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

[longchap]

9 hours ago, PMP said:

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.

 

A valid question deserving a straightforward answer, so personally, I have no desire whatsoever for top feeds, 1939 being the latest extent of my modelling periods.

 

However, the commercial manufacturer only exists to make profit, via successful sales in giving their discerning customers what they want, so absolutely should offer the loco with and without top feed, if they want to maximise sales on investment and keep the models relevant for future sales for many years.

 

Please let us not bog this thread down with unnecessary topfeed manufacturing discussion, as our task is currently to assist potential manufacturers which models the market demands and their job to provide them. We do not need get our undergarments in a twist, figuring out how best to do their job, although a responsible manufacture will normally share pretty much everything with an informed clientele willing to make pre-orders.

 

This has of course already been accomplished and with great fidelity, on the Hattons 48/58/14xx models.so disregarding prejudices, let’s simply park that one, as it is completely doable and I rather suspect that we all desire a manufacturer with a can do attitude.

 

Okay, back to my sick bed and dreams of sweet running locomotives  .  .  .

 

Best,

 

Bill

Edited February 6, 2022 by longchap
Tired, but not emotional.

[Steamport Southport]

14 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Is there a picture of such a combination?

 

Not that I'm aware of, I've not really been looking mind.

 

But surely it must have happened.

 

I'll have a little delve as it's something I wouldn't mind knowing myself.

 

 

Jason

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Is there a picture of such a combination?

 

Interesting - lets hope we can find a photo of 54xx and toplight.

 

1 hour ago, longchap said:

 

.........Please let us not bog this thread down with unnecessary topfeed manufacturing discussion, as out task is currently to assist potential manufacturers which models the market demands and their job to provide them. We do not need get our undergarments in a twist, figuring out how best to do their job, although a responsible manufacture will normally share pretty much everything with an informed clientele willing to make pre-orders.

 

.......

 

Okay, back to my sick bed and dreams of sweet running locomotives  .  .  .

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

Definitely agree Bill thank you. Let's draw a line under the Topfeed stuff.

 

Hope you are feeling better soon. 

 

Thanks, Neal.

 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not that I'm aware of, I've not really been looking mind.

 

But surely it must have happened.

 

I'll have a little delve as it's something I wouldn't mind knowing myself.

 

 

Jason

 

Wouldn't have thought it was common, though it must have happened occasionally.  54xx were auto fitted and less powerful than a large Metro, and their primary use would have been on auto traffic, and London Divn. had plenty of this in the form of short haul main line stoppers as well as the branches.  So auto fitted locos would be in demand for that work, and the failure of the regular loco on a Main Line & City job would more likely result in a larger tank loco being found to replace it; it's not as if the London Divn, sheds concerned, Old Oak, Southall, and Reading, were ever short of these. 

[Andy Keane]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

I take your points. Here are a couple of other points to take into account:

• Consider the proportion of people who have said in this thread and the related "Is the time right...?" thread that they are happy with the Bachmann 57xxs they already have and they see no reason to replace them. It's very ubiquity (as a model this time) makes it a more difficult prospect for a new model.
• Consider also that the 57xx had Blue route availability until 1950 when they fell back to Yellow so a lot of modellers running a 57xx on their small BLTs are having to invoke Rule 1 (whether they realise it or not!). Other classes of pannier tanks have less restrictive route availability and so are inherently more suitable models for branch line layouts. (Similarly for the 2721 class actually...)

I think it will be tricky for a manufacturer to work all this out and decide what to make!

 

Its the route restriction that puts me off the 57xx. I would rather an engine that might have been there than one that would not. Were it not for this I might have reached out for one of the Samhongsa all brass 57xx locos that are for sale right now.

Andy

[Miss Prism]

4 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Its the route restriction that puts me off the 57xx.

 

If you only put 900 gallons in the tank, it is transformed into a yellow engine.

 

[Andy Keane]

1 minute ago, Miss Prism said:

 

If you only put 900 gallons in the tank, it is transformed into a yellow engine.

 

So might one have gotten to helston in 1930? It seems a big ask but happy to be corrceted if it allows more variation.

Andy

[Miss Prism]

As far as I know, the Helston branch was the preserve of small Prairies. My 900 gallons remark was meant as a joke. Helston was an uncoloured route, at least beyond Nancegollan, so there's no chance of a 57 being allowed on to Helston. The subsequent allowance of the class 22s is a bit strange!

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Miss Prism

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

As far as I know, the Helston branch was the preserve of small Prairies. My 900 gallons remark was meant as a joke. Helston was an uncoloured route, at least beyond Nancegollan, so there's no chance of a 57 being allowed on to Helston. The subsequent allowance of the class 22s is a bit strange!

 

Thanks Miss Prism. On that basis I would suggest rule 1 @Andy Keane

[Andy Keane]

Well I do have one of those lovely manors on order. 

[THS92-GWR-NO]

On 04/02/2022 at 19:38, Schooner said:

Really pushing things, given how many people inexplicably forked out for a 45T crane or a thumping great railgun and seem to crave novelty over prototype-literacy, I bet there'd be a viable market for:

 

..also, I want one

 I too want one of these! Would be perfect for my layout. And also a unique model that definetly would go well with collectors

 

But - one thing that I've come to be struggeling with - that is that DCC fitted locos never come with stay alives - why?

 

Sound is sexy, and I love it. But a smooth running DCC loco needs a stay alive for smooth running and smooth sound. So I would actually consider a stay alive more essential than sound. Am I the only one? 

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Wouldn't have thought it was common, though it must have happened occasionally.  54xx were auto fitted and less powerful than a large Metro, and their primary use would have been on auto traffic, and London Divn. had plenty of this in the form of short haul main line stoppers as well as the branches.  So auto fitted locos would be in demand for that work, and the failure of the regular loco on a Main Line & City job would more likely result in a larger tank loco being found to replace it; it's not as if the London Divn, sheds concerned, Old Oak, Southall, and Reading, were ever short of these. 

 

They replaced the Metros though and most of the Large Prairies weren't built at the time.

 

A 54XX or 64XX could easily manage 6 coach trains. The preserved ones regularly pull more than that on heritage railways, usually much heavier BR Mark Ones.

 

At least two photos in Pannier Papers of them on long trains. 5413 at Oxford with at least four (rear of the train not visible).  7404 also at Oxford with a set of six mixed coaches including a clerestory.

 

Most photos in the book are photos looking at the locomotives rather than the trains though.

 

 

Jason

[Neal Ball]

21 minutes ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 I too want one of these! Would be perfect for my layout. And also a unique model that definetly would go well with collectors

 

But - one thing that I've come to be struggeling with - that is that DCC fitted locos never come with stay alives - why?

 

Sound is sexy, and I love it. But a smooth running DCC loco needs a stay alive for smooth running and smooth sound. So I would actually consider a stay alive more essential than sound. Am I the only one? 

Possibly Accurascale are the first company to fit stay alive as well as sound on the Manors. 
 

Hence why stay alive is on my specification list, as these days I think it’s an essential for a small loco. Getting into a Pannier will be tricky without loosing any weight.

 

Oh and that Pannier crane would be very nice, although I doubt many would sell….

[THS92-GWR-NO]

2 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Possibly Accurascale are the first company to fit stay alive as well as sound on the Manors. 
 

Hence why stay alive is on my specification list, as these days I think it’s an essential for a small loco. Getting into a Pannier will be tricky without loosing any weight.

 

Oh and that Pannier crane would be very nice, although I doubt many would sell….

 

Well, the bunker has space for stay alive, but why don't you think a PT crane would sell? 

[Steamport Southport]

ISTR the crane was announced as a kit back in the day but never appeared.

