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

[Neal Ball]

31 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

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.

Surely that’s down to personal choice. More and more of my locos are now being sound fitted. It adds a very different dimension to a DCC railway.

 

My choice for a new pre WW2 loco would be the ability to fit sound without losing any weight.

[MrWolf]

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Not absolutely true.

You can convert anything if you really want.

 

 

So those who told me it was impossible were just trying to get me to buy new locos? 

Or is it a matter of a new chassis?

Whilst the concept of DCC does interest me, as far as my oddball collection is concerned, it's more trouble than it's worth.

[Neal Ball]

24 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

So those who told me it was impossible were just trying to get me to buy new locos? 

Or is it a matter of a new chassis?

Whilst the concept of DCC does interest me, as far as my oddball collection is concerned, it's more trouble than it's worth.

It’s possible to convert split chassis locos, but not necessarily straightforward.

 

Ages ago when I decided on DCC, I moved all the split chassis stock on.

[MrWolf]

It is mostly a matter of finance, this last couple of years has been a bit tricky, covid meant that the memdahibs education got disrupted and she's still studying and having to travel to do so. I was renovating antiques and vintage bicycles for a friend of mine who had a shop. He passed away suddenly and left no will, so his estranged wife reappeared and closed up the shop, despite my offer to run it, which would have wiped out the debts that she left him with.  In some kind of rough justice, the building has now been repossessed. He also owned the property we live in, but that had been passed to his brother as a preemptive to any divorce proceedings.

That left me with my artwork, bits of building restoration and swearing at old motorcycles. Of course the lockdown meant that art exhibitions weren't happening either. 

Luckily, there has been an upsurge in people wanting project motorcycles during the lockdown as well as cheap everyday bicycles, the price of which jumped because Halfords et al couldn't get new ones in from China.

That probably wasn't lost on older people in Nottingham...

 

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

 

So those who told me it was impossible were just trying to get me to buy new locos? 

Or is it a matter of a new chassis?

Whilst the concept of DCC does interest me, as far as my oddball collection is concerned, it's more trouble than it's worth.

Depends how much you want to do it.

I had already gone DCC and worked through my collection of locos, some had sockets so were easy, some had solid chassis and hard wiring, so some soldering needed, I converted two Mainline split chassis locos to DCC, a Manor and a Mogul, both were fairly easy.

All you need to do is isolate the motor terminals, which normally press against each chassis half and connect the decoder's 4 main wires, 2 to the chassis and two to the motor.

You might need to file a small amount out of the chassis block to locate the decoder (I used mini ones, so not a lot).

 

Later the Mogul chassis started to crumble with mazak rot, so is no more but I still have the Manor, although the wheel muffs have now gone t*ts up, losing the quartering.

I had a Pannier as well but that chassis fell apart (Mazak rot) before I could fit a decoder.

 

[MrWolf]

Thanks @melmerbythats nowhere near as complicated as I had been told. 

The cost of everything else precludes doing it for now though.

I've never really understood the mazak rot issue, you have to use really low grade alloy or allow a lot of contamination in the melt for it to happen. Prewar Dinky toys were prone to it but they and just about everyone else had it sorted by 1946.

Except of course the cheapest nastiest Christmas cracker toys.

There was really no excuse for it forty odd years later on models costing the average man a day's wages.

[The Johnster]

I think the trade has got it right with regards to DCC and accommodating us Luddites.  Locos are generally offered either 'DCC ready', i.e. DC but with a thing to plug a chip into, or, for more beer vouchers, 'full fat' DCC with all the bells and whistles (and chuffs).  The circuit board does not add much to the cost of the lower priced version and can easily be removed by anyone who can solder so that the supply leads from the pickup plate feed the motor terminals directly, and more ballast can be put in.

 

Cwmimbath is pretty basic and turnouts are hand-operated insulfrogs, but none of my locos object to this and run perfectly over them even at shunting speeds, but attention was paid to laying them smoothly to the adjoining piece and as level as I could manage, and is paid to keeping railheads, wheels, pickups, and the closure point where the turnout blades contact the stock rails for electrical connection clean and properly adjusted, and in this respect I generall find Hornby locos require more attention after shorter periods than my Bachmanns.  Regular (most days) running helps to keep things clean and to keep on top of cleaning and maintenance requirements for the locos.

