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

[Nick Holliday]

For those people who are not convinced about a 32' 5 compartment third, here is a genuine company drawing of one such.

Also a real example of Hatton's full brake design

and also an interesting compo with extras.

Can we please get over the idea that compartment sizes were fixed?  This same railway had a five compartment third only 28' 6" long and a six compartment third that was 35 feet long. This sort of range was repeated across many companies, with thirds varying from 5' 2" to over 6'.  Maybe the more organised lines, such as the LNWR, managed to work with fixed dimensions, but I'm sure even they would vary them according to particular situations.

[Hal Nail]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

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

We clearly like your work equally. There's no pleasing some people

 

ps I'm completely swayed by the good arguments for the middle one.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hal Nail

[Compound2632]

On the whole I agree with @Edwardian that the 1st/2nd composite is the better choice within the constraint of a limited range - and has the advantage that it corresponds to what was originally advertised.

[Edwardian]

29 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

For those people who are not convinced about a 32' 5 compartment third, here is a genuine company drawing of one such.

Also a real example of Hatton's full brake design

and also an interesting compo with extras.

Can we please get over the idea that compartment sizes were fixed?  This same railway had a five compartment third only 28' 6" long and a six compartment third that was 35 feet long. This sort of range was repeated across many companies, with thirds varying from 5' 2" to over 6'.  Maybe the more organised lines, such as the LNWR, managed to work with fixed dimensions, but I'm sure even they would vary them according to particular situations.

 

I don't think that anyone has the idea that compartment sizes are fixed, however, it would lend a reasonably typical appearance if here we could distinguish between 1st, 2nd and 3rd and if there was uniformity within the Hattons range. There needs to be some internal logic to compartment sizes, in other words.

 

I am quite relaxed about the 5-compartment 6W and the 6W 3-compt. brake on the basis that the wider quarter lights improve the look. A good piece of work there by Stephen.

 

That said, we do not seem to have discussed whether compartment widths are, or should be, uniform as between 4 and 6 wheel coaches. 

 

Let's go back a bit. Both 4W and 6W are to a uniform style, suggesting that both the 4W and 6W coaches date from the same period of construction. The additions suggested and adopted I assume are applied uniformly to both: bollections, J hangars, the increased body height etc. Let's say this period equates roughly to the 1880s-1890s. We have uniformity of style, which suggests uniformity of construction dates.

 

So, we may ask ourselves why our coach builders are producing both 4W and 6W coaches at the same period?  

 

The obvious answer is that they are to fulfill two different roles; 4W for branch and/or suburban work and 6W for mainline/express work.

 

Given this, it would not be odd if, say, a 6W Third Class compartment were wider and better appointed than one in a 4W coach.

 

However, within each set, 4W and 6W, I would expect that there would be uniform compartment sizes for each class, subject to minimal adjustment due to the demands of the body lengths.    

 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

Can we please get over the idea that compartment sizes were fixed?  This same railway had a five compartment third only 28' 6" long and a six compartment third that was 35 feet long. This sort of range was repeated across many companies, with thirds varying from 5' 2" to over 6'.  Maybe the more organised lines, such as the LNWR, managed to work with fixed dimensions, but I'm sure even they would vary them according to particular situations.

 

For minor lines, with small numbers of carriages built as and when, yes, but for any line with any degree of mass-production, standardisation was pretty much the rule from the 1880s at least. Of course, that's standardisation for carriages built at a particular time; compartment dimensions did change as overall design parameters changed. On some lines, such as the Midland or LNWR, the same standards could apply over a couple of decades; on others, evolution was more rapid. The GER Society's website makes interesting reading on this point. 

 

For the Hattons carriages, what I take from this is that their 32 ft carriages form such a style family, so one would expect them to have consistent dimensions; likewise (but different), the 4-wheelers.

 

Crossed with @Edwardian's post; I really should leave my lawyer to make my case.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Compound2632

[uax6]

Having just got in and got the WCJS book down off the shelf, I’ve thumbed in on the 6wh pages. Here some of what they had:

32’  lav compo, 5’8” 3rd, 7’ 1st, 2’6” lav, 2’6” lav, 7’ 1st 6’ 3rd.

32’ lugg compo, 6’2” 2nd, 7’6” 1st, 3’10” lugg (with twin doors full width),7’6” 1st, 6’2” 2nd

32’ lugg third, 6’2 3/4” 3rd, 3rd, 6’2 3/4” lugg and two more 3rds (all thirds the same size)

 

They then had 34’ stock, but that’s not really relevant here.

the LNWR / WCJS 25’ 4wh coaches had compartments thus:

compos 1/1/1/2

tri-compos 3/1/1/2 or 3/2/1/3

thirds 3/3/3/3

1sts were about 6’2” between partitions, 2nds 5’9” 

LYR 4 wheelers:

27’ 6” compo 3/1/1/3

 

LYR 6 Wheeler

32’ compo 3/3/lug1/2

 

Andy g

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, uax6 said:

Having just got in and got the WCJS book down off the shelf, I’ve thumbed in on the 6wh pages. Here some of what they had:

32’  lav compo, 5’8” 3rd, 7’ 1st, 2’6” lav, 2’6” lav, 7’ 1st 6’ 3rd.

32’ lugg compo, 6’2” 2nd, 7’6” 1st, 3’10” lugg (with twin doors full width),7’6” 1st, 6’2” 2nd

32’ lugg third, 6’2 3/4” 3rd, 3rd, 6’2 3/4” lugg and two more 3rds (all thirds the same size)

 

They then had 34’ stock, but that’s not really relevant here.

the LNWR / WCJS 25’ 4wh coaches had compartments thus:

compos 1/1/1/2

tri-compos 3/1/1/2 or 3/2/1/3

thirds 3/3/3/3

1sts were about 6’2” between partitions, 2nds 5’9” 

LYR 4 wheelers:

27’ 6” compo 3/1/1/3

 

LYR 6 Wheeler

32’ compo 3/3/lug1/2

 

Andy g

 

There you go; assuming you've not a dead mackerel's sense of urgency, you're better off in the North East than the North West as a Third Class ticket on the North Eastern gives you as much space as a First Class one on the Premier Line! 

[Compound2632]

@Edwardian, comparing fish and fowl. Those WCJS 32 ft carriages are from Richard Bore's day - 1870s/early 80s, whereas the NER 32 ft carriages are late 1880s/90s.

 

I submit that LNWR and L&YR carriages are not admissible evidence, as their panelling style is not that of the Hattons carriages.

[uax6]

M’Lud I offer them in evidence of compartment size and layout of the vehicle, which, your honour, I feel is relevant as it gives evidence for what did happen in the body length available to us. I was not advocating that the external body style should be recreated (as we know that ‘proper’ coach styling is not generic!), but that the internal layout could be. And they include dimensions of 1st, 2nd and third class compartments....

 

Interestingly the ECJS never had any 4 wheelers (they were too late for that stage!) and started their 6 wheelers at 37’ over body.....

 

Andy g

[Oldddudders]

Spare a thought for the poor designer chappie at Hatton's. I hope he's receiving therapy. 

[adb968008]

17 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Spare a thought for the poor designer chappie at Hatton's. I hope he's receiving therapy. 

I’d imagine he’s  got a job for life with unlimited overtime right now.

Edited October 29, 2019 by adb968008

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Spare a thought for the poor designer chappie at Hatton's. I hope he's receiving therapy. 

 

I should think he is elated at all the free research he's benefitting from.

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I should think he is elated at all the free research he's benefitting from.

 

 

I suppose its a nice problem to have!

[Andy Hayter]

7 hours 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

Mark

 

every couple of days it seems, you turn up, tell us how it is a retrograde step but actually offer nothing new.  I fully accept that the ideal for the pre-grouping modeller would be a fully detailed, totally accurate set of coaches - but only if it were for the companies I am interested in and have not already acquired/built models.

 

We have discussed how the wagon offerings for pre-grouping modellers is at best rather iffy.

 

So what we have is a suggestion of generic coaches running alongside very iffy wagons.  You have a problem with this because it is not the best it could be.  I agree it is not the best it could be, but it is not bad, just not the best.

 

And if you want proof then consider the locomotives these will run with. 

 

Some of the more recent releases are indeed superb, but earlier offerings are most pointedly not pre-grouping by today's standards.  The original Dapol/Hornby terrier is an excellent example which in the detail represents what?  I am actually not 100% sure exactly what it represents neither A1 nor A1X and inaccurate in many ways.  Or models compromised to fit an existing chassis.

 

Many of the models produced are also not pre-grouping locos.  They are pre-grouping built locos in their modified and frequently as preserved state with a pre-grouping livery.  Things such as safety valves and snifter valves, cab profiles, coal rails, tenders and many other features point to their inaccurate (you might even say rather generic) appearance.  Even NRM with their Butler Henderson could be accused of not producing the pre-grouping model, but rather a model of what they have in the collection.  [No criticism.  It is what it is and the argument to produce a model of what is in the museum cannot easily be disagreed with.]

 

That there are now exceptions to this - the Stirling Single and Bachmann H2 being obvious examples - suggests that start with a close "generic" set of models and over time the standards and targets to produce models in their original or early condition will follow on.  

 

What you seem to be objecting to is our rather inaccurate locos running alongside iffy wagons and pulling inaccurate (in the company detail) coaches.

 

As far as rtr is concerned Hattons are taking us several  steps up the ladder leading to perfection and despite your objections it is a step up for the rtr modeller from where we are now.  Don't knock what is good (or at least a lot better than what we have now if you really want to be bitter about it) because it is not the very best.

 

If they are not for you, keep buying and building the kits.  I have; I am and I will.

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

For those people who are not convinced about a 32' 5 compartment third, here is a genuine company drawing of one such.

Also a real example of Hatton's full brake design

and also an interesting compo with extras.

Can we please get over the idea that compartment sizes were fixed?  This same railway had a five compartment third only 28' 6" long and a six compartment third that was 35 feet long. This sort of range was repeated across many companies, with thirds varying from 5' 2" to over 6'.  Maybe the more organised lines, such as the LNWR, managed to work with fixed dimensions, but I'm sure even they would vary them according to particular situations.

 

Curious - which is the company involved?

[Willie Whizz]

The first company to produce a truly 'generic' model steam locomotive for the current 4mm-scale marketplace will lose their shirt on the project.

 

Hattons will not lose their shirt on their project for 'generic' coaches because there is presently no competing product selling at a comparable price which is any more accurate than these will be.  And I don't just mean R-T-R; if you add-in all the associated costs of buying, building and finishing a non-generic kit of a pre-Grouping coach properly then the cost per vehicle will be significantly higher - even without costing-in any element for your time [since some of us find the building process enjoyable whereas others find it purgatory, so let's call that a wash].

 

I agree with other posters - if a viable market for R-T-R pre-grouping 4- and 6-wheel coaches specific to individual railways is ever to develop in this country in our lifetimes, it will be because something like this (a) exists in the first place to arouse enough interest in modelling the era and (b) kick-starts - not just demand, demand is easy - but supply, at a realistic price.

 

 

[Mark Saunders]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Mark

 

every couple of days it seems, you turn up, tell us how it is a retrograde step but actually offer nothing new.  I fully accept that the ideal for the pre-grouping modeller would be a fully detailed, totally accurate set of coaches - but only if it were for the companies I am interested in and have not already acquired/built models.

 

We have discussed how the wagon offerings for pre-grouping modellers is at best rather iffy.

 

So what we have is a suggestion of generic coaches running alongside very iffy wagons.  You have a problem with this because it is not the best it could be.  I agree it is not the best it could be, but it is not bad, just not the best.

 

And if you want proof then consider the locomotives these will run with. 

 

Some of the more recent releases are indeed superb, but earlier offerings are most pointedly not pre-grouping by today's standards.  The original Dapol/Hornby terrier is an excellent example which in the detail represents what?  I am actually not 100% sure exactly what it represents neither A1 nor A1X and inaccurate in many ways.  Or models compromised to fit an existing chassis.

 

Many of the models produced are also not pre-grouping locos.  They are pre-grouping built locos in their modified and frequently as preserved state with a pre-grouping livery.  Things such as safety valves and snifter valves, cab profiles, coal rails, tenders and many other features point to their inaccurate (you might even say rather generic) appearance.  Even NRM with their Butler Henderson could be accused of not producing the pre-grouping model, but rather a model of what they have in the collection.  [No criticism.  It is what it is and the argument to produce a model of what is in the museum cannot easily be disagreed with.]

 

That there are now exceptions to this - the Stirling Single and Bachmann H2 being obvious examples - suggests that start with a close "generic" set of models and over time the standards and targets to produce models in their original or early condition will follow on.  

 

What you seem to be objecting to is our rather inaccurate locos running alongside iffy wagons and pulling inaccurate (in the company detail) coaches.

 

As far as rtr is concerned Hattons are taking us several  steps up the ladder leading to perfection and despite your objections it is a step up for the rtr modeller from where we are now.  Don't knock what is good (or at least a lot better than what we have now if you really want to be bitter about it) because it is not the very best.

 

If they are not for you, keep buying and building the kits.  I have; I am and I will.

