Lima/Bachmann 94xx conversion.

[tomparryharry]

There are logs of 94XX running at almost 60 mph for many miles along the Thames Valley on 61XX diagrams, I don't think anyone would be daft enough to run a 15XX at anything like that speed.  The 15XX started as a 2-6-0.

 

It's a pretty safe bet that the 94XX and 2251 cylinder blocks were identical.   The GWR generally took up differences in wheels size by moving buffers up or down the buffer beam, which is why the  2251 has that deep front buffer beam.

Edited June 20, 2018 by tomparryharry

[Horsetan]

The Craftsman safety valve is slightly out in several ways. It is about 0.5mm too high, the flare at the top is about 0.5mm too small and the flare at the bottom is also too small, the Lima base is probably better but it needs a new top. Taken together these faults accentuate each other in a photo. Before I finish I may try to get a better one.

See if you can obtain one from Springside. Ref DA42. It's even got the individual springs in it, instead of a whitemetal puddle.

[timbowilts]

See if you can obtain one from Springside. Ref DA42. It's even got the individual springs in it, instead of a whitemetal puddle.

Yes but £13.95 each!!!!

 

A tight fisted Yorkshireman

[Steamport Southport]

Any better?

 

http://www.247developments.co.uk/loco_detailing.html

 

 

 

 

Jason

[TheSignalEngineer]

The Springside one would probably cost more than the rest of the body alterations.

 

I've got three more loco jobs on the go at the moment so I will check our the available ones as most of the suppliers will be at ExpoEM North.

This one can go on the as and when pile for cabside rivets, handrails and cab driver's side, etc to be done in the meantime.

[JimC]

Somebody with some political clout had apparently complained about the antiquated appearance of the 8750s, with their Victorian looking domes,

Cook tells that story of Sir James Milne, but I don't altogether believe it. No doubt something of the sort was said lightheartedly but I can't see the board authorising considerably more expensive engines - the price per locomotive for the outsourced 94s appears (hard though I find it to believe) to be about double that of the Swindon price for 57 - just for aesthetics. Curiously I can't trace a Loco Cttee minute stating the cost of the Swindon built 94s.

 

In any case the design of the 94s follows logically. The big difference between the 94s and the 57s must, I submit, surely be brake power. The red route 94s must have had about the same amount of stopping power down the Welsh hills as the red route 56s and Welsh engines, and rather more than the lighter 57s. So, how do you get more weight on an 0-6-0T - give it a heavier boiler. And what is the next size up standard boiler suitable for an 0-6-0T from the P class - the Std 10. We also shouldn't forget that as well as further 57s, 74s and 16s were also built with domes after the first 94s were delivered. So really, I suggest, we shouldn't be looking at the 94 as an expensive 57, but as a cheap alternative to more 56s.

 

With the use of the 15s on empty stock working at Paddington, there are two other possible factors that might have played a part. One is their "24 hour shunter" ethos, serviceable without a pit, and the other is flange wear on the tight curved of the empty stock flyover

Edited June 20, 2018 by JimC

[The Johnster]

I concur in principle; South Wales workings played a big part in the concept of the 94xx.  It is perhaps surprising in some ways that it was not built perhaps 25 years earlier; the no.10 boiler first appeared on the rebuilt TVR A Class, of which the 2251 is in some ways a tender loco version.  In the event, 57xx and 8750s were considered adequate for such South Wales work as did not require a 56xx, working alongside the dwindling number of absorbed or constituent museum pieces, some of which were rebuilt with no.3 boilers. The smaller panniers were well thought of and did some very good work in the area, and I have heard it said that more 56xx were not built after 6699 as the panniers could do most of the work!  The 56xx is basically a Rhymney R class made out of Swindon standard bits.

 

But the 94xx was considered the standard big pannier for any big pannier job in the 1950s, which is why so many were built.  Brake power is not actually such a decisive issue in South Wales as one might think; incline working required wagon handbrakes to be pinned down so that the loco had to pull the train down the gradients and it could have in theory been done without loco brakes at all.  This worked very well, for some of the time at least.  It required an almost telepathic communication between drivers and brakemen or guards, the risk of course being that either the driver thinks he has enough brakes pinned before he actually does, or control of the train is taken over by Newton's First Law and speed increases beyond a point at which brakes can be pinned down.

 

I have some experience of this, spending summer evenings at Penrhos in 1965, where the brakeman's cabin was always good for a cup of tea and you might get a ride on the 94xx banker.  Brakesmen had a life of boredom and hard labour punctuated by moments of sheer terror as they hung on to brake sticks at increasing speeds and disappeared in the direction of Walnut Tree never to be seen again...

 

Power was required in South Wales coal workings for hauling empties up the valley, and in extreme cases such as Ebbw Vale, very short but heavy trains of iron ore.  Iron ore trains to Dowlais Cae Harris were double headed and banked by 56xx, and limited to 15 wagons...  That said, of course there is no such thing as too much braking power on any locomotive, the D95xx being a very good illustration of this.  

[Horsetan]

Yes but £13.95 each!!!!

A tight fisted Yorkshireman

It's actually worth paying for.....if you can actually get Springside to sell you one. There are similar ones in all of the Brassmasters/ Finney GW loco kits.

[The Johnster]

Part the fourth, in which an expected arrival raises unexpected issues, and the Johnster needs to put his thinking cap on!

 

This is all part of the fun, of course.  The eBay 57xx has turned up, well packed and within it's forecast delivery dates.  It is 5796, presumably an earlier incarnation of Bachmann 57xx, with the older, non NEM couplers with the little brass springs and a split chassis.  It seems to be all there, with some very minor damage (handrail knob pulled out of cab side, no biggy), but ran a little hesitantly at first.  I have given it the Johnster magic touch, which is no more than cleaning off the old crud and lubing with a hypo, and after a few minutes' running in it is performing smoothly and quietly.  There are two holes in the chassis blocks above the rear axle, which may have held springs and a bearing plate at one time, but they are not there now; they do not seem to be essential to the running.  My recent Baccy 57xx is a better runner, but not by much, so, all in all, I am happy with 5796 for £38 inc p & p.  It is in 1949-58 BR unicycling lion black livery and carries a shed plate for 86J, Aberdare.

 

So far so good, but the split chassis ballast blocks will not fit in the clearance I have made for it in the 94xx smokebox.  This is not the same as the Mainline 57xx chassis, as the motor is mounted longitudinally and the stub axles are a different design (fortunately), and it runs a little better in terms of reliable slow running; it is a little quieter as well, though not up to the near silent running of the recent Baccy version on 5756.  There are, as I see it, 4 ways to continue from this point.

 

1) Cut further into the 94xx smokebox.  Problem with this is that there is not that much plastic there after my previous butchery and this might take things a bit too close to the edge, literally.

 

2) Hack off the front of 5796's chassis blocks down to footplate level to fit the 94xx clearance as it is.  Problem; hard messy work with a hacksaw, resulting in filings getting in where they are not wont to wot of.

 

3) Use 5796's chassis under another loco, to wit, 9681, not as yet numbered, a Mainline 57xx body with a K's 8750 cab built by the Johnster before Mainline released their 8750 (which of course appeared as soon as I finished it).  No real problem with this, it fits under there and I know from previous experience with this body that the whitemetal cab does not cause short circuits.  9681 was delivered new to Tondu in March 1949, and must have had red backed number plates, a livery variation I wish to include on Cwmdimbath.  Problem; delay to 94xx project.

 

4) None of the above, leave 5796 in service with new Tondu numbers as a running mate to 5756.

 

Writing all that out has cleared my mind and I have come to a decision.  I do not want to risk upsetting the work I have already done on the 94xx by being impatient, nor do I particularly want another 57xx, so option 3 is clearly the way to go.  We will have to wait until pension day at the end of the month before ordering 9681's numberplates, but the loco can be in service this evening with little extra work.  

 

A further 57xx must now be sought as a chassis donor for the 94xx, but it must be a more recent version; next time I will stipulate NEM couplers.  This will cost more, but is I think still worth it to obtain a working 94xx without having to wait for the new Bachmann model.

 

Well, a successful day but not in the way I intended.  I will continue odd jobs on the 94xx body in the meantime, but that project is, if not on hold, on tickover until another donor is sourced and obtained.  Luckily these are fairly easy to find on eBay; it was while I was looking for 8750 before deciding to resurrect the one I've got that I got frustrated with not being able to good cheap ones.  Further minor disappointments with 5796 are the lack of backhead detail for the cab, but 9681 (originally 8750 to use the K's plates) is modelled with the cab shutters closed so this will be not too obvious), and the buffers which are a bit like an ingredient for mushroom soup, as they were in those days; they are not even as good as the slightly ropey ones on 9681 as they have a prominent moulding line across them.  This is easily enough dealt with, of course, and will be when I've finished this cup of tea, but they would not have been suitable replacements for the 94xx.

 

So, and in a completely unplanned way, I now accidentally have a new loco on Cwmdimbath, 9681, to share duties with 5756 and 2761.  Cost; redacted Mainline 57xx + redundant K's cab, redacted transfers, and 5796; £38, with the cost of number plates yet to be added.  Another class variant and another livery variant ticked off;  happy bunny!

[The Johnster]

The new chassis has been put beneath the loco which will hitherto be assuming the identity of 9681, and the loco has passed it's clearance, haulage, and buffer compatibility tests; it really was that quick and easy.  But there is no way of attaching the chassis to the loco body at the moment, it just sits on top and is carried along.  This is because 8750, back in the day, was fitted with scale couplings which obliterated the screw holes that the chassis attaches in to.  My cheat for these situation is to attach the body with pound shop superglue; this will hold it in place reliably enough but can easily be broken off if access to the works is required.  Proper superglue works too well for this, but the cheapo stuff is ideal!

 

The black paint will come out later for a bit of a touching up session on 9681's bodywork and getting rid of the brightwork on the wheel rims and coupling rods, then uncycling lions courtesy of HMRS, then a bit of weathering, and she'll be ready to pose for her photo.  We need lamp irons and the hooks on the bunker as well.  The shedmaster at Tondu has just rung to thank me for supplying him with another loco to cover Cwmdimbath's traffic requirements, but took the opportunity, as he always does lately, to remind me that he cannot cover the afternoon colliery clearance, target U23, without pinching a 56xx from another job and possibly another depot; 6604 from Treherbert has been noted on the working recently.  He wants another 42xx, which he isn't going to get, but will be happy with a 94xx at a push.  But please, he says, no more 57s or 8750s; he has enough of those now, despite the fact that you can never have enough of those...

 

In the meantime, there's overtime tonight at Cwmdimbath; the station must remain staffed and the box open to cope with a pigeon special charter for Ogmore Forest Fanciers.  4166 is booked for it, the traincrew also being on overtime for the job.  They will work to Llandeilo Junction, where they are to be relieved by a Llanelli crew; the birds are to be released in the morning from Pembroke Dock.  When Tondu will see it's refugee from Tyseley again is anyone's guess, but so long as there are no issues with 4145 she won't be missed until 4145's boiler washout at the weekend.  

 

Strangely, these two locos have never appeared at Cwmdimbath simultaneously, probably because they've only got one chassis between them...

[The Johnster]

It's just occurred to me that I could temporarily withdraw 5756 from service and use her chassis under the 94xx until a new donor is found, especially as 5756 is less fussy about which exact version of the Mainline/Replica/Bachmann GW 0-6-0 sits under her ducky little body.  

 

Stop it Johnster, one thing at a time, let's get 9681 fettled and running first, before we start messing around with a loco which runs fine as she is!

[The Johnster]

9681's ducky but ancient little body has now been touched up with matt black paint, and the brightwork on the wheel rims and coupling rods dealt with.  She has also acquired unicycling lions and a splash of matt varnish to seal them in, but I am too tired now to embark on the lamp irons.  Interestingly, and perhaps a little surprisingly, she runs slower at any given voltage than the more recent 5756 (originally 7739), so has the potential to be an even better slow runner when she is run in.  If the condition of the drive train and stub axles is an indication, the chassis is not a particularly 'high mileage' one and should give many years of service; should outlast Johnster!  If I can get a couple of clear hours in the railway room tomorrow, and at the moment there is no reason I can't, we could have the lamp irons and bunker hooks done and only be awaiting the number plates for a finished loco.  Further detail work could involve new buffers and a proper smokebox dart.

Edited June 21, 2018 by The Johnster

[DCB]

Looks like I will soon have to follow suit and adapt a 57xx chassis to our 94xx. Originally I'd hoped to use a spare front/rear driver in the middle slot and drill out the rods to accept a bolt, but testing has been less than successful!

You probably need the coupling rod screw and boss from an old Triang Jinty, the 1970s to 90s version. The threaded Brass Boss pushes out of the wheel centre,and can be glued to the Lima wheel. 

 

The only good thing about the old Lima Chassis 94 was getting it on a hump in the track and having the wheels spin uselessly as it sat there impotent!

[The Johnster]

Looks like I will soon have to follow suit and adapt a 57xx chassis to our 94xx. Originally I'd hoped to use a spare front/rear driver in the middle slot and drill out the rods to accept a bolt, but testing has been less than successful!

 

I'd say the Bachmann 57xx route is definitely the way to go, Corbs.  There is little of merit in the Lima chassis, a poor performer and very jerky slow runner that fills the loco's cab with motor, and carries no detail at all.  It is actually from a J50, for which the fluted coupling rods are more suitable, but the centre drivers are not connected in any way, and the wheels, very coarse and with the wrong number of spokes, have no balance weights (I suppose it is not difficult to make these up out of plasticard, but not with the correct rivet detail).  The gear cogs are visible at the back of the driving wheel, as are the spur gears connecting to it.  It's as if Lima tried to make a reasonably accurate model for the time with the body, but their toy train division was responsible for the rest of the loco.

 

There is quite a bit of fairly intricate work, as opposed to the crude butchery I have been doing on my 94xx, involved in trying to get a crankpin on to the centre drivers, correctly aligned for the hole you have to drill in the coupling rods, and who knows what faffing about with spacers and washers. and, while it might save you a bit of money, I reckon the 57xx conversion is much easier and very much more likely to end in a satisfactory model.

 

Abandon the shibboleths and false prophets of working up the Lima chassis, Corbs, and be one of us.  One of us, one of us...

[tomparryharry]

I'd say the Bachmann 57xx route is definitely the way to go, Corbs.  There is little of merit in the Lima chassis, a poor performer and very jerky slow runner that fills the loco's cab with motor, and carries no detail at all.  It is actually from a J50, for which the fluted coupling rods are more suitable, but the centre drivers are not connected in any way, and the wheels, very coarse and with the wrong number of spokes, have no balance weights (I suppose it is not difficult to make these up out of plasticard, but not with the correct rivet detail).  The gear cogs are visible at the back of the driving wheel, as are the spur gears connecting to it.  It's as if Lima tried to make a reasonably accurate model for the time with the body, but their toy train division was responsible for the rest of the loco.

 

There is quite a bit of fairly intricate work, as opposed to the crude butchery I have been doing on my 94xx, involved in trying to get a crankpin on to the centre drivers, correctly aligned for the hole you have to drill in the coupling rods, and who knows what faffing about with spacers and washers. and, while it might save you a bit of money, I reckon the 57xx conversion is much easier and very much more likely to end in a satisfactory model.

 

Abandon the shibboleths and false prophets of working up the Lima chassis, Corbs, and be one of us.  One of us, one of us...

I agree with pretty much all of that. One of the upsides is the amount of space you create. You can safely add a pound of lead sheet into the boiler space, and still see under the tanks. Traction value is well enhanced. One slight downside is the angle of the brake hangers, in relation to the chassis. The 57/87xx brake is fairly vertical: The 94xx has the brake hangers angled forward on something like 22-27 degrees. Not much, but enough to notice.

 

If the final perception doesn't work out, the High Level kit seems a fairly safe bet. I've got an ancient Wills Finecast kit tootling about here, just dying to get built....

[The Johnster]

Or play the long game and wait for the Bachmann 94xx.  This should, when it eventually puts in an appearance, be a pretty good model!  But it's 3 years since it was announced and, while the online catalogue shows the model in the form of a prototype photo and does not continue to embarrass itself by suggesting a delivery date, which suggests to me that things are still in the design stage, it could easily be another 3 years; they were suggesting next September at one time but things have gone a bit quiet and given the track record I am suspicious.

[chrisf]

Or play the long game and wait for the Bachmann 94xx. 

 

No.  Do some good honest modelling.

 

Chris

[The Johnster]

Never! Well, alright, sometimes, if I must and when there's no alternative...

 

Some progress has been made tonight, alongside work on the new 8750; 2 coats of black acrylic and the holes drilled for the lamp brackets.  Once the acrylic has gone off, I will get on with filling the footsteps on the rh bunker side (I've already cut the steps off and the holes need filling; millitput), and a bit more cutting off of moulded handrails.  I am out of knobs at the moment, and may use some from the surplus 57xx body!

 

The 8750, 9681, has had her final coat of light weathering and holes drilled for lamp brackets, along with the bunker brackets being fitted, a superglue job.  Both locos are proceeding steadily, but of course 9681 has the advantage of being a running model.  I should finish her lamp brackets later this evening and possibly the 94xx brackets as well.  We don't have an identity for this loco yet, and the final choice may depend on what numbers are available, but 8448 is a favourite at the moment, a Tondu loco apparently for all of her short life, delivered new to the shed and withdrawn from it.  I doubt it ever carried the second type of BR totem.

