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

[5Dublo2]

4 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Has anyone used the Hunt magnetic couplings?

I have tried them - you need the intermediate length as the close length does cause the inside buffer to rub and might cause issues.

I'll try to dig out some images 

[5Dublo2]

21 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Has anyone used the Hunt magnetic couplings?

Some Images

Hunt Close coupling negotiating a crossover made of Hornby Points


Hunt Close coupling on a Hornby Radius 2 curve



Hunt Intermediate coupling on a Hornby Radius 2 curve

[gwrrob]

25 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Has anyone used the Hunt magnetic couplings?

 

Yes and they work fine.

[Rowsley17D]

Dug out my pack of Symoba couplings and placed them on the ribs of the coupling mounts and connected them with the screw-type drawbar.

 

 

 

Will try gluing them in place and will try out on curves.

[Rowsley17D]

Thought better of gluing the couplings into place in case things didn't work out, so I attached them with Black Tac.

 

 

It's a bit dark where my smallest radius curves are but no problems getting round.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Rowsley17D

[Compound2632]

Those Symoba couplings look the best bet yet but like all couplings using the NEM socket are pitched so low as too look rather weird.

[Rowsley17D]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Those Symoba couplings look the best bet yet but like all couplings using the NEM socket are pitched so low as too look rather weird.

 

If the old coupling mounting ribs are removed the Symoba ones can be made to sit 5mm higher by gluing them to the coach floor. One would need to be careful not to break the brake shoe hangers though.

[No Decorum]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Those Symoba couplings look the best bet yet but like all couplings using the NEM socket are pitched so low as too look rather weird.

The same goes for Bachmann’s “pipe” rigid couplings.

[drt7uk]

20 hours ago, Rowsley17D said:

 

I used "3-links" in mine but there're 4 links in them! I've used the hooks on the coach ends.

 

This looks great! Where did you purchase your chains from?

[Rowsley17D]

5 hours ago, drt7uk said:

This looks great! Where did you purchase your chains from?

 

The outer links are Smith's 3-links, the inner two from the now extinct Exactoscale products.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I believe that on HO scale products, the NEM coupler box should sit just below the buffer beam. Since buffer beams are at a standard height on all European standard gauge railways, they will therefore appear low on OO gauge models where the buffer beam will be at a greater height above the rail — about 14% higher.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I believe that on HO scale products, the NEM coupler box should sit just below the buffer beam. Since buffer beams are at a standard height on all European standard gauge railways, they will therefore appear low on OO gauge models where the buffer beam will be at a greater height above the rail — about 14% higher.

 

Interesting. But is it then a coincidence that the NEM box is at the right height for tension lock couplings - the height of which was set by Triang many moons ago? Or were Triang themselves conforming to an already-established H0 standard?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I believe that on HO scale products, the NEM coupler box should sit just below the buffer beam. Since buffer beams are at a standard height on all European standard gauge railways, they will therefore appear low on OO gauge models where the buffer beam will be at a greater height above the rail — about 14% higher.

Maybe we should be using the Bachmann "wrong height" fixing where they needed a cranked down coupling to get to the right height for tension locks?😆

 

(Uncouplers wouldn't work then.......☹️)

Edited December 19, 2022 by melmerby

[D9020 Nimbus]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting. But is it then a coincidence that the NEM box is at the right height for tension lock couplings - the height of which was set by Triang many moons ago? Or were Triang themselves conforming to an already-established H0 standard?

I wonder, too — the Fleischmann (pre-Profi) HO coupling was very similar to the pre-tension lock Tri-ang OO coupling (the tension lock part started out on the TT range); the earlier version had a hook and bar but without the tension lock feature.

[Dunsignalling]

On 15/12/2022 at 20:38, Steamport Southport said:

 

Altered with parts to make them look like Maunsell though. Look at the roofs. Windows aren't a mile away either.

 

But were they any worse than anything RTR that came before which was what was suggested? Far from it.

 

Short BR Mark Ones and Pullmans, with generic coaches from Farish and that's your lot if you wanted something that was even remotely SR like.

 

I had hoped we had moved away from all this generic stuff. But it seems that some want more of it.

