OO Gauge GWR Toplight Mainline & City Coaches announced

[Oldddudders]

14 minutes ago, Tim Dubya said:

Anyway I need to start saving for the corridor LSWR coaches coming from ???

Do tell us more!

[Hal Nail]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I must wait until Friday to see how much funnymoney I have after the rent is paid (don't ask) before ordering my Rule 1 brake 3rd to use on the miners' workmans at Cwmdimbath.  I'm umming and ahhing over whether to go for 1945-7 choc/cream or 1948-56 crimson. 

 

I stumbled upon a photo of single brake 3rd behind a pannier at Tetbury this morning in 1955 in Chris Leighs GWR Country Stations 2. The coach is plain so I assume Crimson.

[aac]

On 27/02/2024 at 22:43, Miss Prism said:

Last crimson lake pic I know of is c 1928 (a single large 70' toplight iirc). In the mid- to late-20s however, the GWR Board provided extra funds for coach repaints, in an effort (it seems to me) to make things look modern, which I think equates to getting rid of over-elaborate lining. So the normal repainting intervals were not observable in the way they had been before. Full lining had almost completely disappeared after 1930.

 

I have posted pics of brown and cream repaints of this stock earlier in this thread (see here and here), but Dapol knows, as do all the manufacturers, they can produce liveries with impunity. Collectors will lap them up, even where there is no evidence of a particular prototype livery era being actually applied to prototype stock. If I was Dapol, I'd do a Hattons and produce them in all sorts of non-GWR liveries - they would still sell like hot cakes.

 

I'm usually very critical of manufacturers (especially Hornby, who do tend to take liberties) applying fictional liveries to stock, but I guess I'm softening in my dotage.

 

 

I absolutely agree on the matter of livery variants. No company will ever produce every thing we want, and scratch build as you might, that level of laser printed livery work is not easily equalled by the human hand. These would be great coaches to do a Genesis job. Imagine the LNWR panelled lining, and many others similarly, etc, etc. 

Come on Dapol!! Exploit your triumph.

 

aac

[Tim Dubya]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Do tell us more!

 

I don't know, in fact, but I have a feeling in my waters that we will see some LSWR Corridor's coming from EFE or Kernow in the next year or so.  The only person who really knows either way probably isn't going to let on even if they knew or didn't know... @Graham_Muz 🤔😉

 

 

I'm just trying to stall myself from building all those Roxey kits I have, that I will most probably murder during the process.

 

 

Edited February 29 by Tim Dubya
Gibbajabba

[sjrixon]

My missing 2 coaches arrived,  so figured I'd also try with the Ultra close elite..

 

Firstly.  I derailed my whole train of 4 and pulled the loco off the track trying to disconnect them! 

 

This is with the longer bar, from the box.

 

This is the Ultra close. 

 

 

About 4mm more. The Hunt could be shorted, as both will go around r2 curves. Which is a credit to the design. 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, aac said:

These would be great coaches to do a Genesis job. Imagine the LNWR panelled lining, and many others similarly, etc, etc. 

Come on Dapol!! Exploit your triumph.

 

Just, no. 

 

No.

 

A Genesis approach is the worst thing that could happen, as it will completely scupper any chance of correct models being produced.  This has already happened with the Hornby and Hatton's/Rapido four/six wheelers; anyone wishlisting almost any RTR four or six wheeler will be referred to these coaches.  I was hoping for RTR GW Dean four-wheelers to replace the incorrect Ratio kits one day, but now there's no chance, and the only options are the balloon LBSCR-type brake compartment versions, even more incorrect from Hornby because of the air braking detail.  The problem with incorrect models, apart from being incorrect, is that they are out there in the market, and prevent production of accurate versions.  Another example is the old Triang shorty clerestories, wrong length, wrong bogies, but for many years a standard in the hobby for general use as non-gangwayed generic panelled stock typical of the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods.  Only in recent years have such coaches appeared as accurate representations of anything, in the form of the LSWR and SECR 'birdcage' stock.  I wonder how long the Hornby A30 auto-trailer, compromised by A28 features, crude by current standards, and basically unaltered since Airfix introduced it back in the Silurian era, will continue to prevent the production of a decent model of what is I am sure something that would fly off the shelves were anyone to produce one to current standards (not that I'm complaining about Dapol's choice of the Diagram N).

 

The toplights are quite distinctive, the only similar coaches that come to mind offhand are the Midland clerestories as produced by Ratio, and highly unsuitable for a generic approach IMHO.  And I'm a long way from what most people would regard as a rivet counter, there are plenty of anomalous and incorrect models on my layout that I can live with.  But manufacturers have the research and production facilities to get models right, or at least close enough to scale to be detailed and worked up, so I have always been irritated when they get things wrong as a matter of deliberate policy.  I would tolerate a generic 4-wheeler set of miners' workmans based on the Glyncorrwg train but the balloon brakes are a step too far for me and the old, inadequate, and equally incorrect Ratio/Parksides will have to do, another item got deliberately wrong by the original manufacturer and perpetuated in, well, perpetuity...  Moulded detail doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

 

So, please, no more generics!

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I was hoping for RTR GW Dean four-wheelers to replace the incorrect Ratio kits one day

Incorrect in what way?

I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate?

[aac]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Incorrect in what way?

I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate?

The nub of the problem is that we can wait forever, or adapt, or scratch build. I first bought Ratio 4 wheelers in 1980, so I'm glad I didn't wait for the improvement that has yet to materialise.

I built the Airfix Park Royal railbus in about 1963, but it took a lifetime for Heljan to clock the idea that it would be a good piece of kit for a compact layout. For years, GWR branch line termini featured Triang cleresory coaches and kit-built Dean Goods locos, but how long did it take for a company to jump on that paricular combination? I chase atmosphere more than the rivets, but fully understand and admire those who work from the other end of the telescope. We're all trying our best, but, goodness me, it's hard for the industry to come up with the perfect solution that satisfies all of the people all of the time.

 

aac

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Incorrect in what way?

I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate?

 

They are. Roof profile is a bit off. Problem is they are pretty obscure prototypes and there are some missing if you want a full set.

 

The Ratio ones are

 

S9 All Third

T47 Brake Third

U4 Composite

 

Really you need a different type of Brake Third or Composite as well with the smaller luggage compartment.

 

Anyone wants to improve them then Shires (Dart) and Mainly Trains/Wizard do the relevant parts.

 

https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/shire.php

 

Mainly Trains

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

20 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Anyone wants to improve them then Shires (Dart) and Mainly Trains/Wizard do the relevant parts.

 

I've got 3 lots of Shirescenes etches for different prototypes, one is the Siphon C

Edited February 29 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Unpacked my parcel of M&Cs from Rails this afternoon

First impression, fairly solid feeling with a bit of weight, very free running. Plenty of detail, tail light not too big.

Next, assemble the set with the short bars and give them a run. Fine around 3' curves and through Peco code 75 double slip, b*ggered through a 3' reverse curve, the buffers can't compress enough, or they lock and they come of the rails.

Tomorrow it will be with the long bars, shame, the short bars keep the buffers nicely together, there will be a gap with the long ones.

 

Edited February 29 by melmerby

[Free At Last]

I noticed that 3 out of my 6 coaches were not picking up on both bogies. Checked there was continuity between the wheels but I had none on one of the brass ring lugs. Removing the screw and scraping some of the blackening off under the head restored continuity.
I have had the odd derailment on the sharp side of a Peco code 100 three way point. It looks to me like the top of the spring hanger can just catch on the solebar truss. I don't think I would notice if I removed the top with a file.

 

 

Edited February 29 by Free At Last
Better pic.

[Philou]

Received a photo of one of these from my go-to railway emporium with just the words: 'These arrived today. Stunning.' If he says that, then they must be pretty good. I am very tempted ...................

[Free At Last]

Is there a reason for the cut out in the truss?
If it had been underneath, the bogie may have cleared it.

[melmerby]

12 hours ago, rembrow said:

But are they? They have no 1st class door markings, so we're the composites declassified to All 2nd in their final years with BR.

7911 is shown as E101 all third in Longworth's coach list.

[Coach bogie]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

7911 is shown as E101 all third in Longworth's coach list.

Odd as an E prefix is a composite. Thirds have a C prefix.

Build register has E101 as composites with lot 1261 7901/7902 (22/2/20) and lot 1273 7903-7912 (19/6/21)

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Tim Dubya]

1 hour ago, Coach bogie said:

Odd as an E prefix is a composite. Thirds have a C prefix.

Build register has E101 as composites with lot 1261 7901/7902 (22/2/20) and lot 1273 7903-7912 (19/6/21)

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Dapol have it as such - "4P-020-521 Dapol GWR Toplight BR Maroon Composite 7911".

 

Edited March 1 by Tim Dubya

[Harlequin]

9 hours ago, Free At Last said:

Is there a reason for the cut out in the truss?
If it had been underneath, the bogie may have cleared it.

 

It looks like that notch is designed to clear one of the cross beams under the coach floor. The truss should be behind the solebar and much higher up so that you can't see the notch.

So possibly a small manufacturing error?

 

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

Odd as an E prefix is a composite. Thirds have a C prefix.

Build register has E101 as composites with lot 1261 7901/7902 (22/2/20) and lot 1273 7903-7912 (19/6/21)

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

I think this is a case of the coach being built originally as a compo to E101 but with the first class declassified in BR days and retaining the diagram number.  One would have thought that stock used in London area suburban work would have retained first class though; the replacement Colletts and their replacement 117 dmus had first class.

[phil-b259]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Just, no. 

 

No.

 

A Genesis approach is the worst thing that could happen, as it will completely scupper any chance of correct models being produced.  This has already happened with the Hornby and Hatton's/Rapido four/six wheelers; anyone wishlisting almost any RTR four or six wheeler will be referred to these coaches.  I was hoping for RTR GW Dean four-wheelers to replace the incorrect Ratio kits one day, but now there's no chance, and the only options are the balloon LBSCR-type brake compartment versions, even more incorrect from Hornby because of the air braking detail.  The problem with incorrect models, apart from being incorrect, is that they are out there in the market, and prevent production of accurate versions.  Another example is the old Triang shorty clerestories, wrong length, wrong bogies, but for many years a standard in the hobby for general use as non-gangwayed generic panelled stock typical of the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods.  Only in recent years have such coaches appeared as accurate representations of anything, in the form of the LSWR and SECR 'birdcage' stock.  I wonder how long the Hornby A30 auto-trailer, compromised by A28 features, crude by current standards, and basically unaltered since Airfix introduced it back in the Silurian era, will continue to prevent the production of a decent model of what is I am sure something that would fly off the shelves were anyone to produce one to current standards (not that I'm complaining about Dapol's choice of the Diagram N).

 

The toplights are quite distinctive, the only similar coaches that come to mind offhand are the Midland clerestories as produced by Ratio, and highly unsuitable for a generic approach IMHO.  And I'm a long way from what most people would regard as a rivet counter, there are plenty of anomalous and incorrect models on my layout that I can live with.  But manufacturers have the research and production facilities to get models right, or at least close enough to scale to be detailed and worked up, so I have always been irritated when they get things wrong as a matter of deliberate policy.  I would tolerate a generic 4-wheeler set of miners' workmans based on the Glyncorrwg train but the balloon brakes are a step too far for me and the old, inadequate, and equally incorrect Ratio/Parksides will have to do, another item got deliberately wrong by the original manufacturer and perpetuated in, well, perpetuity...  Moulded detail doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

 

So, please, no more generics!

 

I fear you are rather forgetting that model railway manufacturers primarily exist to make as much money for their shareholders / owners as possible - NOT to pander to the wants of modellers.

 

Though 4/ 6 wheeler may well have been very common in the pre-grouping era, they had pretty much all vanished by the 1930s - and that therefore means they will not generate a much revenue as something which lasted well into the British Railways era, an era we are told has been very popular with baby boomer modellers seeking to recreate what they saw in their youth.

 

That means tooling up a accurate set of 4 / 6 wheelers for a particular pre-grouping company is not going to generate substantial sales making them an unattractive proposition for a manufacturer to tool up for - particularly given the intricate panelling many such vehicles possessed.

 

Hattons and to a lesser extent Hornby both realised that by making their 4 / 6 wheeled stock 'Generic' they would not be limited to just one company - and as I have pointed out before the fact that in Hattons case they pretty much all sold out on pre-order shows that from a financial perspective the 'generic' approach is likely to be much more profitable than tooling up a an accurate rendition of a particular companies offering due to the increased number of sales which can be made. And I repeat model railway manufacturers primary function is to make as much money for their owners / shareholders...

 

Moving on to bogie coaches, the situation here is fundamentally different - because many designs did indeed survive into BR days and as such they represent a far more attractive subject for manufactures in terms of potential revenue to tool up. Hence we have seen things like the Birdcage stock from Bachmann, the ex LSWR rebuilds from Hornby, and the LSWR cross country sets from Kernow  and even the Toplights (the subject of this thread) which all fall into that 'sweet spot' in terms of the largest pool of potential buyers.

 

As such the introduction of 'generic' bogie stock could well have the potential to reduce the number of accurate items coming to market in a way that 'Generic' 4/6 wheeled stock does not - because with 4/6 wheelers manufactures won't even be considering accurate renditions an economically viable prospect but may well take the view that accurate bogie stock does have some potential, as long as there isn't some sort of 'generic' offering to dilute sales.

 

 

 

Edited March 1 by phil-b259

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Though 4/ 6 wheeler may well have been very common in the pre-grouping era, they had pretty much all vanished by the 1930s - and that therefore means they will not generate a much revenue as something which lasted well into the British Railways era, an era we are told has been very popular with baby boomer modellers seeking to recreate what they saw in

I would have agreed unreservedly 30, 20, even 10 years ago, but now…
 

The boomers will all be dead soon; I know, I'm one of them.  That will free up the market demand for products representing other periods, which will play well to producers working to smaller runs and responding to market trends more quickly.  The big sellers will be banger blue diesels and electrics as generation X empty nesters with disposable recreating their spotting adventures take up the reins, but there will be room for more niche products. 

 

There are no accurate 21st-century standard RTR models of any pre-grouping coaching stock from companies north of the Thames except the GW, which is only now staking it’s claim with Dapol’s Toplights and Diagram N auto-trailer.  These lasted into the mid-50s, already before the clear memory of the dwindling number of surviving boomers; I’m two years past my three-score and ten, and have only very dim memories of anything before 1960.  Intricate panelling did not put Triang off in 1960 when they produced the shorty clerestories; there are many issues with those models but the panelling is rather good, even now from 60-year-old tooling!  The overwhelming bulk of railway mileage is and was north of the Thames, wIth the real big hitters being the Midland and the LNWR, thus far ignored completely by the RTR boys in terms of coaching stock apart from the generics.  The LSW and SE&C are collections of branch lines in comparison.  And you can forget anything from Scotland or Wales. 
 

I agree that the RTR companies’ real customers are the shareholders and those they owe money to, and that the prime directive os to make profits for those, but the best way to make profits is probably to provide product the buying punters want at a price the market will bear.  I very seriously doubt that anybody who buys generic coaches from Hornby or Hattons/Rapido really actually wanted them in that form, they settled for second best because there was no alternative, a rather blinkered definition of ‘demand’, and as soon as proper stock becomes available, those coaches will be landfill or will flood the Bay.  Meanwhile, they act to effectively stifle production of what we really want to spend our money on, proper models!

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 Meanwhile, they act to effectively stifle production of what we really want to spend our money on, proper models!

 

I differ. I think in the log run they will be seen as demonstrating market potential and creating demand.

[phil-b259]

56 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

I agree that the RTR companies’ real customers are the shareholders and those they owe money to, and that the prime directive os to make profits for those, but the best way to make profits is probably to provide product the buying punters want at a price the market will bear.  I very seriously doubt that anybody who buys generic coaches from Hornby or Hattons/Rapido really actually wanted them in that form, they settled for second best because there was no alternative, a rather blinkered definition of ‘demand’, and as soon as proper stock becomes available, those coaches will be landfill or will flood the Bay.  Meanwhile, they act to effectively stifle production of what we really want to spend our money on, proper models!

 

'Generic' coaches can only 'stifle' production of more accurate rolling stock if manufacturers had any plans to do them in the first place!

 

That is ultimately the bone of contention here - you appear to consider that manufacturers were going to seriously consider producing accurate ranges of 4/6 wheel carriages for multiple railway companies while I believe there isn't a hope in hell of them doing that as the economics simply don't make any financial sense even if the Hattons / Hornby 'Generics' had never been made in the first place.

 

As I said earlier Bogie stock is generally speaking a different matter as accurate renditions can cover many more markets (and after grouping could end up being used behind a wider range of locos or in different contexts - such as ex SECR birdcage stock being used with BR standard tanks on ex LBSCR branch lines for example) so make much more financial sense.

 

 

Edited March 1 by phil-b259

[1466]

I see merit in  all the contributions above and it set me to thinking .

I appreciate Hornby’s recent carriages but I bought a couple of Hatton’s generic 6 wheel brakes . Why ?

Well ,  recent accurate coaches from Hornby , Bachman , Dapol etc  have been superb . What’s more as someone born in 1944 , I can recall them in service  . They chime with my memory and ( importantly)are superbly finished . Much better than I could achieve .

Why buy the Hatton’s generic coaches . Well , several reasons.
First , I like Full brakes and had a hankering for a vintage parcels train .

Moreover , they are beyond my memory so I could not pull down a mental file to compare model and prototype. I had a vague idea of what a 6 wheel full brake should look like and they compared favourably with that image . In a word they were PLAUSiBLE . The USP for me was the finish . The GWR coach has opaque , dense colour with defined demarcation and fine lining .The GNR example has a fine representation of teak . So that clinched it for me .

Hope this wander down my thought and decision making process helps .

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

I don't like to take threads (further) off topic but felt the following might be of interest to Johnster etc.

 

Within The Results of The 00 Wishlist Poll, the 'Toplight' gangwayed stock and associated Diag.K22 Passenger Brake Van have regularly been either High Polling or within The Top 50.

 

The 'Mainline & City Stock' (the very recent Dapol non-gangwayed stock) was always very Low Polling. Even given the stock's relatively restricted range (in prototype terms) we can see why it has been made, though.

 

The Dean Clerestory 4- & 6-wheel stock has always been High Polling and missed The Top 50 by just one vote in 2022 (the last Poll to run). That is higher up than they have been in previous years. PLEASE SEE CORRECTION TO THIS ON NEXT PAGE!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll  Team)

Edited March 1 by BMacdermott