HonestTom

Well, the comic book adaptation in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had an LNWR Precedent crossing Barnes Bridge, so you might say that set the, er, precedent for inaccurate trains. Interestingly, I recall the original novel actually specified the railway companies the trains were using. I have mixed views on the whole question of accurate trains in movies. It's great when it happens, but so often it's just not practical on a reasonable budget, especially if it's just for a quick establishing shot. The one that really bugged me was Savage Messiah, set in Victorian England, filmed on the Bluebell Railway, and the engine they used was... the USA tank. I just can't believe that on a railway with a huge collection of pre-Grouping engines, they managed to pick about the least accurate one possible. The biggest howler for me was in the generally awful From Hell, which featured a CGI establishing shot of an East End street. Crossing the viaduct was a Terrier - okay, yep, that's not an awful choice for the setting - hauling a train of Hornby 4-wheel coaches.

With all due respect to those who have submitted information in this thread, how do you know which enthusiasts have accurate information? Even drawings that are considered authoritative can contain mistakes. At the very least, you'd need someone to check that the information you're receiving is correct. I'd argue that if it doesn't cost any more to produce a set of accurate coaches, Bachmann's birdcages should not have an RRP double that of the Hattons' Genesis coaches.

This discussion has come up approximately 2.5 million times on this thread already (I lost count), but the basic argument against is: 1. Increased cost of R&D in order to produce a model that is accurate enough to satisfy those who would be interested in the specific prototype. The tooling would likely have to be more detailed than the generic coaches would be, because you're serving the people who are only happy with accurate models, so that would also drive up costs. 2. Accurate models for one company would only satisfy those who model that company, which is a fraction of a fraction of the market. As evidenced by this thread, many of those modellers would have been happy with a generic coach. Which company do you choose to maximise your returns? Which of their coaches? 3. If you don't model the company Hattons chooses, then what you have is a set of coaches that aren't accurate for your company, and cost significantly more than £30 apiece. In other words, there's a strong possibility that Hattons could actually lose sales by producing accurate models.

That one's fairly local to me, so there'd be a sale here. If they did milk tankers in the same livery, I bet they'd inspire more than one micro-layout.

Progress has been made! I decided to go with a stormy sky backscene. Generally I'm quite pleased with the way the warehouses have come out - I wanted the scene to look crowded, overshadowing the trains. These six wagons represent what I need for a one-dice game - two empties for the warehouse, two vans for the unloading platform, two coal/coke wagons for the boiler house.

I'm waiting for Hornby to produce this version.

A couple more wagons - I’ve just finished adding loads. These will serve the boiler house. Again, the close-up is very cruel to my hand lettering.

There's a video on YouTube that I can't find now by Adam Savage (of Mythbusters) where he modified a steampunk model kit using a vape pen and a fish tank air pump to create a chuffing effect.

As an Underground nut, I'll second that. If they could cater for detail variations, that's about five main line railway companies, five commuter railways and I don't know how many light railways and industrial lines catered for. And think of the coach liveries they could produce to go with those...

I particularly like the scenic work, although the operating possibilities have definitely got me thinking.

I'm doing something similar on my current micro. It's a great space (and cost) saver, and entirely prototypical.

I think the argument for the liveries they've chosen is that they all have or will soon have appropriate RTR locomotives. That being said, through workings were not unknown, so you could maybe justify some Welsh companies on a GWR or LNWR layout.

Well, there go all my theories about why they weren't doing LBSC colours. It's great to see Hattons taking feedback on board, and I'm pretty sure I can make space for a BR engineering full brake somewhere.

And here are a couple of warehouses. Structures like this were my inspiration.

I like the concept of shunting capstans for some reason, so I thought I’d include some derelict examples. These are the work in progress, made using the push part of some push pins. The in-universe explanation is that Hazzard Mills used to be a much smaller enterprise, and horses and capstans were sufficient. But as the factory and its railway expanded, locomotives became more favoured, and the capstans were abandoned.

There's a complex of either flats or office blocks in Limehouse that has a no-way-out thing going on. In the middle, there are a couple of stretches of track with a wooden-framed wagon and a pump trolley. I'll have to see if I can dig up a photo. I remember there also used to be a tube carriage in the middle of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Many thanks! I was first alerted to the appeal of the TVR last year, when I went to the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway and was fortunate enough to ride behind this:

The Taff Vale van is complete. Here it is in cruel closeup. The chassis is a Dapol wooden framed one. Oddly enough, the older version of the Triang van has a representation of a wooden-framed chassis and a plain roof, but it also has the steamroller wheels. If I can figure out how to swap those out, it might be a good basis for future conversions.

I'd be inclined to agree. Obviously it varies from person to person, but I'd say that a badly liveried model would stick out more to me than a well-liveried, well-put-together but not quite accurate coach, especially in the case of a more elaborate livery. If some enterprising soul wanted to make more accurate coach sides, then good luck to them, but I know I for one wouldn't be a customer. I don't mean that to sound snotty, but I know my limits when it comes to painting (my pre-grouping modelling is presently limited to goods stock - in-service wagons are a lot more forgiving to the ham-handed painter).

The starting point for my upcoming Taff Vale van. The old Triang van bears a striking similarity - here, I’ve started cutting the roof detail off. The dark grey livery was applied by the previous owner, although I understand the TVR actually did apply dark grey to their wagons for a time, so I may just touch this one up before applying markings.

It certainly opens up possibilities. I can think of several industrial layouts you could create this way that wouldn't look unrealistic. Perhaps for operational interest, one could include a transfer siding, where a larger loco incapable of traversing the curves leaves its wagons. I also rather like the above-mentioned idea of a tram layout. Perhaps the classic BLT reduced to the end of an urban tramway or elevated railway with a small depot. I've always thought the layout of track around Poplar DLR depot would make an interesting layout, albeit that's perhaps a little modern for the Ruston.

I'm not sure that it would put Dapol off producing LBSC coaches, which are conspicuous by their absence in the Hattons range. Obviously I don't know how much either company knows about the other's plans, but it's interesting that we're getting coaches for the GER (one RTR locomotive) and the Caledonian (three RTR locomotives, one not out yet, two very dated) and none for the LBSC (six RTR locomotives, all designed for passenger work). Given the appearance of a SECR D in Hattons' train formation guide followed by an announcement of a D, I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few tip-offs here and there (he said, removing his tinfoil hat). Now, whether this might put manufacturers off, e.g., producing NER coaches in the future, I can't say, but I suspect the opposite will be the case. After all, it's not like the existence of Bulleid coaches in Bachmann's range put Hornby off making Maunsell coaches. Rather, I think it will give manufacturers a better idea of which pre-Grouping modellers are most likely to invest in more prototypical coaches in the future.

A couple of kitbashed warehouses, made mostly from Metcalfe leftovers.

None, but this isn't a zero-sum game. The "little bit of effort" being proposed costs money, resources and time, especially if you want "right first time" coaches. The resulting coaches would by necessity have to cost more. Given the number of people modelling each individual pre-grouping company, they'd probably have to cost quite a lot more, perhaps in the region of £70-100 or higher. Especially given that you're now explicitly marketing to people with an expectation of perfection, as opposed to those willing to accept compromise. The assumption you'd have to make is that there are a similar number of people willing to pay the higher price to those who'd be willing to pay the lower price Hattons is currently offering. Now, you could take a gamble on this. You could hope that the availability of coaches would drive up the number of people willing to take the plunge into seriously modelling that particular company, but that's quite a risk. Especially in the case of railways that have very little by way of available ready-to-run locomotives. This is all an untried proposition. Nobody makes ready-to-run pre-Grouping coaches to a modern standard except for Bachmann's SECR birdcage stock, and even now there are relatively few pre-Grouping passenger locomotives. Nobody can really say how pre-Grouping coaches would sell, whether generic or not, but there seems to be plenty of interest in these coaches and I would say that Hattons is only being sensible in choosing a lower risk option.

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