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

[longchap]

Looks as if 2085's taken a tumble from the footplate damage too.

 

Useful to remember when working with the odd modelling kink!

 

[Neal Ball]

19 minutes ago, longchap said:

Looks as if 2085's taken a tumble from the footplate damage too.

 

Useful to remember when working with the odd modelling kink!

 

There’s a prototype for everything Bill.

[Schooner]

Thanks for that link @Harlequin, just the thing for a Sunday morning coffee break :)

 

I found it a nice reminder that even sticking to real liveries gives a lot of scope to sell both tank types

 

I mean...just look at that little face!

 

Speaking of little, a great demo of [one of] the reasons for my own class preference:

 

For us space-constrained modellers - from pre-Grouping BLTs to post-Nationalisation industrials -  it makes a big difference to how a layout looks and even operates to be able to reclaim a few mil here and there.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Schooner

[Neal Ball]

Come on little fella, I’ll give you a hand 😎

 

 

[Mike_Walker]

Is it not the other way round...?   😁

[Neal Ball]

1 minute ago, Mike_Walker said:

Is it not the other way round...?   😁

Probably yes! The caption says the Southern loco was under repair at Oxford GWR shed.

[phil_sutters]

No need - I am quite happy with my 1950s Gaiety diecast on a Triang chassis.

 

[Mikkel]

21 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

These shed allocation maps are fascinating Mikkel thank you.

 

Thanks Neal. I actually thought that there would be a clearer regional variation among them. But the 2021s clearly did get around the GWR empire, so no excuse there for a manufacturer to let them lie.

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I mean, how could you resist this:

 

 

I agree. So much so that I dis-assembled, cut up and rewired the Rapido 16xx chassis and began modifying the old Sutherland 2021 kit to see if I could match them.

 

 

The fit was just possible (after major alterations) and the wiring can go in the tank, but the project stalled when I realized that the daylight under the boiler would be limited because of the motor.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Mikkel
To clarify

[Compound2632]

23 hours ago, Mikkel said:

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

 

So if these allocations are not dissimilar to those of twenty years earlier, it looks like a 2021 is the favoured "green beetle" (as the Midland and L&NW me called them) for the Wolverhapton - Walsall goods (running powers over the Midland Wolverhampton & Walsall line). Although one has to consider that only 80 of the class were in service by 1902.

[Compound2632]

Also depends which engines went new to Wolverhampton. Perhaps what I'm really looking for is a 1501.

[melmerby]

On 11/06/2023 at 10:26, longchap said:

Looks as if 2085's taken a tumble from the footplate damage too.

 

Useful to remember when working with the odd modelling kink!

 

 

It is straight as an arrow on my screen.

The pipe droops near the front but that is all.

[The Stationmaster]

On 12/06/2023 at 08:34, Compound2632 said:

Also depends which engines went new to Wolverhampton. Perhaps what I'm really looking for is a 1501.

The 2721s were orignally very much a Southern Division class (like the far more numerous 1854s). withe  mjority allocated to Sourh Wales depots  By the 1920s - according to the RCTS - only four had reached teh Wolverhampton Division  - in 1921 c.80% of the class were still in South Wales.  By 1933 the Wolverhampton Division's fleet had only risen to 9.  They remained very much South Wales engines with just over half the class allocated to the three South Wales Divisions in 1933 with the Newport Division alone being home to a quarter of the entire class.  Even as late as 1948 c.60% of the remaining engines were at South Wales sheds while those elsewhere were in most cases singletons with more than one at only Worcester (3), then Salop, Slough and Taunton all with two each (source Longworth).,

 

The far more numerpus Wolverhampton designed and built 2021s always had a wide distrbution which  ina number od f respects reflected their suitability for brachline work across the GWR system albeit not everywhere.  Overall probably the better engine for branchline work and with the added bonus of being ideal for shunting in dock areas.

[OnTheBranchline]

This thread sort of begs the question of if the basic 57xx Bachman chassis is so old, why hasn’t any other manufacturer tried something new?

Edited June 19, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Neal Ball]

5 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

This thread sort of begs the question of if the basic 57xx Bachman chassis is so old, why hasn’t any other manufacturer tried something new?

That was where I started when I posted the initial part of the thread.

 

I would hope that we’ve raised the profile sufficiently for a new loco to be announced….. obviously I don’t know at this stage when that might be.

[The Johnster]

On 19/06/2023 at 01:00, OnTheBranchline said:

This thread sort of begs the question of if the basic 57xx Bachman chassis is so old, why hasn’t any other manufacturer tried something new?

 

The current Baccy 57xx/8750 chassis, and arguably those for the 45xx/4575 and 56xx as well, are pretty good value as they stand for us DC Neanderthals; reliable, well detailed, good slow-running performance, and quiet.  The 94xx mech is similar but has a coreless motor which is more reactive to the controller, and will start at lower settings of it's knob (oooer, missis!).  Of course, these mechs could be improved for DC running; lower gearing, working inside motion, basic compensation to improve pickup (and there is no reason the 94xx coreless motor could not be used in future production runs of the other locos) (nor should it be beyond the wit of man to provide DC stayalives), but arguably don't need improvement for DC running, as they have no particular problems to solve.

 

DCC, outside my comfort zone in terms of both knowledge and affordability, is probably another matter.  The basic technology of it has barely changed since these models were first introduced in their current toolings about 20 or so years ago, but in that time there have been significant developments in terms of sound, lighting, and firebox glow; it has proven possible to incorporate these into the models at the cost of ballasting, which is a desirable feature that does no favours to the locos' performance if any of it is removed. 

 

This sounds like a valid case for Bachmann retooling those mechs to improve them, and this would presumably raise the question in that company of bodyshell retooling as well.  But, and without wishing to be contentious, I am of the view that Bachmann are, for the time being, something of a spent force in terms of introducing new toolings for steam outline locos, and will remain so at least as long as sales of the existing models hold up, which I believe they are doing, the market responding well to 'tickling' with new numbers and livery variants.

 

I am hoping that this will lead to other manufacturers taking up cudgels on behalf of us pannierphiles, and Dapol, AC, & Rapido have all announced and produced new GW models in the time since the Baccy 94xx was introduced, so I'd say the future is hopeful.  A pannier never offends...

[Miss Prism]

A recent ebay win - 1259 at Fowey on 7 July 1921 with a passenger train, or shuffling some coaches. It was a saddle tank up to about a year before this. In those days, Fowey had two platforms (one with a bay) and a footbridge! The middle road still has inside-keyed track. Note the different sizes of lettering on the signboard. Buffalos were quite common in the area at the time, but offhand I don't know how many St Blazey had.

 

[Coach bogie]

The double frame panniers have to be my favourite. I am lucky to be running this M&L Cadman/Waterman kit from the 1980's. It was my first attempt at quartering outside cranks. My dad, who was a master at this, refused to help me and insisted I had a go. I made a right hash of it as you would expect, then he showed the areas to correct. "Treat it as conjoined 0-4-0s" was his advice. And I did.  Lined up the centre wheel cranks first then reverse the con rods so only one pair of axles were connected. When running sweet, did the same at the other end. When the rods were attached to all six cranks, no tight spots. Inspired me to make other outside crank locos. My other favourite is the Beyer Peacock rebuild as panniers with curved frames. Made one of those from a run down K's tender Beyer. I have the parts to make a 303 when I get back the UK. It will not stop me buying another Buffalo if one were to appear out of the box. If Hornby can make an outside crank industrial then why not?

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Andy Keane]

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Fowey on 7 July 1921

Is that diagonal platform fencing typical of the time. I don’t recall seeing it before?

Andy

[Miss Prism]

2 hours ago, Andy Keane said:

Is that diagonal platform fencing typical of the time. I don’t recall seeing it before?

 

I don't think it's typical of any time. The platform lamps are distinctly non-GWR as well.

 

[Neal Ball]

Over on the Accurascale Manor page, it was suggested that

 

“The Pannier-lovers are on a permanent state of readiness.”

 

Clearly it would be very good if Accurascale were to announce a new Pannier tank loco….. just in case you’ve not seen the poll recently Steven and Fran - it’s here 😎😎  @McC @Accurascale Fran

 

Now which one would be the favourite for Accurascale to make?… Maybe they would do several….. 

[The Johnster]

Seconded, thirded, fourthed, fifthed, well, you get the idea.  1854 or 2721 half-cabs please, though I’d consider an 8750 without a topfeed.  

[Captain Kernow]

On 12/06/2023 at 07:42, Mikkel said:

I agree. So much so that I dis-assembled, cut up and rewired the Rapido 16xx chassis and began modifying the old Sutherland 2021 kit to see if I could match them.

 

The fit was just possible (after major alterations) and the wiring can go in the tank, but the project stalled when I realized that the daylight under the boiler would be limited because of the motor.

You are possibly the bravest man on RMWeb!!

 

I decided some time ago that my modelling time would be better spent on other projects, rather than that abomination.

 

[gwrrob]

We don't see much shewn of the most underrated Bachmann 94xx class, here's 9440.

 

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

We don't see much shewn of the most underrated Bachmann 94xx class, here's 9440.

 

Agreed.

 

[Coach bogie]

Even I bought one and it is totally out of my time period! In the past I have been critical of Bachmann pulling power, but the Bachy 94 is a superb puller, quite happy on thirty wagons.

 

I must get around to replacing the GWR with GREAT WESTERN and renumbering 9400.

 

Mike Wiltshire