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

[Mikkel]

You could try email, in the past they have responded well enough to that.

[JimC]

It's probably a good way to weed out less serious expressions of interest! Quite a few public libraries have printers the public can use so there's always a way.

Edited November 26, 2023 by JimC

[Fair Oak Junction]

3 minutes ago, JimC said:

It's probably a good way to weed out less serious expressions of interest! Quite a few public libraries have printers the public can use so there's always a way.

 

My local library was closed and moved years ago sadly, another sign of the time. As Mikkel suggested I will try emailing them.

I'll explain the situation and hopefully they can put me down as a serious expression of interest.

[Andy Keane]

1 hour ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

Well I would love to register interest with Alan Gibson for an 850 kit, but apparently you need to print off and post a form in to do it.

I haven't owned a printer in over 5 years, and haven't posted anything in even longer 😄

I have just printed the form, sorted out and envelope and even managed to find a stamp - fingers crossed!

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

I have just printed the form, sorted out and envelope and even managed to find a stamp - fingers crossed!

 

I very recently wrote off for a product list from another manufacturer, enclosing an SAE. My printer had been playing up, so the covering letter was very nearly handwritten. That was the same day as I posted off my cheque for the next four issues of MRJ, so I rather economically only had to walk to the postbox once. The old fashioned ways still work!

 

 

[Schooner]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

rather economically

Still cheaper to email  

 

sales@alangibsonworkshop.com

 

:)

[Andy Keane]

5 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Still cheaper to email  

 

sales@alangibsonworkshop.com

 

:)

I did think of that but their web site seems to be pretty clear that they only accept paper based forms as its a way of finding out who is really serious about getting a kit?

Andy

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Still cheaper to email  

 

It's not the cost, it's the satisfaction.

[Fair Oak Junction]

Well I hope they accept my email interest, otherwise no kit for me 😄

[Siberian Snooper]

32 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

Well I hope they accept my email interest, otherwise no kit for me 😄

 

You could always attend a show, where they have a stand.

 

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

A possibility. I'll have to keep an eye on their show calender.

[Andy Keane]

3 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

A possibility. I'll have to keep an eye on their show calender.

Would you like me to print off your form and pop it my envelope before I post it?

[Fair Oak Junction]

Just now, Andy Keane said:

Would you like me to print off your form and pop it my envelope before I post it?

 

That's very kind thanks, but you don't need to. I'll wait to see what they say to my email, and then I'll worry about it.

I'm sure I can sort something out 👍

[longchap]

9 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

850 kits are occasionally available from Alan Gibson, put your name down for one and when the list gets to ten Colin will run off a batch.

 

Apologies to @Neal Ball and everyone else for straying off topic, as I am fortunate to have an Alan Gibson 850 in the kit stash, but sadly without instructions. However, if any kind modeller has a copy of the 850 paperwork, I would be eternally grateful for their kindness if they could share the instructions with me.

 

I'm also looking forward to Accurascale's first batch of Panniers and have signed up for 5754 at present, although 6743 with the riveted tanks is very tempting. However, I think there maybe other useful variants following along later to consider, so the story will hopefully continue .  .  .

 

 

[tomparryharry]

On 11/06/2023 at 07:12, Mikkel said:

 

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? 

 

 

Have I got this wrong:- No Llantrisant?

[Mikkel]

Correct, no 2021s at Llantrisant in Harrison's 1921 list. 

 

For Llantrisant in 1921 the list says:

 

121, 305, 741, 749, 902, 963, 965, 1022, 1052, 1143, 1233, 1255, 1571, 1625, 1628, 1764, 1891, 2441, 2738, 3047, 3077

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Mikkel
To clarify

[Miss Prism]

More modern bashings at Llantrisant

[Barclay]

On 26/11/2023 at 10:16, sandra said:

I think it’s rather a shame Accrascale didn’t decide to model one of the older Pannier or Saddle tanks. The Bachmann 57XX is very good and an older tank, some of which lasted to the mid fifties, would have been nice.

 

I did fairly recently buy a kit built model of an 850/1901 tank off Ebay.

This is a model of 1965 which I believe was withdrawn in 1950. I don’t know if it’s an accurate model of the locomotive, I’d be surprised if an open cab Pannier lasted to 1950 but it may represent its appearance earlier in its life. It’s built compensated in EM gauge from an M & L kit and is fitted with a Portescap motor. It would be nice if a manufacturer produced a model of one of these older and to my eyes, more interesting Panniers.

Some did survive to the end with the open cab. I remember reading somewhere that crews at Birkenhead preferred them for shunting work because they had better visibility. Whether 1965 was one of these though, harder to establish!

I agree it would have been nicer if they had chosen something different given there is a decent 57xx already available.

[sandra]

1 minute ago, Barclay said:

Some did survive to the end with the open cab. I remember reading somewhere that crews at Birkenhead preferred them for shunting work because they had better visibility. Whether 1965 was one of these though, harder to establish!

I agree it would have been nicer if they had chosen something different given there is a decent 57xx already available.

Thanks for that, I’d forgotten about those based at Birkenhead which did have open cabs. However according to the information I have 1965 was withdrawn from Machynlleth in 1950. I don’t think I’d fancy an open cab pannier in Mid-Wales, particularly in winter.

[Fair Oak Junction]

Decent, yes, but also limited tooling. Had Bachmann catered for different versions in the first place then yes, this new tooled one would be superfluous.

Plus with Accurascale having now planted their flag, it gives other manufacturers the perfect excuse to look at other GWR Saddle/Pannier types 👍

[Barclay]

14 minutes ago, sandra said:

Thanks for that, I’d forgotten about those based at Birkenhead which did have open cabs. However according to the information I have 1965 was withdrawn from Machynlleth in 1950. I don’t think I’d fancy an open cab pannier in Mid-Wales, particularly in winter.

The Shed Bash website has it at Machynlleth at least as far back as 1939 so I reckon you are right!

[Schooner]

58 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

...it gives other manufacturers the perfect excuse to look at other GWR Saddle/Pannier types 👍

 

For a split market? I wouldn't touch a GWR 0-6-0T with a barge pole now - many of those who would've bought any GWR PT will now have a brand-new 57XX, decimating* the group likely to fork out for any other GWR PT.

 

* At best. Assuming this poll is usefully indicative, that might well be in the region of half total sales. Significant.

 

Mind you, turns out I am a poor judge of the industry to so fingers x'd that's two wrongs to make a right 850 :)

[Fair Oak Junction]

You may well be right, I don't really know. The poll, while very useful, is only indicative of a very small number of people. 182 members have voted on it, which is a good number but a tiny percentage of the active forum members. I'm sure there are even a fair few GWR modellers who haven't voted (never forget the silent majority). And even then, RMweb only represents a certain percentage of the hobby as a whole. This hobby over the last few years has shown people like new and interesting locos. The GWR saddle tank 0-6-0s are something new and interesting, something not done before in OO RTR (as far as I know) so would stand out against the 57xx and other Panniers. A number of the manufacturers have shown a willingness to take on the more obscure, the more interesting, the locos that fill gaps, and they have sold well generally. Maybe I'm wrong, but never say never 😉

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

Decent, yes, but also limited tooling. Had Bachmann catered for different versions in the first place then yes, this new tooled one would be superfluous.

Plus with Accurascale having now planted their flag, it gives other manufacturers the perfect excuse to look at other GWR Saddle/Pannier types 👍

Nothing to suggest Bachmann won't keep producing Panniers, might even retool them - look at the class 37 for a direct Accurascale example or the Peaks and 47 for a Heljan one.  For other flavours of GWR 0-6-0 or 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 tank engines I would be looking to Rapido and Dapol who both have an interest in such models with other items of rolling stock they have in development.

[The Johnster]

Nothing wrong with a bit of froth, speculation, and wishlisting, I find this spectator sport/pundit aspect of the hobby great fun and enjoy participating.  But, except for those of us who either are or work for manufacturers, it is difficult to see it from their side of the fence.  Their job is to supply to our demand while making money for their backers or themselves in the case of the smaller firms.  Nobody's going to be a millionaire on the back of it, but there's a decent living to be made.  Problem from our side of the fence is that, while we think x will sell well, and it might, that doesn't automatically mean that it will make money for the people producing it, because we don't really know what the overheads are or how the production engineering pans out.

