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

[exet1095]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There are some good photos of Buffalos here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/search#q=buffalo

 

And the 2021 class here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/18641897-GWR-Wolverhampton-Geo/George-Armstrong-2021-SaddlePannier-Tank-class/i-Xz3DDGM

 

Thanks for those great pictures. I particularly enjoyed looking at the battered 2021s. Lots of variety, but it looks like most variations could be covered. Two at least were still auto-fitted, and the steam heating pipes show they can be used on other passenger trains too. 

 

140 engines spread over the whole of the GWR/WR. Passenger and goods work. Not only that, but as well as being suitable for a lovely Edwardian livery, they remained in service with BR until the end of the 1950s, in industrial use for another half-dozen or so years.
 

I have said it before, but these are the panniers we are looking for!

 

Paul

[exet1095]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There are some good photos of Buffalos here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/search#q=buffalo

 

And the 2021 class here: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/18641897-GWR-Wolverhampton-Geo/George-Armstrong-2021-SaddlePannier-Tank-class/i-Xz3DDGM

 

Thanks for those great pictures. I particularly enjoyed looking at the battered 2021s. Lots of variety, but it looks like most variations could be covered. Two at least were still auto-fitted, and the steam heating pipes show they can be used on other passenger trains too. 

 

140 engines spread over the whole of the GWR/WR. Passenger and goods work. Not only that, but as well as being suitable for a lovely Edwardian livery, they remained in service with BR until the end of the 1950s, in industrial use for another half-dozen or so years.
 

I have said it before, but these are the panniers we are looking for!

 

Paul

[melmerby]

There is a nice array of old panniers on Tyseley shed here:

https://warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/tysley_shed.htm

 

e.g. a couple of 2021, looking very different.

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by melmerby

[JimC]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

So, if Bachmann (for example; they all operate in the same way) orders 2,000 57xx panniers from the Chinese subcontractors, then the Chinese make exactly that number of bodies, that number of running chassis, 8,000 buffers, etc, to complete the order.  Hence you cannot buy a separate running chassis

Trouble is the numbers game. Supposing a manufacturer decides to order some extra running chassis. How many could they sell? A hundred? And how many of those would be taking away sales from complete models?

[jcm@gwr]

2 minutes ago, JimC said:

Trouble is the numbers game. Supposing a manufacturer decides to order some extra running chassis. How many could they sell? A hundred? And how many of those would be taking away sales from complete models?

 

But if they priced them correctly (for them), they would make the same amount of profit.

So they would probably increase their customer base, the increase in those just wanting 

a chassis for unusual, or scratchbuilt, locos, would be much greater than those lost by not

buying a complete model, just to dispose of the unwanted body.

[JimC]

21 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

they would make the same amount of profit.

For sure, but it also complicates admin, stock holding, distribution etc. Basically its producing a new model, albeit one with no development costs, for a run of 100. I don't know how the relative costs of body and chassis production line up, but it seems to me not utterly impossible that a genuinely profitable price for a chassis might get sufficiently close to that of a complete model that it would generate more bad publicity in complaints about price gouging than the income from sales would be worth. But I'm just speculating.

[The Johnster]

Exactly.  In the olden days, when men were men and so were women, and there were production lines in the UK for a more limited range of RTR models, all the components for each model were kept at the factory and taken out of storage when the model was assembled and packed.  So, if you wanted a running chassis you asked the company, they got the bits out of stores, assembled it, sent it to you or to your dealer if you'd ordered it through him, and Robert was your father's brother.  There was little extra cost to the company who had to keep stocks of all the components on hand anyway.

 

When production shifted to China, for cost reasons from which we all benefited for a while and still are to some degree, and for a better quality product which I think can be regareded as A Good Thing, the subcontracting nature of production there was not amenable to carrying stocks of spare components.  The main contractor that the RTR company here deals with arranges the assembly and packing of the models, but subcontracts back down the line for components which are produced in very small factories that can be regareded as independent cottage industries for the manufacture of each individual component, which is produced according to CAD specifications.  Each small factory is asked for the appropriate batch number of items, and duly supplies same. 

 

Were this to be attempted in the UK, or any Western country, we would run into trouble with delays from failure to deliver components on time and with imposing QC over a large number of facilities, but the Chinese are very good at this sort of thing.  Even there, problems occur, like assembly facilities burning down or failure to book assmbley slots with them in a competitive market, but the Chinese method is overall resilient, efficient, adaptable, and successful in part because it is not burdened with the cost of stocking components.  Batch production has meant that we are treated to an increased biodiversity of models of a quality good enough to have done serious harm ot the home kit trade; it is A Good Thing but comes with some minor drawbacks.  Supply of running chassis is a minor drawback, and I assume (with no objective evidence) that the RTR firms have looked at the demand, costed out the possibility of having a couple hundred extra chassis on each batch, and decided it isn't worth their while. 

 

Were there profits to be chased, one can be assured that they would be chasing them or the shareholders will be having something to say about it, but clearly they consider that the retail price that would have to be imposed to make this idea profitable or even practicable is close enough to that of the complete model for it not to be worth the hassle.  If the retail price of a running chassis is close to that of the complete model, or perhaps more than the complete model can be had discounted, it looks like profiteering and is not good for public relations or the company's image, and these are important considerations in the internet age where people like us can comment publicly on fora like this!

 

This should be bourne in mind by anyone acquiring a body for which a chassis is needed.  Running chassis are available on the 'Bay, but they are priced to what the market will bear and sourced from models broken down so that bodies are available from the same supplier as a rule.  Buying the running chassis and the body separately in this way may be cheaper for the individual components than a new complete donor loco, but the total cost is much more expensive, the iron and unbreakable law of supply and demand, as fixed and immutable as the courses of the stars in the heavens, reflecting the true economic situation.  A complete secondhand donor loco becomes a better bargain so long as it runs well, as you get a free body which you can then use for another project or as a parts donor, but it goes against the grain to break down a loco in this way.

 

There is a temptation to pass the donor body on via the 'Bay, which will defray some of the cost of your project, but in the greater scheme of things, you are simply contributing further to a pool of surplus 'Bay bodies, and the money you realise will be less in consequence.  A quick squiz at the 'Bay this avo shows Bachmann 57xx running chassis for £63,  57xx bodies at £37-40 and 8750 body at £43.  A complete secondhand running 57xx is available from another seller for £57.50, and assuming they all run well I know which one I'd buy if I were putting a chassis under a Lima 94xx, Hornby 2721, or Stafford Road 2721 Saddle.  Then, of course, I'd be tempted to use the spare 57xx body for something, and now we're back to sourcing a running chassis, and so the long night wears on...

[Miss Prism]

On 22/01/2022 at 21:57, Siberian Snooper said:

If you did,  I don't remember it.  Looking forward to you finding it.

 

Having looked, I can see I didn't attempt it (the autofitted Buffalo interlude starting about here). I need to sort out some cross-section drawings anyway, but I don't think I've got a Buffalo pannier one. In anycase, I suspect your larger challenge in changing a Gibson kit is extending the tanks and smokeboxes at the front. (although the extension was a late mod)

 

[Craigw]

On 20/01/2022 at 07:37, Miss Prism said:

With Hornby currently in shark mode, I wouldn't announce anything if I were a rival unless the product was within a year of being on the boat.

 

 Or you would announce something like a 2721, knowing that Hornby would dive in to beat you to the punch and have been working on an 850 class saddle tank the whole time.

 

That is what I would do anyway, but I am a sneaky .

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Siberian Snooper]

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Having looked, I can see I didn't attempt it (the autofitted Buffalo interlude starting about here). I need to sort out some cross-section drawings anyway, but I don't think I've got a Buffalo pannier one. In anycase, I suspect your larger challenge in changing a Gibson kit is extending the tanks and smokeboxes at the front. (although the extension was a late mod)

 

 

I model the mid 20's, so hopefully no need to extend the smokebox or tanks.

 

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Craigw said:

 Or you would announce something like a 2721, knowing that Hornby would dive in to beat you to the punch and have been working on an 850 class saddle tank the whole time.

 

That is what I would do anyway, but I am a sneaky .

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

But what would your customers think when after pre-ordering the announced 2721 pannier, find they are actually getting an 850 saddle tank instead?

Probably immediately cancel and buy Hornby instead

 

 

[MrWolf]

2021 gets my vote as the most viable option for a commercial model given the information so far. I'd certainly buy at least a couple.

[Harlequin]

I think that trying to swerve around Hornby would be a mug's game. Whatever you announce, even if you change course, there's a chance Hornby will immediately announce that they were planning to do it all along, honest guv.

 

Better to just put your faith in a knowledgeable market to back you up, know that your product and your reputation will be better than theirs (not difficult), and take the direct path.

 

[melmerby]

51 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

 

Better to just put your faith in a knowledgeable market to back you up, know that your product and your reputation will be better than theirs (not difficult), and take the direct path.

 

That's what the Dapol fans thought about the large prairie.

Dapol by coming up short snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Harlequin]

36 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That's what the Dapol fans thought about the large prairie.

