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

[MrWolf]

Chocolate watch motor? That's got me thinking.

Were they the support band for the 13th floor elevators tour back in '66?

[Harlequin]

9 minutes ago, PMP said:

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.

 

 

Such a vehement reaction!

It may be possible to do something clever, cost-effective and reliable with a bit of creative thinking.

 

[PMP]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Such a vehement reaction!

It may be possible to do something clever, cost-effective and reliable with a bit of creative thinking.

 

Yup. I’ve actually tried building inside valve  gear in 4mm in EM. It didn’t work for me! If we want practical, reliable and affordable models, then asking for something like working inside valve gear isn’t viable. If you want that sort of detail in a mass production RTR model, and it to work, then you’ll be paying a significant amount more for your model. Therefore it won’t happen as there won’t be a commercially viable market for it.
This is a 64xx chassis, and you now need space for piston rods, an eccentric motion, in addition to the normal mechanism of a small model.

There’s a reason the Martin Finney inside valve gear kit for 4mm etched kits isn’t available in OO, there isn’t the space.

[melmerby]

I've got examples of a body of Mainline 5768 (Mainline 37084), the body of early Bachmann 8700 which had the re-worked split chassis (Bachmann 31-901A).

They seem to be the same body.

 

I also have complete later Bachmann models, which have the retooled body (57XX) or new tooled body (8750) These have the new solid chassis which later was modified to include an 8pin DCC socket.

 

If I have got it right there was a Mainline 57XX with split chassis and pancake motor, early Bachmann with split chassis and can motor (31-90x series), later Bachmann with new solid chassis & reworked body 32-21x. & Bachmann all new 8750 (32-20x) These later Bachmann 57XX & 8750s share the same chassis.

 

There is no differentation in the later Bachmann codes between non DCC socketed and DCC socketed versions.

Edited January 13, 2022 by melmerby

[PMP]

Bachmann had split chassis versions of low cab 57xx’s in two varieties. Original ‘Mainline’ style and then a revised motor version. The revised motor version was available as a replacement for a while. This is easily identified as the ends of the axles aren’t visible at the wheel centre.
They then, early noughties, brought out the 87xx high cab version, which was the first with the ‘new’ chassis. This came in three varieties. DC/DCC ready/DCC fitted. The DC only had a bigger boiler weight as it didn’t need chip space. The same fit occurred with the new low cab tooled body. After a few years DC only was dropped and the chassis is that which we have today under contemporary 57/87xx releases.

None of the split chassis varieties fit the new tooling high or low cab bodies. The mounting points are different, so you will have split chassis type+old body, or conventional chassis+new body.

Edited January 14, 2022 by PMP

[melmerby]

7 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

There’s a reason the Martin Finney inside valve gear kit for 4mm etched kits isn’t available in OO, there isn’t the space.

Some dummy gear would be nice as has appeared on some other models recently.

IMHO Non workin gear is fine, after all the boiler is already non working

 

On outside motion locos fully working gear is rare, compared to part working gear.

You could have a dcc controlled reversing action

[PMP]

37 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Some dummy gear would be nice as has appeared on some other models recently.

Agreed, Hattons 14xx being a good example of how that can work.

And the Rapido/Model Rail 16xx

Edited January 14, 2022 by PMP

[MrWolf]

45 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

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.

 

Hear that thud?

 

That was the sound of.y case being rested.

[MrWolf]

17 minutes ago, PMP said:

Agreed, Hattons 14xx being a good example of how that can work.

 

Was the Hattons 14xx a reliable runner or did it suffer from the same  mechanical maladies as previous models ? IIRC the Airfix mech was crude and noisy and the Hornby revamp was let down by a poor quality motor.

[Miss Prism]

Just now, MrWolf said:

Was the Hattons 14xx a reliable runner

 

There's a long thread on that subject. I suggest we don't clog up this pannier thread with the Hattons 14xx history.  

[PMP]

Full agreement with @Miss Prism

on that. My experience is outlined below. The Hattons model was good so long as you don’t have downhill gradients. Apart from that it’s a very good model if not very practical to maintain.

https://albionyard.com/2017/03/01/hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/

https://albionyard.com/2017/03/01/hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/

https://albionyard.com/2018/11/17/hattons-14xx-finale/
 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by PMP
Add first sentence !

[MrWolf]

10 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

There's a long thread on that subject. I suggest we don't clog up this pannier thread with the Hattons 14xx history.  

 

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. 

Although your informing me that there's a long thread on the subject suggests to me that it's a bit of a clunker.

