Jump to content
 

57xx Pannier Tank Family, By Accurascale


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
Just now, Captain Kernow said:

I don't think there's anything that wrong with the Bachmann 57XX and 8750, especially as a little modelling can add the extra detail that the comparative AS examples will come with as standard. I have a few Bachmann panniers, all of which have received extra detail and they are definitely not going to be displaced.

 

Its going to be an interesting comparison once the model hits the shelves as to just how much  the AS model is going to date its older Bachmann counterpart.  Particularly when the Bachmann model has been detailed up with etched grills on the rear windows, sand box linkages etc.   The clincher for me is likely going to be that the AS model has  the inside valve gear modelled, and I am a real sucker for modelled inside valve gear.   (Now what it really needs is for AS to release something with working inside valve gear.........)

 

As to the fate of my model of 5798 a lot will come down to whether or not I finally manage to pin down whether or not it should have a topfeed.  If it shouldnt have one, it will be on the chopping block, if it does then I will see how it stands up next to its newer sister.

 

(It will be a similar story with the 45xx, if I can get my models to a close enough standard they will stay.  if there's a glaring error that I havent fixed to a satisfactory standard they will go.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

- how well with the coreless motor respond to conventional DC controllers (I have personally have bad experiences with modern coreless motors in recent RTR locos)

 

 

There has been plenty of this written elsewhere. Ultimately what sort of controllers do you have ? And what sort of locos went wrong?

Briefly, they won't like feedback controls nor old H&M style controllers with those energy spikes.

On coreless locos themselves, only DJM ones were really an issue for me BUT these locos had small (really small) gutless motors which don't have enough grunt to overcome friction of the gear chain going down hill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi @David Bigcheeseplant,

 

It would be an interesting variant for sure. We wonder what demand would be like?

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

I've wondered about this and have thought that it might not be commercial in view of the extra tooling costs involved and the limited area of operation.   The to90ling depends on how the model is constructed  but I am presumaing that the boiler and tans might not be separate parts - a 97XX would be simplet of they were (but obviously  that's a design decision long past in terms of the originial style tanks).  

 

But if you can afford to tool snaphead rivetted tanks for basically a small part of the overall fleet size does that mean a 97XX is affordable albeit at a higher price point?   Small specialised gepgraphically limted classes do seem to sell and as people keep on doing them presumably they continue to sell?  So that's a possible maybe?  

 

Another 'possible maybe' is thaht while the condensers were very geograhocally restricted ine where they worked they were some what wider roaming in other ways asthey obviously went away for main work overhaul.  9710 was overhauled at Caerphilly Works in 1961 - where it was photographed.  And, according to BR Database  9708 was reported passing through the Birmingham area, light engine, in 1953 'presumably on its way to Wolverhampton works.  and of course the class regularly went to Swindon for shopping.

 

So perhaps a slight excuse for seeing them away from home.  A tad unusually the only place I ever saw one working a freight train was at Baker Street, heading towards Edgware Road on a Saturday.  But normally it was a case of seeing them on Old Oak - Paddington empty coaching pilot turns

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I've wondered about this and have thought that it might not be commercial in view of the extra tooling costs involved and the limited area of operation.   The to90ling depends on how the model is constructed  but I am presumaing that the boiler and tans might not be separate parts - a 97XX would be simplet of they were (but obviously  that's a design decision long past in terms of the originial style tanks).  

 

But if you can afford to tool snaphead rivetted tanks for basically a small part of the overall fleet size does that mean a 97XX is affordable albeit at a higher price point?   Small specialised gepgraphically limted classes do seem to sell and as people keep on doing them presumably they continue to sell?  So that's a possible maybe?  

 

Another 'possible maybe' is thaht while the condensers were very geograhocally restricted ine where they worked they were some what wider roaming in other ways asthey obviously went away for main work overhaul.  9710 was overhauled at Caerphilly Works in 1961 - where it was photographed.  And, according to BR Database  9708 was reported passing through the Birmingham area, light engine, in 1953 'presumably on its way to Wolverhampton works.  and of course the class regularly went to Swindon for shopping.

 

So perhaps a slight excuse for seeing them away from home.  A tad unusually the only place I ever saw one working a freight train was at Baker Street, heading towards Edgware Road on a Saturday.  But normally it was a case of seeing them on Old Oak - Paddington empty coaching pilot turns

Here is 9707 out on a PW train at West Wycombe Saunderton area.

panniers 016.jpeg

panniers 017.jpeg

panniers 018.jpeg

  • Like 8
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zunnan said:

 

I think the Accura launch video didn't help there. I'll admit when I watched it and 'Mayflower' featured heavily my intertest was quite piqued, then stood in front of the 8F I nearly punched the air...and then when it panned onto the actual subject matter I clicked away uninterested. I'm glad for those who've been waiting for versions of these tanks which have never been covered before, but the teasing at the start of the video was a bit of a put-off.

The flash of LNER green made me think for a brief moment that it was a K4. Humph!

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

Looking to confirm 5798 and 9717 both in 1947

It will if there's a contemporaneous photo of them.  But there isn't any photo at all in the PPs of 5798 although there is one of 5799, dated at March 1955 - that's in PPs No.3.  There is a photo of 9717 in PPs No. 4 but it is dated 1962.

 

The problem you're then face u is deciding if the way they looked in later photos, liery apart, is teh way they looked at the date you want - especoally whether the height of the top feed looks like the correct, of the two)versions, for your date - probably it was but boiler swaps occurred of course.

