WR ‘15XX’ 0-6-0PT - 00 Gauge

[AY Mod]

I've given up counting.

 

[Chris116]

14 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

I've given up counting.

 

Are you riveted to this thread?

[AY Mod]

I have decluttered the topic, chucked influencers and politics in the bin and feng shueyed the rivets for some good karma man.

[Rockalaucher101]

Cheers Andy. It was getting a bit much in here

[JSpencer]

Mine just arrived. This one is DCC sound fitted so no testing yet. But here are a few picks,  with a couple of other Panniers (Bachmann's 64xx and 8750). She is probably as heavy as the other 2 combined. Another with a USA tank that is said to maybe influenced it. My first Pannier tank was a Hornby 57xx as a kid... now Rapido brings it to a close with the 15XX being the last pannier I shall acquire.

 

Out the box, visually no issues seen so far. Testing on DCC later:

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by JSpencer

[JSpencer]

52 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

I've given up counting.

 

 

Riveting....😅

[Captain Kernow]

@RapidoCorbs - just a question for you, Corbs, if I may...

 

Is there any reason, all things being equal, why the coreless motor in a 15XX shouldn't respond very well to my panel mounted Gaugemaster controller, with the loco running smoothly and with no hesitations, jerks or tight spots at slow and faster speeds, please?

 

Furthermore, may I ask the same question of the Hunslet and the 16XX pannier?

 

Many thanks,

 

Yours etc.

 

Kernow, Capt, (Rtd)

Resolve (that I don't need one) Weakening.

 

 

[woodenhead]

@Captain Kernow You know there are other ways to control your trains than a Gaugemaster 100, some of them involve just two wires 😁

[nsl714]

Yesterday a GWR 15xx arrived stateside for a friend (Hattons' trunk makes it very easy for me to be a 'dealer' for said friend's OO obsession while I whittle away at O scale). I checked it out to see how it was and looks to be just fine. No real evident wonky-ness unless looking SUPER close. Any glue marks are minimal and entirely manageable. Having assembled many an O scale kit, the degree of absurd assembly required here in half the scale makes the little niggles perfectly fine in my view. It won't run until said friend has received it, so I can't comment on how this one behaves. But my is this a proper heavy boi.

 

 

 

I also appreciate that the inherent humor of the Canadian Mothership has seeped over into the owners manual. A very convenient page break after "If you fry your electrics, we will be pleased" and the general concept of "Acts of You" had us in stitches.

 

Overall it's a lovely model, and here's to more!

 

-Zach

 

[G-BOAF]

I can understand that the 94XX were intended to update an otherwise 20+ year old design in the 57XX, but where heavier and therefore not quite as versatile.

Why then were then 15XX built? They have the same weight problems, but aside from the outside motion, would appear to have no advantages over the 94XX (with whom they share a boiler).

 

Were they an attempt to Hawksworth to influence the design of a standard BR Shunter? Obviously this never went further, nor did any small Standard Steam locomotive as the Diesel 08 came into being, along with the closure of many small shunting yards.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

 

Were they an attempt to Hawksworth to influence the design of a standard BR Shunter? Obviously this never went further, nor did any small Standard Steam locomotive as the Diesel 08 came into being, along with the closure of many small shunting yards.

 

IIRC Hawksworth was impressed with the American 0-6-0 tanks bought over during WW2 and noted how the Southern had bought some for use at Southampton docks as the war ended with the outside valve gear and easy to maintain nature of the design being particularly noteworthy.

 

He therefore decided to 'Swindonise' the basic American design with a view to replicating the success the SR had with the genuine US products - alas the end result ended up being very heavy and not as effective as Hawksworth hoped

[Dunsignalling]

The 15xx was undoubtedly a dead end in steam loco development. The 350hp diesel electric was already on its unstoppable march by the time they appeared.

 

Handsome brute though....

 

What I've never fathomed about the 08, given the huge number produced, is why nobody thought to make some of them with a longer wheelbase and 30mph gearing. Not every location needed dock-shunting ability, and there was still a lot of trip working to be done in early BR days.

 

By the time Swindon came up with something along those lines (the Class 14) the need was disappearing faster than the locos were being built.

 

John

Edited September 19, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The 15xx was undoubtedly a dead end in steam loco development. The 350hp diesel electric was already on its unstoppable march by the time they appeared.

 

Handsome brute though....

 

What I've never fathomed about the 08, given the huge number produced, is why nobody thought to make some of them with a longer wheelbase and 30mph gearing. Not every location needed dock-shunting ability, and there was still a lot of trip working to be done in early BR days.

 

By the time Swindon came up with something along those lines (the Class 14) the need was disappearing faster than the locos were being built.

 

John

Class 09 was desiged for a little bit of trip working hence it's higher top speed - was it a whopping 26mph, for everything else there were bo-bos.

 

Swindon were a bit stuck in their ways so designed something classically Swindon - a Pannier for the 1960s when everyone else was busy building bo-bos.

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Class 09 was desiged for a little bit of trip working hence it's higher top speed - was it a whopping 26mph, for everything else there were bo-bos.

 

Swindon were a bit stuck in their ways so designed something classically Swindon - a Pannier for the 1960s when everyone else was busy building bo-bos.

You really wouldn't want to be in a 09 doing 26mph even on perfect track!

 

There was, though the need for a "Pannier for the 1950s" it just shouldn’t have been  powered by steam.

[RapidoCorbs]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

@RapidoCorbs - just a question for you, Corbs, if I may...

 

Is there any reason, all things being equal, why the coreless motor in a 15XX shouldn't respond very well to my panel mounted Gaugemaster controller, with the loco running smoothly and with no hesitations, jerks or tight spots at slow and faster speeds, please?

 

Furthermore, may I ask the same question of the Hunslet and the 16XX pannier?

 

Many thanks,

 

Yours etc.

 

Kernow, Capt, (Rtd)

Resolve (that I don't need one) Weakening.

 

 

 

 

I'm not too up to speed on the ins and outs of Gaugemaster controllers but our engineer told me that we advise against things like H&M Duettes because they don't properly rectify household AC into DC, and are prone to voltage spikes. Similarly we advise against PWM controllers and electronic track cleaners because they do bad things to the motor.

 

That said, one of the controllers on our test layout is an analogue Gaugemaster (I am not in the office so can't check exactly which one right now).

As far as I know the Model 100 is not a PWM controller, so providing it doesn't get spikes then it should be ok.

[Rugd1022]

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

I've given up counting.

 

 

At such close range, that pic reminds of the 5.5 inch gauge 15xx I saw at the Warley NEC show many years ago, it looks good enough to climb into the cab and bung some kindling into the firebox! Far too clean mind you, it needs weathering to within an inch of its life... 😉

[Ian Hargrave]

1 minute ago, RapidoCorbs said:

 

 

I'm not too up to speed on the ins and outs of Gaugemaster controllers but our engineer told me that we advise against things like H&M Duettes because they don't properly rectify household AC into DC, and are prone to voltage spikes. Similarly we advise against PWM controllers and electronic track cleaners because they do bad things to the motor.

 

That said, one of the controllers on our test layout is an analogue Gaugemaster (I am not in the office so can't check exactly which one right now).

As far as I know the Model 100 is not a PWM controller, so providing it doesn't get spikes then it should be ok.

 Just for general information, I use a new Gaugemaster Combi on my tabletop and the performance of the model is simply superb and totally responsive.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

You really wouldn't want to be in a 09 doing 26mph even on perfect track!

 

There was, though the need for a "Pannier for the 1950s" it just shouldn’t have been  powered by steam.

Sadly it seems the GWR spent it's last years replicating the Panniers 16xx, 94xx, 15xx and 95xx - all were dead end but equally at that same point diesels, electrics and variations thereof were all at prototype stage even the good old 350hp diesel shunter.  The real failure was the 95xx hydraulic because an 0-6-0 diesel beyond shunting was not really a desirable loco.

[Rugd1022]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Class 09 was desiged for a little bit of trip working hence it's higher top speed - was it a whopping 26mph, for everything else there were bo-bos.

