Is the time right for a new Pannier? If you think so, please add your support and ideas to this thread

[MrWolf]

I've kept several (five I think!) Hornby 2721 panniers for the same reason, plus a rough one which is becoming a model of Steropes, one of the 0-6-4 crane tanks (Becoming very slowly I might add) Being relatively cheap, they're good to hone your loco bashing skills on in the absence of anything else more accurate on the market.

[MrWolf]

If I knew how to do it, I'd build an outside framed version, just because.

[The Johnster]

I also have a Wills 1854, with the original chassis in terminal state, for which I have 'when I get a round tuit' plan to build a Southeastern chassis for; at least this one's got the axles and the splashers in the right place!

 

I'd buy an 850; 1923 of this class was sold out of service and worked in the Ogwr (Ogmore) Valley for the NCB in the 50s, close enough for me to bring in Rule 1.  This one had a full cab and 'H' spoke wheels. and was in wonderfully decrepit condition!

[Harlequin]

14 hours ago, longchap said:

 

Thank you Captain for your comments and I too am pleased to see so many thoughtfully considered responses. I also agree that the existing later Bachmann 57xx and 8750s remain good, reliable models and I’m pleased with the five I have, but there is always room for improvement and I can then stop buying old ones.

 

As an earlier era GWR modeller, I would like to see something more representative of the 1920s, without a top feed. Hornby’s half hearted attempt with their now outclassed 2721 Class updated to modern standards with some air under the boiler and tanks could be popular, particularly if an alternative saddle tank version could be accommodated on the chassis.

 

As for manufacturer, my normally open mind is ever so slightly shuttered here. Regarding reliability, I like the results Bachmann achieve, whereas the design of some of Hornby’s mechanisms sometimes seem engineered with economy in mind over reliability. Having said that, I am extremely impressed with their little W4 Peckett, a pocket masterpiece and such a sweet little mover. Accurascale’s attentive attitude to customer satisfaction is well evidenced by their contributions here on RMWeb and I am looking forward to their first steam loco, although it’s on the extreme limit of my pre-war modelling period.

 

In short, I really do think that a newly tooled Pannier could be very popular product. Let’s face it, how many Western modellers would not consider buying one, possibly more?

 

Bill

 

The Achilles heel of the Bachmann 57xx /8750 Panniers, as good as they may be, is that horrible moulded topfeed, though. That is one of the main reasons why there's any talk of a new RTR pannier model, isn't it?

 

You're right about the Hornby Pecketts - they are wonderful little things. I wonder if they originated from a particular designer or design team within (or without) Hornby? Or maybe there was something else different about that project that resulted in that little pearl being produced by the oyster.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Harlequin

[Captain Kernow]

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

The Achilles heel of the Bachmann 57xx /8750 Panniers, as good as they may be, is that horrible moulded topfeed, though. That is one of the main reasons why there's any talk of a new RTR pannier model, isn't it?

Perhaps, but the main driver for me is seeing what other companies (and Bachmann themselves) can now do, which is why I immediately think of Accurascale, when considering who I would like to see produce an updated 57XX.

 

[longchap]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Maybe worth a moment's pause before binning your Hornby 2721s, Longchap.  Firstly, while there is only so much you do to a model with such fundamental problems, what you can do is a good bit more than nothing!  Mine has had the risible chimney and safety valve bonnet replaced by items I happened to have on hand from a scrapped Westward 64xx, which also provided the dome, and with replacement buffers, etched number plates, cab window glazing, lamp irons, real coal, smokebox dart and a Modelu crew, she looks a good bit better than when I bought her.  I've also made a canvas weather sheet (painted aly foil) for a reason I'll come to i the next paragraph.

 

It had the later type of Hornby generic Jinty chassis with front axle drive and sprung rear axle, but I failed to get the required level of decent slow running and smooth stops and starts whatever I did to fettle this chassis, so I gave up and replaced it with a Bachmann 57xx chassis from the Bay.  I also cut away as much of the plastic boiler skirts as possible; you have to trim this in order to clear the Baccy motor but it improves the appearance and allows daylight beneath the boiler so is worth doing from that point of view as well.  This has transformed the performance, and she is now as good a runner as any Baccy pannier, but Baccy drive their panniers on the rear axle through a worm and two-stage reduction cog setup which requires clearance to be cut on the backhead for the worm in the area of the firehole.  In order to hide this, the crew are positioned in the cab doorways and the canvas sheet deployed, not an unlikely situation in the South Wales climate of Cwmdimbath.

