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

[Compound2632]

One could ask upon what information this statement is based. Such might include restored examples, contemporary descriptions, or documentation of the types of hardwood used by each company for its carriage panelling. In my post, I used the word "teak" rather loosely to mean "varnished wood", whereas in fact a variety of timbers were used. The Brighton, for example, used mahogany, which has a reddish tinge. I don't know what the Chatham used, but I note that the livery of the carriages built to William Kirtley's specification for the opening of the Hull & Barnsley is described in North Eastern Record Vol. 2 as "varnished teak".

Edited January 7, 2023 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

On 07/01/2023 at 10:55, Compound2632 said:

One could ask upon what information this statement is based. Such might include restored examples, contemporary descriptions, or documentation of the types of hardwood used by each company for its carriage panelling. In my post, I used the word "teak" rather loosely to mean "varnished wood", whereas in fact a variety of timbers were used. The Brighton, for example, used mahogany, which has a reddish tinge. I don't know what the Chatham used, but I note that the livery of the carriages built to William Kirtley's specification for the opening of the Hull & Barnsley is described in North Eastern Record Vol. 2 as "varnished teak".

 

As is often thecase, absolute certainty and definitive evidence are elusive in the case of pre-Grouping.

 

Many moons ago John Watling wrote an article on GER teak. There is some suggestion that both the type of wood used and the effect of varnish gave rise to a different hue from GNR teak. In the GER case it seems to have been a golden brown. You will find that noted GER modellers such as Trevor Nunn have captured the shade. We know that when GER coaches were painted, they were intended to match the teak because the GER minuted that directive. As ever I am greatly indebted to Adrian Marks for his in depth knowledge.

 

In the case of the GER there has been some confusion. First "Stratford  Brown" in LNER and BR days seems to have been wholly different from the Stratford coach brown the GER used to match its teak finish. In the context of the Hattons coaches, see the difference between its GER and LNER liveried coaches. 

 

Second, certain preserved GER coaches have adopted a shade that is likely too reddish for GER coach brown. I was misled by this for some time. Fortunately I have since learnt better, so whenever I arrive at painting kit-built GER coaches, I'll be aiming for the same shade  Rapido and Hattons are using. 

 

 

[GeoffBird]

What about the crimson colour that Rapido are using "post-1919" condition?  Very attractive, but would such a minor line as the W&U have received or repainted stock in this livery?

[Ronny]

On 07/01/2023 at 05:55, Compound2632 said:

One could ask upon what information this statement is based. Such might include restored examples, contemporary descriptions, or documentation of the types of hardwood used by each company for its carriage panelling. In my post, I used the word "teak" rather loosely to mean "varnished wood", whereas in fact a variety of timbers were used. The Brighton, for example, used mahogany, which has a reddish tinge. I don't know what the Chatham used, but I note that the livery of the carriages built to William Kirtley's specification for the opening of the Hull & Barnsley is described in North Eastern Record Vol. 2 as "varnished teak".

 

Did you just ask @Edwardian for his references?

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Ronny said:

Did you just ask @Edwardian for his references?

 

I did. Always a reasonable question: how do you know that?

 

Nullius in verba.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Compound2632

[D3489gibson]

Some of my SECR ones snuck their way onto Cedar Court Wagons Works last weekend at the Bognor Show. 

 

They still look good even parked up in a siding (waiting transfer to a lowloader as far as the imagination goes)

 

Nathan...

[Edwardian]

On 12/01/2023 at 17:41, Compound2632 said:

 

I did. Always a reasonable question: how do you know that?

 

Nullius in verba.

 

There are some things you just can't look up. You have to know them as knows, and them as knows them as knows!

 

The Great Eastern is sparsely covered in print. The Line Society has good past editions of its Journal for members, but patchy coverage on its website and these days its demographic seems mostly interested in BR(ER), so not really GER at all! As ever, I find myself indebted to Mr Marks!

 

Smart @rses who cannot be bothered to read a freely available book on the other hand ....!

[gr.king]

If you cannot produce the evidence to support your assertions then they carry little weight and certainly cannot be taken as authoritative / definitive.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

If you cannot produce the evidence to support your assertions then they carry little weight and certainly cannot be taken as authoritative / definitive.

