Trainman119 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Hello, Does anyone know where I may purchase some 00 gauge Lubricators for my new DJM J94s. I have search google with no luck, anyone have an idea??? Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilloverland Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 D Hello, Does anyone know where I may purchase some 00 gauge Lubricators for my new DJM J94s. I have search google with no luck, anyone have an idea??? Roy Hello, Does anyone know where I may purchase some 00 gauge Lubricators for my new DJM J94s. I have search google with no luck, anyone have an idea??? Roy do you mean injectors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Try RT models. Gordon A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Hi, I have got one of the Kernow Limited Edition J94's but it is running a bit rough and was wondering wither someone or Dave can recommend what lubricant to use on this locomotive? Thanks, Samuel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Taking a closer look at the imjectors which are probably the weakest visual aspect of the model it is possible to improve the appearance by taking a file to it to round off the rear of the moulding (and thinning down the steps whilst you're at it). Comparing this to the prototype and to RT Models brass casting I think the finest representation can be made by spending five minutes with a file on the original part. I shall certainly be using some of RT models steps on some models though and injectors where I fancy polished brass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted September 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2016 Cough...injectors Andy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Cough...injectors Andy... Second time I've done that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauliebanger Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Have to agree with Andy, eject those injectors. The better representation provided by the DJM version is undermined by the requirements of the moulding process. Remove the excess thickness from the rear of the pipework as suggested to get a great improvement at no cost. Kind regards, Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted September 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2016 Hi, I have got one of the Kernow Limited Edition J94's but it is running a bit rough and was wondering wither someone or Dave can recommend what lubricant to use on this locomotive? Thanks, Samuel. Sam how long have you run it in for? I ran mine for half an hour each way and it was over 20 mins into that before it noticeably smoothed out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainman119 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Ddo you mean injectors? No I mean Lubricators that sit on the footplate above the drivers. RT models does not have them either. Made by Nathan I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Has anyone taken one of these lovely models apart I wonder? An opinion as to whether they can be converted to P4 would be most welcome. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 There was talk with the model's conversion to P4 that no diassembly was really required, just a gentle pressure and some careful back to back measurements and the job was done Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 There was talk with the model's conversion to P4 that no diassembly was really required, just a gentle pressure and some careful back to back measurements and the job was done That was for EM. P4 would need new wheels, or the existing ones re-profiled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I have one converted to EM whilst initial results were good, I have now decided / found I need to improve pickups as the axles aren't making good reliable contact with the bearings. Once done, it needs full shake down running over points etc before I will know for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted September 29, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 29, 2016 If anyone's wondering what moulded injectors could look like, have a look at the Hornby J50, for example .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted September 30, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 30, 2016 I have one converted to EM whilst initial results were good, I have now decided / found I need to improve pickups as the axles aren't making good reliable contact with the bearings. Once done, it needs full shake down running over points etc before I will know for sure. Split-axle current collection isn't always as reliable as many believe, especially in enclosed bearings in a fixed axle chassis. Perhaps you could add spring wipers to act directly on the stub-axles as many do in 2mm? Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 How would a zero flexible chassis survive in P4 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 How would a zero flexible chassis survive in P4? Depends--RTR steam locos are converted all the time without replacement chassis. A lot of 6-coupled locos on the market today have vertical springing or sideplay built into the middle axle. Of course, neither this nor the O2 (nor the BWT, for that matter) are anything like the locos that are regularly chosen for this type of conversion. Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
railroadbill Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Quick question about the J94s. I'm waiting for one of the LNER ones to arrive. I wanted a J94 with the original bunker. Looking at the DJ models website, (and also Kernow's) it looks as if OOJ94-002 (British Railways) OOJ94-003 LNER OOJ94-004 LNER all have the original bunker, while 001 and 005 have the tall bunker. Apart from the liveries and numbers, are there actually any other differences apart from the bunkers (and presumably matching rear cab windows) ? Kernow's site has the same cad for each awaited loco. This is just to help me confirm I've gone for the right one. Thanks, the info may well be somewhere back on this 25 page thread but can't find it. However, I've been rather taken by the early BR crest one (with the tall bunker) that's actually on sale now, having seen it on a couple of youtube videos like the Hornby Magazine review one... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 Quick question about the J94s. I'm waiting for one of the LNER ones to arrive. I wanted a J94 with the original bunker. Looking at the DJ models website, (and also Kernow's) it looks as if OOJ94-002 (British Railways) OOJ94-003 LNER OOJ94-004 LNER all have the original bunker, while 001 and 005 have the tall bunker. Apart from the liveries and numbers, are there actually any other differences apart from the bunkers (and presumably matching rear cab windows) ? Kernow's site has the same cad for each awaited loco. This is just to help me confirm I've gone for the right one. Thanks, the info may well be somewhere back on this 25 page thread but can't find it. However, I've been rather taken by the early BR crest one (with the tall bunker) that's actually on sale now, having seen it on a couple of youtube videos like the Hornby Magazine review one... :-) I saw the Lord & Butler 'dirty boy' version of this loco at the Fareham show this weekend and it looked terrific. Thoroughly recommended from them. Art work for the remaining 4 models has been posted a few weeks back on this thread I think. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
