Jump to content




Users may see some delays in page loading whilst https protocols are implemented and worked around. We are monitoring this during peak periods. Thanks for your patience.


Photo

Model Rail announce GWR Class 1600 0-6-0PT via Rapido

Model Rail Announce GWR 1600 0-6-0PT Hawksworth




  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#101 dibber25

dibber25

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,883 posts

Posted 29 November 2018 - 17:52

The Scottish connection was an important consideration with the 16xx and I don't think it applies to any other pannier. Also the 'smallness' of the 16xx is in line with our previous releases (Sentinel, J70). I know the 'USA' isn't exactly small but its shape certainly made the mechanism a complex packaging exercise. (CJL)


  • Like x 2



#102 RTD4479

RTD4479

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 12 December 2018 - 15:37

The Scottish connection was an important consideration with the 16xx and I don't think it applies to any other pannier. Also the 'smallness' of the 16xx is in line with our previous releases (Sentinel, J70). I know the 'USA' isn't exactly small but its shape certainly made the mechanism a complex packaging exercise. (CJL)

 

A great choice and I'm keen to have one or maybe two.  But, following on from an earlier post, is there likely to be room within the splashers for P4 wheelsets?  Not a consideration for RTR I know, but does this make a big difference to the design/tooling?  Not a question I've asked before and I'll be interested to know.



#103 dibber25

dibber25

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,883 posts

Posted 12 December 2018 - 20:49

A great choice and I'm keen to have one or maybe two.  But, following on from an earlier post, is there likely to be room within the splashers for P4 wheelsets?  Not a consideration for RTR I know, but does this make a big difference to the design/tooling?  Not a question I've asked before and I'll be interested to know.

 

It's not something that was in the spec. (CJL)



#104 RTD4479

RTD4479

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 12 December 2018 - 22:20

It's not something that was in the spec. (CJL)

 

That's a shame.  If it can't be converted then I'll have to build the SEF whitemetal kit, which is a lot of effort simply to get clearance in the splashers.  

 

Is it too late to include in the design?  it seems such a simple thing to ask for.



#105 RTD4479

RTD4479

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 14 December 2018 - 09:30

That's a shame.  If it can't be converted then I'll have to build the SEF whitemetal kit, which is a lot of effort simply to get clearance in the splashers.  

 

Is it too late to include in the design?  it seems such a simple thing to ask for.

 

Well, no response so I'll take that as a no.

 

I'll close with one further point.  I see Peco have announced they will produce EM trackwork  - flexitrack and turnouts.  Evidently they believe there is a big enough market to justify the investment.  Might that give RTR manufacturers an opportunity to consider making the necessary small adjustments to new models to allow them to be more easily converted? With EM track becoming available, a little more clearance within splashers etc might lead to more sales...


  • Like x 1

#106 jjnewitt

jjnewitt

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 545 posts
  • LocationOverlooking trees and a BR Standard Van body in Trellech.

Posted 14 December 2018 - 09:37

I see Peco have announced they will produce EM trackwork  - flexitrack and turnouts.  Evidently they believe there is a big enough market to justify the investment.

 

Peco are manufacturing the EM track for the EM Gauge Society. The EM Gauge Society are producing it for their members and are paying all the bills; they own it, not Peco. If it was down to Peco alone they wouldn't be producing it.

 

Justin


  • Agree x 1

#107 dibber25

dibber25

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,883 posts

Posted 14 December 2018 - 12:08

Well, no response so I'll take that as a no.

 

I'll close with one further point.  I see Peco have announced they will produce EM trackwork  - flexitrack and turnouts.  Evidently they believe there is a big enough market to justify the investment.  Might that give RTR manufacturers an opportunity to consider making the necessary small adjustments to new models to allow them to be more easily converted? With EM track becoming available, a little more clearance within splashers etc might lead to more sales...

 

I'm not involved in the development of this model, hence my lack of response. I will, however, make a general comment which would apply to most 'OO' ready-to-run but is particularly relevant to those commissioning models, as there is inevitably at least one more financial margin to be built in to the cost chain. Even before design starts, it is necessary to decide the spec, and in this case it's a ready-to-run model to 'OO' gauge. Making it suitable to adapt to other gauges would add to the design time and cost, increasing the end price to everyone. Even if it wasn't too late to include in the design, such things all have a cost. It is unlikely that the 'OO' wheel sets could be opened out to EM gauge, so a complete new chassis would be needed, making it a very expensive way for EM modellers to obtain a locomotive body. (CJL)


  • Friendly/Supportive x 1
  • Informative/Useful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#108 RTD4479

RTD4479

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 14 December 2018 - 13:37

I'm not involved in the development of this model, hence my lack of response. I will, however, make a general comment which would apply to most 'OO' ready-to-run but is particularly relevant to those commissioning models, as there is inevitably at least one more financial margin to be built in to the cost chain. Even before design starts, it is necessary to decide the spec, and in this case it's a ready-to-run model to 'OO' gauge. Making it suitable to adapt to other gauges would add to the design time and cost, increasing the end price to everyone. Even if it wasn't too late to include in the design, such things all have a cost. It is unlikely that the 'OO' wheel sets could be opened out to EM gauge, so a complete new chassis would be needed, making it a very expensive way for EM modellers to obtain a locomotive body. (CJL)

 

Apologies - when you replied earlier that P4 clearance wasn't in the design spec I assumed you were involved somehow.

 

My point about all this was that a little more clearance within splashers of steam locos would facilitate quick wheel swap conversion, something which I believe EM folk do using spacing washers, although I'm not directly involved.  So no new chassis unless for another reason.

 

In my case, yes I would need a new chassis in P4 partly because I'd want to spring the loco, but I'd be prepared to lash out on the whole loco (as I have done many times before) because the body alone is worth having. A big saving in time over making and painting a kit body, and often as good if not better quality.  I was only suggesting a bit more clearance within splashers to make it easier.  My Hornby B17 needed so much taking off the inside of the rear splashers that they became like tissue paper and distorted.    Couldn't move them easily as they were moulded into the boiler.  

 

Anyway I don't want to carry on an argument which is going nowhere so I'll bow out at this juncture.

 

Justin, point taken about Peco but I wonder where this leaves us with the 16xx?  Wait and see if the wheels will fit I suppose.  If not, scrape and hope!

 

Regards,

Bob


  • Friendly/Supportive x 1

#109 jjnewitt

jjnewitt

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 545 posts
  • LocationOverlooking trees and a BR Standard Van body in Trellech.

Posted 14 December 2018 - 14:11

Justin, point taken about Peco but I wonder where this leaves us with the 16xx?  Wait and see if the wheels will fit I suppose.  If not, scrape and hope!

 

Yes I suppose so which is a bit of a shame. You'd have though that it wouldn't take much to make sure there is enough room in the splashers for EM or P4 wheelsets (22mm should just about do) but sadly the finescale market is tiny and manufactures wan't to pay any attention to it. 

 

Even if it wasn't too late to include in the design, such things all have a cost. It is unlikely that the 'OO' wheel sets could be opened out to EM gauge, so a complete new chassis would be needed, making it a very expensive way for EM modellers to obtain a locomotive body. (CJL)

 

But the alternative is to build the only decent kit available and if you factor in the time to do that and then paint it perhaps it's not that expensive a body after all? As Bob says most people wouldn't need a new chassis and new wheels can be had from Alan Gibson but if they don't fit then they might not buy the loco to begin with. 

 

Justin 


  • Like x 1

#110 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,180 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted 14 December 2018 - 16:54

Apologies - when you replied earlier that P4 clearance wasn't in the design spec I assumed you were involved somehow.

 

My point about all this was that a little more clearance within splashers of steam locos would facilitate quick wheel swap conversion, something which I believe EM folk do using spacing washers, although I'm not directly involved.  So no new chassis unless for another reason.

