From Ebay an Old Jinty, a very interesting find

[random]

I have put some pictures of two GWR locos that seem to have come from the same hand as the original Jinty in this thread here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47528-gwr-saint-and-gwr-bulldog-mainly-nickel-silver/

[bertiedog]

The GWR locos on http://www.rmweb.co....-nickel-silver/ certainly appear to be from the same builder or a commercial company in the same style, the use of nickel silver rules out Hamblings who used mainly brass, unless to a special order. Stewart Reidpath used more nickel silver in their special order models pre-war.

 

The Horseshoe motor is another variant of the Taycol type, and with the bearing in the chassis indicates pre-war construction, as by the late 1940's most motors had no frame or an overall one, building in motors had stopped.

 

For an amateur the built in motor was difficult to layout for cutting the frames, but a commercial company would use simple jigs, making is easier to set up. The presence of the adjustable chassis front armature bearing therefore usually indicates a commercial build.

 

The wheels look similar, are they mazak, or plated brass? They are either very early Romford, or from S-R. The nuts on the end of the axle were not unique to Romford, the idea was used in O gauge and Gauge 1, and the ones on the Jinty are different dimensions to normal Romford fittings.

 

Stewart Reidpath employed full time builders at Herne Bay for the custom locos, the Hamblings Locomotives were more factory assembled from parts, but the same parts were sometimes used by SR to make custom finish locos. Both companies offered to supply basic, and de-luxe detailed versions, or very high exhibition standards to special order.

 

There were few other pre-war suppliers, ERG, Bonds, W&H, and Exley did locos to order, more complete kits started after the war due to restrictions on finished goods. Larko, JME(Evans), KMR(Kershaw), and Sayer Chaplin, were examples.

 

Stephen.

[laurenceb]

Are the "Evans" of "Jackson Evans" products the very same people?

RM Evans was later editor of Model Engineer from about 1964 to 1976 . A prolific miniature loco designer contributing to ME for another 25 years

Laurence

[bertiedog]

I had not really ever connected Mr Evans of the Model Engineer with the JME kits, the same initials etc., so it is likely he was behind the kits. What surprises me about the Jinty 3F brass plated wheels is the narrow tyre and fine flange, more to fine 18mm gauge wheel standards, than OO, certainly in the pre-war period. The nickel plate indicated they were made to the size, not modified in any way. The tyre plating is a bit worn away, but you can see it once covered the tyre, and the front and back plating are complete indicating no re-machining at all.

 

The wheels on the GWR Saint on Random's reference are W&H Romfords earliest mazak type, no close up of the 440 to tell what make there but being brass may be SR or early Hamblings. All pre-war Hamblings I have seen have much larger flanges, a bit bigger than the 1950/60 Romfords size, and bigger than the Bakelite centred Hamblings wheels.

 

Some of 32a's examples of Hamblings Locomotives have much bigger flanges, suggesting the wheels sourcing varied a lot. The main firm that did cast brass wheels was Stewart Reidpath, but Bonds of Euston Road also made for other makes, using Stuart Turner brass castings. Very early W&H 00 had Bond wheels on them.

 

I have a old chassis, stored away, with one wheel missing, of a GWR 280, which has got similar very fine wheels to the Jinty, but push on to 3/32 axles. This chassis is very old, it dates pre 1930, has a 6 volt motor and contrate and spur gearing. It had outside third pickups, or at least the remains off. I was told it was built by Mr Stewart Reidpath himself, but no evidence. It is all flanged, so must have been run on a large radius layout.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

It was queried as to whether the Jinties fine scale wheels were possibly US made, but the only US wheels pre-war were on commercial RTR or supplied by Mantua Models or Gordon Varney, as spares. They never really altered the materials or construction, brass plated rims on Mazak centres, either push on like Mantua, or screwed on to D shaped ends, retained with flat headed screws by Gordon Varney. the only separate wheels were made in lost wax cast brass by Kemtron, and that came well after the war.

 

The spokes on the 3F are even finer than HO wheels of that vintage, and match closely Ultrascale or Gibson in fineness.

