Poll: GWR Pannier Tanks; time for a modern spec OO loco.

[Schooner]

There's also an element of personal preference involved in choosing the comparison:

 

If all that were available RTR were accurate, high-quality, chassis and mechanisms - leaving everything cosmetic to kits or scratch build - I'd be happy. So if a company can deliver outstanding performance, it is that I am happy to pay for; and that which the Hatton's P proves can be done on a budget.

 

It's not quite that any fool can make a pretty model, but there are certainly more good-looking kit-builds out there than there are good-running ones...!

[melmerby]

10 minutes ago, Schooner said:

accurate, high-quality, chassis and mechanisms

The Bachmann 57XX chassis is pretty good. It's an excellent runner with correct wheel spacing and wheel size.

If you don't like the moulded brake gear etc. add your own.

[Captain Kernow]

15 minutes ago, Schooner said:

If all that were available RTR were accurate, high-quality, chassis and mechanisms - leaving everything cosmetic to kits or scratch build - I'd be happy. So if a company can deliver outstanding performance, it is that I am happy to pay for

I would be happy to pay more than the current quoted price of the Rapido 16XX, for a better mechanism, without some cockamamy modern cored motor that doesn't like DC feedback and where there is no combination of chassis, gearbox, and loco body into a virtually indivisible whole, thus creating an abomination for those of us who might like to use the sublime RTR body on our own chassis.

 

[Neal Ball]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Yes, I would think the Hunslet would be a more accurate guide than the P Class, which is also a smaller loco (though that doesn't necessarily mean lower development and assembly costs).

 

I guess a lot comes down to how many "bells and whistles" and "interchangeable parts" are really needed. I'd suggest it's only a very small cachet of modellers who want a particular loco as it looked on 3rd June 1927 - most would be perfectly happy with "a GWR pannier tank".

But surely that level of “make do and mend” is exactly what my poll is against.

 

I am advocating a pre-WW2 Pannier tank, which means no topfeeds…. That’s been my argument for years…. Simply dressing a GWR 0-6-0 with “Great Western” or the shirtbutton logo on the tanks when it’s got a top feed, is no longer acceptable.

 

Pays your money and take your choice.

 

I would like several pre-WW2 locos without any major compromises…. Accepting that OO is a compromise already.

[exet1095]

A vote for the 2021 from me. Industrial service into the 1960s, passenger service (including auto-fitted) into the 1950s. Open cab, closed cab, various bunkers and even bells and spark arresting chimneys. 
 

Last month’s ‘Bylines’ to illustrate my point.

 

Paul

[The Johnster]

What the Good Captain said.  Modern steam outline mechs are pretty good but have, IMHO, lagged behind the standards of scale and detail expected deze daze.  Good, smooth, reliable slow running and smooth starting and stopping are still elusive for DC customers, and haulage of big passenger engines is still lacking, which is why Tony Wright prefers kit-builds for 90mph level running with 14-coach ECML expresses.  Much could be improved with simplified compensation and DC stayalives, but the RTR producers can make more off full-fat whistles-and bells DCC.  A basic level of compensation might be attainable with a degree of flexibility in plastic chassis blocks and motion. 
 

Some engines are a bit too track-sensitive for general rough’n’tumble use as well.  I’ve had some trouble with track going very slightly out of level lately, and a relaying and seeing to beckons, but the leading and trailing ponies of both Bachmann small and Hornby large prairies have little clearance beneath the main chassis castings and can lift the driving wheels enough to interfere with pickup at low speed; a Baccy Standard 3MT is fine!  And a Hornby ‘second generation’ (not ‘design clever’) rated for R3 setrack objects to facing Streamline medium turnout if it is running bunker first.  I’ve checked the b2bs!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

But surely that level of “make do and mend” is exactly what my poll is against.

 

I am advocating a pre-WW2 Pannier tank, which means no topfeeds…. That’s been my argument for years…. Simply dressing a GWR 0-6-0 with “Great Western” or the shirtbutton logo on the tanks when it’s got a top feed, is no longer acceptable.

 

Pays your money and take your choice.

