R.T.R. Chassis suitable for using with kits ?

[micklner]

I have struggled to find any wheel etc dimensions on any Locos other than from the LNER Forum site. 

 

In order to save some time and on occasions make use of existing excellent mechanisms , it would be a great help if a list can be made here, comparing available  r.t.r chassis's can be made to work in kits.

 

One recent thread I have read, mentions using the Bachmann E4 0-6-2  chassis on a LNER kit for the N8  0-6-2. 

 

Similar info would be most useful please !!

 

One attempt which wasted time and money on, was buying the Bachmann LMS 2-4-2 tank which I hoped would be ok for a LNER F8 , sadly wrong wheelbase. I was unable to find any information anywhere on its dimensions before buying the LMS version.

 

 

Thanks for any suggestions. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by micklner

[The Johnster]

Before embarking on such a list, one would need to define what the parameters of suitability were.  Are a different number of wheel spokes to the prototype, or a different frame profile, or fluted coupling rods that should be plain, or visible motor/gears beneath the boiler, or any other number of deviations from scale appearance, acceptable, and to what extent?

 

Googling the class of loco you are considering will give you driving wheel but probably not trailing wheel diameters, and a general arrangement side elevation drawing, which can sometimes be found in Google Images, will give you the distances between axles, as will a good side-on photo at a push.  This latter measurement was often to a limited number of standard distances between completely different railways' Victorian 6 coupled types; the Victorian 0-6-0 was a remarkably standardised beast that often looked radically different according to railway or company supplying it, but was very much the same thing under the skin when it came to wheelbases, and the positioning of cylinders or fireboxes between the axles.

 

But simply shoehorning an RTR chassis underneath a kit body is not as easy as it might at first appear, unless the kit was specifically designed for that chassis, like the Wills/SE range originally for Hornby Dublo chassis; these now have their own ranged of bespoke chassis kits.  The 'sit' of the body, which must be level and the correct height or the loco will look very odd, on a chassis it was not designed for may be difficult to achieve without either a lot of filing or a lot of packing, and the clearance of RTR chassis wheels in kit splashers will often be a problem, especially if you want the loco to run around set track curves.  Brass or whitematal bodies may give you short circuits, and you may well have clearance problems fitting the RTR mechanisms in to the kit bodies, as I found some years ago trying to fit a Cotswold whitemetal Taff Vale rebuilt A on to a Mainline Collett Goods mechanism; in some cases the work required will be more onerous and complex than building a kit chassis!

 

And, of course, the finer detail will be wrong.  Wheels will have the wrong number or profile of spokes, coupling rods will be fluted where they should be plain and vice versa, and brakes and brake rodding will be in the wrong places.  

 

In the end it comes down to Rule 1, of course.  I have an ancient Mainline 57xx pannier which has been converted to an 8750 with a K's cab that has been resuscitated and given cab detail courtesy of a Bachmann chassis spare from a 64xx I no longer needed; this is not strictly correct for the loco; the frame profile is wrong and the wheels do not align perfectly with the splashers, not to mention that the firebox backhead is fractionally too small, being for a 64xx.  The same can be said for my 94xx, which has a Lima body and a 57xx Bachmann chassis, though I am content with both locos (but the Limbach 94xx will be replaced when the new Bachmann is eventually available).  They both pass muster at a normal viewing distance and are at least as good as my Hornby 2721, which has an entirely wrong generic 0-6-0 chassis derived from the Jinty, for which it is also not to scale; this leads to other issues including that the body will not fit a Bachmann Jinty/1F chassis as that is to scale.  And this is on the GWR, a railway that claimed to have standardised everything!

 

Fixing your chassis to a body not designed for it may be a problem as well, as the screw holes will not align and there may be motor or gearbox components in the way of a freshly drilled and tapped hole.  I cheat, and use Pound Shop superglue, which holds the bodies on and enables you to pick the loco up, but can be easily enough levered apart with a screwdriver if you need to get inside the loco for anything.

Edited December 3, 2018 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It's difficult in a number of ways as 'The Johnster' suggests. Call me crude, but my interest is getting to a running model as simply as possible, and I rather feel that those prepared to adapt are most likely to wink at small deviations in spoke count and side rod appearance. I like the information share aspect, and will enter what I have available if a 'sticky' thread could be started somewhere appropriate. (I would suggest 'Motor and Drive Systems' in the 'Skills and knowledge centre' as the best location.) It will need two tables I think.

 

One for prototype dimensions: wheelbase, wheel diameters,  boiler centre line and diameter(s), P(lain) or T(aper), B(elpaire) or R(oundtop) at minimum. It can have a reference to the second table entries which are potential best fits.

 

The second table for the RTR mechanisms: wheelbase, wheel diameters, height to top of mechanism, maximum width of mechanism

 

The need for this is pretty obvious as 'SomethingTrainlover's thread asking about the prospect of getting a  Hornby 4F mech into the Shapeways L&YR class 28 body illustrates.

 

My somewhat specialist subject is the inside cylinder 0-6-0. The fundamental information is Crewe (Ramsbottom) used 7'3"+8'3" and Derby (Kirtley?) used 8'+8'6", and a great number of pre-group railways followed one or the other, and some then subsequently varied from these dimensions. (At this point we must mention the bastardly 'universal' mechanism by Hornby scaling 7'9"+ 8'3" and thus pretty much wrong for any UK prototype: I did ask whether it actually was correct fit for anything - this in the distant past - don't recall now if there was ever an answer.)

 

Usefully the GWR copied Crewe's 0-6-0 format for their properly gauged 0-6-0s, so the long term availability of scale models of GW panniers supplies mechanisms for much more interesting locos. The ex-GNR LNER J52 as one example, and I'll probably repurpose an Oxford Rail Dean goods mech to power an ex-GNR LNER J4 at some point.

[47137]

There is a book 'Wheel Specifications for the Modeller' by Mike Sharman, now published by the Scalefour Society. You can use it to find substitute prototypes with major dimensions you need, but I can only repeat from above you will likely find the wrong number of spokes on wheels.

 

If you find a RTR chassis with seemingly the right dimensions, do look at a cross-section of the new model to make sure there is space for the motor to go inside.

 

- Richard.

[ChrisH-UK]

Instead of a straight list (or a wiggly one) it might work if people were to add a little bit of narrative, something like "I used X to make Y. The wheelbases are 99% correct, to be accurate the wheels need to be swapped but it looks perfectly fine". A sentence, a paragraph or a link to a thread with the detail.

[micklner]

Before embarking on such a list, one would need to define what the parameters of suitability were.  Are a different number of wheel spokes to the prototype, or a different frame profile, or fluted coupling rods that should be plain, or visible motor/gears beneath the boiler, or any other number of deviations from scale appearance, acceptable, and to what extent?

 

Googling the class of loco you are considering will give you driving wheel but probably not trailing wheel diameters, and a general arrangement side elevation drawing, which can sometimes be found in Google Images, will give you the distances between axles, as will a good side-on photo at a push.  This latter measurement was often to a limited number of standard distances between completely different railways' Victorian 6 coupled types; the Victorian 0-6-0 was a remarkably standardised beast that often looked radically different according to railway or company supplying it, but was very much the same thing under the skin when it came to wheelbases, and the positioning of cylinders or fireboxes between the axles.

 

But simply shoehorning an RTR chassis underneath a kit body is not as easy as it might at first appear, unless the kit was specifically designed for that chassis, like the Wills/SE range originally for Hornby Dublo chassis; these now have their own ranged of bespoke chassis kits.  The 'sit' of the body, which must be level and the correct height or the loco will look very odd, on a chassis it was not designed for may be difficult to achieve without either a lot of filing or a lot of packing, and the clearance of RTR chassis wheels in kit splashers will often be a problem, especially if you want the loco to run around set track curves.  Brass or whitematal bodies may give you short circuits, and you may well have clearance problems fitting the RTR mechanisms in to the kit bodies, as I found some years ago trying to fit a Cotswold whitemetal Taff Vale rebuilt A on to a Mainline Collett Goods mechanism; in some cases the work required will be more onerous and complex than building a kit chassis!

 

And, of course, the finer detail will be wrong.  Wheels will have the wrong number or profile of spokes, coupling rods will be fluted where they should be plain and vice versa, and brakes and brake rodding will be in the wrong places.  

 

In the end it comes down to Rule 1, of course.  I have an ancient Mainline 57xx pannier which has been converted to an 8750 with a K's cab that has been resuscitated and given cab detail courtesy of a Bachmann chassis spare from a 64xx I no longer needed; this is not strictly correct for the loco; the frame profile is wrong and the wheels do not align perfectly with the splashers, not to mention that the firebox backhead is fractionally too small, being for a 64xx.  The same can be said for my 94xx, which has a Lima body and a 57xx Bachmann chassis, though I am content with both locos (but the Limbach 94xx will be replaced when the new Bachmann is eventually available).  They both pass muster at a normal viewing distance and are at least as good as my Hornby 2721, which has an entirely wrong generic 0-6-0 chassis derived from the Jinty, for which it is also not to scale; this leads to other issues including that the body will not fit a Bachmann Jinty/1F chassis as that is to scale.  And this is on the GWR, a railway that claimed to have standardised everything!

 

Fixing your chassis to a body not designed for it may be a problem as well, as the screw holes will not align and there may be motor or gearbox components in the way of a freshly drilled and tapped hole.  I cheat, and use Pound Shop superglue, which holds the bodies on and enables you to pick the loco up, but can be easily enough levered apart with a screwdriver if you need to get inside the loco for anything.

 

All good points . Plusses and minuses could be added to each chassis listed, and then the modeller can decide if it suitable for their needs. 

 

The demise of Mashima has caused quite a few problems for modellers and r.t.r if suitable , it is a very good alternative means of powering a Loco.

 

In the case of a kit any alterations can be made during the build of the body, if again viable.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Instead of a straight list (or a wiggly one) it might work if people were to add a little bit of narrative, something like "I used X to make Y. The wheelbases are 99% correct, to be accurate the wheels need to be swapped but it looks perfectly fine". A sentence, a paragraph or a link to a thread with the detail.

 

This sort of thing?

 

I needed a new mechanism for my circa 1970 Wills N7 body. A Bachmann 56xx donated its mechanism. Wheelbase 5% shorter than scale, driven wheel diameters at 'maximum wear'. Required fairly extensive reduction of the chassis block and much internal carving of the thick whitemetal body to get a fit, and best compromise appearance in my opinion was achieved by placing the leading driver centre about 4mm to rear of correct position. There's so much not quite right about the body dimensions of this very dated kit, that I haven't altered the trailing truck wheel position at all, what matters is that it now runs reliably.

 

(Just for fun I offered up the 56xx mechanism against the current Wills N7 kit. That won't do at all, as the far more accurate body reveals the wheelbase deviations very clearly!)

[Mark Saunders]

There are two questions for me!

 

How close is it to the one you want to model!

 

Can you live with the compromise?

 

Mark Saunders

[Les Bird]

I have had a K's Bodyline J50 kit on the then recommended Hornby Dublo R1 chassis for more years than I care to remember. Recently I have treated it to a Bachmann 57xx chassis. It looks a lot better, runs well and has full brake gear into the bargain. I haven't checked the number of spokes or the exact dimensions but it has to be an improvement on the R1.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Have you sawn off the combined brake rod and shunter's step on the Bach 57xx mechanism? Makes a major gain in appearance. The small infelicities in the K's body rather nicely disguise the 9" short wb.

 

The mech that once powered my K's body has now transferred to a Hornby J52 body, for which it is correct wb. Although of course the splashers are wrongly positioned thanks to that bastardly universal mechanism. But a compromise position looks well enough. Do I have the energy for a Iain Rice style splasherectomy and regraft to correct?

[The Johnster]

This sort of thing?

 

I needed a new mechanism for my circa 1970 Wills N7 body. A Bachmann 56xx donated its mechanism. Wheelbase 5% shorter than scale, driven wheel diameters at 'maximum wear'. Required fairly extensive reduction of the chassis block and much internal carving of the thick whitemetal body to get a fit, and best compromise appearance in my opinion was achieved by placing the leading driver centre about 4mm to rear of correct position. There's so much not quite right about the body dimensions of this very dated kit, that I haven't altered the trailing truck wheel position at all, what matters is that it now runs reliably.

 

(Just for fun I offered up the 56xx mechanism against the current Wills N7 kit. That won't do at all, as the far more accurate body reveals the wheelbase deviations very clearly!)

 

What did you do about the fishbelly coupling rods and massive 56xx counterbalance weight on the centre drivers; these would have been the dealbreakers for me.  I can put up with dimensional anomalies that would make many modellers' hair curl, witness my 2721, but have replaced it's chimney and safety valve cover as I found the originals visually offensive!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Nothing new here of course.

 

On a recent RMWeb thread there is a 1950s advert from Bonds for a range of 00 chassis (4 coupled, 6 coupled and 8 coupled) all available with various wheel sizes.

[Ravenser]

I have struggled to find any wheel etc dimensions on any Locos other than from the LNER Forum site. 

 

In order to save some time and on occasions make use of existing excellent mechanisms , it would be a great help if a list can be made here, comparing available  r.t.r chassis's can be made to work in kits.

 

One recent thread I have read, mentions using the Bachmann E4 0-6-2  chassis on a LNER kit for the N8  0-6-2. 

 

Similar info would be most useful please !!

 

One attempt which wasted time and money on, was buying the Bachmann LMS 2-4-2 tank which I hoped would be ok for a LNER F8 , sadly wrong wheelbase. I was unable to find any information anywhere on its dimensions before buying the LMS version.

 

 

Thanks for any suggestions. 

 

I would suggest looking online for drawings of the relevant class. And Wikipedia entries may offer some details, such as wheel diameters

 

For example a little work with Google turned up an online copy of the FJ Roche drawing for a Jinty, which I was able to rescale to 4mm by print/copy because it had the wheelbase dimensions marked on it (as a good drawing should)

 

(The intention is to fit a cheap Hornby 0-6-0 mechanism under a GBL body. As there is only one set of splashers I have a little flexibility to accommodate the reduced Hornby wheelbase. And in any case the Hornby wheels may necessitate butchering the splashers using some Brassmasters etches for the Bachmann Deeley 3F , which has slightly larger diameter wheels than the Jinty…. I'm aware the drawing is unlikely to be gospel, but nor will the model be)

[micklner]

I would suggest looking online for drawings of the relevant class. And Wikipedia entries may offer some details, such as wheel diameters

 

For example a little work with Google turned up an online copy of the FJ Roche drawing for a Jinty, which I was able to rescale to 4mm by print/copy because it had the wheelbase dimensions marked on it (as a good drawing should)

 

(The intention is to fit a cheap Hornby 0-6-0 mechanism under a GBL body. As there is only one set of splashers I have a little flexibility to accommodate the reduced Hornby wheelbase. And in any case the Hornby wheels may necessitate butchering the splashers using some Brassmasters etches for the Bachmann Deeley 3F , which has slightly larger diameter wheels than the Jinty…. I'm aware the drawing is unlikely to be gospel, but nor will the model be)

 

I have no problem with my models as all the LNER details are listed on the LNER Forum.

 

What I personally need is dimensions of anything not LNER based that could be useful in the future, as said before a Bachmann E4 on a LNER N8 Loco, again the comment I read gave no actual dimensions, to confirm that as being a correct useage ?.

 

 

Everybody.

 

Please list anything that has been used for conversion indicating make, wheel size and wheelbase, and any comments re balance weights etc and what is was used for and on what. That way a useful list can be created for everybody information.

 

e.g it has mentioned earlier Jinty and Pannier Tanks, personally I haven't a clue as to any of the above informatio nmentioned  relating to their dimensions etc ,as to what they could be used for.

 

thanks

 

Mick

[N15class]

The easiest way to over come these problems is to learn to assemble kit or scratch built frames. Then the world will be your oyster, it will also be so much quicker. I second the Sharman book. Though there are errors.

[Mikkel]

For what it's worth, attached are my spreadsheet notes on six-coupled RTR chassis. Not updated in the past 12 months or so, so newest releases may not be included.

 

six coupled rtr.xlsx

[Steamport Southport]

The easiest way to over come these problems is to learn to assemble kit or scratch built frames. Then the world will be your oyster, it will also be so much quicker. I second the Sharman book. Though there are errors.

 

The Sharman book was updated recently with many of the errors corrected.

 

 

http://stenlake.co.uk/book_publishing/?page_id=131&ref=1080&section=

 

 

 

Jason

[Jeff Smith]

Does anyone have any experience using the milled frames offered for a wide variety of locos by Gibson. Spacers are also available but I don't know if they are slot and tab assembly, I suspect not though.

 

Incidentally the Gibson downloadable catalogue has a lot of useful information on wheel sizes and spokes listed by locomotive. The frames have references to rtr/kit bodies but I believe it is a legacy list and does not include recent bodies.

[N15class]

The Sharman book was updated recently with many of the errors corrected.

 

 

http://stenlake.co.uk/book_publishing/?page_id=131&ref=1080&section=

 

 

 

Jason

Thanks

Better get a newer copy then.

[Steamport Southport]

Does anyone have any experience using the milled frames offered for a wide variety of locos by Gibson. Spacers are also available but I don't know if they are slot and tab assembly, I suspect not though.

 

Incidentally the Gibson downloadable catalogue has a lot of useful information on wheel sizes and spokes listed by locomotive. The frames have references to rtr/kit bodies but I believe it is a legacy list and does not include recent bodies.

 

I haven't used them yet but I bought a pair from a show a couple of years ago for a GEM Midland Compound. There aren't any fixing slots in the frames so I'm assuming they are done the same way as Comet spacers. In that you put the chassis in a jig and solder the spacers between the frames.

 

I also think that they would be suitable for drilling and using screws and tapped tube to fix as they are much thicker than etched chassis.

 

 

Be aware that they have the slots cut out for hornblocks. One of the reasons they've not been used yet as I want a bit more experience before building them.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

Re kit frames/chassis, it's a while since I've built any and my first was undertaken with some trepidation, a Westward 64xx.  I found it much easier and less terrifying once I got started, and would recommend having a go, though obviously if you can find a suitable RTR chassis for your project and it runs well enough, that's the way to go!

Edited December 5, 2018 by The Johnster

[N15class]

From my experience in 4mm using RTR chassis is that I could never live with all the compromises. EG wheel spaces and sizes, wrong or no brake gear. Incorrect coupling rods to name a few. Then there were of course the compromises in the body. I learnt how to make simple frames. It was not hard to do, but I reckon the first two went in the bin. But after that it became easier. This was in the days before you could write a message on a social media site and get a dozen helpful replies before you've even marked out the metal.

 

PS it's not that hard to do start on a 4 coupled and work up. Forget the A4 or princess for now. They come later.

Edited December 5, 2018 by N15class

[Jeff Smith]

I haven't used them yet but I bought a pair from a show a couple of years ago for a GEM Midland Compound. There aren't any fixing slots in the frames so I'm assuming they are done the same way as Comet spacers. In that you put the chassis in a jig and solder the spacers between the frames.

 

I also think that they would be suitable for drilling and using screws and tapped tube to fix as they are much thicker than etched chassis.

 

 

Be aware that they have the slots cut out for hornblocks. One of the reasons they've not been used yet as I want a bit more experience before building them.

 

 

 

Jason

Thanks Jason, interesting, I have used the Gibson sprung hornblocks on a couple of chassis and really like them as you can assemble the wheels and bearings onto the axle and then drop it into the hornblocks. This makes it easier to get the wheels true on the axles (Gibson wheels can be a bit tricky).

[DCB]

The wheel spacing and size is only one consideration probably as important is whether there is a great big blob of chassis sticking out at some awkward angle or maybe the motor is cocked up at a stupid angle or is even vertical like some Bachmann products.    Many kits are designed to fit RTR chassis and are distorted to suit, My old GEM 56XX, Mine required serious surgery to shorten the front to suit a Wrenn Castle chassis which looks better than the Triang, its too short from centre to rear but doesn't look too odd, bearing in mind the real thing looks like the trailing wheels are too far forward, but with its ring field motor filling the cab it will pull two Bachmann 56XX backwards.

In my opinion it is better to line the wheels up with the splashers than to get the wheelbase exactly right, the Hornby 2721 looks daft on a Bachmann  57XX chassis as the splashers don't line up, despite the wheelbase being pretty much right for the full size 2721. but  the 2721 wheelbase really annoys me as arguably the main difference in side view between 64XX and 8750 is the 7'3" X 8'3" 8750 chassis and the 7'4" X 7'4" 64XX   The small 1854 pannier is even weirder at 7'3" X about  6' 3"

The things I can't make are coupling rods, I use RTR rods and drill chassis blocks to suit, mainly 1950s Triang, so a list of RTR wheelbases would be useful from that respect.

[hayfield]

Does anyone have any experience using the milled frames offered for a wide variety of locos by Gibson. Spacers are also available but I don't know if they are slot and tab assembly, I suspect not though.

 

Incidentally the Gibson downloadable catalogue has a lot of useful information on wheel sizes and spokes listed by locomotive. The frames have references to rtr/kit bodies but I believe it is a legacy list and does not include recent bodies.

 

 

The frames are just plain, no slot and tab. Can be ordered either with cut outs for hornblocks or with axle holes, in their catalogue they tend to mention which RTR body they were designed for