The Farish Pannier: first British-made N gauge locomotive, and the first British outline model to have a purpose-built chassis (everything before that had been based on existing Continental mechanisms). Launched mid 1971, price £5.99 (around £75 at today's prices). In continual production all the way through the Poole era and beyond, not sure when the last examples came out of China but this must be the longest production run for any N gauge locomotive.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20013_zpsrfvkas7t.jpg)
This is what your six quid bought you.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20015_zpsbhkmhihs.jpg)
Numbers to cut out and glue on. I love the instructions: "If the numbers are wrong for a particular locomotive, don't pester us about it."
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20001_zps9lyzxlq5.jpg)
German made "can" motor, as far advanced back then as coreless motors are now.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20004_zpsbrgrkqn3.jpg)
Beige thing is a capacitor to prevent interference with your black and white television.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20005_zpsctwafybe.jpg)
Lots of gears. Motor drives a worm gear via a 1:1 spur gear set, this in turn drives a gear between the first and second axles, with the second and third axles geared together. The front axle is driven off the connecting rods. Very, very noisy. I suspect it might work better if you removed the gear between the second and third axles but I'm not going to start experimenting with this one. I cleaned the wheels with IPA and put a few drops of soothing loco oil on those ancient, brittle gears. It runs, but has a bit of a limp (possibly a wheel off centre) and sounds like an accident in a cement mixer factory. And it doesn't much like Code 55 pointwork.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20007_zpseuvu1m8q.jpg)
1971 original on the right, late Chinese production on the left. At first sight they look identical apart from the wheels.
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/pannier%20009_zpsglmqr8th.jpg)
But at some point the body tooling must have been redesigned. There are dozens of small dimensional differences between early and late models, and a lot of extra cast-in details on the late version. However the chassis mounts appear the same, and I am pretty sure a late production chassis will fit the early body.
This little Pannier isn't going to get much use, but I might build a short oval in Code 80 for it to amble round occasionally, and perhaps try to pick up a few early Farish wagons to go with it. This model is where British N gauge really started: that is why I bought it.
Cool... I think I have a late 80s version somewhere... might dig it out! :thumbsup:
Early N Gauge wasn't bad, and far more robust than modern equipment which sometimes seems to fall apart if you look at it too hard. The cab steps fell of my D95XX when I was taking it out of the box once.
Only last year did I send a GF 08, purchased in 1979 and my first N Gauge loco, into retirement when it finally stopped working and no amount of coaxing and repairing seemed to enable a restart.
To my regret she was scrapped without ceremony; I should have kept it, but there we are.
My Poole 08 is my favourite loco for testing track and pointwork, and, apart from the lack of outside frames, I don't think it compares too badly to the new model.
(I did a comparison with photos a couple of years ago, but can't post a link 'cos I'm on me phone at moment and don't know how, and can't remember where I posted it anyhow) :-[
Quote from: Bealman on August 13, 2015, 08:13:13 AM
My Poole 08 is my favourite loco for testing track and pointwork, and, apart from the lack of outside frames, I don't think it compares too badly to the new model.
An NO gauge clearance problems as with the newer one which is famously too wide. On balance I think I preferred the lack of outside cranks and greater flexibility of having a correctly gauged loco. It didn't look so good but for operational reasons was (in my opinion) the better model.
Quote from: belstone on August 13, 2015, 12:10:13 AM
Lots of gears. Motor drives a worm gear via a 1:1 spur gear set, this in turn drives a gear between the first and second axles, with the second and third axles geared together. The front axle is driven off the connecting rods. Very, very noisy. I suspect it might work better if you removed the gear between the second and third axles but I'm not going to start experimenting with this one. I cleaned the wheels with IPA and put a few drops of soothing loco oil on those ancient, brittle gears. It runs, but has a bit of a limp (possibly a wheel off centre) and sounds like an accident in a cement mixer factory. And it doesn't much like Code 55 pointwork.
Lightly lubricating the motor bearings will help, as well as the gearing and bearings for the shafts.
The stiff point could well be quartering - it was always a problem on the various plastic chassied models Farish made.
The motor is an Arnold unit I believe and can be found on some of their diesels. Because of its size the body was blown up a little all round as you've seen and the old chassis won't fit a new body, but the new ones will fit the old bodies as you hypothesise.
is a very tidy example - worth keeping in like that!
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on August 13, 2015, 07:59:48 AM
Early N Gauge wasn't bad, and far more robust than modern equipment which sometimes seems to fall apart if you look at it too hard. The cab steps fell of my D95XX when I was taking it out of the box once.
Only last year did I send a GF 08, purchased in 1979 and my first N Gauge loco, into retirement when it finally stopped working and no amount of coaxing and repairing seemed to enable a restart.
To my regret she was scrapped without ceremony; I should have kept it, but there we are.
It's always worth keeping and investigating these - most of the spares are still available, so they can ususally be refurbished unless they are completely worn out (chassis block wear and axles which can wear).
Cheers,
Alan
Great to see an immaculate example of what is undeniably a major part of N gauge history. I have my own example somewhere, without a box and with faded paintwork, still plodding along!
However, wouldn't the Lone Star Baby Deltic and class 24 pre-date it as the first British-made, British outline rtr locos?
Quote from: SidmouthJunction on August 13, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
Great to see an immaculate example of what is undeniably a major part of N gauge history. I have my own example somewhere, without a box and with faded paintwork, still plodding along!
However, wouldn't the Lone Star Baby Deltic and class 24 pre-date it as the first British-made, British outline rtr locos?
Yes and no. Lone Star was 8.25mm gauge which turned out to be a dead end. But I think it was the first ever 2mm scale commercial system, beating the Germans to the market by several years.
Quote from: belstone on August 13, 2015, 09:56:17 AM
Quote from: SidmouthJunction on August 13, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
Great to see an immaculate example of what is undeniably a major part of N gauge history. I have my own example somewhere, without a box and with faded paintwork, still plodding along!
However, wouldn't the Lone Star Baby Deltic and class 24 pre-date it as the first British-made, British outline rtr locos?
Yes and no. Lone Star was 8.25mm gauge which turned out to be a dead end. But I think it was the first ever 2mm scale commercial system, beating the Germans to the market by several years.
Wasn't Lone Star 000 9.25mm i.e. very slightly larger?
Regards
Roy
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on August 13, 2015, 09:15:34 AM
Quote from: Bealman on August 13, 2015, 08:13:13 AM
My Poole 08 is my favourite loco for testing track and pointwork, and, apart from the lack of outside frames, I don't think it compares too badly to the new model.
An NO gauge clearance problems as with the newer one which is famously too wide. On balance I think I preferred the lack of outside cranks and greater flexibility of having a correctly gauged loco. It didn't look so good but for operational reasons was (in my opinion) the better model.
Afraid I can't agree with that. Aside possibly for the width compromise to fit outside frames and cranks the new loco is in a totally different league in terms of fidelity, detail and running quality.
Roy
Quote from: Dr Al on August 13, 2015, 09:35:27 AM
The motor is an Arnold unit I believe and can be found on some of their diesels. Because of its size the body was blown up a little all round as you've seen and the old chassis won't fit a new body, but the new ones will fit the old bodies as you hypothesise.
Cheers,
Alan
Quite possibly Alan, I think Matt Richter whose Dad worked in Farish way back then said the motor was made by Buhler. I also believe I'm correct in saying the body was to have been part plastic but tractive weight problems put paid to that plan!
Regards
Roy
Quote from: Roy L S on August 13, 2015, 10:04:14 AM
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on August 13, 2015, 09:15:34 AM
An NO gauge clearance problems as with the newer one which is famously too wide. On balance I think I preferred the lack of outside cranks and greater flexibility of having a correctly gauged loco. It didn't look so good but for operational reasons was (in my opinion) the better model.
Afraid I can't agree with that. Aside possibly for the width compromise to fit outside frames and cranks the new loco is in a totally different league in terms of fidelity, detail and running quality.
Roy
Until you try to take it into a correctly positioned platform (so as passengers don't have a huge gap to leap) and find the coupling rods hitting the platform top :-[.
All the good looks in the world count for nothing if you can't run the loco properly, in my view.
Read the small print. Guaranteed for one month from date of purchase, except for mechanical breakage of any kind, or motor failure. I think that covers just about everything except the chimney falling off. Not sure Farish themselves had a lot of faith in these early mechanisms. ;D
I still have 2 x 94xx Farish panniers (ref 1105) and they still run, although I have to keep an eye on the connecting rods which sometimes come off and cause the loco to do the pole vault :doh:
If I recall, the 94xx and their class 101 DMU were the first Farish items I ever bought.
Ergo - a dinosaur buying a dinosaur :-[
Well yer got that right
You and me both :uneasy:
But when I think about it, me old pannier did throw connecting rods, as did a other 0-6-0s, that's when I actually come to think about it. :thumbsup:
George
Quote from: Roy L S on August 13, 2015, 10:01:25 AM
Quote from: belstone on August 13, 2015, 09:56:17 AM
Quote from: SidmouthJunction on August 13, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
Great to see an immaculate example of what is undeniably a major part of N gauge history. I have my own example somewhere, without a box and with faded paintwork, still plodding along!
However, wouldn't the Lone Star Baby Deltic and class 24 pre-date it as the first British-made, British outline rtr locos?
Yes and no. Lone Star was 8.25mm gauge which turned out to be a dead end. But I think it was the first ever 2mm scale commercial system, beating the Germans to the market by several years.
Wasn't Lone Star 000 9.25mm i.e. very slightly larger?
I can't measure that, but I do have a Lone Star class 24 which in principle runs on my N gauge track, but the wheel type width prevents it from passing through points.
Quote from: newportnobby on August 13, 2015, 12:58:48 PM
I still have 2 x 94xx Farish panniers (ref 1105) and they still run, although I have to keep an eye on the connecting rods which sometimes come off and cause the loco to do the pole vault :doh:
If I recall, the 94xx and their class 101 DMU were the first Farish items I ever bought.
Ergo - a dinosaur buying a dinosaur :-[
Assuming the tooling didn't change much, I came so close to paying £100.00 plus for one of those 101s in NSE :doh:
Here's hoping the new one is worth the (probably) extra £50.00 they will want for it....
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Skyline2uk on August 13, 2015, 08:13:56 PM
Quote from: newportnobby on August 13, 2015, 12:58:48 PM
I still have 2 x 94xx Farish panniers (ref 1105) and they still run, although I have to keep an eye on the connecting rods which sometimes come off and cause the loco to do the pole vault :doh:
If I recall, the 94xx and their class 101 DMU were the first Farish items I ever bought.
Ergo - a dinosaur buying a dinosaur :-[
Assuming the tooling didn't change much, I came so close to paying £100.00 plus for one of those 101s in NSE :doh:
Here's hoping the new one is worth the (probably) extra £50.00 they will want for it....
Skyline2uk
There's a whole world of difference between the 2 models. Not for nothing is my old 101 known as 'The Growler'. No lights and an open driver cab window......it's not pretty :no:
So the (3 car) NSE one would not have been TOO bad at £100.00, assuming it was a runner?
Skyline2uk
With no new version on the horizon you are limited if you really want one but I'd see if Electra Graphics do any vinyls and then cover a new 3 car unit rather than pay £100 for an old one :hmmm:
Much respect to the products of Electra, but I may settle for a 2 car version in the new tooling as per the current catalouge.
I don't trust my wonkey aim with stick ons just yet for a full DMU, got my eye on a barrier coach as an entry purchase.....
Sorry :offtopicsign:
Back to the lovely old Poole finds....
Skyline2uk
Quote from: newportnobby on August 13, 2015, 09:03:17 PM
an open driver cab window......
:confused2: Sorry NN, but I'm not entirely sure I understand this comment. Class 101s did run with cab windows open particularly in summer months. I'm not saying you must like it, but just wondering what is so wrong with it?
Guessing: draws attention to the fact it's empty inside?
Paul
Hey I've got three sets of those... (BR green, of course) :D
It's all yer could get back in the Jurassic.
They don't even growl.
