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

[The Johnster]

In which case I will point you in the direction of Stafford Road Works, a 3D printers who market through Shapeways.  These people do a very reasonable looking 2721 saddle tank bodyshell to fit on the Bachmann 57xx chassis, though be careful of prototype as not all 2721s in saddle tank form had fishbelly coupling rods.  You have to complete in terms of buffers, handrails, and such.

 

Worth mentioning that because of boiler swaps, and the locos recieving the next refurbished boiler available to limit overhaul time, some locos that had been converted to pannier tank configuration had their Belpaire boilers replaced with parallel boilers during the 20s and 30s (and possibly as late as the early 40s) and therefore 'reverted' to saddle tank configuration.  Your point about the prevalence of panniers in the 20s is quite correct, and it was the following decade before Belpaire boilers, production of 57xx, and the introduction of the 54xx, 64xx, and 74xx panniers tipped the balance.  Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of panniers, and find saddle tanks of the size of 1854s and 2721s to look a bit lumpen and clumsy, but the smaller engines like 2021s and 850s carry off saddles with much more style and proportion.

 

TTBOMK cabs with rear sheets, 57xx style, were not fitted to saddle tanks but I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point.  They were certainly fitted to some 850, 1854, and 2721 pannier rebuilds, and the 2021 that was the prototype rebuild for the 54xx class.

[Schooner]

Thanks for the pointer to SRW, I'll have a look now, and thanks also for the extra fuel for my burning 850 bias :) 

 

Small edit made to last post btw, might be worth a second glance.

[The Johnster]

Deffo worth the second glance, Schooner!  How about the Swindonised rebuilt Rhymney Railway 'K' class, an outside framed 0-6-2PT rebuilt from a ST.  Swindon also put pannier tanks on a Cardiff Railway 6-coupled saddle tank, which spent it's entire working life on Cardiff Docks where it was the only loco of that power allowed around some of the tighter curves.

[Coach bogie]

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

2721 at a pinch so as to retire the geriatric Triang Hornby one from 1980)

Does not take much to alter the Hornby to take a Bachmann pannier chassis and update the body. Major plus is the daylight under the boiler.  With weight in the tanks, 2779 is one of my best pullers. I added a cab to match a photo  I have of 2779 on Westbury in the 1930's.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Welchester]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

In which case I will point you in the direction of Stafford Road Works, a 3D printers who market through Shapeways.  These people do a very reasonable looking 2721 saddle tank bodyshell to fit on the Bachmann 57xx chassis, though be careful of prototype as not all 2721s in saddle tank form had fishbelly coupling rods.  You have to complete in terms of buffers, handrails, and such.

 

Unfortunately, the Stafford Road model is designed to fit the Hornby chassis. I don't know if it could be fettled to fit the Bachmann version.

[JimC]

9 hours ago, Schooner said:

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

Its a shame that the original locomotive was an unusual type... Worth noting that 795's sister, 921, still a saddle tank, has survived into preservation, and that the builders, Brush Electrical, still survive in business under the same name. Indeed until fairly recently they still owned the factory in Loughborough where the pair were presumably built. The reason for the unlikely sounding Brush Electrical as a builder of steam engines is that they had taken over Falcon Engine & Car Works.

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, melmerby said:

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)

The problem with theh 2721 is that they were a relatively small class with limited distribution over the GWR system as a consequence although they spread a bit further in their later years.  They only just made it, buy a couple of yrears, into BR days which would restrict the market.

 

The 2021s have various advantages especially their smaller size which makes them suitable for places many other engines couldn't go and they lasted in traffic, albeit in reduced numbers, into the mid 1950s.  they a;lso have the cachet - albeit later heavily Swindonised  - pf being Wolverhampton designed and built. Plus numerous detail variations some of which probably wouldn't be economic for r-t-r production

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Welchester said:

 

Unfortunately, the Stafford Road model is designed to fit the Hornby chassis. I don't know if it could be fettled to fit the Bachmann version.

 

I imagine it could, as the Hornby 2721 can be bodged to sit on the Baccy chassis fairly easily, but of course this is an assumtion and not to be taken as confirmation.  You might have to remove material at the 'shoulder' of the inside of the saddle tank to get it to sit properly over the motor.  You would still be left with incorrectly positioned splashers, as the Baccy chassis has correctly spaced axles and a Hornby generic 0-6-0 doesn't (not even for the Jinty it was originally designed for, and retoolings continued the original error), but I found with my upgraded 2721 that this is not obvious unless you are viewing the loco from a directly 90degree side-on perspective. 

 

I might have bought this print had I thought of it when I was working my 2721 up, and discarded the saddle tank but kept the running plate, cab, and bunker all of which are much superior to the Hornby effort, especially the bunker which is much more proportionate to the loco as a whole.  Certainly worth replacing the Hornby top furniture and buffers, and new tank fillers and lifting rings won't come amiss, but the pannier/boiler assembly isn't the worst part of the model.  I put a lot of wasted effort into failing the Hornby mech* to run properly before giving up and using the Baccy 57xx.

 

But a new 2721 or, better from my pov, an 1854 (one at Tondu lasted six months longer than the last 2721), would be infinitely better.

 

 

*I think this was the 'mk3' generic Hornby 0-6-0, drive to the front axle and an odd arrangement of springing the rear axle, a pair of springs sitting in the chassis block and bearing down directly on the rear axle.  On mine these had scratched marks into the axle, and the first job was to attack the rough ends with emery, which was kinder on the axle.  The next problem was that pickup was compromised by the rear wheels' traction tyres, which I binned and replaced the wheels of, to find that pickup was still compromised by the overpowerful springs lifting the chassis so that the centre wheels were clear of the rails.  Consulting the service sheet (free pdf download from Hornby website) found that the instruction was that the strength of the springs could be adjusted by trimming them if they were too powerful or stretching them if they were not powerful enough!  Trial and error until I got the loco to sit with all it's wheels on the track, then of course I had to dress the ends of the springs again.  There was an improvement but slow running was never good enough so I replaced this mech with the Baccy, which is still giving good service beneath it's original 57xx donor bodyshell.

 

 

52 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The problem with theh 2721 is that they were a relatively small class with limited distribution over the GWR system as a consequence although they spread a bit further in their later years.  They only just made it, buy a couple of yrears, into BR days which would restrict the market.

 

The 2021s have various advantages especially their smaller size which makes them suitable for places many other engines couldn't go and they lasted in traffic, albeit in reduced numbers, into the mid 1950s.  they a;lso have the cachet - albeit later heavily Swindonised  - pf being Wolverhampton designed and built. Plus numerous detail variations some of which probably wouldn't be economic for r-t-r production

 

IIRC some 2021s carried early BR liveries including unicycling lions and smokebox numberplates.  As you say though, Mike, the variations within the class mitigate it being ideal for RTR production, and anyway I'm not particularly in the market for one, though there were examples of them at Tondu prior to nationalisation.  Two 2721s and an 1854 made it into post-nationalisation at Tondu, one 2721 going in 1948 and the other at the end of March 1950.  The 1854, 1870, lasted until the end of October 1950. The 1950-withdrawn 2721, 2761, was released by Hornby in an incorrect 1945-7 G W R initials unlined green livery; the actual loco carried 1942-5 austerity unlined black and the 'Grotesque' sans-serif G W R initials applied at Caerphilly Works during that period, being withdrawn in that livery.  TTBOMK transfers for this lettering are not available for 4mm, which is a shame as many South Wales GW tank engines were given it; panniers, 56xx and some absorbed rebuilds, 5101s, 42xx, 5205, and 72xx.  The GWS have applied it to some of the engines at Didcot.

