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

[HonestTom]

How about a 97xx? It could be a friend for the Heljan Metropolitan Bo-Bo.

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, longchap said:

 

Hi Olddudder,

 

Far from being a troll, in reaching my mature years, I’ve learned to be respectively tolerant of other people’s opinions, as they are entitled to them even when they happen not to accord with my own.

 

However, in this forum’s context (social media), a troll can be seen to be defined as one who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous or off topic content to our modelling fraternity. Hmm, I’m really not sure how you figure that one, but let me just say that I started my model railway journey in my youth and returned to it a generation or more later and am happy to be slowly researching and building my model railway and in response to several discussions here, I was encouraged sufficiently to start this thread regarding the venerable pannier. This was done in the interests of sharing opinions and trying to gauge the degree of desire for a new Pannier model to current standards of accuracy and performance. My hope is that a manufacturer may find our discussion of interest.

 

Scale will obviously be a factor for production decisions, but as sufficient demand for popular models becomes apparent, manufacturer’s will be more inclined to take note. Dapol for example, manufacture several prototype models in 2, 4 and 7mm scale. I model in 4mm, OO gauge, as indicated on many of my posts on the forum, but I did not want to deter participation from anyone with a valid opinion or point to make.

 

I am here to enjoy the forum as part of my ongoing lifelong interest to railway modelling, so I hope you can overcome your mistrust and accept me for what I am and respect me for what I am not.

 

My sincere kindest regards,

 

Bill

Apologies Bill, but I found the generalist nature of your post to be hard to grasp. Others have said that in OO Bachmann make a good 57xx, and I am aware that Model Rail launched a 16xx fairly recently, albeit to a mixed reception. And Bachmann are not the only manufacturer offering products in multiple scales - I have a few On30 items, for example, and I think they did O scale in their Brassworks range. Each scale's adherents will have a different idea of which pannier they would prefer. 

 

But while panniers come in multiple versions, each is no doubt quite specific in its role and, in many cases, locale. So asking if there is a need for a new super-dooper pannier is really rather like asking if there is a need for a new GWR 4-6-0, to which many modellers would answer yes, but then each identify a different class. If the trade is to be influenced, there needs to be a consensus about which class to consider. 

 

Evidently, despite my misgivings, the thread is healthy and progressing. I hope it yields some sort of result for you.

[longchap]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Apologies Bill, but I found the generalist nature of your post to be hard to grasp. Others have said that in OO Bachmann make a good 57xx, and I am aware that Model Rail launched a 16xx fairly recently, albeit to a mixed reception. And Bachmann are not the only manufacturer offering products in multiple scales - I have a few On30 items, for example, and I think they did O scale in their Brassworks range. Each scale's adherents will have a different idea of which pannier they would prefer. 

 

But while panniers come in multiple versions, each is no doubt quite specific in its role and, in many cases, locale. So asking if there is a need for a new super-dooper pannier is really rather like asking if there is a need for a new GWR 4-6-0, to which many modellers would answer yes, but then each identify a different class. If the trade is to be influenced, there needs to be a consensus about which class to consider. 

 

Evidently, despite my misgivings, the thread is healthy and progressing. I hope it yields some sort of result for you.

 

Not a problem Ian and I'm glad that we understand one another better.

 

I am hopeful that with sufficient support, some form of consensus would indeed emerge and indeed, I am encouraged.

 

For purely selfish reasons, I could have invited responses to 4mm and OO gauge only, but am happy for the thread to take its course for the moment, which does seem to follow a popular route.

 

Bill

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Or this one, mainly for the Southern enthusiast, but also similar ones were sold on to the Alexandra Docks  etc.  so could be said to be GWR.  

 

Photo courtesy of the Dave Searle collection

Four similar locos were built by the LBSCR in the 1860's, and three ended up in South Wales.

 

There's something vaguely sort of Belgian about this thing, perhaps it was the inspiration for the chimney on Hornby's 2721.

[Paul H Vigor]

21 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Sleek, modern, powerful - what more could you want?
 

 

A Buffalo as a pannier tank? I would like one of those!

[rovex]

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.

[longchap]

5 minutes ago, 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.

 

Now that sounds like a plan

 

On a side note, I remember my early 2721 having the infamous traction tyres, then just last week, I was looking at a newish unused second hand Railroad version, awaiting surgery and to my pleasent surprise, it had none, then I noticed the etched number plates matching the buffer beam number. Does anyone know if the plates were standard?

 

Perhaps if I take the body off, I'll find a Mashimo motor!

