27 replies to this topic

[Max Stafford]

Having wasted an afternoon trying to get something useful out of the abortion that masquerades as a chassis for the DJH Caley Jumbo, I punted the job off into the long grass as a bad job and took Abi for a long walk before tea.
Follwing tea, I headed out to the shed with the intent of reassuring myself that it was the kit that was the problem and not me.
I've had a nice GEM J36 lying about for a couple of months now. Nice enough model although the chassis arrangement was rather Jurassic. With this in mind, I had acquired an NBR 4mm Developments chassis and it's this that I set about tonight.
Two hours' relaxed work with the soldering iron produced this rolling chassis, ready to receive its motor.

The kit was formerly produced by Eastfield Models and is of utterly superior design and manufacture to the scrag-end lump of brass on the top of my scrap metal tub!

A little modification to the underside of the model had the body and chassis comfortably introduced to one another.

There is a chassis etch for the tender too and I expect this loco to be in service very soon!

Dave.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 

[Wizard of the Moor]

That looks rather nice

The ex-Eastfield chassis kits are miles ahead of the likes of DJH. Jim Binnie really knew what he was doing when he drew these.

Any chance of a head-on photo? I'd like to see how the face of the GEM kit compares to the real thing.

[Worsdell forever]

Looking good, but it may just be me or the camera angle but is it riding a little high?

[Max Stafford]

Paul, it doesn't have the brake gear fitted which I think accentuates the impression of tip-toed-ness.
Today, I've been setting up the rods and adding the springs. I've been checking the buffer height next to other vehicles and it seems to be within acceptable parameters for finescale OO.
There's no getting away though from the fact that this is a vastly superior chassis kit, reflected in the positive enjoyment I've received from building it!

Dave.

[coachmann]

Is the buffer height correct Dave in that does it line up with the tender? The loco does look a bit tip-toey but as you said, it may be down to the missing brakegear etc. I recall they had a cast whitemetal chassis and pressed nickel silver coupling rods originally.

[Max Stafford]

At the point the photo was taken, the underside of the body hadn't been fully tidied up after removal of the old chassis. This is one thing I'm rather watchful of as excessive height is indeed visually jarring. I have tested the height in relation to other items of rolling stock and the overall height is pretty much satisfactory now. Yesterday, I fabricated the rods and attached the springs. The chassis is rolling freely with no indication of tight spots. I think I'll have a go at fitting the 1420 and Loadhauler box today.

Dave.

[coachmann]

I found one of my 1976 price lists from the days when the only option was to have 'em printed. This was the very first pre-release GEM J36 built, and shows how it had a sitting-low appearance.

Sobering to realize what I charged GEM for that livery in 1976..........£21.00!

[Horsetan]

coachmann, on 02 August 2010 - 08:24 , said:

......Sobering to realize what I charged GEM for that livery in 1976..........£21.00! http://www.rmweb.co....efault/cool.gif

WEB NBR J36.jpg

And a very high-gloss "mirror" finish it was too!

[Wizard of the Moor]

coachmann, on 02 August 2010 - 08:24 , said:

Sobering to realize what I charged GEM for that livery in 1976..........£21.00! http://www.rmweb.co....efault/cool.gif

Taking inflation into account that's equivalent to almost £130.00 today. Would that be in the right ballpark?

[coachmann]

Quote

Taking inflation into account that's equivalent to almost £130.00 today. Would that be in the right ballpark?

It was too low even then. Charge today would be £250.00. £130.00 might just cover BR lined green livery... (if I were still taking painting commisions).

[Dr Al]

coachmann, on 02 August 2010 - 16:20 , said:

It was too low even then. Charge today would be £250.00. £130.00 might just cover BR lined green livery... (if I were still taking painting commisions).

Would that have been for a repaint or a repaint+build?

(just curious )

Cheers,
Alan

[Max Stafford]

I was a bit busy with work last week to achieve any real progress, but today, I got things moving. The motor and gearbox is installed, the chassis has been wheeled up and the rods fitted. I had to revise my original plans as the Loadhauler/1424 wouldn't fit. I fitted a Roadrunner 60:1/1224 which runs very sweetly. I'd tried a 1220, but it wasn't as torquey and it ran a bit hot too.
No worries though;, on bench testing the whole set up is running well. I'll do the pick-ups tomorrow and think about adding the brake gear. That should add a little balance to the lower aspect of the model.