That's 'cos they don't go any more :uneasy:
Quote from: Sprintex on August 14, 2015, 07:08:29 AM
Guessing: draws attention to the fact it's empty inside?
Paul
But the all 1st generation DMUs ran with the back cab empty most of the time.
I guess we'll just have to wait NN to tell us why he dislikes this particular aspect of it so much.
Greg.
I think it's right to characterize the Lone Star Treble-O-Lectric as the first true N gauge; and they did have two British diesels in the range. However, they were also an evolutionary dead-end, not least because their tension-lock couplers were incompatible with the Rapido type which became the industry standard.
Apart from these, the first British-outline RTR locomotive was a freelance tank locomotive running on the Minitrix T3 chassis, hand-built in small numbers by Highfield Models. They were reviewed in October 1966 Railway Modeller, with black and white photos of examples in LNER green and CR blue. I have one in NER green (colour photo in Nspirations 5, at page 31) and Stephen Middleton (son of Peter Middleton, the proprietor fo Highfield Models) advises me that they also made them in GER blue, and possibly other liveries as well.
The Graham Farish 94xx, which came to market five years later, is then the first true-to-prototype British Outline steam locomotive in N, and the first mass-produced British outline locomotive; closely followed by the GER Holden tank. (SUCH a shame they wrecked the moulds for that one, in order to produce the ghastly freelance "standard tank locomotive" in LMS and Southern liveries ... but they obviously felt they needed to have complete coverage of the "Big 4", and they had built up a good stock of Holden tanks in LNEW and BR liveries. But even so ...
Interestingly, I have a 94xx which has for some reason been repainted, by an unknown hand, in lined CR blue livery ... and it doesn't half look good!
Oh, and a pedantic little point on correct terminology, folks ... the rods which couple the wheels together on steam locomotives and some diesels are COUPLING rods, not connecting rods. The connecting rods are the ones that run from the cylinders to the wheels or (on inside cylinder engines) from the cylinder to the axle crank. Always makes me cringe a bit to hear coupling rods referred to as connecting rods!
Quote from: PGN on August 14, 2015, 08:15:26 AM
Oh, and a pedantic little point on correct terminology, folks ... the rods which couple the wheels together on steam locomotives and some diesels are COUPLING rods, not connecting rods. The connecting rods are the ones that run from the cylinders to the wheels or (on inside cylinder engines) from the cylinder to the axle crank. Always makes me cringe a bit to hear coupling rods referred to as connecting rods!
That's me told :-[
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on August 14, 2015, 07:00:01 AM
Quote from: newportnobby on August 13, 2015, 09:03:17 PM
an open driver cab window......
:confused2: Sorry NN, but I'm not entirely sure I understand this comment. Class 101s did run with cab windows open particularly in summer months. I'm not saying you must like it, but just wondering what is so wrong with it?
Not sure I would say it's always sunny on my layouts, Greg, but to show the difference between the old and the new.........................
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/19/thumb_28150.JPG) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=28150)
Q.E.D., methinks :hmmm:
Um ... which is the old, and which the new?
(They're a bit modern for my taste ... and all Diesels look alike to me ;D )
Must get me a few of those. Me old ones don't go anyway. :beers:
Quote from: PGN on August 14, 2015, 10:12:34 PM
Um ... which is the old, and which the new?
(They're a bit modern for my taste ... and all Diesels look alike to me ;D )
It is kind of hard to tell... however the one on the left must be the newer version - the extra detailing gives it away
Quote from: PGN on August 14, 2015, 08:15:26 AM
Oh, and a pedantic little point on correct terminology, folks ... the rods which couple the wheels together on steam locomotives and some diesels are COUPLING rods, not connecting rods. The connecting rods are the ones that run from the cylinders to the wheels or (on inside cylinder engines) from the cylinder to the axle crank. Always makes me cringe a bit to hear coupling rods referred to as connecting rods!
My copy of the British Transport Commission Handbook for Railway Steam Locomotive Enginemen (1957) confirms this.
Wow. A book published in 1957 confirms that this makes me cringe? How prescient of them ... I wasn't even BORN in 1957 :D :P :laugh: :bounce: