Sailor Charon Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I've mentioned that this is one of the locos I'm considering building. Essentially it's a Jubilee with a BR1 standard boiler... and a trailing bogie. The plan would be to take the trailing bogie, boiler, (and cab) from a Britannia - probably the Minitrix Britannia as the Dapol Brit doesn't have a cab, and pair them up with a Farish Jubilee chassis. The issue that jumps out straight away is... how do you connect the loco to the tender when the bit that the drawbar connects to is... blocked by the trailing bogie? The other issue of course, is is there any use for a Britannia chassis without a trailing bogie? Actually, the issue is what's the boiler like on the Minitrix Britannia? I have a feeling that on the the Dapol Brit, the boiler is probably round all round. Apart from the points I'm aware of, and putting aside the fact that this engine never existed, does anybody see any other problems? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 The Minitrix Brit boiler is slightly too large (not much, about half mm IIRC) but, more significantly, is set about 1mm too high. That may not have a direct bearing on your rebuild, but is something to be aware of. As a result some of the fittings, like handrails, are placed too high. It also meant that when I drew out replacement smoke deflectors for them, I had to adapt the measurements slightly so that they both fitted and looked right on the model. Correctly scaled ones just didn't! Interesting project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 What are you going to call it? A Britilee or a Jubannia? B) JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 What are you going to call it? A Britilee or a Jubannia? B) JE I'll be honest, and say I hadn't thought about that. In much the same way as I hadn't given much thought to numbers. The biggest problem being there isn't a whole lot of room as far as I can tell, short of reusing Jubilee numbers. I'm considering using a Minitrix 9F boiler as a backup plan, (and yes, I know, it's not the same as a BR1 boiler... it's just always good to have a plan B.) in case I can't get a Britannia. I considered getting a Dapol Brit, but it doesn't have a cab. Although it's not very much more than Minitrix Brits are going for on eBay at the moment [Which is a depressing thought in its own right.] Thinking about it, given that the book assumes that it would have been designed in 1948... I ought to be able to think of a class name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 This has been mulled over many times and the best suggestion I have heard, drawn from past precedent , is Class 7XP (wide firebox Jubilee). The reasoning goes thus: Put a 2A boiler on a Jubilee chassis and it becomes Class 7P. Put a yet bigger boiler and firebox on and it has to have a higher rating, but it clearly is not the equal of the ex-LMS 8P pacifics, so 7XP to indicate a capability intermediate between 7P and 8P. Just as all the 2A boilered 4-6-0s became class 7P from three previous classes, 7XP wide firebox Patriot / Royal Scot are also possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 This has been mulled over many times and the best suggestion I have heard, drawn from past precedent , is Class 7XP (wide firebox Jubilee). The reasoning goes thus: Put a 2A boiler on a Jubilee chassis and it becomes Class 7P. Put a yet bigger boiler and firebox on and it has to have a higher rating, but it clearly is not the equal of the ex-LMS 8P pacifics, so 7XP to indicate a capability intermediate between 7P and 8P. Just as all the 2A boilered 4-6-0s became class 7P from three previous classes, 7XP wide firebox Patriot / Royal Scot are also possible. This, I'm afraid is all rather illogical. The XP designation was an LMS thing not used by BR. To get rid of it BR bumped up the 7P locos to 8P, 6P to 7P and 5P to 6P. The Power classification used by BR was based on a mathematical formula given in these pages before. The Britannia as it stood was right at the upper limit of the 7P group. Using the figures given in A J Powell's book and the formula given in "The Last Steam locomotives of British Railways" the rebuilt Jubilee 4-6-2 comes out having slightly lower figures than the Britannia (but not by much) as a good solid 7MT. Andy May Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I'll be honest, and say I hadn't thought about that. In much the same way as I hadn't given much thought to numbers. The biggest problem being there isn't a whole lot of room as far as I can tell, short of reusing Jubilee numbers. .... Thinking about it, given that the book assumes that it would have been designed in 1948... I ought to be able to think of a class name. Since it would be based on the Jubilee, it would presumably be numbered in the LMS sequence. If it was designed in 1948, 'Duchesses' were still being built then (46257 entered traffic in 1948 as M6257), so some space might have been left for more of that class. With the next class in the sequence being the Ivatt class 2 moguls starting at 46400, a number sequence for Pacifics based on Jubilees could start at 46300. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 in terms of use for a britania chassis, if its possible to get hold of an after market trailing bogie and comes with tender then someone would have it to pair with a langley kit for a streamlined jubilee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted February 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2011 In much the same way as I hadn't given much thought to numbers. The biggest problem being there isn't a whole lot of room as far as I can tell, short of reusing Jubilee numbers. Which is precisely what you should do if you follow AJ Powell's idea since he imagined these locomotives as "rebuilt" using material recovered from the existing Jubilees (his diagram even shows the Jubilee nameplate remounted over the middle splasher). The LMR would no doubt have referred to them as "converted" Jubilees or something equally confusing. However you number the model I'm looking forward to seeing it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted February 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2011 This thread is very interesting and I look forward to the result. Are you going to do the other locvos that he conjectured. the super Duchess and if I remember correctly a great Garratt using 2 black 5 chassis which there is a drawing of. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 This thread is very interesting and I look forward to the result. Are you going to do the other locvos that he conjectured. the super Duchess and if I remember correctly a great Garratt using 2 black 5 chassis which there is a drawing of. Jamie Garratt's are... tricky to do. The current Black 5 is tender driven, and therefore no good. The old Farish Black 5 chassis... has very underscale wheels. Which is a pity because I like Garratts... One possibility springs to mind, and that is that the Dapol Britannia has 6'2" wheels with 7' spacing. And you can turn the worm gear round so that you could put the motor in the bunker. The only problem is that you'd need two of them, since it would look odd if both ends weren't the same. Oh, and the valve gear is wrong too. I keep forgetting that the BR standard locos have valve gear that follows the LNER pattern... (d'Oh) [i had planned to use the 3MT tank engine to make the Langley Garratt kit. Then I remembered the valve gear's wrong.) I must admit, I haven't got a diagram of the (normal) Duchess to compare the super version with... But I have a feeling that they may be as alike as Britannias and Clans are. Or the B17 and B2. If I could, then I'd probably do the 2-8-4 tank engine, because I really like big tank engines... But at the moment, the rebuilt Jubilee is the one that is... doable. That is, it doesn't need a chassis putting together and new valve gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted February 6, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2011 I suppose the Garratt appeals to me because I've always ahd a soft spot for for them, having seen the last LMS one when I was about 4 years old. Powell's conjectured one had all the later 'modern' garratt features used on the ones that went to Africa with the curved tanks. The thought of one of them pounding up Shap or Beatock is rather good. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 in terms of use for a britania chassis, if its possible to get hold of an after market trailing bogie and comes with tender then someone would have it to pair with a langley kit for a streamlined jubilee. Well, I got in touch with Worsley Works about a trailing bogie - based on the fact that they produce a Britannia trailing bogie in 3mm. While they won't include things like axleboxes (they should be available from somewhere else) they should provide a good solid frame to put them on. They'll be using top hat bearings, and, all being well, should be about £1.50, when they appear. I suppose the Garratt appeals to me because I've always ahd a soft spot for for them, having seen the last LMS one when I was about 4 years old. Powell's conjectured one had all the later 'modern' garratt features used on the ones that went to Africa with the curved tanks. The thought of one of them pounding up Shap or Beatock is rather good. Jamie You know, I'm increasingly tempted to go for the Dapol Britannia chassis for the 'rebuilt Jubilee'. Or rather, to get the boiler and trailing bogie. And then use a second one to put together the Garratt. Come to think of it, it should be possible to move the worm from between the second and third drivers to between the first and second, so it might be possible to have both units powered. Plus, since it wasn't 'planned' until 1948 it could have quite easily morphed into a BR Standard 9P (94xxx) which would have had BR style valve gear... Plus, it would probably use a different trailing bogie since the gap between the centres of the bogie wheel and the last driver is 5'8" not 10'... You know, it looks as if it could be done. [Just put some bleachers out in the sun, and have it on Highway 61] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 What are you going to call it? A Britilee or a Jubannia? B) Is that what chavs call their daughters nowadays? :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Well, the wheels are in motion, and the various bits are now ordered. Wish me luck folks. I think I'm going to need it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 In case anybody's missed my blog, I thought I'd post some progress here. In the end, I went with a Farish V2 trailing bogie as it has a drawbar that carries the current between the loco and the tender. You know, I'm sure they weren't available when I was last looking for trailing bogies. The only problem is that the hole that the tender hitch is too big length ways. So I've had to fix a nylon hex nut in the appropriate place so that the tender hitch can't move forwards and break the connection. With regards to the body, well, the loco close couples to the tender, and it still goes round the curves. The Britannia boiler isn't at all round at the bottom, so I need to figure out how to sort that. I suspect that it will involve milliput, but the first six answers didn't work, so I'm looking for a seventh. The boiler may end up being slightly higher than it should be, but I'm not sure how I can fix that one at the moment without messing up the cab end of things, or making the lack of roundness even more noticeable. But it's going. It moves. It lives. Everything else is just cosmetic and therefore fixable. As it turns out, although I made the new loco hitch, I never got it to work before I found the V2 bogie. So now I need to think about nameplates... And handrail knobs. And a wholebuncha other things, but, like I said, the big problem has been solved. (Now, are there any LNER 6 coupled locos with 6'2" drivers that I can use a B1 for, or will I have to go for the turbomotive to find a use for the spare V2 bogie I ordered (just in case)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (Now, are there any LNER 6 coupled locos with 6'2" drivers that I can use a B1 for A2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 A2? Thanks for that. It would have to be the Peppercorn A2 rather than any of the Thompson A2s, because of the location of the cylinders. (The same thing that stops me using a Jubilee chassis to make a Princess) Bit of a pity that, The other 'bit of a pity' is that they all have 8 wheel tenders. Oh well, I guess there's always the Turbomotive to go on the Jubilee chassis... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.