mikemeg Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 On this thread I'll try and cover the building and/or conversion of models of ex-LMS locomotives which could or would have been seen at Hessle Haven - a place just outside Hull on the main line to Selby and Doncaster - in 1950. As well as regular workings into Hull for ex-LMS locomotives from Goole, the Leeds sheds and other ex-LMS sheds, there were the irregular workings - football specials, seaside excursions, etc into or through Hull. These could bring ex-LMS locomotives from as far afield as the Lancashire and Midlands sheds. While I never knew the railways around Hull in 1950, when I did know them - 1958 to 1964 - ex-LMS locomotives were still much in evidence working into and out of Hull. Almost all of the LMS standard classes, with the exception of the Pacifics, could have been seen at some time or other. One of my favourite locomotive types was always the ex-LMS Jubilee; they always appeared so elegant. So when Bachmann introduced thier model of the Jubilee, a few years ago, I bought one with a view, one day, of converting it to P4 to run on my Hessle Haven layout. Like many such 'good intentions' the actual realisation took far longer than the original intention but a good modelling friend provided the impetus to actually start on this by suggesting a swap of the 'OO' chassis and wheels of this model in exchange for a set of Comet P4 chassis parts. So having now also acquired the necessary wheelsets from Alan Gibson, then away we go. I've started with the tender which is a very nice model of the Stanier 4,000 gallon riveted version. The tender underframe was separated from the body and the moulded brake hangars removed. The moulded coal load was also removed and discarded. Using the Comet 7' 6" x 7' 6" tender subframe kit, a subframe was assembled, using the LMS pattern brakes contained in the kit. I used a lot of 2.0 mm nickel silver washers to minimise the sideplay of the tender wheelsets across the subframe; this to prevent the brakes from touching the tender wheel rims, causing short circuits. The brake linkage used here is the original Bachmann plastic component, which is a much better representation of the compensated brake linkage on these tenders than that in the kit, with the brake stretchers reduced in width to 19.5 mm and then glued into the lower joints on the brake hangars. A coat of weathered black on the added and modified parts and the sub frame is ready for fitting to the tender. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 The basic chassis for the locomotive has now been assembled. This Comet chassis kit is designed to cater for the LMS Jubilee, Patriot and Royal Scot so does provide for different configurations of the front end of the chassis - dependant on whether the loco body has moulded front frames in front of the cylinders, as this Bachmann Jubilee does, or requires full length mainframes - and for different gauges OO, EM and P4. For this version of the Jubilee, the rear of the mainframes also required shaping to clear the lower portion of the cab and moulded footplate; this has to be done by trial and, hopefully, no error.!! A large number of differently sized frame spacers are provided, within the kit, to allow for different configurations of the frame spacing, again to cater for different fixing locations between the chassis and the locomotive body. The 6 mm hornblocks provided as an extra component are assymetrical in that the slots in the hornblock are not central, allowing for different amounts of sideplay on the driving wheels. I found that with the P4 frame spacers fitted, giving a separation of around 16 mm over the outsides of the mainframes, then the minimal protrusion of these hornblocks was required to allow for any sideplay on the driving wheels. The front bogie has also been assembled and wheeled, though the wheels will be removed for priming and painting - I know, one shouldn't take Gibson wheels off their axles as they can loosen. Finally, for this posting, an acknowledgement of the amazing customer service and response of the new owners of the Comet range - Wizard Models - always delivered within two days, often the next day. The usual disclaimer that I have no additional interest in this company, just a very satisfied customer. This being only my third conversion of an r-t-r model to P4, it does seem strange to be able to pose a fully detailed and painted loco and tender body on a part completed chassis!! So now to wheel the chassis and add the cylinders, motion, etc. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iak Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Mmmmm. Venturing into dark water Mike? Very nice too mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 The reason Brassmasters have given for not doing an easi-chas for the Jubilee is that the wheelbase is slightly wrong. With the Comet chassis aimed at, presumably, both the Bachmann Jubilee and the Hornby Scot/Patriot, does it match the Bachmann splashers? I think the overall wheelbase is the correct length, but the central wheelset moved forward slightly, presumably for 00 flanges. If this is the case, then maybe the Hornby wheelbase is similarly altered? Looking good though, I've a couple of these planned so will watch with interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 The reason Brassmasters have given for not doing an easi-chas for the Jubilee is that the wheelbase is slightly wrong. With the Comet chassis aimed at, presumably, both the Bachmann Jubilee and the Hornby Scot/Patriot, does it match the Bachmann splashers? I think the overall wheelbase is the correct length, but the central wheelset moved forward slightly, presumably for 00 flanges. The wheelbase stretch is also referred to by Dave Franks in relation to his etched coupling rod set Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Quite difficult to measure on the screen, but I make the middle and front splashers about 30mm apart; I think they should be 29mm. This poses the thought whether the whole model has been slightly stretched or has thecoupled wheel base been moved slightly to the rear to preserve the bogie to coupled wheel spacing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Quite difficult to measure on the screen, but I make the middle and front splashers about 30mm apart; I think they should be 29mm.... 7'4" for that section, so that comes out at 29(.33)mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 When I bought this Jubilee model, I almost immediately 'put it in the cupboard' for a future conversion project, without any serious examination or measuring; I assumed that the model would be dimensionally correct against the prototype. I was actually encouraged to start this conversion by virtue of swapping the complete 'OO' chassis for a Comet chassis kit by a friend of mine. Neither he nor I were aware that this Bachmann model had a 'stretched' driving wheelbase. So, in complete ignorance of this discrepancy, I launched into this build. The first time I noticed the discrepancy was when taking the photograph, immediately above and of course, the sequence of postings highlighting this discrepancy, immediately above - many thanks. Having disposed of the 'OO' chassis I can't verify the axle spacing which Bachmann have used but, from the approximate positions of the splasher centres, it appears that the distance between the front and middle sets of driving wheels has been extended to around 30.5 mm (scale 7' 71/2") from the prototype 29.33 mm (scale 7' 4"). What is more difficult to ascertain, from the splasher positions, is whether this addition has been propogated through the spacing of the middle and rear axles or whether this distance has been reduced from the 32.0 mm (scale 8' 0") of the prototype to compensate for the addition? Perhaps one of the contributors, above, might know the answer to this? What is clear is that the Comet chassis kit based on the prototype's driving axle spacing does not correspond to the splasher spacing of the Bachmann model (string of invective spoken but not typed). While checking the Jubilee's dimensions, using t'Internet, one other thing I discovered is that the Jubilee's carried two different front bogies; the one with a 6' 3" wheelbase and the other with a 6' 6" wheelbase. I am not sure whether this difference affected the spacing and profile of the mainframe cutouts (I imagine it would) or whether these different bogies were swapped at time of major overhaul but the original fitting was :- 5552 - 5556 and 5607 - 5654 had 6' 3" wheelbase bogies. 5557 - 5606 and 5655 - 5742 had 6' 6" wheelbase bogies. This would mean that 45611 had the shorter wheelbase bogie, which, again, I can't verify. So, back to the drawing board though it looks like a scratch built chassis, using Dave Franks rods, might be the answer. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 .....What is more difficult to ascertain is whether this addition has been propogated through the spacing of the middle and rear axles or whether this distance has been reduced from the 32.0 mm (scale 8' 0") of the prototype to compensate for the addition? Perhaps one of the contributors, above, might know the answer to this? Hopefully Bachmann confined the stretch to the front part of the driving wheelbase only. If they spread it out throughout the total wheelbase, then you could be in trouble as far as the body modifications are concerned....in which case you might have been better off building the Brassmasters kit.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Don't be disheartened - I think it could be a 'simple' job of moving the splasher. I'll try and measure mine later and remind myself wherein had got to with my planning... Brassmasters do the 6'3" bogie as a separate part. I don't think it changed the frames, they were just used as those were theoretically rebuilds from Claughtons. I'm not sure how much they moved around, I'll see whether I have any info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 Hopefully Bachmann confined the stretch to the front part of the driving wheelbase only. If they spread it out throughout the total wheelbase, then you could be in trouble as far as the body modifications are concerned....in which case you might have been better off building the Brassmasters kit.... Ivan, It looks to me as though the rear part of the driving wheelbase is per prototype 32.0 mm (scale 8' 0"), so the whole driving wheelbase is some 1 - 1.5 mm too long. Whether or not the body length has been extended to compensate giving a correctly profiled rear splasher, I can't tell. I think the final part of your posting pretty well sums it up and I will probably do just that! Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 Don't be disheartened - I think it could be a 'simple' job of moving the splasher. I'll try and measure mine later and remind myself wherein had got to with my planning... Brassmasters do the 6'3" bogie as a separate part. I don't think it changed the frames, they were just used as those were theoretically rebuilds from Claughtons. I'm not sure how much they moved around, I'll see whether I have any info. No, more annoyed than disheartened; annoyed that I didn't check before starting the build. Any suggestions as to rectifying this will be very gratefully accepted. Many thanks. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Unfortunately, for all the books on Jubilees there isn't a wild swan one with full drawings - however the include the drawing Ivan posted which is enough, alongside photos, for me to conclude that they have just moved the front splasher and wheelset forward. The cylinders and bogie pivot are where they should be, & too much wheel is present behind the valve gear. The front sand box filler looks to be in the right place, & Bachmann have taken a bit off the bottom corner where the splasher cuts into it. I don't think they've moved the third boiler band either, & the splasher is certainly further away from the top feed than it should be. My conclusion is that they have only moved that splasher, & the rest of the body is correct - but this is without a GA drawing to reference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Some years ago a friend was building Jubilee for one of his friends and wanted info. Don't ask me where it is now, but at the time I turned up a copy/copies of Railway Modeller that had quite extensive details and drawings of Jubilees. Maybe someone out there could help. One issue that has to be clarified is which of the splashers is in the correct location, as I previously pointed out if the relationship between the drivers and the bogie is correct it may be that the rear splashers are at fault. Measure six times and cut once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 There is a Domestic Duck book available (by Essery & Toms). Locomotive Monographs: The LMS Jubilees. They only ever published two Monographs.