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

[Andy Keane]

7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

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

I guess an interesting issue is are the people who want a really accurate model of a given loco also the people who care about placing it in a reasonably accurate model setting.

I suspect if you really care about your time period maybe you also care more about the accuracy of the model but I accept people like lovely models and will buy them just beacuse of that.

So I have a Manor on order knowing full well it would never have been down the Helston branch. In my head I image some running days being accurate and some days using rule 1. But its a bonus if a model is both lovely and suitable for my time and location.

Andy

[The Johnster]

I once attempted to fit what we would now call stayalives to a DC loco, the chosen guinea pig being an Airfix Dean Goods, and the least said of this pointless exercise the better.  Messing around with capacitors, diodes, and resistors, I got it to work in one direction at a time but never with the overrun I wanted, alwyas either too much at high voltages or too little at low ones, and the process degenerated into all sorts of uncromulent direction switching ciruitry, so I gave up and went up the pub.  This was back in the 80s.   But if some form of overrun provision were devised for DC I'd be very interested in it.  My slow running is pretty good, but would be smoother with stayalives.

 

I see the problm, of course, in that the overrun is most needed at the lowest speeds, precisely when the voltage and momentum are at their lowest, and mechainical resistance and inertia at their proportional highest.  The same can be said of flywheels, which are the least effective in the circumstances in which they are most needed.  I was once a big fan of the concept of flywheels, but have found that in practice, while they may smooth out the running of a loco clipping along at a tidy rate of knots, they are of very limited use to me and the space they take up is better utilised for ballast.

 

An effective stayalive for DC, let's specify an ability to overrrun an inch, or for 2 seconds, at any voltage or current draw, could probably be devised by someone more versed in the arcane and eldritch arts of electronics, which are perfomed in unlholy ritual by men in black cloaks with big hoods in gothic crypts lit by black candles under the protection of pentagrams and to the sound of demonic chanting and the screams of the sacrificces (for all I know), but it is only the odd impoverished can't-afford-DCC idiot like me who cares that much about slow running and smooth stops and starts that would be interested, so I doubt any of the RTR manufacturers would consider even investigating the possiblility.

 

Stayalives are a recognition of a problem that will, I reckon, be eventually solved by power sources aboud the loco, controlled by RC or some sort of NFC.  But I'm 70 in 3 weeks, and am unlikley to see this dream, which I've had for half a century now, ever realised!

Edited February 7, 2022 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

To comment on the format of the poll itself, and realising that accounting for all possibilities is pretty much impossible, I ticked 'one' for Q3, but this is not a reflection of what I would like to see available as high quality RTR.  I have as many 57xx and 8750s as I probably ever going to need, along with a Baccy 94xx and a Hornby 2721, and am quite happy with all of them in terms of running quality (the 2721 has a Baccy 57xx chassis which it shares with a Baccy 8750 bodyshell representing a 6750 variant).  I would probably buy, were one offered, an 8750 without a topfeed, and would certainly replace the 2721 with a better scaled version or an 1854, and would consider an 850 as a sold-out-service colliery loco, so I might be in the market for up to 3 new panniers. 

 

I'm not a typical purchaser, and don't expect either RTR firms or online polls to cater to my needs.  I am a pensioner on a severely limited and absolutely fixed income that I have no decision in fixing the level of, and little opportunity to increase it, and should not be taken into account by RTR marketing or planning people.  But, even with the relatively low number of locos I need to run my timetable, at the moment 2 NCB and 13 BR(W), I like variety, and members of the same class have different liveries (period chosen with this in mind) and as many detail differences as I can justify.  I've removed the topfeed from one of my 57xx, and am considering another 8750 to incorporate a topfeedless boiler on that class.

 

My 2721 is to be rebuilt with a better scale (but not much better detailed bodyshell) Wills version kindly given me by Philou, and a colliery 850 would be a useful spare to my Hornby Hunslet austerity and W4.  Obviously, I would be better served by decent RTR versions of these locos!  And a new 2721 or 1854 would release a chassis for my 6750, so I could justify the cost of that to some extent in that way.

 

A word for those who are interested in topfeedless panniers; Tomparryharry of this parish tells me he intends to replace the top of the bodyshell of a Baccy 57xx with one from a Hornby 2721.  The 2721 bodyshell comes apart just above handreail level, and the 57xx top furniture can be swapped over.  Bit of fetling with retrofit lifting rings and removal of the feed pipes where they run up the lower sides of the tanks just ahead of the cab, and Robert is the brother of one of your immediate ancestors!  Good for 57xx, 8750, and variants, not for 54/64/74.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

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

 

Actually, I reckon it would sell fairly well, especially if the crane parts were operational.  So long as the size of the production run was commesurate with demand, it could turn a decent profit as well.  It's attractive, and the sort of oddball thing that looks good on an exhibition layout, and to those who like to show off their assumed modelling ability to people who are likely to be taken in by such harmless mendacity,  It'd be an ideal shelf or showcase model, and if the crane operated could be the basis of a micro-layout in its own right.  Much the same as the Oxford and Bachmann breakdown cranes in marketing terms, possibly.

 

The tragedy would be if an RTR 850 crane tank was released but not an 850, which could easily enough happen if marketing thought that an oddball commanding a premium price would be more profitable than another pannier in a market that probably already  looks saturated to marketing, and marketing are the real driving force behind new RTR introdutions. They are more interested in what will sell well than meeting 'our' (serious modeller, whatever that means when it's at home)  requirements, and so they should be, that's their job and catering just to us would be a short road to the reciever's office...

Edited February 7, 2022 by The Johnster

[MrWolf]

1 hour 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

 

That's one of the reasons I posted a link to it in my own thread which is in the general layout topics section. 

Despite it being a GWR layout set in the thirties, I read and post on numerous threads that I find interesting and inspiring.

As a result, I have regular visitors who model the LMS, MR, LSWR, BR(W), BR(M) NER and SDJR, I've encouraged them to read and post on this thread as well as to share it.

So hopefully, there is some variety of interests amongst those reading this topic.

I would encourage you all to share this topic on your own threads, as it could be beneficial to modellers and manufacturers alike.

[THS92-GWR-NO]

20 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Actually, I reckon it would sell fairly well, especially if the crane parts were operational.  So long as the size of the production run was commesurate with demand, it could turn a decent profit as well.  It's attractive, and the sort of oddball thing that looks good on an exhibition layout, and to those who like to show off their assumed modelling ability to people who are likely to be taken in by such harmless mendacity,  It'd be an ideal shelf or showcase model, and if the crane operated could be the basis of a micro-layout in its own right.  Much the same as the Oxford and Bachmann breakdown cranes in marketing terms, possibly.

 

The tragedy would be if an RTR 850 crane tank was released but not an 850, which could easily enough happen if marketing thought that an oddball commanding a premium price would be more profitable than another pannier in a market that probably already  looks saturated to marketing, and marketing are the real driving force behind new RTR introdutions. They are more interested in what will sell well than meeting 'our' (serious modeller, whatever that means when it's at home)  requirements, and so they should be, that's their job and catering just to us would be a short road to the reciever's office...

Where there a lot of difference between the 850 and the Hornby open cab 2721 class?

[jamieb]

2 minutes ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

Where there a lot of difference between the 850 and the Hornby open cab 2721 class?

For starters the 2721 was bigger,and had a longer wheelbase.Many of the 850 class also had H-spoke wheels 

[THS92-GWR-NO]

1 minute ago, jamieb said:

For starters the 2721 was bigger,and had a longer wheelbase.Many of the 850 class also had H-spoke wheels 

Okay, I've gotten myself a Cambrian crane and planning to use the 2721 to make a version for my layout - just wanted to know what inaccuracies I will be making in doing so

[Neal Ball]

2 hours 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

 

The most logical place for a poll surely has to be the GWR sub forum. 

 

Interestingly, my last Poll was for Toplight carriages and that was also in this sub forum and started in January 2017.

 

As can be seen at that time there were 44 votes (21.89%) from BR(W) modellers out of a total poll of 145 and 74  (36.82% ) modellers focusing on the 1920's and 30's

So far on the Pannier poll, we have had 100 members votes - (I should have cross checked more Toplight to Pannier and wouldn't have ended up with different 1920's / 30's eras.)

 

We already have 40 BR(W) modellers representing 24.54% of the poll, so I would argue it's already ahead of the Toplight poll.

 

 

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

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.

 

 

Thanks Phil.

Today as well as speaking to Andy York and Phil Parker about promoting the poll (hence the "Recommended" banner at the top of every page now - Thanks Andy & Phil); I changed my footers to show the poll and added a status update.

 

I also posted the poll onto Facebook in the GW modellers section and also on the Model Rail magazine "Monday; show us your modelling" page.

 

Plus, it went onto ANTB last Friday; links to the poll have been on my own Henley on Thames page and @MrWolf Aston on Clun page. Out of the three threads, obviously ANTB has a huge post WW2 following.

 

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

.....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.....

 

There are lots of threads on here with models specifically about a location - there are at least 3 models of Brent; 1 x Heston; 1 x Yelverton and 1 x Henley on Thames; not forgetting Peterborough and a rather fabulous layout based on Little Bytham (plus loads of other examples)...... Not quite the "Hardly anyone". Then there are lots of layouts on here, that take a flavour of an imaginary place, but are faithful to the old GWR (or other railway companies), in whatever year they have chosen.

 

It's all a matter of choice - neither view is right or wrong - I think we all want the same thing, a nice high fidelity loco that cut's the mustard, without breaking the bank!

 

1 hour ago, Andy Keane said:

I guess an interesting issue is are the people who want a really accurate model of a given loco also the people who care about placing it in a reasonably accurate model setting.

I suspect if you really care about your time period maybe you also care more about the accuracy of the model but I accept people like lovely models and will buy them just beacuse of that.

So I have a Manor on order knowing full well it would never have been down the Helston branch. In my head I image some running days being accurate and some days using rule 1. But its a bonus if a model is both lovely and suitable for my time and location.

Andy

 

Thanks Andy, as you know I also have a Manor on order and am looking forward to it running at Henley on Thames. 

 

Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with rule 1 - with respect to the Manor, I bet the way its presented at Chufnell Regis, it will look as if it belongs there.

 

Thanks for the comments Jason @Steamport Southport - I suspect we all want the same thing at the end of the day.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Neal Ball

[Captain Kernow]

28 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

There are lots of threads on here with models specifically about a location

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/148-modelling-real-locations/

 

[The Johnster]

You'll almost certainly end up with the most accurate, and probably the only, GW crane tank in Scandinavia.

 

Taking the locomotive section and ignoring the crane components for the moment, the 2721 is a much larger and heavier engine than an 850.  A broadly consistent theme throughout the convoluted and overlapping history of the GW's saddle tanks and their pannier rebuilds is the division into small, medium. and large locos.  Small locos, with included the 850s, had a shorter wheelabse and 4'1" diameter driving wheels under tiny splashers, while medium, such as the 2021 class, had a longer wheelbase and 4'7" diameter wheels.  The large engines, such as the 1854 and 2721 classes, were similar but had larger boilers and were significantly heavier.

 

You would be instantly aware of the difference if an 850 were situated next to a 2721.  Very rough and generalised identifcation for them as panniers; small pannier (850 etc), short wheelbase, springs above running plate, small driving wheels with tiny splashers, relatively shallow pannier tanks that are flat across the top of the boiler including at the smokebox,.  Medium pannier (2021 etc.), longer wheelbase, springs above running plate, larger driving wheels and splashers, and deeper pannier tanks, larger boiler than small panniers but still with the flat tank tops across the boiler and the smokebox drum.  Large pannier (2721 etc,), wheelbase and axle spacing as medium pannier, springs hidden below running plate behind wheels, wheels and splashers similar to medium loco, larger boiler again, this time protruding above the deeper still pannier tanks.

 

The uses were different as well, small panniers being used for yard and dock shunting, and short haul trips where there was sharp curavature or lightly laid sidings, mediums for general branch work (many were converted with auto gear in  their later lives), large for heavy shunting and short haul main line heavy goods and mineral work,  Their 'modern' replacements are the 16xx for smalls, 54/64/74xx for mediums, and 57xx etc. for large.  The general increase in the loads needed for local heavy freight meant that the 57xx etc.were used less on the heaviest work, but they still did a fair bit especially in South Wales.  They also undertook fairly long haul but lightly loaded passenger duties such has Brecon-Newport, Brecon-Neath, and Neath-Treherbert. journey durations requiring gangwayed stock with toilet facilities.

 

Some 1854s and 2721 acquired full cabs similar in appearance to the Collett 57xx, and at a glance were very similar looking engines.  Identification was with the deeper valance below the running plate of the 1854/2721, whistles on top of cab roofs, and the 57xx flared chimney, and from a side view it was clear that the 57xx had a larger space between the bottom of the smokebox and the front buffer beam.  One can veiw the development of the appearance of these locos from their side tank or saddle tank origins as fairly continuous over time, and there were very many detail variations so that, in a way, the classes merged with each other, but retained their small/medium/large distinctions over many years. 

 

The new kids on the blocks were Hawksworth's 94xx, intneded to replace life-expired South Wales 0-6-2 tanks, and his 15xx, a heavy dock shunter influenced by USATC S100s used in that role during WW2; these have no equivalent predecessors and were completel new concepts.

 

I digress; the Hornby 2721 is a model of a loco significantly too big in all dimensions to represent an 850, and compounds its inaccuracy for this role by having the wrong axle spacing and being too long to accurately represent a 2721.  It can be worked up a bit if you accept its fundamental inaccuracies; mine has a Bachmann 57xx chassis/mech, replacement chimney and other top furniture from an old Westward 64xx kit, and other details.  The chimney as supplied is a hopeless travesty; the prototype was paralllel while this one is tapered the wrong way, apparently in order to be released from the injection mould.

 

Your proposed 2721 crane tank may not be as accurate as some people would want, but it will be an interesting and unique model with a lot of character.  I look forward to seeing photos of it!

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

Okay, I've gotten myself a Cambrian crane and planning to use the 2721 to make a version for my layout - just wanted to know what inaccuracies I will be making in doing so

 

You're not the only one, I've gathered the parts necessary to build one too, I'm holding off until my layout is useable, which should be sometime this year.

 

@Bluemonkey presents....has already built several and very good they look too. Id been putting together a few bits along with a damaged Hornby 2721,, but seeing how he'd done it gave me the push to actually take the project seriously.

 

I'm sure that he would be up for a new pannier or two as well.

[Edwardian]

The answer to the question ''which Pannier tank would you like to be made?'' is ''One that still has its saddle tank!''

[russell price]

My vote would go to the 850 or 2021 Classes, The others ,especially the more modern classes have been done to a decent standard, My Layout is based on Welshpool , where the only panniers to be seen were the above classes due to their ability to traverse the Kerry branch. That said ive never seen any photos of 5700/8750 classes anywhere on the ex Cambrian system, Oswestry had some 57s but they seemed to go other directions? The 2021 is an oddball though as it started out as a Wolverhampton build rather than Swindon. 

[Edwardian]

1076, that's the way to go!

 

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The answer to the question ''which Pannier tank would you like to be made?'' is ''One that still has its saddle tank!''

I think saddletanks should be included in the poll as many earlier Panniers started as saddle tanks and some lasted to BR days still wearing saddles.

 

I have an Wills 1854 saddletank sitting on a Comet 57XX chassis, I also have almost finished my long drawn out build of a M&L 850 saddle tank, complete with "H" spoke wheels.

Both of these classes mainly ended up with saddle pannier tanks.

