J94 in O gauge

[kes]

14 hours ago, kes said:

And to nitpick the nitpickers, have a look at photos of the real thing. The centre wheel balance weights are nearly adjacent to the crankpins, because the inside cranks are 180 degrees out of phase with the connecting rods. Kevin.

Thanks guys, I now understand the problem.

[neal cooper]

Yes a great choice and frankly overdue! Looking forward to these.

[Les1952]

On 07/03/2022 at 11:00, Marshall5 said:

I know it sounds picky but there were single buffer beam gussets on the early WD Austerities. Later batches, built new for the NCB etc. had double gussets. I don't, of course, know if the tooling can allow for this. I'm sure this will be a popular model with plenty of options for 'personalisation'.

Cheers,

Ray.

 

 

With an awful lot of the earlier ones getting double gussets of Hunslet, BR and home-made origin.   

 

Les

 

[Mol_PMB]

Is there a clear description somewhere of which loco model has which details?

I note that the CADs show a variety of chimney types, bunkers, different handrail and step configurations, vacuum brake fitted or not, etc.

 

Having had a look for photos of the prototypes, even that doesn't give a clear answer because the now-preserved locos have changed over time and the list doesn't say whether they are models of the preserved or industrial condition.

The following on the list are now preserved, all have been fitted with vacuum brakes in preservation although the detail of the installation is different on each loco and some are more subtle than others!

Wemyss 15, Whiston, United Steel 22, Mech Navvies 71515, WD75061

Errol Lonsdale, on the other hand, had vacuum brakes fitted (quite obtrusively) at the LMR well before preservation.

The CADs show one loco with a 'fez' shaped chimney cowl, but I'm not sure whether any of the locos in the list carried that modification.

The prototype photo on Dapol's publicity has a Giesl ejector chimney, but I can't see a loco on the list that had that feature, and the detail list says there are only two chimney versions, so I guess there isn't a Giesl.

 

The LNER J94s seem to have acquired extra steps and handrails on the tanks, extra steps below the footplate, and some got the extended bunker. I think all the CADs show the additional steps on the tank.

Interestingly, while the industrial locos represented are all preserved examples, neither of the two preserved 'real' J94s is on the list.

 

All the CADs seem to show vacuum brakes although they were not generally fitted in original WD conditon, nor to industrial or LNER J94 locos.

 

What I'm trying to work out is which model to buy! I'm looking for a plain-vanilla loco in ex-WD condition. No vacuum brakes, no extended bunker, no extra handrails, standard chimney. No nameplates, no smokebox numberplate.

As far as I know, they were almost all built like this, but I can't see an obvious candidate on Dapol's list that would represent this condition. Perhaps I just need to be patient and wait until the models actually appear!

I'm happy to hack off the detail if necessary, but if there's a model that's closer to being right in the first place it would make a better starting point.

 

Cheers,

Mol

 

[Les1952]

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

Is there a clear description somewhere of which loco model has which details?

I note that the CADs show a variety of chimney types, bunkers, different handrail and step configurations, vacuum brake fitted or not, etc.

 

Having had a look for photos of the prototypes, even that doesn't give a clear answer because the now-preserved locos have changed over time and the list doesn't say whether they are models of the preserved or industrial condition.

The following on the list are now preserved, all have been fitted with vacuum brakes in preservation although the detail of the installation is different on each loco and some are more subtle than others!

Wemyss 15, Whiston, United Steel 22, Mech Navvies 71515, WD75061

Errol Lonsdale, on the other hand, had vacuum brakes fitted (quite obtrusively) at the LMR well before preservation.

The CADs show one loco with a 'fez' shaped chimney cowl, but I'm not sure whether any of the locos in the list carried that modification.

The prototype photo on Dapol's publicity has a Giesl ejector chimney, but I can't see a loco on the list that had that feature, and the detail list says there are only two chimney versions, so I guess there isn't a Giesl.

 

The LNER J94s seem to have acquired extra steps and handrails on the tanks, extra steps below the footplate, and some got the extended bunker. I think all the CADs show the additional steps on the tank.

Interestingly, while the industrial locos represented are all preserved examples, neither of the two preserved 'real' J94s is on the list.

 

All the CADs seem to show vacuum brakes although they were not generally fitted in original WD conditon, nor to industrial or LNER J94 locos.

 

What I'm trying to work out is which model to buy! I'm looking for a plain-vanilla loco in ex-WD condition. No vacuum brakes, no extended bunker, no extra handrails, standard chimney. No nameplates, no smokebox numberplate.

As far as I know, they were almost all built like this, but I can't see an obvious candidate on Dapol's list that would represent this condition. Perhaps I just need to be patient and wait until the models actually appear!

I'm happy to hack off the detail if necessary, but if there's a model that's closer to being right in the first place it would make a better starting point.

 

Cheers,

Mol

 

 

Assuming they follow the prototype then version 001 - LNER 8006 would be the nearest, predating fitting of a high bunker and extra steps.  The BR locos didn't have any train brakes or heating. 

 

The fun one on the list is 68012.

 

Up to 1956 this was repaired at Gorton which would mean the number was on the bunker.  However, in 1959 it was transferred to the Cromford & High Peak, where its high bunker was burned off to allow it to be coaled.  This left it with slit cab back windows.  It also gained oval buffers to cope with the curves.  Late crest was applied at Darlington on overhaul in 1961.  It may have had the high bunker restored at this point only for it to be burned off again as soon as it returned to the C&HP.

 

The ORIGINAL Dapol J94 had the cab back sheet as a separate slide allowing a C&HP version to be modelled.  If the back sheet is done as a separate slide on the O-gauge version it should be possible to do 68012 correctly.  Otherwise a different number may be in order.

 

I've contacted Dapol with 68012's history.

 

All the very best

Les

 

(data from Willie Yeadon, the fount of all knowledge on LNER locos....)

[Mol_PMB]

I've been having a look for early photos of true J94s, which aren't as common as pictures in BR days.

 

This one dated April 1947 shows LNER 8069 with few, if any, modifications from its original condition:

 

This photo is from August 1948, by which time 8010 had acquired the angled handrail on the saddle tank and the stirrup below it. I think most/all of the true J94s got these on both sides:

 

This photo of 8056 is dated June 1949, and shows the same angled handrail and stirrup:

 

By 1954, it seems that the extra set of steps below the footplate had been added (on both sides) as in this view of 68032:

68080, also in 1954 and with the extra steps, additionally shows the enlarged bunker with rectangular rear spectacles:

 

Below are later 1960s photos.

As mentioned above by @Les1952 several locos allocated to the C&HPR seem to have had enlarged bunkers fitted and then removed, but with the rectangular rear spectacles retained. Here are 68006, 68012 and 68030 in that condition:

 

Lastly, this is the one I'd like to model:

https://rcts.zenfolio.com/industrial-and-light/industrial-steam/manchester-ship-canal/mode-wheel-shed/ea0ffda4c

 

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

Here are a few more interesting early ones, linked from Mike Morant's pages.

WD 75037:

LNER 8016, unmodified:

Netherlands 8809:

A few dings and dents and a very modellable cab door on 68012:

 

[Nearholmer]

What did the LNER use these for? We’re they ‘pure shunters’, or were they used on trains too?

[Mol_PMB]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

What did the LNER use these for? We’re they ‘pure shunters’, or were they used on trains too?

In looking for the photos above I did find some photos (in early BR days) where they appear to be hauling trains.

Here are a couple:

They were unfitted of course, which would have limited which types of train, this can't be a passenger train!

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

Would this be a trip working or shunt duty with that number displayed? Not sure if it counts as a 'train'?

 

[Nearholmer]

I've discovered that there is a whole thread devoted to answering my question. Its one of those grumpy threads, where people keep saying that whoever raised the question in the first place shouldn't have asked it, but it does contain some useful info.

[Les1952]

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

In looking for the photos above I did find some photos (in early BR days) where they appear to be hauling trains.

Here are a couple:

They were unfitted of course, which would have limited which types of train, this can't be a passenger train!

 

 

 

The centre of these three is definitely a trip working from Darlington South yard to Darlington North yard.   The furthest that a Darlington J94 seems to have managed to get was the Forcett branch, and then only once the Middleton in Teesdale line had closed, leaving Forcett quarries effectively at the end of a long siding.

 

Given the head code on the bottom one (which looks like a Teesside location) it is a trip working of empty coaching stock between sidings, possibly Middlesbrough to Stockton, but certainly no further, and with no train brakes available (J94s didn't have any) nothing involving banks...

 

Les

[petemster]

This looks like a great little loco - just the sort of thing that would

get me into O Gauge.

I'd love to have a couple of these (and a Jinty or two) for shunting operations.

The only thing that puts me off is the fact that shunting - for an 'average' modeller

like me - is near impossible without involving the horrendous Big Hand in the Sky.

 

Is this model likely to have NEM pockets, or anything else, that would make

remote shunting enjoyable to do and to watch ?

 

Pete M.

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, petemster said:

Is this model likely to have NEM pockets, or anything else, that would make remote shunting enjoyable to do and to watch?

 I don’t think there is a recognised NEM pocket in O gauge, certainly not in use on any rtr stuff. If you want remote uncoupling then various systems are available from kadees through to various cottage industry options in the UK. 
Theres a thread here in a new auto coupling, below, and the GOG are evidently going to redirect the Dingham couplers as well I was told. 
 

 

[hmrspaul]

3 hours ago, petemster said:

This looks like a great little loco - just the sort of thing that would

get me into O Gauge.

I'd love to have a couple of these (and a Jinty or two) for shunting operations.

The only thing that puts me off is the fact that shunting - for an 'average' modeller

like me - is near impossible without involving the horrendous Big Hand in the Sky.

 

Is this model likely to have NEM pockets, or anything else, that would make

remote shunting enjoyable to do and to watch ?

 

Pete M.

One can only hope not, despoiling as they are 4 and 2mm models. Until recently all shunting in the UK required a person to do the coupling/uncoupling so the big hand in the sky isn't so bad is it? 

 

Paul

[petemster]

Thanks for the responses, Gents.

I'm now much better informed and wiser.

 

I don't wish to hijack the thread by prolonging my point, but I will persist

in my opinion that nothing spoils a model scene more than the big hand.

But I would like to say how thrilled I am to have been

slapped down by someone so famous.   🙂

 

Pete M.

 

[hmrspaul]

You could invoke Rule 1 and assume that the Lloyds experiment was a success and became universal 

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brpipe/ef201156

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brpipe/eccf9083

 

😀

Paul

[Hal Nail]

12 hours ago, petemster said:

Thanks for the responses, Gents.

I'm now much better informed and wiser.

 

I don't wish to hijack the thread by prolonging my point, but I will persist

in my opinion that nothing spoils a model scene more than the big hand.

But I would like to say how thrilled I am to have been

slapped down by someone so famous.   🙂

 

Pete M.

 

This amused me!

 

I suppose the point is there are alternative couplings if you want to add them whereas if factory fitted, then everyone, including those of us predisposed to play God anyway, are saddled with them

 

 

[goldfish]

20 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

I don’t think there is a recognised NEM pocket in O gauge, certainly not in use on any rtr stuff.

MOROP have produced a standard for Receptacle for Replaceable Coupling Heads in O Gauge, but it is only used by Lenz, and is highly unlikely to catch on.

nem362_en_2004.pdf

[HSB]

On 03/04/2022 at 14:19, PaulRhB said:

 I don’t think there is a recognised NEM pocket in O gauge, certainly not in use on any rtr stuff. If you want remote uncoupling then various systems are available from kadees through to various cottage industry options in the UK. 
Theres a thread here in a new auto coupling, below, and the GOG are evidently going to redirect the Dingham couplers as well I was told. 
 

 

Actually there is a standard NEM coupler pocket used on European RTR (usually in combination with a kinetic mount).

[PaulRhB]

42 minutes ago, HSB said:

Actually there is a standard NEM coupler pocket used on European RTR (usually in combination with a kinetic mount).

Yes mentioned back in April by Mr Goldfish ;) 

On 04/04/2022 at 10:34, goldfish said:

MOROP have produced a standard for Receptacle for Replaceable Coupling Heads in O Gauge, but it is only used by Lenz, and is highly unlikely to catch on.

nem362_en_2004.pdf 107.66 kB · 24 downloads

 

but hardly widespread amongst manufacturers and no one seems to use it on rtr UK in O so far?

[AY Mod]

This is hugely impressive and superb value, seen at Guildex.

[brossard]

This looks very exciting and it's going on my list.  A question though, was it fitted for AVB? (I see a vac brake hose in the pic above).  I already have a J50 that is steam brake only and that limits it's use.

 

John

[Adrian Stevenson]

A few more pics of the Austerity taken  this afternoon.  
 

Cheers, Ade.

[brossard]

I think I answered my question by checking LNER Info:

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j94.php

 

So, not intended for AVB operation.  Some preserved lines use those that were saved for passenger trains.  The model shown has a vac pipe but was this copied from preservation?  Most pictures I have seen show no vac pipe and 3 link couplings.

 

Must have a think and maybe invoke rule 1.

 

John