 

Ah, the error into which you have fallen is to believe that, in the realm of pre-Grouping liveries, anything much can be regarded as "authoritative / definitive". The knack is to gather what references there are, apply a broader knowledge of how things were done, weigh up contradictory evidence, rely upon the knowledge and expertise of those who had access to memory or other sources, and the skill, such as it is, lies in interpreting the results sensibly. Fortunately for you, both Hattons and Rapido understand this, but feel free to reject their prodicts in the absence of footnotes supplied along with the models and on the profound absence of any knowledge of your own on the subject. Honestly, I sometimes wonder why they bother making all that effort. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

Ah, the error into which you have fallen is to believe that, in the realm of pre-Grouping liveries, anything much can be regarded as "authoritative / definitive". The knack is to gather what references there are, apply a broader knowledge of how things were done, weigh up contradictory evidence, rely upon the knowledge and expertise of those who had access to memory or other sources, and the skill, such as it is, lies in interpreting the results sensibly. Fortunately for you, both Hattons and Rapido understand this, but feel free to reject their prodicts in the absence of footnotes supplied along with the models and on the profound absence of any knowledge of your own on the subject. Honestly, I sometimes wonder why they bother making all that effort. 

The subject of pre-group liveries, particularly "colours" is one in which opinions are just that, opinions.

 

Fortunately  modelling the LNWR,  loco livery is pretty straightforward, as it that for wagons (50/50 white and black although their will be some expert who wants to know which shades of both), while carriages are a bit less straightforward. Some years ago I was shown panel from a LNWR carriage under restoration and comparing it with tree samples of the LNWR "Plum" paint available from different suppliers, found that Phoenix Precision was a very close match. The carriage white was also a close match, although I had opted to use a cellulose paint which is less blue.

 

If someone wants to debate/challenge my views they are welcome, but I'll stick with my choices on the grounds that, unless they can provide definitive evidence to the contrary, it is a correct as I can get it. 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The subject of pre-group liveries, particularly "colours" is one in which opinions are just that, opinions.

 

Fortunately  modelling the LNWR,  loco livery is pretty straightforward, as it that for wagons (50/50 white and black although their will be some expert who wants to know which shades of both), while carriages are a bit less straightforward. Some years ago I was shown panel from a LNWR carriage under restoration and comparing it with tree samples of the LNWR "Plum" paint available from different suppliers, found that Phoenix Precision was a very close match. The carriage white was also a close match, although I had opted to use a cellulose paint which is less blue.

 

If someone wants to debate/challenge my views they are welcome, but I'll stick with my choices on the grounds that, unless they can provide definitive evidence to the contrary, it is a correct as I can get it. 

 

I think that's a fair summation of the situation, Jol, and the most sensible approch to it.

 

Some areas have good information, others less do. it's patchy at times. Taking the GWR as an example, we have a very detailed spec for what we think is the 1890s coach livery, but wagons of the same period? I really do not think one can say for sure how much of a GW wagon was painted red or when they started to be painted grey! Like you, I've made my choices on the basis of the available evidence and absent new evidence that shows that's wrong, I'll stick to it!    Some controversises seem intractable, however, and the consensus view at any given time is not necessarily one I accept in all instances. One has to make one's own examination of the available data and reach the most honest conclusion one can! 

 

Phoenix Precision do seem to be proved to have hit the spot pretty often for various companies, suggesting to me that their original research/access to samples was pretty good. 

[gr.king]

And there we have it. The suggestion that GER teak was significantly different from, and consistently paler and less red than say GNR and then LNER is purely the OPINION of some, it is not an established or accepted FACT. Even within one variety of the woods described as teak, colours will vary, and as there are different kinds of teak, with finished colours depending on the materials and processes used, those finishes changing with age, any suggestion that specific shades (such as those used by Hattons) are correct is somewhat fanciful. As I suggested in an earlier post, which miraculously disappeared, the period under consideration is now so long ago that even the memory of the most ancient among us, itself an unreliable record anyway, is simply of no definitive value in this matter.

