- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
Duncan McGowan.
-
Posts
-
-
Andrew McCorkell
Returning to the hobby after 50 years away (!) I’m close to deciding to adopt EM. Before taking the plunge, I want to make sure I can convert the handful of new RTR of locos that I have, starting with the Bachmann 64xx.
Can anyone offer advice on this?
Thanks!
-
Dai Davies
My first attempt at this was to just pull out the wheels on the existing axles. Worked ok in straight lines, but not curves. There was not enough grab on the axles.
I then replaced axles and wheels with Romfords, and now works fine.
The loco is geared on every axle, unlike the older panniers, etc, so there is a little more work to be done; but easy enough.
-
Excellent, many thanks Dai. I’ll give it a go…..
-
-
John Cutler
Andrew
The 64xx is relatively easy to convert. Geoff Forster described (December 2015!) his conversion to EM in a blog entitled “Llangunllo: Bachmann Butchery (The story behind 7416)”. I am not sure of the site and am darned if I can discover it now; but you might be able to. It took him 5 hours to convert and the only modification apart from changing the wheels was to trim off the insides of the brake pull rods.
That Bachmann loco, and my own of a similar vintage, does not have gears on every axle; presumably that applies to newer models.
I used Alan Gibson wheels for my conversion. Markits (previously known as Romford) wheels are simpler to install and quarter. Be aware they are to RP25 standards and do not strictly conform to the EMGS standard; the tyres look a little wider. Most users of RP25 wheels (and modern RTR wheels pulled out to EM) do not have problems in EM.
My 64xx does not run nearly as smoothly as my Bachmann 57xx and 8750 panniers. They have sprung centre axles which means 5 wheels are always in contact with the rails rather than just 3, so pick-up is much more reliable. I overcome this by coupling the 64xx to a Bachmann autotrailer which has pick-ups fitted and wiring this across to the loco.
The Rolls-Royce solution is to buy the High Level Kits chassis. I have one awaiting the works manager getting off his backside!
Good Luck!
-
Really helpful, thanks John. I wasn’t aware of the High Level kits, which look really interesting….
-
-
Paul Willis
On Andrew McCorkell saidReally helpful, thanks John. I wasn’t aware of the High Level kits, which look really interesting….
High Level Kits are superb to put together.
Really easy, very comprehensive instructions, and produce a superb looking and running model. I haven’t built the pannier chassis, but I’ve just finished the 48xx one.
It is just waiting for the body to be resprayed and then it will be finished.
Have fun!
Paul
Attachments:
-
Gerald Grudgings
Re returning to hobby and looking at EM conversions to modern RTR. Not a popular view, but I’d tread with caution. They can be difficult at least. The days of standard components are gone, everything for the most part is bespoke to a particular run of a particular loco. If there is a conversion kit for the loco make sure it is the same version as the one you are buying. I have asked RTR mfrs. about flexibility in design for upcoming projects and had no support. I also have been in the hobby over 60 years and EM most of it. 16.5 was awful when I started, with steamroller wheels and rough motors and coarse track. Its a very different scene now, and to be honest if I had to start again would stick with up to date 16.5, for a quiet life. Sorry to be downbeat but am being open. Regards, Gerald Grudgings, Tywyn.
-
Well, I empathise with Gerald as I nearly returned to OO myself. What stopped me?
1. OO track still looks too narrow for me, even though appearances have improved unbelievably from the old Peco Streamline days. In EM we now have Ready-To-Lay B6 turnouts and a growing variety of Finetrax kits which reduce a lot of the effort required to build an EM layout to a fine standard. A practical disadvantage of EM is that the minimum curve for mainline stock is probably about 30” (76cms) but much less in OO; such tight curves look too toy-train for me (but OK for a dockside/industrial layout). Hide such tight corners by putting them in a cutting or behind a scenic break.
2. The appearance of most OO RTR locos has improved unbelievably in recent years. However chassis and pick-up designs have been left behind. Very few locos are fully sprung and I am unaware of any that are compensated. The result can be motion that is far from smooth. The accepted wisdom seems to be to add a DCC chip and Stay-Alive to overcome pick-up problems; I am unconvinced. Some RTR locos such as Bachmann’s 57xx and 8750 panniers are sprung on the centre axle which improves pick-up greatly. Others have extra pick-ups on tenders which can transform performance. For many RTR small tank engines I am inclined to build a new chassis. If you are into electronics, a new chassis gives one flexibility in planning the internal layout; most RTR tank locos are fitted with inflexible lumps of chassis to maximise weight on the wheels. For me, not into chips at all (yet), the space gives flexibility to fit in a radio control receiver and battery. To summarise, you do not need a new chassis to convert to EM but for some locos it may be a good idea, depending on your aims.
I agree with Gerald that loco conversions from RTR are far from simple (although they may be for diesels and EMUs). I cannot say I enjoy the process but I have learned a lot. Would I be content to forget everything and tolerate poorer standards in RTR OO? I suspect I would end up adopting the fine OO/SF standard (using Finetrax kits!) so I may as well stay with EM!
3. Tolerances are much looser in OO. One unfortunate effect is that rolling stock can have more lateral movement. This can look odd and might lead to derailments but also can make coupling difficult; one suspects couplings based on centring like AJs will not work well. Buffer locking on curves is likely to be an issue. As for reversing a 12-coach main-line corridor train through a reverse curve crossover……………
4. Rolling stock conversions from RTR tend to be fairly straightforward.; replace with new wheels or even just pull out the RP25 RTR wheels to EM gauge.
Personally I prefer to aim at running a small number of EM locos on a small finescale layout to running a big shedload of RTR locos (although I have been tempted to collect far too many!). If I wanted to run a mainline at home then OO certainly has attractions in being able to achieve something quickly; the time saved can be spent building a large layout to run the stock on. I would not recommend building a mainline in EM (or P4) at home; it is unlikely to get finished. Instead run your EM trains on a club layout or collaborate with friends to achieve the same ends. Having said all this, EM comes at an extra cost which is considerable when totalled. Hopefully one of the RTR brands will break ranks and manufacture EM locos but do not hold your breath!
Apologies to Andrew that this has drifted a bit Off Topic. I just wanted to balance Gerald’s comments a little so you are not unduly dissuaded from giving up on EM!
-
Thanks all for a really interesting discussion. No apology necessary John, this is exactly the right debate!
In my youth (a LONG time ago) I was inspired by the likes of Peter Denny (Buckingham) and David Jenkins (Garsdale Road) – both finescale EM of course. I see some great OO layouts now, but they were the greats.
With very tight space constraints and starting from scratch, my thinking was – this is the opportunity to do things properly. As you say, converting the rolling stock is no issue, but my debate is whether (with basic tools, no lathe etc) it’s either worthwhile, or even possible, to convert the locos (all steam in my world) and go EM.
The 64xx that was the subject of this thread looks pretty good as-is, and I have a Dapol Mogul which looks superb and runs really well, so there’s a natural resistance to pull it to pieces! I also have acquired a second hand Dapol 14xx (or 48xx if you prefer) which looks quite crude – big shiny wheels, big flanges etc. Hence Paul’s picture is really interesting!!
All I’ve built so far is a test track with Peco code 75bullhead track and including a Finetrax turnout in OO-SF. Still “narrow gauge” of course, and not sure about the Peco sleeper spacing, but looks pretty good, and the RtR locos and stock seem to cope fine with the turnout.
So the jury’s still out 😊. I think the next step might be the 48xx chassis…..
-
Andrew, you may not like this…..
I recommend:
1. Start by converting the 64xx to EM. Buy a set of 3mm axle Markits or Alan Gibson wheels.
2. If that conversion does not result in a smooth-running loco, try and ascertain if pick-ups are the problem. If so, consider acquiring a Bachmann autotrailer, which has pick-ups fitted for lighting, converting it to EM and connecting it to the 64xx.
3. Consider upgrading the 64xx by building a High Level Kits chassis to go under it. Note that you will need gears and a motor as well but the excellent standard of the Bachmann body justifies the extra cost in my opinion. You could re-use the wheels from the first conversion (but personally I would not do so); if so ask for 3mm axle bearings from HL when ordering.
4. The current Dapol 14xx is, I think, the same as the old Airfix model. If so, the body needs a lot of work to bring it up to today’s standard; refer to Iain Rice’s article in MRJ1. Wizard Models sell his detailing kit MT222 for £24.00 which I recommend. I tried twice to build the Perseverance compensated chassis for this but both attempts resulted in unsatisfactory running; it was a pig to get right! I suspect the current Comet chassis from Wizard is also a challenge. The High Levels chassis kit is probably the safest option but at a much higher cost. You may well ask why I have not gone down this route. Well I am fairly sure I cannot produce a sufficiently high quality body and paintwork to match the standard of the HL chassis (yes, I have a chopped-about Airfix body and detailing kit in the Forgotten & Neglected section of the storage boxes!). Will all the work and cost be worth it? Be careful. Unless you like a challenge, I think this project could end up being demoralising. Maybe you should wait for the new Dapol tooling expected at the end of 2025?
5. For an easier GWR conversion, try a Bachmann 8750 or 57xx. Face it, there were hundreds of these panniers on the Western so you probably should have one anyway! Lots can be found on the second-hand market.
6. The Dapol GWR 43xx mogul looks good. The outside cylinders will present a new conversion challenge for you but at least there is no complicated Walschaerts valve gear! The Dapol chassis is supposed to be compensated and has a sprung pony truck so worth trying a simple wheel conversion. Add pick-ups to the tender if they are not already fitted. Remember to write up your conversion to EM on this forum or as a Manual Sheet in case I decide to buy one!
Good Luck!
-
Stuart Firth
Perhaps I am a little out of step with current thinking, but to me one of the delights of working in EM is that it encourages us to ditch RTR and build our stuff from kits and scratch, which is so much more rewarding. When I see the woes people experience with some of these conversions I can’t help thinking it would have been easier to build a kit! I would definitely encourage use of the High Level kit, which will make a much more satisfactory job and give you great pride in your work.
-
Nigel Burbidge
I suspect I am a little more catholic in my approach. I do get tremendous enjoyment from making my own locos and stock but if an RTR manufacturer is kind enough to manufacture something that fits my needs and enables me to spend the next few months making something very few people have, then I’ll happily use their products.
As you may recall Stuart, at the London exhibition last year I was able to convert a Hornby J15 and get it running in EM mode by around lunchtime, so they can be a useful shortcut, especially if one has been a little over ambitious in one’s choice of project… 😊
Nigel
Attachments:
-
Stuart Firth
I know, I am hopelessly old-fashioned, and the J15 was an amazing job!
-
Duncan McGowan
Hi Andrew
Sorry, a bit late in the day, but as I’ve just finished a Bachmann 64xx, I thought I’d add my tuppence worth.
Possibly the easiest approach would be to keep the Bachmann wheels and fit a set of the Society’s 3mm shoulder axles. You would have to forego the finer wheel profile of ‘proper’ EM wheels, but the saving in time would be significant. The Bachmann wheels look quite convincing in profile, and are at least the correct diameter.
I started my conversion with the EMGS Pannier conversion kit, actually a set of Alan Gibson Workshop (AGW) bits and pieces. This is a cheap option, but one I didn’t enjoy. The issues I had with this kit were having to drill my own crankpin holes, hours (seemingly) trying to clean the tarnishing that these wheels are apparently prone to, and then managing to fuse the crankpin nuts to the rods with Loctite 601 because there was too much slop in the threads.
Having carefully and safely stowed the AGW items in the bin, I then tried a set of Ultrascale wheels which had just arrived (having been ordered 9 months earlier).
These went on easily and have a very pleasing finescale look, but when the body was replaced it just looked completely wrong! It took a while to figure it out – the brake rods were too low to the ground, caused by the wheels being significantly too small (image attached).
I then tried Markits wheels. These are very high quality, all metal (apart from a plastic bush) and nicely finished. The benefits are that thread locking is unnecessary as slotted nuts are used to secure the rods and, as the axle ends are square, the wheels can be quartered with ease. The downsides are the the wheel profile is not EM, you need to find a way to cover the wheel nuts (I used plasticard discs cut with a 1/8″ punch) and you also need special screwdrivers for the crankpin and wheel nuts (although you could make them from old screwdrivers).
I haven’t had any issues with running because I’m fully DCC and have managed to fit an ESU sound decoder, stay-alive capacitor (and a firebox glow) by removing some of the metal weight inside the panniers (picture attached). It’s not obvious how to do this, but if you put the body in the freezer overnight it will come apart quite easily in the morning, enabling you to remove the cab and extract the weight, which I then reduced in size with a hacksaw. This approach also lets you remove the unconvincing coal load from the bunker, file that down and replace with real Welsh steam coal using the “clingfilm technique”.
Hope this is some way helpful. It’s a great little model and I’m very pleased with the results.
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
Again thanks John, Duncan and others for the guidance – really useful.
I confess when I was thinking about the tools I would need, a deep freeze hadn’t occurred to me!
-
I confess when I was thinking about the tools I would need, a deep freeze hadn’t occurred to me!
Yes it does seem a little odd doesn’t it?!
When I got hold of the model I was puzzled as to why Bachmann had made it so hard to improve, especially given the cost (it’s not exactly cheap). I had read the article by Gerry Beale and Jerry Clifford in MRJ 276 about converting the Bachmann 64XX to a 54XX using a High Level chassis kit and, on page 24, Gerry talks about removing the cab – but I couldn’t see how it could be done, given that it’s glued to the back of the tanks.
Then I stumbled across an article on a plastic kit website, about disassembling aeroplanes that had been botched during assembly. Someone mentioned the freezer trick, so I thought I’d give it a go.
Before I did, I did visit the Bachmann website and bought a spare body in case it all went horribly wrong. I put both bodies in the freezer, inside a bag, and was delighted when, the following day, they both came apart quite easily – just a small amount of force was needed to break the adhesive bond.
Even better, a gentle nudge with a screwdriver extracted the metal weights from the tanks of both bodies, freeing up plenty of space for electronics!
The spare body I got from Bachmann was the black 64XX; the actual model was the green 6412, from the South Devon Railway. My idea was to use the spare body as a test bed and put the original green body on a High Level chassis, which is waiting to be put together. I made a few changes to the replacement body, replacing the moulded buffers with sprung versions, cutting off the moulded safety valve bonnet and adding a polished brass item (not exactly prototypical but I like the look!), painting the buffer beams (the brownish red used by Bachmann seemed a bit wrong), but nothing major – just a few mods to make the model a little better, in my opinion.
I still have the Modelu crew to add, and also need to weather it a little if only to tone down the crankpin nuts and the rods.
The wheels are Markits, as explained above. These are incredibly easy to install but sadly don’t have the correct EM profile (they are too thick). If I had a lathe I would be tempted to grind down the original wheels and use those, with the Society’s shoulder axles. I’m keeping the Ultrascale wheels for the High Level chassis, which I’ll tackle this winter.
Here’s a better picture of the Markits wheels;
Anyway, I would highly recommend the freezer trick for any plastic body disassembly – it works like a charm.
All the best
Duncan
-
- Only logged in EMGS members can reply to this topic