Jub45565 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 I haven't played with the splashers on the Jubilee yet, but I have done a Brassmasters/Bachmann 3F easi-chas and replacement splashers. I expect the concept is the same (plastic splasher on metal footplate) and so the splasher should be easy to prise off the footplate without cosmetically damaging it, so it could be glued back on further forward. I don't think there is a problem between the 3rd and 4th boiler bands, but can double check this tonight. The top feed is in the right place, and I think the illusion of boiler bands looking wrong is caused by the splasher location. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan 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. .... Not having seen the current generation Bachmann Jubilee, does it have a cast footplate, and is that the reason why the front splashers alone can't be moved? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clecklewyke Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Mike, I'm so sorry to read of this problem. I've only just found this thread but as the instigator of the chassis swap I feel some responsibility. I'm not sure what your conclusions are. Is it the Bachman body or the Comet chassis which is wrong? I've measured the Bachman chassis and as best as I can make it*, the distance between leading and middle drivers is 29.5mm (=7ft 4in as near as damn it) and between middle and trailing 36mm (=8ft. ). So, as far as ther driving wheel spacing is concerned it seems to be spot on. If, as suggested above, you propose to keep the Bachman body would it not be better to retain the Comet chassis and replace the existing front hornblocks with the Scalefour Soc (by Pendlenton out of Bradwell) springing units located to match the Bachman body front splashers? Much quicker than a complete scratchbuild. The front two splashers on the Hornby Patriot body, under which I have fitted the Bachman Jubilee chassis, appear to be about 31mm (=7'9"*). This is quite near enough for my eyesight and of course the rear splashers are within the firebox casing so any discrepancy between chassis and body will not be apparent. Of course the Hornby body has many other "challenges"! And as for the tender..... Ian * Measured with dividers and metal ruler as I could not find my vernier - and my failing eyes - so not terribly precise. P.S. If you don't want the Bachman body I could give it a good home. I'm sure we could do a trade. Want some P4 wheels? * Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 27, 2016 Author Share Posted September 27, 2016 Mike, I'm so sorry to read of this problem. I've only just found this thread but as the instigator of the chassis swap I feel some responsibility. I'm not sure what your conclusions are. Is it the Bachman body or the Comet chassis which is wrong? I've measured the Bachman chassis and as best as I can make it*, the distance between leading and middle drivers is 29.5mm (=7ft 4in as near as damn it) and between middle and trailing 36mm (=8ft. ). So, as far as ther driving wheel spacing is concerned it seems to be spot on. The front two splashers on the Hornby Patriot body, under which I have fitted the Bachman Jubilee chassis, appear to be about 31mm (=7'9"*). This is quite near enough for my eyesight and of course the rear splashers are within the firebox casing so any discrepancy between chassis and body will not be apparent. Of course the Hornby body has many other "challenges"! And as for the tender..... Ian * Measured with dividers and metal ruler as I could not find my vernier - and my failing eyes - so not terribly precise. P.S. If you don't want the Bachman body I could give it a good home. I'm sure we could do a trade. Want some P4 wheels? * Ian, Many thanks for the posting and for the offer. On the Comet chassis, which is spaced at a scale 7' 4" and 8' 0", using Alan Gibson P4 Jubilee wheels, which are actually 6' 8" diameter not the 6' 9" of the prototype, the minimum space between the flanges of the front and middle sets of driving wheels is around 2.0 mm. This is just enough to accommodate the brake hangar between these sets of wheels. If the Bachmann wheels are a scale 6' 9" i.e. .33 mm larger in diameter, then this would reduce this space by another .33 mm plus the deeper flange measurement, leaving something less than 1.0 mm for the brake hangar, at the correct axle spacing (7' 4" / 29.33 mm). If I line up the middle driving wheels, on the Comet chassis, centrally with the middle splasher on the Bachmann body, then the gap between the front of the Comet chassis and the moulded front mainframes is around 1.5mm so pretty indicative of the 'stretch' of the wheelbase. Thus it appears that Bachmann have extended this separation to around 2.0 mm by adding around 1.5 mm to the spacing between the front and middle driving wheel sets. From the splasher spacing it also appears that the distance between the axle centres of the middle and rear driving wheel sets is the correct 32mm (8' 0"), so the whole wheelbase has been extended by around 1.5 mm. So, my conclusion is that to scratch build a P4 chassis for this Bachmann Jubilee, then a wheelbase of around 7' 71/2" and 8' 0" (30.5 mm and 32.0 mm) would need to be used with coupling rods of the same spacing (this would need to be assessed more precisely). With the same Alan Gibson 26.6 mm Stanier wheels, then the minimum gap between the flanges on this chassis would increase to around 3.5 mm (scale 10.5") which would probably stand out like the proverbial; even if it is only 1.5 mm too much. All good experience and some valuable lessons learned (as well as some variations on the coupling of invectives!). Thanks to all who have contributed with drawing, information, views. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 27, 2016 Author Share Posted September 27, 2016 Not having seen the current generation Bachmann Jubilee, does it have a cast footplate, and is that the reason why the front splashers alone can't be moved? The front splashers appear to be positioned correctly; it is the middle and rear splashers which have the positional problem. And yes, the current generation Bachmann Jubilee has a cast footplate with the splashers moulded integrally and it has moulded cutaways in the boiler and firebox, located behind the splashers, to accommodate the tops of the 'OO' gauge driving wheels. So moving the middle and rear splashers would leave large gaps showing in the boiler and firebox. And, judging from the RM drawing appended to a previous posting, the splashers themselves are oversize, presumably to accommodate the deeper 'OO' flanges. No, Ivan, your initial comment about building the Brassmasters Jubilee was prescient, after all. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 ....your initial comment about building the Brassmasters Jubilee was prescient, after all. You know it makes sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Mike, Are you sure? I may well be wrong (not an unusual occurance) but from looking at it and comparing with both drawings and photos the other day I satisfied myself that it is the front splasher that is wrong - it doesnt line up where it should with either the sand box fillers (which have cutouts to work around the shifted splasher) nor the top feed, which looks too far away. It also leaves too much wheel present behind the slide bars on the Bachmann chassis, which helped me back up my conclusion. From working with the 3F, the splashers on that were quite easy to remove while keeping them in tact, minus the fixing tab. The instructions for the 3F splashers, which includes the method to remove the old ones, are here: http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/Downloads/3F%20replacement%20splasher%20instructions%20v1.pdf Cheers, Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 This will be my last posting on this subject. Quite apart from the splasher issue as I previously mentioned there appears to be a wider spacing between the third and forth boiler bands. I attribute this to the need to compensate for the increase in spacing between the first and second axle by lengthening the boiler. Still this project does represent a challenge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Yes, I sit corrected. I specifically ignored the measurements on the drawing, but made a note of where they were so I took ones I could read across. Measured them with my vernier before converting up, then compared. I expected a bit of variance (tis difficult to judge the centre of a dome etc bang on) but all measurements I took were within an inch except for 2. Unfortunately, the 4th boiler band measurement is not noted on the drawing (from the book, as copied by Ivan up thread) but that looks to line up with the footplate join. Measuring that from the front of the cab I was 4" out. Rear bufferbeam to rear axle is 5.5" out, while my measurement to the front axle from the front buffer beam was 1.7" out. So yes, a challenge indeed. Shame, as at first glance it looks like a Jubilee! Edited to note that while the dome is in the right place, the 4th boiler band has been tucked underneath it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 Mike, Are you sure? I may well be wrong (not an unusual occurance) but from looking at it and comparing with both drawings and photos the other day I satisfied myself that it is the front splasher that is wrong - it doesnt line up where it should with either the sand box fillers (which have cutouts to work around the shifted splasher) nor the top feed, which looks too far away. It also leaves too much wheel present behind the slide bars on the Bachmann chassis, which helped me back up my conclusion. From working with the 3F, the splashers on that were quite easy to remove while keeping them in tact, minus the fixing tab. The instructions for the 3F splashers, which includes the method to remove the old ones, are here: http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/Downloads/3F%20replacement%20splasher%20instructions%20v1.pdf Cheers, Pete Pete, Yes I'm pretty sure that my measurements are correct. The Comet chassis clearly lines up, exactly, with the position of the front driving wheelset. The middle and rear driving wheelsets are clearly misaligned with their respective splashers by around 1.5 mm. If I align the chassis with the middle driving wheelset correctly positioned, then there is a gap of around 1.5 mm between the front of the Comet chassis and the moulded mainframes. I also have an old Bachmann parallel boilered Royal Scot, which chassis I have now exhaustively measured. This seems to be spot on 7' 4" and 8' 0" driving axle spacing, though the 'OO' wheels are slightly less than 27.0 mm diameter. Obviously the accuracy of the wheel diameter isn't an issue, only the spacing of the wheelbase and the associated splashers. So, perhaps, all is not quite lost, though it will be a few months before I do any conversion on this one! Cheers and thanks Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Holt Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Mike, The Brassmasters Jubilee builds into a very fine model (with no wheelbase issues!). However, on mine, I found that the axle box slots in the frames had been etched to different depths, thus the height gradually reducing from front to rear. I didn't appreciate the significance of this till after the chassis was fully assembled and found the rear end of the loco was too high. I did manage to correct this by judicious filing of the rear slots to allow the springs to sit higher up, but it would have been much easier to do this before assembly of the frames. It might be that only the batch my frames came from had this issue, but it would be wise to check before assembly if you opt for one of these models. Here's a shot of my part completed nodel, hopefully sitting in the correct attitude. Good luck whichever route you decide to take. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 Mike, The Brassmasters Jubilee builds into a very fine model (with no wheelbase issues!). However, on mine, I found that the axle box slots in the frames had been etched to different depths, thus the height gradually reducing from front to rear. I didn't appreciate the significance of this till after the chassis was fully assembled and found the rear end of the loco was too high. I did manage to correct this by judicious filing of the rear slots to allow the springs to sit higher up, but it would have been much easier to do this before assembly of the frames. It might be that only the batch my frames came from had this issue, but it would be wise to check before assembly if you opt for one of these models. Here's a shot of my part completed nodel, hopefully sitting in the correct attitude. IMG_1491.JPG Good luck whichever route you decide to take. Dave. Dave, Many thanks for the posting, the information and the photo. If I were still undecided on which approach to take for a Jubilee (but I'm now decided), then your photo would certainly have made up my mind. Lovely model of a very handsome locomotive. Many thanks Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 ....I found that the axle box slots in the frames had been etched to different depths, thus the height gradually reducing from front to rear. I didn't appreciate the significance of this till after the chassis was fully assembled and found the rear end of the loco was too high. ..... That's interesting. It wasn't, so far as I can remember, mentioned in Allan Sibley's MRJ build of the kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.