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

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

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1898 was the year 1490, a 4-4-0PT was built, it was withdrawn by the GWR in 1907 by which time conversions of saddle to panniers had started.

 

The cross-over point at which the number of 0-6-0PTs exceeded the number of 0-6-0STs was in 1920:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html.

 

So I think one can say that PTs were only really the characteristic type for the last quarter or so of the company's existence, whereas STs were characteristic for getting on for half. But PTs were certainly characteristic of BR(W). That connects with my theory of perception: when an enthusiast thinks of one of the grouping companies at its most characteristic, what they are visualising is really the state of play in the early nationalisation period. The same goes for pre-grouping companies - the collective memory is of their final, or early grouping state. (O.S. Nock, b. 1905, and C. Hamilton Ellis, b. 1909, have a certain amount to answer for in reinforcing this habit of mind.)

Edited June 8, 2023 by Compound2632

[MrWolf]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So I think one can say that PTs were only really the characteristic type for the last quarter or so of the company's existence, whereas STs were characteristic for getting on for half. But PTs were certainly characteristic of BR(W). That connects with my theory of perception: when an enthusiast thinks of one of the grouping companies at its most characteristic, what they are visualising is really the state of play in the early nationalisation period. 

 

Good point and something that had occurred to me when I decided to populate my semi fictional branch line with old, obscure and acquired locomotives as well as the branch line favourites (under the guise of replacements or trials.) 

So perhaps a pannier of older origins and perhaps it could be offered as a saddle tank even?

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

So perhaps a pannier of older origins and perhaps it could be offered as a saddle tank even?

 

Exactly what I've been driving at!

[MrWolf]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Exactly what I've been driving at!

 

And why not. Something that can span 1905-55 and still leave a little room for those who like a slightly flexible time frame.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

And why not. Something that can span 1905-55 and still leave a little room for those who like a slightly flexible time frame.

 

I was looking for 1895!

[MrWolf]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was looking for 1895!

 

There's your flexible time frame in action!

[melmerby]

57 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

So perhaps a pannier of older origins and perhaps it could be offered as a saddle tank even?

Start with a 1076 at al and you can have side tanks as well.

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

1898 was the year 1490, a 4-4-0PT was built

 

I would laugh my doo-dahs off at the howls of anguish from RMWeb's GWR community (I suspect a breed distinct from 'those who buy GWR stock') if they were promised a new RTR pannier to top modern spec and it turned out to be 1490 🤣

 

...and then I would order one, and set about modelling the East end of Bath c.1900 as a shunting layout. Yum 😎

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I was looking for 1875!

Fixed it for you :)

 

 

 

And I think that's me full-circle. Cheers all, it's been emotional!

[MrWolf]

41 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

I would laugh my doo-dahs off at the howls of anguish from RMWeb's GWR community (I suspect a breed distinct from 'those who buy GWR stock') if they were promised a new RTR pannier to top modern spec and it turned out to be 1490 🤣

 

...and then I would order one, and set about modelling the East end of Bath c.1900 as a shunting layout. Yum 😎

 

Fixed it for you :)

 

 

 

And I think that's me full-circle. Cheers all, it's been emotional!

 

1490? I'd buy one just for the hell of it. 

 

I'm accumulating bits and pieces to build Number 13, the 4-4-0ST. 

 

Why?

 

Just because.

[Schooner]

Excellent news :)

 

There's not a bit of pre-1910ish Looe line stock I'd turn down, and the bogie stock seen in this photo of 13

has gotten me into so much trouble in 7mm that it's overflowed into Ingleford!

[RJS1977]

20 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

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

 

I would argue that preservationists (and even the scrapmen!) had a lot to do with it as well.

 

Whilst a fair number of Prairie tanks were purchased by Woodham Brothers, most of the locos I've seen in photos of the site appear to be tender locos. I can't remember seeing any photos of panniers at Woodhams, so I suspect most panniers were either bought by other scrapyards, or broken up at Swindon. 

