Met-Camm Lightweights: Guidance on Converting a Class 101

[russ p]

In the real world their would be a problem with traction knowledge, unlike loco's dmu knowledge was by type is blue square yellow diamond etc the units I learned were 110s I never worked one in service but worked many 101s and a few 108s because they were blue square

[FPH 603]

I am currently deciding what model to buy so I can make this Met-Camm Lightweight, but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate:

 

R3146 (3 Car set, BR Blue/Grey) - Incorrect livery, correct front ends, will require repainting on the sides.

 

R2579A (3 Car set, Plain BR Blue) - Correct livery, incorrect front ends, will require corrections to front ends.

 

Both models would require swapping the chassis units of the dummy motor and centre coaches, renumbering, installing the jumpers on the ends, removal of the blue square and new roof vents. I will have to find a purpose for the centre car too.

Edited January 4, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[jonny777]

But the diagram for the services would be able to cope with different types of unit. If they need to mult up, as long as the diagram has the two units as both Yellow Diamond, then they can mult and job is done.

Their use in an area where there is enough units to cover the diagrams with a sufficient cover for servicing requirements shouldn't be an issue. Take the Lea Valley units with their Orange Star code, no real issue with them, or with the Red Triangle units either...

 

I think you might be over thinking things.

 

Andy G

 

 

The Lea Valley units did get around a bit. 

 

 

Here is E50999 plus others at Southminster in the mid 1960s. 

 

 

[Ray H]

I had a copy of the unit diagrams for Stratford many years ago - long since consigned to the bin.

 

However, I seem to recall that there were two unit diagrams each day for the branch. One was a Met Camm and the other one of the Orange Star 3 car units which at that time were, if (again) I remember correctly all based at Stratford. There were certainly a few 3 car diagrams down to North Woolwich - those that were through trains to the Lea Valley. The Met Camms were the mainstay of the North Woolwich branch when I was working down there (and I also think they ran the Romford/Upminster service).

[uax6]

The question is now, what difference in traction knowledge was required for the orange square units? Would it have been much different to the blue square ones?

[chrisf]

I have the summer 1959 dmu diagrams for East Anglia which show two workings for "3-car Derby suburban units" on the Southminster branch.  One spent the day shuttling between Romford and Upminster, two between St Margarets and Buntingford and six to Hertford East from Stratford or Liverpool Street.  Allowing for strengthening and my inability to count, fourteen were in service out of the 20 allocated to Stratford.

 

As this topic started with the yellow diamond Met-Camms, it may be of interest that Norwich had a large batch with a few at Stratford.  The diagrams clearly specified which turns were to be worked by Derby lightweights, which by the pre-101s and which by Cravens or Wickham blue square sets.  It appears that there was no booked working involving the coupling of a Derby lightweight to a Met-Camm, though the railway being what it was it must have happened.

 

Chris     

[stewartingram]

I've seen a Derby LtWt + early MetCamm combo at Cambridge a number of times. I might even have some record of numbers if I were to go through my sptting books. Also 105+109 combos.

 

Stewart

[russ p]

Although this film is primarily 114s there is some footage of yellow diamond metcamms and great footage of Norfolk and Lincolnshire branches

Hope this is the correct part but if you follow the links to other parts you will find them

This film was still used to train drivers in the 80s I saw it first at Doncaster training school and I used it to train drivers on the north Norfolk railway

 

https://youtu.be/f4NUfp3eneA

[EasternO]

On 02/01/2018 at 21:39, FPH 603 said:

Hi all,

 

I plan on making a Met-Camm lightweight DMU out of a OO gauge Class 101. Can anyone give any guidance on what model to use for this conversion?

 

I was thinking of the Hornby R3146 (as it has the 4 marker lights on the front ends), but this is a three car set, and the Met-Camm Lightweights only came in Power/Trailer sets. Should I look for alternatives or should I use a replacement chassis for the dummy motor?

 

Thanks to all that contribute. For those who don't know what a Met-Camm lightweight is, see the link below. (Don't worry, I only found out they existed a couple of days ago!)

