J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

davebradwell
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby davebradwell » Sun May 17, 2020 8:39 am

You'll need an injector water valve on the other side Pete - the short thing - as the engine still had 2 injectors. Castings look a bit rough at this magnification but seem ok normally. Do you have an unused brass "suede" brush for bulling up brass bits? As to what else might be on the other side, your guess is as good as any. Folk wrote copiously about engines, particularly large passenger types, but bugger all about tenders. I've listed all references in the instructions so if you find out anything else you're winning. We only have details of the vacuum brake cylinders because Bernard Weller died and he just happened to have the drg. which someone thought I might find interesting. I will add that this kit only exists because of the patience and support of Alan Fell who needed a few.

It's going to turn out well, Pete.

DaveB

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Sun May 17, 2020 12:15 pm

Ah, yes that makes sense - thanks. I don't think the larger than life size photos do either your or my handiwork many favours - I should scale them down before posting! It is coming together nicely though.

In amongst this morning I have found time to do some cleaning up, alongside the odd file these are the main brushes in use. I do have others for the minidrill, but I find this one gets most use alongside the wooden handled one.

20200517_123324.jpg


I'm certainly grateful for the efforts of Alan, and you, in making it available -

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Sun May 17, 2020 6:08 pm

So the right hand (ok, left hand) injector valve and right hand tap have been fitted here. I thought it easier to fit the bits in stages to allow for cleaning up in between.

20200517_183552.jpg


One other thing which was confusing me, and I have now half got my head around, is the water gauge. So is it the almost full height part, with tap on the top, on the far right hand side (the shorter part is labelled elsewhere as the scoop indicator

Then I'm nearly there i I think (from the sketch) that for the tank back lamp brackets (171) the full thickness part is the bit which ends up as the vertical bit on the outside (not the bit bent down inside the tank). Otherwise should be plain sailing.

I after assembling the loco brake hangers and shoes (and gapping the tops) I tacked these (one not very well, but it isn't missing) onto a piece of brass sheet to make life easier cleaning them up. It might seem counter intuitive, as it adds another cleaning up stage after removing them - but overall I think helps make a neater job without deforming either them or my fingers!

20200517_172711.jpg
20200517_172711.jpg (162.02 KiB) Viewed 2893 times

davebradwell
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby davebradwell » Sun May 17, 2020 6:23 pm

Yes, water gauge is the tall thing with a handrail knob at the bottom to represent the cock. It's a fine thing in reality - a long tube with small holes up the side. Turn it 1/4 turn and water pours out, you hope. I would leave the rear lampiron until as late as possible.

DaveB

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Mon May 18, 2020 8:36 pm

So, not far off.

20200518_205631.jpg
20200518_205631.jpg (120.79 KiB) Viewed 2642 times


20200518_205605.jpg
20200518_205605.jpg (139.55 KiB) Viewed 2641 times


The toolboxes are not fixed in place, though the lids have been glued on. I have also superglued narrow strips of green label fag paper onto the inner faces of the brake pull rods, as a helping hand if they are within shorting distance. I need to do a bit more cleaning up around the front, but think that the tender queue now only consists of:
1. fire iron supports
2. vac pipe
3. steam heat pipe
4. lamp irons
5. toolboxes

I'm planning on sorting (1) now, & from what Dave suggested I'll leave (4) until I have the loco chassis at a similar stage of 'all but ready for the paintshops'. I could probably glue (5) on before, but might as well not give any chance of loosening the bond sending heat through the bodywork so will do that last.

(2) & (3) I think I will leave until after the lamp irons, to allow those to be accessed with an iron (of the soldering variety) easily, but will sort the pipe runs on the brakegear assembly. (3) I'm not sure whether to 'remove the bag'. I'm nominally mid September 1958, which would presumably be around when they were reattached. I presume the actual date wasn't set in stone, but presumably linked to both the weather and the allocated workings. There is a photo of 64859 in the colour rail archive dated 7th September 1958 at which point the bag is not in place. I'll probably end up with a mixture, and probably leave this one with bag afixed for now (as its quicker to leave the casting alone :shock: )

So mainly loco brakegear as time allows.

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:38 pm

Well, some progress has been made here this week. The brake hangers have been arranged as Dave Bradwell suggested, with a rod for the hanger to slot up around, and a tube to prevent it moving towards the frames.

