57xx Pannier Tank Family, By Accurascale

[Captain Kernow]

A very Happy Christmas to pannier lovers everywhere!

 

[Miss Prism]

 

[Steve Purves]

Might even go and give the EPs a Christmas run round the test track. 

 

There has been one plying it's trade on Making Tracks too if anybody has spotted it?

 

Merry Christmas all!

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

A very Happy Christmas to pannier lovers everywhere!

 

 

Well I ended up buying another one!

 

Locomotion is flogging off the last of their 94XXs so I thought "why not?". It does mean that I've now got two GWR liveried versions. Three if I count an old Lima one. 

 

 

Jason

[steveb860]

On 25/12/2023 at 11:46, Steve Purves said:

Might even go and give the EPs a Christmas run round the test track. 

 

There has been one plying it's trade on Making Tracks too if anybody has spotted it?

 

Merry Christmas all!

Yes, my good lady gave it a run around the layout on Sunday 

Edited December 26, 2023 by steveb860
Adding pikkie

[gwrrob]

On 25/12/2023 at 11:46, Steve Purves said:

There has been one plying it's trade on Making Tracks too if anybody has spotted it?

 

Just seen the video and is looking good.

[BVMR21]

Looks like a really smooth running loco... Not too fast either which is nice.

[The Johnster]

Gonna find it hard to resist one; you can't have too many panniers on a South Wales layout and an 8750 without topfeed ticks all the boxes!  Smooth running is always an indication of a well-engineered mech, and it sounds as if Acc have got the gearing right! Trouble is, if it's significantly better than my Bachmanns, I'll be wanting to replace them, and my wallet will not be happy with me...

[PeterH]

I succumbed and ordered one. I am still very happy with the Bachmann offering but I’m sure the Accurascale one will be lovely as well if the Manor was anything to go by. 

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

How about an opening smokebox door with inside detail for the accurascale steam range................

Edited December 31, 2023 by ERIC ALLTORQUE

[The Johnster]

I think Triang were the first with this feature with the M7 in the 60s.  Not sure I think it's a good idea, especially on a small loco where the space is needed for ballast or DCC kit, aside from the issue of the door being easy to break off.  And there are few situations where the door is open in servive unless the loco is inside a shed having a boiler washout or smokebox cleaning shortly after it comes on shed after it's day's work.

 

But it is a good idea if it's done properly; I don't recall Triang's M7 having blastpipe detail but I'm happy to be corrected on that point.  Interestingly (if you're interested in that sort of thing), that model was introduced exactly when the steam withdrawal was in it's fullest swing and more people were becoming aware of what the inside of a smokebox door looked like; perhaps Margate were responding to that.  They didn't repeat it on other models, though, so while it wasn't a total failure it clearly wasn't the success they'd hoped it would be.

 

In similar vein, though, how about diesel engine interior detail.  Shunting engines and Type 1s usually had cupboard-type access doors in the bodysides for their equipment, and they weren't always shut, especially on industrials, and larger locos usually had windows in the sides through which engines, compressors, and other kit could be seen, and on some engines (WR hydraulics, Deltics) the windows could be opened.  Electrics usually had such windows as well, and while there is no diesel lump, there are still compressors, relay cupboards, transformers, rectifiers, &c in there.  DCC would allow engine-room lighting.

 

The thinking behind this is that a model should, in an ideal world, be capable of showing how the prototype actually worked, and in fact I have learned much about real steam engines from modelling.  Firebox interiors are probably impossible to show on a working 4mm scale model, but DCC moveable reversing levers and valve gear setting, which I believe will be a feature in the future as manufacturers look for selling points, would be worth the effort to my mind.  Those knowledgeable can see the setting on real locomotives with outside valve gear, so should be able to IMHO on the model.  Personally, I don't think this sort of thing is gimmicky if it represents reality, but, again, it has to be done properly.  Same goes for working inside motion.

Edited December 31, 2023 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

Good gawd no!

 

Another one of those awful gimmicks that never look realistic. Bad enough them having removable for things such as DCC chip fitting as they hardly ever seal properly.

 

 

 

Jason

[meatloaf]

Ive ordered the green British Railways one with sound.

 

Having a nice loco for shunting with a stay alive prefitted will be brill.

 

Please do an 08......

[The Johnster]

I think I might be becoming less gimmick intolerant in my dotage, Jason.  I do find things like loco crew voices on operating water towers a bit over the top, likewise sound-fitted vans.  But I can easily come up with reasons that I don't like those examples; in both cases my view is that they restrict your ability to suspend disbelief, not enhance it.  Taking the talking water tower first (btw, I have the 'non-operating' version and am quite happy with it), where are the voices coming from?  Are there ghosts filling the tanks and shutting the water off?  And, I'm given to understand that, because it's a GW water tower the accents are West Country; the GW also served the Home Counties west of London, the West Midlands, and a good part of Wales; that's a lot of regional accents, from Cockney sparrer to Enoch & Eli via who's coat is that jacket, as well as oh arrrrr!  And the ghosts will repeat the same conversation exactly in the same voices each time, as if the same limited vocabulary crew are aboard every engine that ever takes water from that column.

