57xx Pannier Tank Family, By Accurascale

[Steamport Southport]

They weren't often in that lower position either, but 9741 is correct. They were usually somewhere in the middle.

 

5741 seems to be a bit camera shy. Here's one at withdrawal.

 

https://railuk.info/gallery/getimage.php?id=2506

 

 

 

Jason

[57xx]

On 01/01/2024 at 10:58, Dunsignalling said:

 

The problem with many of the "enhancements" to locos is that they will "steal" space that, for many of us, would be better employed for the weight needed to enable models of small prototypes (in particular) to manage a reasonable load.   

 

John

 

They can also mean overscale "detail". Look at the hinges on the filler cap of the Manor for example. I'd much rather have scale hinges that look good and don't work than oversized kludges to please 0.001%* of purchasers

 

* 84.5% of stats are made up on the spot.

[The Johnster]

Yes, I'm in agreement on this point.  Hinges that work so that that filler caps, doors, &c, can be opened and securely shut are a good idea, but not at the expense of detail and appearance.  I'm thinking of some of the horrors of the past, like the Airfix plasic kit meatm cattle, and INTERFRIGO vans, and the Triang bogie PLV.  I'm guessing that the decision to have opening filler caps on the Manor may have been taken at about the same time that Dapol were messing around with their all-dancing all-singing rocket launcer I mean water tower...  I mean, I suppose it would have been impressive if the filler cap could be opened and the bag dropped in, but without scale model fully functioning hoomans to do the work something is lacking.  It's lacking anyway of course, but this would have simply drawn attention to the lack of fully functioning hoomans...

 

Disbelief suspension is an essential component of any sort of modelling, and especially in disciplines where the models move.  I would never be happy with R/C boats, for example, because I am unable to filter out that boat pond water does not act 'in scale' in the same way as the model boats.  I've seem R/C aircraft that are very convincing, though, especially if the engine noise is 'ballpark' and there is nothing to 'scale' them against.  Most do not move like real a/c, though, and my disbelief is not suspended. 

 

This is a rather personal thing, though, and my interpretation of it is likely to be different from yours.  For example, due to deteriorated eyesight and hand steadiness in my dotage, I have 'reverted' to using tension-lock couplings, and am able to mentally 'tune them out' (painting them in track colour helps).  Couldn't have done it with those old Lima horrors though!  And I can't abide the appearance of Kaydee couplers on UK models; that's just inconsistent, t/ls are just as bad...

[maico]

On 01/01/2024 at 23:36, Hilux5972 said:

That can easily be countermanded by die cast bodies, as has been demonstrated by Accurascale and Bachmann. The new 57xx Pannier Tank has a Diecast body and an LED firebox “enhancement”. Weighs in at 215g. Bachmanns new 94xx also has the same and weighs 285g. Some of Hornby’s bigger locos don’t even weigh that much. 

 

Have you had one in hand? AC make no mention of a die-cast body on their spec. sheet that I can see.

 

The running board looks metal

 

mid 1960s

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by maico

[Hilux5972]

3 hours ago, maico said:

 

Have you had one in hand? AC make no mention of a die-cast body on their spec. sheet that I can see.

The video between Andy and Fran said die cast I’m pretty sure 

[Metropolitan]

3 hours ago, maico said:

 

Have you had one in hand? AC make no mention of a die-cast body on their spec. sheet that I can see.

 

The running board looks metal

 

mid 1960s

 

 

 

 

 

Very sadly the is no LT livery in the range as far as I can see? Even though it was mentioned in their announcement video.

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, I'm in agreement on this point.  Hinges that work so that that filler caps, doors, &c, can be opened and securely shut are a good idea, but not at the expense of detail and appearance.  I'm thinking of some of the horrors of the past, like the Airfix plasic kit meatm cattle, and INTERFRIGO vans, and the Triang bogie PLV.  I'm guessing that the decision to have opening filler caps on the Manor may have been taken at about the same time that Dapol were messing around with their all-dancing all-singing rocket launcer I mean water tower...  I mean, I suppose it would have been impressive if the filler cap could be opened and the bag dropped in, but without scale model fully functioning hoomans to do the work something is lacking.  It's lacking anyway of course, but this would have simply drawn attention to the lack of fully functioning hoomans...

 

Disbelief suspension is an essential component of any sort of modelling, and especially in disciplines where the models move.  I would never be happy with R/C boats, for example, because I am unable to filter out that boat pond water does not act 'in scale' in the same way as the model boats.  I've seem R/C aircraft that are very convincing, though, especially if the engine noise is 'ballpark' and there is nothing to 'scale' them against.  Most do not move like real a/c, though, and my disbelief is not suspended. 

 

This is a rather personal thing, though, and my interpretation of it is likely to be different from yours.  For example, due to deteriorated eyesight and hand steadiness in my dotage, I have 'reverted' to using tension-lock couplings, and am able to mentally 'tune them out' (painting them in track colour helps).  Couldn't have done it with those old Lima horrors though!  And I can't abide the appearance of Kaydee couplers on UK models; that's just inconsistent, t/ls are just as bad...

 

I reckon T/Ls (even the "mini" ones) are actually worse than Kadees (No 'Y' and there never has been), simply because they stick out further! 😉 

 

Yes, I know they can be fiddled with to shorten them, but I prefer to spend the time fitting something tidier that works better.

 

I work with Kadees and Sprat & Winkle couplers; on different layouts, naturally. I like both, but my personal preference is for Kadees because I find them easier and quicker to fit to a consistent standard (despite generally avoiding the "easy" plug-in NEM types). If properly installed, they seldom need further attention for years. I have worn out wagons over a couple of decades without ever touching the couplings. Having scrapped the wagon, the couplings get cleaned up, fitted into new draft boxes, and re-used.  

 

Whilst Kadee offer the option of uncouplers that you can just glue into the track, Both have the advantage that remote uncoupling can be achieved with concealed magnets. 

 

John

Edited January 7 by Dunsignalling

[Captain Kernow]

5 hours ago, Metropolitan said:

Very sadly the is no LT livery in the range as far as I can see? Even though it was mentioned in their announcement video.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that one will feature in a future batch, John.

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

They will definitely come, but considering Accurascale are doing a loco that has so many versions and options it makes sense for them to start with the most common liveries.

The more specialised ones will come later, once the tooling has paid for itself a bit more 😉

[meatloaf]

Sams trains handled one at warley, pretty sure he said it was a diecast body.

[The Stationmaster]

30 minutes ago, meatloaf said:

Sams trains handled one at warley, pretty sure he said it was a diecast body.

Definitely plenty of weight in them as I found when I handled one at the Warley show.

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

I reckon T/Ls (even the "mini" ones) are actually worse than Kadees (No 'Y' and there never has been), simply because they stick out further! 😉 

 

Yes, I know they can be fiddled with to shorten them, but I prefer to spend the time fitting something tidier that works better.

 

I work with Kadees and Sprat & Winkle couplers; on different layouts, naturally. I like both, but my personal preference is for Kadees because I find them easier and quicker to fit to a consistent standard (despite generally avoiding the "easy" plug-in NEM types). If properly installed, they seldom need further attention for years. I have worn out wagons over a couple of decades without ever touching the couplings. Having scrapped the wagon, the couplings get cleaned up, fitted into new draft boxes, and re-used.  

 

Whilst Kadee offer the option of uncouplers that you can just glue into the track, Both have the advantage that remote uncoupling can be achieved with concealed magnets. 

 

John

Interestingly I was watching alayout at a show yesterday - from close range - and it took a while to realise that tje couplings were Kadees - remarkablly unobtrusive the way they were mounted.

[BVMR21]

6 hours ago, Metropolitan said:

Very sadly the is no LT livery in the range as far as I can see? Even though it was mentioned in their announcement video.

As it is included within the tooling suite I would fully expect it to either feature in this batch as an AccuraExclusive, or feature in a future run, with there being plenty of interest no doubt, and if Accurascale wished I'm guessing they could do the ex-LT, preservation era liveried variants.

[Halvarras]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, I'm in agreement on this point.  Hinges that work so that that filler caps, doors, &c, can be opened and securely shut are a good idea, but not at the expense of detail and appearance.  I'm thinking of some of the horrors of the past, like the Airfix plasic kit meatm cattle, and INTERFRIGO vans, and the Triang bogie PLV. 

 

Slightly more recently both Airfix and Palitoy/Mainline joined the fray with their own versions of the LMS-design ventilated van - and the latter's decision to include sliding doors with thick plastic runners completely ruined their model. So never owned one, but still have three of the Airfix(/Dapol) models.

[1466]

I prefer 3 links for my goods stock but deteriorating eyesight and wobbly hands ( a la Johnster) mean I don’t do much shunting these days .

When it comes to passenger stock , I fit Kadeees to SR and LNER coaches as that seems appropriate ( buckeyes).

However my favourite train replicates a special from Southampton docks and features Royal T9 number 120 , a 40 foot parcels van , a Mausell Brake 3rd , a Pullman and another brake 3rd .

The couplings are screw link engine to parcels van , screw link to the first  brake and then Kadees . It works for me but coupling the engine and parcels is a pain . That’s why it tends to run as a fixed rake .

Chris Leigh published a photo of the prototype train and inspired me .

[1466]

8 minutes ago, 1466 said:

I prefer 3 links for my goods stock but deteriorating eyesight and wobbly hands ( a la Johnster) mean I don’t do much shunting these days .

When it comes to passenger stock , I fit Kadeees to SR and LNER coaches as that seems appropriate ( buckeyes).

However my favourite train replicates a special from Southampton docks and features Royal T9 number 120 , a 40 foot parcels van , a Mausell Brake 3rd , a Pullman and another brake 3rd .

The couplings are screw link engine to parcels van , screw link to the first  brake and then Kadees . It works for me but coupling the engine and parcels is a pain . That’s why it tends to run as a fixed rake .

Chris Leigh published a photo of the prototype train and inspired me .

I forgot to add that I was surprised to see on an S4 layout that the coaches had small t/l couplings . Surprised because I didn’t think t/l couplings would be acceptable on an S4 layout . Doubly surprised because they were so unobtrusive  and  of course worked well . The secret  was they were the smallest size and were set back so far that the buffers “ kissed” . The couplings between vehicles were hidden underneath the corridor connections and only perked out at the ends. 

[maico]

4 hours ago, BVMR21 said:

As it is included within the tooling suite I would fully expect it to either feature in this batch as an AccuraExclusive, or feature in a future run, with there being plenty of interest no doubt, and if Accurascale wished I'm guessing they could do the ex-LT, preservation era liveried variants.

 

Bachmann have set quite a high bar on these paint-wise. The livery suits the loco so money in the bank...

[The Johnster]

I don't want to start another Kadee vs tension lock debate, but feel the need to explain my choice of t/ls on Cwmdimbath.  When I restarted in the hobby in 2016 following a 30-year divorce/unsettled life hiatus, the locos and stock that had survived the upheaval were all fitted with scale couplings, mostly Smiths, instanter or screw as appropriate, and it was my initial intention to continue in this way.  It became very obvious very quickly that, unless I was prepared to run fixed rakes and not shunt or run around (and that was never going to happen) I couldn't handle the couplings without frustration and frequent derailment. 

 

It was also very quickly apparent that my old stuff wasn't going to cut the mustard any more.  I was no longer prepared to accept brake blocks out of line with the wheels, or moudled brake levers, on stock that was going to have to run with new purchases and all of my Mainline locos succumbed very quickly to incipient mazak rot and the usual quartering issues.  So, while some wagon bodies survive, it is mostly gone now.  New locos and new stock were needed. 

 

As I was, and am, quite seriously budget-restricted, this was not good news, but I managed to cobble together enough locos and stock to run a feasible timetable.  I have yet to purchase a brand new loco that is not discounted.  I chose t/ls largely because they were what most of the new stuff came fitted with, and the extra expense of Kadees was off-putting.  Another off-putter was the 'Kadee shuffle' often seen at shows.  I wanted a automatic coupling that could be uncoupled manually at any position on the layout with a stiff wire shunting pole. 

 

This was not all plain sailing.  It took some time to establish a standard height above the railhead for the coupling bars, even after standardising on Bachmann NEMs (available in long, short, straight, and cranked variations) to establish a consistent hook profile across the layout.  The answer was to build a standard coupling height gauge which sits on the railheads, and work to that, adjusting the height of the NEM dovetail with Parkside PA34 housings trimmed to size if needed.  It would be costly to convert now to any other type of coupling.

 

I have done some experimentation, but have come back to the t/ls each time; they need a bit of work but they are reliable.  I have tried homemade loop & pin couplings on the minerals (unreliable for propelling unless you ballast the wagons with dark star material or unobtainium), bar couplings on auto-sets (connecting the bogies directly, too stiff), and 'James' Trains' fixed 3D printed types (v. realistic but a bit brittle, not suitable for stock that is handled on and off the fiddle yard roads).  Honestly, I can't see the point in replacing unreaslistic t/ls with equally unrealisticc Kadees, but Spratt & winkle types may be a future path to take.  I've dismissed magnetics at not being capable of remaining uncoupled when needed.  I've also considered Peco/Hornby Dublo 'Simplex' types, reliable enough on level tracks smoothly laid, the later HD plastic type being preferred. 

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

19 hours ago, 1466 said:

I forgot to add that I was surprised to see on an S4 layout that the coaches had small t/l couplings . Surprised because I didn’t think t/l couplings would be acceptable on an S4 layout .

Oddly enough, P4 modellers are just as prone to eat, drink and be merry as everyone else.

 

Rule 4297, paragraph 4.2C, sub-section 'A'(ii) on page 583 of the Scalefour Society Big Book of 'Dos and Don'ts' lays down that the punishment for getting caught using tension lock couplings is only 2 hours in the stocks at the next Scaleforum (and that only applies if there is a 'Z' in the month), so it seems a small price to pay for a bit of freedom... 😉😉🙂

 

[IOW O2]

19 hours ago, 1466 said:

The secret  was they were the smallest size and were set back so far that the buffers “ kissed” . The couplings between vehicles were hidden underneath the corridor connections and only perked out at the ends. 

I cut the NEM pocket in half on coaches and loco's to set T/L further back and remove hook on locos, then do the Brian Kirby mod on coach end T/L's.  Both Acuuras. Manors I was able to trim a bit off tenders small NEM but put a goal post loop on front of one Manor.

 

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I have done some experimentation, but have come back to the t/ls each time; they need a bit of work but they are reliable.  ..........

can't see the point in replacing unreaslistic t/ls with equally unrealisticc Kadees, ... 

I do have under track Screwfix magnets for the BK mod.  All works a treat

Edited January 8 by IOW O2
clarity

[Wickham Green too]

19 hours ago, 1466 said:

... Surprised because I didn’t think t/l couplings would be acceptable on an S4 layout. ...

I seem to recall a series of articles in Model Railway Constructor back in the '70s (?) introducing the concept to P4 to us mere mortals and thinking how odd it was that such lovely wheels should be put under an otherwise unmodified Triang Mk1 coach .... complete with original pressed-tin tension-lock !

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

Oddly enough, P4 modellers are just as prone to eat, drink and be merry as everyone else.

 

Rule 4297, paragraph 4.2C, sub-section 'A'(ii) on page 583 of the Scalefour Society Big Book of 'Dos and Don'ts' lays down that the punishment for getting caught using tension lock couplings is only 2 hours in the stocks at the next Scaleforum (and that only applies if there is a 'Z' in the month), so it seems a small price to pay for a bit of freedom... 😉😉🙂

 

And as it happens a certain well known continental maufacturer of toy trains offers very compact tension lock coupling which is available as a spare part (in various formats).   Sorry it's foreign but they are unobtrusicveand I have operated (aka played trains ) with them on a superb and well 7mm scale narrow gauge layout where they are even more unobtrusive and work reliably.

 

So maybe A/S could look across the Nord See for inspiration in their apparent search for something better than the UK approach to locking couplings by tension/??   Now back to pannier heaven - hopefully?

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I seem to recall a series of articles in Model Railway Constructor back in the '70s (?) introducing the concept to P4 to us mere mortals and thinking how odd it was that such lovely wheels should be put under an otherwise unmodified Triang Mk1 coach .... complete with original pressed-tin tension-lock !

 

Yes, I remember that, and thinking the same. 

[Steamport Southport]

On 07/01/2024 at 13:57, Halvarras said:

 

Slightly more recently both Airfix and Palitoy/Mainline joined the fray with their own versions of the LMS-design ventilated van - and the latter's decision to include sliding doors with thick plastic runners completely ruined their model. So never owned one, but still have three of the Airfix(/Dapol) models.

 

Don't forget that when Mainline and Airfix first started they were very much aiming at the train set market.

 

Airfix even had exploding carriages and rockets!

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSetsInd.htm

 

http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/SETS.htm

 

 

Jason

Edited January 8 by Steamport Southport

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Don't forget that when Mainline and Airfix first started they were very much aiming at the train set market.

 

Airfix even had exploding wagons and rockets!

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSetsInd.htm

 

http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/SETS.htm

 

 

Jason

But not just the train set market...

 

After the Tri-ang Mk1s, they were the first UK-outline brands to make any attempt at authentic coaches.

 

John