Jump to content
 

Mechanism for Wills finecast pannier tank


Recommended Posts

Likely candidate from RTR the current Bachmann 57xx mechanism (scale for 7'3"+8'3" wheelbase, 4'7" wheels). I have stuffed this mechanism into several w/m bodies - though never this one - and it performs very well.

 

Caveats.

The thickness of the w/m castings may require reduction to allow the motor in, with the body seated at scale height above track. The motor can be turned in its cradle to reduce height slightly.

 

The drive is to the rear axle and may need to be concealed given this is an open cab body.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Me too!  Mine was a gift from M. Philou, un homme gentil emigre en France et de grand excellence et perspicacicite de cet parishe.  The body is made up nicely but the chassis is terminally ill which an axle end unable to fit the wheel to, so I am also thinking about how to re-chassis the loco.  I also have a worked up Hornby 2721 which presents similar challenges.  Both are open cab locos and have skirts to hide the motors.

 

The Baccy 57xx/8750/64xx chassis will not do for several reasons.  Firstly, the thickness of the castings at the skirts means that the space is too tight to fit it, though on a Wills kit to take a Finecast chassis as opposed to the original 'Bodyline' designed for the same generic Jinty chassis as the 2721, the axles should line up with the splashers.  Secondly, most though not all 1854 panniers (depending on the exact period and prototype modelled)  had fluted parallel coupling rods, though a few did acquire fishbelly 57xx style coupling rods post 1926.  The axle spacing and wheel size at the rear are or should be the same as the Baccy chassis, so the Baccy gearbox should clear the inside of the backhead and preserve cab detail, but it'll be very tight!.  

 

My current plan is to buy a Southeastern fold-up chassis for my 1854, on the back burner for this year at least, though it will perhaps be a quality mismatch with the skirted body.  I am a bit iffy about being able to remove metal from inside the skirts, as it would have to be taken off from the joint between the skirt and the bottom of the tank as well; in short, there's quite a narrow slot in there and I think I am on safest ground using the Southeastern chassis which is designed for the kit.  The motor is a Romford Terrier and still works, so I should be able to salvage it and the worm and cog.  

 

The Hornby generic Jinty chassis drives the front axle and should clear the backhead, but is also to wide to fit in the 'slot' without removing metal from the skirts, and possibly the underside of the tank casing as well.  I'm not averse to a bit of down and dirty bodgery to get he job done, but there are too many wobbly parts of the process for this loco for my taste!  A Saddle tank version would be easier to clear for height inside the loco, but too early for my very early BR period.

 

The alternative, should you need a Baccy chassis for a fishbellied protoytpe, would be to cut away the skirts and perhaps parts of the tank bottoms to clear the chassis.  This would leave the internal organs horribly exposed and I would then be replacing them, the skirts at least, further out closer to the edge of the running plate, which is a retrograde step.

 

I'll be interested in progress, Milthar, as I may well learn useful stuff from it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine (saddle tank version) has the original Wills chassis with Hambling's wheels, which shows how long ago I built her. (Still to finish....) I forget what motor I used, but recall an Airfix MW005 with Romford gears. (I really lashed out on her. I must have been feeling rich, but I had just started working!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...The alternative, should you need a Baccy chassis for a fishbellied protoytpe, would be to cut away the skirts and perhaps parts of the tank bottoms to clear the chassis.  This would leave the internal organs horribly exposed and I would then be replacing them, the skirts at least, further out closer to the edge of the running plate, which is a retrograde step...

It's much easier starting from a kit, rather than a constructed kit body, from within which you have to carve away at the interior 'blind'. From the kit you can measure what you need to do to make the space, and cut away from what will be the interior in a better controlled fashion. Typically nothing needs to be lost from the exterior unless wished, many whitemetal kits were overwidth in locations like the firebox sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I agree; removing metal from a kit part is way easier than doing it from a built model.  I could, with the aid of a bucket of Nitromors, dismantle mine, but I'd rather not; I won't have anything as volatile as Nitromors in the house and I'm more than happy with the standard of construction of the 'bodyline' part of the kit; neat, no solder blobs, square and level, and polished ready to accept an undercoat of paint.  Philou acquired it in this state apparently and whoever built it has done a very good job of it bodywise.

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, lofty1966 said:

Buy the SE Finecast etched chassis, it's an excellent piece of kit!

I intend to, but appreciate the endorsement.  It's a while since I built a chassis kit and I'm looking forward to it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lofty1966 said:

Bachmann chassis will have the wrong wheel spacing.

Buy the SE Finecast etched chassis, it's an excellent piece of kit!

Unfortunately not a good option for me since I live in australia and the postage cost would be prohibitively expensive.

 

I had considered using a chassis from a Hornby 2721 but it looks like the 2721

is a little bit larger so I doubt the 1854 body would fit

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Down to brass tacks now. Do you actually know the wheelbase and wheel diameter of this 1854 class? Boiler diameter and boiler centreline height are helpful too. (Ideally you want to obtain a dimensioned drawing for the class, unless the kit has one in the box already.)

 

Knowing relatively little about GWR locos, I proposed the current Bachmann 57xx mechanism, which has the standard 'Crewe' wheelbase which the GWR copied for several of their 0-6-0 classes. There are other options in RTR OO mechanisms, but without knowing these key dimensions it is a guessing game. (The one not to consider is Hornby's 0-6-0 'universal' mechanism, possessed of a wheelbase unknown in UK 0-6-0s, and not a good runner either.)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Down to brass tacks now. Do you actually know the wheelbase and wheel diameter of this 1854 class? Boiler diameter and boiler centreline height are helpful too. (Ideally you want to obtain a dimensioned drawing for the class, unless the kit has one in the box already.)

 

Knowing relatively little about GWR locos, I proposed the current Bachmann 57xx mechanism, which has the standard 'Crewe' wheelbase which the GWR copied for several of their 0-6-0 classes. There are other options in RTR OO mechanisms, but without knowing these key dimensions it is a guessing game. (The one not to consider is Hornby's 0-6-0 'universal' mechanism, possessed of a wheelbase unknown in UK 0-6-0s, and not a good runner either.)

They had wheels of 4 ft 6 in diameter and a wheelbase of 15 ft 6 in

Most of them had the standard p class boiler (10'3" barrel length, 4'5" barrel diameter and 5'4" firebox length)

The problem is that its an open cabbed loco so most mechanisms dont fit all that well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same overall dimensions as the 57xx/8750, the current Bachmann mechanism will fit concealed within the external envelope of the model body shell (provided it is decently accurate!) the drive line to the rear axle concealed behind a representation of the boiler backhead.

 

The only question is how much internal carving will be required to reduce the whitemetal casting wall thickness as required to allow the mechanism in. The motor can be turned through 90 degrees to reduce overall height slightly, and on some other models this makes the fit possible without any cutting: cannot advise in this case as I have not looked at this particular kit. At the front of the mechanism is a screw attached piece representing the underside of the boiler. This can either be completely removed, or removed for cutting down, as required to fit into the model body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Milthar said:

Unfortunately not a good option for me since I live in australia and the postage cost would be prohibitively expensive.

 

I had considered using a chassis from a Hornby 2721 but it looks like the 2721

is a little bit larger so I doubt the 1854 body would fit

I live in Newfoundland and regularly buy stuff from UK.

It's an etched kit, very lightweight and Dave Ellis isn't a postage pirate.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Milthar said:

They had wheels of 4 ft 6 in diameter and a wheelbase of 15 ft 6 in

Most of them had the standard p class boiler (10'3" barrel length, 4'5" barrel diameter and 5'4" firebox length)

The problem is that its an open cabbed loco so most mechanisms dont fit all that well

Only when first introduced

Later engines had thicker tyres,

which they all probably received during their life, bringing them up to the standard 4' 7½"

 

A Comet 57XX chassis fits as I have one running so equipped.

(saddle tank but should be the same)

1854.jpg.76ef19c0b73ffa39e0c4d10105300ce6.jpg

 

 

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

  • RMweb Gold

Etched chassis look absolutely terrifying; how can anything that flat make a 3 dimensional mechanically functioning chassis.  I've never made a Southeastern one, but have done a nickel silver fold up design chassis back in the 80s, part of a Westward 64xx.  It more or less folded up, perfectly, and was a pretty good runner with 40:1 Romfords and an ECM motor IIRC.  It is long gone but it's chimney and safety valve cover live on aboard my Hornby 2721.  If a ham fisted bodgerigar like me can manage it, most modellers should be able to.  They are light and flat for posting; my recommendation is to have a go, Milthar.

