Rapido LB&SCR Class E1 0-6-0T

[JSpencer]

As both the Bachmann C Class and I except the Hattons P Class will demonstrate I'm not convinced that the number of real engines built has that much bearing on how well the model sells. A long working life in various guises is probably more relevant to model sales.

 

 

That and the fact you can still see the prototype in question. Note that the B4s and Ps carry extra lamp irons even when done in purely pre-grouping (non-preserved) colours.

 

Rolling stock must be the hole now but SECR birdcages are still to be found. I have toyed with doing a pre-grouping SECR layout but could more easily do the Bluebell line and still have SECR/LCDR/SER items running on it alongside some later liveries and be perfectly technically correct.

[Oldddudders]

OD

If you had a want to get an E1 next to a Pannier, I think that you could model South Lambert and Battersea Goods.

The GWR ran milk and goods trains via the WLER to Battersea The only photo of one of these trains that I've found is of a milk train with a 517 at the front, but I wouldn't mind betting that panniers were used on goods trains, once panniers existed.

Clearly SECR locos could be present, and the SR used some ex-LSWR types there too, to cope with very sharp curve into a milk depot that probably didn't exist when the map below was drawn.

Good place to use as inspiration for an 'underneath the arches' layout for lots of small engines.

Looks very American in the photo, doesn't it?

K

A place I knew quite well, Kevin! First in my days of covering the post of Yard Manager at Stewarts Lane 40 years ago, and then a decade later when the decommissioning of Battersea power station required a new boiler house to provide substitute heating to flats on the north (yes!) side of the river, and we had to shorten the headshunt to enable its construction. Even then there were still strong hints of South Lambeth’s GWR origins in canopy valences etc. These “foreign” implants in Southern territory do add opportunities for unexpected workings. Knights Hill sidings at Dulwich, which were LNWR, I think, are another example.

[Edwardian]

Depends what you call "modern"; E1s were being displaced even prior to WW1. Their main replacements were the E2 and E4 classes, required to handle increasing loads, with some E1s then going onto shunting duties previously covered by Terriers, which were sold or scrapped in turn.

 

E1s were fast becoming surplus to requirements even by the mid-1920s, with sales to industry and the ten rebuilt into 0-6-2 tanks for use in the West Country being indicators that there was, by then, only suitable work for around half the class in their original form. 

 

Later, the 30 or so inherited at nationalisation dwindled to less than a dozen by 1955. This small rump was easily displaced by newer redundant locos, Ivatt 2MTs, Drewry diesels or simply the loss of traffic.

 

John

 

Indeed, but again showing the fact that Panniers and E1s hold no meaningful comparisons! 

 

The Es always seem to have been largely mixed traffic, but were conceived to haul goods trains and to do so over longer distances than were Panniers, hence the latter did not need to grow in size to meeting increasing traffic demands.

 

 

That and the fact you can still see the prototype in question. Note that the B4s and Ps carry extra lamp irons even when done in purely pre-grouping (non-preserved) colours.

 

Rolling stock must be the hole now but SECR birdcages are still to be found. I have toyed with doing a pre-grouping SECR layout but could more easily do the Bluebell line and still have SECR/LCDR/SER items running on it alongside some later liveries and be perfectly technically correct.

 

Yes, not easy to run a credible SE&CR line based mainly on RTR even now, and coaches are the big weakness. I see RTR as only one of the resources to hand. I tend to view each new RTR release as one less thing to build, knowing that pre-Groupers will never run out of things to build!

 

Frankly I doubt that any of the RTR SE&CR locos so far released would be particularly appropriate companions for the Bachmann Birdcages. As the latest of the pre-War designs, they would have started on relatively fast and longer distance services, I should have thought, so on former SER lines, I would have thought a D, E, of, perhaps, and F1 would all be more appropriate choices than anything seen RTR so far.

 

I have seen a picture of a J tank with a 3-set behind a double-ducket brake.  That's probably what I'll go for in due course, but an F1 with a pair of the earlier 50' 3-sets would be even better!

[Nearholmer]

JS

 

Your points about tooling costs and assembly are probably fair ones ....... a Coarse 0 model and a modern finescale plastic 0 or 00 model are significantly different in terms of the number of components that go into them, and are worlds apart in terms of the fiddliness of assembly.

 

So, logically, the economic batch sizes in plastic 0 or 00 are likely to be higher than in cast-metal or bent-sheet 0 ...... but that's OK, because the market is much bigger too, giving more across which to spread the costs.