 

It's a classic sales  gimmick, very effective the first time you use it but they've 'ad your money then.  After that it just becomes repetitive and, as I say, detrimental to your disbelief suspension.

 

The sound-fitted van is in the same category.  Unless every vehicle in your goods train is similarly equipped all it does is draw attention to itself, and what about minerals?  Will we have cattle wagons that moo with no cows in them, ghosts again? 

 

But I reckon that stuff like smokebox internal detail and opening doors is at worst harmless so long as the door hinges are tolerably robust.  Operating DCC reversers and valve gear settings could be a genuine improvement in realism, especially in conjunction with sound, though I do not think that steam sound is anywhere close to realistic yet (it's improving) and am of the view that the best way to use sound is through hi-fi headphones, dispensing with the silly little squeakers, I mean speakers, that sound like pocket transistor radios and take up room that could be better utilised on the loco.  Diesel would be good if headphones were used; steam has moved on from bursts of white noise, but diesel has progressed to the point where individual classes are well represented in sound files.

 

Engine detail visible through side windows in locomotive bodies would, I contend, be no more gimmicky than putting crew in the cabs, or cab detail.  I don't find operating fans gimmicky, they are an enhancement I'd like to see doors that open on shunting locos so that shunters can stand in the doorway as they often did.  Working inside motion on steam engines depend to an extent on how visible it is, and on some locos it is not very visible at all (Midland Flatiron, J50, Cardiff Rly. Kitson 0-6-2T), but is important on Gresley 3-cylinder engines and can be clearly seen on smaller boilered inside cylinder locos like 56xx.  I'm less fussed on non-operating internal motion that draws attention to itself by being picked out (correctly) in red, because it draws  attention to itself but doesn't move when it's supposed to.

 

Better and more intricate detail will appear on RTR models over time, because the market demands it, and some will be gimmicky; moreover, there will be significant differences of opinion about what is gimmicky and what is not.  A case in point is the provision of firebox glow on DC models, on the back of the DCC feature.  I have seen it looking very effective on DCC layouts but I use DC.  I didn't like it on my Bachmann 94xx, too red and far too bright, and disconnected it by removing the led, leading in my subjective view to an improvement in already good running.  I am quite happy with it on my Rapido 16" Hunslet, a much better colour and not so intrusively bright, and the engine runs as neare perfectly as anyone has a right to expect from a volume produce item!  Is it a gimmick?  Not in DCC where it's appearance can be controlled to be more appropriate, but it doesn't do any harm in DC, even if I'd like to have it working when the loco is stationary so that my crew can cook breakfast on the shovel...

 

Is the provision of overhead luggage nets in compartments worth it?  I'd say yes if your layout features embankments and viewpoints looking up into the coaches, and it's not new; Peco were doing this for Rosebud Kitmaster mk1s sixty years ago.  If coaches are lit, the detail kinda hasta be there, and RTR coach lighting in it's current form is a thing I think most people think is a good idea, but is so overbright as to be gimmicky IMHO.  Steam age coach lighting, along with semaphore signal lamps, should be barely discernable under normal ambient 'daytime' layout lighting.  Things will get better; we will have opening ventilators and dropping droplights, and more opening doors on wagons and vans as better stronger plastic materials become available for the hinges.  We will, I predict, eventually have moving point rodding, again dependent on new materials.

 

We will, I predict, but probably not in my lifetime, have battery or supercapacitor technology improved enough for on-board power supply, ending the need for current pick up from the track and controlled by onboard chips and NFC.  NFC can also control lights, sound fx, and other matter that are now the province of DCC, and such engine will be 100% compatible with existing systems.

 

Whee, that turned into a bit of a ramble.  HNY, everyone!

[Hal Nail]

I have no problem with gimmicks, as long as those that want them foot 100% of the incremental cost.

 

Happy New Year :)

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I think I might be becoming less gimmick intolerant in my dotage, Jason.  I do find things like loco crew voices on operating water towers a bit over the top, likewise sound-fitted vans.  But I can easily come up with reasons that I don't like those examples; in both cases my view is that they restrict your ability to suspend disbelief, not enhance it.  Taking the talking water tower first (btw, I have the 'non-operating' version and am quite happy with it), where are the voices coming from?  Are there ghosts filling the tanks and shutting the water off?  And, I'm given to understand that, because it's a GW water tower the accents are West Country; the GW also served the Home Counties west of London, the West Midlands, and a good part of Wales; that's a lot of regional accents, from Cockney sparrer to Enoch & Eli via who's coat is that jacket, as well as oh arrrrr!  And the ghosts will repeat the same conversation exactly in the same voices each time, as if the same limited vocabulary crew are aboard every engine that ever takes water from that column.