 

I suspect too that preservationists tended to go for the biggest locos they could afford, because of the higher perceived prestige. Much as how now it's the "high spec" modern classic cars that tend to be preserved rather than the once more numerous lower end models that are the real social history.

 

Several of the pannier tanks that entered preservation came via the NCB or LU, after the best locos had already left Barry.

 

It's interesting that apart from the County tank, there don't seem to have been any proposals to "new build" a GWR tank loco, much less a pannier or a saddle tank.

[MrWolf]

I think that you're right there, the American classic car enthusiasts have a term: "The more there were, the less there are".

[Blandford1969]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Whilst a fair number of Prairie tanks were purchased by Woodham Brothers, most of the locos I've seen in photos of the site appear to be tender locos. I can't remember seeing any photos of panniers at Woodhams, so I suspect most panniers were either bought by other scrapyards, or broken up at Swindon. 

There were not that many which went there which is why you did not see many photos.

 

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

I suspect too that preservationists tended to go for the biggest locos they could afford, because of the higher perceived prestige. Much as how now it's the "high spec" modern classic cars that tend to be preserved rather than the once more numerous lower end models that are the real social history.

In terms of selection the criteria tended to be what was in the best condition and needed the least amount of work, certainly in the 70s. By the 80s they were all in need of much more. Had it been as you say the BR standards would have gone first but as we know this was not the case. 

 

The following Panniers came from Barry Scrapyard 3738 ,9629 , 4612 , 9681,9682.

 

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, MrWolf said:

I'm accumulating bits and pieces to build Number 13, the 4-4-0ST. 

 

Why?

 

Just because.

Why not as a 2-4-2 well tank? (as well!)

Then there's No.1, another 4-4-0T, this time with side tanks

[MrWolf]

Ahem, I might just be working on a 2-4-2T as well....

[Coach bogie]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

I can't remember seeing any photos of panniers at Woodhams, so I suspect most panniers were either bought by other scrapyards, or broken up at Swindon. 

All the early cab 57xx are still around courtesy of London Transport and the NCB. If was not for these fleets being sold from stock, there would not be any early 57xx preserved as only the later cab variants made it to Barry. It helped that these engines were in service until the late 1960's/early 1970's and available as complete, in some cases working locomotives by which time the preservation movement was more developed and in a better position to acquire the panniers.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[JimC]

13 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

I suspect too that preservationists tended to go for the biggest locos they could afford, because of the higher perceived prestige. Much as how now it's the "high spec" modern classic cars that tend to be preserved rather than the once more numerous lower end models that are the real social history.

I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the early history of say Bluebell and Dart Valley they were very much geared to tank engines. I recall some surprise when the Dart Valley bought a Manor, because what use would it be. There are non enthusiast related distorting factors, one being Dai Woodham's purchasing policy, and another what survived in service very late - Industrials and Black 5s!

 

As regards classic cars, build quality is a big distorting factor in survival. 

[RJS1977]

21 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

As regards classic cars, build quality is a big distorting factor in survival. 

 

Agreed with build quality affecting the survival of some makes of cars rather than others (though conversely some makes of car were condemned to the banger circuit because of how well they were made!).

 

However I was thinking more of the sub-models. An Escort Mexico for example is much more sought after than a standard model (to the point that standard models are often cannibalised to keep Mexicos etc going), despite the fact that the standard models were the ones people went to school in, learned to drive in, went on first dates in, etc....

[melmerby]

What got saved at Barry was mainly due to it's location, which covered South Wales & West of England for withdrawn locos.

e.g. The only Midland 3835 survivor (43924) owes it's survival to the fact that it was withdrawn from Bristol Barrow Road in 1965. No others survived, not even from the Midland's heartland.

 

We also need to thank BR for generally keeping a steady flow of withdrawn steel wagons for Dai Woodham's which was his day to day scrap fodder.

The locos were really only a back up for if/when the steel wagon flow dried up.

