D5541 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 A couple of quick points before I get to the questions... Without wishing to be condemned as a heretic, I'm not one for planning in advance as I tend to overthink things and end up making things more complicated, I'm much happier charging in headfirst and dealing with issues as they crop up, neither am I a rivet counter and I'm happy to overlook certain issues as long as a decent effect can be achieved if not 100% accuracy. Having had a relatively thorough google, I can't seem to find any kits, so, I am looking at building a 15xx Pannier in N gauge, preferably with space somewhere for DCC conversion I'm operating on a virtually non existant budget so will be looking at second hand bits and spare parts sites! I haven't scratchbuilt before either so will be looking to utilise as many rtr parts as I can. I have some initial questions and was looking to use this thread as a sort of sounding board. The plan started off as an idea for some sort of hybrid between a Farish 94xx panier and the Trix 2-6-2T but a bit of research threw up a few obstacles 1) as it only has a 12' (12' 10" to be precise) wheelbase, is shortening the 94xx chassis the best way to start or would a different chassis be in order? 2) obviously the shortened wheelbase means that the con-rods would need to be shorter as well, are there any places that I could get suitable set of pre-made rods to fit the wheels? 3) would the Walschaerts valve gear from the Farish 3MT be a viable arrangement to use or would it require huge amounts of work to fit it to the chassis? The cylinders are the right size at least The Trix 2-6-2 seemed to have somewhat oversize valve gear if memory serves. 4) As the Farish Pannier body is Diecast (at least my old one was) are there any kits for PT's available with the tanks and boiler as seperate entities or is major surgery required on the farish body? That'll do for starters I've got to have a root around for my 94xx as it's been buried in a box for 10 years at least and not quite sure of it's exact location... Cheers Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted March 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 17, 2011 1. I would suggest that you look at scratch building the chassis. In the end this is likely to be less work. 2. The 2mm association do an etch of con rods. Off the top of my head I don't know if this would be suitable. 3. Pass. 4. The Farish pannier body is still diecast, and I'm not aware of any one currently doing a kit of the body. In the past I think that there was a kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 With regards to the chassis... I hate to say it, but you'll probably be better off starting from scratch. The amount of effort to slice a chassis up, and the potential difficulties with cutting through electrical bits, and getting the sliced bits to line up properly, while they can be solved, may not be worth it. For the coupling rods. I have a feeling that you might have problems getting them. The 2mmfs soc ones don't go down below 14mm and 15.5mm, where as I'm guessing you'll need to go down to 12mm and 13 mm. (or 12.5, 12.5) Now one option is to get in touch with Worsley Works who I'm fairly certain will do them for you. You might have to wait though... Valve gear. Well, I'd say that it looks near enough. The question is what bits you'd need to replace as the distance from the cylinders to the middle set of drivers may not be the same. And also the distance from the cylinders to the... gaah, I don't know the terminology. There are bits that may be the wrong length... 1 Connecting rod - runs from driver to the cylinder 2. Radius rod - runs from cylinder to the reversing and expansion bits (on/below the footplate) 3. Eccentric rod - runs from driver to the reversing and expansion bits As for the body, I have no idea, I'm afraid. Sorry Oh yes, what wheels were you thinking of using? the 3MT wheels are 5'3" rather than 4' 7 1/2"(so about 8" too big, or just over 1mm) - ah, right, the 94xx class wheels. ok. Having said all that, it's certainly a loco with character. And it's definitely something different. I don't think the problems are unsolvable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 1) as it only has a 12' (12' 10" to be precise) wheelbase, is shortening the 94xx chassis the best way to start or would a different chassis be in order? 2) obviously the shortened wheelbase means that the con-rods would need to be shorter as well, are there any places that I could get suitable set of pre-made rods to fit the wheels? 3) would the Walschaerts valve gear from the Farish 3MT be a viable arrangement to use or would it require huge amounts of work to fit it to the chassis? The cylinders are the right size at least The Trix 2-6-2 seemed to have somewhat oversize valve gear if memory serves. 4) As the Farish Pannier body is Diecast (at least my old one was) are there any kits for PT's available with the tanks and boiler as seperate entities or is major surgery required on the farish body? The chassis are not easy to shorten because of the way they are designed and the motor is held. So you might want to do a bit of searching for better choices. I would be inclined to look at some of the German chassis as the 1500 looks very German in style. There are several sources of little German BR89(?) 0-6-0s some are stupid money eg Fleischmann others can be cheaper. I think I paid £35 for a Roco one to go under a Southern USRA tank. Lot easier than trying to graft bits of chassis together which would be far too exciting. Measuring the Roco its slightly too short (about 22mm) and the wheels look a bit too small but it has roughly the right cylinders and structure. Cab might need a spot of stretching to make it all fit together but I don't have 15xx drawings to check. There have been old pannier kits including I believe a 94xx. How easy they would be to hack I don't know. They tend to be cast to fill all the space around the intended Farish or Trix chassis Possibly card or plasticard would be simpler, especially as you don't need much of a "bottom" to the tanks so have a better chance of fitting them over a mechanism that way. N Brass do various fittings that may help so if you get it to the point you think it rocks, the bits are available for making the final touches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I'd go hunting on here and old RMweb. There was someone who did exactly what you are thinking, using a Dapol Ivatt 2MT chassis and a hacked 94xx Pannier shell. It looked like a good compromise and all seemed to fit like it was meant to be from what I recall! If you need an old 94xx shell I'm sure I have one somewhere - save hacking a full loco - let me know if it would be of interest. HTH, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will J Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Hi Dan, they must mean me*, the 15xx crops up occasionally in my blog (which has been all too quiet recently, must get back to some modelling!!) and in some posts on the old RMWeb... *its always nice when somebody remembers your posts from ages ago.. the project is still ongoing, albeit gradually! have a look here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/blog/351/entry-4788-a-tale-of-two-very-different-n-gauge-models-people-mover-mark-ii-and-a-pannier/ The suggested ingredients, a Dapol LMS Ivatt 2-6-2 chassis and an early Farish 94xx body are a good match. This is more of an 'impressionist' approach than a finescale attempt! The wheelbase of the driving wheels of the Dapol chassis is too long, but sat beneath the old Farish body, which seems a bit oversized too, the proportions at least match up. The modifications to the Dapol chassis are mega simple, the front and rear pony trucks are joined to the chassis proper by a plastic superstructure, so can be removed with ease (at this point, you will have committed to the project!!). You will end up with hollow top surfaces on the very exposed cylinders. To reflect the real thing this needs to be covered with a fine etched mesh 'running plate' on top. Bear in mind that all Farish 94xxs are not alike. The original model dates to the very early days of British N. At some point, I guess in the 1980s, the design of the whole model was changed significantly. If you get the newer model, the metal butchery needed would be much more severe! I started with an earlier shell, sliced the fronts off the tanks to shorten them a little, gluing the tank fronts back onto the body after cutting. The bottom of the tanks (on the early models)is cut away, so that the weight around the motor on the Dapol chasis, fits in perfectly! The only problem is that, as seen in the blog link above, the Dapol weight protrudes from below the Farish tank sides. This can be hidden with some detail representing reversing gear and the like. One tip, the Dapol chassis is a fine piece of very delicate engineering and I think mine has suffered from some rough handling, on my part, whilst all of these experiments took place, please handle the delicate motion with great care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will J Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Some useful stuff from previous incarnations of RMWeb.... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=43683&p=793044&hilit=superpannier#p793044 Reading your first post Dan, your specification for the project seems exactly the same as mine was, apart from the DCC stuff which I havent a clue about, but you are left with a bit of space in the cab/bunker. I'm glad the photos I took of the original metal bodging might be of use to someone! The whole thing is detailled with brass handrails, chimney and dome from NBrass. I'm determined to get it finished... I will use this thread as a kick up the **** to get it going again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.