[Nick C]

9 minutes ago, gr.king said:

And there we have it. The suggestion that GER teak was significantly different from, and consistently paler and less red than say GNR and then LNER is purely the OPINION of some, it is not an established or accepted FACT. Even within one variety of the woods described as teak, colours will vary, and as there are different kinds of teak, with finished colours depending on the materials and processes used, those finishes changing with age, any suggestion that specific shades (such as those used by Hattons) are correct is somewhat fanciful. As I suggested in an earlier post, which miraculously disappeared, the period under consideration is now so long ago that even the memory of the most ancient among us, itself an unreliable record anyway, is simply of no definitive value in this matter.

I'd have thought, although I'm no expert, that establishing the colour of teak used would be easier than any paint colour, assuming there's at least one surviving vehicle (or even just a bit of wood from one?) that can be examined?

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I'd have thought, although I'm no expert, that establishing the colour of teak used would be easier than any paint colour, assuming there's at least one surviving vehicle (or even just a bit of wood from one?) that can be examined?

Probably quite the opposite.

Teak, itself, varies in colour and so does the varnish applied. Then it weathers as well.

In one of my books there is a colour picture of a train with several Gresley teaks in 1938 and it's obvious there are variations, even parts of the same coach are different shades. (possibly replacement panels?)

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, gr.king said:

As I suggested in an earlier post, which miraculously disappeared, the period under consideration is now so long ago that even the memory of the most ancient among us, itself an unreliable record anyway, is simply of no definitive value in this matter.

 

No miracle: it was reported, by me, and removed by the moderators, on the grounds of its personal offensiveness. I am glad to see that you have moderated the tone of your remarks.

 

All I would say is, there is such a thing as informed opinion: opinion arrived at by examining and assessing the available evidence. Such an opinion deserves respect.

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

Probably quite the opposite.

Teak, itself, varies in colour and so does the varnish applied. Then it weathers as well.

In one of my books there is a colour picture of a train with several Gresley teaks in 1938 and it's obvious there are variations, even parts of the same coach are different shades. (possibly replacement panels?)

 

Make of these what you will - three teak coaches, photographed on the Bluebell in November. Possibly some of the variation may be replacement panels as a result of restoration

 

 

The Bluebell's ex Metropolitan Chesham set

 

No undertaking is given that these shades match GNR, GER or LNER teak 

 

Possibly any colour images of "faux teak" on post war Thompson stock might help , if they exist. Doncaster and York would presumably have tried to get as close to actual LNER teak as they could

[Edwardian]

5 hours ago, gr.king said:

And there we have it. The suggestion that GER teak was significantly different from, and consistently paler and less red than say GNR and then LNER is purely the OPINION of some, it is not an established or accepted FACT. Even within one variety of the woods described as teak, colours will vary, and as there are different kinds of teak, with finished colours depending on the materials and processes used, those finishes changing with age, any suggestion that specific shades (such as those used by Hattons) are correct is somewhat fanciful. As I suggested in an earlier post, which miraculously disappeared, the period under consideration is now so long ago that even the memory of the most ancient among us, itself an unreliable record anyway, is simply of no definitive value in this matter.

 

Unfortuately, the world is not so binary as your post implies. There can be a lack of definitive evidence - never a point denied - and yet also a reasoned basis for conclusions and choices made. Both things can be true. I think a reading of Jol's post makes that clear.

 

Yet, for some reason we have a post from you that is somewhat triumphalist in tone, as if it has unmasked with a flourish some great imposture practised upon the RWWeb community. I particularly liked the use of CAPITALS. Most impressive.

 

Of course, I cannot comment upon why you seem so unsatisfied with the choice two manufacturers have made; you do not seem to advocate any alternative colour choice for GER teak, or, indeed, profess any knowledge whatsoever on the subject. I don't usually see it as anyone's right to demand of me the time taken to dispel their ignorance on a point, however, anything that I can do to loosen the icy grip of suspicion, or the fear that in some way you have been cruelly imposed upon, I do freely in the hope that your anxiety on the point might abate somewhat.  In doing so, I once again offer my thanks to Adrian Marks, whose scholarship is, after all, the ultimate, if unwitting, target of your ire.