 

The 3FJinty model will be striped of paint this weekend, I as tempted to leave the old finish and lettering, but the flaking etc and "stickiness" is growing, despite very careful cleaning with non solvent cleaners. It has no undercoat, many older locos had none applied, the paint was applied direct by spray, Hamblings and S-R used Debliss Aerograph spray guns, I still have one. Paint was usually cellulose car paint, but I think this one was enamel paint. I will get some satin black from Precision and spray it with very thinned red oxide cellulose first, then the Precision paint thinned with cellulose thinners, using the old Debliss Aerograph, which may have once sprayed this model in the past.

The stickiness may be a coat of some type of lacquer applied over the paint, which is deteriorating with handling.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

I think the slightly tacky "stickiness" is from the older type lacquers used as varnish, and in the base of the paint, even when cleaned with water they seem to occasionally deteriorate. Once it starts it remains and the tacky surface gathers dust and marks easily.

 

Cellulose Lacquer was based on cellulose nitrate, and that chemical compound when used in movie film stock, developed severe deterioration with age, turning to a sticky mess. Even other forms of safety film based on cellulose react a bit with shrinkage and stickiness, so the trouble may be related. The paint itself maybe cellulose based, or the lacquer was.

 

Enamel paint, and synthetic coach enamel, do not seem to suffer so much from this issue. Modern car paint is also immune from the issue, and car cellulose paint is still available. Rustins gloss cellulose varnish is also OK.

 

Red or grey undercoat will not matter much with the black topcoats, the black paint is dense and should obscure the colour of the undercoat. I'll test spray some Precision black over each to test the shade and smoothness, and see if the undercoat affects the topcoat.

 

There are two types of black on the 3F a deep grey /green black on the body and a dense carbon black on the smokebox. I am pretty sure it was varnished over the paint, and that the varnish may have been the problem.

 

Replacing the lettering is no problem as HMRS Methfix lettering will replace the existing lettering neatly, without using a waterslide transfer with a backing. The straw Serif LMS style lettering from the late 20's 30's is on the sheet.

[bertiedog]

The stripped Jinty body, the paint came away rather too easily, except for the red. It has one missing bit a tiny part of the footplate valance at the front.(Second shot at front, easily replaced).

 

Good standard throughout, mainly nickel silver, Only one whitemetal fitting, the smokebox door. A few bits of excess solder to remove, and the chimney to re-set, as it is not fully soldered all round.

 

All the parts have scribe marks, cut out was by saw, not stamped. The handrail knobs are split pins, and were corroding, but have been cleaned with a very fine rotary wire brush. Handrails are steel, and the raised edges to all the panels are also steel, as is the cab beading. It is very heavy as it is thicker than usual metal ,and stuffed with lead in the boiler and tanks. The use of steel as the edge is a bit unusual.

 

Anybody reckon they know the builder from this style?

 

The chassis is all stripped, and runs fine now cleaned. the quartering is perfect, and all the wheels run true, one wheel has had solder added to the nut to level it indicating trouble in the past mounting it.

 

It all looks pre-war from the wheels, outside third pickup, and motor, or very early post war from older parts.

 

If commercial construction I would have expected at least initials to be somewhere on the parts or a trade mark, but there is nothing I can see so far.

.

The number on the smokebox was made by an unusual method I have come across before, a piece of photographic film, with the black dense and the letters clear, and white paint applied to the back, does this tally with particular builders in the 1940's? This has been recovered and will be re-used on the smokebox door. I know that painters at Hamblings used the method in the 1940's.

[bertiedog]

The wheels cleaned up very nicely, fine spoked, and very fine tyres and flanges which pass modern RP-25 dimensions, and could be used on 18mm gauge straight away, and would easily alter to P4 standards. I have not seen such fine wheels on any early loco fitted out for outside third pickup.

Certainly a pioneer standard for pre-war, but I know Hamblings dabbled in very fine scale wheels just before the war, supplying Stewart Reidpath and it's own customers for such fine standard locos. The only other commercial builder of specials was W&H, who manufactured O scale as well as 00 in those days, and a range of 00 coaches, similar to Hamblings and Bonds, (which were usually "short" versions, later scale length).

