Lima/Bachmann 94xx conversion.

[tomparryharry]

On my own conversion, I've used the older, split frame chassis. By using the Lima bottom portion, I can get about a pound of lead right on top of the main drivers. It does need a new cab footplate to cover up the large gap where the Lima pancake motor used to live, but that's not a problem for our inventive readers. Hopefully this coming week is to finish off the handrails, and find & fix the smokebox dart. It appears that Modelmaster Jackson do numberplates for 3408, so an order beckons.

 

If I can work out my 'phone, I'll post up some photos.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

On my own conversion, I've used the older, split frame chassis. By using the Lima bottom portion, I can get about a pound of lead right on top of the main drivers. It does need a new cab footplate to cover up the large gap where the Lima pancake motor used to live, but that's not a problem for our inventive readers. Hopefully this coming week is to finish off the handrails, and find & fix the smokebox dart. It appears that Modelmaster Jackson do numberplates for 3408, so an order beckons.

 

If I can work out my 'phone, I'll post up some photos.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

 

Thanks Ian.  I've just discovered that a surplus door from a Ratio Nissen Hut kit is perfect material for the cab/bunker floor.  I will not have as much ballast room as you, but there is still a good bit of space in the smokebox and panniers, and I intend to use the bunker ballast from a 57xx, so's I've got some detail for the back wall of the cab, so I'll have to remove the plastic coal from the 94xx.  If this all comes off. I'll be cutting out the sliding cab side sheets to improve the view; if it doesn't I'll be extending them further back!  Ballast will be 'liquid lead', mixed with PVA; my haulage requirements are not great and the chassis will haul my loaded coal train as it is, but the heavier I can make it the better the running will no doubt be, and you never know, I might need to pull more one day..

 

Good to hear about 3408.  I reckon you'll be fully complete long before me, but I'm going to be putting my loco into service before that, and adding handrails and the dart later as opportunity permits; the dart has not been sourced yet.  But the cab is definitely the next order of work, as once it is completed it will be effectively sealed in, so as much detail and crew as I can manage has to go in this week.  I could have the body on the chassis and the front coupling sorted by next w/e, but in this weather there are all sorts of distractions!

 

I transfer photos from the phone to my big computer before posting them; it's an easier procedure.  But it took me a good while to work out how to do it, so I sympathise.

Edited July 7, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Did a bit of potching about with it later yesterday evening.  I have decided against replacing the buffer beams; the Bachmann 57xx ones are much better but it's a faffy job and the 94xx is only temporary for the next 20 years while Bachmann get their finger out.  The Bachmann sprung buffers on 8709 were a simple pull out with pliers, and a bit of application with the same implement removed the buffer heads and shanks from the Lima body, leaving stubs of the housings to be cut and filed down.  The holes left behind are not big enough for the Baccy buffers, but it's the sort of job I can do later out on the patio with a rat tail file.  Trial dry running with the body sitting on the chassis shows a crankpin or something is fouling somewheres, so that must be investigated to prevent the loco from bunnyhopping along in a rather amusing but not particularly realistic way.

 

Vac bags have also been removed from 8709 ready for glueing to 8497.  A crew have been glued to the new cab floor, which is fixed to the chassis behind the worm, and I am probably going to give up on my proposed bunker front inside cab detail; the casting from the Bachmann fouls on a plastic relief inside the LIma and will be very awkward to fit.  So I may be going for the sliding shutters fully closed look, quite effective on my 8750 and not improbable in the prevalent climate of the central Glamorgan valleys; if it's not raining it's about to!

 

Fitting glazing to the cab front windows in my normal way, back glazing with clear plastic can't be done, requires very faffy cut to fit pieces because of the relief of the moulding here, and the location is awkward to get my fat chubby sausage fingers into, so I am going to be looking at alternative methods.  I will not be happy compromising on this, as I have always glazed my cab windows even back in my Rovex Princess days.  I think a loco looks scrapped without them.  

 

This may cause a bit of delay, as it will have to be done before the body goes on; it is to be semi-permanently fixed with pound shop superglue and once it's on and the loco is running smoothly I want to leave it alone as much as possible.  The same would apply to the alternative fixing method, self tapping screws into plastic brackets, as there will be a limited number of times the screws can be tightened home before the tap thread wears.

Edited July 8, 2018 by The Johnster

[exet1095]

Thanks Ian. I've just discovered that a surplus door from a Ratio Nissen Hut kit is perfect material for the cab/bunker floor. I will not have as much ballast room as you, but there is still a good bit of space in the smokebox and panniers, and I intend to use the bunker ballast from a 57xx, so's I've got some detail for the back wall of the cab, so I'll have to remove the plastic coal from the 94xx. If this all comes off. I'll be cutting out the sliding cab side sheets to improve the view; if it doesn't I'll be extending them further back! Ballast will be 'liquid lead', mixed with PVA; my haulage requirements are not great and the chassis will haul my loaded coal train as it is, but the heavier I can make it the better the running will no doubt be, and you never know, I might need to pull more one day..

 

Good to hear about 3408. I reckon you'll be fully complete long before me, but I'm going to be putting my loco into service before that, and adding handrails and the dart later as opportunity permits; the dart has not been sourced yet. But the cab is definitely the next order of work, as once it is completed it will be effectively sealed in, so as much detail and crew as I can manage has to go in this week. I could have the body on the chassis and the front coupling sorted by next w/e, but in this weather there are all sorts of distractions!

 

I transfer photos from the phone to my big computer before posting them; it's an easier procedure. But it took me a good while to work out how to do it, so I sympathise.

Don’t mix PVA and ‘liquid lead’. You’ll get a chemical reaction between them, forming lead acetate, which will swell and split your body. Fix in place with a different type of glue... Edited July 8, 2018 by exet1095

[tomparryharry]

Don’t mix PVA and ‘liquid lead’. You’ll get a chemical reaction between them, forming lead acetate, which will swell and split your body. Fix in place with a different type of glue...

I just use lead sheet in this application. I have used superglue, as long as the lead is clean. The other stuff is called Lead Mate, which is probably too expensive for a commercial application. I also have some steel shot powder, but I haven't used it yet.

[The Johnster]

Don’t mix PVA and ‘liquid lead’. You’ll get a chemical reaction between them, forming lead acetate, which will swell and split your body. Fix in place with a different type of glue...

 

Thank you for the warning; I will try a different approach.  I got away with it in the bunker of my 2721, ballasted with liquid lead sealed with 50/50 Water/PVA, with a layer of proper coal on top.  I assume any swelling was channelled in an upward direction and had run it's course before the PVA went off and I put the coal on; Liquid Lead in the panniers of a 94xx would be a much greater mass and potentially more of a problem.  So I will have to find different means of sealing the Liquid Lead or a different material; current thinking is to make a cake of LL and Milliput and use that.

[Corbs]

AFAIK The swelling can happen months/years down the line (?) 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Depends on the quality of the PVA. Slow hydrolysis can occur on inferior formulations and that can lead to the longer term reaction trouble with lead. However the effect on sheet or lump lead is minimal in my experience. It is the high surface area ratio of the small lead shot that is sold as 'liquid lead' that is a major factor in this problem. So not only do you pay more for less density but get a potential failure mode built in. Be solid, cheaper and more reliable. Enjoyable work out hammering it into shape.

 

I use dabs of Evostick for securing sheet or lump lead. Strong enough to hold, easy to break if the lead needs to be removed; whether to mangle the model into another form, or when getting rid to prevent potentially exposing children to the stuff.

[The Johnster]

Oh, bloody 'ell.  Ok, that's another job, get the ballast out of 2761's bunker and re-do it.

 

Minor progress on 94xx; buffers and vac bags in place.  I am vacillating a bit about fixing methods; the body sits correctly at the front but a level is difficult to establish at the back, so if I'm going ahead with glueing it and breaking the bond every time I take it off it has to be dead right first time. so I'm veering in favour of self tappers and spacers until I get it right, despite what I said about self tappers.  But progress is progress, and I am fairly happy with the state of affairs at the moment.

[jcm@gwr]

Despite what you have said about the potential problems

with self-tappers, the trick is not to tighten them to much.

After all, most of the major R-T-R locos have them.

 

The alternative is to bond in a nut (or bolt) and then you

won't have any long term problems, but you might have

to use a shake-proof washer. 

[The Johnster]

Nothing set in stone yet, Jeff, and I'm going to have to break my current glue fixing anyway to get back in there to glaze the front cab windows by the look of things.  More vacillation; don't like the feel of the model without ballast in it and still think she'll run better with, though as I say performance is smooth and quiet with good slow running and enough haulage for my layout.  I may well re-instate the original 57xx lead ballast pieces that came with 8709, which means cutting out what look like mouldings for some sort of screw fitting in the inside of the Lima panniers; they seem not to have ever had any functional purpose.  The fat lady is nowhere near singing yet!

 

I am still a little wary of self tappers, though; where they are used on RTR they are usually into solid plastic which mine won't be, and usually not in applications where they are removed and replaced with any great frequency.  The captive nut and bolt idea is appealing, though.

Edited July 10, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

The still numberless 8497 has hauled a pickup and will shortly be undertaking shunting trials with it; I have temporarily glued on a front coupling and the loco should have no problems with any of my stock.  It's main task will be the coal traffic, shared with 4214 and releasing 6602 for more general work; the B set and parcels traffic.  I can now consider myself to have sufficient locos to run the traffic allowing for 2 to be allocated to coal duties, one morning shift and one afternoon.  

[Horsetan]

I like these text-only descriptions. It makes modelling a bit like listening to a Radio 4 drama. There are no pictures, so you have to use your imagination as to what's going on.....

[tomparryharry]

I like these text-only descriptions. It makes modelling a bit like listening to a Radio 4 drama. There are no pictures, so you have to use your imagination as to what's going on.....

 

Over here, its a mix up between the shipping forecast, farming today, and the Navy Lark. "Left hand down a bit, number two....."

[The Johnster]

Left hand down a bit it is, sir.

 

Photo (not that I'm claiming it to be a particularly good one) of 8497 just pulled up in the loop with the pickup earlier this evening (about 10.30 am Cwmdimbath WTT time) over on Layout Topics/South Wales In The 1950s.  The shunting was carried out smoothly, but she feels a tad hesitant when we are going very slowly, and needs ballasting I think, for smoothness rather than haulage of my tiny trains.  

 

The couplings are quite far back because the body is longer than a 57xx, the rear one in it's original dovetail but protrudes out of the back sufficiently, and the front one glued on to match, and mean we are very close to locking buffers on the sharpest curve, the inside radius of a Hornby 2nd/3rd curved righthander in the fiddle yard, and propelling is probably not possible here with longer wheelbases, but there will be no issue with the coal trains.  She is fine on the rest of the pointwork, Peco Streamline small radius in the fiddle yard and medium on the scenic part of the layout, and I successfully propelled wagons through the reverse curves of the loco release with her.  

 

My policy is that all stock should be able to be hauled and propelled by all locos anywhere on the layout, but I can live with this anomaly.  The 2 fiddle yard roads accessed by the no.2 curved part of the turnout are used for the pickup stock;  the coal trains are an outside radius affair with the longest fiddle yard roads.

[St Enodoc]

Depends on the quality of the PVA. Slow hydrolysis can occur on inferior formulations and that can lead to the longer term reaction trouble with lead. However the effect on sheet or lump lead is minimal in my experience. It is the high surface area ratio of the small lead shot that is sold as 'liquid lead' that is a major factor in this problem. So not only do you pay more for less density but get a potential failure mode built in. Be solid, cheaper and more reliable. Enjoyable work out hammering it into shape.

 

I use dabs of Evostick for securing sheet or lump lead. Strong enough to hold, easy to break if the lead needs to be removed; whether to mangle the model into another form, or when getting rid to prevent potentially exposing children to the stuff.

UHU Is good (other adhesives are available).

[The Johnster]

Ballasting now done.  I used the tank ballast from 8709 in the end, which I had to cut the front part off of with a hacksaw, glued inside the tanks with superglue, liquid lead in the smokebox sealed in with a plug of Milliput, and another lump of Milliput in the bunker; the loco feels much better and seem more sure of herself on dead frogs.  I might have a go at the filler caps and safety valve cover later, and will be going to town tomoz in search of liquid glazing for the cab spectacles.  We are sort of on the home stretch for this project now, at least as far as the basics are concerned. and I'm fairly happy that nothing too desperately bad can happen now; the body fits the chassis and the loco runs well enough.  I will probably continue to work it up with minor improvements until the Bachmann replaces it (I'll just swap the number plates over).  8709's chassis form this will replace the one under my 8750 when this happens, as that is the oldest and least smooth running (it's still not that bad) of my current Mainline/Replica/Bachmann pannier chassis.  I could use this latter mentioned's chassis beneath 2761 and scrap the Hornby one, but the coupling rods are wrong; the running of this loco is adequate at best...

 

But I'm still a bit teed off with Bachmann for their continued delayed introduction of a loco promised in 2015, and one I regard as an essential loco for my layout, he says sounding like an entitled millenial.  Especially as Baccy seems to have reacted to this sort of project by refusing to sell the running chassis as they used to; they say this is in the quest for financial efficiency, but it reeks of restrictive marketing to me! Baccy's 94xx will run rings around my loco in every respect if it ever materialises, so they will make the same sale they would have anyway, but I have memories of waiting 20 years for a Peco Roadrailer that never turned up despite being a perennial 'to be introduce' in the catalogue, and am suspicious of catalogue entries that show artist's impressions, line drawings, or prototype photos; we are still at the prototype photo stage with the Baccy 94xx and they had quietly removed the 'expected' date last time I looked, not even bothering to replace it with 'TBA'.  I've been had like this before!

 

So I am not at all displeased to have this interim solution, and most grateful for the help I've had from youse guys in the topic; nobody will mind, I am sure, if I give a special mention to Ian Tomparryharry who donated the body and is engaged in a similar project of his own.  It has been a satisfying project and I have proved that I can still bodge and kit bash with the best of them; a more or less useless toy has been transformed into a loco which, while not perfect, is good enough for my purposes.  The main drawbacks to my view are the wrongly positioned front splasher, the inability to remove the coal from the bunker without major surgery, and the lack of a front to the bunker in the cab; the latter two are solvable with a lot of effort and I won't be bothering.  

 

The new chassis has the bonus of cab backhead detail from the 57xx, with the differences being so small as to not be relevant, and this has lifted this area of the model into a different league; don't forget the Lima iteration of the loco had a cab full of plastic ringfield and spur gears visible below the footplate, not to mention fluted coupling rods attached to the end wheels only, the centre 'drivers' doing nothing, with coarse flanges and no balance weights.  It had no real pretensions to running quality and a top speed only slightly slower than a Higgs-Boson; if you kept it scrupulously clean you could get it to run controllably down to about 30mph scale on a good day.  It is best off in landfill.  I have a reasonable, though by no means accurate, representation of a 94xx, which looks the part, runs well, and pulls the trains I want it to pull.  

 

And, I've accidentally acquired an 8750 sort of by mistake; Happy Bunny here!

Edited July 12, 2018 by The Johnster

[tomparryharry]

I think we've covered old ground here: Cost, tooling, detail, era, all take the 94xx out of Bachmanns business model. They know they'll take a pasting if they get it wrong, and there are easier pickings elsewhere. To currently have a 94xx, means that you'll start with a Bachmann pannier. I wonder who sells them? Let me see... Oh yes! Bachmann!

 

 

I still think we're quite a few years away from the 94xx. It's a tallish order to reasonably buy a £150-ish tank locomotive. Of course, I'll stand to be corrected....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

 

BTW. Nice to see you're nearly finished, Johnster. Some photos, perchance?

[Horsetan]

....still think we're quite a few years away from the 94xx.

Give it a decade. Maybe two.

 

It's a tallish order to reasonably buy a £150-ish tank locomotive. ...

Then again, by the time one appears, that may well be the average RRP for RTR tank engines.

[The Johnster]

Photos soon, Padawan, soon, be patient.  The safety valve and filler caps have been done, and she will be ready to pose for the camera once the cab windows are in and the right hand bunker steps have been filled.  She will still have some moulded handrails and smokebox dart, and no numbers pending ordering them from King's X or maybe Modelu.  If I can get the window material sourced tomoz, and a clear run at it on Sunday pm (gig with the band, one of my other lives, on Saturday), I may pose her 'finished for now' on the stub siding for a comparison shot with the pure Lima version you gave me.  Some touching up of the black livery needs doing as well; she's currently got green filler caps from 8709.

 

I haven't made a start on the bunker back hooks yet, either.  8709 will be donating these, which are also green!  A young lady want's to look her best for the camera, after all!

 

Give it a decade. Maybe two.


Then again, by the time one appears, that may well be the average RRP for RTR tank engines.

At my age, two decades is close to being enough to permanently remove any say I have in the matter!  I would imagine that the 94xx will be at the higher end of the range of RTR 0-6-0 tanks price wise, and in Bachmann's pricing range will probably come in at £20 more than the 64xx whatever that costs at the time; I believe the 57xx is not currently being produced and expect it to be replaced by an 8750 version after the 94xx has had it's bite of the market cherry.  Then we might get a 74xx, or a later production square cab/bunker corner 64xx, but the crystal ball is getting very murky now, the spirits are becoming impatient and the veil is closing...

 

It is difficult to guess what prices might be in a year or so, never mind further down the line, but they will very definitely be rising as labour costs increase in China.  It is even possible that the situation will develop so that UK labour costs and overheads are cheaper and production returns here, but probably not in this decade, or the next; we're back to those 2 decades again, and my departure from the situaion!

Edited July 12, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Nowt done today; s'been to damn 'ot, but if I get a clear run tomorrow Ian might get his promised photos.  There's nowhere in the Capital City of Wales to obtain Krystal Klear or any similar stuff for glazing the cab windows; Peter Lord says he's getting some in next week, so that's an excuse for a trip down the shop, and who knows what I'll bring home...

 

Cost of project so far, not counting first donor loco which ended up as an 8750 and should therefore be accounted for separately; £55 for donor 8709, everything else in stock anyway, plus Krystal Klear bought for this project and therefore chargeable to it, and number plates.  Say £70 all in for a reasonably passable 94xx which is a very good runner; people have probably done it for a good bit less, but my lack of patience regarding donor locos and eventual 'buy it now' purchase rather than bidding has cost me; fair enough!  It'll do, as is, pending the Bachmann, and I will continue to work up handrails, dart, rear cab window etch, etc, which may take the eventual overall to nearer £85.  Add my labour and skill, then discount that in total because I've enjoyed doing a good old fashioned bit of kit bashing/proper modelling, though if there'd been more problems or an outright failure, especially one that was my fault, it's be a different story!

 

The 8750, which also does not have plates yet, will end up costing about £40-45, but is more of a straight chassis replacement job.  Basically I've managed to obtain two panniers for around the cost of one Baccy 94xx (if it doesn't go up in price before it appears, which it probably will), so I'm not unsatisfied with the state of play...

 

But I'm an impoverished pensioner, and am feeling some relief that I have nearly obtained all the expensive locos I need now before they start hitting the £200+ mark!

Edited July 14, 2018 by The Johnster

[stevegr]

I may have missed it but here's my bit.

 

The Lima body has bunker steps on both sides of the bunker, when they should only be on the Firemans or left from front side.  

[timbowilts]

I may have missed it but here's my bit.

 

The Lima body has bunker steps on both sides of the bunker, when they should only be on the Firemans or left from front side.  

It’s not only the Lima body that suffers this fault. To my surprise the Wills/SEF body kit also has this error!

 

Tim T

[The Johnster]

Finished for now, so here are before and after shots as promised.  Not perfect, and work still to do; the main omission is the cab glazing, awaiting delivery at Lord and Butler later in the week, and the numberplates.  Some handrails are still mouldy, and the smokebox dart needs replacing, as does the rear cab windows, and the photo is very cruel to my filler caps and safety valve cover; doesn't look anything like that bad in reality (though of course it is).  Red spot route restriction needs re-applying after I put it in the wrong place, but she was ready for her photo, so...

 

It'll do till Bachman turn up a better model.

 

Thanks again for the kickstart, Ian, and I hope my butchery of your old 94xx meets with less than your complete disapproval

[The Johnster]

I may have missed it but here's my bit.

 

The Lima body has bunker steps on both sides of the bunker, when they should only be on the Firemans or left from front side.  

 

Filled with Milliput, and the surplus handrails on that side, bunker and cab roof, removed early on in the project, but thank you anyway Stevegr.  I have an idea Lima copied a mistake made by Graham Farish on their previous 00 gauge diecast model; this also had a rather odd safety valve cover that was green at the bottom and brass at the top!

Edited July 15, 2018 by The Johnster