 

Bill

[MrWolf]

I have several old Hornby 2721 tanks, they're all later wire handrail jobs, but there are noticeable improvements as time went on. 

I know that it's only moulded as part of the cab roof, but I always liked the fact Hornby had thought to include a furled rain sheet.

 

They're in the queue for detailing, must get the layout built first!

[DCB]

A 2021 would be good, a proper branch line Pannier.  2721  57XX were too heavy,  2021 was  a 4ft 1" wheeled originally Saddle Tank, most later converted to Panniers, built until 1902(?) maintained as a standard class till 1948 when the very similar wheelbase, wheel size etc etc 16XX  were designed to replace them. Did a lot of branch line work in GWR Days. when 57XX were Blue route locos and banned from many branches (57XX became Yellow in 1951)

Same wheelbase and basic chassis as 54XX   64XX  74XX and 16XX.  A decent 2021 with a decent (not a stupid little coreless a la Oxford Dean)  motor would be good with maybe the rather specialised 64XX and branch line 74XX  sharing the chassis.  Or maybe Bachmann could reverse engineer their 64XX chassis to provide the basis for a 2021.   

[The Johnster]

2021s were among the classes converted with auto gear before the advent of specifically built auto locomotives (48xx, 54xx, 64xx), which further increases their desirability as models.  Metros and 517s come into this category as well, and would also sell well IMHO, especially Fair Rosamund.  Perhaps one of these classes would stimulate a manufacturer to produce a panelled or matchboarded auto trailer, something else conspicuously missing from RTR GW coverage.  Most lasted into the mid or late 50s.  A26 would probably be the favourite, as the largest single type numerically and the nearest to something you could call a 'standard', though it's 70' length counts against it and I'd prefer an A10 or N; Dapol do an N in 7mm, ex-Lionheart, so might consider this in 4mm.  Sorry, drifting OT.

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, DCB said:

a decent (not a stupid little coreless a la Oxford Dean) 

 

Nowt wrong with coreless, DCB, though the one on the Oxford Dean may not have been the best quality or choice for that loco.  I'm happy with the one in my Baccy 94xx, which is more responsive and will pull on less voltage than the cored cans in my other Baccy locos (all of which run pretty well) and in any case I think we are going to have to get used to coreless motors like it or not because that is what the makers of small motors in China who supply the model railway trade as well as others are increasingly providing, presumably because they are cheaper or easier to produce or because the larger customers are specifying them.  Of course, coreless or not, they must be powerful enough to enable the loco to haul reailistic loads, and in smaller locos that can be challenging.

 

I am happy with any motor that will drive my locos slowly, smoothly, and predictably under DC control, and modern coreless are a bit tougher than Portescaps (the reason that they are not recommended for use with some DC controllers) when it comes to feedback/compensation.  The standard method in modern RTR is a can driving an idler cog gear from a worm, which gears down to the final drive cog on the driven axle, a two-stage approach which works very well indeed. the Most good quality motors can be made to provide smooth and controllable running, and smooth stopping and starting, so long as an efficient gear setup and good pickups are used as well, in conjunction with a track/wheel/pickup hygiene regime.  But a poor quality motor will ruin all those provisions.  The mass produced cheap-as-chips Chinese can motors used in modern RTR are very good quality indeed as a rule. coreless or otherwise, but the best results will come from an holistic approach to design which considers the motor, gears, pickup, vertical and lateral play in axles and the materials used as combining to provide good performance.

[Quarryscapes]

To be honest I think the answer to the OP is no. There are plenty of panniers out there already and more on the way. It's long overdue time for a saddle tank or a 517. 

[longchap]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

2021s were among the classes converted with auto gear before the advent of specifically built auto locomotives (48xx, 54xx, 64xx), which further increases their desirability as models.  Metros and 517s come into this category as well, and would also sell well IMHO, especially Fair Rosamund.  Perhaps one of these classes would stimulate a manufacturer to produce a panelled or matchboarded auto trailer, something else conspicuously missing from RTR GW coverage.  Most lasted into the mid or late 50s.  A26 would probably be the favourite, as the largest single type numerically and the nearest to something you could call a 'standard', though it's 70' length counts against it and I'd prefer an A10 or N; Dapol do an N in 7mm, ex-Lionheart, so might consider this in 4mm.  Sorry, drifting OT.

 

Nice bit of drift Mr Johnster and I would be amongst those in the 517, S/M/L Metro, matchboard trailers queue  and that’s despite already having kits forFair Rosamund and a small Metro, as well as an Ebay 517 rescue to sort.