 

http://www.railcar.co.uk/type/met-camm-lightweight/summary

Did you manage to complete the conversion? I was planning on converting a Bachmann 101 but they are really expensive, even used models. The Hornby model seems cheaper and easier, although the their model is much less detailed than the Bachmann.

[cravensdmufan]

5 hours ago, EasternO said:

Did you manage to complete the conversion? I was planning on converting a Bachmann 101 but they are really expensive, even used models. The Hornby model seems cheaper and easier, although the their model is much less detailed than the Bachmann.

I would use a Bachmann model.

 

Unfortunately the three front windows are too long on the Lima / Hornby moulding which I always thought completely spoilt the look of the model.  It is very difficult to correct this, though I think Shawplan made a replacement etch. But you'd need to use filler after cutting out the original windows. 

 

It was a shame Lima got those windows wrong as the rest of the body was very good indeed. It was even flush glazed.

 

Edit:

https://www.shawplan.com/extreme_coach4mm.html

 

EECD 4009 for the etched window frames, though I have never tried them.  Does anyone else have experience of fitting these please?  I have a Lima Regional Railways 101 which I'd like to improve.

Edited December 13, 2023 by cravensdmufan
To include website link and additional wording.

[EasternO]

47 minutes ago, cravensdmufan said:

Unfortunately the three front windows are too long on the Lima / Hornby moulding

Yes, I noticed that too. I'm not sure if this is the thick window frames playing tricks or the windows are dimensionally incorrect. Without owning one I can't say.

 

I've not seen a good picture of the chassis and components so can't say whether this is accurate or not. I'm guessing that it would require a lot of work, or maybe better, a Bachmann chassis?

[cravensdmufan]

21 minutes ago, EasternO said:

Yes, I noticed that too. I'm not sure if this is the thick window frames playing tricks or the windows are dimensionally incorrect. Without owning one I can't say.

 

I've not seen a good picture of the chassis and components so can't say whether this is accurate or not. I'm guessing that it would require a lot of work, or maybe better, a Bachmann chassis?

The Lima / Hornby windows are dimensionally incorrect.  I have disguised mine somewhat by painting the insides of the frames dark grey - but they still bug me!

 

The Bachmann underframe and motor bogie are obviously so much better but as @EasternO states a lot more expensive, even secondhand.

 

Here are my Bachmann and Hornby models side by side.

 

[EasternO]

Great picture. The roof profile is also different. Does the return slope on the cab front start in the same place on both models? The Bachmann version also has rather thick window frames.

 

Do you have the Hornby R3146 model with four lights? This is the one I would use as a base.

https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/uploads/met-camm-lightweight/800/met-camm-lightweight-1580359452-800.jpg

Edited December 13, 2023 by EasternO
comparison pic from railcar

[cravensdmufan]

19 minutes ago, EasternO said:

Great picture. The roof profile is also different. Does the return slope on the cab front start in the same place on both models? The Bachmann version also has rather thick window frames.

 

Do you have the Hornby R3146 model with four lights? This is the one I would use as a base.

https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/uploads/met-camm-lightweight/800/met-camm-lightweight-1580359452-800.jpg

I never noticed the difference in the roof profile before.  Well spotted!  Looking at it now I've a feeling the Bachmann one is more accurate.

 

And you're right about the window frames.

 

I have a couple of comparison shots of close up side views of the cabs which I will dig out and post soon. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by cravensdmufan

[dj_crisp]

An interesting topic and I'm just about to attack a few more 101s so stumbled across this. I'll be interested in seeing anyone doing a back dated met Camm!

 

Front window wise I've come to the conclusion that both Bachmann and Lima/Hornby are wrong. They're quite a bit wider than the models are.

 

Thankfully Shawplan produce frames which are great and I've just persuaded Brian to produce laserglaze so it's easier to get a good finish. Here's a shot of the frames & glazing on the left on a Bachmann shell. (I didn't respray the yellow as I can't do lining that straight... as my black window surrounds show!)

 

 

I think Lima scores better on the side windows which look slightly deeper and do look lighter. Quite superb really considering their age. 

 

 

However the Bachmann side windows don't offend me that much.

 

I hadn't noticed the roof profile before so will have to check that out before I embark on my next 101 projects. An interesting comparison!

[EasternO]

Thanks for the pics and info. I would feel very reluctant to cut up a Bachmann model at current prices but I would not have that same problem with the Hornby (which I don't have yet).

 

Mating the Hornby body to the Bachmann chassis will be interesting as I doubt replicating the Bachmann clips will be easy.

[dj_crisp]

25 minutes ago, EasternO said:

Thanks for the pics and info. I would feel very reluctant to cut up a Bachmann model at current prices but I would not have that same problem with the Hornby (which I don't have yet).

 

Mating the Hornby body to the Bachmann chassis will be interesting as I doubt replicating the Bachmann clips will 

 

Yeah I always find it a bit daunting hacking any model about! I like to pick up non runners or paint disasters for hacking projects as at least I feel I can't make them any worse! Well that's the theory.

 

I'm part way through a lima body/Bachmann mashup and the biggest problem I found is the Bachmann DTCL chassis is very bendy. I think the design uses the clips on the body to straighten the chassis with help from the circuit board.... I saw no way of replicating these and as I don't use the original circuit boards I just stuck some spare brass square rods I had spare along the inside to straighten the chassis.

 

Then the body is stuck on by my new favourite method of using sticky black tac. Tbh I have problems with both Bachmann 108s and 101s with bendy chassis.

 

If its of interest I just found a photo of a Lima with shawplan frames Vs Bachmann without when I was toying with the idea of not hacking the Bachmann one about.

 

 

I decided to keep the destination frame to avoid a repaint and changed the rest. I'm think I may just take a smidge off the front of the lima roof profile to flatten it ever so slightly to match Bachmanns which I think matches the prototype better. The rest of the roof looks ok to me..... although I Hadn't noticed it before!!

[cravensdmufan]

47 minutes ago, dj_crisp said:

 

Yeah I always find it a bit daunting hacking any model about! I like to pick up non runners or paint disasters for hacking projects as at least I feel I can't make them any worse! Well that's the theory.

 

I'm part way through a lima body/Bachmann mashup and the biggest problem I found is the Bachmann DTCL chassis is very bendy. I think the design uses the clips on the body to straighten the chassis with help from the circuit board.... I saw no way of replicating these and as I don't use the original circuit boards I just stuck some spare brass square rods I had spare along the inside to straighten the chassis.

 

Then the body is stuck on by my new favourite method of using sticky black tac. Tbh I have problems with both Bachmann 108s and 101s with bendy chassis.

 

If its of interest I just found a photo of a Lima with shawplan frames Vs Bachmann without when I was toying with the idea of not hacking the Bachmann one about.

 

 

I decided to keep the destination frame to avoid a repaint and changed the rest. I'm think I may just take a smidge off the front of the lima roof profile to flatten it ever so slightly to match Bachmanns which I think matches the prototype better. The rest of the roof looks ok to me..... although I Hadn't noticed it before!!

All good information - and what a neat job you have made fitting the Shawplan etch to the Lima front.  It now shows the Bachmann windows are incorrect.  

 

Thanks for posting Will.  It would be great if you would update us here or on the "Lima Class 101 Windows" thread - thanks!

 

[dj_crisp]

10 hours ago, cravensdmufan said:

All good information - and what a neat job you have made fitting the Shawplan etch to the Lima front.  It now shows the Bachmann windows are incorrect.  

 

Thanks for posting Will.  It would be great if you would update us here or on the "Lima Class 101 Windows" thread - thanks!

 

 

Thanks. If you're interested I'll probably be cluttering up my workbench thread with 101 projects in the new year :)

 

I've been debating whether to standardise on Bachmann or lima shells, and was going to go with Bachmann.  Highlighting the arc of the front of the roof has made me realise why the Bachmann one looks better head on so will pick on a lima victim to see if I can mod the front.

[EasternO]

16 hours ago, cravensdmufan said:

All good information - and what a neat job you have made fitting the Shawplan etch to the Lima front.  It now shows the Bachmann windows are incorrect.  

 

Thanks for posting Will.  It would be great if you would update us here or on the "Lima Class 101 Windows" thread - thanks!

 

I'd be very interested to see that too

[MJI]

I think for the price I would use Lima, especially as I need a couple more, the TH is a toy, and the DC is a bit clunky but OK