Jump to content
 

Jidenco class 50


Recommended Posts

I've just got my hands on a Jidenco class 50, I've built kits before but this is my first Jidenco kit, there are no instructions in the box, most of the parts I can identify, but there are a few I'm uncertain as to what they represent.

 

Did Jidenco supply an exploded diagram or parts list as the parts all have numbers beside them on the frets.

 

Which chassis/bogies did Jidenco have in mind, Hornby or Lima or either?

 

The box states that only the bogies are required which would suggest that some of the parts may be a chassis?

 

Any ideas would be appreciated.

 

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to have a go, if only to satisfy oneself that it really is a genuine pile of sh*te.

 

The same might be said of the Kitmaster/Airfix/Dapol ProtoDeltic, which has quite a lot of errors in it. But I'm still building it and having a go at correcting the errors.

 

Watch out for the name Ian Penberth in future: he's working on bringing out some etched all-sprung diesel bogies, which would go a long way to help turn these no-hopers into something not too terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out for the name Ian Penberth in future: he's working on bringing out some etched all-sprung diesel bogies, which would go a long way to help turn these no-hopers into something not too terrible.

Impressive, I 'll keep an eye out for those. However, even the best sprung bogies in the world will not help the Jidenco 50 look anything remotely like the prototype... :O

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out for the name Ian Penberth in future: he's working on bringing out some etched all-sprung diesel bogies, which would go a long way to help turn these no-hopers into something not too terrible.

and Brian's working on some with real coil springs but as Pugsley says, neither will make a poor bodyshell look like its prototype!

 

I did read the OP a while back and think 'oh dear', some im glad someone else said it :). The original instructions wouldn't have been much use tbh, these kits are always scratchbuilders aids anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's upto me what kit I build, and I build to my own standards, anyone elses expectations are irrelevent.

 

The original question wasn't about the quality of the kit, just if there are supposed to be any exploded diagram or who's bogies Jidenco had in mind?

 

It is up to you, but I'd urge you to listen to people on here who are trying to save you a huge amount or grief.

 

My own experience of Jidenco/Falcon Brass (to whom the range passed) is that they are, well, awkward. I have a NER C class of theirs and althoughth there's potential, it's not wonderful! But it only cost me £1... Now this is a simple pre-group steam loco made up of simple 3D shapes, whereas a diesel is made up of many complex curves which isn't suited to etched brass in most cases. The only sample I've seen of the Jidenco Class 50 looked awful, and I'd hate to see anyone invest time in something which will ultimately be unfulfilling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to me what kit I build, and I build to my own standards, anyone elses expectations are irrelevent.

Crack on then, but don't say you weren't warned.

 

PS, pointing out that a poor quality kit is, er, of poor quality is not exactly trolling (re your status update).

Link to post
Share on other sites

IThe original question wasn't about the quality of the kit, just if there are supposed to be any exploded diagram or who's bogies Jidenco had in mind?

 

To answer your question, on the kits that I've built from this manufacturer, there are no exploded diagrams. A set of instructions and a list of parts with a photocopy of the parts identified. The quality of the instructions, I'll leave that to you to find out.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest oldlugger

Contrary to most here I'd say go for it Alex! So what if there are better and RTR versions of the 50 around? It's a challenge; one of the most entertaining aspects of the hobby is to transform something extremely basic into a presentable model. I'd do it for sure. I feel that we rely too much on the RTR market these days; the old kit bashing spirit is rapidly being hammered out of existence sadly. I know that probably 95% on the forum will disagree vehemently with me here, but it's a purely subjective thing. If you do decide to give it go please post some photos.

 

As to the exploded diagram, I would imagine that you could put this kit together without having one as there can't be many parts and there are of course loads of prototype photos to refer to. Good luck with it.

 

All the best

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to most here I'd say go for it Alex! So what if there are better and RTR versions of the 50 around? It's a challenge; one of the most entertaining aspects of the hobby is to transform something extremely basic into a presentable model. I'd do it for sure. I feel that we rely too much on the RTR market these days; the old kit bashing spirit is rapidly being hammered out of existence sadly. I know that probably 95% on the forum will disagree vehemently with me here, but it's a purely subjective thing. If you do decide to give it go please post some photos.

 

All the best

Simon

 

Really?...not me I love a challenge, but when something is unbuildable...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/30809-when-is-05-mm-not-enough/

 

75% of this kit went in the bin, I scratched the rest. And of the remaining 25% I'd say another 15% was altered beyond recognition.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

No idea about building these kits. But if you want some sort of drawing, there are 2 published drawings I can think of.

 

 

Rail Model Digest No. 3.

Railway Modeller July 1995.

 

I thought there was one in an early edition of Model Rail, but I can't see it on the online index.

