be 1.5" wide or so.

 

I note that the 4-compartment 4-wheeler has become an all-first, with equal compartment widths:

 

 

Whatever the means of illumination, the lamps themselves ought to be on the compartment centre-line.

 

@uax6's posting of the Caledonian end elevation from David Jenkinson's book saves me having to make much comment on ends - to match the side panelling style, 5 or 6 round-cornered panels. That drawing reminds me of one detail - the pair of brackets bolted to the headstock to hold the body in place longitudinally. The one thing I think is untypical in the Caley drawing is the width of the headstock - it would be more typical to make it the same width as the bottom of the body - say 7'6".

 

I also agree with @Nick C's comment on the brake end windows. In fact I think Hattons could save a bob or two by not having a version of the end with windows at all.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Compound2632

[uax6]

A thought has just occurred to me, are these going to include interiors?

If they are the lighting will have to really be thought about.

That four wheeler shown above has two pot lamps for 5 compartments. So we are presuming that the partitions are half height (so the seats have about 3 foot back rests or so), so that the feeble light can get across to the end comps.

The 4 wheeled brake end, probably would have only had one lamp in the van, the other 3 compartments probably would have shared two lamps (the brightest lit one being the middle one). This could have full height partitions, with cutouts around the lamp bowl to allow the light into both comps.

The 6wh toilet comp will also share a pot lamp between the two toilet compartments, and would probably have a large torpedo vent over the centre line of each toilet compartment.

 

Now the lighting with pot lamps would be feeble at best, so to be realistic will have to be thought out, so that it is not too bright (or indeed not bright at all!). I believe that rape oil gives a yellow flame, so dim yellow leds will do for these coaches.

 

Presumably gas lit ones are still going to be available? These will have to have a brighter white light, with the gas lamps centralised in the compartment (why are the pot lamps off centre in the drawings?).

 

The electric ones will probably not be any brighter (although I still believe that very few (if any) would have been converted to elastrickery..) and will need a slightly yellowish tinge from the 20-30 watt bulbs that would have been fitted..

 

The Full brake could do with 'cold frame' sky lights adding, but that's an easy job, 247 Developments do cast w/metal versions that can be added.

 

What colour for the seats? Blue for 1sts, with either red or green for the 3rds?

 

Andy G

[Compound2632]

I've had a quick tinker with the drawings. Here's the 32 ft 5-compartment third with 15" wide quarter-lights (top) compared with the current 12" quarter-lights (bottom):

 

[Compound2632]

I've just noticed that the door bangers are on the lower waist panel beading (Great Western-style); it seems they can be either there or on the upper beading, either side of the hinge (Midland style). I like the door locks.

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Compound2632

[uax6]

What a difference those 15" quarterlights make!

 

Andy G

[Miss Prism]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I've just noticed that the door bangers are on the lower waist panel beading (Great Western-style); it seems they can be either there or on the upper beading, either side of the hinge (Midland style).

 

I wasn't trying to influence the style - honest!  (No one will believe me, but anyway...)

 

I'm guessing the GWR put the door bangers on the lower waist beading so as to not interfere with the bolection moulding.

 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I wasn't trying to influence the style - honest!  (No one will believe me, but anyway...)

 

I'm guessing the GWR put the door bangers on the lower waist beading so as to not interfere with the bolection moulding.

 

 

... and of course for carriages with LNWR / SER / SECR / FR etc. panelling, that's the only place to put them.

[Edwardian]

Stephen,

 

A few of points in response:

 

- I am delighted to see that Hattons has adopted the recommended 28' for the 4W. 

 

- I like the fact that the door vents now sit inside a recessed panel - well spotted and far more prototypically literate!

