Jump to content
 

Model Rail/Rapido Trains GER/LNER 'J70' 0-6-0T 'Project Toby'


dibber25
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting to see that 68226 was one of the locos that retained its coupling safety chains right through to the end. Can't imagine how long beforehand these had ceased to be used. Probably pre-1923. In late LNER/BR days some had them, some didn't. Where appropriate, they are factory-fitted on the models. (CJL)

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Interesting to see that 68226 was one of the locos that retained its coupling safety chains right through to the end. Can't imagine how long beforehand these had ceased to be used. Probably pre-1923. In late LNER/BR days some had them, some didn't. Where appropriate, they are factory-fitted on the models. (CJL)

 

Using the photo of 68226 as the guide, most of the separate etches etc which come with the model end up staying in the bag! No side chains, shed plate, or seat bracket. There is a photo of this loco at Stratford works in poor NE external condition dated 1948, fortunately of the other side and shows the makers plate position, which seamed to vary from loco to loco.

 

On the model there is a small plate above the cylinders, which looks like a factory fitted addition, which if you look carefully on the prototype has been removed; I've tried to leaver off the plate on the model without success!

 

I have now removed the windows and will refit as per the photo tomorrow.

 

Paul

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dibber25 said:

As I understand it - and my personal knowledge of electronics is very limited - coreless motors are susceptible to the voltage 'spikes' which are a symptom of the old-style rheostat controllers. These can cause the motor to overheat and burn out. As far as I know, Hornby don't use coreless motors and I suspect Bachmann doesn't either. They tend to be used where a high power motor of restricted size is needed, as in the 'J70'. (CJL)

I believe their 009 baldwin and 00 wickham trolley and possibly some n gauge locos use a coreless motor

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulG said:

 

Using the photo of 68226 as the guide, most of the separate etches etc which come with the model end up staying in the bag! No side chains, shed plate, or seat bracket. There is a photo of this loco at Stratford works in poor NE external condition dated 1948, fortunately of the other side and shows the makers plate position, which seamed to vary from loco to loco.

 

On the model there is a small plate above the cylinders, which looks like a factory fitted addition, which if you look carefully on the prototype has been removed; I've tried to leaver off the plate on the model without success!

 

I have now removed the windows and will refit as per the photo tomorrow.

 

Paul

If you're fitting the windows in the open position, you'll need to use the etches and some thin glazing material, otherwise if you merely reposition the supplied windows, they will stick out too far. (CJL)

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine arrived yesterday.

First impressions are very positive.

Well built and runs well straight out of the box.

No problems noticed in negotiating various types of track and points.

Not quite Brawa standard but not far off.

The difference in finish between the black sections of the side sheets is very noticeable and needs to be weathered to tone down the shiny part.

I like the soft compression of the buffers, but not the highly polished heads. Soon corrected, but chemical blacking would have been a nice touch.

I do not like the side chains that are free to swing backwards and forwards in the breeze. Again soon fixed with a touch of glue at the same time as some of the detail parts are added, but needing great care in order not to make a mess of the appearance.

The booklet is superb with a short but detailed history and a separate sheet with a comprehensive spare parts list on a par with what I would expect from the likes of Roco.

I like the sense of humour in the Contact us if you have a question section. "There is no face on the front!"

All in all well worth the wait.

Time to dig out an old kit fro his little brother, though I fear that the finished result will be very much more basic. I can at least find a use for the spare cowcatchers.

Bernard

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but my model of 68222 only includes one each of the 5 different builders/works plates (unless my eyesight is worse than I feared). Should the model include a pair of each of these plates?

I certainly seem to have enough shed code plates and all the other bits :-)

 

Plus, can anyone recommend a good picture, or advice, on which etched parts to fit to 68222 in it's supplied condition?

 

Thanks in advance

Jason

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PaulG said:

 

Using the photo of 68226 as the guide, most of the separate etches etc which come with the model end up staying in the bag! No side chains, shed plate, or seat bracket. There is a photo of this loco at Stratford works in poor NE external condition dated 1948, fortunately of the other side and shows the makers plate position, which seamed to vary from loco to loco.

 

On the model there is a small plate above the cylinders, which looks like a factory fitted addition, which if you look carefully on the prototype has been removed; I've tried to leaver off the plate on the model without success!

 

I have now removed the windows and will refit as per the photo tomorrow.

 

Paul

Paul, is not that 'plate' you mention above the cylinders part of the cylinder top?   On the prototypes it is angled inwards and I have accepted this as one of those aspects that production-wise could have caused a problem in running.   I am just finishing detailing (but not weathering) 68222 with the addition of the small plate affixed to the 'shed' above the cylinders on one side.   From the only view I have of the other side of 68222 on W&U, which is unclear, this plate seems to be repeated.   Can anyone please confirm that this plate exists on the chimney left to firebox right side of 68222?   Colin.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WebberJP84 said:

Hi all,

 

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but my model of 68222 only includes one each of the 5 different builders/works plates (unless my eyesight is worse than I feared). Should the model include a pair of each of these plates?

I certainly seem to have enough shed code plates and all the other bits :-)

 

Plus, can anyone recommend a good picture, or advice, on which etched parts to fit to 68222 in it's supplied condition?

 

Thanks in advance

Jason

 

It depends how accurate you want it to be, but there are several picture of 68222 as she was the last J70 to operate on the tramway. She stood in for failed diesels in 1953 and was the loco that ran out of water at Upwell and had to be filled by Rev. Awdry's hosepipe! I'll attach a picture of my version. 68222 was distinctive in having some rather bodged replacement end windows. Both front, but only one rear. The frames appear white in photos - they may have been bare wood or even the pink wood primer that was used in those days. There was only one builder's plate. It's precise location could vary between locos.Mine is incorrectly placed on the left side - it should be fourth plank up, right-hand side on 68222. Unusually it still retained its GER '5' area plate, top centre on the front only. I have photo references for 68222 as follows:

Cover and page 31 W&U by Gadsden et al Town & Country 

Page 9 W&U by Hawkins/Reeve Wild Swan

Cover Branchline to Upwell Middleton Press

(CJL)

P1220375.JPG

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

It depends how accurate you want it to be, but there are several picture of 68222 as she was the last J70 to operate on the tramway. She stood in for failed diesels in 1953 and was the loco that ran out of water at Upwell and had to be filled by Rev. Awdry's hosepipe! I'll attach a picture of my version. 68222 was distinctive in having some rather bodged replacement end windows. Both front, but only one rear. The frames appear white in photos - they may have been bare wood or even the pink wood primer that was used in those days. There was only one builder's plate. It's precise location could vary between locos.Mine is incorrectly placed on the left side - it should be fourth plank up, right-hand side on 68222. Unusually it still retained its GER '5' area plate, top centre on the front only. I have photo references for 68222 as follows:

Cover and page 31 W&U by Gadsden et al Town & Country 

Page 9 W&U by Hawkins/Reeve Wild Swan

Cover Branchline to Upwell Middleton Press

(CJL)

Thanks Chris, this helps a lot and nicely explains everything. Great picture by the way. Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the photos I have of the final conditions of 68222, 68223 and 68225 on the W&U, my three have their ends (A=chimney & B=firebox ends) finished as in the photos.   As Chris has said before the door-bangers have had to be placed in a position commercially acceptable which I accept.   Once the plate/s are added to the sides of 68222 I will photo the sides of all three and present here.

BR J70 end A.jpg

BR J70 end B.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coline33 - those are the same three that I started with. However, 68223 has now been renumbered 68217 despite a (minor, to me) detail issue. Apparently 68217 had the middle lamp iron and the 'stop block' for the sliding windows, combined. That would have required tooling a front end without the 'stop block' and a different lamp iron. I think I can live with those detail discrepancies in order to have 68217 which seems to have done quite a lot of work on the tramway. (CJL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coline33 said:

Paul, is not that 'plate' you mention above the cylinders part of the cylinder top?   On the prototypes it is angled inwards and I have accepted this as one of those aspects that production-wise could have caused a problem in running.   I am just finishing detailing (but not weathering) 68222 with the addition of the small plate affixed to the 'shed' above the cylinders on one side.   From the only view I have of the other side of 68222 on W&U, which is unclear, this plate seems to be repeated.   Can anyone please confirm that this plate exists on the chimney left to firebox right side of 68222?   Colin.   

 

Colin

 

The plate which I was making reference is perhaps best illustrated by the three photos below. 

68226 cylinder 2.jpg

J70 68226 Stratford 1948 cylinder 3.jpg

J70 68226 at Colchester cylinder 1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WebberJP84 said:

Hi all,

 

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but my model of 68222 only includes one each of the 5 different builders/works plates (unless my eyesight is worse than I feared). Should the model include a pair of each of these plates?

I certainly seem to have enough shed code plates and all the other bits :-)

 

Plus, can anyone recommend a good picture, or advice, on which etched parts to fit to 68222 in it's supplied condition?

 

Thanks in advance

Jason

 

 

From the photos I have and in particular 68226, in 1948 from photo evidence, it only had one plate on the left hand side. Photos show other members of the class with a works plate on the right hand side! Perhaps the right hand plate on 68226 was lost over time and never replaced?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am using a H&M 'Powermaster' controller & I'm damned if I'm converting my whole collection over to DCC just because one loco has a 'delicate' coreless motor. What happens if one inserts a DCC chip in place of the DCC blanking plug? As the chip is now in circuit, does it filter any possible voltage spikes out?

 

Other than that I think it might be transferred away from the western region as a total failure before even turning a wheel . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulG said:

 

Colin

 

The plate which I was making reference is perhaps best illustrated by the three photos below. 

68226 cylinder 2.jpg

J70 68226 Stratford 1948 cylinder 3.jpg

J70 68226 at Colchester cylinder 1.jpg

Yes, Paul, we both are referring to the same thing.   It would have been nice if the cylinder could have been so modelled on the non-skirted ones.   However, I appreciate that there would have been a space to fill some how on the skirted ones which probably could have been done in the skirt moulding.   Another aspect I accept to keep production costs within reason.   Mind you it I would have had a harder job in shortening the length of my 68222's skirts!   Now back to finishing that body patch panel on it.

 

Chris, pleased to read that you have done your intended number change to 68217.   Look forward to seeing a view of it.   Colin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 217 RIVER FLESK said:

I too am using a H&M 'Powermaster' controller & I'm damned if I'm converting my whole collection over to DCC just because one loco has a 'delicate' coreless motor. What happens if one inserts a DCC chip in place of the DCC blanking plug? As the chip is now in circuit, does it filter any possible voltage spikes out?

 

Other than that I think it might be transferred away from the western region as a total failure before even turning a wheel . . .

It has nothing to do with DCC. Analog control has advanced in the past 50 years and the massive whack of power that was necessary to move an old Hornby-Dublo motor is no longer necessary for modern motors, coreless or otherwise. It certainly isn't necessary to convert your collection to DCC - they'll run very well on a modern analog controller, so will the J70. (CJL)

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The photos, I posted of the ends yesterday, come out darker than intended.   Now that I have completed the side details and improved the photo quality, I submit the ends and the sides.   The order of locos in each view left to right is 68222, 68223 and 68225.   The performance of these are excellent just as I have found with my Sentinel and USA locos from Model Rail.    The only detail seen that is not from the Model Rail box is the painted paper 'patch/panel' on the B to A side of 68222.   I decided to keep the side windows closed and have 68223 for 'winter' service!   I have accepted that for production/commercial reasons there are some wrongly positioned details.   Regretfully, there is one complaint!   Why did the ends of 68222 and 68225 not have the small door hooks as on the ends of 68223?   The door hook assembly of these two appears to date back to GER and then subsequently replaced with the small hooks.   Whilst I easily cut off the large curved metal hooks, there was no way that I was going to damage the ends by trying to remove the plastic mouldings beneath them.   Hence you will see their remains in the end views!

 

In the view A to B side I have not been able to add any detail to this side of 68222.   Despite having 9 views of the prototype in its final condition, none are of the A to B side!!!   I would be most grateful to see a view of this side in its final BR days if one exists, please?

 

All I need now are the W&U's Top Link - drivers Albert South and Charles Rand with firemen Arthur Banyard and Tom Kirby - appearing from the open windows!   

 

Kind regards, Colin.   

BR J70 end A.jpg

BR J70 end B.jpg

BR J70 side A to B ends.jpg

BR J70 side B to A ends.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what details you believe to be wrongly positioned? There are some details for which we had to standardise the positions to avoid having to make absurd numbers of tools to accommodate minute detail variations - the end doorstops being a case in point. Those details may be wrongly positioned on some models. Some locos had them on the third plank and some on the second and one loco had one on the second and the other on the third! I have asked about the door hooks and my understanding is that they were present on all the locos but in some photographs they are difficult to see. I think we went as far as we could go - and possibly beyond what was reasonable - in order to accommodate as many minor detail variations as possible. This meant supplying some parts as customer-fit extras but that in itself upsets some customers who would rather have a generic one-size-fits-all model and who don't wish to apply self-fit extra details. My personal preference is to have both sets of doors open (in which case the door stops, hooks etc are hidden) so you can see the internal detail better, and (in the rear cab) so that the fireman can adopt his standard position with one foot on the draw hook, as that was the only way he could make room to swing the shovel! (CJL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, even you had previously acknowledged not all detail per individual loco could be accommodated for production/commercial reasons, so that is why I have 'covered' myself as well.   The principal items included under that clause have been the door bangers and door hooks.   All the additional separate parts provided have covered all the extra individual detail extremely well so congratulations to all concerned in the production.   Colin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the difficulty the fireman faced until Chris mentioned it just then. Of course it's logical when you think about it. There's hardly room to swing a small domestic feline. Sounds precarious! That's going to be a challenge, creating a suitable figure when fitting the loco crew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liddy said:

I wasn't aware of the difficulty the fireman faced until Chris mentioned it just then. Of course it's logical when you think about it. There's hardly room to swing a small domestic feline. Sounds precarious! That's going to be a challenge, creating a suitable figure when fitting the loco crew.

I believe some figures are being worked on, but whether one of them is suitably posed for the firing job, I'm not sure. There's a tendency for most photographs to show crew members posing for the camera, rather than in working poses. (CJL)

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...