Are Poole-era 47 and 50 chassis interchangeable?

[NeMo]

As the subject line.

Toying with the idea of using a redundant Class 50 chassis underneath a Worsley Works D600 etched brass kit.

While the Poole-era 47 has been mentioned as viable, I'm wondering about the Class 50.

Cheers, NeMo

[koyli55002]

Wheelbase etc was different on the 47 to the 50 so I doubt it...............

[Dr Al]

No, they are different designs, the 50 chassis block is longer and more slender (slightly).

Cheers,
Alan

[NeMo]

Wheelbase etc was different on the 47 to the 50 so I doubt it...............

Never stopped a manufacturer using the same chassis for totally different locos before!

Cheers, NeMo

[koyli55002]

Good point, sir, and well made !
But sadly, not in this case 

[25901JFM]

Wheelbase etc was different on the 47 to the 50 so I doubt it...............

Never stopped a manufacturer using the same chassis for totally different locos before!

Cheers, NeMo

Didn't the Poole built 37's and 47's share the same chassis block at one time?

John

[koyli55002]

They did indeed - which I think was probably the point NeMo was making in his latest post.
But I think even Lima may have balked at the idea of using a 47 chassis for a 50 or 55 !

[koyli55002]

Actually, if I remember rightly, the Poole built 56 also used a 47 chassis .............
What with that and a totally unconvincing cab roof, didn't have a lot going for it really !

[NeMo]

Really, since neither is identical to the original D600 A1A-A1A, my question was more about whether people thought the Farish 50 would make a reasonable chassis for the Worsley kit.

But it doesn't sound like it from the feedback here.

Cheers, NeMo

[koyli55002]

Just had a glance at my "BR Main Line Diesels"
I see the wheelbase for the Class 41 is quoted as 50 feet.
Class 50 wheelbase is quoted as 56 ft 02 in so I reckon it would be about 12mm too long.
Class 47 wheelbase is quoted as 51 ft 06 in so still a tad long, but not as much.
Hope that helps
Good luck anyway !