 

A minor drawback to this is that my chosen prototype, 2761, had parallel fluted coupling rods which were correct as Hornby made the model, though of course the axle, and hence crankpin, spacing was wrong for a 2721.  The Baccy 57xx chassis has the correct axle spacing for a 2721, but plain fishbelly coupling rods.  Some 2721s were given such coupling rods at various stages in their careers, even as saddle tanks, but 2761 in her final period at Tondu (withdrawn 31/3/1950) did not, shown by photographs of her at Swindon on the reception roads and the dump shortly afterwards.  I've decided life is too short to worry about this.

 

Secondly, the way in which the Hornby have tooled the bodyshell of the 2721, at least the later version that I have, means that the top of the tanks including the smokebox, chimeny, dome, top of firebox, and safety valve bonnet, and the top part of the tank sides can be separated from the bottom part of the tank sides and the rest.  Tomparryharry of this parish, with whom I have discussed this matter over a beer or three, reckons that this gives it potential as a complete replacement top piece for Bachmann 57xx or 8750 if you want a model without a top feed, and lining the two models up against each other suggests that he is right.  The 2721 has no top feed an none of the associated plumbing, and you would still have to remove the pipery just about the injectors, but it is a vaible alternative to carving off the top feed and the plumbing and, worse, making good the scar to an accepctable standard, which is what I did with 5797, and might be worth considering if you have an old 2721 lying around in a scrap box that you have no other use for.

 

Despite the improvements I've made to my 2721 pannier, and my current level of satisfaction with it,  I'd replace it in a heartbeat if some kind RTR firm were to make one in 4mm to current standards of scale, performance, and detail; I'd replace it in a heartbeat with an 1854 pannier to similar standards as well.

 

I can see that these classes are potentially a problem for manufacturers, though.  There were so many variations and combined permutations of cabs, bunkers, coupling rods, lamp iron positions, coal rail/no coal rails, saddle tanks, pannier tanks, reversions to saddle tank on acquistion of round topped firebox boiler after period spent as saddle tank, and liveries, that any model that was  produced would invite criticism from those who wanted one in a different form, and the wait for the exact combination of features you want might be considerable as all the other ones are worked through.  The classes were long lived and went through all sorts of rebuildings and alterations, despite being small in number compared to the 57xx/8750s that followed  them.  I believe some even had top feeds, though not as sadde tanks...

 

Thanks Johnster and far from dismissing my two 2721s, I fully intend to update the newish Railroad version having the modern drivetrain and finer detail and finish and will be using the Swansea Railway Modellers Group’s "how-to" as a good starting point: https://srmg.org.uk/detailing-hornbys-ancient-opencab-pannier

 

I also have a similar, as yet unidentified white metal open cab body from an auction job-lot and this will eventually sit on a suitable chassis.

 

Also being a fan of outside framed Panniers, I should be able to build my 1076 Buffalo Pannier before an RTR version hits the market.

 

Bill

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

The Achilles heel of the Bachmann 57xx /8750 Panniers, as good as they may be, is that horrible moulded topfeed, though. That is one of the main reasons why there's any talk of a new RTR pannier model, isn't it?

 

 

Why is it horrible? The top feeds on the 57/87 and 64xx are correct prototypically and dimensionally. They provide the manufacturer with the biggest opportunity for number and livery variants, without them it significantly reduces the available pool of locomotives to choose from, particularly in BR liveries. I’d expect any new tool to include top feeds first, to recover development costs of new tools as promptly as possible.

It’s not the hardest job to remove them from any of the existing models anyway.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Why is it horrible? The top feeds on the 57/87 and 64xx are correct prototypically and dimensionally. They provide the manufacturer with the biggest opportunity for number and livery variants, without them it significantly reduces the available pool of locomotives to choose from, particularly in BR liveries. I’d expect any new tool to include top feeds first, to recover development costs of new tools as promptly as possible.

It’s not the hardest job to remove them from any of the existing models anyway.

 

I feel like I'm stepping into a minefield here but my understanding was that not all members of the class(es) had topfeeds (and that the topfeed covers changed shape in 1942) and this is why many modellers want to remove/replace them for their particular loco and period. Right?

 

But removing the topfeed cover moulding and the feed pipes is a job that many people on this forum seem to be unhappy with, for fear of doing more damage than intended to other details.

 

That's why I suggested the topfeed on the Bachmann 57xx/8750 is its Achilles heel. And just to clarify, what I was driving at was that other manufacturers need to make any new product different/better/more adaptable than the existing panniers to find a viable market and the variations in topfeeds is one area well worth targetting for any pannier class. If we keep saying the Bachmann panniers are actually very good and not that difficult to modify there's much less reason for anyone to make a new version!

