Seanem44 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I've pre-ordered mine. Shaping up to be a lovely little engine. Nice to see some LNER freight engines coming out, and a very nice break from all the larger 4-6-2 and 4-6-0 engines being released right now. Layouts need little workhorses. http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/details.php?id=71&vis=2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Had a good look at Warley. It looks very promising indeed. I have had the two Late Crest ones with stepped tenders on order since they were announced. I may well add the Early Crested flush tender one too. As I suspected and commented on on the new Warley releases post elsewhere, the loco will be tender-driven. This is an arrangement I am very happy with, especially if it proves as good as the B1. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2012 Looks to me as though they have designed it in such a way as to make a J38 as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted December 13, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 13, 2012 I doubt it: I think they've probably just capitalised on their existing LNER group tenders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted December 13, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 13, 2012 Farish appear to have returned to coal mountains again. Shame, it spoils what looks to otherwise be a lovely loco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLD Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Farish appear to have returned to coal mountains again. Shame, it spoils what looks to otherwise be a lovely loco.A necessary evil - the alternative being the motor sticking out the top of the tender... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanem44 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 I really do wish they could possibly make the mountain more shallow, or allow for another insert for those wishing to add real coal.... again though, those nasty tradeoffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 If ever there was a case for a loco that would be better with the drive in the engine it is the J39. There were 289 in the class, subdivided into three parts by tender type. Farish have chosen to give us the J39/2 with 4200 gallon group standard tender in its two main variants (there were some oddities). The total number of J39/2 was 93 or 96 as built (ie one third of the class........). The J39/2 was also raided to supply tenders to V2s, gaining NER tenders in exchange to become J39/3, and acquired other odd 4200 gallon tenders from elsewhere. The other two variants were the J39/1 and J39/3 There were 170 locos (or 58% of the class) of J39/1 with 3500 gallon tenders, and these tenders appear to have been in two versions only, stepped out and flush sided. This tender was 18" shorter than the 4200 gallon tender, slightly lower, and the raised part by the coal box was a much smaller proportion of the length. J39/3 tenders were of several different varieties, mostly ex-NER, in what was usually about 25 locos at any time. By putting the motor in the tender Farish have done themselves out of J39/1 and J39/3 variants- the NER tender is long enough but too low for motor and DCC gubbins, and the shorter 3500 gallon tender too small. Still, it repeats the restrictions of the OO model, all of which are J39/2. A missed opportunity I feel, as being able to produce 260-odd of a class of 289 is much better than only covering ninety-odd. As for me- I'm converting my surviving Union Mills J39s to J39/3 by fitting small tenders and rebuilding the tops to NER shape. I may also have a go at a 3500 gallon top for a small UM tender to make a J39/1, but that is a long-term idea. I'll have a Farish J39/2 (just one as they weren't that common in the North East). Hopefully this ramble puits the J39 into some form of context. All the best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Looks to me as though they have designed it in such a way as to make a J38 as well. Not with that tender- J38s all had the smaller 3500 gallon tender after 1931. All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanem44 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 That does put things into context. Looks like Farish did themselves a disservice by going with the tender drive, and possibly cost them some revenue perhaps. I do find it stange that they made this choice on the J39, wheras they are not going with the tender drive motor on the upcoming Ivatt. I wonder what motivated these choices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 That does put things into context. Looks like Farish did themselves a disservice by going with the tender drive, and possibly cost them some revenue perhaps. I do find it stange that they made this choice on the J39, wheras they are not going with the tender drive motor on the upcoming Ivatt. I wonder what motivated these choices. Sometimes it's difficult to get the motor into the loco body without compromise. And that doesn't just depend on the absolute size of the loco, but also other factors such as pitch of the boiler. Personally I would not have accepted a model with side skirts to achieve this, and I think that daylight under the boiler is very nice to see. Farish so far have not gone for the Dapol solution of motor in tender driving the loco wheels. Mechanically that is the best, as it allows large amounts of weight and a large motor. However, I just think in this case with exactly the tender drive they required available from the B1, that it would not make financial sense to start again from scratch. Lower development costs probably outweigh any probably minor resultant loss in sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Strange choice IMHO, the similar (and longer lived) J27 would have made a LOT more sense. (from which a J26 could easily be done too) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I can see the logic they've applied with going for tender drive. I just wish they hadn't missed the opportunity to do the most common version. The J39 would have had as much room inside as the WD for a motor, though it would have needed a good tungsten chassis to get enough weight (or use traction tyres as per Dapol). Too late bellyaching now, it will be a useful addition to stock. I'll use it on special fitted freight (vans, probably), as I've not seen many photos of them on hoppers. The 3500 gallon tender was a lot less common- I believe the only other locos to use it were the J38 and K4, both geographically restricted. I'll admit to not knowing which tender ran behind the pair of V4s but in any case I can't see these very being made in N. On the J27 the Union Mills is a reasonable model, and its tender top can be made more North-Eastern in shape without too much effiort. I can see why Farish haven't done it- the loco was very restricted geographically. Only eight escaped from the North East, and even they were gathered in by the start of the war. The J27 tender was the same as used behind a few of the J39/3 variants. OTOH the J39 got to most of the LNER system, was used also on passenger (J26/J27 didn't have train brakes). J39s also were repaired for a time at Derby, though the works wondered how locos could get into such a state as the J39s they received and still manage to run....... All the very best. Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 That does put things into context. Looks like Farish did themselves a disservice by going with the tender drive, and possibly cost them some revenue perhaps. I do find it stange that they made this choice on the J39, wheras they are not going with the tender drive motor on the upcoming Ivatt. I wonder what motivated these choices. Hi Sean I suspect one reason may be that it was in the development queue before the switch to loco-drive and as Chris says, in addition the (I think) excellent B1 tender drive already being in existence mitigates development costs. I do not consider it a disservice at all, yes, loco drive would have been a "nice to have" but not essential. The existing tender-drive is smooth quiet and controllable and will out-"drag" one of the more recent loco-drive Farish models any day of the week. The main disadvantage I see is the resultant inability to model the tender with less than a very full coal-load. Regards Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmeaden Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I have to disagree with the comments on the tender drive - fine if you have a good tender drive. I have bought two in my first foray into GF steam and both Tenders drives have been very poor performers. In particular my B1 was so bad it had to go back as i couldnt run it for long enough to run-it in as per the instructions! By contrast I have the latest two loco drives (5MT and WD) and these are quite superb. Some samples of the 5MT were rejected at the shop due to their "sticky" motion at slow speeds but it is possible they could improve with running in for an hour. But, my experience is if it isn't right at the outset it will take a lot of running and tweaking to improve and may never run smoothly at slow speeds. Quite frustrating for models around £100 or more. I can fully understand the concerns of the Tender drive with the experience I have had...... However the J39 and 2MT did look rather good in the GF display cabinet :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I have to disagree with the comments on the tender drive - fine if you have a good tender drive. I have bought two in my first foray into GF steam and both Tenders drives have been very poor performers. In particular my B1 was so bad it had to go back as i couldnt run it for long enough to run-it in as per the instructions! By contrast I have the latest two loco drives (5MT and WD) and these are quite superb. Some samples of the 5MT were rejected at the shop due to their "sticky" motion at slow speeds but it is possible they could improve with running in for an hour. But, my experience is if it isn't right at the outset it will take a lot of running and tweaking to improve and may never run smoothly at slow speeds. Quite frustrating for models around £100 or more. I can fully understand the concerns of the Tender drive with the experience I have had...... However the J39 and 2MT did look rather good in the GF display cabinet :-) Hi Dmeaden you are entitled to your opinion of course, and it is disappointing when any loco fails to deliver to expectation as with your two tender-driven Farish ones have. However for balance my experience of farish tender-drives (2 jubilees, 2 Scots, 2 4MTs, 3 Black fives, 2 A1s and no less than 6 B1s) has been very different, all 17 without exception have run beautifully from the box. The only issue I have had is a 4MT recently "spat" a traction-tyre off, which I managed to replace with a tiny smear of superglue on the wheel. By contrast, my loco drive 5MT while unquestionably a fine smooth runner and a loco I do think is exquisite is not a strong puller, 5 coaches is about it. My equally exquisite WD is much more acceptable, 35 minerals, but compare to a tender-driven B1, 50 wagons is no bother at all. Each to their own I guess :-) Why 6 B1s? Well, they are a favourite of mine, and I think the Farish one is just soooo nice. All are BR, three have been renumbered, two Late Crest "Oliver Burys" have become Edinburgh Haymarket then St Margarets loco 61244 "Strang Steel", and Thornton Junction's 61400, an early Crest 61139 has become another Haymarket/St Margarets Loco, 61178. Sorry, slight digression.. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmeaden Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Hi Roy Im really hoping my Farish B1 comes back as good as yours and then I may invest in a couple more for my Waverley Route layout :-) Seasons Greetings :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanem44 Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Hi Roy Im really hoping my Farish B1 comes back as good as yours and then I may invest in a couple more for my Waverley Route layout :-) Seasons Greetings :-) Regardless, the J39 will become part of my collection. I have had good luck with tender-drives. Not so much with the B1. Mine had to go back, though it was not the motors fault. The motion kept locking up and I was unable to correct the issue on my own. My B1 has been costly for me, but I still think it is a beauty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Bachmann Website updated a couple of days ago, and shows expected delivery date of September/October, so a bit of a wait yet for the two I have on preorder, but they are at least in the production schedule now it appears. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atso Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Bachmann Website updated a couple of days ago, and shows expected delivery date of September/October, so a bit of a wait yet for the two I have on preorder, but they are at least in the production schedule now it appears. Roy Good thing I've not sold my Union Mills versions then! I'd be without an 0-6-0 tender loco for several months yet if I had! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Looks like these may be available as now being offered on ebay.....: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Graham-Farish-372-402-J39-64791-BR-Black-Late-Crest-Stepped-Tender-N-Gauge-/350902330120?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item51b368a308 Cheers,Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike at C&M Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The J39s are currently being despatched to retailers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreamnos Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Looks like these may be available as now being offered on ebay.....: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Graham-Farish-372-402-J39-64791-BR-Black-Late-Crest-Stepped-Tender-N-Gauge-/350902330120?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item51b368a308 Cheers, Alan Nice picture of the OO scale version there to accompany the Farish listing.... Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The J39s are currently being despatched to retailers. Have Bachmann said this? The retailer I have ordered mine through was told by Bachmann they would be along later in the month or poss even early November. So I'm confused... Regards Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 My poor wallet- does this mean, I wonder, that the J39 will be in at Hattons at the same time as the BR black 2MT? Two to pay for almost simultaneously- all I need is for Dapol's Bittern to arrive at the same time....... All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.