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

[St Enodoc]

On 06/02/2022 at 06:18, Captain Kernow said:

whether the loco runs smoothly or not, stalls or even derails, these being massive turn-offs for me, anyway.

or has the guts to pull anything.

[McC]

7 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Why?

 

Why not? If you can't access the motor / gear train, how can you service, repair or replace them (even for our warranty team?)

[MrWolf]

Considering the fact that we are all expected to be going green now, things should be repairable rather than just recyclable.

[St Enodoc]

18 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

The preserved ones regularly pull more than that on heritage railways, usually much heavier BR Mark Ones.

But not very fast.

[St Enodoc]

15 minutes ago, McC said:

 

Why not? If you can't access the motor / gear train, how can you service, repair or replace them (even for our warranty team?)

The full question is, why should you need to replace (not service or maintain) gears and/or motors during the life of an RTR model?

[Captain Kernow]

4 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

The full question is, why should you need to replace (not service or maintain) gears and/or motors during the life of an RTR model?

I'd say that even the best quality items can go wrong, 'anything made by man' etc.

 

[MrWolf]

I'm not sure how you would definitely the "life" of an RTR model? What of all the models 20, 30, 40 years old or more that still run well? 

The manufacturers who are still going have produced locos that have lasted. 

I'm certainly more inclined to persevere with something that I know I can maintain and I will then buy more from the same makers.

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I'd say that even the best quality items can go wrong, 'anything made by man' etc.

 

Of course. I'm a maintenance engineer by background, not a model railway manufacturer, but my expectation is that replacement of a motor and/or gears should be so rare that if necessary I would just replace the whole chassis.

[PMP]

27 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

The full question is, why should you need to replace (not service or maintain) gears and/or motors during the life of an RTR model?

Obviously you shouldn’t, however in my experience of assorted RTR I’d encourage the concept of easy ‘transmission’ access. Having said that despite having  had a large number and variety of RTR models through the mancave over the years, I’ve not experienced anything like the number of damaged or failed models that some people report.

 

One thing that is surprising me so far is the BR/WR era numbers. I suspect these in reality are higher than those reflected by the survey participants. I base this on the ‘lack’ of the earlier era layouts on the exhibition circuit, and comments from trade contacts whom still not a bias towards ‘BR’ steam. I think because the ‘thread participants have a higher than average interest in the subject matter, we’re unlikely to see the impact of the casual or drive-by buyer that purchases models based on seeing them at a show/shop/media that form a good part of the market. 
 

N.B. That’s not to criticise the survey or suggest it’s significantly flawed.

Edited February 8, 2022 by PMP
Spelling

[Miss Prism]

In the Manor thread, I was slapped down by the heavy mob (Accurascale) when doubting the ability/inclination of manufacturers to work from drawings alone, but I suppose I could have been just as correct over my scepticism of manufacturers relying only on scans. I admit I was and am generalising.

 

In the context of this thread however, there is a significant problem with both scans and drawings for pre-Collett things. There is nothing to scan (apart from the 1361, which has been done). There aren't any big GA drawings of pre-Collett panniers, because they all grew from saddles. The number of surviving big GA drawings of early side/saddle tanks are I understand very few, and tell us little about the subsequent mods. Saddle tank cross-sections (some do survive) are a nightmare.

 

Swindon and Wolverhampton were just huge boxes of ever-changing parts, and this applied to saddle tanks as much as it did to panniers. Locos came into the works, were dismantled, reassembled with different bits, and shopped out again. To single out the shape of the water tank is an incomplete way of seeing things.

 

Btw, Accurascale are known to have been 'lurking' at Didcot.

 

[PMP]

18 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Of course. I'm a maintenance engineer by background, not a model railway manufacturer, but my expectation is that replacement of a motor and/or gears should be so rare that if necessary I would just replace the whole chassis.

Back in the early noughties HJ did that after the Clayton failures. As I recall it took a long while to do that and wasn’t (for reasons various) 100% successful. If a manufacturer took a slightly different approach to contemporary techniques and standardised on a motor and DCC interface that works across several prototypes, then a transmission/motor change would be more practical. This would curtail having to wait months for a production slot to build complete chassis’ with a corresponding loss of their production slot for something else.

Edited February 8, 2022 by PMP
Structure

[Neal Ball]

7 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

In the Manor thread, I was slapped down by the heavy mob (Accurascale) when doubting the ability/inclination of manufacturers to work from drawings alone, but I suppose I could have been just as correct over my scepticism of manufacturers relying only on scans. I admit I was and am generalising.

