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

[longchap]

10 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

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.

 

 

The problem with Simon Sharkey's attitude to a competitor announcing a new 2721, is that Hornby's reaction would be a re-run of the old tooling with a nice paint job. Cheap and cheerful, but not a contender. Remember their response to Hattons' 48/58/14xx? Regrettably, the Hatton version seems a right pain to work with when contemplating acceptable running qualities.

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

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.

 

 

As far as we know there isn't a re-tooled 2721 in the pipeline by Hornby, (maybe that will be the next surprise?) whereas it seems the Terrier already had a lot of work done but wasn't at the time destined for release.

[Siberian Snooper]

11 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

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.

 

 

It only needs to be announced and sit back and let Hornby do the work, if Hornby doesn't rise to the bait, or they turn out a railroad model, then would be the time for some action.

 

[The Johnster]

Hmm.  I suspect that SK's reaction would be a knee-jerk 'that's our loco, how dare they', and his response might be dependent on how much detail the competitor had suggested in their announcement.  So, an announcemt from a competitor that they were going to produce a 2721/1854 might result in another rerun on the old Hornby carthorse, but if it were suggested that the new model was going to be a high detailed full spec tooling, the result might be a competing newly tooled from scratch hi-spect 2721 from Hornby.  Unless the announcement was from Bachmann, who would either be in the shops in just over 3 months or take the best part of the next decade; either way, Hornby would not have to respond immediately and, in the second case, easily not announce until 2 months before Bachmann's ETA and hit the shops in 6 weeks (remember how fast the Collett suburbans appeared?).

 

My general impression, no more than that and I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, is that nobody is considering a 2721/1854 or any other pannier at this moment in time, though it is possible that Bachmann have long term intentions of bringing their 57xx, 8750, and 64xx up to 94xx spec, coreless motor and flickering firebox.  The state of the market and general dissarray of production and distribuiton post-Covid post-Ever Given is not encouragorative* of producing new toolings, and might not be for some time.

 

This could even see a resurgence of the kit industry...

 

 

*Speilchuker has not objected to this word, so I'm leaving it in.

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by The Johnster

[jamieb]

The 2721 is in many ways a red herring.If another manufacturer did announce a new pannier,I think it's likely they'd choose a prototype with a larger geographical spread,the 2721 class were in fact quite niche locos,largely confined to South Wales,but Hornby modelling them 40 years ago has given the impression of being a far more prominent class.So I think as 'Hornby property',they stand little chance of being directly challenged.

A 2021,850 or Buffalo class were all wider allocated and would have been seen on those all important GWR branch lines pulling passengers and freight 

[The Johnster]

Another box-tick in favour of 2021, Buffalo, and 850/1901 (they overlapped a bit) is that many were fitted with auto gear in the early parts of the 20th century, increasing their appeal to modellers.  These, along with retrofitted 517s and Metros, were the first auto engines and there were no new designs exclusively for auto work until the 48xx, basically a modernised 517.  Production of one of them might play into my hands by providing a panelled auto trailer to run with them, though I'd only be interested in the 850 for Cwmdimbath, and then as a sold-on NCB loco.

[melmerby]

11 hours ago, jamieb said:

The 2721 is in many ways a red herring.If another manufacturer did announce a new pannier,I think it's likely they'd choose a prototype with a larger geographical spread,the 2721 class were in fact quite niche locos,largely confined to South Wales,

 

Of the survivors at nationalisation 17 were not in S Wales but were scattered all over the system.

[Chris M]

Yes.

[melmerby]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Hmm.  I suspect that SK's reaction would be a knee-jerk 'that's our loco, how dare they', and his response might be dependent on how much detail the competitor had suggested in their announcement.  So, an announcemt from a competitor that they were going to produce a 2721/1854 might result in another rerun on the old Hornby carthorse, but if it were suggested that the new model was going to be a high detailed full spec tooling, the result might be a competing newly tooled from scratch hi-spect 2721 from Hornby.  Unless the announcement was from Bachmann, who would either be in the shops in just over 3 months or take the best part of the next decade; either way, Hornby would not have to respond immediately and, in the second case, easily not announce until 2 months before Bachmann's ETA and hit the shops in 6 weeks (remember how fast the Collett suburbans appeared?).

 

My general impression, no more than that and I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, is that nobody is considering a 2721/1854 or any other pannier at this moment in time, though it is possible that Bachmann have long term intentions of bringing their 57xx, 8750, and 64xx up to 94xx spec, coreless motor and flickering firebox.  The state of the market and general dissarray of production and distribuiton post-Covid post-Ever Given is not encouragorative* of producing new toolings, and might not be for some time.

 

This could even see a resurgence of the kit industry...

 

 

*Speilchuker has not objected to this word, so I'm leaving it in.

 

I would challenge that a coreless motor and a flickering firebox are anything worth doing.

A coreless motor has no advantages over a decent 5 pole motor apart from size, the one Oxford put in the later Dean Goods is a retrograde step being inferior in every way to the previously fitted iron cored device.

Flickering firebox? IMHO just a gimmick

[longchap]

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I would challenge that a coreless motor and a flickering firebox are anything worth doing.

A coreless motor has no advantages over a decent 5 pole motor apart from size, the one Oxford put in the later Dean Goods is a retrograde step being inferior in every way to the previously fitted iron cored device.

Flickering firebox? IMHO just a gimmick

 

I think we will probably need to get used to cordless motors, since they are cheaper for the manufacturer, but let us hope that they are sized appropriately for the weight of the locos. 

 

I suspect that daytime services seldom portrayed the brilliance of their fireboxes, so this would not be high on my list for new models, but ease of cab access for detailing would be most useful.

 

Bill

 

GWR, 1920s/30s, 4mm, OO, DCC, NCE, B2B, RAC, MBE, etc

[The Johnster]

I'd agree that coreless motors have no innate advantage over cans; the salient factors are not related to the presence or otherwise of a core.  An ideal motor for a 4mm scale RTR model locomotive must a) develop enough power to overcome the inevitable resistance of the gearing and it's own bearings under load at very low voltages for good DC slow speed control and smooth starting/stopping, b) be physically small enough to hide inside the model while preserving clear cabs and under-boiler detail, i.e. inside the tanks or firebox, and c), be cheap and reliably available enough to the manufacturer, so as to not add to the model's selling price to the extent that the market will not bear or that puts it at a disadvantage with a competitor.

 

The current more-or-less universal practice with steam outline models of mounting the motor level on the longitinal axis of the boiler and driving by a worm gear through 2-stage cog reduction gears to the driven axle, usually hiding the gearbox in the firebox, is fairly effective in this regard and provides performance which is close to as good as we can reasonably expect from volume produced RTR models in 00.  But we can probably expect an increase in the use of coreless motors as these are what are becoming more readily and cheaply available in China where the models are made.  They are not designed or made specifically for use in model railway locomotives, and the Chinese subcontractor manufacturer will simply order in from another supplier quantities of whatever motor is available that suits the overall requirments of the model, and so long as the motors have the same physical dimensions and operating characteristics, minor changes in design are irrelevant.

 

It is useful for the purposes of the discussion for me to now consider the Bachmann 6-coupled mechanism as used in their 57xx and 8750 models and compare it with the mech used in the 94xx, since I have these locos and some experience in driving them, though I am not qualified to comment on haulage since, with the limited loads on my small BLT, no train presents any challenge to any of my locos.  My main concern is with good slow running and smooth stops and starts on a DC layout.  Due to it's BLT nature, I cannot offer any useful comment about top speeds either.

 

The coreless mech in the 94xx reacts significantly differently to the controller (Gaugemaster), and the locomotive starts moving at about '15' on the control knob, whereas the cored 57xx and 8750s set off at around '25'.  The 94xx requires a different technique to the 57xx/8750 mechs, a more 'softly softly catchee monkey' one, as it responds more immedieately to changes in voltage, with the 57xx/8750s having a slight flywheel effect presumably from the rotating mass of the core, so you have to leave them for a second or so at the given controller setting to settle down before making any further changes at the knob. 

 

But it is interesting that each of the 5 57xx/8750 mechs, though each performs satisfactorily to my standards, has it's own particular charactistics and slightly different response to the controller setting.  These differences are minor and might not even be apparent on a layout that only has occasional use, or with a different controller, but I operate Cwmdimbath on most days and this gives one a very intimate knowledge of each engine's particular peculiarities and enables one to adapt to get the very best possible out of them.  It remains to be seen if this is the case with the coreless mechs, and will continue to be so on Cwmdimbath as I have no funds for another 94xx.