 

I'll mention my Hornby W4 Peckett here; superb and reliable runner which does not object to any of my insulated frogs, but used to stall on a Hornby 3rd/2nd radius curved  turnout in the previous fiddle yard, because the insulated frog and the vee gap were longer than it's wheelbase and electric motors won't run on fresh air...  My Peco Streamline medium insulfrogs have been in continuous use for over 5 years now and I have not had to 'wire round' any of them yet.  I know this is not 'recieved wisdom', but it is working for me so far and I am capable of wiring round should it ever become necessary.

 

DCC is a rich man's game and I am excluded by income from it.  I try to budget for 10% of my limited and fixed pension income for my hobby, and think that this is a reasonable amount that I can afford, but when I exceed it, there is no going up the pub for a week or so.  If I were in a position to consider DCC, the initial expense would be a controller and a locomotive or a chip for one, and my DC control system would probably have to be retained to operate alongside the DCC for some time, as converting the lot in one go needs lottery money (the only possible source of such an amount in my current situation),  I gave it consideration when I restarted in the hobby nearly 6 years ago, and rejected the idea then on cost grounds; I needed something up and running fairly quickly to keep The Squeeze happy.  She had no objection to a model railway in the bedroom, the only place for it in a rented flat, but did not want a half-finished dirt generating worksite, which I didn't either, so the basic layout had to be capable of bringing to a basic completion within a few months, which we did.

 

If I were to ever have lottery money, then I'd go for DCC; I'm a Luddite out of poverty not conviction...  But I don't lose sleep over it and am happy with the layout I've got.

 

I'm not convinced by DCC steam sounds, though I concede they are improving.  I am content for the present and foreseeable future to continue making my own chuff chuff noises in time to driving wheel revolutions and/or imagining sound.  As for smoke and steam effects, well done Hornby for trying, but nowhere near realistic enough yet.  An aid to imagination perhaps, but I find such aids actually hinder my own imagination and I prefer to do without. 

 

I am not sure that DCC was the right way to go when it first surfaced 40-odd years ago, but it is the way the hobby has gone whatever my misgivings then and now.  I believe it has a limited future all the same, and will be replaced at some point by NFC control of locomotives with onboard power supply by paired  smartphone app running on electrically dead plastic track.  Prolly not in my lifetime though; reckon 20 years tops before my withdrawal from service and removal to the Great Swindon Dump In The Sky...  I'm 70 in a few weeks, and some of my parts have stopped funtioning properly, but I'm good for service on secondary routes with light traffic at low speeds for a while!

[The Johnster]

13 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

I've never really understood the mazak rot issue, you have to use really low grade alloy or allow a lot of contamination in the melt for it to happen.

 

It needs very precise QC apparently, and consistency over batches is difficult in the small scale 'cottage industry' backyard type of suppliers of it as raw material in China.  Both Triang and Hornby Dublo had their issues with it in the UK back in the 50s and 60s, so it is not a new problem, just a tough one to solve reliably in a raw manufacturing environment in which both low grade alloy and a lot of contamination are matters that cost money that investors don't want to spend on QC to prevent reliably; there is an unfortunate amount of the attitude from RTR suppliers that once you've bought the loco and used it for a few years past the warranty you need to buy a new one, otherwise you're on your own, mate, and if you bought it secondhand instead of a new one from us, we really aren't interested...

 

The problem usually takes a few years to manifest itself, by which time the model has been retooled or discontinued anyway.  None of which is any comfort to someone who has spent time and money improving or working up the loco, or who has retired and no longer has the disposable to replace it.  The RTR companies don't care; their job is to sell new models and keep the investors (the real customers, who are always right and have the cash to prove it) off their backs.

[MrWolf]

Somebody must have done the sums to show that a lump of diecast monkey metal is cheaper to produce and assemble than a steel stamping. Tri-ang locos used a built up steel frame back in the early sixties.

[jamieb]

In an ideal world,I'd like an old fashioned pannier or two,such as a 2021,Buffalo or 850 class 

Realistically,they'll probably cost in excess of £150 if they did appear and I just can't afford to spend that sort of money,so I'll stick with my old Bachmann and Mainline panniers,which may not be perfect but they're good enough for my purposes, especially with a Comet or High Level chassis underneath them 

[PMP]

5 hours 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.

