The J67/68/69 ‘Buckjumper’, By Accurascale

[Daddyman]

As others have said, it would be nice to know what the finescaling arrangements will be on this. Would be nice not to lose the boiler bottom when throwing the chassis away. 

 

One question on 68535: the only photo I know (Transport Library NS208442) shows it with BR crest (as modelled by A/S) but with a Cowlairs-style base to the stovepipe chimney, as opposed to the Stratford style modelled. The model may well be right (can A/S confirm?), but I'd say in general GE chimney bases were rare on Scottish J67s/J69s by the time of the cycling lion.  

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Daddyman

[Tramshed]

On 17/03/2023 at 17:52, Bucoops said:

Absolutely right for me. But...

 

The only LNER one is only valid for 1923/4. I want to support it and buy one but what to do :(

 

 

The particular loco (7)359 if given the 'LNER' without the '&' would still only be good for '25/26 as it was 'shopped' in 1/27 and given additional coal rails on the bunker. Then in 1929 had the condensing apparatus removed.

The significance of this is that '359' (built 1892) was one of the R24s that were retro fitted with condensing gear from 1893 and so did not have the raised 'screen' portion on the side tanks. Later ones had the characteristic shape of the S56s. When the tanks were enlarged during rebuilding in 1904 the original 'straight top' side tank profile was retained.

From the shape of the red lining on the Accurascale model, it appears, from what I can see, that this variant has been correctly observed. My only ask is that Accurascale investigate whether the number 359 should have an 'E' suffix. I have ordered an L&NER black one and a GER blue and congratulate Accurascale for taking on this complex project.

I expect other livery versions will appear in due course. From the sequence of SKU numbers it looks as if there are sufficient gaps for at least another 8!

[peterfgf]

I rather like these but I thought Derbyshire/S.Yorks might be a bit far off their patch (unless Rule I is applied) but then I looked at the invaluable BR Database  

https://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=601067&type=S&page=alloc 

and found the following allocations:

68497    Sheffield Darnall 41A, Sheffield Grimesthorpe 41B 
68512    Staveley 38D, 38D
68523    Staveley 38D, Sheffield Darnall 39B
68530    Sheffield Darnall 41A, Staveley 41E Barrow Hill
68556    Langwith Junction 41J 
68558    Staveley 38D
68569    Langwith Junction 41J, Sheffield Grimesthorpe 41B  
68579    Heaton 52B
68586    Heaton 52B
68589    Staveley 38D
68591    Langwith Junction 41J, Staveley 41H
68592    Staveley 38D, 38D
68608    Staveley 38D
68616    Staveley 38D
68618    Sheffield Darnall 41A, Sheffield Darnall 39B
68621    Canklow 41D, Langwith Junction 41J 
68623    Langwith Junction 41J 
68632    Staveley 38D, 38D
 

No excuses needed now.  Perhaps one even migrated to the C&HPR in place of a NLR tank....

Peterfgf

 

 

[Pint of Adnams]

36 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

As others have said, it would be nice to know what the finescaling arrangements will be on this. Would be nice not to lose the boiler bottom when throwing the chassis away. 

 

One question on 68535: the only photo I know (Transport Library NS208442) shows it with BR crest (as modelled by A/S) but with a Cowlairs-style base to the stovepipe chimney, as opposed to the Stratford style modelled. The model may well be right (can A/S confirm?), but I'd say in general GE chimney bases were rare on Scottish J67s/J69s by the time of the cycling lion.  

 

Two Colour Rail images - references 364081 and 3418 - the latter is much clearer and may help clarify the nature of the base to the chimney at the time (15/09/57)

[Daddyman]

12 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

Two Colour Rail images - references 364081 and 3418 - the latter is much clearer and may help clarify the nature of the base to the chimney at the time (15/09/57)

Well found! Cowlairs stovepipe in both cases, so from at least 1957 (Colour Rail 3418) onwards it had a different chimney from the model.  

[Pint of Adnams]

12 hours ago, Tramshed said:

The particular loco (7)359 if given the 'LNER' without the '&' would still only be good for '25/26 as it was 'shopped' in 1/27 and given additional coal rails on the bunker. Then in 1929 had the condensing apparatus removed.

The significance of this is that '359' (built 1892) was one of the R24s that were retro fitted with condensing gear from 1893 and so did not have the raised 'screen' portion on the side tanks. Later ones had the characteristic shape of the S56s. When the tanks were enlarged during rebuilding in 1904 the original 'straight top' side tank profile was retained.

From the shape of the red lining on the Accurascale model, it appears, from what I can see, that this variant has been correctly observed. My only ask is that Accurascale investigate whether the number 359 should have an 'E' suffix. I have ordered an L&NER black one and a GER blue and congratulate Accurascale for taking on this complex project.

I expect other livery versions will appear in due course. From the sequence of SKU numbers it looks as if there are sufficient gaps for at least another 8!

This is a challenging problem because the timings sit at overlapping periods of the number and livery periods.

 

359 was out-shopped in late April 1923.

 

L. & N.E.R. came into use in March 1923 (save for Doncaster, which omitted the full stops). The full stops were omitted from May 1923. So in theory 359 fell within this short period for that style.

 

Between June and September 1923 the ampersand was omitted and by that September the Area suffix was put into effect. 359 was next in shops  during October-November 1924, by which time it should have emerged with plain LNER on the tank sides and the smaller E suffix, i.e. 359E.

 

Red lining remained in use until June 1928.

 

There were obviously variations in implementation at the various works and Stratford still had a lot of grey paint and large numbers to use up.

 

Yeadon's Register Volume 48 has a photograph of a J65 on p22 that is of the first member of that class to be out-shopped in April 1923 and has the the full L. & N.E.R. on the tank sides and red lining. While p74 has a photograph of a J68 out-shopped in October 1923 with both the ampersand and suffix letter, a combination that should not have occurred.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Pint of Adnams
Correction

[Pint of Adnams]

10 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

Well found! Cowlairs stovepipe in both cases, so from at least 1957 (Colour Rail 3418) onwards it had a different chimney from the model.  

We do our best, but I'm sure that there is a practical limit to the number of minor tooling variations that it is economical or practical for Accurascale to provide for (and overlooking the fact that the wheels are not set far enough apart on the axles...)

[Crouchja32]

43 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

This is a challenging problem because the timings sit at overlapping periods of the number and livery periods.

 

359 was out-shopped in late April 1923.

 

L.N.E. & R. came into use in March 1923 (save for Doncaster, which omitted the full stops). The full stops were omitted from May 1923. So in theory 359 fell within this short period for that style.

 

Between June and September 1923 the ampersand was omitted and by that September the Area suffix was put into effect. 359 was next in shops  during October-November 1924, by which time it should have emerged with plain LNER on the tank sides and the smaller E suffix, i.e. 359E.

 

Red lining remained in use until June 1928.

 

There were obviously variations in implementation at the various works and Stratford still had a lot of grey paint and large numbers to use up.

 

Yeadon's Register Volume 48 has a photograph of a J65 on p22 that is of the first member of that class to be out-shopped in April 1923 and has the the full L.N.E. & R. on the tank sides and red lining. While p74 has a photograph of a J68 out-shopped in October 1923 with both the ampersand and suffix letter, a combination that should not have occurred.

Yeadon's also lists No.358 in L&NER Black with an E Prefix. 

[Islesy]

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

One question on 68535: the only photo I know (Transport Library NS208442) shows it with BR crest (as modelled by A/S) but with a Cowlairs-style base to the stovepipe chimney, as opposed to the Stratford style modelled. The model may well be right (can A/S confirm?), but I'd say in general GE chimney bases were rare on Scottish J67s/J69s by the time of the cycling lion. 

When I am back in the office, I will check my references against the CAD.

 

All the best,

Paul

[Islesy]

2 hours ago, Tramshed said:

My only ask is that Accurascale investigate whether the number 359 should have an 'E' suffix.

Not on the reference photos I am working from for this period, sourced from Rail Archive Stevenson @Tramshed

 

All the best,

Paul.

