I have an old Chivers Hunslet kit lying around and I understand that the chassis for this is an Arnold 0-4-0. Having not actually owned one I have looked and it seems that it will be possible to get one, unlike some chassis for old whitemetal kits. Does anyone have any experience of whether it is a good chassis though, and if not are there any alternatives? Before we go down the 'it's got inside frames' route, I am aware of this and that there are better ways of building a quarry Hunslet these days. However, I will not be using the kit for this purpose but instead to make a loco based on this: http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/misc/misc_indust074.htm . It was built to 2' 8 1/2" gauge (hence inside frames) for a granite quarry in Warwickshire but is basically very similar to a slate quarry Hunslet. From the side it actually looks quite like a quarry Hunslet built on an incorrect inside-framed chassis! The wooden upper cab is also quite nice.
Thank you,
Danny
I have one under my TR DOUGLAS, and this runs fine (plus another for potential use). I am aware that some state the flanges are too coarse, and deep, and that problems arise with PECO points, at the frog; I have not experienced this. When not fitted to the intended N scale body, care is needed in setting up the chassis, to ensure that the motor is held in the correct position to mesh correctly, and that the sprung contacts between the pickups and motor are correctly set (and sometimes the "ferrite" tubes are missing from these contacts). However, many of these aspects apply whichever chassis you use, in the "wrong" body! I cannot comment of course, on the quality of any particular chassis you may obtain.
Hope this helps.
Tim
Thank you. I wonder if the problems with Peco points only come with smaller rail sections and this is why some have experienced this.
Danny
The Arnold 0-4-0 wheel flanges on the chassis I have are 2mm deep from new.
These do ride up slightly in the Peco 009 points that I have on my layouts the result is at slow speeds they tend to stall in the points. (They are ok if rushed.)
So I just turn the flanges down and then they work fine at slow speeds.
It may be that some of the later made chassis have smaller flanges or that some of the later Peco 009 points made after 2010 when they were updated may have deeper flangeways.
Arnold made the chassis with either brass or plastic gears, I have found that both run quite well.
However the motors can overheat if used at slow speeds with some feedback controllers including KPC's.
With the Chivers quarry Hunslet balancing the weight is difficult. It you build it as per the instructions it is too back heavy. I replace the cab roof, the top half of the cab back and the rear buffer beam with much lighter tin to balance the loco.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: B.Meldon on April 09, 2018, 22:30
With the Chivers quarry Hunslet balancing the weight is difficult. It you build it as per the instructions it is too back heavy. I replace the cab roof, the top half of the cab back and the rear buffer beam with much lighter tin to balance the loco.
Brian Meldon
That sounds OK as I will be replacing much of the cab with planked plasticard to represent the wooden upper cab. I will need to try and get a newer chassis I think as some of my points are pre-2010.
Danny
With the old Peco points take a small file and carefully deepen the throat.
If you are still using the old Arnold 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 chassis, they will work fine.
But if you want better running, less finger poking move with the times.
The products available today are far superior and one of the reasons you see more 009 layouts at model railway shows.
Stan.
Stan is correct.
Modern chassis are far better than the old Arnold ones.
However none that are available today are really suitable for use in a quarry Hunslet 009 model.
Also the modern chassis are far more expensive than the older second hand ones.
So you have a choice:
Spend more and choose a different prototype to model using a modern chassis.
Spend less on an old second hand chassis that will not run as well and build a quarry Hunslet.
There is a third option.....Wait may be 18 months or more for the Bachmann ready to run quarry Hunslet that will cost about
The problem for the OP will be that the Bachmann model will have outside frames whereas the loco he is trying to represent has inside frames...
The Arnold chassis is probably OK though taking on board the caveats mentioned above is worthwhile and may make it less OK for Danny.
It might be worth looking at an alternative, and my first 009 loco was one of the Chivers Quarry Hunslet kits which I fitted to the then cheap Ibertren chassis. The job involved some hacking of the kit and a section carefully cut out of the motor (nicking one of the brushes & cutting it off that I somehow managed to solder back in place). My pre-teen self was pleased with the result, even more so when on showing it to Roger Chivers he told me what I had done could not be done!
Now I know that the Ibertren in comparison to the modern stuff isn't necessarily that good, but it may be easier to get hold of than the Arnold and if doing the job now I'd consider fitting a newer motor. The other thought would be to see if Neville Kent (N-Drive productions) does anything with a suitable combination of wheelbase and wheel diameter.
Quote from: JulienW on April 11, 2018, 11:48
The problem for the OP will be that the Bachmann model will have outside frames whereas the loco he is trying to represent has inside frames...
The Arnold chassis is probably OK though taking on board the caveats mentioned above is worthwhile and may make it less OK for Danny.
It might be worth looking at an alternative, and my first 009 loco was one of the Chivers Quarry Hunslet kits which I fitted to the then cheap Ibertren chassis. The job involved some hacking of the kit and a section carefully cut out of the motor (nicking one of the brushes & cutting it off that I somehow managed to solder back in place). My pre-teen self was pleased with the result, even more so when on showing it to Roger Chivers he told me what I had done could not be done!
Now I know that the Ibertren in comparison to the modern stuff isn't necessarily that good, but it may be easier to get hold of than the Arnold and if doing the job now I'd consider fitting a newer motor. The other thought would be to see if Neville Kent (N-Drive productions) does anything with a suitable combination of wheelbase and wheel diameter.
The point about the inside frames is quite important. From looking at photos the design similar to a quarry Hunslet seemed to be outside framed up to about 2'6", and obviously I am using a gauge which is wrong for the prototype 2'8 1/2", but this is also done on the 009 models of the even wider gauged Townsend Hook that have appeared recently, which also retain the prototype's inside frames because it is visually correct. I acquired the body kit a while back and was thinking of doing something with it. I didn't want to build the kit as a normal quarry Hunslet, partly because the inside frames are wrong for these but also because they are a bit too closely associated with prototype railways I'm not currently modelling and I fancied something different. Regarding the choice between Arnold and Ibertren I'm not sure which runs better but I would probably find it easier to replace the motor than turn down the wheels. On the other hand I got the kit out the other day and realised it is almost completely assembled which may make cutting to fit the Ibertren more difficult. I suspect that I am about to create a perverse situation in which we now have models of quarry Hunslets available with outside frames yet I want one with inside frames, to modern standards.
Danny
What about taking the mostly assembled kit and turning it back into an unassembled kit?
The technique for doing this might depend on how it's been built. Putting it in a pan of boiling water will do the job if it has been soldered (white metal solder usually melts at 70 centigrade), but if one of the adhesives (superglue or epoxy) then some solvent may be needed and the job is a little more involved but by no means impossible.
Whatever you end up doing Danny I hope it goes well.
Quote from: JulienW on April 11, 2018, 22:25
What about taking the mostly assembled kit and turning it back into an unassembled kit?
The technique for doing this might depend on how it's been built. Putting it in a pan of boiling water will do the job if it has been soldered (white metal solder usually melts at 70 centigrade), but if one of the adhesives (superglue or epoxy) then some solvent may be needed and the job is a little more involved but by no means impossible.
Whatever you end up doing Danny I hope it goes well.
Thank you. I probably will end up doing this anyway so I can assemble it better than it has been. I still think this could be an achievable and interesting idea and I think it's just a case of sorting out the chassis situation. The cab back on Oldbury is open so I could have problems with the motor in the cab but have already decided it will have a tarpaulin hanging down and obscuring the cab from the back.
Danny