 

I would like several pre-WW2 locos without any major compromises…. Accepting that OO is a compromise already.

 

I was thinking more that particularly with larger classes there are a whole load of detail differences that occur during the lifetime of construction (e.g. square windows vs round), never mind in service. It seems that these days manufacturers want to try to cover off as many of those variations as possible with alternative cabs etc which means more development costs, and more separately fitted parts that push up assembly costs. 

 

However I think topfeed is slightly different. Clearly it's easier to add topfeed to a model than to remove it. I have no objection to a manufacturer making the "standard" model the non top-feed one. Modellers who want top feed could either make it up themselves, or perhaps a top feed could be included loose in the box for those who wish to add it.

[MrWolf]

28 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I was thinking more that particularly with larger classes there are a whole load of detail differences that occur during the lifetime of construction (e.g. square windows vs round), never mind in service. It seems that these days manufacturers want to try to cover off as many of those variations as possible with alternative cabs etc which means more development costs, and more separately fitted parts that push up assembly costs. 

 

However I think topfeed is slightly different. Clearly it's easier to add topfeed to a model than to remove it. I have no objection to a manufacturer making the "standard" model the non top-feed one. Modellers who want top feed could either make it up themselves, or perhaps a top feed could be included loose in the box for those who wish to add it.

 

That's actually a good idea. If you can add a sprue of brake gear, one of topfeed pipes wouldn't be the hardest of jobs, separate moulded pipework has been a thing since the original RTR 14XX had it along the valances. 

As for spectacle plates, many appear to be a separate component in order to mould the spectacle frames etc, so substitution wouldn't be a problem, other than the budget for additional tooling, the same applying to rooves, belpaire Vs round top fireboxes as an insert etc.

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Modellers who want top feed could either make it up themselves, or perhaps a top feed could be included loose in the box for those who wish to add it.

Unfortunately it's not so simple.

There is also the pipework

3 hours ago, exet1095 said:

A vote for the 2021 from me. Industrial service into the 1960s, passenger service (including auto-fitted) into the 1950s. Open cab, closed cab, various bunkers and even bells and spark arresting chimneys. 
 

Last month’s ‘Bylines’ to illustrate my point.

 

Paul

Bit of a sorry state, poor thing.

I notice the dome has a "nipple" which was decried as being unprototypical on 5764.

Looking at a load of 57XX & 8750 domes, it seems it is not uncommon.

 

[Neal Ball]

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

Unfortunately it's not so simple.

There is also the pipework

 

And of course livery….. Topfeeds were added from 1942….

 

Although not every loco received them and later some were removed (at boiler change)

 

Its a complex story, but one that would be easy enough to get right, with the right manufacture.

[Harlequin]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I was thinking more that particularly with larger classes there are a whole load of detail differences that occur during the lifetime of construction (e.g. square windows vs round), never mind in service. It seems that these days manufacturers want to try to cover off as many of those variations as possible with alternative cabs etc which means more development costs, and more separately fitted parts that push up assembly costs. 

 

However I think topfeed is slightly different. Clearly it's easier to add topfeed to a model than to remove it. I have no objection to a manufacturer making the "standard" model the non top-feed one. Modellers who want top feed could either make it up themselves, or perhaps a top feed could be included loose in the box for those who wish to add it.

 

Remember that something like topfeed and it's pipework needs to be accurately held in place when it's present but there should be no tell-tale locating holes or pins, when it's not. So it might require a "slide" in the tooling to change it anyway - just another one of the factory mould variations, with only the pipes being separate parts.

 

As you say, manufacturers put the correct combinations of features and liveries together in the factory and I think that should include the topfeed. (BTW: Rapido told us that adding and assembling extra details actually adds very little to the cost of a model in another thread.)

Edited June 4, 2023 by Harlequin

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

….Manufacturers put the correct combinations of features and liveries together in the factory and I think that should include the topfeed. (BTW: Rapido told us that adding and assembling extra details actually adds very little to the cost of a model in another thread.)

That’s right Phil, it was during the conversation about interior details of the Toad brake van. “Adds nothing to the cost”…. At the volumns we are talking about.

[melmerby]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 I’ve had some trouble with track going very slightly out of level lately, and a relaying and seeing to beckons, but the leading and trailing ponies of both Bachmann small and Hornby large prairies have little clearance beneath the main chassis castings and can lift the driving wheels enough to interfere with pickup at low speed;

Blimey

Yout track must be really rough.

Mine is far from perfection but the Baccy 45XXs (I've got several) go everywhere without a problem. One even climbs the ramp on the coal stage.

 

The Hornby 61XX is a bit too rigid but I found slackening the keeper plate screws a little gives that extra play needed.

Never had a problem with going through Medium code 75 points though.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Maybe. But you've got to consider the manufacturers that have got to sell the things.

 

Seems all those Rapido 16XXs are still on the shelves. That is a class that lasted until the end of steam and has a preserved example.

 

How many obscure pannier tanks that even most GWR enthusiasts couldn't identify do you think they will sell? A few hundred isn't enough. Only 157 people participated in the poll.

 

11 of those voted for a model that is already available in the 1366!

Whilst another 26 voted for another 64XX even though Bachmann make one!

 

A third of the voters wanted them as cheaply as possible, whilst most would only buy one or two. That's not enough sales IMHO. You need to sell thousands of them.

 

I do hope those people don't run a model railway manufacturer as they will be bankrupt in a week....

 

 

Jason

The key point is in your first sentence.

 

Tooling alone costs well over £100,000 and that's before you actually make any and after you've spent.  a small firtune employing someone to do the research.   Research in itself has various pitfalls but the manufacturer needs infprmation and one of the best sources is having one you can go and measure (but don't be misled by some things on it) but like gathering photos (and knowing what/when they portray) and getting hold of drawings all takes time and money     An awful lot of money has to be invested before the manufacturer has anything to sell so he or she has to produce something which will sell and go on selling at minimal changes to the tooling for years to come.  that's the only way they can justify the investment.

 

So in effect the market - not he who shouts loudest - will decide.  How big is the market in many respects = how long did the engine last in traffic and in what numbers or liveries and so on.  Yes,  niche does ell but that needs very careful thought an bout which niche to look into and will it actually wash its financial face let alone make real money.  

 

So a simpe step for anybody who wants a particular design or type is to approach a manufacturer who accepts commissions and ask them for a price for what you 'know' will sell like hot cakes.  You get the price - big number - and then e aske everybody you know how many they will buy at the price you set.  If you've got it right you're onto a winner and you might even ask others to pay in advance to save using your own money.  

 

A few years back somebody on RMweb asked various Western modellers if they would join a project to commission an Aberdare but it wasn't possible to make the numbers work.  So a joint commissioning idea is feasible - all it needs is someone to kick it off and don't forh get that manuy older GWR tank engine designs used wheelbases and wheel sizes that were replicated on Collett orHawksworth era designs - which might keep costs down.

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

….Tooling alone costs well over £100,000 and that's before you actually make any …

 

…..So a joint commissioning idea is feasible - all it needs is someone to kick it off and don't forget that many older GWR tank engine designs used wheelbases and wheel sizes that were replicated on Collett or Hawksworth era designs - which might keep costs down.

That’s interesting Mike thank you and certainly food for thought….

 

If we work on the basis of £100000 as a basic cost, plus allow an extra £20,000 or £30,000…..

Let’s say it’s £130,000 to sell at £150 that means we would need to sell 867 units to break even. If it’s sold at £160 then you need to sell 813 units…

 

The idea of selling 800 odd locos to break even sounds a lot…. Would you be prepared to lay down £50 as a goodwill gesture?

 

When I set the question up 160 people responded: 

• 28 would buy 1
• 76 would buy 2 = 152
• 53 would buy 3;4; or 5 = 159 (based on 3 locos)*
• 3 people would buy 6 or more = 18

So conceivably we might sell 320 locos…. Which is a long way short of the 800 odd we would need. *if you go for the higher 4 or 5 locos you might add another 100.

 

Arguably of course if it was to be an Aberdare, or even a Barnum 2-4-0 I would say go ahead, launch a crowdfunder and see where we go…. But a Pannier tank, I think would be different.

 

However, I will make enquiries…. 😎😎

[RJS1977]

6 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

That’s right Phil, it was during the conversation about interior details of the Toad brake van. “Adds nothing to the cost”…. At the volumns we are talking about.

 

But then that is presumably one Toad interior, so only one new item to be developed and tooled.

 

If we consider a Pannier tank class which over the course of production may have had round and square window cabs, open or enclosed cabs, screw or lever reverse, auto-fitted or not, Belpaire or round-topped firebox, if all those variants are to be covered, then all of a sudden that's a lot of extra tooling costs, but probably won't make a big difference to total sales numbers. It might encourage a few collectors to purchase more than one, and may tick boxes for someone modelling a particular station at a particular period in time wanting the precise pannier tank that was used on that branch, but as the majority of modellers build layouts that are not based on particular locations, precisely which variation of the loco they purchase is of little consequence and they are less likely to buy a second one just because it's slightly different.

Edited June 4, 2023 by RJS1977

[melmerby]

The GWR didn't design many new Pannier Tanks after the Churchward era.

Most later ones are modernised versions of a previous design and kept the same basic dimensions.

The 94XX is effectively just a modern taper boiler on a redesigned 57XX chassis.

Hawksworth's 15XX was a big departure, apparently inspired by the USATC S100 tank but overall still looks like a GWR product.

[Neal Ball]

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

…..but as the majority of modellers build layouts that are not based on particular locations, precisely which variation of the loco they purchase is of little consequence and they are less likely to buy a second one just because it's slightly different.

If you take a look around RMWeb at the amount of layouts inspired by / based on exact locations, I think you would be surprised…. Plus how many layouts have more than just one Pannier tank loco.

 

Plus, an 0-6-0PT over the period of time from just Churchward through to Collett, the amount of different classes of Pannier tank… they might have different windows, but they also had different wheel bases and in some cases different wheel diameters.

 

There is an awful lot of variation and as a result people would buy more than one…

 

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

The GWR didn't design many new Pannier Tanks after the Churchward era.

Most later ones are modernised versions of a previous design and kept the same basic dimensions.

The 94XX is effectively just a modern taper boiler on a redesigned 57XX chassis.

Hawksworth's 15XX was a big departure, apparently inspired by the USATC S100 tank but overall still looks like a GWR product.

Correct. There was no such thing as a standard Pannier.

 

The Churchward era locos are a rich source of models.

[JimC]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Hawksworth's 15XX was a big departure, apparently inspired by the USATC S100 tank 

I don't think that claim really stands inspection. The GWR designers could have seen an S100 when they started work on what became the 15xx in 1944, but perhaps little more than that.

I did write a blog post on this, which I shan't duplicate, it's here if anyone's interested. 
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/25226-gwrwr-15xx-class-1948/

To summarise though here's my list of similarities and differences. 

Similarities

No footplate
Outside cylinders with prominent steam pipes

Outside Walschaerts gear

Wheel size 4'6 v 4'7.5

 

Differences

coal capacity (1 ton , 3.25 ton)

parallel/taper boiler

driven wheel

wheelbase (s100 as short as possible, 15xx longer and arguably as long as was practical)
boiler proportions (much bigger boiler on the 15xx)

 

For whatever my opinion is worth I think the similarities are mostly convergent evolution - what other configuration could you use for an 0-6-0T intended to be serviced without need for a pit. The main exception, the lack of a footplate, could just as easily be an idea pinched from Bulleid's Q1. 

 

[57xx]

On 03/06/2023 at 15:54, Neal Ball said:

 

It is of course pure guess work…. Based on the 94xx RRP at £145 a couple of years ago.

 

If we want the loco with all the bells and whistles, it’s likely to cost more.

 

The fact that Hattons can sell the P class at £85 is encouraging…. Are we suggesting someone is making a huge profit on the 94xx…. I somehow doubt it.

 

The tooling costs for the P class when it was produced x years ago w

are one thing, a loco that might appear in 2024 or 2025 will inevitably be another.

 

Also look at how much Dapol are knocking out the 43xx and Manors. As long as whoever picks it up doesn't lose the plot doing silly gimmicky bits on it, there's no reason for it to be priced that high.

[Schooner]

I've just been looking at my little loco stud and thinking about how I came to buy each of them, and why. This includes 3 x W4. I'd never even heard of Peckett before the Hormby release; yet I bought three. What was that about?

 

It struck me that it might be informative to turn the poll on it's head and ask 

 

What GWR pannier tank classes would you not buy, if made to modern standards and competitively priced?

 

For me, anything first built after 1900 would be a no-no, but apart from that I'm open to persuasion. What about you? What classes would manaufacturers lose your custom over?

[melmerby]

20 hours ago, Schooner said:

What classes would manaufacturers lose your custom over

A 57XX or 8750, as I've already got 4 + 2.

I also have a couple of 64XX.

 

(A 2021 gets a plus from me, or maybe a 2721 at a pinch so as to retire the geriatric Triang Hornby one from 1980)

[melmerby]

Further to the above, I've also got two bodies, a 57XX & 8750, which were bought to be de-topfed.

[The Johnster]

On 04/06/2023 at 21:37, Schooner said:

 

What GWR pannier tank classes would you not buy, if made to modern standards and competitively priced?

 

For me, anything first built after 1900 would be a no-no, but apart from that I'm open to persuasion. What about you? What classes would manaufacturers lose your custom over?

 

That limits your choice a bit; there were no panniers before 1900 or for a while afterwards.  Pannier tanks were first used on saddle tank engines that had been given Belpaire boilers at overhauls because the saddle tank could not sit on such a boiler and panniers were needed as access to bits between the frames was still required, so side tanks could not be used.  As overhauling a boiler takes about five weeks and the rest of the engine can be done in three weeks, boilers are swapped over to return engines to revenue service and free up erecting shop bays.  The first design that had pannier tanks from new were the 57xx in 1926.

 

However, I can't answer your question in the terms in which it is presented.  The only pannier tanks I would buy (in fact anything I buy) are those that I want, and in my case that means any type that might have appeared at Cwmdimbath, my South Wales mining valley BLT, from Tondu shed in the 1948-58 period.  I would not buy a 15xx, 16xx or a 64xx because there were none allox Tondu at this period (there were some 64xx post-1960), so AC and Bachmann have not lost my custom for these locos, because it is in any case nonexistant.  My area and period featured 57xx, 8750, 94xx, and the classes mentioned in the next paragraph. 

 

I'd buy an 1854 or a 2721, though.  There were examples of these classes extant at Tondu until 1950, within my period, even if it was probable that they were on their last legs and kept in the immediate vicinity of the shed on pilot work.  I had a worked-up Hornby 2721 on the layout for a while, Baccy 57xx chassis, details &c, but I couldn't ultimately get on with the misaligned splashers and oversized bunker, and it's chassis is now back beneath the eBay donor 57xx.  I'd buy an 850 at a push; 1923 was sold out of service and used as the spare for the area by the NCB, and worked at several collieries in the area in the 1950s, in a wonderfully modellable decrepit condition (dents and dings, tarp over the cab roof to keep the rain out, broken handrails, semi-scrapped filth livery), but retaining it's GWR number plates!  And I'd buy another 57xx or 8750 without topfeed and associated plumbing, though I've removed it from a 57xx and have an 8750 in progress.

Edited June 6, 2023 by The Johnster

[Schooner]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

That limits your choice a bit; there were no panniers before 1900 or for a while afterwards. 

I've already been vocal enough here that I don't want a PT at all, but an ST! They were in the majority into the 1920s, after all.

 

Mind you, if there was an RTR 1490...

:)

 

While I'm adding pictures, the other RTR pannier tank I'd really love to see is the rebuilt 795

 

which, like the 850 class, I think would sell as an industrial/generic

 

 

but I'm aware opinions differ!

Edited June 6, 2023 by Schooner