My eldest bought me a Peco "James " kit for Christmas, which was a very welcome surprise. Unfortunately the recommended "GRAHAM FARISH 57XX/8750 Pannier Tank Chassis" is no longer available, and I can't see anything obvious to replace it.
My experience so far is only Kato Diesel chassis, which are not really suitable does anybody have any suggestions on possible options please?
Just in case you have never seen one ;)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/products/GL-2.jpg?v=1535720469)
There are examples of it on top of many different chassis. Unfortunately a number of them are also out of production. I think in the end it boils down to how much you are willing to hack it and a chassis about and spend on a chassis. Arnold chassis have been used, Minitrix, also Fleischmann, probably Atlas, and possibly a new Bachmann Farish diesel chassis will fit. Possibly not a new Minitrains chassis as space in the cab is tight.
I see even the Peco web site commits itself to just "an N gauge 0-6-0 chassis" and I'm sure the 0-6-0 is optional unless you are trying to recreate the look of the original. An 0-4-0 or 0-4-2 might look good.
There is also a last resort cop out and turn it into a tram loco with skirts. ;D
Unfortunately this same problem is now very common with all the older 009 white metal kits that were designed for chassis that were available in the 1980's and 1990's and have long since been out of production.
In this case you have one of the 'newer' versions of the kit as the kit was first intended for the Arnold 0-6-0 chassis, but was later modified for the GF chassis when the Arnold 0-6-0 went out of production.
There is no easy way around this lack of new N gauge chassis, basically you have two options:
First is to find a second hand chassis of the correct type in good working order. This is what I would recommend. Also wait until you get the chassis before you start to assemble the kit.
Second is to modify the body and the chassis so that another N gauge chassis of a different type fits. However there are no N gauge 'steam' chassis in production that are suitable, so again a second hand chassis will be required.
As mentioned the cab is quite low on this model.
Brian Meldon
Would a Dapol Pannier work?
Just a thought - is N-drive currently active?
https://www.n-driveproductions.com/ (https://www.n-driveproductions.com/)
I have a chassis from Neville and it is very nice. He is very much a one-man-band and has other calls on his time but the chassis was worth the wait.
Quote from: cnw6847 on December 28, 2019, 18:01
Would a Dapol Pannier work?
Hi all,
No - the Dapol mechanism protrudes to far at the front and will not fit into the kit body.
Still the best way is to have a search running on eBay and snap one up once you get a result.
Thanks
Phil H
Hi Stephen,
I recently bought this kit (whitemetal) at a show with a view to fitting it to the Graham Farish '08' diesel shunter.
Lovely little chassis but mine has a rather annoying "click" once per wheel rotation (haven't got to the bottom of this yet). Mine was a Christmas present many years ago, but, I think they are quite pricey now - £80-90 ?? I've never seen a used one for sale but they must exist...
It says in the Peco instructions that it will suit this chassis but it may need a little 'tweaking' here and there.
Will let you know how I get on (I think it's next on my build list),
Regards,
Dave
Just to expand on Dave's post there are now 2 versions of the Farish 08.
The earlier one has inside frames and is shared with the J94 / Austerity 0-6-0ST. Both chassis can be used under the old GEM WD Baldwin kit, as can the Dapol Terrier 0-6-0 (Pete Wilson has done this conversion) so that might also be a possibility. Prices on the older Farish chassis tends to be a bit variable on eBay, as some sellers equate these with the newer design (see below) and expect them to have the same value, but a 'realistic' value is probably in the £30-40 region.
The newer version of the Farish 08 has outside frames (as does the prototype loco) and is a very different design to the old one. This one tends to go for £80-90 as that's pretty much the retail price.
I also have a feeling that earlier incarnation of the kit may have used a steam loco chassis with outside cylinders and motion (Arnold 0-6-0?).
Personally my own view is that Peco made a poor choice with the Farish pannier tank chassis as there were very few 2' to 2'6" gauge locos with inside cylinders and I can't think of any that were 6-coupled. As a result if it were me I'd look to using either of the Farish chassis but with the addition of motion parts from RT Models. Whilst these are designed for the modern Farish 08 I'm sure with a bit of engenuity they could be used with the Farish inside frame chassis (or a Dapol terrier?).
The other suggestion would be one of Neville Kent's 'N-Drive' chassis, but I suspect that would need some modifications to the body.
Quote from: GraemeD on December 28, 2019, 15:10
I think in the end it boils down to how much you are willing to hack it and a chassis about and spend on a chassis.
There is also a last resort cop out and turn it into a tram loco with skirts. ;D
I dunno how much hacking I want to do, its the first time I have tried anything like this, but I am willing to give it a go, as for a chassis, I only have experience of the Kato diesel chassis range which are all around the £25 mark, so suppose £30-35?
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 28, 2019, 17:11
First is to find a second hand chassis of the correct type in good working order. This is what I would recommend. Also wait until you get the chassis before you start to assemble the kit.
As mentioned the cab is quite low on this model.
I am absolutely going to wait for the chassis, I missed an 2-4-0T on eBay yesterday for £30 which is annoying, but I will keep looking.
I hadn't realised it was low, and not sure if it could be easily modified. I think I need to send off for some mode crew models to keep things in perspective.
Quote from: GraemeD on December 28, 2019, 18:55
https://www.n-driveproductions.com/ (https://www.n-driveproductions.com/)
Yes that's a good one, he doesn't show dimensions for the actual chassis so I am not sure exactly which to go for. I am going to keep my eye on eBay for a couple of weeks to keep the price down but obviously that would not be as good, but we now have the daughters wedding to pay off so brass is tight :-)
Quote from: Scottish Modeller on December 28, 2019, 18:58
No - the Dapol mechanism protrudes to far at the front and will not fit into the kit body.
Just in time I was bidding on one, but have let it go.
Quote from: Dave Cooper on December 28, 2019, 20:54
It says in the Peco instructions that it will suit this chassis but it may need a little 'tweaking' here and there.
Will let you know how I get on (I think it's next on my build list),
That would be good thanks. I already have two eBay restorations, and the bits for a tram engine and an Ashover coach based railcar ahead on the project list so probably wont be starting the Peco kit for a few months However I can be a bit of a butterfly and go to the projects that are interesting me most that day so I might start looking at stretching the cab tonight ;D
Quote from: JulienW on December 29, 2019, 10:47
Personally my own view is that Peco made a poor choice with the Farish pannier tank chassis as there were very few 2' to 2'6" gauge locos with inside cylinders and I can't think of any that were 6-coupled. As a result if it were me I'd look to using either of the Farish chassis but with the addition of motion parts from RT Models.
What does inside / outside cylinders refer to please? Is inside the one whee you can't see them?
I didn't know that you could buy motion parts so that's a good pointer thanks.
As always, thanks for all the tips here gents, this is a great hobby and I am learning so much from you all :)
Stephen
Yes, I've never seen the difference between inside frames and outside frames - even if they dropped on me from a great height !!
Anyone got any images they could share ? Same goes for cylinders I guess, or, does one frame-set always mutually exclude the other ?
Yours (in total ignorance),
Dave
Just because there is no harm in giving them a plug, here's some examples from the Minitrains web site http://www.minitrains.eu/mt-steam.html (http://www.minitrains.eu/mt-steam.html)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minitrains.eu%2Fsources%2F1021.jpg&hash=b43110f6d97640ffc1bc70c323b1b64765f8ce4c)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minitrains.eu%2Fsources%2F1082.jpg&hash=6db010f3485d9cbb45135a95f65d565d9e38e21d)
To the best of my knowledge a very good reason for having outside frames is to fit in a wider firebox. Outside frames are not restricted to NG - think Stirling Singles. Another aspect of the charm of NG locomotives is the often long overhang behind the rear driving wheels as it is not a good idea to have an axle running through the firebox. Also the cab is proportionately larger on a small loco.
I cannot think of any NG locos with inside cylinders (diesels excepted! ;D ). The most notable examples of the use of inside cylinders is in 3 and 4 cylinder standard gauge locomotives and I understand the reason was one of efficiency with compound cylinders, i.e. low pressure cylinders running off the exhaust of the high pressure ones. I'm not sure how it worked with 3 cylinder locos, but with 4 they would be high and low pressure pairs hung on the outside and inside of a frame.
I'm not sure of the reason for inside cylinders in the sort of standard gauge 0-6-0 locomotive that is the recommended donor for "James". I seem to recall that inside cylinders on locomotives were not popular with the workshop due to the difficulty of servicing them.
It might be possible to find examples of NG locos that were build in either inside or outside frame form depending on gauge.