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

A bit of further cleaning up, the nickel silver is surprisingly thick at about .5 mm, no wonder few dents show. The boiler is much thinner brass, with very thin copper strips used for the boiler bands, all soldered together. The cab N/S is thinner sheet, presumably because it is folded to the form of the roof. All the fine edge beading is steel, and may be stainless, as there is no rust, even where it was exposed to the air where the paint had come away. Some is cut from sheet, and some is wire, with thicker steel wire used for the handrails, which have split pin handrail knobs.

 

The coal rails over the windows are copper wire, soldered to the brass window rims. Most of the fittings like the dome, air vent on the cab and the chimney are screwed into place, a magnet detects steel screws used for this.

the steps on the outside are brass backed, with steel steps again unusual combination. The guard irons are brass, soldered on to the frames.

 

One new guard iron has been made for the front and soldered on to the frame side.

 

The underside is in fairly good condition, the valances are brass, L section, soldered on, again unusual on older locos, although the brass sections were made before the war, and supplied for Model Ship building. One tiny piece of the valance at the front has broken away, old damage I think as it was painted over!

 

I had thought about converting the lot to modern Two rail, but the original chassis will be restored to it's original condition, and a duplicate two rail chassis built as well, to allow the body to be used on modern layouts.

 

I have Gibson wheels that match the type and size to hand, and the frames can be done from scratch. The chassis simply attached by two screws, so changing over the chassis would be no fuss at all. A Mashima Motor, with a flywheel, will be fitted with a new modern gearbox.

 

None of this affects the original at all, it simply replaces it as required for use.

 

Stephen.

[hayfield]

Stephen, the loco is looking great and its nice to see older models restored. I look forward to seeing the loco restoration take place.

Thanks for shareing it with us

[bertiedog]

There's very little to do on the body, only the valence at the front that's missing a small piece that has broken away. On the chassis it needs special screwdriver made to fit the Romford style axle nuts, as they are different dimensions, and it will need a good snug fit to prevent damage to the nuts. I have put a spot of penetrating oil on each to help ease the them off.

One will not come off anyway, as solder has been run over the retaining nut, either an old problem holding it on for the builder, or the intention was to smooth over the outside for appearance,, but this seems unlikely as the others were not done in the same way.

Brass caps can be added later to cover the nuts properly.

I think it is worth fitting brake gear, simple outline as per period, brake draw bars may be a problem with outside third, but it looks very plain without any brake shoes and hangers.

[bertiedog]

The Jinty 3F Chassis has disassembled well, the brass plated wheels removed easily, with the special screwdriver. The nuts are larger across the face than the Romford type, but the axle share the same square ends, but look very much better finished. The thread appears about the same pitch as a BA thread, but it is so short it is impossible to tell.

 

A Romford nut does screw on the thread. The brass nuts fitted have a deep recess on the face touching the wheel, giving better grip. the axles measure 14.6 mm back to back, a bit more than the usual 14.5mm, perhaps increased due to the fine scale tyres etc.

 

One wheel nut is soldered on, I suspect damage must have occurred to the thread or the square hole, and to repair it it was soldered over.

 

The Jinty chassis is well made, you can however even see the layout lines for drilling and the pattern of marks from the vice, no soft jaws were used to clamp it for drilling etc. It tests as very accurate, scale dimensions and wheel base, all drilled at right angles, and it sits flat on drill blank test rods on a surface table. No makers marks or initials anywhere.

 

The nickel plated brass wheels are pretty concentric, within a few thou, and the same for wobble, almost none. The gearwheel is pretty good as well, the mesh is a bit slack, but very difficult to re-set as the front bearing sets the mesh, which is the problem with this style of motor and gearbox.

 

It is possible to file out the thread in the front plate, and add a new bolt on plate to the original with a new threaded hole, and then refit, the added plate can be adjusted to position the front bearing, but the magnet must be adjusted as well to maintain the air gap between the armature and the magnet. Not at all a sensible design as far as adjustment or ease of setting up goes.

 

It was done that way on old pre-war designs,(and some post war), due to worries about play, and the driving thrust being taken properly by the motor bearings. Later designs were even worst, as end thrust was forgotten or taken by the armature sleeve with Tri-ang motors and many others.

 

Even today, the Mashima Motor design disregards the thrust issue completely if the worm gear is on the motor shaft, the thrust being taken by the washers inside the motor, running against the armature insulation.

 

It is always better to have a gear box and a joint between the motor and gearbox to eliminate thrust bearing on the motor. At least with this very vintage 00 design, the thrust is catered for.

 

The armature on this one runs on pin point ends, in drilled holes, no balls or races, but it at least can be set to tight close tolerance, and deal with the drive thrust direct.

 

Wear and polish on the driven axle shows this loco was used quite a bit, no reduction in axle diameter, (¹/₈th), but a visual difference in finish on the steel where the bearings sit. The front and back axle are full width bearings with an oil hole, and are unworn.

 

Photos to follow soon.

[bertiedog]

Shots of the stripped Jinty body and chassis. The wheels are being cleaned up next.

[bertiedog]

Anybody have any ideas as to the builder?..pre-war or just post war, a similar type loco construction from a known builder? I am told that W&H Romford had earlier wheels made in brass, maybe these are examples, but the fine scale track required to run such a three rail loco would have been a rare layout. It would be that Romford took a backwards step in coarsening the wheel standard with the 1950's onwards product, only recently with Markits supplying a similar standard wheel.

 

The wheels do fit on a Romford axle, but the nuts are smaller and do no fill the space in the recess, also the square end is fractionally smaller, so the quartering is less accurate. So not an identical design, with a material change, just similar principles.

Bond's made some O gauge wheels with the square end and a nut so the idea was well known.

 

Not sure at all about W&H's 00 output of scale models so early on, the O gauge range was course scale in general, compatible with Bassett Lowke. Anybody know any W&H details? How early were Eames producing models, they bought out the Jamieson range in the 1950's, which remained in production for a long while. This Jinty is definitely not a Jamieson kit, but did Eames commission models for sale or for clients in the 1930/40 period?.When did Eames start?

 

I would have thought that if it was a W&H model, then a Romford Motor would have been used, but these date only from post war as far as I know.

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

The strange things are the steel steps, the backing is brass, with steel steps, and I think stainless steel as it has weak attraction even with neodymium magnets. The other thing is the extra thickness of the nickel silver and the marking out, not indicative of a kit. Were JM Evans kits stamped out parts?, as these on this Jinty are all sawn and filed edge, and less finished, (than stampings), on the footplate, where out of view. The shapes appear to have been fret-sawn out. The Evans Jinty appears to have thicker boiler bands but very similar buffers, but then they are commercial buffers, and could be the same make.

 

The wire beading edges may be guitar string wire, it solders far better than piano wire. They attract a magnet strongly.

 

So a private builder or a custom build, and at least only just post war, and more likely pre-war from the motor, if only we could establish the wheels make ad when made it could give the earliest cut off for it's age. Anyway it's well over 60 years old at minimum, and demonstrates that standards could be very high even for an outside third loco.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

The position of the countersunk screws would be virtually standard as the pickup block is a paxolin block in the standard position for a Hamblings or W&H outside third pickup, they were commercial items and standard dimensions. The Evans kit was post war, would it have been built to take the pre-war motor? These steps are made from a brass backing, with added steel angle steps, very thin or milled, not folded or formed making the steps, most unusual. The same applies in brass for the Valence, the L strip is not folded, but milled out. Most kits just used rail as with Larko, or square strip etc.

The other point is the mainly nickel construction, Evans appear to have mainly used brass, and the footplate is thinner metal on the Evans.

I think from the metal thickness on this Jinty, and the sawn out parts it rules out a kit, and must be custom made, but whether commercial or private we may never know.

[bertiedog]

Photo by 32A of JM Evans kit

 

7111 Jinty.

 

There are quite a few differences around the models including the far better shaped dome on the Evans, and the smaller vent over the cab. Also the chimney is different shape, to small in diameter on 7111, the Evans is better shaped, and the boiler bands thicker metal on the Evans Kit. Both are quite accurate standard for the period, but the Evans looks better proportioned on the fittings like the chimney and dome...

 

The buffers are different turnings, as well as the cab entrance being modelled closed. The firebox is different in the bands and washout plugs, which are brass tunings, filed to profile on 7111.

 

The valance and the steps are quite different construction, but the screw positions on the chassis are nearly the same, but would be, if the standard pickup block was used, which served for both outside third and 2 rail pickups, the same paxolin block made by Hamblings and W&H.

 

I wondered what motor is fitted to the Evans kit, is it a Zenith or a Romford? Zenith were milled brass frames, and Romford die-cast frames, or later plastic gear box.

 

Stephen.

[Allegheny1600]

Hello Stephen,

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but I've just discovered it and I find it absolutely fascinating reading.

A few questions if I may, please.

Is this Jinty now painted and may we see it?

Have you ascertained any more details on the age of the model?

Do you know anything about the quantities made and at what cost such a model would have been?

 

Whether it is pre or post war, it does show what standards were available back then, similarly with the GWR locomotives linked to in the thread.

Thanks, All!

John.

[Barclay]

The strange things are the steel steps, the backing is brass, with steel steps, and I think stainless steel as it has weak attraction even with neodymium magnets. The other thing is the extra thickness of the nickel silver and the marking out, not indicative of a kit. Were JM Evans kits stamped out parts?, as these on this Jinty are all sawn and filed edge, and less finished, (than stampings), on the footplate, where out of view. The shapes appear to have been fret-sawn out. The Evans Jinty appears to have thicker boiler bands but very similar buffers, but then they are commercial buffers, and could be the same make.

 

The wire beading edges may be guitar string wire, it solders far better than piano wire. They attract a magnet strongly.

 

So a private builder or a custom build, and at least only just post war, and more likely pre-war from the motor, if only we could establish the wheels make ad when made it could give the earliest cut off for it's age. Anyway it's well over 60 years old at minimum, and demonstrates that standards could be very high even for an outside third loco.

 

Stephen.

I know it's a long time since you asked the question about R.M. Evans kits but having recently built the R.M. Evans 3F I can confirm that the parts are definitely stamped out. The boiler and Belpaire firebox are from a single sheet of brass and beautifully done. The smokebox door is also stamped brass and even the steps are made from a single piece, with the middle step folded back on itself, but so well done you wouldn't notice.

 

I, too, would like to see your loco if you have finished it?

[hayfield]

xx.jpg

Photo by 32A of JM Evans kit

 

xx1.jpg

7111 Jinty.

 

There are quite a few differences around the models including the far better shaped dome on the Evans, and the smaller vent over the cab. Also the chimney is different shape, to small in diameter on 7111, the Evans is better shaped, and the boiler bands thicker metal on the Evans Kit. Both are quite accurate standard for the period, but the Evans looks better proportioned on the fittings like the chimney and dome...

 

The buffers are different turnings, as well as the cab entrance being modelled closed. The firebox is different in the bands and washout plugs, which are brass tunings, filed to profile on 7111.

 

The valance and the steps are quite different construction, but the screw positions on the chassis are nearly the same, but would be, if the standard pickup block was used, which served for both outside third and 2 rail pickups, the same paxolin block made by Hamblings and W&H.

 

I wondered what motor is fitted to the Evans kit, is it a Zenith or a Romford? Zenith were milled brass frames, and Romford die-cast frames, or later plastic gear box.

 

Stephen.

 

 

I think I have one of these lurking in a box somewhere

[bertiedog]

The loco was finished and repainted but is stored away at present as it is outside third three rail. I will get it out and photograph it.

[hallmodelspares]

What an interesting detective story, I wonder if the prototype jinty that a toolmaker would of made triang still exists outthere? A couple of years ago the 2-6-2 brass prototype was seen at a triang society show

[sagaguy]

I believe that Martin Evans of Model Engineer fame did some work for Triang in the early days,i think he built the prototype model for the 2-6-2 from which the tool was made.He may well have built the Jinty but i don`t know if he did.

 

                               Ray.