 

As I understand matters, research was undertaken many years ago by George Pring, a founder member of the GER Society. He established that the differences between the teak woods selected and imported by the GER and GNR, and the different ways the companies finished the panels, created two distinct base hues; the darker, warmer colour of the GNR, and the lighter, golden hue of the GER.

 

In the case of the GER, the teak used for coach panelling was a variety called Moulmein, a fact confirmed by the GER magazine in 1914 .I believe it is also known as Burma Teak. Its characteristic colour is golden brown.

 

 

Sidney Stone, in his late Nineteenth Century book Railway Carriages and Wagons: Their Design and Construction, describes various types of teak. Moulmein teak is given as brownish-yellow.

 

So, while no one is claiming to be definitve here, there is a reasonable basis for assuming a golden-brown teak hue, as opposed to the warmer GNR hue. 

 

As the teak aged, it could no longer support an acceptable varnished finish, so they were painted. Both Rapido and Hattons are aiming to provide models of painted GER coaches and we do know for certain that the GER's brown paint was intended to match the hue of its freshly-varnished carriages, because that decision was minuted. 

 

In my opinion [gosh!], and that of others far more qualified than I to judge such matters, the Rapido and Hattons shade is a very good representation of what is reasonably thought to have been the GER shade. It is no coincidence, then, that it should come out as very similar to the shades used by GER modellers of great skill and understanding such as Trevor Nunn and Graham Overton.

 

If you know better, however, it would be no more than your duty to your fellow modellers to share what you know. Otherwise, I venture to suggest that, if our conclusions remain, in your view, insufficiently precise, it might be that modeling the pre-Grouping GER isn't for you.  

 

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Unfortuately, the world is not so binary as your post implies. There can be a lack of definitive evidence - never a point denied - and yet also a reasoned basis for conclusions and choices made. Both things can be true. I think a reading of Jol's post makes that clear.

 

Yet, for some reason we have a post from you that is somewhat triumphalist in tone, as if it has unmasked with a flourish some great imposture practised upon the RWWeb community. I particularly liked the use of CAPITALS. Most impressive.

 

Of course, I cannot comment upon why you seem so unsatisfied with the choice two manufacturers have made; you do not seem to advocate any alternative colour choice for GER teak, or, indeed, profess any knowledge whatsoever on the subject. I don't usually see it as anyone's right to demand of me the time taken to dispel their ignorance on a point, however, anything that I can do to loosen the icy grip of suspicion, or the fear that in some way you have been cruelly imposed upon, I do freely in the hope that your anxiety on the point might abate somewhat.  In doing so, I once again offer my thanks to Adrian Marks, whose scholarship is, after all, the ultimate, if unwitting, target of your ire.

 

As I understand matters, research was undertaken many years ago by George Pring, a founder member of the GER Society. He established that the differences between the teak woods selected and imported by the GER and GNR, and the different ways the companies finished the panels, created two distinct base hues; the darker, warmer colour of the GNR, and the lighter, golden hue of the GER.

 

In the case of the GER, the teak used for coach panelling was a variety called Moulmein, a fact confirmed by the GER magazine in 1914 .I believe it is also known as Burma Teak. Its characteristic colour is golden brown.

 

 

Sidney Stone, in his late Nineteenth Century book Railway Carriages and Wagons: Their Design and Construction, describes various types of teak. Moulmein teak is given as brownish-yellow.

 

So, while no one is claiming to be definitve here, there is a reasonable basis for assuming a golden-brown teak hue, as opposed to the warmer GNR hue. 

 

As the teak aged, it could no longer support an acceptable varnished finish, so they were painted. Both Rapido and Hattons are aiming to provide models of painted GER coaches and we do know for certain that the GER's brown paint was intended to match the hue of its freshly-varnished carriages, because that decision was minuted. 

 

In my opinion [gosh!], and that of others far more qualified than I to judge such matters, the Rapido and Hattons shade is a very good representation of what is reasonably thought to have been the GER shade. It is no coincidence, then, that it should come out as very similar to the shades used by GER modellers of great skill and understanding such as Trevor Nunn and Graham Overton.