 

Surely a mould with a "slide" to optionally include the topfeed is feasible, with feed pipes added as separate details?

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Harlequin

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

I feel like I'm stepping into a minefield here but my understanding was that not all members of the class(es) had topfeeds (and that the topfeed covers changed shape in 1942) and this is why many modellers want to remove/replace them for their particular loco and period. Right?

 

Partly correct. The two types of boiler for the 57xx ‘family’ are back feed (original) or top feed (Bachmann style) 1942 introduction, standard new build 1944 onwards. There’s no discernible shape change of top feeds covers that I’m aware of, as they were built by the GWR/BR and contractors, the standardisation allowed for flexibility of maintenance swaps. Because of the standardised fittings, it means that some original top feed loco’s subsequently received back feed boilers and vice versa at overhaul. For us modellers the easy recogniseable feature is top feed/no top feed and a different injector. You’ll note in historical images no top feed fitted GWR livery locomotives prior to 1942.

 

Undoubtedly a manufacturer could produce both varieties with your proposal of a different slide and add pipes at the manufacturer build. I suspect the ‘easy’ way of doing that wouldn’t be a economical manufacturing build due to added assembly costs. But following your example of people not wanting to modify their locos, the earlier proposals of customer fitting top feeds, falls at that first hurdle.

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, longchap said:

 

Thanks Johnster and far from dismissing my two 2721s, I fully intend to update the newish Railroad version having the modern drivetrain and finer detail and finish and will be using the Swansea Railway Modellers Group’s "how-to" as a good starting point: https://srmg.org.uk/detailing-hornbys-ancient-opencab-pannier

 

I also have a similar, as yet unidentified white metal open cab body from an auction job-lot and this will eventually sit on a suitable chassis.

 

Also being a fan of outside framed Panniers, I should be able to build my 1076 Buffalo Pannier before an RTR version hits the market.

 

Bill

My 2721 is one of the first, R059. It has an X04 motor and a box that says Made in England by Rovex Limited.

[Barclay]

It seems to me that with the Bachman 57xx and 8750 which are, at least, pretty decent mouldings, and can always be improved with a Comet chassis, a manufacturer contemplating doing another one would be better going with an older and smaller pannier type, such as the 850/1901 class. An ideal selection for an inter war layout, with some surviving into the 50's. Very distinctive with the unequal wheelbase, and the same basic model could be produced as a saddle tank or a pannier; H-spoke or conventional wheels; half cab or enclosed; Wolverhampton bunker or Swindon pattern.

[MrWolf]

40 minutes ago, Barclay said:

It seems to me that with the Bachman 57xx and 8750 which are, at least, pretty decent mouldings, and can always be improved with a Comet chassis, 

 

If anyone needed evidence of how good the old Bachmann bodies are, you only have to check eBay where dealers are asking the better part of £50 for secondhand bodies. 

Which seems to be about the average price of a complete, boxed runner.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Barclay said:

It seems to me that with the Bachman 57xx and 8750 which are, at least, pretty decent mouldings, and can always be improved with a Comet chassis, a manufacturer contemplating doing another one would be better going with an older and smaller pannier type, such as the 850/1901 class. An ideal selection for an inter war layout, with some surviving into the 50's. Very distinctive with the unequal wheelbase, and the same basic model could be produced as a saddle tank or a pannier; H-spoke or conventional wheels; half cab or enclosed; Wolverhampton bunker or Swindon pattern.

Really?

Maybe brake rigging detail & suchlike but it's a lovely runner to start with.

I actually did a Comet chassis to go with a Bachmann body, but reverted to a Bachmann chassis, The Comet chassis, a bit modified, now sit's under the Wills 1854 body.

 

As regards the 850 etc  series, even the saddle tanks vary (3 or 5 section), the position of handrails & knobs, the injectors etc. etc.

I reckon you could probably model 20 or more locos each a different variation.

Many saddle tanks also never carried any insignia, just plain green with numbers.

Edited January 18, 2022 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

I feel like I'm stepping into a minefield here but my understanding was that not all members of the class(es) had topfeeds (and that the topfeed covers changed shape in 1942) and this is why many modellers want to remove/replace them for their particular loco and period. Right?