I think Stephen's question was about the difference between inside and outside cylinders, not about inside and outside frames, although the answers given on that may also be helpful if he is not aware!
The James version that was pictured, ie the more recent one from Peco is on top of a Grafar inside cylinder chassis, ie the wheels are only connected by single rod on either side and you can't see the cylinders or other rods and things because on the real loco they would be inside the frames under the boiler and out of sight. Small British tank engines and 0-6-0 goods locos etc tended to be inside cylindered. If the cylinders and valve gear are visible usually ahead of the leading driving wheels and normally (but not always) lined up under the smokebox, then they are outside cylinders.
Nearly all narrow gauge locos of the type that "we" go for in 009 ie prototype gauges roughly following 2ft to 2ft 6in gauge practice would have outside cylinders, which is why the Peco "modern" James with the Grafar inside cylinder chassis does not look right at all.
The originally intended Arnold 0-6-0 looks much better if you can get one, but be careful as even a new unused one would be at least 30 years old by now. The relatively short-lived (in the UK) Lifelike 0-6-0. which is the same as a previous incarnation under the name Atlas (which would also be quite old now) are good matches for the James, alternatively the Fleischmann Piccolo 7000 0-4-0 chassis has been used by many to power both Peco James and Jeanette kits successfully. Personally I would recommend this chassis as they are not too difficult to find (009 Sales often has at least a couple in stock), relatively affordable (avoid ebay rip off sharks) and are very robust, reliable and long-lasting. Ted Polet uses several of these under his Craigcorrie & Dunalistair Railway locos and if they can stand up to intense operations on a layout with over 75ft of running lines for years, then they must be worth considering!
Take note of Brian's comment about the cab being too low. Generally thought to have originally been designed to be a 3mm scale kit. Considerable improvement can be gained by increasing the height of it by between 2 and 3mm.
Totally agree with previous recommendations to obtain a suitable chassis before hacking the kit about!
Mick
Hi Graeme /Mick
Thanks for the education....coming back to Peco "James" on a GF '08' (I think mine is the older chassis).
Should Stephen and I fit a pair of dummy (outside) cylinders to get that 'authentic' look, assuming he decides to go that way too ?
If so, is there an easy way of connecting up to the coupling rods ? Space looks tight up front but is better at the rear of the chassis....
Regards,
Dave
This might or might not be useful, RT Models do an outside cylinder set for the "modern" Farish 08 chassis. Weather or not this would be usable in any way on the older chassis I have my doubts.
John Bruce.
If I recall correctly, the GEM Bagnall "Dennis" loco kit used a similar Grafar 0-6-0 inside frame inside, cylinder chassis. It included etchings for the connecting rods and crosshead mechanism. It was fake in that the piston rod was fixed I think and the crosshead slid back and forth along it.
My Brian Clark Peckett is even simpler. Not only are there no coupling rods (as on the old 0-6-0 Minitrix chassis with red wheels and newer Tsugawa 0-4-0 chassis) but each connecting rod (a tiny whitemetal casting) simply had a split pin where the "hairpin bend" part slid up and down a bit of wire representing the piston rod sticking out of the cylinder.
The RT models conversion looks a lot better and certainly less fiddly than trying to make!
Thanks Both
Looks like RT Models offer quite a few options, including some for the older '08' chassis. Some machining work may be necessary to make up a complete assembly - I'll have to look into that.
I've recently bought a drill sharpening jig and may have to buy a few reamers, taps etc but, hey-ho...
Best regards,
Dave
Possible donor for Peco James? The linkages etc look right and its going for £25. The body is a bit knackered so no qualms about chopping it up.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/sFsAAOSwVc9d~3mF/s-l1600.jpg)
If that is a Lima, then I think it is tender powered isn't it?
I would not think this one would be suitable to go under a James or a Jeanette.
Mick
As Mick has mentioned if that 0-6-0 tinder loco is one of the Lima models then the loco isn't powered, and though the tender chassis might be useful these are essentially a smaller version of the dreaded 'pancake' motors and (imho) not worth the £25 being asked.
To come back to Stephen's earlier question an inside cylinder loco has the cylinders mounted inside the chassis and behind the wheels out of sight of the casual viewer, along with the valves, valve gear and connecting rod (the one that transfers the thrust from the piston to a wheel) with the coupling rod (the one that takes the power from one wheel to the next) outside the wheels. As can be imagined the 'engine' bit (generally 2 cylinders and their associated valve chests) can get a bit big and space between the backs of the wheels to fit it all in is limited by the gauge, so whilst this is about 4 feet for a standard gauge loco (so you could probably get a pair of cylinders up to 18" internal diameter in the gap) for a narrow gauge loco the space is much less, probably as little as 15" overall. If a loco designer wanted to keep the cylinders out of sight but not be limited to small (7" or less) cylinders they could try to move them up and out of the space between the wheels, but then the boiler would get in the way unless that too was moved up, which moves the Centre of gravity up and makes the narrow gauge loco much less stable. By placing the cylinders and motion outside the wheels it means that bigger cylinders can be used (as there will be more space), and if they need to be moved upwards due to a restricted loading gauge then they will not get in the way of the boiler - look at the ex Penrhyn now Ffestiniog Linda and Blanche (and Charles now at the Penrhyn Castle Museum).
"4547" - I like the look of that wheelset with the coupling rods held on with screws...
Possible conversion : 5-pole motor on the loco chassis, gearbox and pick-ups from the tender, pair of dummy cylinders plus connecting rods (RT Models) - Anyone ?
Quote from: GraemeD on December 29, 2019, 19:45
If I recall correctly, the GEM Bagnall "Dennis" loco kit used a similar Grafar 0-6-0 inside frame inside, cylinder chassis. It included etchings for the connecting rods and crosshead mechanism. It was fake in that the piston rod was fixed I think and the crosshead slid back and forth along it.
I have one of these and can say the the piston rod and so on where genuine and moved as they were supposed to.
John Bruce.
Quote from: MickT on December 30, 2019, 16:04
If that is a Lima, then I think it is tender powered isn't it?
I would not think this one would be suitable to go under a James or a Jeanette.
Thanks, Yes it was and I didn't bid for it so no harm done there :-)
Quote from: JulienW on December 30, 2019, 17:40
As Mick has mentioned if that 0-6-0 tinder loco is one of the Lima models then the loco isn't powered, and though the tender chassis might be useful these are essentially a smaller version of the dreaded 'pancake' motors and (imho) not worth the £25 being asked.
To come back to Stephen's earlier question an inside cylinder loco has the cylinders mounted inside the chassis and behind the wheels out of sight of the casual viewer...
Thanks, I wasn't too sure and will probably buy one from N-Drive, once we have cleared the Christmas and Daughters wedding visa bill :-(
Quote from: Dave Cooper on December 28, 2019, 20:54
Hi Stephen,
I recently bought this kit (whitemetal) at a show with a view to fitting it to the Graham Farish '08' diesel shunter.
Lovely little chassis but mine has a rather annoying "click" once per wheel rotation (haven't got to the bottom of this yet). Mine was a Christmas present many years ago, but, I think they are quite pricey now - £80-90 ?? I've never seen a used one for sale but they must exist...
It says in the Peco instructions that it will suit this chassis but it may need a little 'tweaking' here and there.
Will let you know how I get on (I think it's next on my build list),
Regards,
Dave
The 'click' could be a snaped plastic gear wheel on the central axle. Sadly this is a common fault with the inside frame version of the GF 08 chassis.
Brian Meldon
Thanks for the tip Brian. The body's coming off anyway for the Peco "James" work.
I'll check the full geartrain while I'm at it...
Regards,
Dave
Quote from: Dave Cooper on December 31, 2019, 10:44
Thanks for the tip Brian. The body's coming off anyway for the Peco "James" work.
I'll check the full geartrain while I'm at it...
Regards,
Dave
If any of the gears have split it's possible to buy replacements from BR Lines (https://brlines.co.uk/original-farish-spares/). Working from memory the 08 / J94 chassis is a little different to the other chassis in that it has an intermediate gear between the worm and the big gear on the middle axle.
Quote from: JulienW on December 30, 2019, 17:40
By placing the cylinders and motion outside the wheels it means that bigger cylinders can be used (as there will be more space)
Sometimes quite a lot bigger! -
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49304654453_19fa221149_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2i7Tf2c)FSG No7 (https://flic.kr/p/2i7Tf2c) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/)
- though here you'll notice that they don't necessarily have to be the same size. Though they almost always are - this is a compound loco so there is a small high pressure cylinder and a bigger low pressure one, which is pretty unusual. The valve chests are above the cylinders. [FSG loco No. 7, Spain]
David.
I hope this fits, I just bought it on eBay for £20. The listing just says Graham Farrish 0-6-0 so not necessarily an exact fit, but its a start. If not I can use that on another project. :D
It is sold as a non-runner, the motor turns but the wheels don't so there is still a bit of work to do, but at least I can start fitting the body to it.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XM0AAOSwu1FeAVOK/s-l1600.jpg)
Quote from: clayliner on December 31, 2019, 15:53
... this is a compound loco so there is a small high pressure cylinder and a bigger low pressure one, which is pretty unusual...
I thought this was the common arrangement for a 2-cylinder compound. Perhaps the only way it can work. A quick google search doesn't bring up anything for "FSG loco No 7 Spain" so maybe this is an articulated loco, in which case I would agree that it is unusual.
Sorry - I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to suggest was that it wasn't common on small narrow gauge locos of the sort I think we have in mind here (like 'James'). Clearly there are n-g compounds and yes, the HP and LP cylinders would normally be different sizes on any compound loco, I presume.
(This Krauss 0-6-2T was originally from the Castellon line in Spain and moved to the San Feliu to Gerona line in 1965, joining other locos of similar but simple (i.e. non-compound) design already in use there.)
Hope this clarifies things and apologies for the confusion!
David.
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on December 31, 2019, 18:06
I hope this fits, I just bought it on eBay for £20. The listing just says Graham Farrish 0-6-0 so not necessarily an exact fit, but its a start. If not I can use that on another project. :D
It is sold as a non-runner, the motor turns but the wheels don't so there is still a bit of work to do, but at least I can start fitting the body to it.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XM0AAOSwu1FeAVOK/s-l1600.jpg)
That looks like the 'General Purpose' tank. It may be a little longer than the 57xx chassis but it should be possible to modify the Peco body to fit as (iirc) the way that these chassis are fixed to the body - lugs on one end and a long screw at the other - are fairly common across the range. At the easiest just enlarge the hole in the footplate casting (at either end or both) but an alternative would be to lengthen the loco - footplate and body - to keep the proportions of body & chassis length the same. If you go down that route then it may be an idea that any insert pieces in the footplate, boiler and tanks are not in the same place / plane (i.e. don't build the body & then cut it but cut it first) as 'staggered' joints will result in a stronger body.
As I've mentioned in a previous post BR lines sell spares for this chassis. They may be willing to do the work too, but I don't know what their charges are like, and certainly in the past have been happy to give advice.
Quote from: JulienW on January 01, 2020, 17:23
... lengthen the loco - footplate and body - to keep the proportions of body & chassis length the same. If you go down that route then it may be an idea that any insert pieces in the footplate, boiler and tanks are not in the same place / plane (i.e. don't build the body & then cut it but cut it first) as 'staggered' joints will result in a stronger body.
I was hoping to make this a simple first build of a white metal kit, but as they say, in for a penny ;D
Quote from: JulienW on January 01, 2020, 17:23
As I've mentioned in a previous post BR lines sell spares for this chassis. They may be willing to do the work too, but I don't know what their charges are like, and certainly in the past have been happy to give advice.
Ahh rebuilding the chassis is something I enjoy, I was expecting to have to get any broken gears 3d printed, but its good to know that the originals are available, thanks.
Stephen
The chassis I bought (Above) doesn't quiet fit but it isn't miles off but doesn't quite clear the back of the kit floor.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49336180801_30d10eb385_z.jpg)
I think I will extend the floor backwards by about 5mm, something like this (The extra panel against the back.) and probably raise the roof by a few mm.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49335750338_1e10ab92c4_z.jpg)
Unfortunately the chassis was sold as not working and I can see know that the worm gear is worn down, so that needs to be replaced, and the pickups look a bit dodgy on one side, so I might do them before starting the body. I am very temped to put a Transfabriek motor in now while its in bits, but that will mean fettling it in as I don't think he does a kit. Still that's all the fun isn't it :)
Isn't it? ???
Stephen
As an alternative to moving the back of the cab back and extending the roof to fill the gap what about using the extra space behind the cab to make a rear bunker?
Quote from: JulienW on January 06, 2020, 09:29
As an alternative to moving the back of the cab back and extending the roof to fill the gap what about using the extra space behind the cab to make a rear bunker?
And so making a decent space for a DCC receiver?!! Nice, thanks :)
Stephen