 

M&L kits planned it as a spin off from the 850 they did. M&L are now owned by Alan Gibson Models who do still do some of the obscure Pannier and Saddle tanks. They do them in batches of 12 depending on demand. But don't expect anything new.

 

http://www.alangibsonworkshop.com/

 

They also announced the LNWR crane tank as well. That didn't appear either as far as I know.

 

 

 

Jason

[Schooner]

On 06/02/2022 at 11:39, Star-rider said:

...how numerous the prototype was...

...doesn't seem to be that much of an influence by itself, just looking at current RTR successes and (crucially) absences.

 

The real thing I'm learning from the poll is the weighting of the various periods. From the general tone of conversation I had the impression that the majority of (G)WR modellers focused after 1948.  There's plenty of chat to the effect that 'if it's not available in BR black it's not worth doing', and a brace of WR-only locomotives...but the market for these is smaller than for a locomotive which barely made it to Grouping.

 

Interesting  

 

57 minutes ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

I too want one of these!

 

I should probably clarify that I'm after an 850, not the crane tank based on it!

Edited February 7, 2022 by Schooner
Cross-post

[Harlequin]

48 minutes ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 I too want one of these! Would be perfect for my layout. And also a unique model that definetly would go well with collectors

 

But - one thing that I've come to be struggeling with - that is that DCC fitted locos never come with stay alives - why?

 

Sound is sexy, and I love it. But a smooth running DCC loco needs a stay alive for smooth running and smooth sound. So I would actually consider a stay alive more essential than sound. Am I the only one? 

 

Stay alive is not a requirement for everyone. I have loads of DCC (sound) locos that run absolutely perfectly without it, for instance.

 

Jim Champ says this about the three crane tanks, "They rarely ventured out of Swindon works or Stafford Road works." So I think they wouldn't sit comfortably on most layouts but they might have some novelty value.

 

[THS92-GWR-NO]

Just now, Harlequin said:

 

Stay alive is not a requirement for everyone. I have loads of DCC (sound) locos that run absolutely perfectly without it, for instance.

 

Jim Champ says this about the three crane tanks, "They rarely ventured out of Swindon works or Stafford Road works." So I think they wouldn't sit comfortably on most layouts but they might have some novelty value.

 

 

Well, stay alives may not be a requirement, but they absolutely help with smooth running on small engines with short wheelbase. For those of us who aren't experts on building and maintaining track they are quite helpful in my opinion.

[Andy Keane]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

 

Stay alive is not a requirement for everyone. I have loads of DCC (sound) locos that run absolutely perfectly without it, for instance.

 

Jim Champ says this about the three crane tanks, "They rarely ventured out of Swindon works or Stafford Road works." So I think they wouldn't sit comfortably on most layouts but they might have some novelty value.

 

I must say my Hattons 14xx did improve with a couple of fat capacitors - but its about as small as a loco can be and still find room for sound as well.

I would certainly prefer stay alive factory fitted on anything I purchased if possible, though some might argue using any extra space for better speakers could be a better choice.

Andy

[Harlequin]

28 minutes ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

Well, stay alives may not be a requirement, but they absolutely help with smooth running on small engines with short wheelbase. For those of us who aren't experts on building and maintaining track they are quite helpful in my opinion.

 

26 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

I must say my Hattons 14xx did improve with a couple of fat capacitors - but its about as small as a loco can be and still find room for sound as well.

I would certainly prefer stay alive factory fitted on anything I purchased if possible, though some might argue using any extra space for better speakers could be a better choice.

Andy

 

Fair points.

 

I was really trying to answer the question about why existing DCC models don't yet come with stay alive as standard. Like I said, lots of people get on fine without it and have done for many decades, so manufacturers probably never found a persuasive enough business case to add it up to this point. But I accept that things are changing and the increased take up of DCC makes it more useful to more people.

 

In new models: If the inclusion of stay alive doesn't adversely affect other more important features, remains completely hidden and doesn't bump up the price too much, then sure, why not add it as standard?

