PenrithBeacon Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Given that these were seen over virtually the whole of the Western Region (and then parts of the LM region and the Dornoch branch in Scotland), I'd have said that they would be entirely suitable.Riverside wharves tended to be pretty lightly built, hence the question. If they could be used in such an environment I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a reference. Looking forward to an answer, and then a review of the model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Chris Chewter Posted June 9, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2018 Its great news that someone has decided to make a model of these pocket panniers. However what am I going to do with this! I was going to put a 3d model on top of a brass chassis, as I thought no one would do a 16xx until the end of the next ice age. How wrong I was! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Riverside wharves tended to be pretty lightly built, hence the question. If they could be used in such an environment I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a reference. Looking forward to an answer, and then a review of the model! The very similar 2021s were used on Birkenhead Docks. I think that 16XXs worked there as well, but I can't come up with a definite source. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted June 9, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2018 Don't forget the Irwell Press book The Pannier Papers No.5 for this class. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Its great news that someone has decided to make a model of these pocket panniers. However what am I going to do with this! IMG_0238.JPG I was going to put a 3d model on top of a brass chassis, as I thought no one would do a 16xx until the end of the next ice age. How wrong I was! You may as well finish it. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Chris Chewter Posted June 9, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2018 Indeed. I've got nothing to loose, but I think Rapido will make a better job than my hamfisted attempt at soldering a brass chassis together! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9402 Fredrick Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I'm debating between a BR late one or BR early one, so hard to choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) Good news. A mighty useful (and cute) engine for any GWR layout. I'm up for one. Edited June 9, 2018 by coachmann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 The very similar 2021s were used on Birkenhead Docks. I think that 16XXs worked there as well, but I can't come up with a definite source. Jason Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris45lsw Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 The very similar 2021s were used on Birkenhead Docks. I think that 16XXs worked there as well, but I can't come up with a definite source. Jason The last two 850/1901s - 2008 & 2012 (withdrawn 1958) and the last 2021 - 2069 (withdrawn Apr 1959) were at 6C, Birkenhead, but according to longworth no 1600s were ever there. Chris KT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Good news. A mighty useful (and cute) engine for any GWR layout. I'm up for one. The 16xx is a BR not GWR a loco. Gordon A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBRJ Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 The 16xx is a BR not GWR a loco. Gordon A Only just, and with a very long heritage. The lines they ran on (amongst others) were ex GWR I'd like one for the ex CMR lines, they are the quintessential engine for lightly laid 1950s china clay lines - Meledor, Retew etc etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 The 16xx is a BR not GWR a loco. Gordon A There's always one.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted June 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 10, 2018 Well, I think they were the lightest of the pannier classes, so apart from specific dock locations such as Weymouth Docks, where the 1369 type were used, I'd say they should be OK for other lightly laid locations. They certainly worked in Lydney Docks, for example. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 Well, I think they were the lightest of the pannier classes, so apart from specific dock locations such as Weymouth Docks, where the 1369 type were used, I'd say they should be OK for other lightly laid locations. They certainly worked in Lydney Docks, for example. They certainly worked around the dock lines at Llanelli and Burry Port; even if the docks themselves were no longer in commercial use, there were still industries using rail around them. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1600_Class The axle weight and minimum radius curve are interesting for dock lines. If it is possible to convert to P4 then I shall buy one but I shall wait until it's clear that it's possible to do this before I order. Current prices for models induce caution! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) I saw the 16XX's on the so-called 'top line', the GCR route between Wrexham and Chester etc. The stationmaster/porter was the sole employee on Wrexham Exchange station in 1963 and he suggested I sit in his office out of the heat. I needed a cool down after spending much of the day at Croes Newydd. The peace was broken by one of the 16XX's on a freight heading towards Shotton High. For some reason these little engines with their small driving wheels have lingered in my memory when larger Pannier sightings have not. I hope this initiative by Model Rail pays dividends. Edited June 10, 2018 by coachmann 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted June 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) On axle load they are about the same as a loaded 21T coal wagon, so no problems with access on that count. The minimum curve is 4 chains normal speed or 3.5 chains dead slow, the same as a 74xx. A 15xx was 3.5 chains and a 1366 could go round 2 chains. Edited June 10, 2018 by TheSignalEngineer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted June 11, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 11, 2018 To put those curves into context, 2 chains radius is between the 3rd and 4th radii in 00 Set Track terms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 I saw the 16XX's on the so-called 'top line', the GCR route between Wrexham and Chester etc. The stationmaster/porter was the sole employee on Wrexham Exchange station in 1963 and he suggested I sit in his office out of the heat. I needed a cool down after spending much of the day at Croes Newydd. The peace was broken by one of the 16XX's on a freight heading towards Shotton High. For some reason these little engines with their small driving wheels have lingered in my memory when larger Pannier sightings have not. I hope this initiative by Model Rail pays dividends. I believe they were used on the former GCR Buckley Railway (which I should say in passing is a very interesting prototype providing you don't mind goods only.) The Buckley Railway had very tight clearances and only very small engines could get up there. (For example, J62, J63, J72 and 16xx.) If the 16xx happened in 7mm I'd be very tempted. Delightful little machines. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 I believe they were used on the former GCR Buckley Railway (which I should say in passing is a very interesting prototype providing you don't mind goods only.) The Buckley Railway had very tight clearances and only very small engines could get up there. (For example, J62, J63, J72 and 16xx.) If the 16xx happened in 7mm I'd be very tempted. Delightful little machines. That's a coincidence as I passed another at Buckley. I wonder if a bit of alteration would produce one of the old Panniers.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) That's a coincidence as I passed another at Buckley. I wonder if a bit of alteration would produce one of the old Panniers....Looking at my drawings, although the wheelbase is the same, and the overall dimensions similar (the 1600 is 2 inches longer at the front than the 2021s) in practice almost everything about the two engines is subtly different. Even the pannier tanks are different - the 16s are a fair bit deeper by the looks of things. I think you'd struggle to use any of a 1600 body moulding on a model of a 2021 unless you were prepared to accept a lot of compromise. Having said that a revised footplate valance and replacement cab and bunker would give an impression at a distance. Edited June 11, 2018 by JimC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted June 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2018 An observation after reading The Pannier Papers No.5 on the 16xx. Spare lamp irons. 1600-1619 two in the forward position with some getting a third added later. 1620-1649 three in the rear position. 1650-1669 three in the forward position. Why did the position go from front to rear and back again ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2018 An observation after reading The Pannier Papers No.5 on the 16xx. Spare lamp irons. 1600-1619 two in the forward position with some getting a third added later. 1620-1649 three in the rear position. 1650-1669 three in the forward position. Why did the position go from front to rear and back again ? Different Foremen in the erecting bays? Although in reality it's probably more likely that 'someone' issued a different drawing for the second lot for some reason and then a third drawing was used for the final lot - possibly a complaint had been made about the awkward placing of the spare lamp irons on the first batch so the rear position was adopted on the following batch but maybe found to be even more of a nuisance. The reasons for these sort of minor changes might lurk in some surviving correspondence file but in all likelihood it has probably long vanished. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted June 26, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 26, 2018 An observation after reading The Pannier Papers No.5 on the 16xx. Spare lamp irons. 1600-1619 two in the forward position with some getting a third added later. 1620-1649 three in the rear position. 1650-1669 three in the forward position. Why did the position go from front to rear and back again ? Irwell Press believe that it was done to confound the model railway enthusiasts of the future. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now