GWR colliery branch steamer

artfull dodger

artfull dodger

Registered
Country flag
I have wanted to model a GWR coal or mineral branch for awhile. The hold up being an affordable Pannier tank in live steam. In the UK, they fetch $2000 US dollers or more most of the time. I finally found this near mint button logo Pannier stateside for much less. Just arrived in time to unpack and grab a couple pics before I had to head to work. Now to start picking up some coal wagons and a brake van.
local-media4301174030211534077.jpg

e1f4151a1446ac7101329d778d059efd-0.jpg
 
Lovely Pannier tanks, in my very own personal opinion, I think they're the best looking engines ever
 
Nice loco - I expect the driver is looking forward to his hot dog ! It will make a change from the bacon done on the shovel.
 
Before you set it on a headlong live steam dash on your line have a check on the Min Radius that it will do and see if your switches comply And curves. You could easily have an expensive disaster. Back to back standards may also be an issue on points, a gentle push with the loco trying to head the wring way on a point will give you some clues on back to back though you could always measure them.
 
Saying "God's Wonderful Railway!" with a Southern Drawl..

Would just be 'wrong'! ;):giggle::giggle:
 
One of those small pannier tanks is probably the only think that could get me to buy a model of the GWR. I think the only reason that I have such GWR apathy is because in the early days of 00 there was a surfeit of GWR against a smattering of other regions.
 
Rhinochugger said:
One of those small pannier tanks is probably the only think that could get me to buy a model of the GWR. I think the only reason that I have such GWR apathy is because in the early days of 00 there was a surfeit of GWR against a smattering of other regions.
Click to expand...

I agree. In many ways I think the veneration of the GWR is an example of the British love of the unusual and, basically, unsuccessful. At the time, the broader gauge may have given smoother running, but improvements in track laying amongst other things soon meant the narrower standard gauge caught up.
 
playmofire said:
I agree. In many ways I think the veneration of the GWR is an example of the British love of the unusual and, basically, unsuccessful. At the time, the broader gauge may have given smoother running, but improvements in track laying amongst other things soon meant the narrower standard gauge caught up.
Click to expand...
We as a Country have suffered from the poor decision to adopt the Stephenson Gauge and the Kinetic Envelope that went with it since the GWR ripped out the Broad Gauge. Imagine Wider Trains with more space per seat, more capacity for Wagons and many other things that would have gone with a full British 7ft Gauge Railway. And I am for the record not a Great Western nut, just a person that sees the mistakes of the past.
 
dunnyrail said:
We as a Country have suffered from the poor decision to adopt the Stephenson Gauge and the Kinetic Envelope that went with it since the GWR ripped out the Broad Gauge. Imagine Wider Trains with more space per seat, more capacity for Wagons and many other things that would have gone with a full British 7ft Gauge Railway. And I am for the record not a Great Western nut, just a person that sees the mistakes of the past.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem was that they didn't make the coaches that much wider - the Stephenson / standard gauge coaches had sides that were outside the wheelbase, while the broad gauge coaches had sides that were inside the wheelbase.

In any case, the country that led the word with higher speed trains did it on a 3ft 6in gauge :eek::eek:

So, past developments were not necessarily mistakes - there would have been some pretty big holes under London if 7ft had become the standard that the underground adopted :p:p
 
Is it an apocryphal tale, then? - That the ?six-foot? was the correct gauge to run broad-gauge stock down, to carry large load's??
 
I have 10' diameter curves. Plenty for the Pannier. I will run easy thru the switches(LGB wide radius), they have the check rails beefed up with brass strips to help past Roundhouse engines thru them. Past gauge one stuff has been ok, but the first times around will be carefully supervised. Hope to be getting 6 or 7 Accucraft coal wagons and a GWR Toad brass kit in the next month. I will weight those wagons to tame the Pannier a bit. I am capping one wick and plan to have the throttle reprofiled to help with slow speed performance. A billet crank axle will also be acquired for when this one gets to sloppy. The shirt button version is from the second batch Aster released, so its crank axle is pinned right from the factory.
 
I thought the much larger radii for the curves etc and the bearings wearing out quicker was the main concern with the broad gauge. Wasn't Brunel's bridge and tunnel building skills necessary because the line had to be a lot straighter than the standard gauge?
 
Paul M said:
I thought the much larger radii for the curves etc and the bearings wearing out quicker was the main concern with the broad gauge. Wasn't Brunel's bridge and tunnel building skills necessary because the line had to be a lot straighter than the standard gauge?
Click to expand...
That was why the GWR from Paddington was built as straight as it could be. On another front the GC had main line curves of roughly 1 mile radius when built for best speed if the day, the new HS2 will be larger than that. Puts our LGB R1’s into perspective at roughly 20ft real radius depending on your scale. I think this roughly matches one of the Spirals on the Darjeeling line in 16mm to the foot scale.
 
PhilP said:
Is it an apocryphal tale, then? - That the ?six-foot? was the correct gauge to run broad-gauge stock down, to carry large load's??
Click to expand...
I think most of the Broad gauge was apocryphal :p:p:p

I seem to recall that it was a lot about speed - hence the straightness and keeping the weight between the wheels .................. but who really knows what was in the mind of the great IKB ;);)
 
Rhinochugger said:
I think most of the Broad gauge was apocryphal :p:p:p

I seem to recall that it was a lot about speed - hence the straightness and keeping the weight between the wheels .................. but who really knows what was in the mind of the great IKB ;);)
Click to expand...
Surely Broad Gauge was NOT apocryphal (as it actually happened), but the hype and reasoning behind Broad Gauge may have been apocryphal.
 
JimmyB said:
Surely Broad Gauge was NOT apocryphal (as it actually happened), but the hype and reasoning behind Broad Gauge may have been apocryphal.
Click to expand...
You're bang on - I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, but you know me, I don't like to provoke ;);)
 
Broad Gauge, as developed by Brunel, was 7 feet and 1/4 inch. The original line from Paddington to Bristol was and still is, among the most level pieces of railroad track on Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom