A look at the Hawksworths

[The Stationmaster]

Funny how not many people think of simple measures like that. I know what you mean though, Hornby do have this unfortunate occasional habit of spoiling an excellent model with one ill-considered detail

 

Looking at one in my LMS yesterday, we did float the idea of a careful wash applied from the inside, to show through the off-white and tone them down. I also wonder if a shim of thickish Plasticard fitted inside the gangways would straighten them up a bit.

 

If anybody now posts 'it's a thirty quid coach, you shouldnt have to', I *will* scream

 

I have seen a suggestion elsewhere that fitting the blank doors corrects the 'flexibility' in the gangways - but whether that effects a permanent cure (other than by leaving the blank door in place) I don't know.

[Garry D100]

If anybody now posts 'it's a thirty quid coach, you shouldnt have to', I *will* scream

But if Hornby had done a better job with the paint layering for the curtains it might have cost £40.

So there we go, saved a tenner already...bargain:lol:

[LSWR]

If you need to "justify" a Hawksworth carriage on your layout, here's a picture I posted on a previous incarnation of RMweb that may help.

 

 

BR(S) Winchester City, 1966, third rail (not yet energized), 9F, leading carriage of inter-regional train is a Hawksworth.

[robertcwp]

But if Hornby had done a better job with the paint layering for the curtains it might have cost £40.

So there we go, saved a tenner already...bargain:lol:

And how much less if they hadn't done curtains at all, which would have been fine by me?

[Garry D100]

And how much less if they hadn't done curtains at all, which would have been fine by me?

I know what you mean but then they would have had people moaning that the curtains had been missed off when the prototype had them.

You can't win.

All you can do is buy what you like, be happy with it and enjoy it for what it is.

Nothings ever perfect

[Blobrick]

The company had produced far better coaches, and so the Hawksworths were not automatically used on prestige trains, unlike Thompsons on the ER and 'Porthole' stock on the LMR. But then, when did WR trains ever present a uniform appearance....?

 

Could any one produce an example list of a typical consist eg Collett/Hawksworth/Mk1s rakes?

 

 

Bob.C

[robertcwp]

The company had produced far better coaches, and so the Hawksworths were not automatically used on prestige trains, unlike Thompsons on the ER and 'Porthole' stock on the LMR. But then, when did WR trains ever present a uniform appearance....?

 

Could any one produce an example list of a typical consist eg Collett/Hawksworth/Mk1s rakes?

 

 

Bob.C

Thinking in post-1956 terms (ie second rather than third) here are some formations I noted from carriage workings:

 

BCK, BSK

BSK, CK, BSK

BSK, SK, BCK

BSK, SK, CK, SK, BSK

BSK, SK, CK, BSK

BSK, SK, CK, BCK

 

plus various longer formations such as:

 

BCK, 6 SK, BCK

BCK, 4 SK, BCK, BG

BCK, 2 SK, 2 CK, 2 SK, BSK

BSK, 3 SK, 2 CK, 3 SK, BSK

 

These were all listed as GWR stock but could be any combination of Collett and Hawksworth stock.

 

Plus a single BCK with a van on the Highbridge branch in the mid-1960s.

[Blobrick]

Thanks robert for the listings, would theses appliy to Pre 1956 rakes as well?

[Rugd1022]

The company had produced far better coaches, and so the Hawksworths were not automatically used on prestige trains, unlike Thompsons on the ER and 'Porthole' stock on the LMR. But then, when did WR trains ever present a uniform appearance....?

 

Could any one produce an example list of a typical consist eg Collett/Hawksworth/Mk1s rakes?

 

 

Bob.C

 

Hi Bob,

 

Prompted by your mention of WR train formations in bold type.... here's a quick shot taken at Kidderminster SVR last week, I know it's a preservation era rake but I think it still pretty much sums up what you've said, being a mix of GW Colletts and BR Mk1s. I was watching the crew shunting the stock around, and standing at more or less rail level (at the bottom of the platform ramp at Kiddy) it was easy to imagine what a typical WR full length train would have looked like in the 50s.

 

I'll be opening my wallet for the maroon Hawksworths and wouldn't mind a couple of crimson and cream ones, plus a few BGs would be nice.

 

Nidge

[Blobrick]

Many thanks Nige, yes I think I ll be digging deep in the old wallet dept shortly, when the C&C versions arrive as well!

[robertcwp]

Thanks robert for the listings, would theses appliy to Pre 1956 rakes as well?

Yes, but no guarantee that the stock would be Hawksworth.

[robertcwp]

I've been watching an old Ian Allan Video of the 1940s rail system. It starts with the Western Region in 1948 and 1949 with train after train passing and hardly a Hawksworth coach in sight even on major expresses. The Southern Region follows with plenty of Bullied coaches in view. Then the London Midland with trains of LMS maroon stock, trains with the odd blood & custard coach, and one train of all-blood & custard. There was also several views of plum and split milk experimental livery. It was impossible to detect 'Porthole' stock. The Eastern Region came on last with Thompson stock everywhere, both in teak and in blood & custard.

 

If the film is a fair representation of 1949, then people modelling the Western Region in 1949 need not buy many Hawksworth coaches, whereas those modelling the SR and ER need plenty of postwar design coaches.....

Hawksworth stock was still being built in 1949. I think the Porthole stock only appeared around then too - crimson and cream from new except the first lot of CKs, which were unbranded LMS livery (though possibly not all of them). The colour footage of the Cornish Riviera leaving Paddington that appears in Steam on 35 mm Vol 3 shows predominantly Hawksworth stock in crimson/cream, with Collett dining pair and a one or two other Collett coaches. Black and white material on the same DVD shows lots of mixed formations in the 1950s, including Collett, Hawksworth and BR Standard stock.

 

I would be interested to know the title of the video and whether it has reappeared on DVD.

[Rugd1022]

Many thanks Nige, yes I think I ll be digging deep in the old wallet dept shortly, when the C&C versions arrive as well!

 

I meant to add, just as a general comment, that the old Bradford Barton 'GW Steam...' albums are a great scourse for WR formations, with many of the photos taken in the late 40s through to the early 60s there are plenty of Collett / Hawksworth / BR combinations, with a few ex- LMS / LNER vehicles thrown in. I know the precise vehicle types aren't that easily identifyable in a lot of them, but the general formations I find very helpful. Most of the albums I've got were picked up very cheaply over time, usually between £2 and £5 each!

 

Nidge

[cctransuk]

Personally I hate the curtains which spoil a really nice coach...

 

Well - as I've just discovered, you can polish them away with isopropyl alcohol on a cotton bud; (lighter fuel works too - but not as quickly).

 

The glazing is unaffected by this treatment and the reassembled coach is immensely improved.

 

I have even been able to fit Peco / HD couplers into the NEM pockets.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Pennine MC]

. I know the precise vehicle types aren't that easily identifyable in a lot of (general abum shots), but the general formations I find very helpful.

 

 

 

As an aside, it does bemuse me why folk are so preoccupied with exact vehicle types. OK if that's your thing (and I know it's Robert's), but for the average modeller who's probably running a formation that's necessarily condensed from reality, just making sure the train has a brake each end and includes one or two coaches that have first class accomodation will be sufficient to give a convincing impression. In fact the formations in Robert's previous post would probably hold good for a host of secondary LHCS services on any Region

 

 

[robertcwp]

As an aside, it does bemuse me why folk are so preoccupied with exact vehicle types. OK if that's your thing (and I know it's Robert's), but for the average modeller who's probably running a formation that's necessarily condensed from reality, just making sure the train has a brake each end and includes one or two coaches that have first class accomodation will be sufficient to give a convincing impression. In fact the formations in Robert's previous post would probably hold good for a host of secondary LHCS services on any Region

I give up.

[Mallard60022]

Thanks very much Garry D100, your photos are particularly useful and I like the way you have thoughtfully angled some of the coaches so that back-lighting highlights the surface detail.

 

Good underframe detail as well, in fact they are pretty well faultless. I had thought of removing the sides and fitting etched brass one but it doesn't look like it is necessary. Roll on blood & custard livery.....

 

Hi Larry and Co. I actually got to fondle one of these yesterday which belonged to a friend I met at Shipley and I don't look at RTR coaches that often (last was my delivery of Hornby Maunsells about six months back).

This coach is fantastic to look at except for the REALLY NAFF CURTAINS! That seems to have been sorted by John Ish though!

Without having any reference materials to hand I can't say if the dimensions are OK, however I think it is a credit to Hornby and the Chinese builders. The details are b***y fantastic, especially the door grab handles, lav filler pipes and the corr connection hangers. I could NEVER get a kit to look this good EVEN with a pro paint job added!

I would even dare to say that if a rake of these new Hawksworths (with tweaking and extra super detailing) were to be allowed to run on Pendon, viewers would not be able to tell, without peering at very close quarters, they were RTR.

I'm going to have to tell Geoff this bad news, but never mind, it allows more time for new product development or continued existing product upgrades.

Sincerely, 36E

[gwrrob]

Will the whole range of these coaches [except full brake] have these curtains fitted then ?

[Pennine MC]

I hope you are jesting pal. Trains of coaches are made up according to guidelines, traffic requirements and so on. They are not simply thrown together with a brake at each end and a couple of coaches with first class accomodation.....Yikes! Where's me calming pills....

 

Thought that might be controversial in the Court of the Crimson Coachbuilder

 

Sorry Larry and Robert, if I rattled your cages; I do know that much more thought went into real trains, particularly 'traditional' expresses with catering provision and possibly through portions to be detached en route. If anybody is wanting to faithfully replicate that and has the space, then good luck to them. But as far as the short, secondary services that many will be modelling are concerned, then to the untrained eye most trains did look pretty much like I said, with seconds (open or corridor) added in sufficient numbers to take the traffic on offer; there are a lot of queries like this and I do think that the tyro gets the impression that it's more complicated than it needs to be

[The Stationmaster]

Thought that might be controversial in the Court of the Crimson Coachbuilder

 

Sorry Larry and Robert, if I rattled your cages; I do know that much more thought went into real trains, particularly 'traditional' expresses with catering provision and possibly through portions to be detached en route. If anybody is wanting to faithfully replicate that and has the space, then good luck to them. But as far as the short, secondary services that many will be modelling are concerned, then to the untrained eye most trains did look pretty much like I said, with seconds (open or corridor) added in sufficient numbers to take the traffic on offer; there are a lot of queries like this and I do think that the tyro gets the impression that it's more complicated than it needs to be

 

This is an interesting heresy you're promoting Ian and I think in some respects you making a valid point, well actually a couple of valid points. Yes, I don't doubt at all that many 'modellers' (running from those who are exclusively r-t-r right through to 'I even made the wheels' types) do go for what could be called 'representative' trains. Gradually - as with other aspects of modelling a railway (as opposed to building railway models) one might hope that their interest in train formations etc will develop and become more typical of the real thing in their chosen area or even a very accurate potrayal of it. In the proces of reaching that particular nirvana they might even get their freight vehicles looking as if they suit the traffic of that area and they might even, I hope, get at least one signal in the right form and place - it's all about learning beyond the modelling table or workbench.

 

The other part of it is what happened in real life. All the Railways, certainly from the late grouped period, and probably much earlier, formed their passenger trains in accordance with carriage/coach etc marshalling circulars/instructions or whatever a particular railway called them. These normally specified coach by type - not by who designed it (although that effectively happened with some specialised vehicles) and on secondary and branch services what would as often as not be used was the nearest equivalent. When trains were strengthened - be it preplanned or on an ad-hoc basis - it would often be a case of specifying a vehicle type but that might well be influenced by what was on hand/ readily available.

 

My last real involvement with such matters (odd vehicle swops apart) from the pre-planning end was, and I now frighten myself, almost 40 years ago. And very often it would be the case that the only 'specification' would be for a certain number of seats, and coaching stock control folk would do their best to find something that matched. If they hadn't got the right vehicle they would use what they did have.

 

Coming a bit nearer to today I was last involved with a large passenger yard dealing with loco hauled trains a mere 27 or so years ago. If a vehicle had to come out at short notice it was either not replaced or it was replaced by whatever could easily be pinched from another set or shunted out and ideally it would be of roughly the same type as what had come out. Of course that didn't happen to every train every day but it did happen to a set every now and then - and if we didn't have, say, a spare SO handy then an SK or even a CK it would be.

[Guest Belgian]

Certainly on the Southern carriages were very specific: both Maunsell and Bulleid built sets of coaches (as had the LSWR before them) for specific services. In fact the coaches were more tailored than the locomotives pulling them - the same train from one day to another might have different locomotives, but the same stock! Many trains would be formed of the same set of coaches day after day, indeed, for weeks, months or even, in the case of some holiday trains, years at a time. The carriage notices would specify sets for use on each service, and sometimes, as in the case of the "Royal Wessex", the individual coach numbers.

People such as Robert Carroll, Chris Knowles-Thomas, Brian Macdermott, Larry Goddard and Glenn Woods (and many others) are providing an absolutely invaluable database of such details, the (relatively) recent interest in getting such things "right" seemigly pointing to a greater maturity in the model railway hobby. As Mike The Stationmaster said, hopefully we will all take a greater interest in getting the wagons and signalling right as well. Much of this awakening of interest must also be credited to the manufacturers, who are now providing us with suitable models to help us acheive the greater accuracy both of appearaance and operation. The interest in each new type seems to be greater than the previous release, these Hawksworths rather proving the point. (Now, how do I justify them on a BR(SR) model set in 1957 - perhaps the New Milton - Swansea train?).

 

JE

[brushman47544]

The other part of it is what happened in real life. All the Railways, certainly from the late grouped period, and probably much earlier, formed their passenger trains in accordance with carriage/coach etc marshalling circulars/instructions or whatever a particular railway called them. These normally specified coach by type - not by who designed it (although that effectively happened with some specialised vehicles) and on secondary and branch services what would as often as not be used was the nearest equivalent. When trains were strengthened - be it preplanned or on an ad-hoc basis - it would often be a case of specifying a vehicle type but that might well be influenced by what was on hand/ readily available.

 

My last real involvement with such matters (odd vehicle swops apart) from the pre-planning end was, and I now frighten myself, almost 40 years ago. And very often it would be the case that the only 'specification' would be for a certain number of seats, and coaching stock control folk would do their best to find something that matched. If they hadn't got the right vehicle they would use what they did have.

 

Coming a bit nearer to today I was last involved with a large passenger yard dealing with loco hauled trains a mere 27 or so years ago. If a vehicle had to come out at short notice it was either not replaced or it was replaced by whatever could easily be pinched from another set or shunted out and ideally it would be of roughly the same type as what had come out. Of course that didn't happen to every train every day but it did happen to a set every now and then - and if we didn't have, say, a spare SO handy then an SK or even a CK it would be.[/i]

Interesting, thanks Mike. I can understand the generic specification of stock for secondary, local or branch services, and more recently commuter or regional sets, but for longer distance services where seat reservations were compulsory or the norm, surely it would be essential to specify the designer and type to ensure the seat numbers and numbering/locations matched what would have been reserved. If a particular vehicle was not available, then of course something else would need to be used instead.

 

But would a depot really be given freedom to insert randomly, for example, a Collett, Hawksworth and Mk1 CK into three different rakes of their choosing, perhaps decided based on which needed the least marshalling effort, rather than being told which had to go where? Perhaps the carriage working specifications differed in these respects depending on the depot? Could you imagine a local foreman intent on improving the stock on his local services, being allowed to swop out nice new Mk1s from the "foreign" rakes to use on his local/branch service and replacing them with older coaches?

 

I suppose someone will say that that is just what did happen...

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting, thanks Mike. I can understand the generic specification of stock for secondary, local or branch services, and more recently commuter or regional sets, but for longer distance services where seat reservations were compulsory or the norm, surely it would be essential to specify the designer and type to ensure the seat numbers and numbering/locations matched what would have been reserved. If a particular vehicle was not available, then of course something else would need to be used instead.

 

But would a depot really be given freedom to insert randomly, for example, a Collett, Hawksworth and Mk1 CK into three different rakes of their choosing, perhaps decided based on which needed the least marshalling effort, rather than being told which had to go where? Perhaps the carriage working specifications differed in these respects depending on the depot? Could you imagine a local foreman intent on improving the stock on his local services, being allowed to swop out nice new Mk1s from the "foreign" rakes to use on his local/branch service and replacing them with older coaches?

 

I suppose someone will say that that is just what did happen...

 

 

Some Regional variatiuons no doubt (as noted above the Southern, way into BR days and right up to full m.u.ification, was always very precise about which sets worked what).

 

My experience back in hauled stock days was entirely on the Western and we had Circuit Working books for coaching sets, i.e. their planned pattern of work - they did indeed specify down to number of seats in trains with seat reservations and whether they were SO or TSO or SK etc. And in a few - usually specialised - cases, at various times, vehicles were specified by painted number. But when it came to putting in spares or adding additional vehicles it could indeed be a case of get it as near as possible - especially in the years after the legions of spare coaches had gone to the scrapyards.

 

And a lot was left up to the Yard Foremen, who obviously knew from years of experience that you didn't put tatty old stock into premier services etc. But in many cases it was literally put in what's to hand as near as possible to what the Circuit Book says or what's on the notice for a strengthening vehicle. Oh and change vehicles according to traffic requirements - if you had what was wanted - and a special party wanted to be in an open so out came the corridor vehicle.

 

Where possible Passenger Rolling Stock Control - for many years the redoubtable Mr Smith on the Western - would specify by painted number for swaps or strengthening vehicle because even before TOPS came along Ian knew where most coaches were and what was in each set. He would never be shaken on diners or sleepers but if Bill, the Yard Foreman in Old Oak passenger yard, suggested he world prefer to use such & such a TSO or SO instead of the one Ian had told him to use Ian was prepared to bend and Bill kept the Shunters a bit happier. It happened just like that and over the years I knew, and worked, with both of them at various times. But equally they both knew where the best vehicles had to go, and woe betide anybody who went for the wrong one or tried to take out a good vehicle and substitute it with a poor one .

[Mallard60022]

Certainly on the Southern carriages were very specific: both Maunsell and Bulleid built sets of coaches (as had the LSWR before them) for specific services. In fact the coaches were more tailored than the locomotives pulling them - the same train from one day to another might have different locomotives, but the same stock! Many trains would be formed of the same set of coaches day after day, indeed, for weeks, months or even, in the case of some holiday trains, years at a time. The carriage notices would specify sets for use on each service, and sometimes, as in the case of the "Royal Wessex", the individual coach numbers.

........ these Hawksworths rather proving the point. (Now, how do I justify them on a BR(SR) model set in 1957 - perhaps the New Milton - Swansea train?).

 

JE

 

Absolutely. However (and there always is a however in railway lore is there not?) then there was the S.R. SUMMER services where the dreaded 'loose' coaches popped up all over the place; (just try to identify the ACE coach numbers and its' 2/3 extras on a Summer Saturday!)

Then there is that thorny old thingy the 'SPECIAL WORKING'!!!!! The really interesting trains such as the above mentioned Swansea and even the 'set' trains like the Brighton/Portsmouth/ Plymouth could throw up little surprises (if the fleet was in in the latter case).

To think that we used to mock anyone that 'took coach numbers' back in those good old days (I'm talking 50 years back). What would we pay to see some of those lists now?

Running Hawksworths and about anything else you fancy, except maybe Quad/Quint Arts, on S.W. area Footy/Rugger/ Hockey/Racing/Sunday School Outing/ Firm's Outings/Depots & Works Treats Specials is 'licensed' by the above workings. Go on get a rake; you know you need to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers, C. W. Department

[great northern]

This has drifted off topic somewhat, but nevertheless a fascinating discussion. First, to amplify Coachmann's point about seat reservations, the 1958/9 Eastern region winter timetable shows that seats could in fact be reserved on the vast majority of the principal express trains. What then happened when a coach was failed in the carriage sidings an hour before departure time? Presumably the foreman would look to replace it on a like for like basis, but the prime duty would be to get the train away on time, so I suspect that the nearest and most easily accessible vehicle would have been substituted. By definition that is likely to have been an inferior vehicle. Were there for example spare Pullman cars readily available?

 

Next, I can see why Pennine made the comments he did, and understand some of the responses. There is a fine line between encouraging people to produce accurate models and dissuading them from coming into the hobby at all. And of course there are some who couldn't give a ***** anyway. Nevertheless, the amount of accurate information now available is immense compared with what was readily available only ten years ago, so it is arguable that we should indeed ensure that where that information is available we get it right. On a personal note, I can say that I certainly do derive pleasure from the knowledge that my train formations are correct. If the prototype information isn't readily available, then the next best thing as Pennine says is to produce something which is in line with what the traffic aimed at would dictate.

 

Finally, there were of course in the old days relief trains, which were often composed of anything which was still capable of turning a wheel, or which happened to be lying about at the time. That will be my exccuse I think for running one of these Hawksworth coaches on my ECML layout.