As @melmerbyhas mentioned the (Bachmann) cabs are already catered for. It’s likely to be more complicated than a couple of slides for the top feed differences based on the existing tooling. It’d be more practical to have separate tools for either boiler/tank type. Whether that’s commercially viable though….

 

I don’t know why a stay-alive needs weight removing, they’ve been demonstrated in 48Ds’ and if you need more than a second of power then sort the track/layout electrics first. The current running qualities of the 57/64/94xx by Bachmann in my opinion negate the need for one as a necessity. 
 

https://albionyard.com/dcc-sound-pannier-conversion/

Fourteen years ago I fitted sound into 37/57xx bodies without having to excessively remove weight. I’ve done a similar conversion with a 64xx too. With contemporary speaker and chip improvements this could easily be improved upon, particularly in reducing the space taken up by the components. The removal of the bunker weights has had no detrimental affect on their performance.

Edited January 13, 2022 by PMP

[PMP]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

.  The RTR companies don't care; their job is to sell new models and keep the investors (the real customers, who are always right and have the cash to prove it) off their backs.

This of course is just made up garbage. Presumably Hornby cared so little about this issue that they replaced and fitted FoC the Royal Scot and Patriot chassis’s for two of mine last year, just for a laugh. 

[PMP]

4 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

So those who told me it was impossible were just trying to get me to buy new locos? 

 

I know comparatively little about DCC. However you’ll find plenty of people with far less knowledge than me, willing and able tell you much more inaccurate information than I can.

[CoombeTown]

23 minutes ago, PMP said:

As @melmerbyhas mentioned the (Bachmann) cabs are already catered for. It’s likely to be more complicated than a couple of slides for the top feed differences based on the existing tooling. It’d be more practical to have separate tools for either boiler/tank type. Whether that’s commercially viable though….

 

I don’t know why a stay-alive needs weight removing, they’ve been demonstrated in 48Ds’ and if you need more than a second of power then sort the track/layout electrics first. 
 

https://albionyard.com/dcc-sound-pannier-conversion/

Fourteen years ago I fitted sound into 37/57xx bodies without having to excessively remove weight. I’ve done a similar conversion with a 64xx too. With contemporary speaker and chip improvements this could easily be improved upon, particularly in reducing the space taken up by the components. The removal of the bunker weights has had no detrimental affect on their performance.

I apologise if it wasn't clear. I should have said separate tools rather than slides. The point I was trying to make was the different top feed arrangements should be different tools, not separate parts. I am aware of the different Bachmann cabs, and was suggesting that it should continue in order to create a commercially viable toolset.

 

The installation guides I had seen were those provided by Youchoos, where the stay-alive has been fitted in the cab area. This suggested that to fit one in the tank area, weight would have to be removed.

 

I had not seen the Albion Yard conversion so thank you for bringing to my attention. However, I would still suggest that for any project to be viable, it should cater for both DCC Sound modellers as well as DC modellers.

[PMP]

35 minutes ago, DRoe96 said:

I apologise if it wasn't clear

(Snip)

. However, I would still suggest that for any project to be viable, it should cater for both DCC Sound modellers as well as DC modellers.

No problem, the Albion Yard installation uses what is the current 57xx chassis, so if based upon that I doubt any tank weight removal would be required, if a manufacturer chose the plastic body route and similar ‘dead weights’.

 

I think the engineering of DCC sound options is highly likely to be a given with new tooling of most locomotives from now on. We’re already seeing them included and non functioning in models at the outset, so any retrofit by a manufacturer won’t be required, and there’s no significant weight loss. Smoke effect is probably going to be the biggest challenge for a manufacturer for an engine this size. What is clear from having seen the public reaction to it, it that it absolutely entrances them, especially with sound, so is likely to be a very popular selling point. That is likely to be the biggest tech hurdle to overcome, but I don’t see it being insurmountable.

[Miss Prism]

The tool insert for the primary body piece of the Mainline pannier already has complicated slides. If there was an easy way of doing a non-topfeed version, it would have been done by now.

Ironically, the reason why the model has never had a completely new re-tool is the excellence and accuracy of the mouldings - was it really 1980?