 

The ETS and Dapol 0 scale Terriers are the perfect comparison. Very different styles, both 0, one 'tin' the other plastic. Prices not far different, but ETS can go down to tiny batch sizes.

 

 

K

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

JS

 

Your points about tooling costs and assembly are probably fair ones ....... a Coarse 0 model and a modern finescale plastic 0 or 00 model are significantly different in terms of the number of components that go into them, and are worlds apart in terms of the fiddliness of assembly.

 

So, logically, the economic batch sizes in plastic 0 or 00 are likely to be higher than in cast-metal or bent-sheet 0 ...... but that's OK, because the market is much bigger too, giving more across which to spread the costs.

 

What I would guess is that we are talking about £100+ 00 tank engines, but is it better to have them at £100+, or not at all?

 

K

 

I suspect that the required batch number will depend upon whether it is a livery variation, one facilitated by separate components (perhaps), or a different tooling, bearing in mind CJL's comments about needed a complete set of tools for each variant so that the tools for the parts common to more than one version do not wear out first.

[bike2steam]

Given the year on year price increases and Rapidos high level of quality, by then, could we be looking at a £150 tank loco?

 

Too late, already done by Fleischmann !!

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=FM481803&style=&strType=&Mcode=Fleischmann+481803

Edited June 6, 2018 by bike2steam

[PatC]

Well done and thank you very much to Model Rail for commissioning an E1. Coming so soon after the news about the Terrier I'm still in a state of near shock. An E1 has been on my list of kits to build for a long time, fortunately I didn't actually get round to acquiring a kit three or four years ago  as I knew it would be ages before I got round to actually making a start and the drawer full of unbuilt/unfinished kits is getting so heavy that there is a risk that it will achieve enough density to form a black hole. My interests are in rural backwaters, it's unlikely I'll buy one of the atlantics but I can certainly see more than one of these joining my fleet  as I have both  pre group LBSC and SR IOW itches that need scratching alongside esoteric light railways. A very impressive selection of liveries and identities for the first batch as well.

[Edwardian]

Too late, already done by Fleischmann !!

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=FM481803&style=&strType=&Mcode=Fleischmann+481803

 

"only" £200.

 

 For a small 0-4-0T, I think I'll stick with the Hornby Peckett; it's easy to forget what relatively good value British outline RTR generally is. 

[bike2steam]

The only Southern REGION (Note the capitalisation) workings of Panniers that I'm aware of were on the South Eastern Division (Folkestone Harbour to replace the R1's and before them the P's) and out West of Weymouth where the Southern and Western met anyway. None on the Central Division or (better put) the LBSCR. There were times they would have intermingled, such as Nearholmer's example, but none were ever operated there by the Southern Region.

 

 

Interesting, your right about the Central Division, but Panniers also allocated to Dover, Stewarts Lane, Salisbury, Basingstoke, Feltham, and Nine Elms between 1959 and 1964.

[Oldddudders]

it's easy to forget what relatively good value British outline RTR generally is.

 

Too true. The Tillig plastic 2-10-2s in HOm (i.e. 1:87 scale on 12 mm track) I have acquired recently are well past £300 each, DCC-ready.

[Dunsignalling]

Indeed, but again showing the fact that Panniers and E1s hold no meaningful comparisons! 

 

The Es always seem to have been largely mixed traffic, but were conceived to haul goods trains and to do so over longer distances than were Panniers, hence the latter did not need to grow in size to meeting increasing traffic demands.

 

 

 

 

On the GWR and WR, "modern replacements" didn't really come along until the very eve of nationalisation, with the 15xx and 94xx classes..

 

All other "new" Panniers built under Churchward and later (including the BR 16xx) were products of evolution from Dean saddle tanks. The old-established designs were just tidied up and given a bit of standardisation by the drawing office. Most new-build panniers were straight substitutes for worn-out old ones, and little different but for a few superficial details, like cabs and top-feed.

 

The reason Panniers didn't get "stretched", (though the 56xx almost qualifies but for having side tanks, and the fact that their valleys origins are clear), was simply that the GWR generally preferred tender locos for longer-range work. I'd suggest that was because GWR goods trains were far more likely to spend time 'looped' in places without a water supply than those on the LBSCR. 

 

John

Edited June 6, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[adb968008]

"only" £200.

 

For a small 0-4-0T, I think I'll stick with the Hornby Peckett; it's easy to forget what relatively good value British outline RTR generally is.

 

I refer the honourable Edwardian to my post below.. £450... that was in 2009 back when the £ had some value left in it.

 

Not just O gauge...