The valvegear has been assembled - though it isn't quite right! Always annoying to notice after the event, but at least with it all being soldered together it can usually be desoldered and redone. There is definitely 1 error, and possibly 2. I noticed these when I compared what I have created against David Barham's photo on RMWeb:
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index ... alve-gear/

1. I have both conn rods in the same section of travel, bit of a schoolboy error... I think I have the right hand one in the right place, but the left hand one should be on the crankpin at the top of the cam?
2. I have lined the conn rods up so that the little end is central between the slidebars, but that then leaves a gap between here and the rest of the stack.

With outside valvegear it is easier to work out from photos what the ultimate aim is - though I guess on the flip side it would be less obvious to the casual observer if I get it wrong ;) but thats hardly the point :shock:

20201218_181017.jpg


20201218_180655.jpg

User avatar
steamraiser
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby steamraiser » Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:25 am

Nice work Pete.
If the loco is left hand drive I would have thought the tender brake handle would have been on the right behind the fireman?
Gordon

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:51 pm

Thanks Gordon, yes they were LHD so an interesting point.

I've also found this in my box of brake gear... which explains the width of my valvegear sandwich - and also makes more sense of the links from the weighshaft! in some ways a few steps back, but with a clearer view forward.

20201219_110022.jpg

DougN
Posts: 1082
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby DougN » Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:08 pm

Pete I was about to say you had done brilliantly as the valve gear in mine I ran out of room between the frames too quickly. Now that you found the extra bits I realised it wasn't me! Mine has gone on the back burner too long along with my V2's bit too much work coming out of lockdown. Only 2 days until my holidays so I expect to get some modelling done! :thumb
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

davebradwell
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby davebradwell » Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:51 am

I've been keeping out of this as it's so long ago since I built my J39 that there's no chance of me adding anything to what I've put in the instructions - or missed out, as the case may be. Now you have all the bits you should just be able to line up the cut-out to clear the axle and the hole that the support wire passes through.

You've put the tender hand brake on the correct side. It was certainly standard on NER and LNER tenders and didn't swap about according to where the driver sat - quite wisely, I would suggest. I was told they were always parked as you've shown so that when you climbed up the steps and bashed your head on the thing it was the bend and not the pointy end that got you. This must be standard on all regions as it would have been discovered about 10 sec after this type of handbrake was first used.

DaveB

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Will L » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:06 pm

davebradwell wrote:...You've put the tender hand brake on the correct side. It was certainly standard on NER and LNER tenders and didn't swap about according to where the driver sat - quite wisely, I would suggest. I was told they were always parked as you've shown so that when you climbed up the steps and bashed your head on the thing it was the bend and not the pointy end that got you.

:P :D :D :thumb

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:35 pm

Thanks Doug - well it has still gone in ok, but all lines up better now! It is one of the problems with 'parking' projects, even though I'm pretty good at keeping it all together it loses the flow.

Thanks for confirming the brake Dave - I was pretty sure I hadn't missed anything about such options in the instructions. It does seem to be one of those 'rules' which is broken as often as it is followed.

20201220_125632.jpg


On the subject of brakes though Dave, did you get my private message about the brake cylinder arrangement on the loco? I appreciate it is a busy time of year with plenty else needing time, but it sounds like I will probably have a bit more time to progress this in the next couple of weeks than I had planned...

Cheers,
Pete

davebradwell
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby davebradwell » Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:38 pm

Oops on a few scores there. The kit was derived from a GA of a vac fitted engine so that arrangement should be correct although this area of the drg is rather busy as the exhaust steam injector is down there too. These were later removed. I don't know where I derived the steam brake arrangement from but according to Isinglas it appears to be the reverse of mine. It's possible the brake shaft is very short rather like the B1 arrangement but with an off centre pull rod so would be invisible in photos especially behind the steps.

Have just remembered I downloaded some thumbnails that used to be on the NRM website that supports all this, although they're a bit short on pixels.

11842-D.png
11842-D.png (78.92 KiB) Viewed 1821 times


I now find having read your pm and started a reply, I can't go back to it without risking losing reply so I hope I've helped. Essentially, if you've cut the frame away you'll have to build a vac fitted loco, if not it's steam as far as I can remember.

Since the news last night I find myself with rather more time than I had expected.

DaveB

Daddyman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Daddyman » Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:47 am

davebradwell wrote: Have just remembered I downloaded some thumbnails that used to be on the NRM website that supports all this, although they're a bit short on pixels.

11842-D.png


Pity none of the radii on the valance are legible!

Edward45
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Edward45 » Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:49 pm

I understand that the radius was standard among the later NER engines. On the Isinglass j39 and Q7 drawings the height difference is quoted as 1ft, from this I would believe the radius to be that figure.