Edited June 22, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

I have been studying Google images of 94xx online, and have spotted two slightly different positions for the BR totems.  The more common appears to be with the end of the totem in line with the point at which the tank side handrail ends about 18 inches or so above it, but some have the totem placed a little further forward with it's centre line in line with the centre of the safety valve cover; I have called these the 'rearward and 'forward' positions for my own usage.  As I say, 'rearward' seems to outnumber 'forward' by about 2 to 1, but less so with the post 1958 totem, though still representing the majority of photographed locos.

 

I will be applying the totems to 8448, assuming this is going to be the final identity of the loco, in the 'rearward' postition.

 

Onwards and upwards, or at least sideways!

[Corbs]

Got any pics, mister?

[The Johnster]

Actually, I am talking rubbish, not for the first time, and confusing pictures of models with the totem in too far forward a position, Lima's black livery version, with actual locos.  My excuse is that I have been spending far too much time looking at photos of 94xx lately, and I've still managed to put my red spot route availability too high up on the wrong side of a row of rivets.  The correct position for both types of token is on a common centre line with the safety valve cover, but this is not obvious in some photos and you need a side on view to really see what is going on.

 

I've put the transfers on this evening and I am fairly happy that they are not too far out; please try to ignore my red spots!

 

Don't laugh, you'll all be old and useless like me one day...

[The Johnster]

Spent an hour or so trawling eBay for a suitable chassis; I reckon what I am looking for is one with NEM couplers, which limits the choice a bit but they are out there!  But there are several panniers up for sale which might be suitable but have been fitted with Kaydee or scale couplers, so I can't tell.  I will be working to the principle that any Bachmann 8750 is not suitable, however, as I know this model has not been in the catalogue for a while and probably pre-dates NEM fitted Bachmanns.  I've done a bit more fettling on the body, not much because it's been too nice a day to not sit out on the patio, but I did some removal of handrails and tidying up where I have butchered about beneath the body.  The repaint has made a big difference to the look of the body, and I am already convincing myself it has a more scale appearance.  

[The Johnster]

8448 looks like a non flyer at the moment, but Fox apparently do plates for 8497 and 8498, both Tondu locos, so the new girl will be one of these in all probability.  Both were built by RSH in November 1952 and delivered new to Tondu, so are suitable for my time period.

 

A slight drawback with these and the 24/7 developments plates is that the smokebox number plates are etched as well, but not painted; they should have white numbers not shiny metal ones even if that does look a bit classier.  It makes a lot of difference to the front view of the loco in my view.

Edited June 24, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Have bought another 57xx on eBay, the last one not being a suitable chassis donor for the 94xx project though it provided me with an 8750 almost accidentally.  I lost one in a bidding war, and this time went 'buy it now', which has cost me probably a tenner more but momentum needs to be kept up; I want a 94xx NOW!!!  This one is, so far as can be ascertained by me anyway, the same as my current production Bachmann, with NEM couplers, and should fit fairly easily to the Lima body, though I will have to make a body mounting piece up at the bunker end.

 

It is in 1920s 'GREAT WESTERN' Egyptian Serif livery, but the body will be cut about a bit to provide a safety valve cover top, buffers, bunker back hooks, and possibly handrails for the 94xx, so what is left will probably be binned; this seems a pity, but I really have no use for it except as a parts donor.

 

It should arrive Wednesday or Thursday; no modelling will be done on Thursday because it's SWMBO's birthday and we have plans, but there should be some proper progress on my 94xx soon!

 

I doubt I'll bother with auctions on eBay in future; I am sure bargains can be had and the other chassis donor was some £18 cheaper, but it suck time which I'd rather spend operating, or building 94s.

Edited July 1, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

I can't see any difference between the buffer beams on 57xx and 94xx classes, and will therefore be replacing the entire beams, complete with buffers, on my Lima 94xx body; there is no point in keeping the Lima buffers which are a bit mushroomy and undersize, and it will save having to fill a recess in the rear beam.  But I won't be doing this until the main work is finished and I can glue the two separate pieces of the Lima body securely together; the lower piece, especially now a lot of it is no longer there, having taken up an exciting new career in landfill, is a bit flimsy on it's own for this sort of brutality!

 

There is also the advantage that the new beams will have drawhooks, and better vac pipes/bags, already fitted.