Dapol by coming up short snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Yes, so you do have to do your job properly! And the market will judge whether you succeed, which is only right and proper.

 

But that's a separate issue from the strategy for dealing with the dog-in-the-manger Hornby.

 

(Actually, I don't think the Dapol Prairie is all that bad. In many ways it's better than the Hornby and in some ways it's worse. I think it comes out in front on balance.)

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

Bound to with that gearing…

 

My intentions with the large prairie may be of some elucidative value to marketeers, especially as my eventual purchase was not in accordance with them.  My idea was to wait until both models were available and compare them as objectively as I could based on whatever their various qualities or otherwise were in regard to my layout’s need for a loco that will run well at slow speed with DC control; I correctly predicted that this would be a swings and roundabouts situation. 
 

All very objective and laudable, but then I saw an offer for the Hornby in the unlined black unicycling livery I wanted for £106 at Bure Valley Models, rose to the bait, and bit like the hungry little fishy that I am.  Well done Bure Valley, who delivered fast and did not charge postage.  This was November 2019.  I am happy with my Hornby prairie. 
 

I would condone the idea of a new 2021 with alternate bodyshells, but don’t need one for Cwmdimbath.  It would at least play into my master plan for world domination by increasing interest in half-cab panniers and possibly persuade Hornby to retool the 2721.  My feeling is, though, that they regard this prototype as a trainset/Railroad cheap’n’cheerful model and always have. 
 

Prove me wrong, Mr. Kohler!

[Andy Kirkham]

I thought this picture would go go down well on this thread

[melmerby]

On 26/01/2022 at 17:38, The Johnster said:

 

I would condone the idea of a new 2021 with alternate bodyshells, but don’t need one for Cwmdimbath.  It would at least play into my master plan for world domination by increasing interest in half-cab panniers and possibly persuade Hornby to retool the 2721.  My feeling is, though, that they regard this prototype as a trainset/Railroad cheap’n’cheerful model and always have. 
 

Prove me wrong, Mr. Kohler!

It wasn't a budget model when released, just another of the long line of Triang models 'based' on the faithful Jinty chassis.

Mine even has the venerable X03/X04 motor, although moved forward to drive the front axle.

Of course it didn't see the light of day until the Triang name had gone, but it was still Rovex industries.

However these days, especially with the much cheapened chassis, it is definitely stuck in Railroadland.

[AyJay]

Having just enjoyed watching 'The Titfield Thunderbolt',  I was most surprised that I could not find a OO gauge class 14xx  0-4-2 locomotive.  I gather Airfix did do one.

I would also be willing to snap up a Jinty.

[Harlequin]

37 minutes ago, AyJay said:

Having just enjoyed watching 'The Titfield Thunderbolt',  I was most surprised that I could not find a OO gauge class 14xx  0-4-2 locomotive.  I gather Airfix did do one.

I would also be willing to snap up a Jinty.

The 14xx was not a pannier tank.

Hattons more recently did a 14xx which looks beautiful but runs indifferently.

 

[PMP]

On 22/01/2022 at 16:44, The Johnster said:

 

Which is, paradoxically, something that would count against potential RTR production, because RTR firms do not want to encourage us to provide ourselves with locos from our own resources, but to buy them RTR.  For example, there was a time when a popular method of acquiring a 94xx that was a bit better than the pathetically-chassised Lima was to use the reasonably detailed Lima body on top of a Bachmann 57xx chassis.  It wasn't perfect but many of us found ourselves able to live with it's inaccuracies.  Bachmann became aware of this by means of their sales of running chassis, and stopped selling running chassis for 57xx/8750; this may have been the genesis of their own production of a 94xx, though it arrived at a speed comparable, and not very favourably, to continental drift.  In the interim, those attempting this conversion had to rely on donor or separate running chassis from the 'Bay, and the asking price went up as demand increased.

 

This shows that the manufacturers do not like the idea of us making our own locomotives using parts of theirs, as their production method is to order in batches of defined numbers from the suppliers and not hold stocks of spares.  So, if Bachmann (for example; they all operate in the same way) orders 2,000 57xx panniers from the Chinese subcontractors, then the Chinese make exactly that number of bodies, that number of running chassis, 8,000 buffers, etc, to complete the order.  Hence you cannot buy a separate running chassis because that would mean that there would be a separate body that was intended to go with it that now becomes a shelf blocker and difficult to sell.  You have to buy the complete loco, which is their intention,

 

Back in the day, when production took place in the UK, models were in continuous production and spares simply taken off the line to order.  The Chinese method does not facilitate this, but has other advantages; it is still probably cheaper to batch produce in China and ship to the UK than to do it here, though the gap is closing, and it is certainly better quality.  We had about 2 decades, 1995ish to 2015ish, of very cheap high quality models that exploited low Chinese labour and overheads costs, which must have attracted many people into the hobby.

This is just unadulterated wibble.

The simple facts are Bachmann’s original pannier split pannier chassis was poor. The gears and quartering failed regularly with splitting gear and axle failures. They replaced the chassis with a better, but still relatively poor split chassis design, which was available as a spare, 35-900.

 

In 2004/5 as part of the ‘Blue Riband’ range upgrades they introduced the contemporary chassis design starting with the new tooled high cab version, followed very quickly by the low cab also with new body tooling, this is what we have today.
 

These are distinguished by the Blue Riband 32- catalogue series numbers, split chassis models are 31- series and weren’t concurrent. Each 32- series came in two versions DC/DCC ready and DCC fitted following with the year IIRC. When those were introduced the split chassis design had already been withdrawn. 

 

The notion that the 35-900 chassis spare were withdrawn because they were being used for 94xx’s en masse is simply not true. One of my regular exhibition layout operators did do such a conversion, to a Lima body, and we ran it at shows when he attended. It was the one of two I recall seeing. It generated some discussion with viewers because it was unusual, for most others it was ‘just another pannier’. At the time the other route was using a Wills etched chassis, or if you could find one a Perseverance 57xx etched chassis, those you did see from time to time were at more finescale oriented shows.

 

Bachmann announced,  (let alone delivered), their 94xx nine years after the withdrawal of the spare Pannier chassis, hardly a reaction to a handful of people converting Lima models. 

 

If we want manufacturers to take note of social media platforms like this one, the less we write such tissues of nonsense about those same manufacturers, the better.

 

 

 

 

 

[melmerby]

On 04/02/2022 at 22:25, PMP said:

The simple facts are Bachmann’s original pannier split pannier chassis was poor. The gears and quartering failed regularly with splitting gear and axle failures. They replaced the chassis with a better, but still relatively poor split chassis design, which was available as a spare, 35-900.

 

In 2004/5 as part of the ‘Blue Riband’ range upgrades they introduced the contemporary chassis design starting with the new tooled high cab version, followed very quickly by the low cab also with new body tooling, this is what we have today.
 

These are distinguished by the Blue Riband 32- catalogue series numbers, split chassis models are 31- series and weren’t concurrent. Each 32- series came in two versions DC/DCC ready and DCC fitted following with the year IIRC. When those were introduced the split chassis design had already been withdrawn. 

Surely the original chassis was the Mainline one with an across the chassis "pancake" motor?

Bachmann reworked this to take an inline can motor but little else changed, the wheelsets were the same, the body was the same.

Then came the Blue Riband with a brand new solid chassis, proper wheelsets and a newly tooled body (now available in 8750 & 57XX types)

 

Here's what was released up to 2013.

Split Chassis:

 

Solid Chassis (Blue Riband):

 

 

Note only 2 DCC fitted and they have different running numbers.

Edited April 6, 2022 by melmerby

[melmerby]

IMHO Bachmann used to have a very logical numbering system

30-XXX Sets

31-XXX Split chassis locos (ex Mainline)

32-XXX Newly Tooled solid chassis (Blue Riband) locos

33-XXX ex Mainline wagons

34-XXX ex Mainline coaches

37-XXX & 38-XXX Newly Tooled wagons

39-XXX Newly Tooled coaches

Everything in it's place, easy to check what was what.

 

Later there was 35-XXX for new locos but meanwhile some went into the 31-XXX range, thus mixing old with new

Some newly tooled coaches went into the 34-XXX range as well, to further mess things up.

Total confusion!

 

 

[Neal Ball]

Interesting to catch up on the las5 page of comments this morning.

 

I have set up a poll in the GWR section, canvassing opinion for  a new Pannier tank loco, to modern standards.

 

The poll is here: 

 

[PMP]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

Surely the original chassis was the Mainline one with an across the chassis "pancake" motor?

Bachmann reworked this to take an inline can motor but little else changed, the wheelsets were the same, the body was the same.

Then came the Blue Riband with a brand new solid chassis, proper wheelsets and a newly tooled body (now available in 8750 & 57XX types)

 

Here's what was released up to 2013.

Split Chassis:

 

Solid Chassis (Blue Riband):

 

 

Note only 2 DCC fitted and they have different running numbers.

Yep  the Mainline types were released by Bachmann (and Replica), thanks for finding those tables i couldn’t locate them in a quick search. The lack of DCC fitted versions was undoubtedly due to the Uk DC/DCC market share of the time, still primarily being DC.