Jump to content
 

New Jinty


Crepello

Recommended Posts

Hi Matt

 

[edit]

 

In point of fact at the end of it's Bachmann production  I don't think the old model was a whole lot cheaper anyway!

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

Roy, to satisfy my own curiosity I had to check this and you are absolutely right.  The last issue of the old Bachmann Farish (ex- Poole) Jinty cost £52 from Hattons.

 

Given that this is the one I own and yet I could not believe I would pay that ridiculous sum for it, I did a search of my email account for my order acknowledgment (I hang on to them out of habit) - and found nothing!  And that's when I finally remembered I didn't pay that ridiculous sum for it; I received it as a birthday present!  :banghead:

 

The troubling part is I don't remember from whom...

 

In any case you are correct that the latest one is a superior model for just a few quid more.  I still can't get to grips with the large relative percent increases in prices for models vis-à-vis the rate of inflation generally over the past few years (which has been discussed at length elsewhere) and I have to remind myself that the UK rate of inflation is considerably higher (or so I'm told) than it is in the US.  As I stated earlier, the consequence has unfortunately been that I have had to pass on certain models that aren't "must haves."  Of course, I'd be the first to say (when my wife doesn't beat me to it) that no model - regardless of price - is a must have!

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My example arrived yesterday, and is currently running in around a loop of Kato uni-track. No wobbles, but it is noticeably noisier, both in motor and gear noise, than the Fairburn but hopefully this will decrease over time. Slow running is ok, but mine has a slight sticky spot which again I am hoping will reduce as it builds up the miles. 

 

Visually it is a stunning little model, even having a representation of the inside motion in the gap between boiler and frames. Is this a first for a mass produced N Gauge model? The brake rigging is pleasingly fine, and much better than the rather heavy version of the Dapol Pannier Tank. The only downside is the visible circuit board in the cab, however it is difficult to see any other way Bachmann could have approached this without compromising weight & hauling ability. I've had my example towing around 5 Farish Mk.1s & inspection saloon with no trouble at all, arguably a far greater load than the average one would be expected to deal with. 

 

I haven't had the top off yet, but I'm hoping its possible to fit a Zimo MX621N as this is my decoder of choice. Some bending of the pins will be nessecary, but it looks like there might just be enough space to squeeze one in. Chopping off a driver and fireman's legs and attaching them to the top of the chip with a small blob of blue tack or tacky wax would be one way to minimise the visual impact of the circuit board or chip. 

 

post-1467-0-09060800-1392975065_thumb.jpg

 

post-1467-0-67593500-1392975079_thumb.jpg

 

All in all, a lovely little model!

 

Tom. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looks like a smashing model. Thanks for posting the shots Tom. Although I no longer model the MR/LMS, or indeed steam locos, it is very tempting. The one let down now is that while I can quite understand the coupling rods being a bit over scale and beefed up for strength the large headed crankpins do stand out, (as do of course those horrible couplings). This seems to exist across the recent steam loco releases, but I'm sure these could be a bit smaller and less obvious without compromising the rest of the coupling rod design. 

 

Still, nothing is perfect, and it does give those like me something to fiddle with......... besides converting it to 2FS................Hmmm.......

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Visually it is a stunning little model, even having a representation of the inside motion in the gap between boiler and frames. Is this a first for a mass produced N Gauge model? The brake rigging is pleasingly fine, and much better than the rather heavy version of the Dapol Pannier Tank. The only downside is the visible circuit board in the cab, however it is difficult to see any other way Bachmann could have approached this without compromising weight & hauling ability. I've had my example towing around 5 Farish Mk.1s & inspection saloon with no trouble at all, arguably a far greater load than the average one would be expected to deal with. 

 

Oh, I think the real thing would have managed more than that with ease. It is a 3F after all, not a 1F. There are plenty of photos showing things like Jinties and Panniers pulling long freight trains, albeit probably not very fast or very far. And I am sure that a Jinty would have had plenty of puff to haul the ECS of main line expresses to and from the carriage sidings.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The one let down now is that while I can quite understand the coupling rods being a bit over scale and beefed up for strength the large headed crankpins do stand out, (as do of course those horrible couplings). This seems to exist across the recent steam loco releases, but I'm sure these could be a bit smaller and less obvious without compromising the rest of the coupling rod design.

They could - have a look for pictures of the Peco Collett 2251 which is still the benchmark for UK outline N gauge in this respect and really quite superb. I wonder if aftermarket replacements would be viable, with finer rods and pins still using the threaded holes in the Bachmann wheels?

 

The Farish return crank is another item that is far too bulky and lets down many of its steam outline models (to see how badly, compare pictures of the new Fairburn tank with the crank visible with those where it is hidden behind the tank).

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could - have a look for pictures of the Peco Collett 2251 which is still the benchmark for UK outline N gauge in this respect and really quite superb. I wonder if aftermarket replacements would be viable, with finer rods and pins still using the threaded holes in the Bachmann wheels?

 

The Farish return crank is another item that is far too bulky and lets down many of its steam outline models (to see how badly, compare pictures of the new Fairburn tank with the crank visible with those where it is hidden behind the tank).

Maybe they could go finer but I guess there has to be a balance between that and robustness and longevity - certainly smaller crankpins would help if nothing else. 

 

That said, looking at one of my B1s which just happens to be on my desk as I type this, from a viewing distance of about 1ft they actually look pretty much ok in my view and the overall effect of the wheels and valve gear looks very nice. For me it is only when cruelly enlarged in photos that you really notice.

 

The Peco Collett is a good example of what is achievable in this respect I would agree, it is such a shame that they chose to depict it with the over-large tender that it rarely (if ever) actually got paired with. To me that grates far more than over large crankpins ever could!

 

 

Roy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Oh, I think the real thing would have managed more than that with ease. It is a 3F after all, not a 1F. There are plenty of photos showing things like Jinties and Panniers pulling long freight trains, albeit probably not very fast or very far. And I am sure that a Jinty would have had plenty of puff to haul the ECS of main line expresses to and from the carriage sidings.

 

Chris

I think Tom meant the average load on our layouts. I remember Jinties bringing in the ECS at Euston for trains like the 'Royal Scot' (probably 13 coaches) and banking them up Camden Bank. (Which reminds me the Duchess isn't far away!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looks like N Brass could still do a healthy trade in replacement chimneys . . .

 

David

 

Indeed, that is one of the few poorer aspects of the model. On my example the chimney cap was not that well attached either, as I found out when I turned it upside down to access the insides!

 

Tom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well, the temptation proved just too great, despite the fact I no longer model ex-MR/LMS. I've just completed converting mine to 2FS and hope to post the details on the 2mm forum for anyone interested.

 

However, I have hit issues with fitting a decoder. Under DC it runs as smooth as you like, down to the very slowest crawl, but fit a decoder, any decoder, and it jitters along the track like a good 'un. I have experienced this in the past with the 03/04/08's, and it needed removal of the circuit board due to interference with DCC signal by the capacitors. But they aren't meant to be DCC ready and don't have 6-pin plug boards. I have now had to do the same with this one and hardwire in a decoder. Has anybody else had problems like this?

 

Thanks,

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They could - have a look for pictures of the Peco Collett 2251 which is still the benchmark for UK outline N gauge in this respect and really quite superb. I wonder if aftermarket replacements would be viable, with finer rods and pins still using the threaded holes in the Bachmann wheels?

 

The Farish return crank is another item that is far too bulky and lets down many of its steam outline models (to see how badly, compare pictures of the new Fairburn tank with the crank visible with those where it is hidden behind the tank).

 

I think there really is a market for finer rods and smaller headed pins that would enable a direct replacement that many would be capable of and willing to undertake. Ditto the return crank. Improvements in this area would make so much difference and I'm not sure they would really compromise the robustness of the model in normal use, if they were reduced in bulk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think there really is a market for finer rods and smaller headed pins that would enable a direct replacement that many would be capable of and willing to undertake. Ditto the return crank. Improvements in this area would make so much difference and I'm not sure they would really compromise the robustness of the model in normal use, if they were reduced in bulk.

I would agree, but I fear that replacements may not be feasible. If you look at my Jinty thread on the 2mm forum you will see that Farish now cast the crank boss on the wheel, so smaller rods are not possible without filing this off. I can't quite understand why these rods/crankpins are so much larger than those used on the 03/04/08 diesel shunters.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would agree, but I fear that replacements may not be feasible. If you look at my Jinty thread on the 2mm forum you will see that Farish now cast the crank boss on the wheel, so smaller rods are not possible without filing this off. I can't quite understand why these rods/crankpins are so much larger than those used on the 03/04/08 diesel shunters.

 

Izzy

 

When I converted my Class 14 I simply filed the crank bosses off, glue a short piece of brass tube in the Farish crankpin hole to make it smaller and then fitted Association crankpins. The simple answer to there not being any finer coupling rods available is to make some - they are not that difficult to drill and file up from some strip nickel silver.

 

Jerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think there really is a market for finer rods and smaller headed pins that would enable a direct replacement that many would be capable of and willing to undertake. Ditto the return crank. Improvements in this area would make so much difference and I'm not sure they would really compromise the robustness of the model in normal use, if they were reduced in bulk.

Finer motion does work, just fiddly to put together. Here is a link to my topic on converting a GF Ivatt to 2mm finescale. The motion has been replaced with etched parts and finescale wheels replace the GF ones. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81104-finescaling-a-farish-ivatt-2-6-0/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1387007

 

In the 2mm finescale section, ' On my workbench..', there are some recent pics of the GF WD 2-8-0 converted along similar lines. I can't pretend either of the conversions are a piece of cake to do, but with a bit of determination you can get there in the end.

 

Nig H

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly now mine has run in it is developing a rolling gait- fortunately it is to spend most of its life running on my colliery track so unevennes isn't an issue- it just makes the track look a bit worse than it is, which on this occasion is a plus.

 

Put it on the main line and you might even say it wobbles slightly.  The long wheelbase compared to the length of the loco means it will never reach Fairburn standards..........

 

All the very best

Les.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, check the rods are completely straight. My early crest one they weren't perfect and that gave it a fractional wobble as you describe.

 

I have 3 of them now and with the above sorted on one they are all absolutely perfect runners, really a superb model, especially when compared to the Dapol 57xx which is a virtually identical mechanical design. The Jinty is heavier, smoother running and does not (at present in my experience) suffer from the plague of pickup problems the 57xx does (yet again I have one of these giving trouble, and will need to be stripped down for the third time :banghead: ).

 

Overall the Jinty is probably the best 0-6-0 tank available in N right now IMHO.

 

Cheers,
Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, check the rods are completely straight. My early crest one they weren't perfect and that gave it a fractional wobble as you describe.

 

 

 

Overall the Jinty is probably the best 0-6-0 tank available in N right now IMHO.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that - in terms of reliable pickup and appearance it knocks spots off any other small loco I've got (at least UK outline- I have a couple of small Continental diesels that are in the same bracket).

 

I'll keep an eye on the movement- the duties it does mean a slight roll is actually a benefit- providing it gets no worse I'll leave well alone.  Its never going to be on the main line at exhibitions so rocking a little will enhance the idea of NCB small-colliery-standard track.  I'm hoping the pair of DJM J94s it will share colliery duties with will be as good, I'm already stretching reality a bit with one Jinty on hire to the NCB Durham No.3 Area.

 

All the very best

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly now mine has run in it is developing a rolling gait- fortunately it is to spend most of its life running on my colliery track so unevennes isn't an issue- it just makes the track look a bit worse than it is, which on this occasion is a plus.

 

Put it on the main line and you might even say it wobbles slightly.  The long wheelbase compared to the length of the loco means it will never reach Fairburn standards..........

 

All the very best

Les.  

Hi Les

 

To be fair there are plenty of Fairburns out there (mine included) which run straight and true without a trace of a wobble!

 

Regards

 

Roy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Les

 

To be fair there are plenty of Fairburns out there (mine included) which run straight and true without a trace of a wobble!

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

The comment was not intended to be a pop at the Fairbutrn,  merely a statement that a loco with a longer rigid wheelbase relative to the whole loco length will inevitably move out-of-straight by a much smaller amount for a given degree of play at the axles.

 

Two examples from the prototype.    Classes K1 and L1 had the same cylinders, wheel size, and the same axlebox journals.  The K1 had a longer coupled wheelbase and a tender which kept it straight.  As a result it didn't slog as much and didn't suffer from the same excessive degree of axlebox wear as the L1, even where used extensively on passenger or fast freight duties.

 

0-4-0 tank locos were routinely fitted with large diameter buffers even where they were NOT expected to work small-radius curves.  This was because, having a coupled wheelbase typically no more than a third of the total length, and outsude cylinders, they slogged.  Outside-cylindered 0-6-0 tank locos of the same cylinder and wheel size tended to have standard sized buffers as the slog is that much smaller due to the wheelbase being longer in relation to the overall length of the loco.

 

Significantly, the major reason the Jinty was rejected as the starting point for the WD saddletank was that its coupled wheelbase was too long for the sort of duties the WD tank was intended for.

 

All the very best

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...