[Charlie]

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

As others have said, it would be nice to know what the finescaling arrangements will be on this. Would be nice not to lose the boiler bottom when throwing the chassis away….

 

I mean, if you are thinking of throwing the chassis away I will happily save you the cost of disposal and take them away rather than see them in the bin 😉

[Islesy]

35 minutes ago, Islesy said:

When I am back in the office, I will check my references against the CAD.

 

All the best,

Paul

Happy to agree with you @Daddymanthe chimney base does need some minor adjustments to get the right look for a Cowlairs type base, and the mod has already been made ahead of tooling.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

[Ventnor]

2 hours ago, Islesy said:

Happy to agree with you @Daddymanthe chimney base does need some minor adjustments to get the right look for a Cowlairs type base, and the mod has already been made ahead of tooling.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

Talking of chimneys, in the colour renders, BR J68 68646 – BR Black Late Crest appears to have a GE parallel lipped chimney. It should have a Darlington type the same as J69 68616 does. The Yeadon volume shows it as such. Might be worth checking. Understand these are early colour renders. Who knows, maybe it was retro fitted with a GE pattern chimney in its final years but I’ve never seen anything other than a stovepipe in place of the Darlington type in later years.

 

Great choice of locos to produce. J69s have always been a favourite of mine. A couple of pre-orders are in. It’s now almost (very soon) possible to model the Kelvedon & Tollesbury line in ready-to-run form. Just needs a couple of ex-Stoke Ferry 6 wheeled brakes.

 

Great stuff.

 

Cheers

 

Andy.
 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Ventnor
Spelling and description

[NHY 581]

4 hours ago, Ventnor said:

Talking of chimneys, in the colour renders, BR J68 68646 – BR Black Late Crest appears to have a GE parallel lipped chimney. It should have a Darlington type the same as J69 68616 does. The Yeadon volume shows it as such. Might be worth checking. Understand these are early colour renders. Who knows, maybe it was retro fitted with a GE pattern chimney in its final years but I’ve never seen anything other than a stovepipe in place of the Darlington type in later years.

 

Great choice of locos to produce. J69s have always been a favourite of mine. A couple of pre-orders are in. It’s now almost (very soon) possible to model the Kelvedon & Tollesbury line in ready-to-run form. Just needs a couple of ex-Stoke Ferry 6 wheeled brakes.

 

Great stuff.

 

Cheers

 

Andy.
 

 

 

 

Hi Andy, 

 

Are you thinking of 68619 that Accurascale are to produce ? 

 

68616 was a regular on the Tollesbury branch and WOULD BE VERY EXCELLENT NEWS IF ACCURASCALE CAN ADD THIS TO THE INITIAL RELEASES. 

 

 

Rob.

 

 

[adb968008]

On 18/03/2023 at 22:21, nightstar.train said:

Maybe Accurachuff for steam fitted models?

The driver of this 8f is whistling profusely as its about to attack a 1 in 43 on a 90 degree curve with 12 coaches and doesnt want to stop to have to pick up the token as well..

 

1 minute in, he’s got it, and it starts to “chuff”…as you describe it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by adb968008

[Tramshed]

11 hours ago, Pint of Adnams said:

This is a challenging problem because the timings sit at overlapping periods of the number and livery periods.

 

359 was out-shopped in late April 1923.

 

L.N.E. & R. came into use in March 1923 (save for Doncaster, which omitted the full stops). The full stops were omitted from May 1923. So in theory 359 fell within this short period for that style.

 

Between June and September 1923 the ampersand was omitted and by that September the Area suffix was put into effect. 359 was next in shops  during October-November 1924, by which time it should have emerged with plain LNER on the tank sides and the smaller E suffix, i.e. 359E.

 

There were obviously variations in implementation at the various works and Stratford still had a lot of grey paint and large numbers to use up.