 

All good stuff for the next wish list though, as the manufacturers must soon give us Western modellers some joy (besides the new Panniers of course).

 

Bill

[longchap]

47 minutes ago, Quarryscapes said:

To be honest I think the answer to the OP is no. There are plenty of panniers out there already and more on the way. It's long overdue time for a saddle tank or a 517. 

 

Title: .  .  .  time for a new Pannier? If you think so, please add your support and ideas to this thread.

 

Answer: No!

 

Ha, so absolutely no support from you then Quarryscrape, but I’ll forgive you as I’m also with you with your alternatives, sadly absent from RTR.

 

Bill

[Nearholmer]

Looking here http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html the 1076 class looks like one to be explored. A chassis that can carry enough variants to keep everyone happy, and refreshingly different.

 

For my tastes, it would need to be in coarse-scale 0 tinplate, which might seem like a crazed dream, but stranger things have happened.

[cypherman]

You can never have too many Pannier tanks. I think I have 9.

[MrWolf]

I think that a prewar design lightweight pannier which lasted well into the 1950s as proposed earlier would suit pretty much everyone, including (and importantly) the manufacturers.

[melmerby]

45 minutes ago, cypherman said:

You can never have too many Pannier tanks. I think I have 9.

Of the GWR's 3000 or so locos about 1000 were 0-6-0Ts almost all panniers and that seemed to be the proportion for most of the GWR's last 50 years or so.

 

I would prefer a Pannier which was also a saddle tank at one time then two new models with one chassis, (a few started off as side tanks!)

 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

 

I would prefer a Pannier which was also a saddle tank at one time then two new models with one chassis, (a few started off as side tanks!)

This is where a decent 2721 would be useful, as a very good 3D print bodyshell for the saddle tank half cab version is available from Stafford Road Works, who sell through Shapeways.  They do a 517 as well.

[Neal Ball]

If the question is a new Pannier tank 0-6-0 loco to modern standards that would suit a Pre WW2 layout then the answer is Yes.

 

My requirements would be no top feed and all the bells and whistles we expect from a modern loco in 2022.

 

The current Bachmann locos history goes back to the old Mainline days and is in need of an upgrade.

[melmerby]

8 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

 

The current Bachmann locos history goes back to the old Mainline days and is in need of an upgrade.

Nothing left of the old Mainline Pannier, both the body and chassis were upgraded at different times.

[CoombeTown]

I agree, it's about time the 57xx/8750 tool set got an upgrade. Different slides to model top feed/ top feed less locos and the different cabs.

 

The current option for sound/stay-alive fitting is to remove the weight from the inside of the water tank, reducing the traction.

 

For me a die-cast body and footplate like the 16xx is a must to produce a locomotive worthy of the 21st Century.

[melmerby]

20 minutes ago, DRoe96 said:

I agree, it's about time the 57xx/8750 tool set got an upgrade. Different slides to model top feed/ top feed less locos and the different cabs.

 

The current option for sound/stay-alive fitting is to remove the weight from the inside of the water tank, reducing the traction.

 

For me a die-cast body and footplate like the 16xx is a must to produce a locomotive worthy of the 21st Century.

They already have different cabs.

Stay alive, why? The Bachmann 57XX/8750 Panniers run absolutely fine over insulfrog & electrofrog track. If they don't the track needs sorting, not the loco.

AFAIAC fitting sound in small tank engines is a waste of time as they don't sound realistic at all and making them 'sound ready' stimies it for the majority that don't want sound.

[MrWolf]

17 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They already have different cabs.

Stay alive, why? The Bachmann 57XX/8750 Panniers run absolutely fine over insulfrog & electrofrog track. If they don't the track needs sorting, not the loco.

AFAIAC fitting sound in small tank engines is a waste of time as they don't sound realistic at all and making them 'sound ready' stimies it for the majority that don't want sound.

 

Likewise, my antiquated panniers, both Bachmann and a Mainline made out of used parts run fine over insulfrog points. I did give the points an upgrade by fitting jumper cables so that connectivity didn't rely solely on the switch rails touching the outers, but that was more to do with making sure everything still worked after painting and ballasting.

Call me a luddite if you want, but I have no intention of going DCC , for one, I can't really afford it and another, a lot of my locos are not capable of being converted. As for sounds, I prefer to have music on when working or playing, very often the memsahib practicing hers, as the railway room is also music room, art studio and office.

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

a lot of my locos are not capable of being converted

Not absolutely true.

You can convert anything if you really want.