 

Correction

Edited February 8, 2022 by melmerby

[melmerby]

If it hasn't been mentioned before, Google is wrong, the Hornby 2721 (R059) first came out in 1980, 42 years ago, complete with a proper Triang type X03 motor

 

Triang Hornby also did a 8750 (R051) in 1972 a full half century ago! It hasn't been avaiable for a long, long time

This sold an amazing 256,000 in total (solo locos & in sets), which puts modern production runs into perspective.

 

Info from "Hornby Railways Collectors Guide"

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by melmerby

[Miss Prism]

35 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Both of these classes mainly ended up with saddle tanks.

 

I think you meant to say panniers.

[john dew]

 

Thank you Neal for organising this poll and the tactful reminder that I had yet to vote! All done now

 

 I subscribe to the school that cares more about reliable realistic running than ultra perfect, rivet counting detail. I already have a significant number of Panniers all gainfully employed on Granby. They look the part and run well. In consequence, like Captain Kernow and others, I am not sure I really need an additional 57xx no matter how fine the detail.

 

However I am attracted by the idea of high spec models of any of the last four items on Neal's list. Always assuming that the selected class was actually in service in 1947 and likely to have been seen in the North West.

 

 Lyons "History of GW Engine Sheds 1947" shows the three major NW Sheds in 1947 actually had more pre Collett panniers than 57xx. Granby has none (I ignore an ancient non workin 2721 gathering dust on a "display" case)

 

                                                   57xx etc   30xx and higher                     Others  ie numbered lower than 30xx

Birkenhead                                             7                                                            11 

Croes Newyd                                          1                                                            11

Chester                                                    9                                                             0

 

I may have been too simplistic with my division. Please tell me if there are pre Collet panniers numbered below 30xx and I will amend.

 

This may be a NW phenomena : Newton Abbot 5:1  Exeter 8:1..............yet Taunton 3:6

 

I could go on......but you can guess how I voted.

[Neal Ball]

4 hours ago, john dew said:

 

Thank you Neal for organising this poll and the tactful reminder that I had yet to vote! All done now

……

However I am attracted by the idea of high spec models of any of the last four items on Neal's list. Always assuming that the selected class was actually in service in 1947 and likely to have been seen in the North West.

……..

I may have been too simplistic with my division. Please tell me if there are pre Collet panniers numbered below 30xx and I will amend.

 

This may be a NW phenomena : Newton Abbot 5:1  Exeter 8:1..............yet Taunton 3:6

 

I could go on......but you can guess how I voted.

Morning John, thank you for your vote.

 

I’m pretty sure there was nothing below 30xx in the Collett Pannier range of locos.

 

I find it interesting that the pre WW1 locos are gaining so much attention. 
 

When you consider the reason Collett introduced the 57xx was that the pre- WW1 designs were showing their age. Whilst some class of locos disappeared in the 1930’s the 4 in our list stayed until the 1950’s, so you are fine at Granby John.

 

 

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

1076, that's the way to go!

 

Lovely photo and loco.

 

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

I think saddletanks should be included in the poll as many earlier Panniers started as saddle tanks and some lasted to BR days still wearing saddles.

 

I have an Wills 1854 saddletank sitting on a Comet 57XX chassis, I also have almost finished my long drawn out build of a M&L 850 saddle tank, complete with "H" spoke wheels.

Both of these classes mainly ended up with saddle tanks.

I’d go further that some Saddle tank designs, were changed to Pannier tanks and then reverted back to Saddle tanks before being scrapped!

 

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

If it hasn't been mentioned before, Google is wrong, the Hornby 2721 (R059) first came out in 1980, 42 years ago, complete with a proper Triang type X03 motor

 

Triang Hornby also did a 8750 (R051) in 1972 a full half century ago! It hasn't been avaiable for a long, long time

This sold an amazing 256,000 in total (solo locos & in sets), which puts modern production runs into perspective.

 

Info from "Hornby Railways Collectors Guide"

 

 

Interesting thank you. 

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

I think saddletanks should be included in the poll as many earlier Panniers started as saddle tanks and some lasted to BR days still wearing saddles.