 

 

Jason

Unfortunately, though, the brakes had five compartments, whereas Maunsell ones came with either four or six. 

 

Hornby would have been better off misrepresenting them as LSWR Ironclads, to which they bore more of a resemblance than anything designed in Maunsell's time.  

 

I ran a 3-set so numbered with a bit of extra disguise applied until I acquired better,

 

IMHO, well-researched and well-executed generics that don't pretend to be anything more beat dodgy approximations presented as authentic, any day.

 

John

[Free At Last]

Sam reviews of the Hornby and Hattons generic coaches.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Free At Last

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting. But is it then a coincidence that the NEM box is at the right height for tension lock couplings - the height of which was set by Triang many moons ago? Or were Triang themselves conforming to an already-established H0 standard?

Only some NEM pockets are at the correct height for straight tension locks. Bachmann jumped through all manner of hoops to compensate for their initial non-compliance with the basic specification.

 

I use Kadees, and my answer to N E M is spelled X-U-R-O-N. 😀 or at least it was until we could unscrew the hideous mountings.

 

The underside of UK-outline r-t-r wagon underframes is at exactly the correct height to accept the Kadee #146 couplers I currently standardise on, as well as the #26/36/46 I previously favoured. 

 

John

Edited December 19, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

On 18/12/2022 at 16:19, Compound2632 said:

Those Symoba couplings look the best bet yet but like all couplings using the NEM socket are pitched so low as too look rather weird.

The pockets can be slid tight up under the Symoba "slider" mechanism so, unless you need them to be at tension-lock height, you can have the couplers much higher, and even invert the pocket to reduce visual impact. 

 

In the Bachmann Bulleid illustrated, the unit is actually fixed to the interior moulding to maximise clearances. The screw ensures the interior remains aligned with the underframe.

[Ravenser]

On 15/12/2022 at 20:38, Steamport Southport said:

 

Altered with parts to make them look like Maunsell though. Look at the roofs. Windows aren't a mile away either.

 

But were they any worse than anything RTR that came before which was what was suggested? Far from it.

 

Short BR Mark Ones and Pullmans, with generic coaches from Farish and that's your lot if you wanted something that was even remotely SR like.

 

I had hoped we had moved away from all this generic stuff. But it seems that some want more of it.

 

 

Jason

 

 

The "SR " coaches in The Year of the Coach were entirely faked. The GW equivalents were not bad , and the Restaurant coach has been the basis of detailing programmes ever since. The LNER teak coachs were the wrong length (57') which is a fatal flaw. Not sure the compartments and windows were thje right width..

 

I've never been clear exactly what was wron g with the LMS coaches. They were correctly 57' , though I suppose the CK should have been 60'. They may have been basic but they did look like LMS Stanier coaches.

 

Before that, Hornby relied on Mk1s painted in pre-nationalisation colours. But these were the scale length Mk1s of the early 1960s, which were good enough to survive in the Hornby range until use for Harry Potter sets finally wore out the tooling. (They were then replaced by the current Railroad range)

[Ravenser]

On 16/12/2022 at 17:43, PhilJ W said:

Thaxted 1913.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the 6 wheelers adapted by the GE for light railways like Thaxted and minot branches like Braintree were

 

- 34'6" vehicles not 32'

- Featured the odd GE "arched window" with round top/square bottom corners

- Were fitted with steps for rail level halts

- The compartment partitions were removed, all but 4 doors sealed, the vehicles converted to open seating in a saloon using turnover tramcar seating, and end doors cut with crude fall plates so the guard could pass through the train , in order to permit a "paytrain" conductor-guard operation

 

Those vehicles lasted at Thaxted until Feb 1948. Two , withdrawn the previous year, were used as service vehicles at Norwich Victoria and Cambridge until 1964/5 respectively.

 

You'd have to do a lot of work on a generic 6 wheeler to represent them - and even then it would be pretty "representational"

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I've never been clear exactly what was wron g with the LMS coaches. They were correctly 57' , though I suppose the CK should have been 60'. They may have been basic but they did look like LMS Stanier coaches.

 

I think the thing that really stuck out to me as a teenager was the deeply recessed glazing - I think the sides must have been thicker that those of the Mk1s, which were separate moldings; the Year of the Coach vehicles were one-piece moldings for sides, end, and roof. I remember there being some unrealistic rounding of the corners, too. The ribs on the roof were grossly overdone, the battery boxes were in a most un-LMS place, and as for those BR bogies... (At least the LNER carriages got something that looked like an LNER bogie, after a year or two._

 

And yes, the CK was too short but that's almost the least of its sins:

 

 

[Embedded link to Hattons image.]

 

Horrid, horrid, horrid.

 

The Triang Mk1 that was the mainstay of the range through the 1970s was a much better representation of its prototype. And I don't think they did appear in Big Four liveries, rather, in BR regional liveries.  

Edited December 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[Ravenser]

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think the thing that really stuck out to me as a teenager was the deeply recessed glazing - I think the sides must have been thicker that those of the Mk1s, which were separate moldings; the Year of the Coach vehicles were one-piece moldings for sides, end, and roof. I remember there being some unrealistic rounding of the corners, too. The ribs on the roof were grossly overdone, the battery boxes were in a most un-LMS place, and as for those BR bogies... (At least the LNER carriages got something that looked like an LNER bogie, after a year or two._

 

And yes, the CK was too short but that's almost the least of its sins:

 

 

[Embedded link to Hattons image.]

 

Horrid, horrid, horrid.

 

The Triang Mk1 that was the mainstay of the range through the 1970s was a much better representation of its prototype. And I don't think they did appear in Big Four liveries, rather, in BR regional liveries.  

 

I definitely had Hornby M k1s in GW choc and cream and LMS red, and they are shown as such in the 1975 catalogue. LNER modellers were offered the Mk1 carcase fitted with Thompson corridor stock sides in a teak finish - that was at least quite close to scale a couple of mm off) and the later Gresleys were arguably less accurate. The Southern had nothing

 

What slightly surprises me is that no-one ever bothered trying to improve the Hornby LMS BTK . Replace the bogies, file down the roof ribs, Finecast flush glaze , and replace/reposition the battery boxes. The job surely could have been done. 

 

Instead , for 25 years they were simply dismissed as "wrong"  and beyond redemption , without anyone bothering to go into any details.

 

If SE Finecast glazing could be sourced I'd almost be tempted to have a crack at one myself, if a brake could be sourced cheaply  (The alternative to make up a proper set with my Dapol detailed CK is an MTK Porthole Brake 3rd kit)

 

Sorry.... way off topic.

 

When they re-run the LNER 6 wheelers I'll have a BT and  luggage compo to go with my Hornby all 3rd...

Edited December 19, 2022 by Ravenser

[Zunnan]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Horrid, horrid, horrid.

 

Absolutely! I preferred the Airfix and Mainline offerings even in my pre-teens. The gangway ends were a separate moulded part from black plastic which slotted into the carriage end, useful for substituting with Comet whitemetal bow ends on the GWR stock if I recall.

 

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The Triang Mk1 that was the mainstay of the range through the 1970s was a much better representation of its prototype. And I don't think they did appear in Big Four liveries, rather, in BR regional liveries.  

 

They did appear in rather unfortunate Big Four guises. R423 was a rather obnoxious BSK masquerading as a LMS Brake First for instance. R623 was the Southern and R932 was the GWR equivalent. The LNER sort of escaped by having those Thompson(ish) coaches.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I definitely had Hornby M k1s in GW choc and cream and LMS red, and they are shown as such in the 1975 catalogue.

 

Yes, a quick google turns up images of choc/cream ones branded Great Western, so I recant.

 

I think the reason there was little enthusiasm for doing remedial work on the Hornby Staniers was that the Airfix Staniers came out the following year and were so much better representations.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[Zunnan]

10 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

What slightly surprises me is that no-one ever bothered trying to improve the Hornby LMS BTK . Replace the bogies, file down the roof ribs, Finecast flush glaze , and replace/reposition the battery boxes. The job surely could have been done. 

 

Because the Airfix model existed, and required considerably less work to do the same job. Plus the CK was the correct length. Generally speaking SE Finecast glazing did the job. Maybe a repaint. You could go to town on them with etched sides too as the ends were part of the body, whereas the Hornby bodies may as well be scrapped completely for all they were worth.