 

That's pretty much the situation as I see it, Harlequin.  As PMP says, it is not beyond the wit of man to remove the offending atricles.  Classes affected are 57xx/8750 and variations, 54xx, 64xx, 74xx, 48xx/14xx, 58xx, 90xx, and Dean Goods.  Where I am in disagreement with him on this particular subject is in the matter of alterenative toolings, as recently introduced products have shown that differences can be catered for.  For example, Bachmann's 94xx is available to represent the original GW build with the cover plate over the valve chests beneath the smokebox and the BR-built outside contractor locos with works plates on the leading splashers and the valve chests uncovered like barmaids' wibbly wobblies between the front plate frames.  Hornby have provided different chimneys and skirts/no skirts options on A4s, and have done for some time, so it looks to me as if it is not a dealbreaking issue for RTR companies, especially with the 'batch' nature of Chinese sub-contractor production.  But, whether I agree with him or not, he is an experienced and knowledgable modeller whose opinion should be respected.

 

Because the locos could be overhauled at main works in less time than it took to overhaul the boiler and have it hydraulically tested and certified, and in order to return locos to revenue service and free up erecting shop bays (trust me, nobody wants problems with their erections),  boilers got swapped around between locos of the classes that they would fit, which meant in practice that as more new boilers were built with top feeds they found their way onto older locomotives in the fleet more frequently, and represented a higher proportion of the boiler pool, so it became less likely over time that plain boilers were fitted to locos undergoing overhaul.  In the final years of WR steam, the lessening of numbers of locos in service contributed further to this likelihood, but never eliminated it completely

 

But TTBOMK there was no policy governing this, simply that in particular with the 8750s, which were still being built in quantity until 1949 to replace older panniers and to an extent pre-grouping South Wales 0-6-2Ts, there were more topfeed boilers available, and they came to outnumber plain boilers over time.  Despite this, there seem no way of tracing what sort of boiler was fitted to any particular locomotive beyond dated and provenanced photographic evidence or reasonable extrapolation.  Taking Tondu's 9660 as an example, in 1957 this loco had a top feed boiler and was in BR plain black/unicyling lion livery, but in 1962, with the livery now BR plain black/ferret and dartboard proving that it had been overhauled during the intervening years following the introduction of that totem in 1958, it had a 'plain' boiler.

 

What I mean by 'reasonable extrapolation' in the absence of photographic evidence, in which case  you have to resort to best guess, would be for example assuming that a loco of the above classes had a top feed boiler with the likelihood of your being correct increasion over time.  If you were modelling, for example, 1947 as a period, it would be a stone cold certainty that locomotives built after topfeeds were introduced (1935?), as they were fitted with them from new, but older locomotives, which means all of the 57xx type, are more likely to have plain boilers, but some will have had top feed boilers fitted.  This obeys the basic pannier principle that all locos obey all the rules all the time, except for when they don't...

 

By the mid 50s, more of the pre-1935 locos will be released into traffic from overhauls with top feed boilers and a proportion of the post-1935 builds will have acquired plain boilers.  Keeping up at the back?  I model a semi-fictitious location (real place that never had a railway except in the Johnsterverse) that would have been covered by Tondu shed between 1948 and 1958, and am looking for an 8750 without a topfeed in this period (so 9660 is highly unlikely) to model.  I found good photographic evidence of a Tondu 57xx, 5797, which also features a different position for the top front lamp bracket, on the upper part of the smokebox door.  I've seen photos of this on other locos, but have no idea why it was done; makes a nice variation, though.  Of course, smokebox doors mostly stayed with their smokeboxes which were part of the boiler, so probably migrated around the fleet.  I've modelled this loco by removing the top feed and associated plumbing.

 

I understand why some people are reluctant to attack and potentially spoil through their own fault a model that is a good representation of it's prototype with an Exacto; it's brutal and feels destructive, everything that modelling isn't.  But, if you hold your nerve, it is not difficult to cut the topfeed off and pare the pipework away.  The hard part of the job is making good and restoring the damaged surface, as one has to file and rub it down without further damaging the surrounding areas.  It is a longwinded operation requiring care, patience, and good lighting, and it may be difficult to accept the slight compromise between a perfect finish and knowing when to stop!  It is within the capabliity of a modeller such as myself, and I do not consider myself to be particularly skilled or able; truth is I'm a bit of a bodgerigar.  I can make a reasonable fist of a Comet coach, and once built a loco kit chassis that worked, but there are many, very many, on this site capable of far better work than me!

 

To conclude, yes, I would like to see RTR models of panniers not yet produced (particularly 2721/1854 and 850/1901), and body tooling versions of those already in production without topfeeds and their associated pipes, and with different types of topfeeds.  Whether any of these are ever produced by existing or new  companies will be a decision for the companies, and it will be based on profitability, and I have absolutely no idea what makes a model profitable, though I may make suggestions about what I think will sell, not that I have much more of an idea of that if it comes to it.  Market popularity does not equal profit.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

 

As regards the 850 etc  series, even the saddle tanks vary (3 or 5 section), the position of handrails & knobs, the injectors etc. etc.