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:37 pm

Thanks Dave, I know what you mean abou trying to remember messages and topics - I tend to keep everything open on separate tabs, but that still means flicking back and forth. But you did answer the question, thanks - I did cut the frame away (nothing wrong with the instructions, just me), but will form something to add in with reference to the Isinglass drawing. I was mainly checking that I was seeing what I was looking at (!), and that there was a likely original source.

I'm always a tad dubious about trusting things 'published' as being 100% true - JIC Boyd's narrow gauge books spring to mind. They are a brilliant reference and starting point, but there was plenty of dot joining that has since been updated - however there are still new books covering things as per Boyd, seeing that was printed it must be true. likewise Skinley (?) drawings.

Do you think the pull rod would have been a single rod and located pretty centrally (just offset to avoid the rod from the cylinder) - or could it have been a pair spaced a bit further outbound? I guess knowledge of other Gresley designs of the era may give an indication, but beyond that I wouldn't know where to start looking.

Cheers,
Pete

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:02 pm

A few more steps forward - brake gear assembled and attached to the keeper plates. The pull rod and cylinder have been arranged using the Isinglass drawing.

I have assembled the lubricator drive, but not yet attached it as I'm in 2 minds. The instructions have the drive on a rod, fitting over a tube - but there is nothing to tether it from moving out. It would also still need the crank removing from the driving wheel to allow the driving wheels to drop out - so I might pin it in place to the frame (with the drive rod loose on the pin but the pin soldered into the frame) unless I've missed something as to why Dave didn't suggest this method.

Otherwise, the chassis is now nearing completion - that lubricator drive, pickups to fit, the drop grate lever to fabricate and fit (I don't think I've seen any bits for this, but I have a spare pull rod crank which looks about right), and I will do some filling around the cylinder castings as suggested in the instructions. Then onto the body!

20201229_131744.jpg
20201229_131744.jpg (99.33 KiB) Viewed 1481 times


20201231_144259.jpg


20201231_143714.jpg


20201231_143651.jpg


Body wise I have some of the bits in stock - Alan Gibson Chimney and dome, washout plugs from Markits, handrail knobs. I'm currently planning on leaving the Bachmann snifting valve, though may have a spare in a WD 2-8-0 kit depending on whether I need to use the LNE or BR version when I build that.

I'm tempted to try and move the lower firebox handhole - Bachmann have it on the flat section, but it appears that it should be on the lower part of the curve

davebradwell
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby davebradwell » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:55 pm

It's coming on now. Suggest tidying up the boiler bands by putting strips of Scotch tape each side of them and filing down with flat file until you hit the tape. Better to remove and replace with ones the right width but this is a lot easier. Back edge of cab could be thinned on the inside.

Lub drive is fine as per the instructions as the valence stops it falling off.

DaveB

Daddyman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Daddyman » Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:18 am

PeteT wrote: I'm tempted to try and move the lower firebox handhole - Bachmann have it on the flat section, but it appears that it should be on the lower part of the curve


I wouldn't bother - I hadn't even noticed it.
But I would replace the s.box door as it doesn't have the correct forked ends on the straps. The Hornby D49 is a good replacement for one type fitted to J39s.

It's coming on well!

You could also think about getting a second body, cutting off the cab sides, thinning them down and then replacing the ones on your current body.... if you were a masochist... I got mine down to about 0.5mm in thickness. The shape of the cab-side windows looks so much better when the sides are thinned down:
20201122_194905_resized.jpg

20201122_194900_resized.jpg

20201122_194854_resized.jpg

20201122_194827_resized.jpg

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:12 pm

Thanks Dave, David,

davebradwell wrote:Lub drive is fine as per the instructions as the valence stops it falling off.

I thought there might be something about the lubricator assembly I'd missed, so glad I asked the question!

davebradwell wrote:Suggest tidying up the boiler bands by putting strips of Scotch tape each side of them and filing down with flat file until you hit the tape. Better to remove and replace with ones the right width but this is a lot easier.

I was, and still am, in 2 minds about the boiler bands. As they need adding to the boiler bottom it in some ways seems as easy to start again and make them the right width - I have some of Arthur Kimber's etches - but then the eye is good at spotting parallel lines (if I don't align them pefectly), so it might be better to thin down and live with the originals.

Daddyman wrote:I wouldn't bother - I hadn't even noticed it.

I do and don't agree with this! On one side, I had noticed - so it will wind me up even if nobody else. Also, the position in relation to the reversing rod would probably mean moving the rod down a smidge so it doesn't sit in front of the handhole, which may then affect the look of the cab front. On the flip side, I agree it isn't far away, and the potential to make something which looks worse is quite high.