[MrWolf]

I have found that my Bachmann panniers are of the post 2004 variety, thanks for the info @PMP.

Earlier locos suffered from what can only be described as abstract quartering. 

Something that I would not like to see repeated in any new model.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, PMP said:

Agreed, Hattons 14xx being a good example of how that can work.

And the Rapido/Model Rail 16xx

And the Bachmann 94xx. 
 

I’d like to see working motion between the frames on locos where it was fairly visible in reality, but I doubt it is possible on a 00 model because of the compromised space between the frames, nearly 3mm narrower than scale, which is a lot when you are trying to put slide bars, crossheads, valve gear, connecting rods and eccentrics in there and attempting to make them move correctly and reliably, and doing your best to make it all look ‘scale’.  The dummy approach is probably the best RTR compromise one can reasonably expect. 

[wasdavetheroad]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

..............  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!

It appears that NFC technology (near field) is designed for transmission ranges of about 4 inches, however other radio protocols are available.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, PMP said:

 

None of the split chassis varieties fit the new tooling high or low cab bodies. The mounting points are different, so you will have split chassis type+old body, or conventional chassis+new body.

They might have different mounting points but you can still fit a later DCC chassis, which I have done with my Mainline 5768.

 

 

Also you don't need to remove any tank weights to fit a decoder. I'm not sure why Bachmann did that.

I posted on here in a different thread about it showing my DCC'd new 8709 with tank weights in situ.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/76733-Bachmann-pannier-tank-decoder/&do=findComment&comment=1174346

Edited January 14, 2022 by melmerby

[PMP]

23 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They might have different mounting points but you can still fit a later DCC chassis, which I have done with my Mainline 5768.

 

Indeed, the emphasis on you do need to modify them. Basically if you haven’t got a body and chassis that have the same mounting points, you have a hybrid of early chassis/late body or vice versa. 

[Captain Kernow]

On 14/01/2022 at 00:20, Miss Prism said:

There's a long thread on that subject. I suggest we don't clog up this pannier thread with the Hattons 14xx history.  

 

On 14/01/2022 at 00:27, MrWolf said:

Although your informing me that there's a long thread on the subject suggests to me that it's a bit of a clunker.

Indeed.

 

Don't get me started!

 

[Captain Kernow]

I like the idea of this thread. There is the potential for it to become a wishlist, but the debate has been generally very informative and thoughtful.

 

Notwithstanding the basic excellence of the current Bachmann 57XX and 8750, there is still scope for improvement, especially when you compare them with more recent offerings, both from Bachmann themselves (64XX and 94XX) and the Rapido 16XX.

 

I would be very pleased to see a re-vamp of the 57XX and 8750, after all there were a total of 863 examples built and a few survived to work on London Transport and the NCB, so further livery variations for the manufacturer.

 

From what I can gather, a non-top feed fitted example and certainly a rivetted tank example would require separate tooling. I think that such examples would be popular, as they would not directly duplicate the existing Bachmann offerings.

 

If I read Paul M-Ps earlier comments correctly, then a later 64XX or 74XX is less likely, given that these would require further tooling variations and the 54XX is, I agree, even more unlikely, given that it would require a separate chassis.

 

If it were to happen, my preference, by a country mile, would be for Accurascale to have a go at an updated 57XX and 8750. Their Manor is just superb, so imagine what a stunning job they would make of the pannier.

 

On the other hand, many folk on here will be aware of my thoughts on the way the Rapido 16XX chassis has been incorporated into the structure of the loco body, making the separation of 'body' and 'chassis' (eg. for those who wish to substitute an etched chassis in EM or P4) virtually impossible. As such, I would not want Rapido to produce one of my favourite locos if that arrangement was to be replicated.

 

As regards older panniers, yes, why not, bring them on, especially if they are a prototype that survived to see BR livery into the 1950s. And don't forget that some of these older panniers were sold out of service to the likes of the NCB, thus offering further livery variations.

 

Finally, whoever makes a revamped 57XX and 8750 or indeed a different pannier, I hope that they will ensure that quality control is good enough that no duff runners slip through the net. I have always maintained that I would pay extra for guaranteed smooth, slow running as it potentially saves a lot of grief further down the line.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Captain Kernow

[Captain Kernow]

On 14/01/2022 at 09:31, PMP said:

Indeed, the emphasis on you do need to modify them. Basically if you haven’t got a body and chassis that have the same mounting points, you have a hybrid of early chassis/late body or vice versa. 