 

I will keep telling you it is a retrograde step as I have bought too many models that have compromises made on them and years later discovered they were such and would like to prevent this happening to future generations!

 

If you keep accepting second best then it will be the norm.

 

It might be better than what is available but why not get something correct first time, especially since they have made the effort so far on other models.

 

Just wait till they discover the axles are not 26mm?

 

With a little more effort accurate rtr can be produced and consign iffy to history!

 

How can I turn up every two days and not offer anything new, when there is nothing else to add but no one can say what is correct when if it is made up.

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

[Hroth]

Well, as they say, "Better is the enemy of good".

 

I'm looking forward to Hattons offerings, they're not "second best" they're Evolution in Action...

 

 

[Miss Prism]

 

Barry Railway things. Possibly close-coupled. Large radius roof. Torpedo vents. I think the only possible lighting could be electric.

 

 

[HonestTom]

2 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

I will keep telling you it is a retrograde step as I have bought too many models that have compromises made on them and years later discovered they were such and would like to prevent this happening to future generations!

 

If you keep accepting second best then it will be the norm.

 

It might be better than what is available but why not get something correct first time, especially since they have made the effort so far on other models.

 

Just wait till they discover the axles are not 26mm?

 

With a little more effort accurate rtr can be produced and consign iffy to history!

 

How can I turn up every two days and not offer anything new, when there is nothing else to add but no one can say what is correct when if it is made up.

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

How do you propose to make “correct first time” financially viable in this case?

Edited October 30, 2019 by HonestTom

[Craigw]

3 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

How do you propose to make “correct first time” financially viable in this case?

 

 

Do you have any proof that "correct  first time" would not be financially viable?

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Barry Railway things. Possibly close-coupled. Large radius roof. Torpedo vents. I think the only possible lighting could be electric.

 

 

 

So that would be cable running along the roofs? Otherwise all the fittings are internal, next to nothing in the way of protrusions on the roof.

[Hal Nail]

5 hours ago, Craigw said:

Do you have any proof that "correct  first time" would not be financially viable?

 

Not proof but pointers. For starters no one has ever risked trying.

 

I suspect pre-grouping locos appeal to people as one off purchases outside their normal period etc and some stock which looks the part will also sell (the Bluebell met set looks right behind a C class etc). It's an open playing field right now and as such commercially attractive to the first mover.

 

Whether, say, accurate Stroudleys released in generic deliveries would sell just as well is hard to say but I'm guessing that Hattons originally hoped that the design of these generic ones would be fairly simple and keep costs down, over doing an accurate researched set. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Hal Nail
Typo

[uax6]

 

Interesting photo. They are a mix of 5 and 6 compartment types (could the 5 compartments be ex 2nds or even be 1sts?) The vehicle closest has two rows of large torpedos, so I would say that it was a smoking vehicle, but it only has one cable or pipe on the roof. The brake one (or is it 1.5?) compartment rear vehicle shows the same single pipe and two rows of torpedos too.  The others have a single row of torpedos and two pipes.

As to the pipe/cable I'm not sure what it actually is, the logical answer is that it is for electric lighting, but there is a lot of lamps in those coaches, would thirds really have been given two lamps? Maybe they are 10/15W ones, 10 W in the firsts give 100W load, so will need a decent battery and dynamo and a long run to keep them lit, the 3rds have 120W load, again quite a large amount.

I know there were various systems about, but are we seeing something that could still be some sort of gas lighting in use on these?

 

Andy G

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, Craigw said:

 

 

Do you have any proof that "correct  first time" would not be financially viable?

Clearly, Hatton's have decided it's not, but that their approach has a decent chance of commercial success. It's them taking the investment risk, after all.

 

"Correct First Time", if it is to happen anytime soon, will therefore have to come from elsewhere. Thus, if you want accurate models of your favourite coaches, the logical course is to persuade some other manufacturer to put their shirts on it.

 

Assuming you manage that, if your/their choice coincides with mine and the price is not too far out of line with Hatton's; sign me up.

 

What I wouldn't buy, are coaches that are clearly "somebody else's favourites", tarted up in the livery of my preferred company, at (as seems probable) twice the price of Hatton's generics. I fully accept theirs aren't going to be "right" (for anybody) but I'm expecting them  not to be glaringly wrong for me. 

 

Others have suggested that the existence of these coaches may unlock demand and provide the spur for other r-t-r makers to produce authentic equivalents, and that may be so. Whether that would result in exactly what you want, or (arithmetically more likely) something accurate that you don't want, is another matter...

 

John

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Dunsignalling