 

- As per earlier comment, the oil lamp covers are what go over the lamps - the bung on chain is offset - and these should be on the centre line of the compartment as you say

 

- As per earlier comment, fewer lamps for thirds are OK if centred above half-height partitions (which, I noted, was corrected to "petitions") weird.  Anyhow, as I suspect that Hattons will not want to tool for 2 partition heights, it might be best to have one pot per compartment above each door centreline

 

- I had not noticed the change to the 4-compartment 4-wheel; this must, I feel, be kept as a First/Second composite as the spacings originally suggested

 

- The one coach that I've never intended to buy is the 5-compartment 6-wheel.  Why have I taken against it? Well, to all those less used than you to the generosity of the Midland to the Third Class passenger, the compartment widths have always seemed too generous for a Third.  It suggests an all Second. Less useful, perhaps.  I would expect it would be more typical to have a 6-compartment Third, or, a 5-compartment with a central lavatory or luggage compartment.  I am guessing that it might not be possible to squeeze 6-compartments in and naturally Hattons want to keep a single chassis length for the 6ws, so this might be the best solution. 

 

- The wider quarterlights improves the look.

 

Here are some measurements on GA drawings at NRM York of NER Third class compartments from 1880s 6-wheel stock.  I don't think they were included in the pictures I previously sent you:

 

- Third Class compartment width (excluding width of partition: 6' 2 1/2"

 

- Width of quarter light to outer edge of frame/bollection: 1' 5 1/2"

 

- Width of door: 2' 4 1/2" 

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Stephen,

 

A few of points in response:

 

- I am delighted to see that Hattons has adopted the recommended 28' for the 4W. 

 

- I like the fact that the door vents now sit inside a recessed panel - well spotted and far more prototypically literate!

 

- As per earlier comment, the oil lamp covers are what go over the lamps - the bung on chain is offset - and these should be on the centre line of the compartment as you say

 

- As per earlier comment, fewer lamps for thirds are OK if centred above half-height partitions (which, I noted, was corrected to "petitions") weird.  Anyhow, as I suspect that Hattons will not want to tool for 2 partition heights, it might be best to have one pot per compartment above each door centreline

> In my view, details of the lighting still need addressing. My own view is that electric lighting is pretty much fantasy even for the grouping era; gas would be umore-or-less universal on at least the major lines by the end of the 19th century.

 

- I had not noticed the change to the 4-compartment 4-wheel; this must, I feel, be kept as a First/Second composite as the spacings originally suggested

> perhaps 7'3" firsts in the middle and 6'1" seconds at the ends to suit the 28 ft length?

 

- The one coach that I've never intended to buy is the 5-compartment 6-wheel.  Why have I taken against it? Well, to all those less used than you to the generosity of the Midland to the Third Class passenger, the compartment widths have always seemed too generous for a Third.  It suggests an all Second. Less useful, perhaps.  I would expect it would be more typical to have a 6-compartment Third, or, a 5-compartment with a central lavatory or luggage compartment.  I am guessing that it might not be possible to squeeze 6-compartments in and naturally Hattons want to keep a single chassis length for the 6ws, so this might be the best solution. 

> I'm going to disagree with you there - my sketch with 15" quarter-lights looks not at all unlike the NER 32 ft third! But this does raise the question as to whether 32 ft is the best length to choose, over 31 ft or even 30 ft.

 

- The wider quarterlights improves the look.

 

Here are some measurements on GA drawings at NRM York of NER Third class compartments from 1880s 6-wheel stock.  I don't think they were included in the pictures I previously sent you:

 

- Third Class compartment width (excluding width of partition: 6' 2 1/2"

> What was that you said about Midland generosity?

 

- Width of quarter light to outer edge of frame/bollection: 1' 5 1/2"

 

- Width of door: 2' 4 1/2" 

> That's a wide door?

 

 

My comments in italics.

 

For me, the 5-compartment third is the most generic of generic 6-wheelers - get that right and the rest will fall into place.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

My comments in italics.

 

Yes, the NER spacings were a surprise; clearly I have spent too much time looking at more miserly stock!

 

My conclusion?  It might be that the increased width of the quarter lights will make the 6W 5-compartment and Brake Third compartments look a lot more suitable for Thirds due to the corresponding reduction in the vertical panel width. 

 

I like you suggestions re the 4W 4-compartment spacings

[uax6]

Would the answer to your 5 compartment 6 wh problem as easy as making it a 5 full compartments plus a half compartment? that would give 5 comps of 5'6" and one half of about 3' 6" allowing partitions to be approx. 2.5" wide.

