J39 64859 Bachmann/Dave Bradwell

[Daddyman]

Pete:
The frames on the Bachmann model are too thick, so come out too far, intruding into the splashers, which makes them difficult to separate from the latter. Another argument for an etched footplate...

Re smokebox-side details, will drawings help much? I'm all for finicky details, but I think these details are so small that they will be difficult to represent accurately with the means available (wire and tube).

A quick look through Yeadon suggests no other locos with the lump, though the photos are small and I wasn't using magnification.

The pipe at the top of your photo is the drain from the vacuum ejector, if that's any help.

[PeteT]

Thanks David, yes I thought from photos it looked like the rear of the frames was about right.

Drawing up a footplate I would want to do right though, so would need the drawings! I did start doing this though... but am still in 2 minds as to whether to go that far.

cab.JPG

I guess its that the drawings should give some detail in terms of pipe sizes etc, but agree they wouldn't add much over clear photos. To compare this photo of the preserved Shire shows how much clearer things could be! That said there are plenty of useful photos of D49s in the recent 'An illustrated appreciation 3 Gresleys D49's' by Book Law - but so far they don't appear to be covering J39s (B16s, V2 and K3s announced).

JD49 morayshire.JPG

I suppose the angle I was going from for drawings was increasing my understanding of what it all is - this both means I shouldn't connect the wrong things together (or drains pointing up), but give an indication of what might read across to other designs of which there might be clearer photos.

I don't think the Shire has quite the same equipment, it doesnt look quite the same shape - though is presumably doing the same job, just with pipes in different directions feeding the cylinders and valvegear in different locations.

I have some things which can be progressed in amongst looking into this at least.

[Daddyman]

The cab CAD looks very exciting, Pete!

I would say that the lubricator parts would be standard on LNER locos of the D49/J39 period.

The problem as I said is representing them. The elbow on the drain in your photo is probably 0.5 capillary tube, but do you do the nut with 0.6 tube too? That's the easy bit. But how do you do the forked junction thingies in the lubricator runs? I'm pondering the following at the moment, common on NBR locos (and possibly some LNER standard types):

20210215_210900[0].jpg

The bits coming out of the s.box side need to pierce (or be pierced by) capillary tube into which thin copper wire can be inserted to represent the pipe. But the problem is you're quickly down to capillary tubes that are too small to drill crossways. The vertical sleeve into which the pipe goes couldn't really be more than 0.4, and you could get 0.193 wire into that no problem, but how do you pierce a 0.4 tube to attach it to the horizontal 0.6-ish part?

[DougN]

Pete, brass masters have the correct casting for the "manifold" I have them on my V2's. It is an L shaped casting with a spigot to be glued into the smokebox. I used 0.2 copper from some wire as the pipe runs. It's flexible enough to curve and install as per a photo. Soldering them all onto the casting is a bit of a trick though. Anything larger than the copper seemed to be too stiff to bend and run.

[PeteT]

Don't get too excited David! I want to get this over the finish line, and while that was sketched up using the Bachmann one as a basis I'd want to check against the actual drawing to do it properly. I might well do a second one though.

I've got a 0.3/0.5/0.7/0.9 tube set (alongside various others), and with 5amp fuse wire I made a few bits & b(l)obs looks ok on the 1P. I think 5A wire is 0.2mm, and technically there is 3A at 0.15mm but I haven't seen an easy source for this. I did a couple of T sections, but yes those + shapes, looking pretty exposed, could be problematic - and this will be the same for the runs on the J39. As least using tube the fuse wire can run through, which seems more robust than soldering to the end of a casting.

Thanks for the though Doug, I'd kept forgetting to see what Brassmasters have. I see what you mean on the V2 castings page, but I don't think they are available separately - I think they source the lost wax castings as sets and don't even allow these to be sold complete outside of the loco kits. The fuse wire solders nicely and is flexible too. I don't know how easy it is for you to source - I'm surprised its still so plentiful over here, I'd like to think most houses are on RCDs... but if copper works then don't fix it!

The etched mudhole doors could be useful, though this is another area where there were 4 washout plugs per side (not that Isinglass has it in the list, but photos say otherwise) - but these don't seem to have the same prominent base to them in the photos I've seen.

Tonight I've finished removing the boiler bands, and being playing with a Dave Bradwell B1 smokebox door - the door shape and brackets look good, but the outer rim not as pronounced so I'm seeing if I can make something look anything like a circle. I might have some photos tomorrow...