 

For example, we might say (and in fact I have) that the mechanism for Accura's 57xx/8750 models would be equally suitable for the previous heavy panniers and saddle tanks.  And so it would, but it's not a case of Accura having a stock of completed chassis in store ready for someone to put 2721 or 1854 bodyshells on them.  That might have been the case 50, 40, even 30 years ago, but the Chinese 'just in time' method of production, a major factor in our being able to source good models at prices acceptable to the market (yes they are, even if we like to moan about them), requires the exact number of components to be produced in batches to be assembled into finished models and shipped.  This happens in batches, so, picking numbers out of thin air, if Accura have contracted for 5,000 panniers in this batch, precisely 5,000 mechs will be produced no more no less.  There are no spares, and nowhere to keep them, and you wouldn't want to pay the market price to service the overhead for models produced in that way!

 

So, if Accura were, in say 18months time, to announce an 1854 (pretty please, just for me) and arrange for the Chinese to make 3,000 of them, there are no savings to be had from a stock of mechs already to hand, and another 3,000 mechs will have to be made.  That means a new tranche of booking factory space and arranging the whole production, and this is done as a project from the home producer's pov, standalone and financed, produced, marketed, and distributed under that particular project umbrella.  We automatically think of ways to use components in other model projects, because that's what my kitbashing generation of modellers have been doing for ourselves for at least 40 of  the last 60-odd years; it's how we think, our default.  But it's not how the modern manufacturing process works.

 

Will the Accura panniers dissuade other manufacturers from making other types of panniers, and will Accura do it as well?  I don't know, I'm not party to their thinking or circumstances, but...

 

One one hand, all GWR locos look the same, and a pannier is a pannier with the difference between classes being of little relevance to a typical modeller, whaever that is.  There is actually not much difference between them, they all look the same shape, it's a matter of size, chimney shape, and cabs, oh, and perhaps topfeeds.  If you want a couple of panniers on your layout, it doesn't matter much what they actually are so long as you are happy with them.  So, if you've already got a few Bachmann 57xx/8750s, why would you buy an 1854?

 

On the other hand, all GWR locos look the same except when they are different, and once you start becoming even a little familiar with them, there is no turning back.  Taking Bachmann as an example, they developed their current 57xx from the Mainline model into the perfectly acceptable form it is available in now, then introduced the 8750 version.  Ok, there's a difference in the cabs, but not much else, but for all that the 8750 sold at least as well as the 57xx, as the cognesciti wanted at least one of each on their layouts.  Bachmann had now produced both versions of the main class of GW pannier built from 1926 to 1950, and in service until 1966, catering to the bulk of steam-era GW modellers.  A pannier is a pannier, remember. 

 

Then they made a move which did not fit the 'pannier is a pannier' assumption; they introduced a 64xx.  I'm fairly sure there are plenty of modellers who can't tell the difference between a 64xx and an 8750, and who don't let it bother them, but they bought 64xx all the same.  It begins to look as if enough modellers will buy any loco you care to make because it is available, as I said somewhere else, build it and they wll come.  Then they turned up with the 94xx, which is different enough for anyone to tell it apart from an 8750, but all the same Rapido came along with the 15xx, having produced a 16xx that could pass for a 64xx at a distance in a poor light...

 

So, if we examine the last what? dozen years, starting with Bachmann having the situation well sorted with their 57xx/8750, Bachmann have introduced two new panniers, one never done before in RTR, Rapido have introduced two, neither done before in RTR, and now Accurascale have produced two, and say that this is part of a 'familly' of panniers, which may or may not bode well for my 1854; do they mean the 57xx/8750 family of panniers, including the 67xx/6750 and the 97xx condensers, or the family of heavy panniers in general?  The point is that manufacturers have a proven track record of introducing panniers over the last dozen years or so and Accura's duplication suggests that there is plenty of market out there, so we should be able to look forward to more.  The wishlisters are vociferous for a 2021.

 

If this is correct (it will not be, completely, but will be to an extent, it's just the extent that's debatable), then there is at least as much chance of a manufacturer producing an 1854, 2721, 2021, 1901, 850, Buffalo, any of them including the saddle tank versions and even outside-framers as there is of them not doing so.  I live in hope, but don't hold my breath.

Edited December 1, 2023 by The Johnster