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

[Michael Hodgson]

It will be interesting to see how well accepted the generic character is accepted.  The manufacturers are now producing variants of very minor details on locos - this particular one had these lamps or whatever, but only after a certain date which meant this livery etc.  And yet the layouts we run them on are almost all fictitious.  So how willing are we to accept generic coaching stock?  4- and 6-wheelers are a good choice for experimenting with this concept since the only experience we have of what the railways were like before grouping is what the preserved railways have reconstructed, with varying degrees of accuracy, and their research is also restricted to what details still exist.

 

If you want to model the late Victorian/Edwardian era there are some excellent locos available, so I wonder whether the availability of these coaches will prompt more people to choose that era now that they can more easily have trains that look the part with early locos.

 

If this idea comes off, what next - generic wagons, early Victorian locos & stock, even broad gauge GWR ?

[Nile]

We've had generic wagons for years, with the same 5-plankers turned out in all sorts of railway Co. liveries. Many modellers are happy with these, I expect the same will apply to these coaches.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Nile said:

We've had generic wagons for years, with the same 5-plankers turned out in all sorts of railway Co. liveries. Many modellers are happy with these, I expect the same will apply to these coaches.

 

Yes, but. If that argument was applied to locomotives or, for that matter, RTP buildings, we wouldn't be where we are now. As a carriage & wagon enthusiast, I have to keep asking, why should carriages and wagons be treated differently? And just don't get me started on inappropriate wagon liveries...

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, but. If that argument was applied to locomotives or, for that matter, RTP buildings, we wouldn't be where we are now. As a carriage & wagon enthusiast, I have to keep asking, why should carriages and wagons be treated differently? And just don't get me started on inappropriate wagon liveries...

Because there is no business case!

 

Manufacturers exists to make money for their shareholders and will only make what they think will sell in large enough volumes or at high enough prices for that to happen.

 

In model terms the further away you go from the BR era, the more unique / bespoke things become which in turn means less demand and thus less potential sales.

 

Manufacturers are thus reluctant to produce items which did not survive into the BR era as that gives them the maximum return - a different paint job allows one model to cover BR and big 4 modellers. Occasionally this timeframe can also be extended back further - the SECR liveried birdcage coaches being an example.

 

Given the myriad of different styles used by pre grouping companies for their 4 / 6 wheeled stock, virtually all of which got dumped before WW2 (much before the 1930s in fact) producing accurate models of a particular companies stock is not financially viable for mass RTR manufactures. Similarly with private owner wagons, it’s not economic for big RTR manufacturers to produce bespoke tooling for small batches of wagons.

 

If Hattons product sells well then it might, and I stress might change attitudes - but no mainstream manufacturer is going to rush into it.

 

 

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Because there is no business case!

 

Possibly, but doesn't stop my pseudo-finescale grumblings.

 

I would suggest that the Rails SECR van has chipped away at that argument. 

 

There's evidently a business case for RCH 1923 12 ton mineral wagons in liveries (appropriate and inappropriate) from the 1890s to the 1930s; I'd suggest that an RCH 1907 10 ton mineral wagon would sell just as well - also being appropriate to the 1950s. There were more detail variations in these  than in the 1923 wagons but not so much as to make a "generic" one unsatisfactory.

 

I could paraphrase you:

 

21 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Given the myriad of different styles used by pre grouping companies for their 4 / 6 wheeled stock, virtually all of which got dumped before WW2 (much before the 1930s in fact) producing accurate models of a particular companies stock is not financially viable for mass RTR manufactures.

 

"Given the myriad of different styles used by pre grouping companies for their locomotives, virtually all of which got dumped before WW2 (much before the 1930s in fact) producing accurate models of a particular company's locomotives is not financially viable for mass RTR manufacturers."

 

The applicability of that to the current situation perhaps depends on who you think the "mass RTR manufacturers" are. If Hornby, Bachmann, and Dapol, then maybe. But as far as I understand their present way of doing things, they're not actually producing models in larger batches than are the retailers and magazines that have ventured into commissioning models.

[PaulRhB]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

would suggest that the Rails SECR van has chipped away at that argument. 

 

There's evidently a business case for RCH 1923 12 ton mineral wagons in liveries (appropriate and inappropriate) from the 1890s to the 1930s;

What’s viable in printed resin vs mass production in plastic is a completely different set of factors though. Two different approaches for separate markets. Note Hattons is offering multiple designs so a much bigger investment and therefore a need to maximise the sales by offering them in multiple liveries. 
They’ve chosen to test a niche they see and despite wanting accurate finescale for exhibitable layouts I’ve ordered a couple of sets of these for the more laid back approach I take at home. I’d rather have that cheaper option than probably at least double the price for fully accurate ones

We’ve had generic locos, stock and buildings since model railways inception so it’s not a step back it’s embracing a good starter point for many alongside finescale models. It might well lead to investment in finescale locos to go with them as it becomes apparent which companies are popular  

[Zunnan]

Lets be brutally honest, when we go out on the exhibition circuit, rolling stock is usually the weakest link. I've seen countless exquisitely detailed scenic layouts only then to have a superdetailed off the shelf locomotive which at best has been renumbered hauling rather questionable formations, often including Lima Mk1s. It is only the minority of layouts where an emphasis is put on everything being correct, there are an equal of not higher proportion who are content with stuff that was last sold 30 years ago, and the rest are more than happy to just open the box and tip out essentially a generic wagon at a premium price with whatever livery takes their fancy.

 

My kit drawer tells me I'm in this latter group too, to be honest...got enough kits of the correct diagrams to stock the national network, built perhaps 10% of them, actually finished the sum total of none of them to a point where they are ready to go on the layout at exhibition. I tell a lie, I actively use 3 LMS kit built suburbans...but they still need glazing 4 years after I 'finished' them.

 

Its the same at the club, when people bring models to run they bring an unfettled latest version of the most up to date RTR locomotive you could mention; and more often than not a bunch of ancient coaches or wagons to drag behind it.

[phil-b259]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Possibly, but doesn't stop my pseudo-finescale grumblings.

 

I would suggest that the Rails SECR van has chipped away at that argument. 

 

There's evidently a business case for RCH 1923 12 ton mineral wagons in liveries (appropriate and inappropriate) from the 1890s to the 1930s; I'd suggest that an RCH 1907 10 ton mineral wagon would sell just as well - also being appropriate to the 1950s. There were more detail variations in these  than in the 1923 wagons but not so much as to make a "generic" one unsatisfactory.

 

I could paraphrase you:

 

 

"Given the myriad of different styles used by pre grouping companies for their locomotives, virtually all of which got dumped before WW2 (much before the 1930s in fact) producing accurate models of a particular company's locomotives is not financially viable for mass RTR manufacturers."

 

The applicability of that to the current situation perhaps depends on who you think the "mass RTR manufacturers" are. If Hornby, Bachmann, and Dapol, then maybe. But as far as I understand their present way of doing things, they're not actually producing models in larger batches than are the retailers and magazines that have ventured into commissioning models.

 

Yes, 'Mass RTR' is basically the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, etc.

 

As for the usage of the term  'mass' - all things are relative, so while it might not sound like much compared to production of TVs, washing machines, tines of baked beans, etc - a run of 950 locos from the likes of Hornby is still significantly larger than the hundreds smaller RTR manufacturers like 00 works produce and justifies the use of the term 'mass RTR manufacturers' within the model railway sphere.

 

True Hattons, Rails and Kernow have been increasingly active in developing their own RTR range, but if you take a close look, most of the items they have chosen as regards the steam era are those which made it into BR days - thus widening the sales potential of the models and help justify the expensive tooling via the provision of multiple liveries applied to the same model (the same is true to an extent with some of the smaller manufacturers of course).

 

True the Rails SECR van was popular - but this uses 3D printing which while vastly cheaper than traditional injection moulding to do (no expensive moulds to make), but with the limitation that 3D printing takes a lot longer to produce 250 models than the traditional injection moulding does. This means the 3D printed SECR wagon has to retail at a higher price than an injection moulding version would. As such it doesn't make it quite the game changer you suggest as batch sizes will be limited and high prices charged accordingly. 

 

Consequently while I could see Hornby, etc do something similar in future under a separate sub-brand, its still not going to alter the fundamentals of the overall RTR market or somehow change the economics / product choices which govern mass RTR production.

 

 

 

 

 

So

[Compound2632]

Sorry, getting OT. Let's make the best of what we've got and hope that leads to even better things!

 

Someone said they thought the grouping-era liveries suited the Genesis carriages particularly well, since it helps them pass as generic pre-grouping stock; the implication being that the genuine pre-grouping liveries emphasise the differences between these and the genuine carriages of a particular company - in some cases more than others. I rather liked that observation.

[Sails]

1 hour ago, Zunnan said:

My kit drawer tells me I'm in this latter group too, to be honest...got enough kits of the correct diagrams to stock the national network, built perhaps 10% of them, actually finished the sum total of none of them to a point where they are ready to go on the layout at exhibition. I tell a lie, I actively use 3 LMS kit built suburbans...but they still need glazing 4 years after I 'finished' them.

 

Its the same at the club, when people bring models to run they bring an unfettled latest version of the most up to date RTR locomotive you could mention; and more often than not a bunch of ancient coaches or wagons to drag behind it.

 

I suppose one new RTR loco and a couple of ancient coaches running on a layout is better than having the unfinished kits for the national networks rolling stock in a drawer?

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

And just don't get me started on inappropriate wagon liveries...

 

I wouldn't dare!

 

The thing is, that if keen modellers admit to having unbuilt kits in drawers, and a number of part-built kits in service, then what hope is there for those who wouldn't mind having a rake of RTR generic model that looks the part at ordinary viewing distance at a price and finish that won't break the wallet?  Its better than having a train of ex-Triang clerestory coaches* bumping about behind the latest exquisite RTR loco!

 

I know the subject has been rehashed interminably through the previous 85 pages of posts, so I won't go further.

 

* The dictionary definition of "generic"?

 

[Zunnan]

4 minutes ago, Sails said:

 

I suppose one new RTR loco and a couple of ancient coaches running on a layout is better than having the unfinished kits for the national networks rolling stock in a drawer?

 

I think both instances are pretty much typical of the average model railway.

 

Several storage boxes of kits, not even started let alone unfinished built up over 25 years or so! Plus a drawer of 4mm brass locomotive kits with maybe 20 sheets of etched N gauge LMS coach kits from Worsley hiding underneath that lot...

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Hroth said:

ex-Triang clerestory coaches

 

Don't knock 'em. The superabundance of Triang-Hornby clerestories - how many tens of thousands have been made? - may be the reason we've seen nothing like these Hattons carriages in the last fifty years!

[MarkSG]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Don't knock 'em. The superabundance of Triang-Hornby clerestories - how many tens of thousands have been made? - may be the reason we've seen nothing like these Hattons carriages in the last fifty years!

 

If the Hattons coaches are successful, that may well prompt Hornby to do an updated version of the clerestories. That would be a double win.

[PhilJ W]

For that matter how many Ratio GWR 4 wheelers have been finished in liveries that they never carried in real life.

[Dunsignalling]

Going a bit off topic, but I wouldn't waste too much time agonising over the numerous generic wagons on the market.

 

OK, there are some superb newly tooled prototypical wagons to be had, but "the market" continues to tolerate Hornby padding their range with re-runs of generics that originated with Airfix four decades ago. Dapol with (sometimes the same) Airfix mouldings and even older ones surviving from the days of Hornby Dublo.

 

Airfix only ever dropped one real bo***ck, and their  entirely bogus 10' wheelbase, steel under-framed, seven-plank, was it. That Hornby and Dapol still perpetuate this mythical beast dishonours them both.

 

Bachmann are perhaps less culpable, but their pre-anchor-mount tank wagons are largely generic, and derived from Mainline, while a hefty portion of their "1923" open wagons carry liveries that should clearly be on ones of 1907 or earlier pattern (the low tonnages are a dead giveaway).

 

Until "we" stop demonstrating a willingness to purchase such old rope for new money, why would any of them invest in offering "us" something better?

 

John

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[MarkSG]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Bachmann are perhaps less culpable, but their pre-anchor-mount tank wagons are largely generic, and derived from Mainline,

 

I quite like the ex-Mainline tank wagon. I've still got a "Royal Daylight" tank wagon that I bought when I was a teenager. At the time, it was a huge advance on the fairly crude Hornby wagons of the era. Generic it may be, but it still looks plausible even on a layout built to 21st century standards.

[Guardian]

Hi All

 

Viewing these generic 4 and 6-wheelers in the different liveries - is there any prototype which may be close to these generic models?

 

I would have expected clerestory compartment coaches for era 2 GWR and GNR.  

 

Cheers

Mark

[Pre Grouping fan]

3 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Hi All

 

Viewing these generic 4 and 6-wheelers in the different liveries - is there any prototype which may be close to these generic models?

 

I would have expected clerestory compartment coaches for era 2 GWR and GNR.  

 

Cheers

Mark

In my eyes they are fairly close to the secr coaches.

 

One of the major features, the guards duckets on brake vehicles are flat topped which match LCDR/SECR and GNR design coaches. But they take features from a lot of companies.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Viewing these generic 4 and 6-wheelers in the different liveries - is there any prototype which may be close to these generic models?

 

I would have expected clerestory compartment coaches for era 2 GWR and GNR.  

 

They're not, in the scheme of things, so very far out for some Great Western carriages of the 1880s, with single arc roofs, that would have remained in service well into the 20th century - see Penrhos' website. The clerestory carriages of the 1890s were nearly all bogie vehicles built for main line expresses. Likewise, on the Great Northern, the clerestories were bogie vehicles - there were plenty of 6-wheelers, though they didn't look anything like the Genesis carriages.

 

At 32ft long, with flat ends (rather than turned under like the sides) the Genesis 6-wheel carriages are reasonably close to some LBSCR and NER carriages; if one closes ones eyes to the length and flat ends, they're not so very far off some Midland, LSWR, GWR carriages, and also those of smaller lines such as the Cambrian and some other Welsh lines. 

