S&DJR 7F

[Ian J.]

could you have not replaced it with a brass gear wheel from one of the kit builders?

 

I tried finding something that would suit, but there just wasn't anything that came to notice.

[locoholic]

The picture in the 2016/17 Bachmann catalogue of 31-014, the 7F in S&DJR black livery, has the running number 89, and is shown as Era 2. Is this even slightly historically accurate?

 

I though No. 89 was one of the batch that was delivered with the larger diameter boiler?

[Combe Martin]

The picture in the 2016/17 Bachmann catalogue of 31-014, the 7F in S&DJR black livery, has the running number 89, and is shown as Era 2. Is this even slightly historically accurate?

 

I though No. 89 was one of the batch that was delivered with the larger diameter boiler?

No it's not accurate. Bachmann's model is of the 1925 series but after the large boiler was replaced with the small boiler. In the case of this loco the boiler was replace in 1930 after its 1929 crash and its number was changed to LMS no 9679. No 89 was only carried with the large boiler.

[NHY 581]

No it's not accurate. Bachmann's model is of the 1925 series but after the large boiler was replaced with the small boiler. In the case of this loco the boiler was replace in 1930 after its 1929 crash and its number was changed to LMS no 9679. No 89 was only carried with the large boiler.

Had the S&D livery not disappeared in Jan 1930 then it may well have carried this livery. Therefore 89 would be accurate in this respect as it entered traffic in early 1930 following ifs rebuild after the accident in 1929.

However the SDJR on the tender is too closely spaced though I think the spacing is as per applied at Derby whereas Highbridge used to space the letters wider apart.

 

Whatever, I will have one. Much more palatable than the Prussian blue example....

 

Rob

[locoholic]

Would it not have been a little better for Bachmann to have done one of the earlier batch, which carried the small boiler when new? Small (!?) errors, like the smokebox saddle and the regulator on the wrong side, would be arguably less noticeable than the wrong-sized boiler.

[Combe Martin]

Would it not have been a little better for Bachmann to have done one of the earlier batch, which carried the small boiler when new? Small (!?) errors, like the smokebox saddle and the regulator on the wrong side, would be arguably less noticeable than the wrong-sized boiler.

 

For most of their life, the 1914 small boiler series were also attached to Deeley tenders. These wern't swopped for Fowler tenders until the 1950s.  It's possible that at least one was withdrawn still with a Deeley tender though that's not definite.  I'm away from home at the moment, so can't check my records. But for example, photos show 53804 (withdrawn in Feb 1962) still with a Deeley tender in 1959.

 

Also, it's not just the regulator on the wrong side, there's also that great big vacuum brake ejector on the wrong side too.   

 

Edit ... According to an article In the S&D Trusts magazine, Pines Express, although official records show 53802-4 keeping their original Deeley tenders, towards the end (1957-1960) when records were no longer being kept up to date, photos suggest these too had acquired Fowler tenders.  

[Poor Old Bruce]

Would it not have been a little better for Bachmann to have done one of the earlier batch, which carried the small boiler when new? Small (!?) errors, like the smokebox saddle and the regulator on the wrong side, would be arguably less noticeable than the wrong-sized boiler.

 

For most of their life, the 1914 small boiler series were also attached to Deeley tenders. These wern't swopped for Fowler tenders until the 1950s.  It's possible that at least one was withdrawn still with a Deeley tender though that's not definite.  I'm away from home at the moment, so can't check my records. But for example, photos show 53804 (withdrawn in 1962) still with a Deeley tender in 1959.

 

Also, it's not just the regulator on the wrong side, there's also that great big vacuum brake ejector on the wrong side too.   

 

Same thing when Airfix produced the 4F and 2P, they chose to make the LMS builds rather than the Midland ones with opposite drive (I do hope the proposed Bachmann 4F in Midland livery carries Ramsbottom safety valves btw).

 

Depending how far ahead Bachmann were working in their development of the S&DJR 2-8-0 when the NRM Compound was first mooted, they could have done the early batch of 2-8-0s with the same (ex S&DJR 2-8-0) tender as the (as preserved) Compound. As it is, if we want an early 2-8-0, we may have to do some modelling!

[queensquare]

Could some kind sole please remind me which issue of the old Model Railways magazine carried an article and drawings please before I go rummaging in the loft. I have the RM article from 1967 to hand but seem to remember the MR article contained further drawings and sketches.

Many thanks Jerry

[CHARLIE5]

Could some kind sole please remind me which issue of the old Model Railways magazine carried an article and drawings please before I go rummaging in the loft. I have the RM article from 1967 to hand but seem to remember the MR article contained further drawings and sketches.

Many thanks Jerry

 

Jerry the edition of Model Railways you are looking for is June 1972 (Pages 560 to 567).

[queensquare]

Jerry the edition of Model Railways you are looking for is June 1972 (Pages 560 to 567).

 

Many thanks Charlie, Im off to the loft!

 

Jerry