railroadbill Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I saw the Lord & Butler 'dirty boy' version of this loco at the Fareham show this weekend and it looked terrific. Thoroughly recommended from them. Art work for the remaining 4 models has been posted a few weeks back on this thread I think. Cheers Dave Thanks, Dave. Found post 245 on page 10 which has the info, so confirms what I'm getting :-) Lord & Butler weathering sounds interesting, I'll keep a look out on their web site for the loco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 How would a zero flexible chassis survive in P4 ? It all depends on the track standards, the build and the overall quality and flatness of the track. When P4 started, in the mid to late 60's, some modellers were very careful indeed with the expensive commercial parts sold, the track could stand a loco with slightly slack bearings on rigid frames. The smaller the wheel base, the worst the running, as rigid chassis do not allow all the wheels to touch the track at once. Longer, heavier wheelbased locos ran better, but of course springing made the running more reliable, and increased haulage power. It was soon realised that springing was not required on 040 locos, just one of the driven axles to be able to "swing" slightly, allowing all the driven wheels to make contact. It applies to 060 locos as well, two swinging axles, and one rigid, which must be an end axle for best operation. With this "compensation" you may as well add springs, and a rigid axle plus sprung is the simplest type that really works well. Fully sprung, whatever configuration is going to be best, but complex to set up till you get experience. However I still have P4 locos from the 60's that are unsprung and they work fine, all are Kitmaster/ Airfix bodies on scratchbuilt chassis, with re profiled Hamblings wheels, except for the Pug, which has lathe turned disk wheels. The Pug is very reliable indeed, and does not waddle on P4 track. My own track for P4 was made from cast whitemetal chairs on wood sleepers, with points built of PC strip, with the cast chairs cut up to make the various chair types needed. The rail was not soldered to the PC, only the chair was soldered on. Each section was tested with a glass surface plate to check it was flat, and that was the main reason the running was sound. Any upward bumps were sanded with very fine emery paper sheets, glued to flat 7 ply plywood. Any hollows where raised to touch the glass by easing the sleepers upwards. I do not make the P4/S4 track so carefully any more, springs and compensation handle any errors, but at the time the track standard was experimental, and any variables that could affect the running were removed as comprehensibly as possible. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 It all depends on the track standards, the build and the overall quality and flatness of the track. When P4 started, in the mid to late 60's, some modellers were very careful indeed with the expensive commercial parts sold, the track could stand a loco with slightly slack bearings on rigid frames. The smaller the wheel base, the worst the running, as rigid chassis do not allow all the wheels to touch the track at once. Longer, heavier wheelbased locos ran better, but of course springing made the running more reliable, and increased haulage power. It was soon realised that springing was not required on 040 locos, just one of the driven axles to be able to "swing" slightly, allowing all the driven wheels to make contact. It applies to 060 locos as well, two swinging axles, and one rigid, which must be an end axle for best operation. With this "compensation" you may as well add springs, and a rigid axle plus sprung is the simplest type that really works well. Fully sprung, whatever configuration is going to be best, but complex to set up till you get experience. However I still have P4 locos from the 60's that are unsprung and they work fine, all are Kitmaster/ Airfix bodies on scratchbuilt chassis, with re profiled Hamblings wheels, except for the Pug, which has lathe turned disk wheels. The Pug is very reliable indeed, and does not waddle on P4 track. My own track for P4 was made from cast whitemetal chairs on wood sleepers, with points built of PC strip, with the cast chairs cut up to make the various chair types needed. The rail was not soldered to the PC, only the chair was soldered on. Each section was tested with a glass surface plate to check it was flat, and that was the main reason the running was sound. Any upward bumps were sanded with very fine emery paper sheets, glued to flat 7 ply plywood. Any hollows where raised to touch the glass by easing the sleepers upwards. I do not make the P4/S4 track so carefully any more, springs and compensation handle any errors, but at the time the track standard was experimental, and any variables that could affect the running were removed as comprehensibly as possible. Stephen On reading this I presume a all geared drivers with non working coupling rods Loco wouldn't stay on the track ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted October 3, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 3, 2016 On reading this I presume a all geared drivers with non working coupling rods Loco wouldn't stay on the track ? If you're meaning to P4 then it all depends. Most spur gearing can accept some measure of shaft centre difference and still work okay, so how much axle movement in the bearings exists, how sloppy the fit, might determine whether such a loco could ride uneven track without problem. A small amount of movement per axle is all that is required. Most RTR diesels are just given new wheels to convert to P4 yet they all have all geared axle drive. It's a fallacy that jointed rods are needed, just that they are also sloppy enough on the crankpins to allow the axle movement. As long as the actual rod centres are accurate it works. I have often built P4 chassis with solid rods, indeed I have just recently converted a Bachmann 08 with it's sprung centre axle and outer axle drive and soldered up the pivoting rods solid because they couldn't keep a fixed distance in the sloppy pivot form Bachmann provided and meaning the drive from the driven axle to the others wasn't consistent. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted October 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 4, 2016 Message from Hattons today to say that my 68068 is now due between Oct and Nov. Now I feel compelled to but a Hattons limited edition to tide me over Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.