This ready to run HO gauge beauty was a production run of just 50, it had another in black also of 50.https://youtu.be/zD7k3B90u9g

It was nearly £450 DCC ready mind, but it sold out and never seen since.

The manufacturer made around 5 other variants, also in low voltage numbers. I’d imagine there isn’t more than 500 out there even including the main steam editions.

One recently sold in April, in Poland, for 6000zl, that would be £1254 ... clearly the Polish economy is doing well for that price on a rtr loco. My chances of acquiring one for conversion to a pt47 are long gone. I’ll stick with the 3 I have.

 

http://allegro.pl/pt31-32-par-skarzysko-kam-dokp-lublin-sound-brawa-i7290897059.html

 

Puts the SECR C class in the shade at those prices.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[JSpencer]

Too late, already done by Fleischmann !!

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=FM481803&style=&strType=&Mcode=Fleischmann+481803

 I'll re-phrase .... could we be looking at a UK RTR £150 tank loco?

[Steamport Southport]

Interesting, your right about the Central Division, but Panniers also allocated to Dover, Stewarts Lane, Salisbury, Basingstoke, Feltham, and Nine Elms between 1959 and 1964.

 

Which is virtually all the major sheds still open with a steam allocation at that stage.

 

 

 

Jason

[JSpencer]

Indeed, but again showing the fact that Panniers and E1s hold no meaningful comparisons! 

 

The Es always seem to have been largely mixed traffic, but were conceived to haul goods trains and to do so over longer distances than were Panniers, hence the latter did not need to grow in size to meeting increasing traffic demands.

 

 

 

Yes, not easy to run a credible SE&CR line based mainly on RTR even now, and coaches are the big weakness. I see RTR as only one of the resources to hand. I tend to view each new RTR release as one less thing to build, knowing that pre-Groupers will never run out of things to build!

 

Frankly I doubt that any of the RTR SE&CR locos so far released would be particularly appropriate companions for the Bachmann Birdcages. As the latest of the pre-War designs, they would have started on relatively fast and longer distance services, I should have thought, so on former SER lines, I would have thought a D, E, of, perhaps, and F1 would all be more appropriate choices than anything seen RTR so far.

 

I have seen a picture of a J tank with a 3-set behind a double-ducket brake.  That's probably what I'll go for in due course, but an F1 with a pair of the earlier 50' 3-sets would be even better!

 

Technicaly Es and Panniers can be compared. Stroudley was -  say - 30 years ahead of the GWR in standardization, but both railways had a lot of classes that looked similar. Naturally the GWR was a lot bigger than the LBSCR. Even then, I'm amazed the GWR had so many classes of pannier as physically, a lot were within a scale foot of each other in size. I would have thought 2 types would be suffice (one general purpose, one small one for tight spots) with only evolution in the design aspects over time.

[Steamport Southport]

 I'll re-phrase .... could we be looking at a UK RTR £150 tank loco?

 

Aren't the Heljan GWR tanks already that price? £159.95 if you are paying full RRP.

 

 

 

Jason

[sem34090]

 

Which is virtually all the major sheds still open with a steam allocation at that stage.

 

 

 

Jason

Brighton still had a steam allocation at that time, as did many sheds that still had freight duties. One must remember that steam-hauled freight continued quite late, as there were only Bulleid's Electric Locos (Class 70) and the BR ones (Class 71). I know the 33's had been coming on stream for two years, and I think most of those were based on the Eastern Division (Old SECR Turf). The 73's were built during that time frame, so there wasn't much to do freight work on the Central and Western Divisions!

 

Brighton lost it's steam in 1963 and never had Panniers, Redhill had steam until closure in 1965 (no panniers), Guildford had steam until closure in 1967 (!) and never got panniers, Three Bridges had steam until 1963, Stewart's Lane only had the one pannier (4631) and lost that two years before closure to steam in 1963, Norwood Junction lost its steam in 1963 (Never got panniers), Bricklayer's Arms closed in 1961 having never seen a pannier allocated.

 

So there was only one pannier allocated to the Central Division as best as I can tell, and I expect that's what any 8750 I buy will become.They possibly appeared around occasionally due to inter-regional workings and possibly at Redhill (GWR Locos sometimes worked through to there in BR days, hence a well-known picture taken there containing an SR N, GWR Manor, LNER B1 and LMS 5MT!)

Edited June 6, 2018 by sem34090

[Steamport Southport]

Technicaly Es and Panniers can be compared. Stroudley was -  say - 30 years ahead of the GWR in standardization, but both railways had a lot of classes that looked similar. Naturally the GWR was a lot bigger than the LBSCR. Even then, I'm amazed the GWR had so many classes of pannier as physically, a lot were within a scale foot of each other in size. I would have thought 2 types would be suffice (one general purpose, one small one for tight spots) with only evolution in the design aspects over time.