 

In my case, yes I would need a new chassis in P4 partly because I'd want to spring the loco, but I'd be prepared to lash out on the whole loco (as I have done many times before) because the body alone is worth having. A big saving in time over making and painting a kit body, and often as good if not better quality.  I was only suggesting a bit more clearance within splashers to make it easier.  My Hornby B17 needed so much taking off the inside of the rear splashers that they became like tissue paper and distorted.    Couldn't move them easily as they were moulded into the boiler.  

 

Anyway I don't want to carry on an argument which is going nowhere so I'll bow out at this juncture.

 

Justin, point taken about Peco but I wonder where this leaves us with the 16xx?  Wait and see if the wheels will fit I suppose.  If not, scrape and hope!

 

Regards,

Bob

 

Bob, the problem that you had with the splashers on the B17 is going to be the same for any loco with splashers including this 16xx. In plastic, they are always going to be of overscale thickness. If they make them wide enough to accommodate EM or P4, the locomotive, whatever the gauge is going to look very odd head on. See Pacific 231G's comments about many HO models.

 

Only solution would be to make the splashers as a separate part (extra cost for tooling/moulding/assembly) so that it could be easily removed and replaced with an aftermarket part in etched brass.



#111 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 33,482 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 10:03

Aah! Not my work Mike:- Honest!

As I'm typing this, I've just found a photo of 1655 on the down relief at Pontypridd goods yard. even more reason to add one or two....

Googling the 'Coflein' pages takes you onto places like Treforest Estate. One image shows a pannier at work at Willowford. You can see the steam, and you can see the loco & train. Unfortunately, although you can make out a pannier, it doesn't show 'what type' of pannier; shame. The drop down from Maesmawr was lightly laid, on mostly ash from Upper Boat Power station. I wouldn't guess it's a red route!

Cheers,
Ian.

 

Apologies first for being slightly OT.  But mainly for Ian's information although possibly helpful to others -

 

Treforest Chemicals Siding  - All types of engine permitted between Cardiff and Pontypridd were allowed to work in to this siding.  (unless a restriction was later imposed.

 

56XX were permitted to work as far as Treforest Estate marshalling sidings.

 

So in other words the bank down from Maesmawr was authorised for 'Red' restriction engines :o   So what was the 16XX needed for?



#112 MRDBLUE17

MRDBLUE17

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 20:14

Interesting choice of loco and for those interested in modelling Dornoch you might be surprised to find the platform and station building are still In tact. You can walk along the route of the old track bed too.

Mark

#113 tomparryharry

tomparryharry

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,190 posts
  • LocationNewport, South Wales

Posted 20 December 2018 - 22:24

Apologies first for being slightly OT.  But mainly for Ian's information although possibly helpful to others -
 
Treforest Chemicals Siding  - All types of engine permitted between Cardiff and Pontypridd were allowed to work in to this siding.  (unless a restriction was later imposed.
 
56XX were permitted to work as far as Treforest Estate marshalling sidings.
 
So in other words the bank down from Maesmawr was authorised for 'Red' restriction engines :o   So what was the 16XX needed for?


Hello Mike,

I've seen the photo of the 16xx working out of Leiners, previously known as Treforest Tinplate. The private siding backed off the down loop at Maesmawr. As you know, the marshalling yard(s) came in two sections; the first being a portion off the down loop, and the second portion being at Willowford. The curvature back from Wilowford took an almighty tight curve, and finally ended up adjacent to the Distillers CO2 plant, and Upper Boat Bridge.

There are some excellent photos on the Coflein web pages, with lines of wagons leading back to the Wiggins Teape works. I assumed in later days it would be a 16xx, but I've also assumed the earlier 2021. As I've said, there is a pannier in the photo, near to the Treforest Estate station, but not clear enough to assess which type.

I keep meaning to re-visit the area; I've been away for some 30-ish years, so some stuff will have changed. I'd hope that the rails are still embedded, but we shall see.

Ian.
  • Like x 1












Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Model Rail, Announce, GWR, 1600, 0-6-0PT, Hawksworth