It would be tempting to have that half compartment at one end as a coupe end (with two windows in the end). But this was more common with composites, so maybe put it in the middle, which would then make it easy for another set of sides to be made with a pair of luggage doors (which would be smaller than normal van doors, more like a pair of normal compartment doors with no windows).

 

Andy G

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, uax6 said:

Would the answer to your 5 compartment 6 wh problem as easy as making it a 5 full compartments plus a half compartment? that would give 5 comps of 5'6" and one half of about 3' 6" allowing partitions to be approx. 2.5" wide.

 

 

But that would be extraordinarily untypical. A straight 6-compartment third (5'2" compartments) would be more likely - very Highland, in fact!

 

I don't see there being a 5-compartment problem at 32 ft long, going back to the table I posted, it's not an unusual length - coin-toss between 32 ft and 31 ft, I'd say.

 

6 wheel carriage dimensions.pdf

 

[Edwardian]

The more I think about this, the more I am sure that the relatively narrow quarter lights have been affecting my perception of compartment spacing and relative widths. 

[uax6]

I was trying to keep away from Highland sizing... 6 compartment third it is then! :-}

 

Seriously I think there should be more than one choice of all 3rd. Something like a 5 compartment luggage 3rd and a 6 (or 5) compartment 3rd.

 

A compo should be included in 6wh format, which would allow that 1/2 compartment 3rd to be introduced, maybe also having a lav in there too?

 

I have to say I'm not a great fan of that 4 compartment lav 1st/2nd class, it doesn't look right to me..

 

Andy G

 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by uax6

[HonestTom]

Re the oft-posed question of "why not a generic locomotive then?", I'm going to draw people's attention to the situation with industrial steam locomotives. Until Hornby took the plunge with the Peckett W4, "generic" was all industrial modellers had, aside from the Austerity and a couple of versions of Hornby's highly-compromised GKN D class. Plenty of layouts had and still have chopped up Caledonian and L&Y pugs, Nellies, faceless Percies etc working their industrial sidings. I personally have a couple of bashed Railroad 0-4-0s representing nonspecific mid-Victorian contractors' locos - I'd gladly buy something more accurate, but it doesn't exist.

 

So yes, people will, if necessary, buy a generic locomotive.

[Oldddudders]

9 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

Re the oft-posed question of "why not a generic locomotive then?", I'm going to draw people's attention to the situation with industrial steam locomotives. Until Hornby took the plunge with the Peckett W4, "generic" was all industrial modellers had, aside from the Austerity and a couple of versions of Hornby's highly-compromised GKN D class. Plenty of layouts had and still have chopped up Caledonian and L&Y pugs, Nellies, faceless Percies etc working their industrial sidings. I personally have a couple of bashed Railroad 0-4-0s representing nonspecific mid-Victorian contractors' locos - I'd gladly buy something more accurate, but it doesn't exist.

 

So yes, people will, if necessary, buy a generic locomotive.

But you acknowledge the 'trickle-down' of quality RTR loco models is now slowly encompassing industrial prototypes. It's rather like premium features on cars - they start in the expensive marques and slowly come down to be available on affordable family models. 

 

The Hatton's approach is novel in offering realistic-but-not-prototypical coaches for this earlier era than RTR coaches have offered - Tri-ang clerestories honourably excepted, of course. Loads will sell, everyone will notice, and the whole Pre-Grouping era will get a shot in the arm. Heads we win, tails we absolutely cannot lose. 

[Mark Saunders]

6 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

Re the oft-posed question of "why not a generic locomotive then?", I'm going to draw people's attention to the situation with industrial steam locomotives. Until Hornby took the plunge with the Peckett W4, "generic" was all industrial modellers had, aside from the Austerity and a couple of versions of Hornby's highly-compromised GKN D class. Plenty of layouts had and still have chopped up Caledonian and L&Y pugs, Nellies, faceless Percies etc working their industrial sidings. I personally have a couple of bashed Railroad 0-4-0s representing nonspecific mid-Victorian contractors' locos - I'd gladly buy something more accurate, but it doesn't exist.