 

Eh? Stroudley was very much a latecomer.

 

The Midland, LNWR, GWR and others already had standardisation years before Stroudley had even designed a locomotive. All had parts that fitted other locomotives to designs that were progressively larger.

 

As I pointed them out earlier. The DX Goods, 1000 locomotives that were identical and built on what was a production line. Built between 1858 and 1862.

 

Stroudley hadn't even built the three little tanks in Lochgorm until 1869. 

 

But you can't let facts get in the way of a myth perpetrated for decades.....

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

Brighton still had a steam allocation at that time, as did many sheds that still had freight duties. One must remember that steam-hauled freight continued quite late, as there were only Bulleid's Electric Locos (Class 70) and the BR ones (Class 71). I know the 33's had been coming on stream for two years, and I think most of those were based on the Eastern Division (Old SECR Turf). The 73's were built during that time frame, so there wasn't much to do freight work on the Central and Western Divisions!

 

Brighton lost it's steam in 1963 and never had Panniers, Redhill had steam until closure in 1965 (no panniers), Guildford had steam until closure in 1967 (!) and never got panniers, Three Bridges had steam until 1963, Stewart's Lane only had the one pannier (4631) and lost that two years before closure to steam in 1963, Norwood Junction lost its steam in 1963 (Never got panniers), Bricklayer's Arms closed in 1961 having never seen a pannier allocated.

 

So there was only one pannier allocated to the Central Division as best as I can tell, and I expect that's what any 8750 I buy will become.They possibly appeared around occasionally due to inter-regional workings and possibly at Redhill (GWR Locos sometimes worked through to there in BR days, hence a well-known picture taken there containing an SR N, GWR Manor, LNER B1 and LMS 5MT!)

 

I did say virtually. They had diesel shunters at Brighton instead. Both the Southern variety and a batch of brand new 08s.

 

 

 

Jason

[JSpencer]

Aren't the Heljan GWR tanks already that price? £159.95 if you are paying full RRP.

 

 

 

Jason

 

I forgot about that but I suspect most got discounted.

[JSpencer]

Eh? Stroudley was very much a latecomer.

 

The Midland, LNWR, GWR and others already had standardisation years before Stroudley had even designed a locomotive. All had parts that fitted other locomotives to designs that were progressively larger.

 

As I pointed them out earlier. The DX Goods, 1000 locomotives that were identical and built on what was a production line. Built between 1858 and 1862.

 

Stroudley hadn't even built the three little tanks in Lochgorm until 1869. 

 

But you can't let facts get in the way of a myth perpetrated for decades.....

 

 

 

Jason

 

Fair comment, I was read that in a book about Stroudley yesterday evening and did wonder...

[Nearholmer]

It's pretty clear that Stroudley didn't pluck the idea of standardisation out of thin air, any more than Henry Ford invented production lines, but each had a jolly good go at taking what had been done previously and 'perfecting the art', and got famous on the back of that, and much else.

 

THe DX goods is a much overlooked animal, though, and I'm not quite sure why ...... probably forgotten, just as mammoths seem to have been for a long time.

 

Relevant here, because Stroudley took the British 0-6-0 goods tender engine 'to the next level' with his own D, which set a very widespread trend, just as the DX had before it.

[sem34090]

I did say virtually. They had diesel shunters at Brighton instead. Both the Southern variety and a batch of brand new 08s.

 

 

 

Jason

An 08 is hardly a direct replacement for an E1! Terrier by that time maybe. Top speed of 15mph - 20mph doesn't exactly make it suitable for more than the shunting they were designed for.

 

Some of those sheds never had a diesel allocation, despite closing comparatively late in the grand scheme of things (1963).

[Nearholmer]

Yes, but ......

 

What were E1 actually used for latterly?

 

They were built as shorter distance goods, shunting, and pilot engines, but even in LBSCR days they were becoming outclassed on goods work, and I’ve only seen pictures of them working the very short trips that radiated from the bigger yards outside London. In London, I think E2 were used in London for trips, and for longer trips from places like Brighton, so E1 really must have been semi-retired.

 

The ‘trunk’ goods services were worked by tender engines or radial tanks from quite early.

 

Nobody much seems to have photographed them working, as opposed to ‘on shed’ in SR days!

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[sem34090]

I think one reason the E1's lasted was because the E2's were so cr@p!