Daddyman wrote:I would replace the s.box door as it doesn't have the correct forked ends on the straps. The Hornby D49 is a good replacement for one type fitted to J39s.

Good point. I have a Shire body, and agree it looks good. However that is in its own queue (Comet frames, and some Shire valvegear from somewhere...). There don't currently appear to be smokebox doors available separately from the likes of petersspares.

Dave Bs B1 smokebox door casting looks the part. Unfortunately, of the 2 provided in that kit the earlier one which would be suitable for the J39 is the one I need for 61275. However I am using the Hornby body for that, and their smokebox door looks good to me so I might leave it alone which would free up the casting. If I change my mind the casting is available separately from Dave.

Daddyman wrote:You could also think about getting a second body, cutting off the cab sides, thinning them down and then replacing the ones on your current body....

I was planning on thinning the rear edge as suggested by Dave, but agree that the windows do still look pretty chunky. I have a GBL Bachmann clone of the J39 so will have a play with that, though I think the plastic they used is a bit more brittle/less forgiving. It would almost seem to make sense to fabricate some replacements from brass - but then it would tempt me to draw them for etching, which would then tempt me to include the cab front, and before you know it half of the rest! So I will have a go with the GBL sides and see where I get, thanks for the suggestion :)

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Will L » Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:46 pm

PeteT wrote:T...I had noticed - so it will wind me up even if nobody else. ...

Are, how I recognise that feeling.

Daddyman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Daddyman » Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:22 pm

PeteT wrote: it would tempt me to draw them for etching, which would then tempt me to include the cab front, and before you know it half of the rest!


Go on! You know you want to! And do us some valances at the same time! (And maybe some J38 cab sides [windows lower] and J38 valances?).

Your Hunt/Shire body will need a new boiler (Hornby have the boiler dia smaller than the smokebox)....
Last edited by Daddyman on Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Daddyman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby Daddyman » Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:27 pm

PeteT wrote: but then the eye is good at spotting parallel lines (if I don't align them pefectly)

If you use 18mm Tamiya masking tape cut (carefully parallel) to the width between boiler bands, it will ensure the bands are in alignment.

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:44 am

Daddyman wrote:If you use 18mm Tamiya masking tape cut (carefully parallel) to the width between boiler bands, it will ensure the bands are in alignment.

That's a good idea. I was also considering the option of drilling holes through the current boiler bands at 2 or 3 points around the barrel, which would help align new with old. In for a penny, I think they will get replaced!

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

Postby PeteT » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:51 pm

I'm currently finalising plans to continue the detailing - there are a couple of areas I'm not completely sure about. The NRM Darlington drawing list includes quite a few things it would be useful to have access to right now!

https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/ ... 20List.pdf

Firstly, the frame GA Dave posted above would be useful in higher res to show the splasher and frame detail above the footplate. That is mainly for thinning the frame thickness though, and that can be assessed against photos easily enough.

The bigger problem is the plumbing on the smokebox sides - alongside the sanding gear I presume its lubrication. Some J39s had a lubricator on the right hand side, but mine doesn't as it has the 2 Wakefield no 7s, but there is still a fair bit of pipework going on which is hard to understand from the photos I have - especially the 'lump'.

Of the NRM drawings there are:
11534 I think is the alternative lubricator, is the Eureka type.
I presume 11650 smokebox arrangement will be internal rather than such plumbing detail, and likewise 11670 steampipes.
11743 covers Wakefield lubricator arrangement, though I don't know how much of the pipework this would include 12560 is also on mechanical lubrication arrangements.
13624 is the later lubrication arrangement from what I can tell from the description.
15132 covers slidebar lubricators, which is a drawing from 1932 so should cover mine.
It would be useful to see 11751 and 11752 for the injector. 11901 also covers injectors.
11854 covers seats, toolboxes and cab floor which sound useful.
11864 and 11865 cover the mechanical lubricator arrangements.
14084 cover drop grate details.

There are quite a few more dated 1935 and beyond, 64859 was outshopped in 12/34 and the 1935 drawings will most likely be for the vac braked locos rather than updates which would have made their way onto mine later.

Still, rather than wait until such a time as I might be allowed to visit the NRM, it would be good to crack on. This is the clearest photo of the left hand side I've found. I'm currently separated from my Yeadon register which may have a useful image of the right.

20210216_124348crop.jpg


Return to “PeteT”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest