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

[Neal Ball]

8 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Does anyone know how one might convert any of these things into 850 or 2021 class tanks? Helston saw members of these classes and while I love the new Accurascale 57xx announcement I would need rule 1 to run them. Also could I have more details on the best way to get a good 2721 running?

For the 850 or 2021 locos you could use the mech for the A/s Pannier, putting a kit loco body on top - subject to wheels etc being correct. (I’m on the road at the moment so can’t check - back home in a week!)

 

The 2721 is easier, take a good running Bachmann loco and discard the body. The mech will fit under the 2721 body, but needs adjusting to get in there. The advantage is you can open out the area under the tanks to correctly show daylight. Mike @Coach bogie is the person to speak to here. I will now be using a surplus Bachmann mech for this project.

[Miss Prism]

I understand that blue-route panniers weren't allowed into Helston, and could only work to Nancegollan?

 

 

[RCP]

22 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Does anyone know how one might convert any of these things into 850 or 2021 class tanks? Helston saw members of these classes and while I love the new Accurascale 57xx announcement I would need rule 1 to run them. Also could I have more details on the best way to get a good 2721 running?

I’m also interested in converting a pannier, namely to a 655. My first thoughts were 3D print it but I haven’t got a scooby doo as to where I would find relevant drawings and I have a replica railways pannier that could be pressganged. Also have one old Hornby 2721 in need of a new chassis although I think the axel spacing is skewed so I’m not sure of the best way to solve this.

 

Thank you Accurascale, this can fill in the pannier number 8745. 🥳

[St Enodoc]

43 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Does anyone know how one might convert any of these things into 850 or 2021 class tanks?

 

30 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

For the 850 or 2021 locos you could use the mech for the A/s Pannier, putting a kit loco body on top - subject to wheels etc being correct.

Don't know about the 850s but the wheels are too big for a 2021.

[RCP]

33 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

The advantage is you can open out the area under the tanks to correctly show daylight.

Do you have a picture of this? Not sure what you are referring too.

[Harlequin]

@Andy Keane

 

The 57xx class: Wheel dia. 4ft 7 1/2in, Wheelbase: 7ft 3in + 8ft 3in

 

The 2021 class: Wheel dia. 4ft 1 1/2in, Wheelbase: 7ft 4in + 7ft 4in

The 54xx, 64xx, 74xx classes have the same wheelbase as the 2021s but bigger driving wheels.

 

There is a kit for the 2021 class. Erm: NuCast Partners.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Harlequin

[Andy Keane]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I understand that blue-route panniers weren't allowed into Helston, and could only work to Nancegollan?

 

 

The book by Jenkins says these locos operated on the branch but as to whether they all got to Helston is less obvious - do you have details you could share please?

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Andy Keane

[Miss Prism]

53 minutes ago, RCP said:

Do you have a picture of this? Not sure what you are referring too.

 

 

[Andy Keane]

1 hour ago, Neal Ball said:

take a good running Bachmann loco

any particular Bachmann loco? the 57xx seems to be what you mean?

Edited November 24, 2023 by Andy Keane

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Andy Keane

 

The 57xx class: Wheel dia. 4ft 7 1/2in, Wheelbase: 7ft 3in + 8ft 3in

 

The 2021 class: Wheel dia. 4ft 1 1/2in, Wheelbase: 7ft 4in + 7ft 4in

The 54xx, 64xx, 74xx classes have the same wheelbase as the 2021s but bigger driving wheels.

 

There is a kit for the 2021 class. Erm: 

Also:

 

The 16xx class: Wheel dia. 4ft 1 1/2 in, Wheelbase 7ft 4in +7ft 4in.

 

So a 16xx chassis would be a better starting point for a 2021.

[Miss Prism]

8 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

The book by Jenkins says these locos operated on the branch but as to whether they all got to Helston is less obvious - do you have details you could share pleas?

 

 

 

I don't. It's just something I picked up from somewhere, but I could be mistaken (bad recollection etc). The table you give contains a 2721, which is large-ish, and were yellow as saddle tanks, but marginally blue weight in their final big pannier tanks style. Does the book clarify? The table doesn't contain a 57xx/8750, so I guess there's a weight reason for that (in steam days). The class 22s were well into the blue range, almost red, so I presume the line restriction must have been thrown out of the window in its final years.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

 

I don't. It's just something I picked up from somewhere, but I could be mistaken (bad recollection etc). The table you give contains a 2721, which is large-ish, and were yellow as saddle tanks, but marginally blue weight in their final big pannier tanks style. Does the book clarify? The table doesn't contain a 57xx/8750, so I guess there's a weight reason for that (in steam days). The class 22s were well into the blue range, almost red, so I presume the line restriction must have been thrown out of the window in its final years.

 

 

I thought the D63xxs were yellow?

Edited November 24, 2023 by St Enodoc

[Mike_Walker]

So did I and all my photos of them in green show yellow spots - they seem to have omitted them once they went blue apart from the early repaints.

[Miss Prism]

The early 22s were 69 tons. That's 17.25 t per axle. That's middle blue area in GWR terms.

 

Maybe the rules changed in BR days.

 

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

The early 22s were 69 tons. That's 17.25 t per axle. That's middle blue area in GWR terms.

 

Maybe the rules changed in BR days.

 

That's feasible - the 57xxs went from blue to yellow in BR days of course.

[Miss Prism]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

That's feasible - the 57xxs went from blue to yellow in BR days of course.

 

Yes, but that didn't mean that they were allowed on all the previously non-allowed lines!

 

I'm sure I've seen a line restriction list (is that the right name?) somewhere.

 

[Andy Keane]

45 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

and were yellow as saddle tanks

perhaps they ran to Helston as saddle tanks - certainly Helston was a yellow disc station in the thirties which is my period

[Andy Keane]

28 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Yes, but that didn't mean that they were allowed on all the previously non-allowed lines!

I have never seen a photo showing a 57xx at Helston in any period, though I do have one in my stash

Edited November 24, 2023 by Andy Keane

[Schooner]

On 24/11/2023 at 08:13, Andy Keane said:

Does anyone know how one might convert any of these things into 850 or 2021 class tanks?

 

"The 850 class had a 7'4" + 6'4" wheelbase, 4'7" front and 6'3" rear overhangs and smaller 4' wheels. When thicker tyres were used they increased in diameter to 4'1½"." vs. 57xx wheelbase of 7ft 3in + 8ft 3in and wheel dia. 4ft 7 1/2in.

 

Not easily, in short.

 

I've been pretty vocal about my preference for an 850 here already, so will try not to irritate...

 

...but...

 

:)

 

...for all I applaud the recent announcement (the EPs really do look excellent), I do think it a shame that yet again a decision has been made which raises further barriers to anyone interested in the half-century of railway history before Grouping. Particularly a class like the 850s, of which 40-odd panniers and a brace of saddles wore black* and which you could put in an NCB or industrial livery without anyone batting an eyelid. This means it could, with a little marketing effort, be purchased perfectly happily by the majority of the BR Brigade and Groupers, punters at preservation lines/museums etc whilst being a prime 'gateway drug' to new modellers, those looking to other aesthetic, historic or practical** considerations, or just keen to try something new. It's also a missed opportunity for a developing brand to make a mark by educating/leading/creating its market instead of re-hashing an easy sell. Well done Accurascale, you'll shaft Bachmann but now nobody else will make a similar GWR tank engine and I don't feel that's benefitted the hobby all that much. Compare to Hattons vs. Hornby. *Sigh* It's definitely Friday.

 

*Or were at least taken on by BR
**It makes the world of difference on small layouts to be able to run little locos hauling shorter trains of smaller stock.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Schooner
Link added

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I've been pretty vocal about my preference for an 850 here already, so will try not to irritate...

 

...but...

 

:)

 

Yes. Faced with "let's make a GWR 0-6-0PT", it has to be admitted that a 57xx is an unimaginative choice.

[Harlequin]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes. Faced with "let's make a GWR 0-6-0PT", it has to be admitted that a 57xx is an unimaginative choice.

 

But commercially, very rational.

 

[Schooner]

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

But commercially, very rational.

 

Not according to this poll, if one gives it more than the most cursory glance.

 

EDIT: Unless Accurascale's business plan for their steam locos is not to make good models for the market but better models than their rivals to target market share. In which case I can't see how they could do better than a 57xx.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Schooner

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

But commercially, very rational.

 

Ah well, would it be too rude to suggest that means there are a lot of unimaginative GWR/WR 00 modellers out there?

 

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Not according to this poll, if one gives it more than the most cursory glance.

 

Present company excepted, of course!

[Neal Ball]

Apologies for my sketchy replies, we are away in the motorhome at the moment and I wasn't expecting the Pannier announcement just yet! Otherwise I would have brought the relevant books 😎

 

Thanks for those who have provided the fuller answers for us.

 

I note in the Accurascale presentation the project manager slipped(?) by saying they could make all Pannier tanks from this start. A/s are famed for making variations on a theme, so what is to say that next year after the 57xx has sold well, we might get a different 0-6-0PT.... Just a thought, I don't have any inside information,

 

Its a start and Acurascale are to be applauded.

[The Johnster]

On that theme, it would be relatively easy for Accurascale to tool body parts for 1854 or 2721 half-cab heavy panniers, possibly the Buffalos, and the saddle tank versions, using the 57xx/8750 mech, and I would be highly delighted, not to mention a good bit poorer, if they did.  Some prototypes need parallel fluted coupling rods but As are good at these sorts of variations.  
 

The 54/64/74xx medium panniers would need to be a completely new tooling, and no 54xx, later batch 64xx (squared off corner between cab and bunker side, no lip to cab roof front), and 74xx have ever been produced in RTR, ditto engines with no topfeeds.  These would lead to the possibility of the 2021 half cab, and of course the saddle tank version.  
 

The 16xx/850s would also need new tooling suites.  If As are really going to take on all the panniers, three basic types with all the variations assuming we are discounting the 15xx and 94xx, that is a very ambitious project for which they are to be highly applauded and which deserves our support!

 

In the meantime, Andy Keane wants a 2721.  So did I.

 

On 24/11/2023 at 08:25, Neal Ball said:

The 2721 is easier, take a good running Bachmann loco and discard the body. The mech will fit under the 2721 body, but needs adjusting to get in there.

 

Which is what I did.  But this is not without it’s issues and the result will not really cut the mustard against current RTR.  The 2721 bodyshell is a very old Triang Hornby tooling and can be worked up a bit; a new chimney, dome, and safety valve cover will lift it considerably, but…

 

Like all Triang Hornby-tooled 0-6-0s, it used axle spacing derived from the 1955 R52 Jinty chassis block.  The model was retooled several times over it’s long production like, and went through several types of generic Jinty-type chassis, but never changed it’s incorrect axle spacing (it wasn’t correct for the Jinty either, or any British 0-6-0 that I know of).  Since the Bachmann 57/8750 chassis has correct axle spacing for a 2721, the Triang Hornby splashers do not line up with the wheels.  The Bachmann motor’s worm gear protrudes through the firehole door, which I got around by fitting a tarpaulin weather sheet for the crew to huddle under; it occasionally rains in Wales…

 

I found I could live with this, but, in order to fit the loco over a chassis block that was too long for it, Triang Hornby had to stretch something and in this case it was the bunker, which looks ridiculously out of proportion to the rest of the loco and is the reason I ultimately put the Baccy chassis back under it’s donor 57xx. 
 

Please, somebody, produce a 2721 or 1854 half-cab pannier to modern RTR standards for me, pretty please?  A half-cab pannier all of my very own!  And I shall love it and care for it, and take it for walkies, and clean up after it, and change it’s bedding and give it fresh bedding and kibble every day, and…

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by The Johnster