There is however, the issue of the backhead which is completely open and exposing the motor. I wonder what my options are here?

As the loco portrayed (65288) had the rebuilt safety valve arrangement, I've carried out a simple bodge with plasticard to replicate the boxier mounting used. The proportions were worked out through guesswork, but they look OK. I have also added the washout plugs.

I haven't replaced the Gem tender as such, but I'll do the etched chassis for underneath it in due course. Meantime, I may run it with the original set-up. I could do with some more finesse, but all in good time.

Dave.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[micklner]

Re the backhead I am having the same problem with the D20 I am rebuilding . I have used a casting from Dave Alexander plus plastikard for splashers etc. The hardest bit was finding pictures/drawings of what the cab area looked like. I have excellent help re this and its nearly finished.
I would be verycareful cleaning up the bufferbeam area . Re the motor the 10 series are much better than the 12's( in my opinion).
Well done

mick

[Durranhill]

Hi Dave ,
Looking good as always , re the backhead D&P models of Coventry did a selection of backheads but the website has disappeared ???.
2 questions for you , are those Scalelink wheels & have you used Drummond buffers .

Stewart.

[Max Stafford]

Stewart, the wheels are Markits new finescale profile 5'0" drivers and the buffers are Gibsons' Drummond types. I'll be adding Archers rivets next to give the beam (and anywhere else requiring) a bit more depth.

Dave.

[Max Stafford]

No photos tonight, but this evening I've been undertaking the fiddly but enjoyable task of assembling and prepping the brake shoes and blocks. There is real intelligence and good design in the ex-Eastfield kit that makes even a task like this pleasurable. Well thought out parts and clear, unambiguous instructions do beg the question; why can't they all be like this?
To be fair though, the likes of Comet, Five79 and 5522/Lochgorm show the same good design principles and today they are certainly not alone as others join the fray.
It's been the perfect antidote to the disappointment of the Jumbo chassis although I'm going to have to tackle that one again some day...

Dave.

[Max Stafford]

I've taken a bit of time today to get this lovely little project on the move again.
Last weekend I knocked up the frames for the tender and got it to a rolling state. This week, I added the brake gear although given the knockabout nature of the model overall, I simplified it slightly. The overall effect is there though and I have to make allowances for the fact that the loco will one day operate on DCC.

My final task today was to araldite the PCB sections to the tender frame. These additional pick-ups will hopefully do much to assist slow running of the model and contact with the loco will be effected by two pin connector, allowing loco and tender to be separated when required. Incidentally, I do find that the otherwise faultless Markits 5'0" drivers tend to pick up dirt pretty quickly. Are there any known fixes for this, other than regular and judicious cleaning?

Once again, I sing the praises of these excellent etches. I have also purchased an additional set of etches for a J37. I will use this for my previously-built J37 which I feel is slightly underpowered. The original will ultimately find itself under the oft mentioned Jumbo due to the closeness of their respective wheelbases.

Dave.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Kris]

That looks like a very nice loco that you have there.

[coachmann]

The J36 will look much more workmanlike after you have done your weathering. The GEM kits were behind in one respect even in their day. George M. wouldn't allow rivet detail on them, his reasoning being that they'de be filed off while builders were tidying up joints.

[Max Stafford]

No problem in that department Larry, my faithful Archers waterslide rivets and weld beads are standing by!

I need to come up with something for the backhead though. I have a cunning plan however...!

Dave.

[coachmann]

A Backhead could be knocked up in 60thou Plastikard or similar and some copper wire. Many components like injectors and what have you were similarly placed. In fact, there were plenty of kits released with non-descript backheads that had a couple of lumps for injectors, two rectangles for gauge glasses, a teapot plate above the firehole door and the usual regulator stuck up top. Eezey peezey...

[Max Stafford]

That's what I'm thinking Larry. I have a McIntosh backhead kicking about somewhere which I may use for this, ordering another for its intended donor. Shame to spoil the ship for a ha'pennyworth of tar!

Dave.

[coachmann]

Dont forget the glowing firebox Max.

[Max Stafford]

I'm not fitting a DS10 now, Larry!

Dave.

[Max Stafford]

Well, in spite of battling a major loss of 'mojo', due to outside interference, I have finally got the loco to a finished stage. All that is lacking is the smokebox numberplate, but that's in hand!
Indoor and outdoor shots included here, but I really must be bothered find a better way of presenting my models.

Dave.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•