 

[MrWolf]

That long ago? I never knew. I became aware of them about 1983 or so. They were and still are very good, strange dome top notwithstanding. All that really needs to happen is a reissue of that body with the dome sorted and a chassis that:

 

A is DCC ready to keep options open.

 

B has wheels and axles that don't self dismantle (Hornby managed it with their Jinty chassis in the same era.) 

 

C doesn't have its main frame made from processed cheese.

 

I think (much as I would like to see it) sans top feed wouldn't be economically viable for the makers.

 

Have chisel, will travel.

 

[PMP]

34 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

The tool insert for the primary body piece of the Mainline pannier already has complicated slides. If there was an easy way of doing a non-topfeed version, it would have been done by now.

Ironically, the reason why the model has never had a completely new re-tool is the excellence and accuracy of the mouldings - was it really 1980?

 

If you put the two together you can see they are two different toolings, so it is ‘new’ rather than reworked original Mainline. The original tooling is unquestionably excellent, one of the best of its era, the subsequent Bachmann even better, again of it’s time one of the best. 
The 87xx version was the first Bachmann ’new’ tool pannier, followed the same year (2004?) by the low cab 57xx type. The fact that no other Hifi medium kit exists for them also vindicates just how right it was, and still is.

[Harlequin]

For really good sound you want a big sealed sound chamber and a big driver unit. Leaving space for a tiny sugarcube speaker inside the body shell with no clear sound path out (like the Dapol large prairie) won’t be good enough, I suggest.

 

A great place for such a chamber would seem to be through the pannier tanks and through the boiler, with the driver facing down towards the frames where it can push sound directly into the room without being seen. There would still be plenty of room for ballast weights, motor and gear tower, I think.

 

On a completely different tack: What about moving internal motion? Just the main connecting rods and cranks. It’s more visible in the panniers than many other classes. Maybe that’s an extra level of detail that would help to sell a new pannier tank model.

[PMP]

3 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

That long ago? I never knew. I became aware of them about 1983 or so. They were and still are very good, strange dome top notwithstanding. All that really needs to happen is a reissue of that body with the dome sorted and a chassis that:

 

A is DCC ready to keep options open.

 

B has wheels and axles that don't self dismantle (Hornby managed it with their Jinty chassis in the same era.) 

 

C doesn't have its main frame made from processed cheese.

 

I think (much as I would like to see it) sans top feed wouldn't be economically viable for the makers.

 

Have chisel, will travel.

 

You are aware that there is a replacement to that model illustrated that’s been extant since 2004?

[MrWolf]

7 minutes ago, PMP said:

You are aware that there is a replacement to that model illustrated that’s been extant since 2004?

 

I wasn't, I've had a twenty odd years break from railway modelling. I do have a couple of Bachmann panniers of indeterminate age, but I've never put them alongside the original Mainline / Replica model.

[PMP]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

 

On a completely different tack: What about moving internal motion? Just the main connecting rods and cranks. It’s more visible in the panniers than many other classes. Maybe that’s an extra level of detail that would help to sell a new pannier tank model.

Absolutely not! In OO there isn’t the space, not to mention the cost/practically/reliability and assembly for a commercially viable model. A better representation of the top of the chassis would be a good improvement.

 

 

[PMP]

Just now, MrWolf said:

 

I wasn't, I've had a twenty odd years break from railway modelling. I do have a couple of Bachmann panniers of indeterminate age, but I've never put them alongside the original Mainline / Replica model.

 

 

These are Bachmann Panniers, not out of the box, I’ve done quite a bit of work to them, however the core model is excellent for a 2004 tooling.

If your panniers have the correct shape dome as above, they’re the contemporary tooling.

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, MrWolf said:

Somebody must have done the sums to show that a lump of diecast monkey metal is cheaper to produce and assemble than a steel stamping. Tri-ang locos used a built up steel frame back in the early sixties.

The ones I had, had brass sides with diecast (mazak) filling, later ones were all Mazak.

I had a Princess & a Transcontinental steam loco.

[MrWolf]

I think that while we're discussing what should be in the body and chassis of what is quite a small loco, we should remember that there needs to be room for a decent quality motor and gears that is also out of sight. I wouldn't want some chocolate watch motor installed to make way for the nice to have items.