Not to mention plain or H spoke wheels, different cabs, different bunkers, etc. etc.  These Wolverhampton classes were originally built at a time when locomotives were individually contructed to a set of drawings but could be made with all sorts of differences according to what was handy in the stores or even how they did on that particular shift.  Then they were rebuilt to different configurations over time, major components got swapped around, etc. etc.  Not so much classes as collections of engines with a similar origin and similar dimensions.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Not to mention plain or H spoke wheels, different cabs, different bunkers, etc. etc.  s.

Which was what the post I was replying to was about

[Captain Kernow]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

Really?

Maybe brake rigging detail & suchlike but it's a lovely runner to start with.

I actually did a Comet chassis to go with a Bachmann body, but reverted to a Bachmann chassis, The Comet chassis, a bit modified, now sit's under the Wills 1854 body.

You can improve the thickness of the brake pull rods by scraping material off the back with a curved scalpel blade (I use a Swann Morton No.10 blade) and that improves the appearance quite a lot.

 

The Bachmann 57XX chassis has an advantage over many other RTR 0-6-0 chassis by virtue of the sprung centre drivers. This helps with electrical pick up.

 

I appreciate that for some, the idea of building an etched chassis kit to go under an RTR body can seem like a lot of extra work for little apparent benefit, especially if the loco is running on an OO layout (as opposed to EM or P4, I mean).

 

Unfortunately (for me), I have found that the smooth, slow running qualities of Bachmann steam loco chassis varies widely, with some running really nicely straight out of the box and others continuing to run like dogs, even after extensive running in.

 

This varies between loco types (eg. 57XX and 64XX) and also between examples of the same class. For example, I bought two 64XXs a few years ago. One chassis runs reasonably well and the other never really improved, despite many, many hours on both a rolling road and a circle of track. That latter loco was eventually converted to become the 74XX I mentioned earlier in this thread and I found it necessary to build a High Level chassis, in OO, just to achieve the kind of smooth, slow running that I was looking for.

 

[Captain Kernow]

18 hours ago, MrWolf said:

If anyone needed evidence of how good the old Bachmann bodies are, you only have to check eBay where dealers are asking the better part of £50 for secondhand bodies. 

Really? How exciting!

 

Where's me box of spare loco bodies?!

 

 

 

 

 

(Only joking, I plan to use all my 57XX bodies, you can never have too many panniers).

 

[MrWolf]

Really.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-GWR-57XX-8750-PANNIER-TANK-GREEN-LOCO-BODY-ONLY-No-5-/144369986034?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l6249&mkrid=710-127635-2958-0

 

There's at least two others. 

[longchap]

2 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Really.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-GWR-57XX-8750-PANNIER-TANK-GREEN-LOCO-BODY-ONLY-No-5-/144369986034?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l6249&mkrid=710-127635-2958-0

 

There's at least two others. 

 

Yep, I noticed this guy last night, who seems to be reselling used locos after splitting chassis from body! Multiple Panniers and 14xxs seem a favourite money spinning tool!

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/mr_mike121/m.html?item=144369986034&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m3561.l2562

[MrWolf]

Yep. £64 with the post for a Jinty chassis, £23 for the empty box from an 8750....

 

What a rob dog.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, longchap said:

 

Yep, I noticed this guy last night, who seems to be reselling used locos after splitting chassis from body! Multiple Panniers and 14xxs seem a favourite money spinning tool!

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/mr_mike121/m.html?item=144369986034&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m3561.l2562

At one of the railway shows I go to there is a stall selling broken down S/H models as spares.

It really is a money spinner as the total of all the parts of a loco is probably 3 times (maybe more) that of the complete loco.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by melmerby

[rovex]

On 10/01/2022 at 20:37, rovex said:

So we need one of the current manufacturers/commissioners to announce a new 2721 pannier, so Hornby can claim it was always one of their engines and rush out an upgrade.

 

Actually thinking on this might be a good one for Rapido to announce to get their own back

[Siberian Snooper]

I wonder if one of the other companies or traders announced a 2721 how quickly Hornby could get one produced and in the shops. Perhaps Rails could announce one and Hornby would rush one out like they did with the Terrier.

 

 

[Miss Prism]

With Hornby currently in shark mode, I wouldn't announce anything if I were a rival unless the product was within a year of being on the boat.