 

So yes, people will, if necessary, buy a generic locomotive.

 

Personally it is a retrograde step and is "going forward to the past", and producing 

 

Just look at the fuss about the recent introduction of Turbots by two manuacturers and they are based on prototypes/reality.

 

Dust off the Polly mould, don't worry about the bogies under the locomotive Triang 37 & later Hornby, just put some lookalike sides on a Mk l body. Keep producing and even retool yesteryears mistakes/errors.

 

Sorry but it just shows that what you think of as a model is just part of the toy industry!

 

Mark Saunders

[HonestTom]

10 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Personally it is a retrograde step and is "going forward to the past", and producing 

 

Just look at the fuss about the recent introduction of Turbots by two manuacturers and they are based on prototypes/reality.

 

Dust off the Polly mould, don't worry about the bogies under the locomotive Triang 37 & later Hornby, just put some lookalike sides on a Mk l body. Keep producing and even retool yesteryears mistakes/errors.

 

Sorry but it just shows that what you think of as a model is just part of the toy industry!

 

Mark Saunders

 

For preference, yes, accurate models, but there are circumstances in which people will accept generic stuff. There was nothing industrial, so people were willing to go generic. I wasn't specifically advocating for generic locomotives, I was just answering the question.

 

As for what I think of as a model, I'm not sure how to take your judgement. Was it intended as an insult, or am I supposed to nod and accept that I am no true modeller?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

The more I think about this, the more I am sure that the relatively narrow quarter lights have been affecting my perception of compartment spacing and relative widths. 

 

I've been cut-and-pasting with the 4-wheel 4-compartment first/composite. Top, even 6'8" compartments with 15" wide quarter-lights, middle, very roughly 6'1" + 7'3" + 7'3" + 6'1" compartments with 15" quarter-lights, bottom, Hattons' picture unmodifed:

 

[Allegheny1600]

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

Sorry but it just shows that what you think of as a model is just part of the toy industry!

 

I find this whole quote rather rude but this latter bit;

 

Accept it: our hobby IS just part of the toy industry!

 

[Hal Nail]

45 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've been cut-and-pasting with the 4-wheel 4-compartment first/composite. Top, even 6'8" compartments with 15" wide quarter-lights, middle, very roughly 6'1" + 7'3" + 7'3" + 6'1" compartments with 15" quarter-lights, bottom, Hattons' picture unmodifed:

 

Both look better, top shades it for me.

[Edwardian]

47 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've been cut-and-pasting with the 4-wheel 4-compartment first/composite. Top, even 6'8" compartments with 15" wide quarter-lights, middle, very roughly 6'1" + 7'3" + 7'3" + 6'1" compartments with 15" quarter-lights, bottom, Hattons' picture unmodifed:

 

 

Yes, middle one is best!

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

Both look better, top shades it for me.

 

5 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, middle one is best!

 

@Hattons Dave, there is no winning in this game!

[Edwardian]

Top one gives you a nice all Second, with better quarter light width.  If Hattons want to do a nice all Second, this is the one to go for.

 

Unfortunately, as and when lines abolish Second, this just becomes another all Third, albeit it with fewer, wider, compartments, and you've no 1st class accommodation in your 4-wheel stock.

 

For most purposes, therefore, a First/Second 4-compartment configuration is better.

 

It's the sort of coach typically built as a 1st/2nd composite (2/1/1/2) and later would be a 1st/3rd composite (3/1/1/3).  Either way, it gives you the composite you need for your archetypal branch train, which is why I would urge Hattons to keep the wider centre pair of compartments.

 

With the wider quarter lights and at 28', it's better than the original, but we should keep the different compartment spacings. It's not just about what looks nice, but what a railway company might actually produce. It's also about the need for Hattons to represent typical accommodation in a train. 

 

So, Hattons, please go for the middle one!

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

It's not just about what looks nice, but what a railway company might actually produce.

 

James has expressed more eloquently and succinctly than I have managed, just what for me has been the guiding principle throughout my contributions.

 

This is why we've had lawyers, ever since the days of the Roman republic.