[PeteT]

This place seem to have a nice variety of thicknesses - shame they're all in 50g reels, and no variety pack!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/112028568439 ... 0965112927

[Daddyman]

The etched mudhole doors could be useful, though this is another area where there were 4 washout plugs per side (not that Isinglass has it in the list, but photos say otherwise) - but these don't seem to have the same prominent base to them in the photos I've seen.

Tonight I've finished removing the boiler bands, and being playing with a Dave Bradwell B1 smokebox door - the door shape and brackets look good, but the outer rim not as pronounced so I'm seeing if I can make something look anything like a circle. I might have some photos tomorrow...

Pete,
The Finney/Brassmasters etching is for handholes, of which two were fitted per side; washout plugs, of which there were four, do not, as you suspect, have the prominent base or disc around them; they're just a pip.

To make circles for the back of smokebox doors I solder some 5 thou to a brass tube of the correct diameter and file around that. I've done this on Dave's J27, not because there's anything wrong with his door, but because the rim varied in diameter from loco to loco.

[Phil O]

Pete, I wouldn't get to fixated on the pipe runs, as every time they were removed and replaced, they would go back slightly differently and if replaced, it would probably go back at the whim of whoever was doing the job. Our capillary runs were like car wiring diagrams in the Hayne's manuals, do you remember them ? Just a schematic of what went where, not how.

Cheers

Phil.

[PeteT]

Thanks for confirming that David, and on the lower handholes I think I've worked out why it doesn't look quite right. I think its vertical position is ok, so its view should work around the reversing rod fine - but what seems to happen is that the Bachmann model has vertical firebox sides meeting the curved barrel with a much less pronounced reverse curve - so thats good, I can leave those alone!

I had started playing with something thicker than 5 thou, but looking at it agree that 5 thou will look much better. I was looking for suitable tubes to form around but failed to find one - but I will print a circle on paper and use that as a template.

Thanks Phil - I understand what you're saying, but it isnt specifically the way they route but the way they enter and exit the manifolds and valves I'm trying to clarify in my head. Its been a useful discussion though, I'll try and knock something up which looks like those on the Shire and see how that then compares with the photos of the J39.

I've just about finished the demolition job, so soon onto the rebuild! (apart from the cab, which is in 1 piece, and awaiting experimentation with the GBL cab sides). The snifter has so far survived, and looks fine - but having got this far I will do a comparison with the LNE type Dave includes in the WD kit (presuming I can use the WD type when I get to that). The boiler looks quite hacked around but feels quite smooth, so I'm hopeful that a layer of primer will make it look better not worse...

20210217_172358re.jpg

[Daddyman]

You look to have done a very good job on removing the frame tops and leaving the splashers intact, Pete - it's very encouraging that it can actually be done, and be done so neatly.

[Phil O]

Pete,

We aimed for 2 or 3 inches of straight pipe, where fittings were needed, to allow alignment of the nipple or olive and to allow the nuts to be done up without cross threading.

Cheers

Phil.

[PeteT]

Thanks guys!

The weather yesterday meant I had some jobs to attend to, but Saturday was a washout so had seen some progress - more on the 3P than here, but doing some of each in parallel.

Contrary to all sensible advice, I thought I would try doing the handrail in one piece. This wasn't being completely contrary, but using the logic that if it worked ok then great - and if it didn't I could use that as the basis for one half at least and form another for the 2nd half. I don't think it has come out too badly, and not sure I would do better forming two halves?

The handrail knobs will be thinned down before I fix it properly anyway. The (Dave Bradwell B1) smokebox door is on a base of 5 thou brass, and that alongside Alan Gibson chimney and dome are temporarily tacked in place with uhu to assess how they are, and give a better overall impression in which to assess the handrail.

20210221_204249.jpg

20210221_204235.jpg

20210221_204227.jpg

[Daddyman]

Sorry, Pete, but I've never seen a J39 with that pattern of front handrail. J39s - unless you know differently - all had reverse curves before the handrail bends round to the smokebox side. B1s had the pattern you've modelled, yes, and some Q6s.

[PeteT]

Thanks David, you're right. I was focusing on the right hand side of this photo (I've paid for the higher resolution version), where the perspective makes it more subtle - but it is there as can be seen on the left. Looks to curve from around level with the top door hinge.

https://colourrail.co.uk/api/image/medi ... 34c87afd49

[Daddyman]

Thanks David, you're right. I was focusing on the right hand side of this photo (I've paid for the higher resolution version), where the perspective makes it more subtle - but it is there as can be seen on the left. Looks to curve from around level with the top door hinge.

https://colourrail.co.uk/api/image/medi ... 34c87afd49

Yes, Pete - some seem to have a more subtle reverse curve, but there's always, I think, a reverse curve.

[PeteT]

Looking a bit more like it...

20210223_215028.jpg

20210223_214921.jpg

[Daddyman]

Very very nice!

[timlewis]

J39 is looking really good Pete. I'm following what you do to the bodywork with especial interest. I built one of Dave's chassis (apart from lubricator drive as yet) years ago and it runs really well (big Mashima 1833 in the tender with cardan shafts to a High Level box on rear axle), but I've not yet got around to doing anything to the body, so what you're doing is really helpful for me - keep up the good work! Mine's intended to be 64868, a Tweedmouth engine for many years.

Cheers.
Tim

[PeteT]

No major leaps, but a couple of steps forward. The valance has been added to with some 1mm square plastic section. Getting it to form around the curves of the footplate was a little awkward - unlike a plastic sheet for a roof etc I couldnt get it to form around something and use the hot water trick, but using plasticweld both melted it to the footplate, and melted it enough for form an ok curve.

For the firebox front Dave suggested a piece of 60 thou plasticard. I have a pretty crisp photo of 64739 showing the cladding going round the corner, but not to the middle - and the firebox front is set back a bit behind, and 2 rows of rivets in an arc. I first attempted this rivetting free hand, and it was diabolical. Out came the CAD, to make a template (or a couple of templates to compare the print outs before choosing which one to use) and that has allowed a much better 2nd attempt. I'm not 100% happy with it, so I'm in 2 minds whether to accept it or try a third attempt.

The first option was drawn with 1mm incremental rads (15,16,17mm), the second at the half mm (15.5,16.5,17.5mm), the third and 4 2 radii at 1.5mm spacings. I went with the 15.5mm and 17mm.

20210307_090557.jpg

20210307_092254.jpg

20210307_093030.jpg

The current job is forming the lead weight for the boiler and smokebox, as with those formed the boiler bottom can be fitted.

[PeteT]

2 experiments going on with cab sides, of which more soon - but am I right in thinking the cab layout should be the same as Morayshire? There are clear photos of that on flickr, and with the same boiler and braking arrangements (both that and my J39 were loco steam brake & a vac ejector for the train) I'd like to think they'd be about the same.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_gri ... 235642200/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/5133227667/

[Daddyman]

2 experiments going on with cab sides, of which more soon - but am I right in thinking the cab layout should be the same as Morayshire? There are clear photos of that on flickr, and with the same boiler and braking arrangements (both that and my J39 were loco steam brake & a vac ejector for the train) I'd like to think they'd be about the same.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_gri ... 235642200/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/5133227667/

Did you get anywhere, Pete? I looked through Yeadon and all my Booklaw scrapyard and workshop books but nothing. I tried magnifying a shot of a derailed loco with its tender out of the way, but no good. Another possibility might be the Trains in Trouble books, but I don't have any here - they're all at my dad's house. Do you have them?

[PeteT]

Not yet David, thanks for looking, I'm separated from half my library at the moment which doesn't help - but those aren't in either half. I agree the scrapyard books are the kind of thing most likely to have the answer, this gives a bit of tender front view - and a view not normally available.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/135290306 ... 752319977/

I have a couple of jobs before I get to it so will keep looking, but reasonably confident that the D49 setup should be close enough if nothing else comes to light. Strange that the Bachmann backhead has nothing to represent the vac control. The lack of drop grate lever controls are a bit more understandable, but having put the handbrake as a separate block to the backhead its surprising they don't have something.

There isnt much of a view through the cab side windows, being both dirty and generally the rear one slid forward - but there is a 'busier' view through the left hand front window than right, which all stacks up.

[davebradwell]

PeteT, would it be worthwhile if I emailed you the backhead view from the Pipe & Rod drg? It's a vac braked engine so no combination brake and it has only one lub so displacement lub in cab. Exhaust injector, too just to mess things up. Would it add anything to your current knowledge?

DaveB

[PeteT]

Hi Dave, I have the low res 11735-D & 11949 - if you have something higher res it would be useful to see please. Do you have any thoughts as to how similar (or not) the general scheme would be to the D49?

Thanks,
Pete

[davebradwell]

Will send you some scans tonight/morning Pete, probably according to what the wind does to the temperature in the house.

I can't add anything to whether D49 and J39 have same cab layout, I'm afraid. Yes they should have but..... I find cab layouts a trudge these days - it's the biggest job left on my V2 - so would be biased towards an "of course". You are trying to do better than that so we'll give you what evidence we can find.

To start you off, the ejector exhaust pipe along the side of the boiler is 2 1/2" od and, of course, the ejector just hangs on the back end of it behind the always dirty window.

DaveB