Mechanism for Wills finecast pannier tank

[hayfield]

Johnster

 

Firstly the Romford wheels you have will be fine, as will the axles and crankpins, you might need crankpin bosses (a couple of £'s). This has saved you £45. This is providing you don't mind a live chassis

 

It is quite possible that the motor mount and gears are fine, if all you are missing are the motor brushes ask on this site where to get spares the brushes are quite cheap, I have heard pencil lead works ?

 

That leaves you with the chassis, I would go with the Southeastern Finecast one, but as said the Comet 57xx chassis might make a cheaper alternative.

 

In the longer term a High Level Roadrunner + might solve the skirt issue as you can drive the rear wheel under the cab and the gearbox can go upwards in the firebox, but I dont think the DS10 fits the gearbox. High Level do have a motor under £10.

 

In the short term a new chassis would cost between £20 & £36 depending on which way you choose, and from what I have heard about new RTR chassis last longer and are certainly repairable

 

Good luck

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 14:34, Milthar said:

...I was wondering what modern RTR chassis I could get that would fit this body...

Keep in mind this was the initial question!

 

16 minutes ago, hayfield said:

... In the short term a new (kit) chassis would cost between £20 & £36 depending on which way you choose, and from what I have heard about new RTR chassis, last longer and are certainly repairable...

Alternative information.

 

The current typical RTR model mechanisms with steel axle wheelsets and wiper pick up are pretty much on par with the kit built alternative for longevity, given equivalent care. This is small wonder as they have much in common, and the technique for manufacture was developed and proven in supplying the HO market over decades.

 

I have had both types available to compare over two decades and a lot of running, and would now not choose to build an OO mechanism when a good RTR of correct dimensions is available. You pay your money, and it works or is returned for replacement to obtain a good one. (If there is a 'secret' it is to give the new mechanism a work out over many hours immediately after purchase to reveal any infant mortality.)

 

Not that I deprecate building a mechanism: if something not available from RTR is required it is essential; and the experience obtained is beneficial for correcting any minor problems on RTR mechanisms. But my bias to the RTR option suits my preference for operating a model railway, rather than running the model loco works.

 

 

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Keep in mind this was the initial question!

 

Alternative information.

 

The current typical RTR model mechanisms with steel axle wheelsets and wiper pick up are pretty much on par with the kit built alternative for longevity, given equivalent care. This is small wonder as they have much in common, and the technique for manufacture was developed and proven in supplying the HO market over decades.

 

I have had both types available to compare over two decades and a lot of running, and would now not choose to build an OO mechanism when a good RTR of correct dimensions is available. You pay your money, and it works or is returned for replacement to obtain a good one. (If there is a 'secret' it is to give the new mechanism a work out over many hours immediately after purchase to reveal any infant mortality.)

 

Not that I deprecate building a mechanism: if something not available from RTR is required it is essential; and the experience obtained is beneficial for correcting any minor problems on RTR mechanisms. But my bias to the RTR option suits my preference for operating a model railway, rather than running the model loco works.

 

 

 

 

That's what I would expect if paying near let alone in excess of £100 for a small loco, however I have heard many comments about poor running qualities of some of the newer locos, one of the regular posters after returning one brand new loco for poor performance received an exchange loco of similar quality, ending up writing up a thread on building a replacement etched chassis. Then today reading another thread on 2 more RTR locos which ran perfectly on their own but struggled when attached to a coach. I would like to think these are the exception, but given the choice I would rather use a kit chassis with a kit. Before you state the cost being prohibitive there are ways of greatly reducing the costs.

 

Back to RTR chassis, I came across an old Triang/Hornby (Margate) chassis the other day which seemed ceased up. I removed the motor and gave the chassis a quick burst of WD40, to my amazement the chassis freed up, it and the motor got a clean up with a spirit based cleaner, then lightly oiled. Once back together it sprang back to its old self, how many not so old RTR chassis would react this way 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

... given the choice I would rather use a kit chassis with a kit. Before you state the cost being prohibitive there are ways of greatly reducing the costs...

Yes, mainly buying old kit builds s/h, and mining them for their parts! I simply take whatever route best suits, and nowadays that is usually RTR mechanisms, because these too can often be got very cheaply, and sometimes effectively free - buy non-runner for mechanism, sell on unwanted parts: loco body, tender and box...

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

...I have heard many comments about poor running qualities of some of the newer locos, one of the regular posters after returning one brand new loco for poor performance received an exchange loco of similar quality, ending up writing up a thread on building a replacement etched chassis. Then today reading another thread on 2 more RTR locos which ran perfectly on their own but struggled when attached to a coach...

I see those comments too. The weight I attach to them depends on the frequency: the basic rule is that no one mentions the good examples so if there are relatively few problems reported overall, then nothing to worry about. And sometimes I own an example of the very same mechanism which works very well for me! When advice is offered it sometimes becomes apparent that the owner has little to no insight into 'how it works', and is either unwilling or unable to learn, unfortunately. Not that I am complaining, many cheap purchases of non/poor runners that spring to life in my hands. Which brings us to:

14 minutes ago, hayfield said:

... RTR chassis, I came across an old Triang/Hornby (Margate) chassis the other day which seemed seized up. I removed the motor and gave the chassis a quick burst of WD40, to my amazement the chassis freed up, it and the motor got a clean up with a spirit based cleaner, then lightly oiled. Once back together it sprang back to its old self, how many not so old RTR chassis would react this way .

The designs produced since production went to China respond in much the same way, there is still a 12V DC small motor of modest power output inside, easily defeated by hardened lubricant and like problems. And since most start out with the advantage of significantly superior design in the way of efficient can motors,  multistage higher reduction geartrains and better pick up design, they outperform the UK made product once running again.

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

I see those comments too. The weight I attach to them depends on the frequency: the basic rule is that no one mentions the good examples so if there are relatively few problems reported overall, then nothing to worry about. And sometimes I own an example of the very same mechanism which works very well for me! When advice is offered it sometimes becomes apparent that the owner has little to no insight into 'how it works', and is either unwilling or unable to learn, unfortunately. Not that I am complaining, many cheap purchases of non/poor runners that spring to life in my hands. Which brings us to:

 

I look back to the likes of Airfix, Mainline etc, At least out of the box these worked very well, but several years later their longevity is much less than their predecessors. I do understand that the vast majority of RTR locos do work out of the box, but I do get the impression the quality of some models could be far better

 

I have a Bemo loco, absolutely stunning, but if it went wrong ? Give me a kit chassis any day to service/repair

 

Quote

The designs produced since production went to China respond in much the same way, there is still a 12V DC small motor of modest power output inside, easily defeated by hardened lubricant and like problems. And since most start out with the advantage of significantly superior design in the way of efficient can motors,  multistage higher reduction geartrains and better pick up design, they outperform the UK made product once running again.

 

 

However whilst you expect the odd dud in manufacturing, I still get the impression the quality of the mechanisms  may not be as good as the body's. This impression is from reports I read in these pages, 

 

Learn how it works !!  a new one for me, certainly when its a DC loco,  just turn the controller on . My comments are not based on any difficulty with DCC operations

Edited August 25, 2020 by hayfield

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

Johnster

 

Firstly the Romford wheels you have will be fine, as will the axles and crankpins, you might need crankpin bosses (a couple of £'s). This has saved you £45. This is providing you don't mind a live chassis

 

It is quite possible that the motor mount and gears are fine, if all you are missing are the motor brushes ask on this site where to get spares the brushes are quite cheap, I have heard pencil lead works ?

 

That leaves you with the chassis, I would go with the Southeastern Finecast one, but as said the Comet 57xx chassis might make a cheaper alternative.

 

In the longer term a High Level Roadrunner + might solve the skirt issue as you can drive the rear wheel under the cab and the gearbox can go upwards in the firebox, but I dont think the DS10 fits the gearbox. High Level do have a motor under £10.

 

In the short term a new chassis would cost between £20 & £36 depending on which way you choose, and from what I have heard about new RTR chassis last longer and are certainly repairable

 

Good luck

Thank you for this sensible advice and encouragement, Hayfield.  I appreciate it.

 

Plan at the moment, but it could change at any second, is to wait and see how I get on with the Bachmann chassis in November when my current Limbach 94xx is retired and cannibalised for bits.  I might be able to live with exposed motor and other giblets if they are painted matt black, after all, a sheet of whitemetal where there should be underboiler or firebox detail is not that much better!   If this does not work out, then I have lost nothing in the attempt except a little time, and will try plan b which is to rebuild the existing chassis as you suggest, source new coupling rods, and attempt to graft the Bachmann keeper plate to it's bottom for underframe detailing.  Plan c is to use the spare Bachmann chassis under an eBay pannier body of some sort, and build a new Southestern chassis possibly using the motor and gearbox from the original Finecast block chassis,

 

One way or another by hooky or by crooky I'll have a tolerable 1854 running in about a year or so!

[hayfield]

At least if you wreck any parts Dave at Southeastern Finecast is happy to supply for a reasonable cost replacement parts. In Fact if you send a large self addressed and stamped envelope he will supply a parts list with prices and order form. I have no idea if the revised kit has additional castings, if it has you could if you wish update your older model.

 

What is wrong with the coupling rods? and worth its worth trying to source new brushes for the motor

 

Good luck

 

 

[Philou]

@The Johnster Thank you for your kind words regarding the Pannier - I wasn't really going to do anything with it as I thought it was knackered - but lo! it worked! (It was my power supply that had tripped out when I first tested it). I'm just happy that you're going to make good use of it.

 

Pssssst ............... I may have heard somewhere, though I can't think where, that you may be interested in a 94xx? I just had a look at my Lordyslocolist and I see that I do have a made up Wills 94xx body (no chassis) that I think is complete - if you're interested/Bachmann one doesn't turn up (again!).

 

Mention was made of fluted coupling rods - an old trick was using bullhead rail suitably filed/sanded.

 

In turning to the OP's question, I never had any problems using the Wills chassis - lacking in detail by today's standards but brakes and rigging can be added - but then that's what modelling is all about, non?

 

(BTW, le pareesh in French is 'la paroisse').

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, hayfield said:

At least if you wreck any parts Dave at Southeastern Finecast is happy to supply for a reasonable cost replacement parts. In Fact if you send a large self addressed and stamped envelope he will supply a parts list with prices and order form. I have no idea if the revised kit has additional castings, if it has you could if you wish update your older model.

 

What is wrong with the coupling rods? and worth its worth trying to source new brushes for the motor

 

Good luck

 

 

'If I wreck any parts'; you know me so well, sir, you really mean 'when I wreck any parts...'.

 

On the side that the wheel has come off of, the coupling rod is badly bent and I suspect any attempt to straighten it will result in tightness at the crankpin.  I might be possible to source a replaciment from Southeastern, as you say Dave is an amenable sort of chap, but I don't expect him to take one off a fret form me and doubt he has stock of the the Wills type.  This only comes into play if plan b is adopted, as the plans are a sequence as much as they are alternatives.  Time (November) will tell.

57 minutes ago, Philou said:

@The Johnster Thank you for your kind words regarding the Pannier - I wasn't really going to do anything with it as I thought it was knackered - but lo! it worked! (It was my power supply that had tripped out when I first tested it). I'm just happy that you're going to make good use of it.

 

Pssssst ............... I may have heard somewhere, though I can't think where, that you may be interested in a 94xx? I just had a look at my Lordyslocolist and I see that I do have a made up Wills 94xx body (no chassis) that I think is complete - if you're interested/Bachmann one doesn't turn up (again!).

 

Mention was made of fluted coupling rods - an old trick was using bullhead rail suitably filed/sanded.

 

In turning to the OP's question, I never had any problems using the Wills chassis - lacking in detail by today's standards but brakes and rigging can be added - but then that's what modelling is all about, non?

 

(BTW, le pareesh in French is 'la paroisse').

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Merci, et merci pour le correction de mois ecole de Cathays grammere pour garconnes forme cinque Francois merde. Je ne pas connais le methode de fabrication des accents dans ce clavier Pomme Mac, je regrette, pardonnez moi. Alors...

 

How ever did you find out I was interested in a Baccy 94xx, Philipe, I was trying really hard to keep that under my hat!  I never mention it anywhere on this site...  I am fairly confidant that it will turn up in November, as it looks as if blue box have got that side of things in hand at least if a model makes it into the 3-month list, which the BR unicycling lion version has.  Thank you for the Wills offer; this is not a bad body but. like all previous kit or RTR models (Graham Farish, Lima) represents one of the 11 locos produced in 1947 by the GW.  This makes sense because it ups the livery potential by 50%, and the kit was originally introduced back when anything with G W R on it was guaranteed to sell like hot cakes; I'm not sure the Graham Farish was even available in BR livery.  But the GW built locos differed in the detail of the visible running plate ahead of the smokebox.  The 94xx used plate frames as did all Hawksworth designs, and the frames are visible as sloping protrusions above the running plate with a hinged cover between them hiding the front of the cylinder block and valve chests.

 

BR dispensed with this on their 199 locos, leaving the sloping frame tops fully visible and the valve chests and tps of the cylinders exposed between them.  Bachmann, to their credit, model both version correctly, and while I could try to carve out the front of my Lima body to correct it (to be fair the cover plate version is correct for both Lima's prototypes, 9400 in G W R 1947 livery and 9410 in post April 1949-58 BR unicycling lion livery.  Shame about the chassis...).  So I'm hanging on until the Bachmann arrives, when all matters will be resolved and a day of national rejoicing declared.  Another difference between the GW and BR 94xx is the inset cab steps on the driver's side of the bunker, which were put on both sides mirror image on the GW locos but left off the BR ones which only have them on the fireman's, lh, side, again correctly modelled by Bachmann.  I have filled them in with Milliput on the Limbach.

 

The Limbach's number plates, 8448, wiil be xfer to the new loco, as this loco spent it's entire working life at Tondu shed, 4 and a half years of it, and is thus the ultimate and most seminal Tondu loco.  The Lima body is not bad at all, and lends itself to working up, but the chassis...

 

Which brings us to coupling rods.  Digressing a little, there was back in the day a company that made 'motorising kits' for Airfix construction kit locos, though I've forgotten their name now, and I had a go at the 9F.  The kit consisted of Romford wheels and top hat brass bearings to insert into the axle holes of the plastic Airfix frames, and a length of code 100 rail predrilled for the crankpins.  Unsurprisingly, the 9F managed a jerky circuit under power and the valve gear disintegrated; as a withdrawn shed lurker with a bag over the chimney it was my first attempt at weathering.  A short life not covered in glory, or even particularly realistic muck.  What this ramble is leading to is that 9Fs do not have fluted coupling rods, and I took the advice of the kit's meagre instruction and filled the 'flute' in with Milliput.  I actually got a Drewry 04 to run reasonably well with one of these kits, packed with lead shot, which lasted a couple of years before wearing out.

 

Lima's chassis is generic and originally designed for their J50.  The huge pancake motr fills the cab, the wheels have no balance weights and the centre driver is not connected to the coupling rods, it just floats and adds nothing to the traction, though the model pulls well enough anyway.  There is no brake detail and the axle spacing is miles off for a 94xx, which means that the splashers on what is an otherwise acceptable body tooling are miles off as well, as can be seen on my Limbach.  On top of which, literally, all the cogs of the spur gears are visible whizzing around and drawing attention to themselve; all in all this chassis has not got much going for it.  I will give it credit for being bombproof reliable, though, an ideal kiddies layout mechanism.

 

The fortunes of 8448 in it's various iterations and of 1740 are, as you can see, intertwined at Cwmdimbath!  If the Baccy 57xx chassis works under the Wills 1854 body, the loco will perforce have fishbelly coupling rods, and I have no idea if this is correct for her in her final years.  It is not impossible though, and my understanding of Rule 1 in this respect is that it is acceptable for her. to have fishbellies until such time as better information becomes known, and I'm not hold my breath.  Same goes for full 57xx style cab, which will be a nice contrast with 2761's half cab.  Her cab roof and spectacle plates are better than 2761's, and Southerstern parts may well be a means to further upgrade that model.

 

To misquote C S Lewis, 'downwards and sideways'!  To Pontypridd, and beyond!!!

[Steamport Southport]

What model do you need coupling rods for?

 

As Mainly Trains/Wizard do them for the old Triang and Hornby Dublo chassis. Direct fit with no messing about.

 

For example.

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/mt003a/

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

Don’t need any just yet.  My 1854 Wills block chassis has shed a wheel, and as a result the plain coupling rod that it was built (not by me) is badly out of shape, but the plan, plan a, is to replace this chassis altogether with one from a Bachmann 57xx which is currently in service beneath a Lima 94xx body, which is due for withdrawal as soon as the new BR ‘production’ version arrives in November (though I have just seen that B are now saying Nov/Dec).  This will need some surgery to the Wills body but with the visible giblets painted black should not be much worse than the whitemetal boiler skirts, and will give a chassis of much improved appearance. 
 

If this does not go as planned, there is a plan b, which is to repair the Wills block chassis with a new Romforf/Markits axle nut, which will need replacement coupling rods, but as the 1854 block chassis had the correct axle spacing which the Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby chassis derived from the R52 Jinty and still retaining that model’s axle spacings anthus incorrect for an 1854, as well as a Jinty and pretty much everything else, though it does me no harm to be aware of the Wizard/Comet coupling rods.  An attemptp to graft the Bachmann keeper plate underneath is hoped to provide brake etc. detail. 
 

The loco to be modelled is 1740 in her last days at Tondu; she scraped into BR  ownership by a few months.  Film was not easy to come by back then as the economy was still very much on an austerity footing and it is perhaps understandable that there are no photos of 1740 at this period to work from, so I must guesstimate, invoking the ultimate authority, Rule 1.  I do not, therefore, know what sort of coupling rods she had, and they could have been plain (as on the Wills block), fluted, or fishbelly tor all I know, so I am happy to use any type on her until and unless better information is available, at which time I will address any error as skill amd funds, always both in short supply, allow. 
 

There is also a plan c if plan b fails, which is to adapt the body to accept a Southeastern etched chassis kit, hopefully the Anchoragr DS10/fold up brass gearbox/40:1 gearset that is currently fitted to the Wills block chassis. 
 

Plan d has yet to be formulated; a Hornby generic Jinty-based will fit as the trimming for the Bachmann 57xx chassis will have been done, but this would entail moving the splashers, which in turn involves dismantling with Nitromors which I won’t have in the flat.  That might be the time to cut losses and salvage the motor and gears...

 

Note that the plans are sequential, b depending on the failure of a and so on

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by The Johnster

[hayfield]

A friend has asked me to sell a Southeastern Finecast 1884 loco kit so I have taken a couple of photos, I am assuming the chassis are the same for the Saddle tank loco (both ref numbers on sheet) and that these are still current. There may not be and new revised castings

 

As you can see very basic and simple to build and motor can drive the rear axle so skirts can be removed and perhaps replaced by the bottom part of the boiler ?

 

I believe the chassis are the same and its of a simpler early design, with two etched spacers and two round screw together brass spacers, both in 00 gauge

 

 

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

A friend has asked me to sell a Southeastern Finecast 1884 loco kit so I have taken a couple of photos, I am assuming the chassis are the same for the Saddle tank loco (both ref numbers on sheet) and that these are still current. There may not be and new revised castings

 

As you can see very basic and simple to build and motor can drive the rear axle so skirts can be removed and perhaps replaced by the bottom part of the boiler ?

 

You would need a fancy gearbox to drive the rear axle as it is under the cab floor.

Something like a Highlevel Roadrunner + to move the gearbox away from the bulkhead might do.

[hayfield]

Yes either a Roadrunner + or Loadhauler + but they are very easy to build and install, would not call them fancy, perhaps adaptable

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

Yes either a Roadrunner + or Loadhauler + but they are very easy to build and install, would not call them fancy, perhaps adaptable

Fancy as in not a fixed shape, unlike other gearboxes.

[hayfield]

4 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Fancy as in not a fixed shape, unlike other gearboxes.

 

 

The great thing is that the moveable arm as well as going in front of the gear tower can also go behind it under the motor. I understood what you meant but once you have built you first High Level gearbox the rest are a doddle.

 

You can replace the short extender for a longer one, the range is very flexible.