Oxford Rail announce J27 at Toy Fair

[Invicta]

That's interesting, do you have the title of the book?

 

I found this pic in the EKR books which agrees with 8 plank type and here directly at the colliery with various pre-gropers wagons. I could not find any pics containing these wagons straying outside the colliery. Even the EKR relics never mixed with other railways stock (they amazing still had wagons built in 1875 in service in 1948 that had been replaced with new wagons be SECR in 1900 and those had disappeared by 1930. Some of the EKR relics even retained the fluffy express buffers!)

Stephens had of telling people he brought the radial in 1919 or 1920 or 1921 and when I brought the EKR radial model, my thoughts were to run her with SECR locos and stock. However records show the purchase was made in 1923. The Oxford set is celebrating 100 years of the date Stephens told someone in an interview that was when he thought he brought her with a pair 5 plank wagons that seem never to have to been part of a colliery roster.

 

image.jpg

 

Private Owner Wagons of the South-East by John Arkell, published a couple of years ago by Lightmoor . The book reproduces the same photo that you posted, and the entry for Tilmanstone in the chapter on SER & LCDR lines in East Kent says 'a photograph exists of 3 wagons at the pit head yard. It is probable that the wagons were for internal use only (or over the East Kent) as the SE&CR and the Southern did not offer carriage rates in PO wagons'.

 

The photo appears in a chapter on the Kent Coalfield. which talks about part of the cost charged by the Southern (2 shillings per ton in 1926) for transporting coal from Tilmanstone to Dover being payable to the EKR and the Dover Harbour commissioners who owned the tracks to the Eastern Docks, which meant the Southern couldn't reduce the rate without making a loss on the deal- this situation led to the construction of the aerial ropeway.

 

I guess it's one of the frustrations for the pre-48 modeller, the availability of so many beautifully printed PO wagon liveries- applied to completely the wrong type of open wagon. I know Oxford have had a bit of flak for this in other threads, but none of the other RTR manufacturers are any better at times.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Invicta

[The Black Hat]

Likewise Hornby haven't done the preserved Q6 (but there are a couple of discrete holes for pipes under the buffer beam).

 

Preserved Q6 has a different style tender to the one released with the model. 

[nathan70000]

Isn't it from an NER Atlantic? Now that would be a brave subject for Hornby to tackle!

[Porcy Mane]

Not sure what basic technical problem you envisage? Why would different wheelbases and wheel sizes be needed? All data I have shows 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase and 4' 7" and a bit as the wheel diameter for the J25, J26 and J27 classes, with same wheelbase again for J21 with larger wheels. Only the J24 was the odd member of the little "family" of these five types, with shorter wheelbase. Is all of my data in several different books wrong? Different side facings on one chassis block / mechanism and the route is open to four classes from one chassis design exercise.

 

I take your point but one chassis does all?

 

With short production runs being the norm in these times and with the improvement in design and manufacturing processes that CAD/CAM has brought, along with a far more discerning and knowledgeable customer base, surely we have moved on. The 2 mm difference in wheel diameters is quite large and makes me think of Heljans "splashergate".

 

With some manufactures now tending to build geartrains into chassis castings (think Oxfordrail's Janus chassis) I was thinking more about the problems you could run into trying to hide motor and geartrains whist accommodating different boiler pitches and diameters yet still maintain light under the boiler. I'm pretty certain Oxford will not be courting the same type of criticisms that they received for the Adams.

 

Then there is the different frame profiles, firebox apertures, brake operating linkages & lifeguards. A generic chassis would need to incorporate differences to accommodate these variations when it is probably easier, quicker and cheaper to design bespoke chassis for classes that share common wheelbases.

 

P

[Porcy Mane]

Well, Hornby in this day and age have just re-introduced the J83 on a generic Jinty chassis which is not correct for a Jinty, admittedly upgraded from the Triang 1950s version and and not a bad runner (I have one under a 2721).  They've also revisited the early 60s with a Dean Single and shorty clerestories; only the bogie mountings on the shorties have been changed in nearly 60 years.

 

And more power to Hornby's elbow if it generates sales Johnster me owld leek but to Hornby's credit they don't market the locos you mention as scale models.

 

T. R. Ainset

[Porcy Mane]

So, assuming the model isn't superheated, D57 boiler and round spectacles, a nice shiny numberplate from Narrow Planet, NER on the tender and hey presto! a pre war P3. Probably not lined post war and no big shiny numberplate but big yellow numbers on the tender. Looking forward to it.

 

And a quick pully out on the axles for the wheels?

Edited January 23, 2019 by Porcy Mane

[DougN]

I would like to think that Oxford would do the J26 version also!

 

I have preordered my LNER version. It is strangely pushing me to get on and finish my J26 for my P4 layout. I must admit years ago when I started building kits and things in P4 were all because they were all highly unlikely to ever come out in OO as RTR... ok I am talking 21 years ago... oh gees I am sounding old... but I am only mid forties! I had a thing for NER based locos in the LNER period... still do really. So when you go through my building of j72 on a new chassis... a J39 on a new chassis... a J27 full kit build from Dave Bradwell! Then a B1 with a Bradwell chassis..V2 on a comet chassis.. bit of a delay with the Q6 again Bradwell kit... (family, and house extensions slowed production!) another J26 a D17 and a J21 and a J 25 ( the last group not finished!) most of these kit building and modifying is almost redundant as pretty much all I have running is being replaced with ready to run. I bet in the next 21 years we will get NER clerestory coachs and more wagons etc!

 

Still modelling though but the RTR is really so much better than I can build and paint! Just wonder what is to come.

[gr.king]

I take your point but one chassis does all?

 

With short production runs being the norm in these times and with the improvement in design and manufacturing processes that CAD/CAM has brought, along with a far more discerning and knowledgeable customer base, surely we have moved on. The 2 mm difference in wheel diameters is quite large and makes me think of Heljans "splashergate".

 

With some manufactures now tending to build geartrains into chassis castings (think Oxfordrail's Janus chassis) I was thinking more about the problems you could run into trying to hide motor and geartrains whist accommodating different boiler pitches and diameters yet still maintain light under the boiler. I'm pretty certain Oxford will not be courting the same type of criticisms that they received for the Adams.

 

Then there is the different frame profiles, firebox apertures, brake operating linkages & lifeguards. A generic chassis would need to incorporate differences to accommodate these variations when it is probably easier, quicker and cheaper to design bespoke chassis for classes that share common wheelbases.

 

P

I acknowledge all of those points. I wasn't meaning to suggest by the way that the small wheels be used on any J21 version, only pointing out that the wheelbase and a suitably profiled main block / drive layout might suit all bar the J24. The frame profiles, cut-outs, brakes and so on could all be part of the separate side facings I suggested for the one chassis block.

 

But as Oxford Rail may not be remotely interested in ever producing any other NE 0-6-0 classes, or even an 0-6-2T, nor in allowing for use of their mechanism under any potential alternative after-market body, perhaps a kit built one, then I recognise that all suggestions may be a waste of time.......

Edited January 23, 2019 by gr.king

[The Stationmaster]

If I start collecting all of the preserved locos I have been hauled by I think I might get my plastic frozen, not to mention a few other bits.

 

Nice to see the snowplough listed as an accessory, my 57xx could do with one today. 

The Tyseley snow plough (pjs,0638) by Geoff Dowling, on Flickr

 

Is anyone who has seen the Oxford Rail GWR snowplough able to confirm that the  plough part is not symmetrical?

[Edwardian]

And more power to Hornby's elbow if it generates sales Johnster me owld leek but to Hornby's credit they don't market the locos you mention as scale models.

 

T. R. Ainset

 

I have no issue with these re-treads, provided that they are in the Railroad catalogue at a sensible price.  Good both for younger modellers and as a basis for bashing and bodging, as in Days of Yore.

 

I might tackle a Dean Single or two and the short clerestories are endlessly bashable.

[JSpencer]

Likewise Hornby haven't done the preserved Q6 (but there are a couple of discrete holes for pipes under the buffer beam).

 

It took them more than 15 years to do the preserved Q1 and then only because Rails and the NRM commsioned it!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...So much will depend upon whether Oxford fills that vast P3/J27 boiler with gubbins.

But if looking for the 'Derby standard' 8'+8'6" six-coupled wheelbase with wheel diameters in the 4'8" to 5'3" range, surely there is already plentiful choice in RTR 0-6-0 and 0-6-0T mechanisms alone? Mainly from Bachmann (SECR/SR C, MR/LMS 3F, 3F, 4F) and Hornby (4F, Q1) which between them offer useful variation in boiler centre line height and diameter?

[Porcy Mane]

Likewise Hornby haven't done the preserved Q6 (but there are a couple of discrete holes for pipes under the buffer beam).

 

And the backhead has post vacuum fitting extra gauges and pipe work (but not the bread bin).

 

 

Preserved Q6 has a different style tender to the one released with the model.

The claimed uniqueness of the preserved Q6 tender may not be as exclusive as some allude to. I have negs of a Sunderland Q6 fitted with a near identical tender* (narrow/high tank with wrap round coalrails).

 

* I haven't manged to confirm details of the coal hole.

[R Marshall]

Aw cummon!! Yer winding us up. No manufacturer would consider a generic chassis in this day and age by consider going back to the Tri-ang Jinty chassis days? Would they?

 

I assume you are talking about a common chassis block that would be cast to accept different wheelbases and wheel diameters? Wouldn't work with the differing wheelbases of the J27/J25 using the standard 2mm, 3mm & 1/8" axle sizes in common use today.

 

1950's design philosophy in 2019. There would be a buyer's backlash.

 

Porcy,

 

Both J25 and J27 had 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase, I believe. The J24 was different.

 

Regards,

 

Roy

[The Black Hat]

Isn't it from an NER Atlantic? Now that would be a brave subject for Hornby to tackle!

 

I think it is from an NER Atlantic tender, but then NER had many standard ones made by type. The tender has been rebuilt in preservation so is now very much unique. The NELPG J27 has just had its tender renewed as well. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Black Hat

[The Black Hat]

 

The claimed uniqueness of the preserved Q6 tender may not be as exclusive as some allude to. I have negs of a Sunderland Q6 fitted with a near identical tender* (narrow/high tank with wrap round coalrails).

 

* I haven't manged to confirm details of the coal hole.

 

Yes I think theres photos of 63395 with a standard tender like Hornby have done, but then before decommissioning it was swapped for the one it has now. 

[The Black Hat]

Porcy,

 

Both J25 and J27 had 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase, I believe. The J24 was different.

 

Regards,

 

Roy

 

Thats what I understand as well. The wheelbase on J21, J25, J27 is the same, with the wheels only slightly different. I think I worked it out that if you were to make the chassis the difference in wheel size between J21 and J25 was 2mm which means you could use the same wheel and thus same chassis. Would people notice the 2mm difference? Otherwise I think you could fit one marginally smaller. Oxford rail might well have noticed this and perhaps do plan to do the North Eastern 0-6-0s as a range. I wont stop them. 

 

It is telling that some people have said - that they wouldn't prefer some manufacturers to make some models and instead wait for another one. Personally, Im thrilled that Oxford is making J27 but it shows the difference to me at least - between those getting loads of what they want and can almost pick and choose, while us here are very grateful that this will be done and are more interested that it will be rather than who by. 

 

Edit: Correct difference added, thanks to comment below. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Black Hat

[Silver Sidelines]

Very easily but you will need to look at photographs of individual engines.

I do believe that the J26 and J27 were identical externally - with one provision. When new the J26 had circular cab windows. However after numerous visits to Darlington works, cabs were interchanged between the two classes and this distinction can not be guaranteed.
 

I would like to think that Oxford would do the J26 version also!.

Cheers Ray

[Worsdell forever]

Very easily but you will need to look at photographs of individual engines.

 

I do believe that the J26 and J27 were identical externally - with one provision. When new the J26 had circular cab windows. However after numerous visits to Darlington works, cabs were interchanged between the two classes and this distinction can not be guaranteed.

 

Cheers Ray

 

Not quite, the standard was round for P2 and P3, when the T2s came out with their huge windows the crews asked for them in the T1s and this filtered down to the larger 0-6-0s.

 

Thats what I understand as well. The wheelbase on J21, J25, J27 is the same, with the wheels only slightly different. I think I worked it out that if you were to make the chassis the difference in wheel size between J21 and J25 was 0.1mm which means youd use the same wheel and thus same chassis. Oxford rail might well have noticed this and perhaps do plan to do the North Eastern 0-6-0s as a range. I wont stop them. 

 

 

C/J21 had 5'1 1/4" and P1/J25 were 4'7 1/4" - 6" difference which with my basic maths is a whole 2mm. 

 

Also don't forget the P2/3 frames were longer to fit the longer firebox.

[The Black Hat]

Not quite, the standard was round for P2 and P3, when the T2s came out with their huge windows the crews asked for them in the T1s and this filtered down to the larger 0-6-0s.

 

 

C/J21 had 5'1 1/4" and P1/J25 were 4'7 1/4" - 6" difference which with my basic maths is a whole 2mm. 

 

Also don't forget the P2/3 frames were longer to fit the longer firebox.

 

Fair enough. Got the sum wrong, but should really have checked. Suppose my fault for too much Alt/Tab while working... 

[Flying Pig]

Very easily but you will need to look at photographs of individual engines.

I do believe that the J26 and J27 were identical externally - with one provision. When new the J26 had circular cab windows. However after numerous visits to Darlington works, cabs were interchanged between the two classes and this distinction can not be guaranteed.

 

Cheers Ray

Not so, according to (the LNER Encyclopedia):

 

The J27s were built with the same NER-pattern circular front spectacles as the J26s. In 1913, Q6 0-8-0s were built with larger shaped spectacles. After requests for these to be fitted to the earlier Q5 0-8-0s, they were also fitted to many of the J26s and all of the J27s. Most of the J27s received the larger front spectacles before Grouping (1923), although No. 1047 managed to escape and received the larger spectacles after 1940.

[Edwardian]

Thats what I understand as well. The wheelbase on J21, J25, J27 is the same, with the wheels only slightly different. I think I worked it out that if you were to make the chassis the difference in wheel size between J21 and J25 was 0.1mm which means youd use the same wheel and thus same chassis. Oxford rail might well have noticed this and perhaps do plan to do the North Eastern 0-6-0s as a range. I wont stop them. 

 

 

 

...

 

The P1 (J25) has the same wheel diameter as well as wheelbase, but, of course, a smaller boiler. ...

 

Other have larger wheels, but the same wheelbase, which raises the question of whether Oxford Dean Goods wheels could be swopped in?  That potentially brings into view some of the  398 Class and the C1/C Class (J21).

 

 

 

I suspect Oxford has wheels for its Dean Goods representing a scale 5'2".  Personally, I prefer wheels to reflect some wear and would have preferred no more than 5', but there you are. 

 

For the bodgers and bashers among us, the Dean's wheels might be considered close enough in diameter to the J21. Reflecting on this further, however, anyone seeking a motorised RTR chassis for a J21 build, the Bachmann C Class is potentially the ready-made answer. C to shining C!

 

I don't here go into the issue of accuracy of the wheels, just the diameter.

[Porcy Mane]

I think it is from an NER Atlantic tender,

 

Don't think so. The Q6 was withdrawn with this tender, it being the same one that has been substantially rebuilt during preservation. Notice the D shaped frame cut outs.

 

63395 Seaton Bank 4.9.67 by George Woods, on Flickr

 

A comparatively easy way to spot a Q6 with an Atlantic tender is look out for the deeper valance but be careful as some had the valance removed. Then there is the oval cutouts. 

 

Take a Look at Aurthur K's phot of 63344 in this post.

 

Notice the similarity to this?

 

 

but not this type Atlantic tender:

 

N1000_19660716_Sunderland_SouthDockShed_23 by Tom Young, on Flickr

 

... and then there is the atlantics that didn't have Atlantic Atlantic tenders if you get my drift. These tenders eventually finding their way back to loco's of other classes.

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LNER-and-BRE-and-BRNE/LNER-pre-grouping-locomotives/NER-locomotives/i-XBzdgVH/A

 

Finally 63395 definitely not fitted with an Atlantic tender.

 

http://southpelawjunction.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/63395_1964-05-30_Consett-ROS-5-492-ZF-7256-87812-1-003.jpg

 

Sorry, you only get 1/10 for your chosen subject of Q6 tender recognition, (for effort) but I have to admit to it not being an easy subject.

 

So back to J26/7's

 

Not a J27 yesterday:

 

R0227  65772 Thornaby 28Jun1960 by Ron Fisher, on Flickr 

[The Black Hat]

 

Thanks Porcy.

 

All interesting. The reason why I quoted the Atlantic reference was that I had read it in a copy of NELPG's own information on the engine when at Shildon a year or so ago as I was looking for material and info on the tender. I know it is referenced, incorrectly now, to the Atlantic, but some of the information I was able to get had it being an NER design that was similar to 4200 gallons, or there about for the capacity - 4125 I think to be exactly but again the figures escape me. 

 

I know I had seen photo's and have some copies of 63395 with different tender and note the different types when the tender top itself lines up above the handrails on the locomotive boiler. Its a mark thats easy to spot as tenders more usually found with Q6 tend to almost be level with them. In any case, I much prefer 63395 with the one it has even if I cant exactly tell where its from - short of getting in a Blue Telephone box and going back to check as that's the only way I could do it for certain. 

 

 

Just for reference my attempt at the rebuild for the tender of 63395. 

 

Anyway, trying to kick this on to J27 - again, hope the tender here is where the dcc sound can go. 

[Silver Sidelines]

I think I 'spotted' all the J26 which at the start of the 1960s were allocated around Teesside. However no pictures - only the one below of J27 65757 at Stockton.

 

J27 65757

 

A prototypical grimey late 1950s / early 60s north east scene.

 

Ray

Edited January 23, 2019 by Silver Sidelines