John_Hughes Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I've been approached by a potential customer to build the chassis (only) for the Slaters L&M 2-6-4T (7mm scale, OO Gauge track). A peek at the pictures of the real thing suggests that at least some of the usual 'pressure points' won't be there (the front pony truck looks like it won't be bashing the cylinders on tight curves, for instance!) but equally obviously the traditional division of 'everything below the footplate' versus 'the footplate and everything above' isn't going to work as the cylinders are firmly attached to the footplate! And the outside frames / outside valve gear combination will be interesting too, though at least it looks like there's plenty of room for everything. Has anyone built one of these? It looks to be a nice kit and probably quite fun to do, but I'd to be able to make a reasonable estimate of how long it's likely to take me. Thanks for any comments! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ngtrains.com Posted February 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2014 Ah, there's likely to be a good reason he wants you to do it. Its a bit of a b@**$r. You have to decide how much of the chassis you are going to throw away. Discard all the rear truck arrangement, Built as designed its virtually rigid. That goes for whatever radius curves you are working too but you do need to consider the curvature further as a) its a big long loco, b) the real thing didn't have to go round tight curves c) that feature is perfectly replicated in the model. Unless you have long graceful curves you will need to consider more radical surgery that cuts more of the frames away to allow the front truck to swing and the rear bogie to move sideways a lot. You do need to keep the rear truck supporting some of the loco weight and preferably exerting some side control and not being just a dangley truck as its a long way from the rear driver to the rear buffer beam. There are also issues with building the chassis in isolation to the body because there are some bits of the valve gear that are supposed to poke up through the running plate but for which the holes are missing. I would suggest you at least need to have the running plat handy as you do the chassis. Best of luck. I'd be making the quote a robust one with a decent amount of contingency in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Not any help from me I'm afraid. Not done this one. But you do raise a very good question. I have never understood requests for chassis only builds of a complete kit. It always seems a bit perverse as if one can competently build a body then the chassis should also be well within ability. I understand a request for a RTR chassis replacement but not just the chassis from a full kit. I presume you are being offered the completed body to ensure compatibility. Having read Paul's reply above it seems even more peculiar a request. Some "projects" are more trouble than they are worth and the alarm bells are ringing on this one. However, for some price is no object and the kit does sound as if it can be built as a whole perhaps the customer simply requires convincing that it will cost as much to do just the chassis as the complete build? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffield Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Because the loco is so much longer than the fixed wheel base I found if I made the rear truck with some side control it would not go round reasonable curves, and if I made it free enough to go round the rear end would move from side to side too much. A lovely loco for straight track, but a bit challenging to get just right. The spring arrangement that is designed in the kit is just too rigid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Many thanks for the various comments - extremely helpful! Clearly that rear bogie promises to be interesting! In answer to Kenton's question about why anyone would want just a chassis building, I suspect that the other responses to the thread have already provided some sort of answer: a body is, basically, just a simple assembly job where following the instructions will usually see you through (yes, I know there are some horrors out there!) but even with a good kit a chassis can provide a whole can of interesting worms. Most kits don't provide wheels, gears or motor, and the choice and fitting of these, and the arrangements for current collection, are generally left to the individual modeller's discretion and experience; a bad choice here can ruin everything. For instance, the L&M kit apparently specifies the RG4 - not quite as rare as hens' teeth these days, but darned expensive on eBay - so the builder has to make a sensible choice of a replacement based on his own knowledge. Add to that the fact that if there's an error in the body of 0.25 mm then it's no big deal and a bit of filler will usually save the day, but the same error applied to a loco wheelbase will see it bumping along the track like the Talyllyn's famous Limping Lulu. In the end it's easier to hand the work over to someone who knows what they're doing and who will turn out a job that runs like silk, even if I say it myself who shouldn't. Either way, if this kit does come my way I'll post notes on its progress. Once again, thanks to all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffield Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Yes please. I for one would like to hear how you get on with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Isambarduk Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Either way, if this kit does come my way I'll post notes on its progress. Once again, thanks to all! Any notes or photos of progress, or any other useful comments, please? David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Coming to this late, of course its a lash up. the real thing was a lash up, designed as a 2-10-2 for India I believe and well and truly ********ed as the locals could not get their heads round anything so complicated as a 10 coupled loco. As with the various Ffestiniog plans to lengthen Mountaineer from 2-6-2T to 2-6-4T a long wheelbase 2-6-4 can not be made to work on even prototypically sharp curves The basic premise of virtually a Standard gauge chassis with extra wheels inside the frames and only the hubs of the outside wheels fitted to take the coupling rods should be pretty straightforward using an 00 motor and gearset. I think the Bure Valley railway has a 1/3rd size replica, might be worth a look to get some inspiration from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Isambarduk Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 The basic premise of virtually a Standard gauge chassis with extra wheels inside the frames and only the hubs of the outside wheels fitted to take the coupling rods should be pretty straightforward using an 00 motor and gearset. No, sorry, David, you've completely lost me there! Please would you elucidate a bit? Thanks. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 Any notes or photos of progress, or any other useful comments, please? David No, the kit apparently went elsewhere, and I've heard nothing of it since. Since the kit owner wanted to get it round trainset-type curves it was going to take quite a bit of work, but when I warned him of this he backed off pretty sharpish. I was sorry to lose it - I'd have enjoyed the work - but then again I felt that at some point it would stop being fun and start being a right pain in the whatever! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.