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

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

In the days of Dublo and Tri-ang, life was made easier for the designer because modellers didn't expect a mass of tiny detail below the footplate.

True, up to a point, but then it is probably fairly obvious which end of the “robustness to delicacy-of-detail” continuum I tend towards.

 

As I said, I’m not a potential customer, so I leave it to those who are to express what they do and don’t value in a r-t-r 00 loco.

[Captain Kernow]

30 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Actually, it is. The innards of the loco should be easily accessible and simple to service or repair.

Most of you know who I will point the finger towards, in terms of the virtual impossibility of separating chassis from body.

 

I have never looked at a Heljan 1366 closely, can the body be easily removed from the chassis there?

 

[MrWolf]

22 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

True, up to a point, but then it is probably fairly obvious which end of the “robustness to delicacy-of-detail” continuum I tend towards.

 

As I said, I’m not a potential customer, so I leave it to those who are to express what they do and don’t value in a r-t-r 00 loco.

 

Details underneath the footplate should be perfectly easy to include particularly when the chassis has been traditionally secured by screws or clips between the frames at either end of the chassis, so I think your original point is perfectly valid.

The use of "one shot" or hidden fastenings has been a boon to manufacturer and a nightmare for the repairer in the motor industry for the best part of three decades now. 

The over designing of assemblies in loco mechanisms is something that I think should be avoided and more attention paid to the quality of the mechanism itself. 

As far as the superstructure goes, things have really improved, which is why we'd like to see a pannier to current or better standards.

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Manufacturers don't like doing things that aren't scannable.

 

Not really the case (as McC has already noted).  i know that Accurascale scanned a 'Manor' but I also know why they scanned it and what use the designer made of that scan (as, in some respects, has been shown in connection with comments about the chimney in the 'Manor' thread).  But I also know what else the designer did as he looked at and measured numerous class members and I spent a goodly part of a day with him at Didcot going over various small details he needed to note and making suggestions about various things which could be done to make the model that much different from previous models of GWR 4-6-0s - all in addition to him taking off measurements and taking numerous photos  (we weren't there just for posing for videos despite what some folk will have seen on the 'net).    

 

Now we come to an important crunch in his design process because on top of him looking at available real ones  I arranged the purchase of copies of over 70 Swindon drawings  of numerous details of the class and they formed the basis of most of his design work especially in respect of numerous dimensions.   So you don't need a scan to make a model - and I know of something which happened with another manufacturer where a scan was used as the basis for the start of the design and all the work that resulted had to be scrapped because the overall length (which they hadn't bothered to measure with a tape) was well wrong and the designer didn't even notice until the client checked the dimensions on a CAD.

 

Scans are a useful back check when they are available but they definitely do not beat intelligent use of the correct original drawings (and even they can need knowledgeable interpretation when they raise more questions than they answer).  The most useful things are original drawings, including modifications etc;  and being able to look at, photograph, and measure the real thing provided it is in the right condition to represent what is being modelled;  and if the real thing is no longer available carefully dated and researched photos of what you are modelling.   Photos are also a critical aide memoire etc even if you can go and look at a real one.  And a properly done scan?   Just like very cleverly angled photos and very handy, but not indispensable, for doing a back check on 3-D drawings and CADs because they can easily be used as electronic overlays.  But note - that is being done on whatever has been designed using other data and not using the scan to design the model.

[Steamport Southport]

43 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Most of you know who I will point the finger towards, in terms of the virtual impossibility of separating chassis from body.

 

I have never looked at a Heljan 1366 closely, can the body be easily removed from the chassis there?

 

 

Never had the body off. But a quick look at it and the instructions suggests four screws to remove the body. Then another four screws to disassemble the chassis.

 

My DJM 1361 had problems with the gears. Pity as the body itself is probably the better detailed. Bought from Hattons when they had surplus stock, who let me have the Heljan one instead as a direct replacement.