 

 

So many others have suggested about the quality before, that there must be something in it. Good luck.

 

Kevin Martin

 

Edit, fixed typo. 'Some many others' - duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you have in the box looks like the one in this link then that confirms that Jim S-W has a Jidenco one (if not, presumably, it'll be MTK).

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/2486-p4-new-street/page__st__450#entry161413

 

It should be relatively straightforward and an exploded view, assuming such a thing ever existed, is unlikely to add much more. My guess is that it was intended for a LIMA Deltic which has the correct style bogies, but produced to HO scale. More accurate bogies from the Hornby model are available as spares, but if you're going to do that you might as well have the rest of the Hornby model to go with it...

 

That said, it depends what you are after of course (and I'm never likely to be after a model of a 50 so this is totally irrelevant to me), but as an exercise I'm sure it's achievable and worthwhile if you want to do it, but as a route to a scale model, perhaps not.

 

Best of luck with whichever option you chose to pursue.

 

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

This prompted me to get out the only Jidenco kit I have (the second from that manufacturer I bought, I disposed of the first one years ago) to check the instructions.

 

It is a simple LNWR CCT that I once started to build. The "simple" instructions include a side view and an isometric exploded drawing to show the location of the parts. However, as several of these don't fit correctly or are inaccurate, it is a bit academic, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that probably 95% on the forum will disagree vehemently with me here, but it's a purely subjective thing. If you do decide to give it go please post some photos.

Well I'm one of the 5% who agrees with you Simon. You'll see from the RMWeb archives that there are plenty of people who are ready to write off the rough and ready kits of the 1970s, and some were indeed appalling, but there were others, like the MTK DMUs, that could be made into pretty presentable models by people with a good eye for the prototype, as well as plenty of time and determination. I guess that 30-odd years in 7mm modern image modelling has acclimatised me to trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - have you seen the abomination that is the Westdale attempt at a Derby suburban DMU roof dome? To get close to the correct profile, you need to remove around a third of the whitemetal from the casting - a good couple of hours' work with different grades of file, sandpaper and wire wool to reshape, smooth and then rebuild the trim with brass strip, and that's before you try to blend the casting into the profile of the aluminium bodyshell. It's very easy to dismiss the Westdale DMUs as giant MTK kits (which is pretty much what they are), but is it worth taking the time and effort to make the best of them? As you say, it's a subjective thing, but the answer is a big Yes in my book.

 

I first came across the Jidenco 50 kit in Howes of Oxford way back in the 70's, when etched brass was dangerously modern and exotic, and way beyond my teenage skills. I would love to see one being built, warts and all, so please share your build with us Mr Orlov - can't wait to see some pictures!

 

Best of luck with the build,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

It's certainly an adventure

 

brass%2050.jpg

 

But then I am building my layout for the joy of the building phase not the end result so no reason not for someone to have a crack at this.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm one of the 5% who agrees with you Simon. You'll see from the RMWeb archives that there are plenty of people who are ready to write off the rough and ready kits of the 1970s, and some were indeed appalling, but there were others, like the MTK DMUs, that could be made into pretty presentable models by people with a good eye for the prototype, as well as plenty of time and determination. I guess that 30-odd years in 7mm modern image modelling has acclimatised me to trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - have you seen the abomination that is the Westdale attempt at a Derby suburban DMU roof dome? To get close to the correct profile, you need to remove around a third of the whitemetal from the casting - a good couple of hours' work with different grades of file, sandpaper and wire wool to reshape, smooth and then rebuild the trim with brass strip, and that's before you try to blend the casting into the profile of the aluminium bodyshell. It's very easy to dismiss the Westdale DMUs as giant MTK kits (which is pretty much what they are), but is it worth taking the time and effort to make the best of them? As you say, it's a subjective thing, but the answer is a big Yes in my book.

 

I first came across the Jidenco 50 kit in Howes of Oxford way back in the 70's, when etched brass was dangerously modern and exotic, and way beyond my teenage skills. I would love to see one being built, warts and all, so please share your build with us Mr Orlov - can't wait to see some pictures!

 

Best of luck with the build,

 

David

 

David,

 

I would agree if the kit in question can be modified to create what it was intended to be. Unfortunately the only two Jidenco kits of which I have first hand experience didn't fall into that category.

 

I'm not afraid of tackling something that is a challenge, my workbench currently has a Modellers World LNWR 12 wheels diner converted to a different diagram with Bill Bedford narrow vestibule ends, Masokits sprung bogies and sprung gangways adapted from MW/LRM bits. I gave up on the JIdenco LNWR CCT because the errors were so substantial that short of making new sides (with louvres) and doors it wasn't ever going to work. It would be easier to design and etch a new kit.

 

There is clearly an effort/result balance, which is different for each of us.

 

Jol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...