[Neal Ball]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The problem with theh 2721 is that they were a relatively small class with limited distribution over the GWR system as a consequence although they spread a bit further in their later years.  They only just made it, buy a couple of yrears, into BR days which would restrict the market.

 

The 2021s have various advantages especially their smaller size which makes them suitable for places many other engines couldn't go and they lasted in traffic, albeit in reduced numbers, into the mid 1950s.  they a;lso have the cachet - albeit later heavily Swindonised  - pf being Wolverhampton designed and built. Plus numerous detail variations some of which probably wouldn't be economic for r-t-r production

 

A 2021 0-6-0PT would be very nice....

[RJS1977]

On 04/06/2023 at 19:06, Neal Ball said:

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…

 

 

I wasn't saying that there aren't a good number of prototype-based layouts around, however I would say that even in RMWeb, they are greatly ouitnumbered by freelance or fictional layouts, and magazines and visits to shows would tend to bear that out as well.

 

Whilst I am aware that there were a good number of different classes of pannier tanks, I wasn't talking about different classes. I was questioning whether it was really worth a manufacturer's while trying to cover off as many different variations within one class as possible.

 

Just because there are variations available doesn't necessarily mean people will buy more than one, especially in the current economic squeeze.

[Coach bogie]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The problem with the 2721 is that they were a relatively small class with limited distribution over the GWR system as a consequence although they spread a bit further in their later years.  They only just made it, buy a couple of years, into BR days which would restrict the market.

 

Agreed. The benefit of a 2721 is the common 7'3"- 8'3" wheel spacing it shares with several other tank engine classes; 1813, 1854/1701 and the 57xx. It gives an opportunity for any manufacturer to expand into other types. 

 

2021 which benefits from lasting into BR, a must it, for many years with manufacturers but less so now. With smaller wheels, it shares its' 7'4" - 7'4" wheels base with the 54/64xx which is already covered. With a class service range of 60 years there are enough variants to keep any manufacturer busy for many seasons.

 

Despite making my own, I will still buy more. You can never have too many panniers!

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Neal Ball]

4 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

……. You can never have too many panniers!

 

Mike Wiltshire

Definitely agree with that Mike

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

 

A 2021 0-6-0PT would be very nice....

Yes, it would save me having to build my Nu-Cast kit.

[Mikkel]

Me too. I like building kits but having tried to deal with the old version of that particular kit anything is better!

 

Here are the overviews I made earlier of the 2721 and 1854 allocations using Harrison's 1921 register, to show their distribution. If I get time over the coming days I'll have a go at the 2021s. The numbers by the markers show no. of locos. The depots are listed by name here.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Mikkel

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes, it would save me having to build my Nu-Cast kit.

I intend building my saddle tank, it is the latest version with etched chassis and there is an awful lot of detail in the body, such as: an opening smokebox door (choice of 2), blast pipe, petticoat & front tubeplate! I think I might forego those.

I'll not be buying a 2021 pannier kit, however as I've plenty on the go at the moment!

(4 kits in varying stages of completion + 2 not started)

 

[Neal Ball]

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Me too. I like building kits but having tried to deal with the old version of that particular kit anything is better!

 

Here are the overviews I made earlier of the 2721 and 1854 allocations using Harrison's 1921 register, to show their distribution. If I get time over the coming days I'll have a go at the 2021s. The numbers by the markers show no. of locos. The depots are listed by name here.

 

 

Excellent mapping thanks Mikkel. On the strength of that I’ve been able to track down a 1934 allocations book.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I wasn't saying that there aren't a good number of prototype-based layouts around, however I would say that even in RMWeb, they are greatly ouitnumbered by freelance or fictional layouts, and magazines and visits to shows would tend to bear that out as well.

 

Whilst I am aware that there were a good number of different classes of pannier tanks, I wasn't talking about different classes. I was questioning whether it was really worth a manufacturer's while trying to cover off as many different variations within one class as possible.