 

Once one starts comparing them with carriages of other lines, differences in the panelling style start to become noticable.

 

Not a fully comprehensive reply - others with more detailed knowledge of various companies' carriages can I am sure fill in the gaps.

[Guardian]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They're not, in the scheme of things, so very far out for some Great Western carriages of the 1880s, with single arc roofs, that would have remained in service well into the 20th century - see Penrhos' website. The clerestory carriages of the 1890s were nearly all bogie vehicles built for main line expresses. Likewise, on the Great Northern, the clerestories were bogie vehicles - there were plenty of 6-wheelers, though they didn't look anything like the Genesis carriages.

 

Thank you for the essential information and the link to Penrhos - that is the kind of source i was looking for...

[Compound2632]

I've been thinking a bit more about the representation of Midland / LMS livery on these carriages, as a by-product of some tinkering around I've been doing in CorelDraw.

 

Here's a version with 3/8"-wide yellow lines:

And here's a version with red lines bordering the yellow:

The difference is quite striking, not least in the perceived shade of the red body colour, while the lining has gone from almost a greenish shade to an approximation to the gold leaf that was standard for ling out in the 19th century but whose use had become restricted to dining carriages and other such prestige vehicles by the end of the grouping era. (The gold had the 1/16" vermillion lines too.)

 

I should say that the effect is exaggerated here as my red lines are over scale width. In these drawings, which are drawn at 4 mm/ft, the panel beading is a solid shape filled yellow, while the black is a similar solid shape filled black, with the dimensions of the panels increased. In the top picture, the outline of these shapes is "no line"; in the lower picture it is "hairline", with the line colour set to red. The width of the hairline is, I believe, determined by the resolution of the CorelDraw file. To try to compensate for this, I've tried toning down the red, replacing it with Autumn Orange:

That looks more realistic to my eyes. Here's the "no line" version again so they're adjacent on the screen:

Conclusion: don't use straight yellow, even if it's the true colour, but a slightly redder hue. So, finally, here's "no line" but autumn orange fill replacing yellow fill:

Needs a bit more juggling with the exact shade but near, I think. And rather than having exact scale 3/8" wide lines, make them 1/2" wide, i.e. 3/8" + 1/16" each side. (That's more effort than I can be bothered to go to with my CorelDraw mock-up.) Also need to adjust the base colour to get the effect of the true crimson lake. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Compound2632
Added autumn orange version. Effort is spelt with a t.

[Nick Holliday]

I don't know whether this has been pointed out before, but the dimensions for the 4 wheeled coaches that Hatton's published right at the start haven't been updated, despite the change from a nominal 26' to 28' body length and an increase in wheelbase. 

I have done a dimension check, using their recent GNR offering, and it shows the revised dimensions.

Before I started the exercise I was concerned that the wheels looked too small, rather like the Dapol (or was it Hornby) passenger brake van disaster. On the contrary, if the drawings are to be believed, the wheels are, if anything, slightly over-sized, and OO flanges would exacerbate the situation, but what seems to have caused the perched effect is that the bottom of the solebar appears to be 3' 5" from rail level, compared with a (nominal) standard buffer height of 3' 6" (and probably lower on an early 4 wheeler) and the buffers look to be a bit low in the buffer beam to partly compensate. I haven't been able to get the 3D realisation to work to double check, but I would assume the elevations have been prepared directly from the CAD.

[Hattons Dave]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

I don't know whether this has been pointed out before, but the dimensions for the 4 wheeled coaches that Hatton's published right at the start haven't been updated, despite the change from a nominal 26' to 28' body length and an increase in wheelbase. 

I have done a dimension check, using their recent GNR offering, and it shows the revised dimensions.

Before I started the exercise I was concerned that the wheels looked too small, rather like the Dapol (or was it Hornby) passenger brake van disaster. On the contrary, if the drawings are to be believed, the wheels are, if anything, slightly over-sized, and OO flanges would exacerbate the situation, but what seems to have caused the perched effect is that the bottom of the solebar appears to be 3' 5" from rail level, compared with a (nominal) standard buffer height of 3' 6" (and probably lower on an early 4 wheeler) and the buffers look to be a bit low in the buffer beam to partly compensate. I haven't been able to get the 3D realisation to work to double check, but I would assume the elevations have been prepared directly from the CAD.

 

Hi Nick,

I'll speak with our website team and ensure the dimensions on the website are amended. The approved colour layouts are all produced from the CAD files and match the dimensions of the model.

Cheers,

Dave

[Compound2632]

I've gone back and checked some drawings I'd marked up - not the original ones posted last autumn but some intermediate ones that I had from @Hattons Dave when we were discussing panel dimensions. These correctly show 14 mm buffer height and 16 mm to the top of solebars / bottom of body side.