 

It's a classic sales  gimmick, very effective the first time you use it but they've 'ad your money then.  After that it just becomes repetitive and, as I say, detrimental to your disbelief suspension.

 

The sound-fitted van is in the same category.  Unless every vehicle in your goods train is similarly equipped all it does is draw attention to itself, and what about minerals?  Will we have cattle wagons that moo with no cows in them, ghosts again? 

 

But I reckon that stuff like smokebox internal detail and opening doors is at worst harmless so long as the door hinges are tolerably robust.  Operating DCC reversers and valve gear settings could be a genuine improvement in realism, especially in conjunction with sound, though I do not think that steam sound is anywhere close to realistic yet (it's improving) and am of the view that the best way to use sound is through hi-fi headphones, dispensing with the silly little squeakers, I mean speakers, that sound like pocket transistor radios and take up room that could be better utilised on the loco.  Diesel would be good if headphones were used; steam has moved on from bursts of white noise, but diesel has progressed to the point where individual classes are well represented in sound files.

 

Engine detail visible through side windows in locomotive bodies would, I contend, be no more gimmicky than putting crew in the cabs, or cab detail.  I don't find operating fans gimmicky, they are an enhancement I'd like to see doors that open on shunting locos so that shunters can stand in the doorway as they often did.  Working inside motion on steam engines depend to an extent on how visible it is, and on some locos it is not very visible at all (Midland Flatiron, J50, Cardiff Rly. Kitson 0-6-2T), but is important on Gresley 3-cylinder engines and can be clearly seen on smaller boilered inside cylinder locos like 56xx.  I'm less fussed on non-operating internal motion that draws attention to itself by being picked out (correctly) in red, because it draws  attention to itself but doesn't move when it's supposed to.

 

Better and more intricate detail will appear on RTR models over time, because the market demands it, and some will be gimmicky; moreover, there will be significant differences of opinion about what is gimmicky and what is not.  A case in point is the provision of firebox glow on DC models, on the back of the DCC feature.  I have seen it looking very effective on DCC layouts but I use DC.  I didn't like it on my Bachmann 94xx, too red and far too bright, and disconnected it by removing the led, leading in my subjective view to an improvement in already good running.  I am quite happy with it on my Rapido 16" Hunslet, a much better colour and not so intrusively bright, and the engine runs as neare perfectly as anyone has a right to expect from a volume produce item!  Is it a gimmick?  Not in DCC where it's appearance can be controlled to be more appropriate, but it doesn't do any harm in DC, even if I'd like to have it working when the loco is stationary so that my crew can cook breakfast on the shovel...

 

Is the provision of overhead luggage nets in compartments worth it?  I'd say yes if your layout features embankments and viewpoints looking up into the coaches, and it's not new; Peco were doing this for Rosebud Kitmaster mk1s sixty years ago.  If coaches are lit, the detail kinda hasta be there, and RTR coach lighting in it's current form is a thing I think most people think is a good idea, but is so overbright as to be gimmicky IMHO.  Steam age coach lighting, along with semaphore signal lamps, should be barely discernable under normal ambient 'daytime' layout lighting.  Things will get better; we will have opening ventilators and dropping droplights, and more opening doors on wagons and vans as better stronger plastic materials become available for the hinges.  We will, I predict, eventually have moving point rodding, again dependent on new materials.

 

We will, I predict, but probably not in my lifetime, have battery or supercapacitor technology improved enough for on-board power supply, ending the need for current pick up from the track and controlled by onboard chips and NFC.  NFC can also control lights, sound fx, and other matter that are now the province of DCC, and such engine will be 100% compatible with existing systems.

 

Whee, that turned into a bit of a ramble.  HNY, everyone!

 

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

[Wickham Green too]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

... the provision of firebox glow ... so that my crew can cook breakfast on the shovel... ...

I guess there'd be a discussion over what DCC channel you'd use for the aroma of streaky bacon instead of Wiltshire sausages !!?! 😊

[The Johnster]

Or even laverbread.  Fried in bacon fat, sprinkle of black pepper, nomnomnomnom.  Nom. 

 

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

the weight needed to enable models of small prototypes (in particular) to manage a reasonable load.   

