Lima/Bachmann 94xx conversion.

[The Johnster]

I am embarking on a project to build a 94xx out of a Lima body and Bachmann 57xx chassis; this seems to have been done many times before and is a path well trodden.  I have obtained a suitable body, in fact two of them, as a result of the kindness of Mr Tomparryharry of this parish.  What I actually have is 2 complete Lima 94xx, one in a slightly careworn condition but the other more or less mint.  This latter actually runs, the old Lima mech still functioning as dreadfully as it ever did...

 

I am intending to report progress on this so that anyone else doing it will benefit from my inevitable mistakes and so that I will benefit from advice and the experience of those that have trodden the path before me.  The first stage will be the sourcing and obtaining of 2 Bachmann pannier chassis', not for the 2 94xx as one is for an 8750 body that Is being resuscitated, but in the meantime I will be using the functioning 57xx chassis that I have to 'try fit' the Lima body in the hope that it will alert me to potential problems.  I will start on this later this evening or tomorrow, anyway before the 57xx is next required for duty on the pickup goods...

 

I am sort of hoping the topic will include all 3 of the thread title requisites; Questions, Hints, and Tips!

[Steamport Southport]

There was a pretty good article on detailing/improving the Lima model in Scale Trains October 1982. Even included re-gauging it to EM gauge.

 

http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/scale-model-trains-magazine-october-1982-issue.html

 

 

 

Jason

[28XX]

I’ve got a Lima pannier in the round-tuit box for the same job.

[terry.ecmr]

Here's mine.

 

[Dan Griffin]

Here mine, it runs on a Bachmann pannier chassis and has had some minor surgery inside, new buffers and a repaint. Runs like a dream.

 

the only issue is there is a slight mis-alignment between the Bachmann wheels and the moulded lima splashers, but its hardly noticeable.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Dan Griffin

[St Enodoc]

This might be of use:

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/pro94xx.html

[tomparryharry]

Here mine, it runs on a Bachmann pannier chassis and has had some minor surgery inside, new buffers and a repaint. Runs like a dream.

 

the only issue is there is a slight mis-alignment between the Bachmann wheels and the moulded lima splashers, but its hardly noticeable.

 

Hello Dan, are you sing the 57xx chassis, or the 8750 chassis?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Dan Griffin]

57xx i think, the pannier body that came off it was numbered 4612 if that helps

[Steamport Southport]

4612 is an 8750 if that's any use.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

This might be of use:

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/pro94xx.html

 

Sure is!  A more or less complete set of instructions on how to put a Baccy chassis under a Lima body.  I would take issue on two minor points; BR built a further 200 of these locos after the initial GW 10 with higher boiler pressure, occupying the 9411-9499, 8400-8499, and 3400-3409 series in order of construction.  And the real things did have the polished copper (not brass!) chimney caps of the Lima model with is perfectly correct in this respect, although they were rarely clean enough in service for this to be apparent.  They also had polished brass safety valve covers.

 

I do not believe the 57xx chassis is available as a spare part from Bachmann any longer.

Edited June 15, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

4612 is an 8750 if that's any use.

 

 

 

Jason

The difference is in the cab and bunker, the 8750 having a more modern style with a higher roof and larger windows.  Other differences are very minor and not visible on a model.  57xx are 5700-99, 6700-50 (steam reverse and no vacuum brakes for dock shunting), 7700-99, and 8700-49, 300 locos in all.  8750 are 8750-99, 6750-79 (steam reverse and no vacuum brakes for dock shunting), 9710-99 (9700-9 were a condensing version to work on London Transport 'widened lines), 3600-99, 4600-99, and 9600-82, in that order of building IIRC.

[The Johnster]

Thank you for these very informative and inspirational responses.  I will make a point of sourcing 57xx rather than 8750 chassis; these seem more readily available on eBay anyway.

 

I will be needing new buffers, and replacing the moulded handrails, as well as providing etched number plates suitable for a Tondu locomotive.  24/7 have proved effective in providing me with suitable plates for Tondu locos previously, and will be my first port of call.  Cab glazing will be put in, and as my loco is in GWR initials livery there will be a repaint into BR black with a unicycling lion totem.  I am assuming that he Lima splashers are wrong, as AFAIK the axle spacing is identical on both 57xx and 94xx locos, but will be living with this minor anomaly.  As the 57xx chassis comes with the backhead attached, I may remove the sliding shutters which Lima rather sensibly provided in the shut position to help disguise the cab full of motor so that I can show it off a little.  As i will have to fabricate a cab floor, it seems silly not to stick a crew on to it; coal for the bunker, lamp brackets, and the fire iron hooks on the back of the bunker should complete the transformation.  

 

I will try to cram as much ballast into the tanks and smokebox as I can as well, as a bit of heft to a loco always improves it's running!

[DCB]

The Lima 94XX always looks too narrow to me, it should be 6" or 2mm wider than a 57XX.  They are very big imposing beasts as the tanks swell out the edge of the running plate and the cab floor is very high.  Drivers had problems as the cab was wider than the 57XX and they could not operate the brake while looking over the cab side.

We had a Lima 94XX on a Bachmann 57XX chassis.  The motor burned out.  It is going on a Triang Jinty chassis re drilled to Bachmann wheel spacing with Bachmann rods and Romfords.

[Dunsignalling]

Sure is!  A more or less complete set of instructions on how to put a Baccy chassis under a Lima body.  I would take issue on two minor points; BR built a further 200 of these locos after the initial GW 10 with higher boiler pressure, occupying the 9411-9499, 8400-8499, and 3400-3409 series in order of construction.  And the real things did have the polished copper (not brass!) chimney caps of the Lima model with is perfectly correct in this respect, although they were rarely clean enough in service for this to be apparent.  They also had polished brass safety valve covers.

 

I do not believe the 57xx chassis is available as a spare part from Bachmann any longer.

It's not, but I don't think the later type ever was. The Bachmann 57xx and 8750 haven't been produced for some while either.

 

A few tips.

 

In my experience, you may find it easier to find a complete loco than a chassis, but it probably won't come cheap as they seem to be very much "in demand". There is a selection on Hatton's pre-owned website, but anything half-decent seems to be over £60 so likely to be up around £50 even at a swapmeet.

 

Go for an 8750 if you want the sweet-running modern (DCC-ready) chassis. Early versions of the Bachmann 57xx had the Mainline style; the shiny rims and screwed-on couplings are the giveaways. Later ones, (32-xxx catalogue numbers, made after the first 8750s) are OK but, in either case, take the body off to ensure somebody hasn't bought it for the chassis and fitted their old one to move it on - it will fit and I came across more than one example while I was looking. 

 

The 8750 mechs aren't immune from failure though it's not common. I've had one go (the reason I needed a new chassis) but it was a high mileage example. It seemed to be a split gear from the symptoms but swapping the wheelsets over with another one didn't cure it or transfer the fault to the donor. Eventually found a crack in the nylon housing that holds the idler gear but I couldn't fix it.

 

If you do find a chassis on its own, many seem to have come from split-ups of the LT version (dark red wheels) - although clearly unused, mine needed congealed grease removing and relubrication before it would run sensibly.

 

For all the above reasons, try to see it running before you buy.

 

John   

Edited June 15, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[St Enodoc]

Sure is!  A more or less complete set of instructions on how to put a Baccy chassis under a Lima body.  I would take issue on two minor points; BR built a further 200 of these locos after the initial GW 10 with higher boiler pressure, occupying the 9411-9499, 8400-8499, and 3400-3409 series in order of construction.  And the real things did have the polished copper (not brass!) chimney caps of the Lima model with is perfectly correct in this respect, although they were rarely clean enough in service for this to be apparent.  They also had polished brass safety valve covers.

 

I do not believe the 57xx chassis is available as a spare part from Bachmann any longer.

You should remember this post too:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/?view=findpost&p=2939798

[Dunsignalling]

You should remember this post too:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/?view=findpost&p=2939798

Interestingly, the conversion described in the link uses the chassis from Bachmann 57xx 35-900, which is the earlier (Mainline) type.

 

States the newer (8750) chassis is wider and more work to fit into the Lima body.

 

John

Edited June 15, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[TheSignalEngineer]

It is possible to do with the later 57xx chassis. I have one ongoing at the moment but it's of a bit an as and when job. I started with the old chassis but the opportunity of a later model, the body of which had been badly repainted, at a knock-down price was too much to resist. Sold unwanted body, a bitza I put together with the old chassis and a selection of spares at a profit.

[tomparryharry]

Having had a re-read of the Pannier Paper regarding the 94xx, a small but important detail springs to mind. It appears that the cylinder front upper cover on the later 94xx is mostly omitted. It certainly seems that the first 10 had these covers, but later locomotives largely worked without.

 

I'd hazard a little guess that Bachmann are in a quandary over this. "Do we, or don't we?" If you're making the first ones, they'll need the cylinder covers(and, if you're making the later years, omitting the covers anyway) but the addition either way very firmly places the locomotive into a different timescale. Problems indeed!

 

With all of the renewed interest in the class, it's time I got my finger out, and finally finish off my model....

 

Happy modelling!

 

Ian.

[St Enodoc]

Interestingly, the conversion described in the link uses the chassis from Bachmann 57xx 35-900, which is the earlier (Mainline) type.

 

States the newer (8750) chassis is wider and more work to fit into the Lima body.

 

John

Mine has the Bachmann split-frame type that was sold as a spare part.

[Neil]

Would the Hornby Railroad 4F chassis be a viable alternative?

[TheSignalEngineer]

Having had a re-read of the Pannier Paper regarding the 94xx, a small but important detail springs to mind. It appears that the cylinder front upper cover on the later 94xx is mostly omitted. It certainly seems that the first 10 had these covers, but later locomotives largely worked without.

 

I'd hazard a little guess that Bachmann are in a quandary over this. "Do we, or don't we?" If you're making the first ones, they'll need the cylinder covers(and, if you're making the later years, omitting the covers anyway) but the addition either way very firmly places the locomotive into a different timescale. Problems indeed!

 

With all of the renewed interest in the class, it's time I got my finger out, and finally finish off my model....

 

Happy modelling!

 

Ian.

If there were no other significant differences it should be possible to model the later version of the front end and also a bit to fit in for the earlier version.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Would the Hornby Railroad 4F chassis be a viable alternative?

Wheels too big and wrong spacing.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

A useful aspect of the current Bachmann mechanism for the 57xx, is that the motor may be turned on its axis, by removal of a couple of small moulded bumps in the base of the plastic frame in which it is mounted.

 

This can be handy for fitting into narrow body apertures.

[The Johnster]

You should remember this post too:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/?view=findpost&p=2939798

 

Yes, I've been faffing around and vacillating about this for a while now.

[The Johnster]

Having had a re-read of the Pannier Paper regarding the 94xx, a small but important detail springs to mind. It appears that the cylinder front upper cover on the later 94xx is mostly omitted. It certainly seems that the first 10 had these covers, but later locomotives largely worked without.

 

I'd hazard a little guess that Bachmann are in a quandary over this. "Do we, or don't we?" If you're making the first ones, they'll need the cylinder covers(and, if you're making the later years, omitting the covers anyway) but the addition either way very firmly places the locomotive into a different timescale. Problems indeed!

 

With all of the renewed interest in the class, it's time I got my finger out, and finally finish off my model....

 

Happy modelling!

 

Ian.

Well spotted Ian, a point I hadn't noticed and as you say very important to a manufacturer trying to get it right and at the same time cover as many of the time period/livery bases as possible.  This could well be what their rep was referring to a the Bristol Show when he told me that 'it's more than making a box on wheels, you know'; I already knew that, but interpreted the comment as suggestive of or alluding to behind the scenes production hiccups!

 

In one sense this is reassuring, evidence that Baccy are doing their best for accuracy, which to be fair they usually do; I regard them as a pretty safe pair of hands in this respect, and have to be fair to them, as one of the leading exponents of the 'why are we waiting' brigade's agenda...