 

Now, back to the matter of clearances for 57xx etc. RTR chassis, yer iz sum foe toes wot i tuk on my moe bile to illustrate the situation.  My loco is part built with the running plate, buffer beams, splashers, cab. and bunker as one unit, and the boiler, tanks, top furniture as another; you will see what I mean in the photos.

 

IMG_0577 shows the running plate/cab section sitting on top of the original Wills Finecast block chassis.  This is very much of it's time with pickup on one side only and common return through the chassis, so the wheels are only insulated on one side.  The motor is an Anchoridge DS10 driving through a 40 (I think) to 1 cog.  The motor is missing carbon brushes but might be revived; AFAIK it works.  Drive as you see is to the leading axle and there is plenty of space ahead of the cab.  

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_0577.jpg

 

 

Next shot, IMG_0580, shows the Finecast block chassis aligned to the Bachmann 8750 (57xx is identical).  Apart from the fundamental differences between a 1970s kit chassis and a current hi fi volume production RTR one, what you are seeing is that the axles line up and that the Bachmann chassis is suitable in terms of axle spacing for the 1854, thank you Mr Allen I believe at Crewe for this.  Derby had different spacings, and between them these 'standards' account for a very large number of non-industrial 6-coupled UK designs, though examples of both could be found on the same railway.  What this means for your 1854 is that the Bachmann wheels will line up perfectly with the 1854's splashers.

 

 

IMG_0580.jpg

 

I would not worry too much about the wheel diameter; as has been pointed out, most if not all 1854s were given 4'7½" dia. driving wheels to replace their original 4'6" ones, but I would very much doubt if the matter is as simple as Saddle Tank = 4'6", Pannier = 4'7½".  4'7½" is a nominal figure representing the diameter of a brand new wheel; wear and reprofiling of tyres in service could reduce that by more than 2 inches before the loco went back into works for full overhaul, so in terms of scale you have some legitimate wobble room.

 

But there is a potential problem, the clearance between the outer edge of the flange and the inside of the splashers, and don't forget the splashers will conduct electricity and cause shorts.  You may well get away with it, but I would be remiss to not give you a headsup!

 

 

 

IMG_0581 shows the running plate, a single piece in the kit and structurally vital, sitting on top of the 8750 Baccy chassis.  It will not sit properly because the backhead detail is duplicated on both models and occupies exactly the same space, but in any case you can see that the motor fouls on the inside edges of the running plate as well, so if you are going to use the 8750 chassis metal must be removed from the inside edges of the running plate and the plastic backhead removed from the Baccy.  I will continue in another post because of the upload limit of 10mb, which is being approached.

IMG_0582.jpg

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Herewith Comet 57XX as fitted to the saddle tank version of the Wills 1854

Mashima motor, Branchline 2 stage gear box (40:1?) and a flywheel (& Lenz siilver mini decoder) . Markits wheels. Drives on the front axle.

Plenty of room

 

1798265577_cometchassis.jpg.7ea5a6fc62d2040423c57488655aed23.jpg

 

Some excess metal shaved off gearbox.

This was originally under a Mainline Pannier but it was replaced with a modern Bachmann Mechanism, so it got swapped to this.

Edited by melmerby
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Milthar said:

How easy are these to build? I'm still rather new to kitbuilding and haven't built any etched kits to date

Take your time, read the instructions.

Everything fits together well.

Pretty straightforward build.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Herewith Comet 57XX as fitted to the saddle tank version of the Wills 1854

Mashima motor, Branchline 2 stage gear box (40:1?) and a flywheel (& Lenz siilver mini decoder) . Markits wheels. Drives on the front axle.

Plenty of room

 

1798265577_cometchassis.jpg.7ea5a6fc62d2040423c57488655aed23.jpg

 

Some excess metal shaved off gearbox.

This was originally under a Mainline Pannier but it was replaced with a modern Bachmann Mechanism, so it got swapped to this.

Very neat.  The pannier has less 'headroom' in the centre, cf the Saddle, but may have a little more at the outside edges.

 

Mine was a gift from Philou, who IIRC got it from his brother Peter Lord of Lord and Butler, who got it as part of a job lot some of which he gave to Philipe, if I've got that right.  It is I suppose possible that somebody here might recognise their handiwork; if so, it'd be nice to hear from you.  You made a cracking job of the bodywork and I assume the chassis problem is wear, suggesting that the loco had an active life once.  Philipe reckoned he was probably never going to do anything with her, but it'll be sort of satisfying to give her a further lease of life.  I like old things, as I am of course one myself...  

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently I have accumulated a couple of saddle tanks and a pannier tank all 3 with the "special cast chassis". These will be swapped for the etched brass chassis in the new revised chassis.

 

Firstly your kit is  Wills kit designed for the cast chassis, if you use the etched chassis you may have to make a few simple alterations to either the body and or the chassis

 

The cast chassis is simple to build, Romford/Markit wheels self quarter, the chassis has fittings for the X03/4 motors, though the MW/ MRRC mw 05 or Romford Bulldog motors are better and use standard Romford/Markit gears. The draw back is you cannot use modern motors or gearboxes

 

I have found Southeastern Finecast etched chassis fall into two categories. They are either easy to build or difficult, I assume these are on the easy side, especially as they have no valve gear. Usually they have screw frame spacers as well as etched flat ones. In theory the screw spacers allow the chassis to be adjusted prior to the slot and tab frame spacers are soldered up. Plus now you have started a thread there is plenty of help on hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Very neat.  The pannier has less 'headroom' in the centre, cf the Saddle, but may have a little more at the outside edges.

 

 

I would expect the Bachmann/Mainline 57XX body clearance to be similar to the 1854 pannier.*

As I said, I originally bought it as a replacement for a Mainline 57XX chassis which had literally fallen apart due to Mazak Rot.

Later I managed to get a cheap late model Bachmann Pannier in BR black (from the "returns stand" at Warley) and used that chassis instead, meanwhile I acquired this ready made Wills saddle tank at a good price and transferred the chassis to it.

It has had a little hacking to reduce it's length at the front by a few mm so as to fit the Wills body.

 

*However I have just checked the clearance and it wont now fit a pannier body, I must have changed the gearbox at some time for a higher one, it now about 2mm too high.

Maybe I had a single stage one? I've got a used one in my box of gear sets.

Edited by melmerby
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Recently I have accumulated a couple of saddle tanks and a pannier tank all 3 with the "special cast chassis". These will be swapped for the etched brass chassis in the new revised chassis.

 

Firstly your kit is  Wills kit designed for the cast chassis, if you use the etched chassis you may have to make a few simple alterations to either the body and or the chassis

 

The cast chassis is simple to build, Romford/Markit wheels self quarter, the chassis has fittings for the X03/4 motors, though the MW/ MRRC mw 05 or Romford Bulldog motors are better and use standard Romford/Markit gears. The draw back is you cannot use modern motors or gearboxes

 

I have found Southeastern Finecast etched chassis fall into two categories. They are either easy to build or difficult, I assume these are on the easy side, especially as they have no valve gear. Usually they have screw frame spacers as well as etched flat ones. In theory the screw spacers allow the chassis to be adjusted prior to the slot and tab frame spacers are soldered up. Plus now you have started a thread there is plenty of help on hand.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Oops.  What I was going to say before I distracted and went to bed was that this is most useful to someone like The Johnster, who is considering a Southeastern foldup chassis.  The modifications to chassis or body will be easier to deal with now I know to look out for them, and I am told this is one of the easier ones; thank you for this headsup. 
 

I have 3 alternatives with this loco.  First is to use the spare Bachmann 57xx currently serving beneath my Limbach 94xx when it is retired on the arrival of a new 94xx in a blue box in November.  Pros, the right price and a proven good runner, cons, a lot of metal has to be removed and things will be visible that shouldn’t (OTOH neither should the boiler skirts).

 

Second alternative is to wait, save my pennies, and buy a new Southeastern chassis kit.  Pros, fun and satisfying to build if all goes well, a choice of wheels, motor, and gears; I may be able to salvage motor and gears from the old block chassis, and a fit in the body without hacking it about.  Cons, retention of boiler skirts, cost, esp. if I have to buy new motor and gears as well as wheels. 
 

Final alternative, restore the current block chassis to working order.  Pros, right price and a known perfect kit for the body.  Cons, unknown amount of work and cost, new wheels at least, running is an unknown quality, lack of detail, new coupling rods needed. 
 

I dither between the first two, and rarely consider the third. What is likely to happen is that, after November, I’ll cut the skirts and trim the inside of the running plate and see if I can’t get her running with the Bachmann chassis.  If all goes well, the heavy body should ensure good running and decent haulage. 
 

If that goes belly up, plan b will be a new Southeastern chassis, which I’ve costed at around £95 if I cannot salvage motor and gears. 
 

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...