 

Swindon were a bit stuck in their ways so designed something classically Swindon - a Pannier for the 1960s when everyone else was busy building bo-bos.

 

27mph, and the two we had at Rugby would do 30 on occasion! 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, RapidoCorbs said:

 

 

I'm not too up to speed on the ins and outs of Gaugemaster controllers but our engineer told me that we advise against things like H&M Duettes because they don't properly rectify household AC into DC, and are prone to voltage spikes. Similarly we advise against PWM controllers and electronic track cleaners because they do bad things to the motor.

 

That said, one of the controllers on our test layout is an analogue Gaugemaster (I am not in the office so can't check exactly which one right now).

As far as I know the Model 100 is not a PWM controller, so providing it doesn't get spikes then it should be ok.

I use a (fairly ancient) cased version of the Gaugemaster Model 100 with my rolling road. 

 

Fine with the Hunslet and, I anticipate, should also be with 1501 when she arrives.

 

John

Edited September 19, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Bert Cheese]

Another happy customer here, my plain black 1504 arrived yesterday from RoS and I've since taken a good look at it after watching a few online reviews...

 

Nothing bad to report really aside from a couple of potential glue marks that turned out to be lube of sorts and wiped off with a cotton bud.

All detail is fixed and aligned properly, drain cocks, lamp irons the lot.

The only thing I would say is that the paint on the side tanks is a little thin looking...perhaps a consequence of the die-cast construction though?

I've only got a 3 metre length of straight test track at present. but a quick run up & down with my fairly vintage Gaugemaster controller revealed no running issues either.

 

Well worth the wait as far as I'm concerned at least.

[Dunsignalling]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Sadly it seems the GWR spent it's last years replicating the Panniers 16xx, 94xx, 15xx and 95xx - all were dead end but equally at that same point diesels, electrics and variations thereof were all at prototype stage even the good old 350hp diesel shunter.  The real failure was the 95xx hydraulic because an 0-6-0 diesel beyond shunting was not really a desirable loco.

The 350 shunter had been under development by EE, Swindon, Ashford, and Derby (especially Derby) since the mid-1930s and the 08 design was effectively presented to BR, on a plate, as a fully developed product, ready for mass construction. 

 

Had there been a version more suited to light trip working, Swindon would have had no excuse for building so much face-lifted Victoriana!

 

The poor visibility of the long-bonneted Type 1s when that way round was undesirable and only the EE ones were any good anyhow!

 

John

[AY Mod]

39 minutes ago, Rugd1022 said:

Far too clean mind you, it needs weathering to within an inch of its life

 

I'll pass that sensible suggestion onto the SVR.

 

 

[G-BOAF]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

IIRC Hawksworth was impressed with the American 0-6-0 tanks bought over during WW2 and noted how the Southern had bought some for use at Southampton docks as the war ended with the outside valve gear and easy to maintain nature of the design being particularly noteworthy.

 

He therefore decided to 'Swindonise' the basic American design with a view to replicating the success the SR had with the genuine US products - alas the end result ended up being very heavy and not as effective as Hawksworth hoped

To which one wonders why the GWR didnt just buy some Army surplus as the SR had done, or more closely copy the S100 as the Polish did!?

 

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

You really wouldn't want to be in a 09 doing 26mph even on perfect track!

 

There was, though the need for a "Pannier for the 1950s" it just shouldn’t have been  powered by steam.

Im guessing there are Heritage Lines around the country who are regularly running their 09s at 25mph. The Bluebell uses theirs on occasional service trains running at line speed.

[Stevelewis]

Despite  my 1504  having several parts loose in the  box  when delivered  ( Funnel,  buffers,  steps,)  I have  decided  to keep  it  and  rectify  the  faults  myself, the  reason being is  the impeccable  running  qualities  and  sound  that  the  loco  has.  And its  sheer  presence  when running  even for  its    small  size

 

However  number  1501  had to be  returned   to the  retailer,  it  had  a  couple  of  loose  parts which would have been easily  rectifiable  but  the  valve gear on one side  as loose and  caused running  issues,

 

I would however be  quite happy to order  another  if there  are  any remaining  stocks!