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

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Please list anything that has been used for conversion indicating make, wheel size and wheelbase,

 

Bachmann Jinty 0-6-0T, scale for 8'+8'6", 4'8" wheel. motor can be turned  (fits Wills Q and K's 2F 0-6-0 easily due to undersize wheel)

Bachmann C 0-6-0, scale for 8'+8'6", 5'2" wheel.             }                            (metal kit bodies need modification to splasher

Bachmann 3F 0-6-0, scale for 8'+8'6" 5'3" wheel             }                             size and positions to avoid shorting.)

 

Bachmann 57xx 0-6-0T, scale for 7'3"+8'3" 4'8" wheel. motor can be turned  (good for Hornby J52, Lima 94xx. fits K's J50 neatly)

Bachmann 56xx 0-6-2T, scale for 7'3"+8' 4'8" wheel.                                      (fits neatly in the first Wllls N7 kit with much carving)

Bachmann Pompom 0-6-0, scale for 8'1"+9' 5'2" wheel.                                  (used to repower Bach J39 body, major motor intrusion)

 

So, you had an L&Y 2-4-2T, what were its dimensions?

 

 

 

 

 

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...

 

RTR mechanisms are cheaper and quicker! The Bachmann 56xx mech I stuffed into a whitemetal N7 body took a whole morning and cost a net £20, as I sold on both the loco body and box(!) from the s/h model I purchased, Worn out loco back in operation, that's my priority! (I have a few brass kit chassis running, most date from my first time around in the hobby when the RTR choice was dire and for a model to look right you had to build something. But it isn't like that any more, the choice is much better...)

 

 

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. .. (Bachmann 56xx mech in old Wills N7 kit)

 I filed away the fishbelly shape of the rods. The balance weights are good copies of what Stratford did - which is nice. But really given how crude the near fifty year old whitemetal body is, even boxpok wheels wouldn't do fatal damage to appearance!

[Steamport Southport]

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

 

That's informative as mine were bought on a second hand store for a couple of pounds with a few other bits and pieces nobody seemed to want.

 

I thought they were all like that and this bit meant they were all slotted for hornblocks. Can't see anything about them having axle holes so I assume you must have to ask for them to be like that.

 

 

PROFILE MILLED MAINFRAMES   The frames are profiled for use with our own range of sprung hornblocks (although most contemporary hornblock systems can be used) and the grade of brass used for these frames is very rigid and is far more suitable for the purpose than an etching grade of brass or nickel silver. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[hayfield]

Just ask, ordered / bought some in August

[N15class]

Bachmann Jinty 0-6-0T, scale for 8'+8'6", 4'8" wheel. motor can be turned  (fits Wills Q and K's 2F 0-6-0 easily due to undersize wheel)

Bachmann C 0-6-0, scale for 8'+8'6", 5'2" wheel.             }                            (metal kit bodies need modification to splasher

Bachmann 3F 0-6-0, scale for 8'+8'6" 5'3" wheel             }                             size and positions to avoid shorting.)

 

Bachmann 57xx 0-6-0T, scale for 7'3"+8'3" 4'8" wheel. motor can be turned  (good for Hornby J52, Lima 94xx. fits K's J50 neatly)

Bachmann 56xx 0-6-2T, scale for 7'3"+8' 4'8" wheel.                                      (fits neatly in the first Wllls N7 kit with much carving)

Bachmann Pompom 0-6-0, scale for 8'1"+9' 5'2" wheel.                                  (used to repower Bach J39 body, major motor intrusion)

 

So, you had an L&Y 2-4-2T, what were its dimensions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RTR mechanisms are cheaper and quicker! The Bachmann 56xx mech I stuffed into a whitemetal N7 body took a whole morning and cost a net £20, as I sold on both the loco body and box(!) from the s/h model I purchased, Worn out loco back in operation, that's my priority! (I have a few brass kit chassis running, most date from my first time around in the hobby when the RTR choice was dire and for a model to look right you had to build something. But it isn't like that any more, the choice is much better...)

 

 

 

 I filed away the fishbelly shape of the rods. The balance weights are good copies of what Stratford did - which is nice. But really given how crude the near fifty year old whitemetal body is, even boxpok wheels wouldn't do fatal damage to appearance!

That's fine for you, but I would not be able to live with GW underpinnings in a LNER loco. Where the wheel bases the same?

[The Johnster]

I believe they were, but the frame profiles weren't, and that makes a big difference to the side on view of the model.  You might be able to rectify matters with some material removed or cosmetic frame extensions added in some cases, though.  Another thing to watch for is clearance of the motors in the cab, as the general positioning of the cab was not standard between railways any more than the size and shape was.

[Joseph_Pestell]

RTR mechanisms are cheaper and quicker!

 

Sometimes cheaper if you are lucky enough to find a good secondhand donor loco. But frame kits + wheels + motor + bits not usually that much dearer if compared to new. And can give much better results. I am not that highly skilled but manage to put together a loco chassis OK (so long as it has non-modelled inside valve gear).

 

Quicker. Not all that much quicker, especially if you have to start carving off lumps of chassis and/or bodywork to get it all to fit together.

[Jol Wilkinson]

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.

Jeff, the frames are milled with hornguide slots for all coupled axles. London Road Models do a set of etched inserts and 1/8" bearings for standard hornblock cut outs so will fit the AGW frames They aren't listed on the website - an oversight - but an email to LRM will get availability and price.

 

AGW list etched spacers for all theree 4mm gauges. including L and U types. Fit the spacers to one frame, line up and lightly clamp the other in place, put a couple of pieces of 6mm rod or tube into two of the slots to check and adjust alignment and solder up the second frame. Likewise if you have fitted the LRM blanking plates, but use some 1/8" rod.

 

I built a LNWR 2-4-2T tank chassis from AGW frames with LRM blanking plates for one coupled axle and hornguides on the other in this way to provide compensation

[RexAshton]

Sometimes cheaper if you are lucky enough to find a good secondhand donor loco. But frame kits + wheels + motor + bits not usually that much dearer if compared to new. And can give much better results. I am not that highly skilled but manage to put together a loco chassis OK (so long as it has non-modelled inside valve gear).

 

Quicker. Not all that much quicker, especially if you have to start carving off lumps of chassis and/or bodywork to get it all to fit together.

 

More importantly it's more accurate rather than a 'cobble together' and it's likely to run better for longer.

[Jeff Smith]

Jeff, the frames are milled with hornguide slots for all coupled axles. London Road Models do a set of etched inserts and 1/8" bearings for standard hornblock cut outs so will fit the AGW frames They aren't listed on the website - an oversight - but an email to LRM will get availability and price.

 

AGW list etched spacers for all theree 4mm gauges. including L and U types. Fit the spacers to one frame, line up and lightly clamp the other in place, put a couple of pieces of 6mm rod or tube into two of the slots to check and adjust alignment and solder up the second frame. Likewise if you have fitted the LRM blanking plates, but use some 1/8" rod.

 

I built a LNWR 2-4-2T tank chassis from AGW frames with LRM blanking plates for one coupled axle and hornguides on the other in this way to provide compensation

Interesting, I am contemplating using the GWR 2-6-0 ones for a K's 63xx if I'm actually mad enough to buy one on eBay.....

[Steamport Southport]

Interesting, I am contemplating using the GWR 2-6-0 ones for a K's 63xx if I'm actually mad enough to buy one on eBay.....

 

To be honest I would probably go down the Comet route in those circumstances.

 

You would have decent cylinders, motion, pony truck, etc. already included.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Jeff Smith]

To be honest I would probably go down the Comet route in those circumstances.

 

You would have decent cylinders, motion, pony truck, etc. already included.

 

 

 

 

Jason

The LCP29 chassis pack presumably still requires a motor, g/b and wheels?

[Steamport Southport]

The LCP29 chassis pack presumably still requires a motor, g/b and wheels?

 

Yes.

 

I would have a good look at the original K's kit chassis first. Some of them build up fine, but others are terrible. Some have much better motors, gears and wheels than others.

 

As an example I've got a K's 14XX Autotank and it could pull a tank. It can easily pull the K's whitemetal autocoach which my Airfix one struggles with. Yet both are free running.

 

 

 

Jason

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

That's fine for you, but I would not be able to live with GW underpinnings in a LNER loco. Were the wheel bases the same?

 

 The Ivatt J52 and the 57xx share the same nominal wheelbase, Crewe's 7'3"+8'3", and a half inch difference in wheel diameter. Detail items are in pretty much the same positions. Sawing off the outside brake linkage and lightly remodelling the sand boxes is all I have done so far; and I will not go further unless unexpectedly moved to shuffle about the out of position splashers.  

 

The wheelbases are wrong for the J50 (ex57xx) and N7 (ex56xx), but these are old kit bodies which are not exactly dimensionally right, and the kit errors disguise the wheelbase error so that it 'disappears'! (My later pretty much accurate N7/3 kitbuild runs on an etched chassis, but the motor is on its last legs. I couldn't fit the 56xx mechanism to that, the combination is wildly wrong in appearance. So that will get a remotoring in time.)

 

Horses for courses in short.

 

Sometimes cheaper if you are lucky enough to find a good secondhand donor loco. But frame kits + wheels + motor + bits not usually that much dearer if compared to new. And can give much better results. I am not that highly skilled but manage to put together a loco chassis OK (so long as it has non-modelled inside valve gear).

 

Quicker. Not all that much quicker, especially if you have to start carving off lumps of chassis and/or bodywork to get it all to fit together.

 

 But have you done both to compare?

 

If a good RTR mechanism offers, it is a fraction of the time to do the work compared to building and fettling a kit chassis into a good running job. For someone whose prime interest is operating a timetable, I'll take that. Horses for courses again.

 

As for the money, careful purchasing and sale of unwanted parts - and even boxes - has resulted in a couple of such conversions being effectively free! It's always been cheaper using RTR mechanisms in my experience so far.

 

 

More importantly it's more accurate rather than a 'cobble together' and it's likely to run better for longer.

 

Near enough is good enough for a running model needed for the operation. You will never have to see it, so that is not a problem anyway!

 

Regarding longevity, there's nothing in it now. Current RTR incorporates much of the good stuff in the drive line that previously required kit building, and everything I learned from sorting kit built mechanisms is equally applicable.

 

As for the running, DCC makes possible what previously required a great deal of work to obtain mechanically. Again, I'll take that!

 

 

 

A different approach in summary. And clearly one others are interested in, per thread title.

[cypherman]

Hi all,

I know these are not technically kits, But take a look at Manna's posts here. He scratch builds engines to run on modified RTR chassis. They may not be perfect representation that will annoy the rivet counters, But they look pretty damned close to what he wants. As it is said if it looks right it is right. He may be able to point you in the right direction for an appropriate chassis to use.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74823-mannas-workbench-d2-sentinel-q1-n1-d3-a-pair-of-j3s-c2-j6-others/page-1

[Jeff Smith]

I would argue that DCC will not necessarily save a bad mechanism. Yes the higher voltage will help overcome some of the rail/wheel/pickup contamination but ideally all these need to be kept clean just as with DC. But the mechanism must still be sound and free-running regardless of the control type.

[hayfield]

Yes.

 

I would have a good look at the original K's kit chassis first. Some of them build up fine, but others are terrible. Some have much better motors, gears and wheels than others.

 

As an example I've got a K's 14XX Autotank and it could pull a tank. It can easily pull the K's whitemetal autocoach which my Airfix one struggles with. Yet both are free running.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Jason

 

The 80's series frames which were drilled are passable in that they work, trouble is the wheels with the plastic spokes are quite variable and quite often the HMP motors quickly burn out. Having said this buy any other kit and wheels, motor and fears are extra

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I would argue that DCC will not necessarily save a bad mechanism. Yes the higher voltage will help overcome some of the rail/wheel/pickup contamination but ideally all these need to be kept clean just as with DC. But the mechanism must still be sound and free-running regardless of the control type.

 

Happily, most of the currently produced OO RTR is of mechanically adequate design, developed for and well proven in HO while OO RTR was slumbering: quiet can motor with good torque, multistage gear train with well chosen ratios (between 25:1 and 50:1 on steam) free rolling wheelsets with well arranged pick up wipers. Good with vanilla DC, yet better with feedback control, very refined indeed with DCC.

 

The mistake not a few make is to try and 'rescue' the earlier OO mechanisms using DCC, which are hobbled by low torque motors, small reduction ratios, inefficient pick up, traction tyres and quite possibly worn to boot. I have learned that in general it is best not to participate in such discussions, as my usual suggestion of 'bin it and use newer and superior' is ofttimes unwelcome.

[Theakerr]

I have just built and put an ancient WILLS FINECAST N7 (gift) onto a Bachmann J11 chassis purchased in 'kit form' from Bachmann for a project that did not work out.  The wheel diameter for the J11 is a tadge over 1mm diameter too large but since it is a tank loco the visual impact is effectively restricted to the radius and therefore looks only 0.5mm to large.  I do not have N7 drawing but based on pictures and videos the wheelbase looks about right and the height also looks about right.  I used some of the extra parts to make it a round topped boiler making for some very tight clearances that required removal of some of the plastic bits on the J11 motor holder.  After removing the cast drawbar from the supplied trailing wheel assembly, I adapted  the J11 drawbar to fit the cast trailing wheel 'block" and have used both the Bachmann mounting holes.  It was necessary to remove about 1/8'' from the front end of the chassis to get it to line up with the wheel splashers.  Also added other bits and pieces to the kit, lamp brackets, pipes to the brake pump, etc.  The weight of the cast body has transformed the Bachmann chassis.  It is quiet, very smooth and pulls like crazy (12 Bachmann Mk1s so far and will test it against the 35 loaded coal wagon training due time but I think it will romp away).  Now if I can find the one picture of an unlined N7 I came across (that I forgot to reference), I can say (and no one can argue unless they have some incredible references) that was one of the ones that ended up at Lincoln.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

N7  wheelbase 7'6"+8'9"+6'9"

J11 wheelbase 8'  + 9'1"

[Theakerr]

Wow, I new the wheelbase was a bit out but that is more than I thought.  Oh well, it was a good exercise in getting back into white metal soldering.

[Jeff Smith]

To be honest I would probably go down the Comet route in those circumstances.

 

You would have decent cylinders, motion, pony truck, etc. already included.

 

 

 

 

Jason

  

The LCP29 chassis pack presumably still requires a motor, g/b and wheels?

Do you know if the Comet chassis can be built in P4 and compensated?