 

In the context of this thread however, there is a significant problem with both scans and drawings for pre-Collett things. There is nothing to scan (apart from the 1361, which has been done). There aren't any big GA drawings of pre-Collett panniers, because they all grew from saddles. The number of surviving big GA drawings of early side/saddle tanks are I understand very few, and tell us little about the subsequent mods. Saddle tank cross-sections (some do survive) are a nightmare.

 

Swindon and Wolverhampton were just huge boxes of ever-changing parts, and this applied to saddle tanks as much as it did to panniers. Locos came into the works, were dismantled, reassembled with different bits, and shopped out again. To single out the shape of the water tank is an incomplete way of seeing things.

 

Btw, Accurascale are known to have been 'lurking' at Didcot.

 

Thanks Miss Prism, I’m not surprised about the lack of early GA drawings, just the changes over the years to a particular loco would make this a difficult task.

 

I am sure others than just Accurascale have been “lurking” around Didcot….

[PMP]

16 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

In the Manor thread, I was slapped down by the heavy mob (Accurascale) when doubting the ability/inclination of manufacturers to work from drawings alone, but I suppose I could have been just as correct over my scepticism of manufacturers relying only on scans. I admit I was and am generalising.

snip.

 

Swindon and Wolverhampton were just huge boxes of ever-changing parts, and this applied to saddle tanks as much as it did to panniers. Locos came into the works, were dismantled, reassembled with different bits, and shopped out again.

In my experience the scanning and use of drawings are but two of the development tools manufacturers use. The scan hyperbole was largely generated by one defunct commissioner.

 

You make a valid point re GWR early ‘standardisation’, that will be a notable challenge  for any manufacturer in the build of an accurate early pannier/saddle tank that has era transferability.

16 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by PMP

[Bulwell Hall]

On 05/02/2022 at 06:03, Neal Ball said:

There’s bound to be sufficient drawings around either at the NRM or perhaps at Didcot.

 

I'm sorry to say that I wouldn't count on it!  These older GWR engines have always been a problem to obtain drawings for.  But there have been drawings of the 2021 with later closed cab and extended bunker in Great Western Journal so so that's a possibility.

 

And I would certainly welcome a '8750' Collet pannier tank from Accurascale!

 

Gerry

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

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, 

 

Indeed. @Neal Ball: if you want to be honest about the intent of the poll, the title should be changed to "WR Pannier Tanks..."

Edited February 8, 2022 by Compound2632

[Miss Prism]

Best bet for a cute small saddle tank is 2007 or 1925. With its partner 2007 tootling about on the Lambourn branch, here's 1925 resting at Didcot, Sunday, 16 August 1936.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Miss Prism
image reinstated

[Schooner]

11 minutes ago, PMP said:

...the casual or drive-by buyer...

 

If they don't participate in (presumably because they don't much care for) this kind of discussion then is it not reasonable to take the proportions from Neal's two GWR polls as a pretty sound indicator of Period Preference? Those that care are commenting; those that don't would be equally happy and well catered for regardless of the end result...?

 

11 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

There aren't any big GA drawings of pre-Collett panniers, because they all grew from saddles...

To get to the answer perhaps all we need to do is change the question...  

 

More genuine question: if a GWR six-coupled tank, regardless of tank shape, is plausible (given those two huge box of parts mentioned), is that good enough for the...41.01% of respondants best served by a pre-Collett option?

 

46 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

...why should you need to replace (not service or maintain) gears and/or motors during the life of an RTR model?

 

One reason is because RTR drive trains, even on some very expensive models, are fairly deemed unfit for purpose.

 

Just now, Compound2632 said:

the title should be changed to "WR Pannier Tanks..."

Wot?! And remove the excuse to keep banging on about locos withdrawn before the 57XX came into service?!

 

 

Take aways from the thread so far:

• Of the options in the poll, the pre-1900 builds are massively popular. It seems like some with post-1930 layouts might buy another 57XX; most with a pre-1930 layout would buy a Victorian design (although opinion is pretty evenly split as to which).
• Despite not even featuring in the poll, saddle tanks are getting regular mentions (sorry!)
• A 'modern spec' seems to refer, conversationally at least, to improved running qualities rather than improved detail. Building a small shunting layout, I couldn't agree more!

 

Interesting stuff, enjoying this

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Best bet for a cute small saddle tank is 2007 or 1925. With its partner 2007 tootling about on the Lambourn branch, here's 1925 resting at Didcot, Sunday, 16 August 1936.

 

I'd buy that, even if you're going to tell me all the thigs that have changed since 1902. Pre-grouping beggars can't be choosers!

 

1 minute ago, Schooner said:

Wot?! And remove the excuse to keep banging on about locos withdrawn before the 57XX came into service?!

• Despite not even featuring in the poll, saddle tanks are getting regular mentions (sorry!)

 

I was teasing, of course. I'm working out how to reply to the poll when it doesn't cater for the option I'd be interested in. I've come to the conclusion the best thing to do is to spoil my ballot paper, by indicating my preferred period and nothing else!.

[Neal Ball]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed. @Neal Ball: if you want to be honest about the intent of the poll, the title should be changed to "WR Pannier Tanks..."

The title doesn’t need to be changed…. It’s very much a GWR poll. If you look at the rationale on page 1, I have deliberately excluded BR(W) locos.

 

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Best bet for a cute small saddle tank is 2007 or 1925. With its partner 2007 tootling about on the Lambourn branch, here's 1925 resting at Didcot, Sunday, 16 August 1936.

 

Lovely photo Miss Prism. It will look good in the next poll, once this one is exhausted!

 

3 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

….Interesting stuff, enjoying this

Thank you.

 

Perhaps we can now get back on topic and discuss Pannier tanks and specifically the locos mentioned in the rationale on Page 1.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I've come to the conclusion the best thing to do is to spoil my ballot paper, by indicating my preferred period and nothing else!.

 

No, the poll wouldn't let me do that. But by indicating pre-1920 and the 19th-century classes, I've more-or-less constrained my choice to a less likely combination for a PT, to indicate that what I'm really voting for is an ST!

Edited February 8, 2022 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Neal Ball said:

The title doesn’t need to be changed…. It’s very much a GWR poll. If you look at the rationale on page 1, I have deliberately excluded BR(W) locos.

 

You misunderstand my point, which is that the poll is biased towards PT classes as running in BR(W) days, as the discussion of top feeds has amply demonstrated!

 

3 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Perhaps we can now get back on topic and discuss Pannier tanks and specifically the locos mentioned in the rationale on Page 1.

 

Ah, but that's how RMWeb works - the OP has essentially no control over the direction of the topic, which has become, to question the premise on which the topic started. One should always look for the assumptions underlying any discussion, since they are often used to steer the discussion towards a desired but invalid conclusion.

[MrWolf]

Does it simplify matters if I share what I put into the poll?

I would be most interested in being able to buy a model of a loco built before 1914 in the condition that it would have been c1934.

If for reasons of commercial viability it has to be modelled in its c1946 condition, I would be prepared to backdate it.

Reliable running and the means to maintain it should be a given.

[Neal Ball]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You misunderstand my point, which is that the poll is biased towards PT classes as running in BR(W) days, as the discussion of top feeds has amply demonstrated!

 

 

Ah, but that's how RMWeb works - the OP has essentially no control over the direction of the topic, which has become, to question the premise on which the topic started. One should always look for the assumptions underlying any discussion, since they are often used to steer the discussion towards a desired but invalid conclusion.

The rationale on Page 1 clearly says Pre-WW2 locos.

 

My assumptions about the particular locos are on Page 1. Plus 4 days in is too late to change the poll after 100 members have cast their votes.

[Neal Ball]

1 minute ago, MrWolf said:

Does it simplify matters if I share what I put into the poll?

I would be most interested in being able to buy a model of a loco built before 1914 in the condition that it would have been c1934.

If for reasons of commercial viability it has to be modelled in its c1946 condition, I would be prepared to backdate it.

Reliable running and the means to maintain it should be a given.

Thanks very much Mr Wolf.

 

I’m hoping that we don’t get a loco in its 1946 condition. I too model the ‘30’s and am looking for a loco in that condition. 
 

 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

The rationale on Page 1 clearly says Pre-WW2 locos.

 

My assumptions about the particular locos are on Page 1. 

 

Yes, designed and built pre-WW2, i.e. excluding 15xx, 16xx, and 94xx classes. But currently, 42% or respondents have indicated that their period of interest is WW2 or later; with 44% indicating 20s/30s - pretty evenly divided.

 

8 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

I’m hoping that we don’t get a loco in its 1946 condition. I too model the ‘30’s and am looking for a loco in that condition. 

 

As I said, the assumptions underlying the poll bias the outcome in a particular direction.

 

11 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Plus 4 days in is too late to change the poll after 100 members have cast their votes.

 

Not suggesting any change, merely pointing out the limitations. It's generally good practice in building a poll to allow a "none of the above" option - something to be borne in mind for next time. It is tempting, but would be tedious, to set up a rival poll on the simple question: if a manufacturer was to produce a new-tooled Great Western 0-6-0 with PT and ST options, which would you buy?