I experienced the issue of different mounting points when I bought a (supposedly) 'replacement' Bachmann chassis for a venerable Mainline J72. The original split chassis had stopped working.

 

The 'replacement' chassis didn't fit.

 

In the end, I built a Perseverance chassis for it and was glad I did so.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Captain Kernow

[Captain Kernow]

On 13/01/2022 at 23:45, PMP said:

Yup. I’ve actually tried building inside valve  gear in 4mm in EM. It didn’t work for me! If we want practical, reliable and affordable models, then asking for something like working inside valve gear isn’t viable. If you want that sort of detail in a mass production RTR model, and it to work, then you’ll be paying a significant amount more for your model. Therefore it won’t happen as there won’t be a commercially viable market for it.
This is a 64xx chassis, and you now need space for piston rods, an eccentric motion, in addition to the normal mechanism of a small model.

 

There’s a reason the Martin Finney inside valve gear kit for 4mm etched kits isn’t available in OO, there isn’t the space.

When I was converting a 64XX to a 74XX a couple of years ago, I found that the Bachmann chassis wouldn't run smoothly enough at slow speeds, so I built a High Level etched chassis for the loco.

 

High Level give you the option of dummy inside valve gear but the instructions are quite clear for OO, in that you have to leave about 40% of the motion out, because there isn't sufficient room between the frames.

 

There's a photo a little way down page 35 of this thread - 

 

 

[longchap]

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

I like the idea of this thread. There is the potential for it to become a wishlist, but the debate has been generally very informative and thoughtful.

 

Notwithstanding the basic excellence of the current Bachmann 57XX and 8750, there is still scope for improvement, especially when you compare them with more recent offerings, both from Bachmann themselves (64XX and 94XX) and the Rapido 16XX.

 

I would be very pleased to see a re-vamp of the 57XX and 8750, after all there were a total of 863 examples built and a few survived to work on London Transport and the NCB, so further livery variations for the manufacturer.

 

From what I can gather, a non-top feed fitted example and certainly a rivetted tank example would require separate tooling. I think that such examples would be popular, as they would not directly duplicate the existing Bachmann offerings.

 

If I read Paul M-Ps earlier comments correctly, then a later 64XX or 74XX is less likely, given that these would require further tooling variations and the 54XX is, I agree, even more unlikely, given that it would require a separate chassis.

 

If it were to happen, my preference, by a country mile, would be for Accurascale to have a go at an updated 57XX and 8750. Their Manor is just superb, so imagine what a stunning job they would make of the pannier.

 

On the other hand, many folk on here will be aware of my thoughts on the way the Rapido 16XX chassis has been incorporated into the structure of the loco body, making the separation of 'body' and 'chassis' (eg. for those who wish to substitute an etched chassis in EM or P4) virtually impossible. As such, I would not want Rapido to produce one of my favourite locos if that arrangement was to be replicated.

 

As regards older panniers, yes, why not, bring them on, especially if they are a prototype that survived to see BR livery into the 1950s. And don't forget that some of these older panniers were sold out of service to the likes of the NCB, thus offering further livery variations.

 

Finally, whoever makes a revamped 57XX and 8750 or indeed a different pannier, I hope that they will ensure that quality control is good enough that no duff runners slip through the net. I have always maintained that I would pay extra for guaranteed smooth, slow running as it potentially saves a lot of grief further down the line.

 

Thank you Captain for your comments and I too am pleased to see so many thoughtfully considered responses. I also agree that the existing later Bachmann 57xx and 8750s remain good, reliable models and I’m pleased with the five I have, but there is always room for improvement and I can then stop buying old ones.

 

As an earlier era GWR modeller, I would like to see something more representative of the 1920s, without a top feed. Hornby’s half hearted attempt with their now outclassed 2721 Class updated to modern standards with some air under the boiler and tanks could be popular, particularly if an alternative saddle tank version could be accommodated on the chassis.

 

As for manufacturer, my normally open mind is ever so slightly shuttered here. Regarding reliability, I like the results Bachmann achieve, whereas the design of some of Hornby’s mechanisms sometimes seem engineered with economy in mind over reliability. Having said that, I am extremely impressed with their little W4 Peckett, a pocket masterpiece and such a sweet little mover. Accurascale’s attentive attitude to customer satisfaction is well evidenced by their contributions here on RMWeb and I am looking forward to their first steam loco, although it’s on the extreme limit of my pre-war modelling period.

 

In short, I really do think that a newly tooled Pannier could be very popular product. Let’s face it, how many Western modellers would not consider buying one, possibly more?