 

13 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

The following Panniers came from Barry Scrapyard 3738 ,9629 , 4612 , 9681,9682.

Barry also had a 6th 57XX pannier, No. 3612 which ended up as spares.

[The Stationmaster]

Quite a lot of panniers went to Hayes at Bridgend and they kept one working for shunting their sidings for some time after its arrival/.   And unlike Dai Woodham they started cutting as engines were delivered to them although the built up qiuite a stock at one stage because they couldn't keep pace  with the number of engines arriving. 

[Blandford1969]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

What got saved at Barry was mainly due to it's location, which covered South Wales & West of England for withdrawn locos.

e.g. The only Midland 3835 survivor (43924) owes it's survival to the fact that it was withdrawn from Bristol Barrow Road in 1965. No others survived, not even from the Midland's heartland.

 

We also need to thank BR for generally keeping a steady flow of withdrawn steel wagons for Dai Woodham's which was his day to day scrap fodder.

The locos were really only a back up for if/when the steel wagon flow dried up.

 

Barry also had a 6th 57XX pannier, No. 3612 which ended up as spares.

It is still brought up now and then for a period of time we could keep 3 Panniers in traffic as that third boiler was being done up.  A bit like the other 15xxs that were cut up, Before my time but there was not the money to save them all and they were run into and beyond the ground. 

[Mikkel]

On 07/06/2023 at 07:54, Mikkel said:

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.

 

 

 

So here I have mapped the 1921 shed distribution of the 2021 class. 

 

 

The Google "My Maps" feature has limitations but the online version of the map allows a bit more play (select class then zoom in and click marker): 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/viewer?mid=1ukwWmwpqiPGZUrZvlm2pHKAHw1JLXtoF&ll=51.87204469255919%2C-2.566403999112987&z=7

 

Below I have listed the 2021 allocations by shed, in 1921. Swindon and Lydney accounted for 28% of the class between them:

 

(*) Swindon allocation includes Swindon Works (18 locos)

 

Below are the three classes I have mapped so far compared, left to right is 2721, 1854, 2021 classes.

 

 

 

The 2721s are the most concentrated of the three classes, but there were also fewer of them.  

 

 

Does anyone know a mapping app that would allow the shed markers to have different sizes depending on the no. of locos allocated? 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mikkel

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

 

So here I have mapped the 1921 shed distribution of the 2021 class. …..

 

These shed allocation maps are fascinating Mikkel thank you.

 

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

……Does anyone know a mapping app that would allow the shed markers to have different sizes depending on the no. of locos allocated? 

 

I used these sort of maps to plot loads of data back in the day when I was on the acquisition trail. I’ve not found one that has different icons, but suspect they are available in the paid for apps.

[Harlequin]

You've probably seen this before but there's a great collection of photos of the 2021 class here:

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

 

They show a lot of the variations which occurred across the class but I don't think that variety should really put a manufacturer off. As with most classes a manufacturer just needs to go for the most typical variations and let people customise the models if they want some of the more oddball versions. The combinations of features and liveries that are not made in any initial production run could be produced in further runs.

 

It has to be said, though, that the one variation that they really should attack right from the start is the big one, the tank. I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the need for new pannier vs. saddle tank models but if the prototype class had both and if there's enough commonality in the tooling then it would be wrong not to model both. I mean, how could you resist this:

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Harlequin

[Neal Ball]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You've probably seen this before but there's a great collection of photos of the 2021 class here:

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

 

They show a lot of the variations which occurred across the class but I don't think the variety should really put a manufacturer off. As with most classes a manufacturer just need to go for the most typical variations and let people customise the models if they want some of the more oddball versions. The combinations of features and liveries that are not made in any initial production run could be produced in further runs.

 

It has to be said, though, that the one variation that they really should attack right from the start is the big one, the tank. I mean, how could you resist this:

 

Interesting set of photos there Phil. Including this rather wonky handrail 🤣