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[woodenhead]

Isn't it the case that capacitors only benefit DCC and don't work on DC (unless specifically designed for it)

 

So it would cause cost onto a loco that may not benefit DC users - whereas latest sound chips can operate with DC as well as DCC so speakers / chips can benefit a DC user where a capacitor cannot.

[Steamport Southport]

33 minutes ago, Schooner said:

...doesn't seem to be that much of an influence by itself, just looking at current RTR successes and (crucially) absences.

 

The real thing I'm learning from the poll is the weighting of the various periods. From the general tone of conversation I had the impression that the majority of (G)WR modellers focused after 1948.  There's plenty of chat to the effect that 'if it's not available in BR black it's not worth doing', and a brace of WR-only locomotives...but the market for these is smaller than for a locomotive which barely made it to Grouping.

 

Interesting  

 

 

I should probably clarify that I'm after an 850, not the crane tank based on it!

 

The problem with the poll is it's in the GWR section which is mostly populated by those that only model GWR and mostly of an earlier era than BR. So the poll is going to be skewed towards the GWR era. If the 1920s era is really more popular than the BR (WR) era then I will eat my hat.

 

Many people don't wander into the sub forums. If the poll was in a different sub forum then I would expect the results to be very different. You are probably missing a lot of modellers that model the BR transition era for example. Or people that buy random things because they like them.

 

As an example the last Panniers that survived were those on the London Midland Region, about 30 lasted until the end of 1966. How many LMR modellers have replied? I have, but I don't think many others will have done so. Most of my GWR/WR models are of things that worked in the North Wales/Cambrian area or in the border area (NW/Midlands).

 

 

Jason

[Harlequin]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The problem with the poll is it's in the GWR section which is mostly populated by those that only model GWR and mostly of an earlier era than BR. So the poll is going to be skewed towards the GWR era. If the 1920s era is really more popular than the BR (WR) era then I will eat my hat.

 

Many people don't wander into the sub forums. If the poll was in a different sub forum then I would expect the results to be very different. You are probably missing a lot of modellers that model the BR transition era for example. Or people that buy random things because they like them.

 

As an example the last Panniers that survived were those on the London Midland Region, about 30 lasted until the end of 1966. How many LMR modellers have replied? I have, but I don't think many others will have done so. Most of my GWR/WR models are of things that worked in the North Wales/Cambrian area or in the border area (NW/Midlands).

 

 

Jason

 

Neal has posted in several layout threads, including ANTB, which has a lot of BR(WR) visitors.

 

See also Neal's Status Update of earlier today that appears on the RMWeb home page to try to widen the voter base.

 

[Steamport Southport]

53 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Stay alive is not a requirement for everyone. I have loads of DCC (sound) locos that run absolutely perfectly without it, for instance.

 

Jim Champ says this about the three crane tanks, "They rarely ventured out of Swindon works or Stafford Road works." So I think they wouldn't sit comfortably on most layouts but they might have some novelty value.

 

 

And? Most locomotives only worked in one place, doesn't stop people buying them.

 

How many people model the Lyme Regis branch, Bodmin & Wadebridge, Weymouth Docks or Southampton Docks? Hardly anyone.

 

That means nobody wants Adams Radial Tanks, Beattie Well Tanks, 1366s or SR USA Tanks as they only worked in a few places.

 

 

I think people have really got to stop thinking that everyone models specific places on an exact date. Hardly anyone does so. I'm sure somewhere sells hairshirts.

 

 

PS. What's probably the biggest selling GWR locomotive model? 101 by a country mile, which never left Swindon Works.....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_101_Class

 

 

 

Jason

[THS92-GWR-NO]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

PS. What's probably the biggest selling GWR locomotive model? 101 by a country mile, which never left Swindon Works.....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_101_Class

 

 

 

Jason

Never knew it was a real engine