 

Thinking about it I maybe should have kept it and got a CSP chassis. Something I might do in future seeing as they are currently discounted at Kernow. Might be worth a second attempt as I remember that Kernow did put a lot of effort in getting the details right between the different locomotives.

 

My view of Heljan is if you get a good one, they are excellent. I know that some have had problems with Heljan products, but I can only speak for my own experiences. The O2 2-8-0 for example could pull down a shed.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

I put "Six or more", I'm taking that means all types of Pannier rather than just a specific class and I expect it to mean over a few years as opposed to immediately.

 

The 15XX is due soon, as well as a 64XX in BR lined green (not got any 64XXs yet). Wouldn't mind more Bachmann 94XXs as well.

 

I also expect Bachmann to give the 57XX and 8750 a bit of a revamp over the next couple of years, if nobody beats them to it. 

 

So six is probably an underestimate. 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 intelligent use of the correct original drawings (and even they can need knowledgeable interpretation when they raise more questions than they answer).  The most useful things are original drawings, including modifications etc;  and being able to look at, photograph, and measure the real thing provided it is in the right condition to represent what is being modelled;  and if the real thing is no longer available carefully dated and researched photos of what you are modelling.   Photos are also a critical aide memoire etc even if you can go and look at a real one.  

 

... just like any other modelling, really.

[PMP]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The "average modeller" used to post on here that pushing pre-made handrails into pre-made holes on a ViTrains loco was too difficult. I doubt someone with that skill level is stripping down a chassis and replacing bearings. In the days of Dublo and Tri-ang, life was made easier for the designer because modellers didn't expect a mass of tiny detail below the footplate.

I think these are relevant points, not just for panniers but any motive power project in these times. The reluctance to add details from supplied packs means things like self application top feeds aren’t likely to be a strong selling point. The requirements of subsequent livery application and supplying two sets of handrails/injectors also goes against that methodology. Separate tooling for the different tank types would be more practical but more expensive.

 

The ease of historical chassis maintenance and affordability for manufacturers was also helped by the fact that the same chassis was used under different models. That economy of scale is again unlikely to be acceptable to today’s consumer if it means inaccurate chassis’.

[Neal Ball]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... just like any other modelling, really.

 

I was always taught to check, check and check again. I was still rubbish at woodwork, but Ive tried to adopt the principle!

 

Scans I'm sure are a useful means of checking, but I would expect any manufacturer worth their salt to add that into the mix of drawings and photos etc. and not rely on just one means of making the model.

 

Your comments about the scans for the Manor Mike aka @The Stationmaster are very interesting into the process.

 

Thanks, Neal.

[NHY 581]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Most of you know who I will point the finger towards, in terms of the virtual impossibility of separating chassis from body.

 

I have never looked at a Heljan 1366 closely, can the body be easily removed from the chassis there?

 

 

 

Afternoon Tim, 

 

Yes, in short. 

 

The main issue with them as I saw it was the fact they have two chassis keeper plates and the inner one can be jolly tight leading to the Ministry of Jerky Panniers. 

 

You have to remove outer, slacken inner, replace and enjoy. 

 

Sheep chap. 

[Islesy]

22 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Manufacturers don't like doing things that aren't scannable.

 

Sorry, but that simply isn’t true. In my time at Hornby and Accurascale I’ve only worked on one loco project which has relied on scan data for the design. With good research and a wealth of contemporary photography, along with manual surveying (if a prototype exists), it simply isn’t necessary. I’d rather trust to works’ drawings and ‘Lens of Sutton’, than rely on a 3D scan.

[NHY 581]

 

If I consider the manufactuers, a few sheep thoughts are as follows; 

 

Hornby- My recent purchases of their locos have all taken more than one example to find one that runs well. In addition, their focus on large locos, collectors editions and the whole Titfield thing has caused me to seriously question any brand loyalty I may have had. 

 

Bachmann- Two attempts to get a 94xx that ran well. Normally okay and well detailed. They could do it but how long would it take to appear ? 

 

Rapido- A horse's ar$e made of the 16xx bunker and electronic issues with them mean I am yet to take the plunge.  Three attempts were made to get a J70 that didn't waggle. But when I finally obtained one that didn't waggle, they ran very well indeed. 

 

Dapol- I only have a selection of B4s and they are excellent models albeit perhaps lacking a bit of weight. Crucially they run beautifully. 

 

For me that's the most important aspect. If the loco doesn't run well it matters not a jot how faithful it is to prototype. Hatton's disastrous 14xx was a case in point. Beautiful ( ignoring the AWOL Ashpan) to look at but I was unable to obtain one that ran well. 

For me, the ability to slow to a gradual stop, that last 'eighth ' of the final rotation with no sudden stop. If Dapol can manage this with their B4 and Hattons with their P class then all manufacturers should be able to follow suit. 

 

That leaves Accurascale. The level of detail on the Manor is jaw dropping. If and I'm sure it does, the running matches this then they have my vote ( not that this influences any such decision)  to produce a Pannier or two. 

 

A 57xx/8750 to the standard of their Manor will be a winner, without doubt. 

 

Rob. 

[Captain Kernow]

3 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

If I consider the manufactuers, a few sheep thoughts are as follows; 

 

Hornby- My recent purchases of their locos have all taken more than one example to find one that runs well. In addition, their focus on large locos, collectors editions and the whole Titfield thing has caused me to seriously question any brand loyalty I may have had. 

 

Bachmann- Two attempts to get a 94xx that ran well. Normally okay and well detailed. They could do it but how long would it take to appear ? 

 

Rapido- A horse's ar$e made of the 16xx bunker and electronic issues with them mean I am yet to take the plunge.  Three attempts were made to get a J70 that didn't waggle. But when I finally obtained one that didn't waggle, they ran very well indeed. 

 

Dapol- I only have a selection of B4s and they are excellent models albeit perhaps lacking a bit of weight. Crucially they run beautifully. 

 

For me that's the most important aspect. If the loco doesn't run well it matters not a jot how faithful it is to prototype. Hatton's disastrous 14xx was a case in point. Beautiful ( ignoring the AWOL Ashpan) to look at but I was unable to obtain one that ran well. 

For me, the ability to slow to a gradual stop, that last 'eighth ' of the final rotation with no sudden stop. If Dapol can manage this with their B4 and Hattons with their P class then all manufacturers should be able to follow suit. 

 

That leaves Accurascale. The level of detail on the Manor is jaw dropping. If and I'm sure it does, the running matches this then they have my vote ( not that this influences any such decision)  to produce a Pannier or two. 

 

A 57xx/8750 to the standard of their Manor will be a winner, without doubt. 

 

Rob. 

There speaks a wise and well-informed sheep.

 

In my experience, a loco can look really great on a layout, but what folk really remember is not necessarily the accuracy of the detailing or even the quality of the weathering but whether the loco runs smoothly or not, stalls or even derails, these being massive turn-offs for me, anyway.

 

 

[Neal Ball]

22 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

If I consider the manufactuers, a few sheep thoughts are as follows; 

 

Hornby- My recent purchases of their locos have all taken more than one example to find one that runs well. In addition, their focus on large locos, collectors editions and the whole Titfield thing has caused me to seriously question any brand loyalty I may have had. 

 

Bachmann- Two attempts to get a 94xx that ran well. Normally okay and well detailed. They could do it but how long would it take to appear ? 

 

Rapido- A horse's ar$e made of the 16xx bunker and electronic issues with them mean I am yet to take the plunge.  Three attempts were made to get a J70 that didn't waggle. But when I finally obtained one that didn't waggle, they ran very well indeed. 

 

Dapol- I only have a selection of B4s and they are excellent models albeit perhaps lacking a bit of weight. Crucially they run beautifully. 

 

For me that's the most important aspect. If the loco doesn't run well it matters not a jot how faithful it is to prototype. Hatton's disastrous 14xx was a case in point. Beautiful ( ignoring the AWOL Ashpan) to look at but I was unable to obtain one that ran well. 

For me, the ability to slow to a gradual stop, that last 'eighth ' of the final rotation with no sudden stop. If Dapol can manage this with their B4 and Hattons with their P class then all manufacturers should be able to follow suit. 

 

That leaves Accurascale. The level of detail on the Manor is jaw dropping. If and I'm sure it does, the running matches this then they have my vote ( not that this influences any such decision)  to produce a Pannier or two. 

 

A 57xx/8750 to the standard of their Manor will be a winner, without doubt. 

 

Rob. 

 

16 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

There speaks a wise and well-informed sheep.

 

In my experience, a loco can look really great on a layout, but what folk really remember is not necessarily the accuracy of the detailing or even the quality of the weathering but whether the loco runs smoothly or not, stalls or even derails, these being massive turn-offs for me, anyway.

 

 

We are of course putting a lot of weight on the shoulders of Accurascale. Clearly we are all hoping that @McC and @Accurascale Fran pull it out of the bag and announce their new Pannier locos ASAP.

 

In all seriousness though, I wonder which manufacturer has got one at CAD stage at the moment. Ages ago during a members day at the Watercress, I asked when we would get a non top feed Pannier tank and the reply was “hopefully soon” as they consider it a staple Bachmann loco…. 

[Miss Prism]

I think all the model manufacturers have their own cams mounted at the entrance to GWS Didcot, keeping an eye out on who is entering.

 

 

[McC]

8 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I think all the model manufacturers have their own cams mounted at the entrance to GWS Didcot, keeping an eye out on who is entering.

 

 

Spies! Lower tech but much cheaper  

[MrWolf]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

There speaks a wise and well-informed sheep.

 

In my experience, a loco can look really great on a layout, but what folk really remember is not necessarily the accuracy of the detailing or even the quality of the weathering but whether the loco runs smoothly or not, stalls or even derails, these being massive turn-offs for me, anyway.

 

 

 

The first locos that I bought myself at about the age of twelve, were 14XX from Airfix and a Dean Goods from Mainline.

For the time, the detail was exceptional, particularly the Dean, but out of the box, both ran like a bag of nails. A switch to all Peco nickel track made some difference, but they both stopped and started with a jerk at about a quarter power and sounded terrible mechanically.

Having read so much about the poor performance and build quality of mechanisms almost forty years later, I have been reluctant to splash out on quite a few locos that I was interested in buying when they were announced, let alone invest in DCC to move with the times.

One thing that I would expect from a working model costing north of £100 is a quality motor and chassis components.

 

Otherwise you might as well bin the layout and use the wood to make a display case.

 

In fact, it was the memory of dodgy locos and reports that little had changed which put me off getting back into modelling whenever I have had the chance over the last twenty years and why I have stuck with my antiquated locos.

Edited February 5, 2022 by MrWolf

[37079]

This is an interesting poll and thank you for taking the time to set it up.
 

I have about twelve Replica and Bachmann 57xx/8750 and definitely not in the market to replace them all…I’d be most interested if it was something different such as the version with riveted panniers.

 

In my view it makes no sense to lump the 54xx in with 57xx but then have the 64xx listed separately, and not list the 74xx at all. The 54xx and 74xx are the only modern panniers which have not been done RTR and I would have voted for a 54xx over all others (although I would like a late 2021 also because as has been said you can never have too many…)

 

Mike

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

or me, the ability to slow to a gradual stop, that last 'eighth ' of the final rotation with no sudden stop. If Dapol can manage this with their B4 and Hattons with their P class then all manufacturers should be able to follow suit. 

 

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

For the time, the detail was exceptional, particularly the Dean, but out of the box, both ran like a bag of nails.

 

Completely agree with Rob on this; his layouts are based on a high level of good slow running to a greater extent than mine, but it is still the most important single feature of a model loco and trumps detail or scale accuracy, though those are important  as well!  Back in the late 50s when I started, I had a Triang Jintychassis-ed saddle tank which would run perfectly down to cogging speed, and cog absolutely reliably around the layout, 8x4 in those days, in about 25 minutes (slow, reliablly controlled running was important to me even when I was 7 years old).  A few years later a Triang Brush Type 2 equalled it for performance, and, running the timeline a couple decades forwards, my Airfix 14xx ran very well indeed once I replaced the rubber tyre wheel, until it succumbed to the inevitable jammed pickups.

 

If a 1958 Jinty chassis can achieve a decent level of slow performance, there is little excuse for a modern one.  I'm not surprised that our lupine chum had problems with his Airfix Dean, tender driven by a frankly rubbish pancake motor and inefficient gears, as I never got any tender drive loco of that period to run smoothly at below about scale 30mph; I had similar problems with my Airfix Castle and Hornby Black 5.  Mainline used similar hopeless mechs, but they were at least aboard the locos, and reasonably smooth starts and stops could be achieved, though controlled slow running could not, and as we all now know, the mechs were poorly designed and made of poor quality materials.  Traction tyres IMHO always and without exception ruined reliable pickup and spread crud around the layout so were binned whenever I encountered them, the wheels being replaced where possible; this always helped but many locos of that era were so poorly designed and built of such poor quality components that they were never going to cut the good slow running mustard.

 

I approved at the time of Mainline's split chassis approach, and still think it was a good idea let down by poor design and components rather than fundamentally flawed in design terms.  Pickups, when they work well (and most current models' do), do so in spite of the engineering principle involved; in order to be reliable in terms of electrical connectivity, they need to press firmly on the wheel backs to produce a drag, a braking effect, meaning that the very best performance is a compromise of pickup adjustment so that the pb strip bears as lightly as possible against the wheel back whilst bearing reliably on it throughout the side play of that axle, especially on sharp trainset curves.  A split pickup chassis with a brushless motor would in theory be able to provide perfect smooth running and in fact the loco would be somewhat difficult to keep still...

 

Things have improved, but not all manufacturers get it right all the time.  Bachmann are a pretty safe pair of hands in this respect IME, and Hornby's W4 Peckett shows what can, and should, be done though mine took a good time to run in. 

 

Bachmann are unlikely IMHO to produce the 74xx, as it would need a different body tooling for the cab and bunker, but if they did, the new body tooling could be used for the later series of 64xx.  A 54xx might be possible from the 64xx tooling, but the mounting of the body to the chassis would need a lower 'sit' by about 1mm, and there might be splasher clearance issues.  This might be an opportunity for someone else to have a go at them, and a new tooled 64xx/74xx chassis could appear underneath a 2021.

Edited February 5, 2022 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

Airfix Dean Goods wasn't related to any of the Airfix tenderdrives though.

 

It had a continental motor and drive system.

 

Jouef/Heller it was.

 

 

Seems to be some confusion with the 54XXs. They had bigger wheels, not smaller. They had the same size as a 14XX at 5 foot 2 inches.

 

 

 

Jason

Edited February 6, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[Andy WD]

Personally, my choice would be for an outside frame variant, 1076 maybe. They seemed to live long lives and have many different guises

 

[Neal Ball]

5 hours ago, Andy WD said:

Personally, my choice would be for an outside frame variant, 1076 maybe. They seemed to live long lives and have many different guises

 

That would be very different and an interesting project to see come to fruition. 

[Neal Ball]

It’s interesting to read the comments since the poll started at Friday lunchtime.

 

I chose various locos as suggestions based on the research I was able to do. The thoughts for each loco are contained in the first post on page 1 immediately below the poll questions.

 

Lumping the 57xx together as one question was always going to be a gamble, but Pannier tank locos built after 1928 all came from the Collet stable and we’re broadly every similar. They are typically referred to as the “modern Panniers”, whilst there are differences, they aren’t huge enough to warrant adding another question in my view.

 

The addition of the 64xx was a deliberate ploy - Bachmann have only added it as a top feed loco, do we want it without top feed? I think the answer is coming through as probably not.

 

The pre-WW1 locos are very interesting and I think it’s that area where there is more variety in the full size loco. Hopefully there are sufficient drawings available for a model to be produced.

 

In any event, it’s good to see the debate continue.

[NHY 581]

On 04/02/2022 at 22:32, Neal Ball said:

 

Again though @Andy Keane another vote for Accurascale @McC and @Accurascale Fran should be very proud of the fan base you are building amongst GWR modellers.

 

9 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

 

We are of course putting a lot of weight on the shoulders of Accurascale. Clearly we are all hoping that @McC and @Accurascale Fran pull it out of the bag and announce their new Pannier locos ASAP.

 

In all seriousness though, I wonder which manufacturer has got one at CAD stage at the moment. Ages ago during a members day at the Watercress, I asked when we would get a non top feed Pannier tank and the reply was “hopefully soon” as they consider it a staple Bachmann loco…. 

 

 

I think it is fair to say that there is scope and an appetite for a manufactuer to 'corner the market' for highly accurate, detailed GWR locos that run well. 

 

If you want a small Midland loco, you go to Bachmann. If you want an ex L&SWR loco or South Western section loco, you go to Hornby if they ever remember that there are still customers who will buy this sort of thing. 

 

Bachmann have kept their 57xx/8750 in the range for many years with, in my opinion, minimal up grades other than a new chassis at some point in the past. ( Arguably the same approach for their small Prairie )

 

The reason it's still there is simply that it still sells. It still sells because there is no other RTR alternative for the customer and ( again arguably ) every GWR/ WR  layout from the 1930s onwards 'needs' a Pannier or two or three.............

 

Personally, I care not from whom it comes from as long as it looks the part and as already stated, runs well. 

 

Again, as already stated, my personal benchmark for a well running loco is either the Dapol B4 or a Hattons P class. Both will run smoothly and come to a lovely gradual halt, moving off in the same manner. They don't stop as if an anchor has been chucked out or start as if they've had a good hard kick up the bunker. Oh, and they're accurate renditions as well. 

 

The Achilles heel is of course mass production and the perhaps inevitable variation that occurs in the manufature of components. A case in point is Hornbys new Terrier. I've had a few. One ran beautifully but wouldn't gradually slow and halt. No amount of removal of white grease, adjustment to pick ups or keeper plate changed this. Spare motors for these are about £4. I bought four and ran all, checking with a volt meter. All were different, some significantly so. In the end one was found to be better than the one fitted and was swapped. Success ! Running hugely improved. This is the challenge that they face. 

 

It's true some of us are touting Accurascale as the one manufacturer they'd like to see producing a new Pannier ( or Small Prairie...!) but I would venture the brand name wasn't chosen at random. Moreso it hints at their approach to their products..............you only have to look at their Manor to confirm this. 

 

One presumes ( I know ) that they are not producing their models as alternatives to those that are already available. They are producing them to be the go to models that others have to live up to. 

 

And I for one would go to them for a Pannier  or 'cough'.......small prairie...'cough'.

 

Rob. 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by NHY 581
Sausage hooves

[PMP]

3 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

 

The addition of the 64xx was a deliberate ploy - Bachmann have only added it as a top feed loco, do we want it without top feed? I think the answer is coming through as probably not.

 

I’m not convinced that’s a ‘valid’ deduction. Like the 57 family, top feeds would be a 1940’s+ addition, and very few didn’t get them. In my experience many people don’t notice the difference if fitted or not.

Because the Bachmann 64xx is so recent, (7 years 64xx review) I suspect most people would have thought don’t need one, current one is good enough, that was my thoughts reading it’s inclusion.

 

A 54xx however, would likely have got more votes as it’s a type not available, and notably different with larger wheels, and the GW/BR lifespan.

 

If you want to determine top feed demand, then ask the question, but make it available with or without rather than the option of both. You’d need to assume that people would know the era/livery implications of their choice, but that would give some data as to whether earlier variants of the applicable types might be prioritised.

Edited February 6, 2022 by PMP
Add pic