 

 

 

Well, yes, indeed.

 

Many Grouping era Panniers started off as saddle tank classes, and a minority of locos retained saddle tanks quite late in the day.  Conversely, in the 1900s-1910s a small proportion of six-coupled tanks already bore panniers. 

 

I would lend my voice to considering six-coupled tanks more generally, giving manufacturers the option of earlier body types featuring saddle tanks.  

 

Many of us, me certainly included, grew up surrounded by books and images of the GWR that is rather like standing in Didcot's War Loans Act engine shed; typically your view is of Collett era Swindon motive power. That is all excellent stuff and rightly central to the GW we love, however, stand back from this and your view encompasses a broader and richer view of the GWR. 

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, john dew said:

I may have been too simplistic with my division. Please tell me if there are pre Collet panniers numbered below 30xx and I will amend.

 

 

The last four classes in the poll, 2721, 1854, 1901 and 2021/2101 are all pre-Collett pannier tanks numbered below 30xx with class members lasting until 1947.

 

See: http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html

 

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Well, yes, indeed.

 

Many Grouping era Panniers started off as saddle tank classes, and a minority of locos retained saddle tanks quite late in the day.  Conversely, in the 1900s-1910s a small proportion of six-coupled tanks already bore panniers. 

 

I would lend my voice to considering six-coupled tanks more generally, giving manufacturers the option of earlier body types featuring saddle tanks.  

 

Many of us, me certainly included, grew up surrounded by books and images of the GWR that is rather like standing in Didcot's War Loans Act engine shed; typically your view is of Collett era Swindon motive power. That is all excellent stuff and rightly central to the GW we love, however, stand back from this and your view encompasses a broader and richer view of the GWR. 

Thanks for this Edwardian.

 

When I was researching before setting out the poll, it was clear that a number of Saddle tanks would have been around on the GWR immediately after WW2, although of course a number of classes had already been withdrawn at the time the Collett era Panniers were being built.

 

I therefore decided to concentrate on Panniers only.

 

Unfortunately with some 109 members already casting their votes, it would be cumbersome to add a different category at this stage. I propose seeing this poll through (hopefully) with the outcome of several new Pannier tank locos. 
 

At which stage, we can then set up a different poll to identify which suitable pre-WW1 loco should be next…. Saddle tanks…. Barnums….Going up to the 1920’s would include the de Glenn locos…. 
 

We could certainly introduce some very different locos into the mix.

 

Thanks again for the comments. I look forward to doing the research for the next poll.

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Thanks for this Edwardian.

 

When I was researching before setting out the poll, it was clear that a number of Saddle tanks would have been around on the GWR immediately after WW2, although of course a number of classes had already been withdrawn at the time the Collett era Panniers were being built.

 

I therefore decided to concentrate on Panniers only.

 

Unfortunately with some 109 members already casting their votes, it would be cumbersome to add a different category at this stage. I propose seeing this poll through (hopefully) with the outcome of several new Pannier tank locos. 
 

At which stage, we can then set up a different poll to identify which suitable pre-WW1 loco should be next…. Saddle tanks…. Barnums….Going up to the 1920’s would include the de Glenn locos…. 
 

We could certainly introduce some very different locos into the mix.

 

Thanks again for the comments. I look forward to doing the research for the next poll.

 

Thanks, Neal.  The point is that it is often difficult to represent the Grouping railway without pre-Grouping equipment. Toplights would be a topical case in point. Hence 517s as the pre-eminent inter-war GW auto-tank and the volumes of ex-saddle tank pannier classes knocking around. Concentrate solely on Grouping designs and you are really catering for only the WR modeller, which is fine, if that is where the interest lies, but if you want to position a survey to include GW Grouping scene, to exclude many ex-saddle tank classes would be to plan a ham and cheese sandwich in which there is only cheese.  So, I was glad to see some of the older classes crop up.  

[St Enodoc]

On 06/02/2022 at 00:19, McC said:

it should still be possible to replace motors, gears

Why?