 

Bill

[Dava]

There were industrial pannier tanks of nonGWR origin. 
 

Dava

[The Johnster]

Maybe worth a moment's pause before binning your Hornby 2721s, Longchap.  Firstly, while there is only so much you do to a model with such fundamental problems, what you can do is a good bit more than nothing!  Mine has had the risible chimney and safety valve bonnet replaced by items I happened to have on hand from a scrapped Westward 64xx, which also provided the dome, and with replacement buffers, etched number plates, cab window glazing, lamp irons, real coal, smokebox dart and a Modelu crew, she looks a good bit better than when I bought her.  I've also made a canvas weather sheet (painted aly foil) for a reason I'll come to i the next paragraph.

 

It had the later type of Hornby generic Jinty chassis with front axle drive and sprung rear axle, but I failed to get the required level of decent slow running and smooth stops and starts whatever I did to fettle this chassis, so I gave up and replaced it with a Bachmann 57xx chassis from the Bay.  I also cut away as much of the plastic boiler skirts as possible; you have to trim this in order to clear the Baccy motor but it improves the appearance and allows daylight beneath the boiler so is worth doing from that point of view as well.  This has transformed the performance, and she is now as good a runner as any Baccy pannier, but Baccy drive their panniers on the rear axle through a worm and two-stage reduction cog setup which requires clearance to be cut on the backhead for the worm in the area of the firehole.  In order to hide this, the crew are positioned in the cab doorways and the canvas sheet deployed, not an unlikely situation in the South Wales climate of Cwmdimbath.

 

A minor drawback to this is that my chosen prototype, 2761, had parallel fluted coupling rods which were correct as Hornby made the model, though of course the axle, and hence crankpin, spacing was wrong for a 2721.  The Baccy 57xx chassis has the correct axle spacing for a 2721, but plain fishbelly coupling rods.  Some 2721s were given such coupling rods at various stages in their careers, even as saddle tanks, but 2761 in her final period at Tondu (withdrawn 31/3/1950) did not, shown by photographs of her at Swindon on the reception roads and the dump shortly afterwards.  I've decided life is too short to worry about this.

 

Secondly, the way in which the Hornby have tooled the bodyshell of the 2721, at least the later version that I have, means that the top of the tanks including the smokebox, chimeny, dome, top of firebox, and safety valve bonnet, and the top part of the tank sides can be separated from the bottom part of the tank sides and the rest.  Tomparryharry of this parish, with whom I have discussed this matter over a beer or three, reckons that this gives it potential as a complete replacement top piece for Bachmann 57xx or 8750 if you want a model without a top feed, and lining the two models up against each other suggests that he is right.  The 2721 has no top feed an none of the associated plumbing, and you would still have to remove the pipery just about the injectors, but it is a vaible alternative to carving off the top feed and the plumbing and, worse, making good the scar to an accepctable standard, which is what I did with 5797, and might be worth considering if you have an old 2721 lying around in a scrap box that you have no other use for.

 

Despite the improvements I've made to my 2721 pannier, and my current level of satisfaction with it,  I'd replace it in a heartbeat if some kind RTR firm were to make one in 4mm to current standards of scale, performance, and detail; I'd replace it in a heartbeat with an 1854 pannier to similar standards as well.

 

I can see that these classes are potentially a problem for manufacturers, though.  There were so many variations and combined permutations of cabs, bunkers, coupling rods, lamp iron positions, coal rail/no coal rails, saddle tanks, pannier tanks, reversions to saddle tank on acquistion of round topped firebox boiler after period spent as saddle tank, and liveries, that any model that was  produced would invite criticism from those who wanted one in a different form, and the wait for the exact combination of features you want might be considerable as all the other ones are worked through.  The classes were long lived and went through all sorts of rebuildings and alterations, despite being small in number compared to the 57xx/8750s that followed  them.  I believe some even had top feeds, though not as sadde tanks...

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Despite the improvements I've made to my 2721 pannier, and my current level of satisfaction with it,  I'd replace it in a heartbeat if some kind RTR firm were to make one in 4mm to current standards of scale, performance, and detail; I'd replace it in a heartbeat with an 1854 pannier to similar standards as well.

 

 

I've got an 1854 saddle tank (Wills kit) sitting on a Comet chassis, A pannier to go with it would be nice. (Wills also did that IIRC)

The smaller 850 class (4' 1½" wheels) would also be nice, I've a saddle tank one of those (M&L kit).

 

Many of the 850s had H spoke wheels, rather than the normal type. My kit built one has them.