 

Just because there are variations available doesn't necessarily mean people will buy more than one, especially in the current economic squeeze.

There are so many straightforward variations in the 57XX/8750 that with the right tooling a quite wide range of options is available without going too far into things like slides or other tooling complications.  And some of them have never been touched in r-t-r so arguably there is an untapped market there for something a little different (and I'm not just  talking about engines without a top feed).   Plus of course as already noted above the axle spacing has lots of legs for future use under other designs.

 

The 2021 would fill a very different hole in the market and still offers the possibility of completing the gap nit yet fully addressed by Bachmann's 64XX.   

 

And as others have said - you can't have too many panniers (as the GWR itself proved)

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

you can't have too many panniers (as the GWR itself proved)

At nationalisation, the GWR had 1,251 0-6-0T, the vast majority of which were Panniers out of a total of 3,856 steam locos handed on to BR.

One third of the total.

 

About two thirds of all GWR locos were tanks of various types, so they are the norm, not tender engines as so many GWR layouts depict.

Edited June 7, 2023 by melmerby

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

At nationalisation, the GWR had 1,251 0-6-0T, the vast majority of which were Panniers out of a total of 3,856 steam locos handed on to BR.

One third of the total.

 

About two thirds of all GWR locos were tanks of various types, so they are the norm, not tender engines as so many GWR layouts depict.

Yes that’s right.

 

The perception is always that the GWR was only 4-6-0 locos, when in fact the majority were a lot smaller…

[MrWolf]

48 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Yes that’s right.

 

The perception is always that the GWR was only 4-6-0 locos, when in fact the majority were a lot smaller…

 

I suspect that model manufacturers can take a lot of the responsibility for that misconception, followed closely by photographers!.😁

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

so they are the norm

Even at main line through stations, like so many GWR layouts depict...?

[melmerby]

21 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Even at main line through stations, like so many GWR layouts depict...?

Yep.

If it's anywhere near suburbia, the chances are there will be several stopping train services, often tank powered.

Even some longer distance trains might be hauled by a tank.

e.g. Oxford - Birmingham Snow Hill could be seen with a tank (51XX) at the fore in BR days.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

Even at main line through stations, like so many GWR layouts depict...?

It depended very much on where the station was and the traffic passing through it.  But those witha lot of short/medium dstance commuter traffic saw a lot more tank engines that did some others.  and tender engiens were a. rarity on most GWR branches.

 

The GWR was indeed very much a tank engine railway and interestingly it was also the company which probably did more to eliminate 0-6-0 tender engines than the other Grouped companies - from a quick count at Nationalisation it had only 195 0-6-0  tender engines and 75 of those had gone within a decade.   Similarly at Nationalu isation it had the smallest number of four coupled tender engines among the Grouped companies although they had at one time only a few decades previously formed the major part of its passenger engine fleet.

[Schooner]

Thank you both for taking the comment more seriously than it perhaps deserved and giving interesting and useful replies.

 

I was targetting more the layouts than the GWR itself. My point was more that whilst we can apply our own criteria to others' trainsets, the norms are whatever they want to run the most! See my recurring point in this thread that the GWR had no pannier tanks at all for longer than it had any; and that they were not the norm until what is (from my perspective, although I appreciate this is not the majority view) its twilight years of Grouping and final extinguisuing of the light at Nationalisation...

 

:)

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Schooner
Sp

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

the GWR had no pannier tanks at all for longer than it had any;

A close call; No Pannier Tanks, 1837-1898 = 61 years,  Pannier Tanks, 1898 - 1948 = 60 years

1898 was the year 1490, a 4-4-0PT was built, it was withdrawn by the GWR in 1907 by which time conversions of saddle to panniers had started.

 

Had they not decided to adopt Belpaires as the standard for boiler/firebox, they still probably would not have had (m)any.

The difficulty of fabricating saddle tanks to fit a Belpaire firebox profile caused the change.