 

During the long, long, long, wait for the 94xx (probably not best to re-ignite that particular firework), I was ambivalent on the matter of the flickering firebox.  I decided to wait and see what I thought of it when the model turned up, and can always disable it if I think it's a nuisance.  So when the loco arrived and I test ran it, I found that the effect is barely noticeable with the lower current draws of BLT operation in normal ambient layout-operating light conditions, but a red glow is apparent in night running.  It is actually of some minor use as a ammeter, to indicate what level of current the motor is drawing at any given time.  As it doesn't denigrate appearance or performance in any significant way, I've decided to leave it where it is for now.

 

Real firebox glow is rather poorly represented by it, though.  On a real locomotive the firedoors are normally kept shut except for the actual moment at which the fireman is putting a round on, and shut as soon as he withdraws the shovel.  So a continuous glow in the cab from the fire is unlikely unless they are cooking breakfast, which requires the loco to be stationary and the regulator shut.  On my 94xx, the glow is a rather dull red, and there is a yellow led that is used to give a flicker effect, but only in DCC.  I would have preferred the effect to have been supplied by the yellow led in DC mode, and directed downwards to the bottom of the firebox rather than into the cab.  The impression is that somebody who has never seen a real steam loco in operation has designed something that he imagines to be right, but has got it so hopelessly wrong that it would have been more effective by not being there in the first place,  My opinion (other deluded and mistaken opinions are available) is that firebox glow is gimmicky and pointless and I'd rather not have it, and save the money spend on it.  The difference between a gimmick and a feature is that a feature improves realism and assists with one's suspension of disbelief, while a gimmick doesn't.  Features good, gimmick bad, and an unrealistic or ineffective feature is a gimmick.

 

But more and more locos are appearing with this nonsense, because marketing have identified a demand for it.  Sometimes I wish marketing would just go up the pub where they can't do this sort of damage.  It's poorly thought out, and on a DC Bachmann 94xx poorly executed.  What I'd like is removable lamps that fitted on brackets so that they operated a fold or slide down flap on so that the lamp can be backlit, but this is unlikely until pigs fly, while Hornby play around with ineffective unrealistic wisps of smoke that look as if someone's left a fagend lit inside the boiler, and silly little speakers with no bass are put in to give white noise chuffs to everyone's annoyance and no regared to how hard the loco must appear to tbe working, when this would be much better achieved using postition detection and stereo headphones.

 

I fully agree with Longchap Bill's comment about access to cabs, which is needed to add detail and crew but on some models seems to require the services of a qualified obstretician to get in there, though things are improving.  A separate piece for the cab roof that could be broken out without too much damage and glued back on would do the job.  It is often possible to get at the inside of the cab fairly easily, but is sometimes not immediately obvious, for example the 3D puzzle that one has to solve to get into a cab of a Bachmann 45xx.  Once you've worked it out, it's easy, if a little faffy, and the body compnents go back together simply enough, and the exploded diagram in the box is not the help that it could be here.

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by The Johnster

[Harlequin]

I’m sure there are coreless motors that would do the job. It’s about picking one with the required spec. That’s where some manufacturers seem to have fallen down previously. But equally there are great traditional motors. I don’t think the technology is the important factor.

 

Firebox flicker is simple technology that doesn’t adversely affect the rest of the model. So there’s not much reason to exclude it. Those who don’t want it can just leave it turned off.
 

P.S. Look at Accurascale’s Manor: Standard 3 pole motor and what looks to be impressively realistic firebox effects, possibly including response to the blower.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Harlequin

[jamieb]

10 hours ago, melmerby said:

Of the survivors at nationalisation 17 were not in S Wales but were scattered all over the system.

Maybe so,but looking at the allocations for 1921 and 1934, in each case ,two thirds of the class were in South Wales.The point I'm making is,when Hornby first released the model 40+ years ago,even fewer people modelled the South Wales railway scene than they do now,and it was an odd choice when there were other classes which were more widespread and more suitable for the classic GWR BLT,which was a commonplace theme back then 

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Firebox flicker is simple technology that doesn’t adversely affect the rest of the model. So there’s not much reason to exclude it.

I'd say that that's fair enough but for the fact that it seems that the desire to include 'firebox flicker' in the Rapido 16XX is the reason that the worm drive was mounted on the front axle, thus leading to the ludicrously extended front coupler.

 

[Harlequin]

29 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I'd say that that's fair enough but for the fact that it seems that the desire to include 'firebox flicker' in the Rapido 16XX is the reason that the worm drive was mounted on the front axle, thus leading to the ludicrously extended front coupler.

 

Hmmm, well if so, that’s not good. Maybe better choices could have been made.

So the basic guideline should be: include firebox flicker lighting unless it compromises other more important aspects of the design.

[Harlequin]

Brief summaries of two other 0-6-0 pannier tank classes, already mentioned several times, to think about.

 

Abstracted from @JimC's book:

 

The 1134 class, the "buffalos":

• 210 members (excluding the similar, older 727 and 1076 locos)
• Built originally as full length saddle tanks. Later converted to panniers
• Yellow route availability
• Outside framed (excluding periods when some were broad gauge convertibles with outside wheels!)
• Variation in boilers - domed, domeless, superheating, firebox
• Variation in cabs - open, half, full
• Variation in bunkers
• Variation in chimneys - some with spark arresters
• Some had auto gear and screw reversers
• 1874-1946

The 2021/2101/2181 class:

• 140 members
• Built originally as full length saddle tanks. Later converted to panniers
• Route availability: "Uncoloured"
• Inside framed
• Variation in boilers - domed, domeless, firebox
• Variation in cabs - half, full
• Variation in bunkers
• Many had auto gear
• 1897-1958

Would either of those be feasible as a modern RTR model?

Would one be more feasible than the other?

More feasible than a new 57xx?

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Harlequin

[JimC]

Ah a customer:-) That's what I like to see!

A few 2021s were sold off as industrials, which maybe widens their appeal. If anyone here isn't aware, the 2021 is a 'small' type, ancestor to 54/64/74/16 and with ~4'1 wheels. One might also mention their cousins, the 850/1901s with similar variety but shorter wheelbase. There were 158 of those.

 

The 1134s were a 'large' type, distantly ancestral to the 57s with ~4'7 wheels.  The 1134s also came with different design/class/type boilers which varied in diameter, length and were higher and lower pitched, which changed their appearance subtly but would also make life 'interesting' for a R2R designer seeking a chassis that would fit as many variants as possible. Mind you a R2R 1134 with a chassis that could fit all its cousins would be a great thing for bashers, makers of 3d print bodies etc because there were almost unlimited numbers of variations, although the widest variety was back in the 19thC.

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Brief summaries of two other 0-6-0 pannier tank classes, already mentioned several times, to think about.

 

Abstracted from @JimC's book:

 

The 1134 class, the "buffalos":

• 210 members (excluding the similar, older 727 and 1076 locos)
• Built originally as full length saddle tanks. Later converted to panniers
• Yellow route availability
• Outside framed (excluding periods when some were broad gauge convertibles with outside wheels!)
• Variation in boilers - domed, domeless, superheating, firebox
• Variation in cabs - open, half, full
• Variation in bunkers
• Variation in chimneys - some with spark arresters
• Some had auto gear and screw reversers
• 1874-1946

The 2021/2101/2181 class:

• 140 members
• Built originally as full length saddle tanks. Later converted to panniers
• Route availability: "Uncoloured"
• Inside framed
• Variation in boilers - domed, domeless, firebox
• Variation in cabs - half, full
• Variation in bunkers
• Many had auto gear
• 1897-1958

Would either of those be feasible as a modern RTR model?

Would one be more feasible than the other?

More feasible than a new 57xx?

 

 

WWith regards the 1076 class, there's a further variation, with regards the cabs, the full cab auto fitted locos seem to have rectangular cab windows, at least at the front.  The pictures showing them on auto trains all have these, in the John Lewis book. The only thing no one seems to know what the dimensions are.

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

11 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

The only thing no one seems to know what the dimensions are.

 

Did I do a sketch of the windows in another thread?  (I have a look later if I can find it.)

[melmerby]

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hmmm, well if so, that’s not good. Maybe better choices could have been made.

So the basic guideline should be: include firebox flicker lighting unless it compromises other more important aspects of the design.

There does seem to be a desire, at the moment, for manufacturers to try and squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

A small tank engine in 00 is already a small thing to squeeze in all these built in "extras".

It seems to be to satisfy all spectra of the market with speakers, firebox glow etc, meaning less room for a decent motor and plenty of ballast, so the loco can do what it's made for - pull things!

 

[Harlequin]

There are some good photos of Buffalos here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/search#q=buffalo

 

And the 2021 class here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/18641897-GWR-Wolverhampton-Geo/George-Armstrong-2021-SaddlePannier-Tank-class/i-Xz3DDGM

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, JimC said:

Mind you a R2R 1134 with a chassis that could fit all its cousins would be a great thing for bashers, makers of 3d print bodies etc because there were almost unlimited numbers of variations, although the widest variety was back in the 19thC.

 

Which is, paradoxically, something that would count against potential RTR production, because RTR firms do not want to encourage us to provide ourselves with locos from our own resources, but to buy them RTR.  For example, there was a time when a popular method of acquiring a 94xx that was a bit better than the pathetically-chassised Lima was to use the reasonably detailed Lima body on top of a Bachmann 57xx chassis.  It wasn't perfect but many of us found ourselves able to live with it's inaccuracies.  Bachmann became aware of this by means of their sales of running chassis, and stopped selling running chassis for 57xx/8750; this may have been the genesis of their own production of a 94xx, though it arrived at a speed comparable, and not very favourably, to continental drift.  In the interim, those attempting this conversion had to rely on donor or separate running chassis from the 'Bay, and the asking price went up as demand increased.

 

This shows that the manufacturers do not like the idea of us making our own locomotives using parts of theirs, as their production method is to order in batches of defined numbers from the suppliers and not hold stocks of spares.  So, if Bachmann (for example; they all operate in the same way) orders 2,000 57xx panniers from the Chinese subcontractors, then the Chinese make exactly that number of bodies, that number of running chassis, 8,000 buffers, etc, to complete the order.  Hence you cannot buy a separate running chassis because that would mean that there would be a separate body that was intended to go with it that now becomes a shelf blocker and difficult to sell.  You have to buy the complete loco, which is their intention,

 

Back in the day, when production took place in the UK, models were in continuous production and spares simply taken off the line to order.  The Chinese method does not facilitate this, but has other advantages; it is still probably cheaper to batch produce in China and ship to the UK than to do it here, though the gap is closing, and it is certainly better quality.  We had about 2 decades, 1995ish to 2015ish, of very cheap high quality models that exploited low Chinese labour and overheads costs, which must have attracted many people into the hobby.

[JimC]

10 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Hence you cannot buy a separate running chassis because that would mean that there would be a separate body that was intended to go with it that now becomes a shelf blocker and difficult to sell.  You have to buy the complete loco, which is their intention,

For sure. And its hard to hack up or chuck that nice detailed body to use the chassis as a donor for something different that (unless you are sufficiently skilled not to have to bother with converting R2R anyway) probably won't look nearly as good. In ten or fifteen year's time of course... But that won't help sales now.

[The Johnster]

It is a bit of a problem when dealing with 3D printed loco bodies, which are sometimes not that cheap and to which the addition of a running chassis as well as paint and detailing must be considered.  I suspect most 3D designers cannot afford sophisticated marketing departments and are doing it off their own bats, and I also suspect that many are not getting holidays in the Seychelles on the back of their efforts, so this is not a moan about costs, merely a comment that a 3D print of, say, a 2721 saddle tank as available from Stafford Road Works though Shapeways (Shapeways are not IMHO particularly helpful in the way they operate anyway and Brexit costs don't help much; good intentions badly executed) is not something that the main RTR firms would encourage. 

 

There is the prospect of a number of bodies sharing the same running chassis, though.  On Cwmdimbath, the 'Bay running chassis I bought originally for my Lima 94xx, which has now been replaced by a proper Bachmann model, shares its time underneath a spare 8750 body that has had the vacuum pipes removed to represent 6762, and my old Hornby 2721, 2761, despite the inconvenient but indisputable photographically evidenced fact that 2761 at the time I model her had fluted parallel coupling rods and the Baccy chassis, correctly, has plain fishbellies.  We do our best, but sometimes must accept compromise, and the Horby 2721 is nothing if not an acceptance of compromise, though I've worked her up as best I can...

[Siberian Snooper]

8 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Did I do a sketch of the windows in another thread?  (I have a look later if I can find it.)

 

If you did,  I don't remember it.  Looking forward to you finding it.