Thanks P of A for this. However, Yeadon 48 shows this loco as having its 4 digit (+7000) number applied from the date it emerged from its Oct-Nov '24 shopping. Searching around other examples in the volume suggests that the '+7000' numbers were applied from as early as January '24 and so the 'E' suffix was only applied for a short time towards the end of 1923. So it appears Accurascale have got this right (or at least beyond reasonable challenge among learned RM Web folk).

According to Yeadon, the GER grey paint, if deemed to be in good condition, was retained after 1/1/23 and several even had +7000 numbers applied in large numerals over it. Perhaps another variant to emerge in due course!

The various painting/numbering schemes must have made perfect sense at the time, and it is something of a bonus that it sustains discussion a century later!

[Poor Old Bruce]

13 hours ago, peterfgf said:

Perhaps one even migrated to the C&HPR in place of a NLR tank....

 

Now, there's a thought. I like that idea 👍.

[Downer]

According to Yeadon’s the late crest applied to 68646 (and 68648) was the wrong one with the lion facing forward. If it was changed later, Yeadon doesn’t say so. 

[NXEA!]

3 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

 

Hi Andy, 

 

Are you thinking of 68619 that Accurascale are to produce ? 

 

68616 was a regular on the Tollesbury branch and WOULD BE VERY EXCELLENT NEWS IF ACCURASCALE CAN ADD THIS TO THE INITIAL RELEASES. 

 

 

Rob.

 

 

To the Accurascale chaps on here, I would also second a GE based machine with early crest if one could be added to the initial run, would love to pair one with a Rapido tram coach from the off. If I have to be patient I will, but worth asking!

[Islesy]

4 minutes ago, NXEA! said:

To the Accurascale chaps on here, I would also second a GE based machine with early crest if one could be added to the initial run, would love to pair one with a Rapido tram coach from the off. If I have to be patient I will, but worth asking!

Just to be absolutely clear, the Buckjumpers will be range locomotives in as many variations as needed; they are definitely not a one run wonder. There are already plans for the second and third run locomotives, and further runs will be forthcoming as long as the demand remains.

[Pint of Adnams]

1 hour ago, Tramshed said:

Thanks P of A for this. However, Yeadon 48 shows this loco as having its 4 digit (+7000) number applied from the date it emerged from its Oct-Nov '24 shopping. Searching around other examples in the volume suggests that the '+7000' numbers were applied from as early as January '24 and so the 'E' suffix was only applied for a short time towards the end of 1923. So it appears Accurascale have got this right (or at least beyond reasonable challenge among learned RM Web folk).

According to Yeadon, the GER grey paint, if deemed to be in good condition, was retained after 1/1/23 and several even had +7000 numbers applied in large numerals over it. Perhaps another variant to emerge in due course!

The various painting/numbering schemes must have made perfect sense at the time, and it is something of a bonus that it sustains discussion a century later!

Thank you for the correction regarding the duration of the E suffix; I was so concerned with explaining the rapid changes to lettering that I lost sight of the introduction of the numbering system.

 

I also left my specs behind at a meeting on Saturday so I've been struggling to read and type, and I totally buggered up the position of the ampersand in my original post - now corrected there.

[AMJ]

I think that the size and use of this loco is a shrewd move on the part of the manufacturer.  There will be homes for them on all sizes of layouts where either rule 1 or the area modelled is appropriate.

[Roy L S]

Accurascale were asking for N suggestions derived from their OO range not so long ago, could this have potential to go through the "Shrink Ray"?

 

Roy

[Crouchja32]

36 minutes ago, Downer said:

According to Yeadon’s the late crest applied to 68646 (and 68648) was the wrong one with the lion facing forward. If it was changed later, Yeadon doesn’t say so. 

Photographs of 68646 seem to show the crest facing the right way. Perhaps it was fixed at some point?
Yeadon's did note however that some J69 or J67's that got the Late Crest didn't have them fixed and were withdrawn with the wrong crest. 
68619 was given the wrong facing late Crest when repainted into Lined BR Black, but it was fixed when painted into the Blue livery we are getting. 

[Wickham Green too]

11 hours ago, Islesy said:

 

I'll leave it to the experts to determine whether that's a Stratford or Cowlairs style sack over the top too !  🙄