 

Alas you're back to teh perennial problem of not only trusting the published shown for the photos are accurate by ut wehether or not the details are accurate for teh period you are modelling?  Probably they are ok but it's either that or keep looking for photos nearer the date you have in mind.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

On a pernickety point of detail - but one which the 'Manor addressed admirably - am I seeing the spokes incorrectly or are they not quite right and are missing the 'GWR flare' - at both the hub end and the rim end?   (Fully appreciating of course that development etc is still proceeding on these models.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Excellent choice, I'll probably have a couple to go with the Baccy versions.

 

Why scrap them?

They have a perfectly good chassis, which runs smoothly and reliably. I've got six already.🙂

The Bachmann ones with a decoder socket have extra weight to counter that lost from chassis block to accommodate a decoder.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
48 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They have a perfectly good chassis, which runs smoothly and reliably.

And that's one of the many good points about the Bachmann one, it is one of their most consistently good performing locos in terms of slow and smooth running, with a nice, cored motor delivering good performance.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bachmann 94xx is excellent, up to date detail sound ready / fitted.

 

The 64xx isn't far behind.

 

Perhaps Bachman have a trick up their sleeve as per the 37.

 

That said I'll definitely be getting a few of these beauties sound fitted.

Edited by 89A
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Particularly when the Bachmann model has been detailed up with etched grills on the rear windows, sand box linkages etc.

Admittedly what we can see of the pre-production 57XX on the AS website seems to have nice, fine grilles on the rear cab windows but I've not seen any photos of how they will treat the 8750, which I think is much harder to get convincingly right.

 

So much so that I always leave the Bachmann mouldings in place as I have yet to see an etched replacement that convinces, even if it has been applied neatly.

 

I did once apply individual lengths of 5 amp fuse wire to the rear of a Hornby 8750, carefully shaped like the prototype and each one individually glued in and the glue allowed to fully dry before the next one was put in. I did the same with my K's 1451. It all took ages to do....

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, BVMR21 said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the artwork for the pre-1950 liveries show blue circles instead of yellow?

Pannier_Tank_web_square_5754_2400x2400.webp.31aea473dbd5c73adef9975467042c83.webp

 

According to PP2 the power class was blue C changing to yellow from 1950 all except 9700-10.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

I am very pleased by this announcement, after all, I have been boring everyone silly for the last x years, urging AS to do this.

 

I am particularly pleased that they are doing non-top feed examples and also the riveted tank versions, both very useful if modelling the Forest of Dean, for example. I will have to re-livery a GW example, if I want a welded tank, non-top feed 57XX in BR black livery, though (which isn't a problem at all), unless AS announce one in a future batch.

 

So, all very good.

 

However..... I am surprised by a number of people immediately condemning their Bachmann examples to the scrap line or EBay etc., just because a newer, shinier example is appearing.

 

I don't think there's anything that wrong with the Bachmann 57XX and 8750, especially as a little modelling can add the extra detail that the comparative AS examples will come with as standard. I have a few Bachmann panniers, all of which have received extra detail and they are definitely not going to be displaced.

 

In fact, the old Mainline 57XX was also pretty good and a little additional modelling, over and above that necessary for the Bachmann equivalent can bring it up to the same level of detail.

 

So any AS panniers that I buy, will be non-top feed and/or riveted tank versions.

 

And now, I have to ask the inevitable question, which I see that one or two others have already touched upon - what about the tiny proportion of the AS customer base who model in EM and P4 gauges?

 

I find that a lot of recent RTR steam releases have proved to be challenging to convert, if not virtually impossible in some cases.

 

So, my questions for Accurascale are:

 

- will the body separate easily from the chassis, allowing the EM or P4 modeller to substitute a replacement chassis and motor/gearbox, should that be their choice?

 

- will there be sufficient space inside the splashers to fit EM or P4 wheelsets? Even Bachmann have made their (otherwise lovely) 94XX pannier a problem in that respect, in that there simply isn't enough material on the splasher walls to remove, in order to fit wider wheelsets, plus a little clearance.

 

- if the above is going to be too difficult, how easy will the wheelsets drop out, what is the axle diameter (3mm or 1/8" would be ideal), can the brake gear be easily detached (or modified in situ), in order to facilitate the wider gauge?

 

- how well with the coreless motor respond to conventional DC controllers (I have personally have bad experiences with modern coreless motors in recent RTR locos)

 

- and as for OO gauge - will the wheel and flange profile match that of the Manor or can we (please) have finer width flanges, which will cope with OO-SF clearances better?

 

 

 

Do we think the new Accurascale release will drive down the prices of the used Bachmann 57xx/8750 ones?

 

Or sorry if this is the wrong place for that question.

Edited by OnTheBranchline
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

On a pernickety point of detail - but one which the 'Manor addressed admirably - am I seeing the spokes incorrectly or are they not quite right and are missing the 'GWR flare' - at both the hub end and the rim end?   (Fully appreciating of course that development etc is still proceeding on these models.

 

Some pannier wheels  (from Leaky Finders' own 9629)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Do we think the new Accurascale release will drive down the prices of the used Bachmann 57xx/8750 ones?

 

Or sorry if this is the wrong place for that question.

That doesn't seemed to have happened with the Deltic versus the Bachmann one, much to my mild irritation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...