 

If you know better, however, it would be no more than your duty to your fellow modellers to share what you know. Otherwise, I venture to suggest that, if our conclusions remain, in your view, insufficiently precise, it might be that modeling the pre-Grouping GER isn't for you.  

 

 

 

I have less confidence than you in the fidelity of the RTR manufacturers colour selection. There has been considerable debate of the years of the accuracy of some colours, especially the maroon/crimson of BR carriages.

 

My view is largely based on both Hattons and Hornby's representation of the LNWR lake or plum on their 4 and 6 wheel generic carriages. It is, given the possible effect of viewing it on on screen or in printed media, noticeably lighter than the PPP colour I referred to previously and also the colour on the pre-printed PC carriage kits produced several decades ago. 

 

This photo shows a six wheel WCJS fish van on the left painted with PPP LNWR Carriage Lake and a PC passenger brake van on the right. Very similar in colour and noticeable darker, in my opinion, to the Hattons and Hornby offerings. But then, that's only an opinion.

 

 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I have less confidence than you in the fidelity of the RTR manufacturers colour selection. There has been considerable debate of the years of the accuracy of some colours, especially the maroon/crimson of BR carriages.

 

My view is largely based on both Hattons and Hornby's representation of the LNWR lake or plum on their 4 and 6 wheel generic carriages. It is, given the possible effect of viewing it on on screen or in printed media, noticeably lighter than the PPP colour I referred to previously and also the colour on the pre-printed PC carriage kits produced several decades ago. 

 

This photo shows a six wheel WCJS fish van on the left painted with PPP LNWR Carriage Lake and a PC passenger brake van on the right. Very similar in colour and noticeable darker, in my opinion, to the Hattons and Hornby offerings. But then, that's only an opinion.

 

 

 

While I don't disagree with what you say, forgive me, I was absolutely not expressing any such confidence in general. Clearly there are examples of choices that neither you nor I would endorse.

 

The points I sought to address were quite limited in scope:

 

1. Some pretty chin-leading posts questioning a view of what GER teak shade might have been where these posts offered no basis for challenging the shade recommended. I don't like contrarianism. Contrarianism from a position of ignorance is particularly egregious. 

 

2. These two manufacturers have considered the available data and the interpretative views of those knowledgeable in the subject and have lighted on a shade that, on the basis of the available evidence is a reasonable choice, consistent with the tonal hue that to the best of our knowledge would have been the GER shade. It seems reasonable to conclude that they have arrived at a shade within the range of what can be considered accurate in the light of what is known.

 

My interest in the question of GER teak is that I have a number of GER coach kits. Given the periods of construction relative to the date the layout is set, some of these will need to represent varnished teak and others painted teak shade. This has been a vital matter for me to get as right as I possibly can, and I have been helped immeasurably by Adrian Marks, who has been an essential guide to past research on a relatively obscure subject. The manufacturers concerned have had the benefit of this exercise, as close as we could get to a complete answer.  

 

If people want certainty delivered to them on a plate, rather than examining the evidence for themselves and taking an informed view, as you and I evidently do, then they miust either accept the best answer available from those who have quested for the answer, or be doomed to diappointment and should probably model a period benefitting from colour film and living memory. Either way, they would seem to have nothing to offer on the subject other than uninformed dissent. 

[gr.king]

I do not comment or challenge from a position of ignorance, having seen and considered many sources of possible evidence, but I do challenge those who state that a certain thing is so because they (mysteriously) know it is so, when there is in fact no conclusive proof. As for any alleged previous offensiveness on my part, some people clearly cannot differentiate between mildly sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, mock praise, and genuine outright offensiveness.

I don't care what colour the Hattons fantasy coaches are, since they are not proper models of anything, but it remains misleading to claim that the shades of teak as represented on those are "correct". Unless they are of identical material to the real coaches under consideration, treated / finished / worn / weathered in exactly the same way as the originals, then the colour / colours will not be perceived in the same way, especially in different lighting conditions, so the whole concept of a single correct representation of the colour is flawed.