 

 

My 65 years of messing about with little electric trains has been a constant struggle to get enough ballast into my engines to ensure good pickup performance; better haulage is a by-product and a bit academic on a small BLT like mine where it is impossibe to overload a loco.  I blame Rovex and plastic bodyshell toolings, though to be fair they made pretty solid and hefty chassis blocks.  Die-case bodyshells are making a comeback now that separate discrete detail is more common, and this is no bad thing IMHO.  The die-cast metal/plastic moulding decision is down to the production engineer though, and he/she will choose the best material for cost-effective production (which, depending on circumstance, is not automatically the cheapest), loco performance being a secondary consideration, sadly.

 

A properly ballasted loco will improved pickup performance at the railhead/wheel interfaces as well.  My standard practice is to take the top off any loco that comes into my posession and get as much weight over the wheels as possible, the aim being to balance the loco on the centre axle or, for 4-coupled, equalise the downforce between the two axles.  I have never had cause to regret this action, and it usually makes locos quieter if there's a noise issue as well.  DCC, which I can't afford, does reduce the amount of void in there, especially if speakers are to be used, but speakers should be fairly heavy if they are of decent quality, the magnetic drive units being quite solid bits of kit.  But often you don't want the weight in that spot...

 

Die-cast body toolings are a big help on smaller locomotives where as much heft as possible is needed.  In the case of panniers, there is often useful ballast space in the tanks, so long as room and ventilation is left for the motor.  But solid diecast tanks would be better, preferably made out of collapsed star matter or unobtainium...

Edited January 1 by The Johnster

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

made out of collapsed star matter

Danniella Westbrook's nose?

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

... or unobtainium...

I seem to remember the Model Rail 'USA' tanks were to have chassis thus ...... but they obviously failed to obtain sufficient on the world market and opted something lighter instead - so the haulage characteristics are rather compromised.

[The Johnster]

12 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

Danniella Westbrook's nose?

 

When you realise that stars are incandescent blobs of poisonous gassy waste material, then, quite possibly, yes.

[Hilux5972]

12 hours ago, 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

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. 

Edited January 1 by Hilux5972

[The Johnster]

And I can vouch for the excellent running qualities of Bachmann's 94xx, ditto the diecast Hornby W4 and B2 Pecketts, and the Rapido 16" Hunslet, which also has a glowing firebox.  There are plenty of die-cast and partly die-cast RTR locos about deze daze, and it looks very much to me as if firebox glow is going to become a standard feature on newly tooled models.  I have no objection to this provided the colour is effective (on Bachmann's 94xx in DC it looks as if the fire is dying) and takes minimal current.  Low-current coreless motors are also becoming the norm, and I am sure that the removal of the firebox chip & led improved the 94xx's running. 

 

An interesting feature of the Rapido 16" Hunslet is the flywheel.  I used to think that flywheels were the mutt's danglies, but have in more recent years not found that they delivered the desired smoothness of DC control in small locos, or even a Hornby 42xx which is only smoothed at medium to high speeds of the sort rarely attaind at Cwmdimbath and that's a pity because it is at low speeds that a flywheel (or a stayalive in DCC) is least effective and most needed; ditto for the Hornby 5101.  But the fly in the Rapido 16" mech is superb, overrunnning the motor several turns at even the lowest speeds, making the loco a joy to shunt with and allowing it to run happily on some appalling trackwork at the back end of the colliery yard, though it is my view that the well-engineered split chassis current collection does the running no harm either...  If Acc can replicate that in their pannier mechs, my Bachmanns will be relegated to passenger work where finesse of control is less important.

[Keegs]

Extremely late post but I would like to mention that this is excellent, have ordered a sound version of 5754. Even better than Dapol's prairie even just for the fact that it has a stayalive fitted from factory (this is my biggest bugbear with Dapol locos as they make it extremely difficult to add one yourself and stalling esp for sound is the most annoying thing!)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't 5741 have the class+route indicator placed in the lower position as it is in a post-war livery (as on 9741)

 

Here is 3705 post-ww2:

 

 

Thanks,

Kegan

 

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, Keegs said:

Extremely late post but I would like to mention that this is excellent, have ordered a sound version of 5754. Even better than Dapol's prairie even just for the fact that it has a stayalive fitted from factory (this is my biggest bugbear with Dapol locos as they make it extremely difficult to add one yourself and stalling esp for sound is the most annoying thing!)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't 5741 have the class+route indicator placed in the lower position as it is in a post-war livery (as on 9741)

 

Here is 3705 post-ww2:

 

 

Thanks,

Kegan

 

I think the correct word is 'should' as I have seen photos of them still in the high position post war.

 

However far more importantly the RA 'disc' is the wrong colour as the 57XX/8750s were Blue RA and were only altered to yellow (ecept for the condensing engines) in 1950.