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Nig H Posted September 22, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 22, 2016 Some years ago a friend was building Jubilee for one of his friends and wanted info. Don't ask me where it is now, but at the time I turned up a copy/copies of Railway Modeller that had quite extensive details and drawings of Jubilees. Maybe someone out there could help. One issue that has to be clarified is which of the splashers is in the correct location, as I previously pointed out if the relationship between the drivers and the bogie is correct it may be that the rear splashers are at fault. Measure six times and cut once. There are fairly detailed drawings in Model Railways, June 1974. These were part of a series of articles about Jubilees. Here is a scan of part of one of the drawings. Nig H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Ah - well reminded Ivan - that was the book I was looking in, but forgot the drawings were at the back... It is the front driving wheel which is at fault. The bogie and valve gear have the correct alignment to the driven, middle, driving wheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley Melrose Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 It may be fiction but someone told me that Bachmann was planning to offer a GWR Castle until they found that Hornby was going to do one, a Castle that is. As their plans were quite advanced they simply switched the model to a Jubilee which has (apparently) similar dimensions, apart from the wheelbase, of course. Whether this is fact or fiction, I have no idea but something must account for the incorrect wheelbase - and the slightly odd shape of the boiler/firebox. Do not proceed too far until Brassmaster's plans are revealed as you may be agreeably surprised . . . Stan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 .....Do not proceed too far until Brassmasters' plans are revealed as you may be agreeably surprised . . . They already have a plan revealed: their full Jubilee kit, which has been knocking around for the best part of 20 years now..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iak Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 They already have a plan revealed: their full Jubilee kit, which has been knocking around for the best part of 20 years now..... But.....? Oh the joys of this hobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 The Jubilee to Black 5 ratio on eBay is very low though, unless Ivan has already rounded up all the ones sold to date... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 The Jubilee to Black 5 ratio on eBay is very low though, unless Ivan has already rounded up all the ones sold to date... Oi! I only have two and a half of the Black Fives. The Jubilee count here is nil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Sorry to intrude on this grief which I'm sure is a salutary lesson to many of us. Clearly you have fairly limited options and if you wish to preserve the factory finish then a scratch built chassis appears to be the only way. Not having the body to measure and compare with the drawings I can only go by the photos you have posted. So we know the problem with the wheel spacing between the first and second axle however, there does also appear to be a wider spacing between the third and forth boiler bands - reading from the front. If this is the case one must assume that the body has been stretch to some extent to match the wheelbase. The question is if the correct relative positions of the front axle and cylinders are to be maintained will the Comet con rods and associated valve gear fit any new scratch built chassis. Finally my sympathy as it must be a shock to find that what was on the face of it a fairly easy conversion could become so potentially complicated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 ....The question is if the correct relative positions of the front axle and cylinders are to be maintained will the Comet con rods and associated valve gear fit any new scratch built chassis.... If the Comet rods have been designed to reflect the correct 7'4" leading dimension, then there's nothing stopping Comet motion being used on a scratchbuilt chassis. But why not ask Brassmasters if they'll sell you their "Jubilee" chassis frets separately instead of having to scratchbuild a chassis? And if there are stretch errors in the Bachmann body, why not just build the Brassmasters kit anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 I believe from Mike's comments that he proposes to scratch build a chassis to suit the Bachmann body rather than modify the body. The need for a scratch built chassis is because the spacing between the first and second axle is greater than 29.33mm; the Brassmaster chassis does not solve the problem! If the spacing between the leading axle and the cylinders is to scale - in the region of 36mm to cylinder centreline - it follows that the conrods need to be longer than "scale" length by the difference between 29.33mm (say 29.35mm), and the axle spacing dictated by the Bachmann body. Because of the axle spacing issue parts of the valve gear may be effected. I'm sure that Mike would not be in this position if he had known the problem before he started. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.