[Northroader]

Some time ago I wanted to replicate the GER “painted teak” shade, and asked Mr. Phoenix Paints at a show for it. He told me they hadn’t done it, as he had never been able to find a proper sample to work from. Mind, I have the view that working from a prototype sample will make a lot of paints look too dark on a model.

[Edwardian]

46 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I do not comment or challenge from a position of ignorance, having seen and considered many sources of possible evidence, but I do challenge those who state that a certain thing is so because they (mysteriously) know it is so, when there is in fact no conclusive proof. As for any alleged previous offensiveness on my part, some people clearly cannot differentiate between mildly sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, mock praise, and genuine outright offensiveness.

I don't care what colour the Hattons fantasy coaches are, since they are not proper models of anything, but it remains misleading to claim that the shades of teak as represented on those are "correct". Unless they are of identical material to the real coaches under consideration, treated / finished / worn / weathered in exactly the same way as the originals, then the colour / colours will not be perceived in the same way, especially in different lighting conditions, so the whole concept of a single correct representation of the colour is flawed.

 

Here we go again ...

 

It is interesting that you criticise a colour chosen from the basis of stating that no accuracy is possible. I note you claim to undertake research, but there is no suggestion that you know anything about the GER point in question and I infer that you did not at the time you chose to criticise the work of others. 

 

Now you say that it does not matter because these are fantasy coaches*. It did seem to matter to you when you decided to sally forth and pick a fight. What you say now, however, only seems to confirm that you have no interest in the product, no knowledge of the prototupe livery and, so, no skin in the game and are simply choosing to flex your contrarian muscles. 

 

I am uninterested in the question of the tone if your posts; it is, of course, ever the defence of the offensive on social media to claim they were only joking. I do not think I saw the post of yours that you complain got yanked for offensiveness, but I do offer this advice for keyboard warriors everywhere; go into a pub and speak to a random stranger in the way you addressed me. If you get punched then, yes, your tone was offensive. 

 

Now, I think it is high time we laid this to rest. This whole piece of silliness came about because you took it upon yourself to require proof of this statement:

 

The GNR was relatively reddish, whereas the GER teak shade, which was replicated by paint once the coaches could no longer maintain an adequate varnished finish, was more a golden brown/light tan.  

 

So, let me be clear, I do not care whether you accept this. I do not care if you think the two manufacturers concerned were wrong to adopt this as the basis of their shade. I am not obliged to show my workings or to do your research for you. If you had had any basis, any basis whatsoever, to question that statement believing it to be wrong, I might have set out the reasons why my conclusion was reached. If you had any need to understand the information behind that statement, like you wanted to buy a Hattons GER coach or paint your own and wanted to understand more, I might have set out the reasons why my conclusion was reached.

 

As it is, you just chose to dispute it, to all appearances just for the sake of doing so.

 

And what happens when I do set out a detailed answer that supports this interpreatation of GER teak? Do you say, 'thanks for spending that time to answer my concern, I can see now why you think GER teak is that shade'? Of course you don't, you just come right back with more of the same.  And you wonder why I ignored your criticisms the first time.

 

So, for anyone interested in GER teak/paint colour and why it is thought to be how it is portrayed in these models, please refer to my earlier post and form your own conclusions. If anyne can add some further relevant data, I would be delighted to become better informed.

 

As for this present argument, it seems to me both sterile and stale and to have run its course. Communtiy members will judge in silence whether we have justified our respective positions, but I do not think we should tax their patience further, do you?

 

 

* You've been pretty darn active in this topic for someone who now claims to dismiss the whole notion of fantasy coaches. 

 

[woodenhead]

@Edwardian Thank you for that well constructed response, my own which I deleted was rather less eloquent.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

As for any alleged previous offensiveness on my part, some people clearly cannot differentiate between mildly sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, mock praise, and genuine outright offensiveness.

 

I know the latter when I see it. 

[TT-Pete]

35 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Here we go again ...

 

My thoughts exactly (and I do love a good livery debate!) /sarc off 

 

Until someone actually develops a time machine and comes back again I think we have to stick with the time-honoured QI Nobody Knows