Jump to content




Photo

Post-war Hornby-Dublo and Trix couplings





  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 12 April 2018 - 11:35

The PECO Simplex coupling was first demonstrated at the Model Engineering Exhibition in Aug 1950 and advertised from Sep 1950 on, but Hornby-Dublo had used a version since Dec 1947, and Trix from around the same time.

 

A RMweb poster back in 2012 stated that there were three versions "The first 2 (Early Post War and Later Post War) (EPW and LPW) are the same except for the writing underneath.The third type (Final Post War)(FPW) [introduced in 1954] has the centre of the "knuckle" extended top and bottom to keep the stock coupled better than the EPW and LPW type."

 

I would like to see an example of those EPW and LPW types, including what markings they have, especially what the patent numbers were. I'd also like to know what the early Trix coupling had stamped on it.

 

The reason is that my uncle patented his automatic coupling at the same time as Peco. They were essentially the same design (the early Trix coupling is very similar indeed to my uncle's patent drawing), in fact the patent office appended a cross-reference each to the other - and allowed both. Inevitably litigation apparently followed, the judgment handed down being that Peco could only market their coupling as a separate component whereas my uncle could only have his in the toy ready-to-run market (i.e. HD and Trix). My family's story is that Hornby-Dublo initially used my uncle's coupling, not the Peco version, until he sold the rights to Meccano.

 

My own HD rolling stock is all a bit too late (1956 on) and I've never been able to find an early enough example.

 

I've come across variations on the above story, but after all these years I would love to get to the real truth of the matter!


Edited by Fordyce, 12 April 2018 - 11:36 .




#2 NCB

NCB

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 12 April 2018 - 16:46

Interesting. My own feeling was that dimension-wise the Peco coupling was different from the Dublo version, which perhaps this explains.

 

Never understood why Hornby changed to plastic couplings.



#3 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 12 April 2018 - 16:55

Most of Fordyce's queries can be answered from Michael Foster's superb book on Hornby-Dublo Trains, which has four full pages devoted to the post-war couplings. 

 

The date of introduction of the Peco coupling (above) is surprising as a full page description and diagrams of the production version are given in the second edition of the ERG (Bournemouth) Ltd. catalogue of 1949, the price being 2/9d. per set, a lot of money in those days!

 

As far as Meccano are concerned the tooling of the new coupling dated back to August 1946, or just before, and it was used on the demonstration layout at the British Industries Fair in May 1947.

 

Peco retained rights to the coupling for models and Meccano secured the rights for toys, paying a royalty to Peco for each coupling.  Trix introduced a similar coupling in 1948 and this resulted in litigation which Peco/Meccano won and Trix had to pay royalties to Peco. 

 

There are several patent numbering variations on these early post-war couplings and these are often described in the Hornby Railway Collector.   Regd No. 848012 and Pat No. 605283 are common, earlier ones only quoting the Regd number.

 

Frank



#4 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 13 April 2018 - 12:19

The hook/ knuckle of the Peco coupling is slightly smaller than the Dublo (and Trix) version, such that it with couple with the later Magni-Simplex coupling, whereas the Dublo version won't. There are basically two versions of the Peco hook: one with a curved striker and the other straight. Both are 100% compaticle with Dublo couplings (less so with Trix and Jouef/Playcraft because their strikers are nearer to the coupling centre line and jam on the uncoupling ramps). The main difference between peco and the rest is that the Peco vesion does not have the tail behind to limit its sideplay. Some later Dublo couplings have side tags for this function (usually on diesels and also on French Acho stock).

 

I can think of two reasons for the switch to plastic couplings: cost and to avoid the possible of short ciruits between the live chassis of locomotives. There is no problem if they face the same way but if one is reversed they are at opposite polarity. The first version was/is ugly and prone to fracture, necessitating a switch to the last type using a more flexible plastic. Droop is hard to correct as the plastic tends to return to its original shape.

 

The FPW version of the Dublo coupling first appeared on the 4MT tank IIRC (it had a longer shank fitted the coupling head) and then a standard version was fitted to everything else. Trix always had a vertical tag on the hook which helped them to stay coupled, but I believe was to couple to the pre-war hoop and loop coupling (still used postwar by Trix Express).

 

I'll try and dig out some early examples for the patent numbers, but IIRC the early Trix were plain stampings.


Edited by Il Grifone, 13 April 2018 - 12:49 .


#5 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:15

I'm not getting the hang of how to quote! So I'll use <<   >>

 

<<Most of Fordyce's queries can be answered from Michael Foster's superb book on Hornby-Dublo Trains, which has four full pages devoted to the post-war couplings.>>

With respect to Michael Foster, the book is of course a secondary source, and obviously if no-one has been aware of my uncle's Patent then no mention of it is going to appear in print. I need to go back to primary sources.
I'm not a Collector as such (although my wife might disagree!) and I haven't got the book - and annoyingly local libraries don't either. So I'm at a disadvantage as to what his primary sources were.

 

<<The date of introduction of the Peco coupling (above) is surprising as a full page description and diagrams of the production version are given in the second edition of the ERG (Bournemouth) Ltd. catalogue of 1949, the price being 2/9d. per set, a lot of money in those days!>>

I'd like to see that page! In the catalogue page I've seen, it's merely listed at 1/6d for two hooks or 2/- for two hooks with fixing brackets (page 16 of what is claimed to be the second-edition). Also, I cannot see that any second edition came out in 1949. The first edition was still being advertised in Feb 1951 MRC (there's an image of its cover in ERG's advert); per ERG's adverts of the time, the first edition was only announced in Aug 1948 and because of paper shortages and huge demand it was printed in batches and its delivery didn't stabilise until mid 1949 at least.

 

<<As far as Meccano are concerned the tooling of the new coupling dated back to August 1946, or just before, and it was used on the demonstration layout at the British Industries Fair in May 1947. Peco retained rights to the coupling for models and Meccano secured the rights for toys, paying a royalty to Peco for each coupling.  Trix introduced a similar coupling in 1948 and this resulted in litigation which Peco/Meccano won and Trix had to pay royalties to Peco.>>

I'm assuming this comes from Foster's book. At present I cannot find anything which verifies this. And it doesn't square with what I gleaned so far. The first indication that Peco and Meccano had joined forces was in Peco's advert in Sep 1951 MRC where they (Peco) announced that the Reg Design was jointly held - until then Peco had studiously avoided mentioning Meccano or indeed any compatibility with HD and Trix (yet thereafter, compatibility was often claimed). Peco's patents were also solely in the name of Pritchard - they were not joint. If Meccano had a patent at all, it was my uncle's Patent they had, my uncle having sold them the rights, as he himself told me. Given that a major selling point of the Peco coupling was its compatibility with HD/Trix, this tells me they were previously in discussion at best or in dispute at worst.

 

<<There are several patent numbering variations on these early post-war couplings and these are often described in the Hornby Railway Collector.>>

That's what I'm trying to find out.

 

<<Regd No. 848012 and Pat No. 605283 are common, earlier ones only quoting the Regd number.>>

605283 is Pritchard's UK Patent.

848012 is the Registered Design - details are available only at Kew so I haven't been able to access its details. But since no number appears on the Peco-Simplex coupler and Meccano expressly states that the HD coupling is to the 848012 design (as stated on the packaging of my 2-6-4T) I suspect this is the 'joint' bit of things.

 

It's still all very unclear.



#6 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 14 April 2018 - 11:49

Up to about 1951 the patent would have been still pending, so any discussion was unlikely. There was also the litigation with Trix at this time.

 

All Dublo post-war production has this coupling, so it must have been around in late 1946 at the latest. (AFAIK the first post war sets were available in time for Christmas 1947.) It provides a simple way of identifying pre and post-war production (that and zinc pest which afflicts much pre-war products).

 

The Foster book has detail about the discussions between S.C. Pritchard and Meccano Ltd. I understood he was paid for the rights for 'toy' railways and used the money to set up Peco (Pritchard Patent Company - hence Peco). This would explain the delay in the release of the Peco version. There are also photos of the 

large scale demonstration models and Dublo wagons fitted with a hand-made version.

 

Is this any help?

 

https://www.meccanoi...p?id=1498092975

 

EDIT An afterthought. This coupling has an affinity with the American X2f coupling (aka N.M.R.A. or Horn-hook) with which it will couple. This differs in the provision of the 'horn' and relying on spring tension to remain coupled. Also it uncouples by pressing the strikers together on the track centre line rather than apart as in the Peco/HD. The version of this supplied in Airfix kits is not 100% compatible, as the built-in buffer is differently situated. The spring tension is usually excessive on most commercial examples causing tracking problems or even derailments.


Edited by Il Grifone, 14 April 2018 - 12:24 .


#7 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 14 April 2018 - 14:11

Thanks for the further input. Your interest is much appreciated.

 

Up to about 1951 the patent would have been still pending, so any discussion was unlikely. There was also the litigation with Trix at this time.

 

 

Peco's Patent 605283 was approved 20 Jul 1948, which was some time if not years before any royalties would be paid.

My Uncle's Patent 617544 was approved 8 Feb 1949.

 

PECO was set up in 1946, the first advert appearing in the Sep MRC, "Introducing PECO the little name with the big surprises". The first product was Peco-way. Following adverts have Peco apologising for non-delivery until spring 1947 when things had obviously settled down. As for the coupling, the patent was first applied for on 4 Dec 1945 with the amendment stage completed 10 Jul 1946.

 

So, there was a considerable gap until there's evidence of a tie-up between Peco and Meccano in 1951. That's the context that I'm working in.

 

Meccano announced their HD relaunch in the Meccano Magazine for Dec 1947 (I've attached a scan - I hope!), following adverts showing there was restricted production, by order to the Govermment.

That first Meccano advert showed the EDG7 Tank Goods Set train set with a Peco-like coupling on the front end of the 0-6-2T, but the one photograph I've seen claiming to be of a 1949 version of such a loco shows that in fact it differs from the Peco design.

 

Peco didn't announce their coupling in the Sep 1950 model mags.

 

So, the implication is that Meccano used a similar design but not the Peco design. Given that both Peco and my uncle's Patent were for the same invention (as far as toy vehicles were concerned, as opposed to full size vehicles which my uncle's also covered), I can only conclude that Meccano were using their design to my uncle's Patent. He sold the rights of his Patent to Meccano. And the scene is set for subsequent events.

 

Even the above isn't a watertight chronology. But if Meccano were using Peco's coupling from the start, why would there be an argument in later years? Since there had been litigation between the holders of two patents, one Pritchard and the other my uncle, I don't give too much credence to one side's story over the other's (either way). That's why I need to see hard evidence. My prejudiced view is that Pritchard was well-known in being litigious and my uncle really couldn't be bothered with the shouting because this was his hobby and he had a 'real-world' business to run.

 

By the way, acquiring the final Patents themselves is easy - just use Google Patents. Getting the prior versions as they went through the appoval process is less easy - I researched them on microfilm at The Mitchell Library in Glasgow, unfortunately in the days before digital cameras and before I knew quite what I was looking for. All my references to adverts are from the magazines themselves in my possession. The web site you cite has two relevant Patents - I've actually got details of another six worldwide, including Argentina of all places, and images of four of them, the numbers all taken from the box of my 2-6-4T!

 

I'd be very interested in seeing the demo and mock-up. I notice Pathé news covered at least two demo HD layouts 1947, but the film was far too grainy to make much out.

 

It's probably a red-herring by a certain Ralph L Watson (no relation) has US Patent 2631240 filed 25 Mar 1949, approved 17 Mar 1953, which looks like a real buckeye in the style of Kadee. He cites 605283. How similar is this patent to what you describe?

 

 

 

0156 1 MM 1947 12.jpg



#8 sagaguy

sagaguy

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,158 posts
  • LocationNorthampton

Posted 14 April 2018 - 23:18

If you have the Hornby Dublo bible by New Cavendish books,the whole story is there.Pritchard took his coupling to Binns Rd.in about 1948 & they played with it for a couple of hours & offered to buy it outright but Pritchard stuck out for royalties,the rumour was that Peco was founded on these royalties.

 

 

                                         Ray.



#9 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 15 April 2018 - 15:23

Is that the correct U.S. patent no. ? If comes up with a voltage sweep generator.

 

I own several early post war Dublo locomotives, including examples with the horseshoe motor. All have the standard Dublo coupling, which differs from the Peco only in dimensions.

 

Plenty of examples here

 

https://www.google.c...DFcCkAI#imgrc=_

 

The flat loop couplings are the pre-war Dublo type (hence the pre-war LNER number 2690). Unlike Trix it will not couple to the post war version. There is a green LNER version with green wheels so it is likely this is the original chassis. 1947/8 LNER livery N2s are black 9596, 1948/9 are green 9596. From 1949 the motor changed from the horseshoe to an AlNiCo magnet.

 

The Meccano Magazine artwork is an artist's impression so should not be taken too literally.


  • Agree x 1

#10 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 17:29

The ERG catalogue which I mentioned in an earlier post is the loose-leaf E Rankine Gray version.  In this, additional pages were added periodically, for a fee of 1/6d a year.  The page B20 referred to is not in another of my copies of this catalogue, so could have been added later.  The ERG catalogue you refer to, where the coupling is listed on page 16, is a much later catalogue which is not loose-leaf, hence just a page reference not a chapter and page reference.  The later catalogue was compiled by Jock Stewart. 

 

The first announcement of the Peco coupling that I can find in the "Meccano Magazine" is in August 1951, and in June 1952 the price is given as 2/9d, the same as quoted by ERG.  I suppose there was retail price maintenance in those days!  The Peco coupling is also advertised in the book "A Study of the Model Railway" which was published in 1950.

 

Incidentally the Trix coupling is useful as it also links up with the pre-war Dublo flat loop coupling, so a Trix wagon is a ready made coupling adaptor!   This only works of course with the old Wrenn track as it is not so easy to change the Trix steam-roller wheels!

 

Before the coupling, Peco had patented the Insulaxles and was making track parts.   According to one story Pritchard was making hair grips during the war. 


Edited by D51, 15 April 2018 - 19:52 .


#11 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 15 April 2018 - 19:39

It's easy to change Trix wheelsets: just lever out the axleguard or bogie frame slightly and it will drop out. The only problem is finding Dublo standard wheels of the right diameter. I have used Rivarossi wheels* but they are a trifle small. Dublo wheels can be used but it is necessary to bend the Trix coupling down a bit to match the standard coupling height, The smaller wheels Peco used to sell for converting Tri-ang stock will also do, but are like hen's teeth these days. I have some Trix wagons fitted with Tri-ang wheels and one or two that have had the flanges turned down.

 

Trix locomotives have a gear cut into the flange so conversion is not really an option.

 

* Rivarossi wheels are more or less to Dublo standards but slightly thinner and need a slight increase in the back to back to run on Dublo track or they will fall between the rails on the poitwork.. They are similar to Tri-ang with a hollow half axle but a press fit on the axle. I find a Peco fibre washer or two between the half axles works well.


  • Like x 1

#12 NCB

NCB

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 20:15

I have an EDG7 (I think) LMS 0-6-2T train set packed away. Keep on meaning to get my old Dublo out to see how it runs. It was originally my brothers but I managed to take it over when he lost interest. Coming to think of it, he was never that interested. Strange.

 

Seem to remember the front coupling on the 0-6-2T didn't work that well; gave problems on curves. The rear one being on a pony truck was OK.



#13 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 21:33

In Hornby-Dublo, the couplings were stamped "Pat No 605283" from mid-1949 around the same time as the Alnico magnet was introduced.  They had been stamped with the Regd Number 848012 from 1947 to 1949.  605283 is the patent attributed to Pritchard.

 

In Trix, the couplings were not stamped before 1954.

In 1950 to 1954, the printed ends of the 4-wheel rolling stock were marked "TTR Brit. Pat. 465168    Pat. Pendg.   Made in England".

In 1950 to 1954, the bogie wagons were marked "TTR British Patents      451644  471304    Made in England"

 

In Trix, from 1954 the couplings were stamped  "605283", this being required by the agreement to allow Trix to use the design.

 

(451644 refers to the pre-war coupling, 1937  !!)

(465168 refers to two trains running on same track, 1937)

(471304 refers to an uncoupling device, never used by Trix, 1937  !!)

(605283 refers to the postwar coupling from Pritchard)

 

The Peco couplings were not stamped.



#14 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:08

I think the uncoupling device was available as a bolt on goody, but not added to Trix Twin production items. Trix Express hoewever adopted it with enthusiasm and continued with it post war. Basically it results in yet another variation of the standard Contiental loop coulpling.



#15 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:12

I think the uncoupling device was available as a bolt on goody, but not added to Trix Twin production items. Trix Express hoewever adopted it with enthusiasm and continued with it post war. Basically it results in yet another variation of the standard Contiental loop coulpling.

I agree but the "Scotsman" loco was fitted with it as standard.  The patent however was different.   The British Trix version was 678257,  1952.



#16 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 16 April 2018 - 13:53

Is that the correct U.S. patent no. ? If comes up with a voltage sweep generator.

 

I own several early post war Dublo locomotives, including examples with the horseshoe motor. All have the standard Dublo coupling, which differs from the Peco only in dimensions.

 

II Grifone, Sorry - couldn't read my own writing - the number should read US Patent 2631740, not 2631240.

On your earliest HD locos, are there any numbers on the couplings, and what are they?

I take your point re artist's impression. That's why I asking what was actually stamped on provably pre-1951 models. The one close-up photo I have of an actual coupling (GWR 0-6-2T, claimed to be 1949) shows the coupling to be similar to but not the same as the Peco's. As far as I can tell, the early couplings were of two parts whereas of course the Peco-based design was one part.
 



#17 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 16 April 2018 - 14:07

The ERG catalogue which I mentioned in an earlier post is the loose-leaf E Rankine Gray version.  In this, additional pages were added periodically, for a fee of 1/6d a year.  The page B20 referred to is not in another of my copies of this catalogue, so could have been added later.  The ERG catalogue you refer to, where the coupling is listed on page 16, is a much later catalogue which is not loose-leaf, hence just a page reference not a chapter and page reference.  The later catalogue was compiled by Jock Stewart. 

 

The first announcement of the Peco coupling that I can find in the "Meccano Magazine" is in August 1951, and in June 1952 the price is given as 2/9d, the same as quoted by ERG.  I suppose there was retail price maintenance in those days!  The Peco coupling is also advertised in the book "A Study of the Model Railway" which was published in 1950.

 

Incidentally the Trix coupling is useful as it also links up with the pre-war Dublo flat loop coupling, so a Trix wagon is a ready made coupling adaptor!   This only works of course with the old Wrenn track as it is not so easy to change the Trix steam-roller wheels!

 

Before the coupling, Peco had patented the Insulaxles and was making track parts.   According to one story Pritchard was making hair grips during the war. 

 

D51, thanks for the extra info re the ERG catalogues. Unless B20 is dated, it could have been added as late as 1951, so doesn't really help pin things down. The one I cited is indeed a simple booklet, but I couldn't tell when it was issued. But the prices are as I said (1/6 and 2/-) - surely they didn't come down from 2/9?!

The Peco coupling was announced in the Model Railway Constructor and Model Railway News for Sep 1950 as "this new coupling", "supplies now being distributed" - price not given. I can confirm that the first advert for the couplings in the MM isn't until Aug 1951 - no price given. This coincides with Peco & Meccano coupling cooperation being announced by Peco in the Sep 1951 MRC, and is further evidence to me that until then there was no cooperation.

It's been said to me a couple of times that Meccano paid Peco the rights for the toy market. I believe this is wrong. I believe the actual situation has been misunderstood. It's been misunderstood because there were in reality two Patents in existence, not just Peco's but also my uncle's, and the events surrounding these two equally valid patents have been conflated to all apply just to Peco's patent. I'm coming to the view that an earlier argument had already resulted in one patent (Peco's) applying to the component market and the other patent (my uncle's) applying to the r-t-r market. So, when Mr Pritchard came knocking at the door of Meccano, they were prevented from coming to an agreement because of my uncle's patent. At the back of my mind, I vaguely recollect that my uncle demo'd his coupling to Meccano first, which of course would be much to Mr Pritchard's chagrin if not annoyance: unfortunately I cannot give this vague memory any weight but it might explain a thing or two. But I'm on firmer ground when I say that the upshot was that my uncle sold the rights to the toy market to Meccano, leaving the way clear for Meccano and Peco to do a deal.

That would have left Trix in a peculiar position which may explain why the subsequent court case came about.

<<Incidentally the Trix coupling is useful as it also links up with the pre-war Dublo flat loop coupling, so a Trix wagon is a ready made coupling adaptor!   This only works of course with the old Wrenn track as it is not so easy to change the Trix steam-roller wheels!>>
The sticky-up bit on Trix's new coupler is the same as the sticky-up bit on Trix's old coupler, thus achieving compatibilty between old and new versions.

 

<<Before the coupling, Peco had patented the Insulaxles and was making track parts>> 
Being picky, these other patents were initiated at virtually the same time. So one has to ask why it took so long for the coupling to come to market.

 

<<According to one story Pritchard was making hair grips during the war>>
He had several patents jointly with Nestle since 1932 until 1945 even, for Hair Driers! The big things with hoods... Nestle wasn't the chocolate firm, or if it was it was based in Seaton, Devon.

 

D51, thanks also for the info in your next post. There's still a gap in the patent story between the re-intro of HD (announced Dec 1947) and mid-1949. That Patent is indeed Pritchard's and Pritchard's alone. The Reg Design 848012 certainly applies to the H-D coupling but I haven't seen mention of it in relation to the Peco coupling, so seeing the design document might throw some light. For instance, could there be different versions all protected under the same Reg Design No?

 

Having done original 12"-to-the-foot railway research, I might have known that delving into model railway history wouldn't be simple! Entertaining though.
 


  • Like x 1

#18 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 16 April 2018 - 17:59

II Grifone, Sorry - couldn't read my own writing - the number should read US Patent 2631740, not 2631240.

On your earliest HD locos, are there any numbers on the couplings, and what are they?

I take your point re artist's impression. That's why I asking what was actually stamped on provably pre-1951 models. The one close-up photo I have of an actual coupling (GWR 0-6-2T, claimed to be 1949) shows the coupling to be similar to but not the same as the Peco's. As far as I can tell, the early couplings were of two parts whereas of course the Peco-based design was one part.
 

 

US patent 2631740 is not the X2f, but appears to be a scaled down version of the real thing.

 

This is an example of the X2f. The spring varies in design and is usually far too strong. It should be just sufficient to hold the couplings engaged. (Hence the comments in the link!}

 

http://www.guidetozs...2f_coupler.html

 

The Dublo couplings are all a single stamping or moulding, usually with a brass shoudered rivet for the pivot. The only exception is the N2 front coupling which has a centring spring fitted and  come mounted on a metal plate incorporating a stop for the spring, An unnecessary complcation as the Dublo LWB wagons manage quite happily without any spring despite having a similar wheelbase and overhang.

 

I'll try to dig out some early stock and see what is stamped on the couplings.

 

As regards prices, when I did my first shopping for Peco couplings the prices were 1/6d for a pair of the simple hooks and 2/6d for the type with a mounting block. They changed the design of the latter at some time in the mid fifties from a brass shouldered stud held in place with a spring clip to a simple rivet, This simplification could explain the drop in price from 2/9d. I ordered a replacement Dublo N2 coupling and was charged 2/6d for it. I read somewhere that Dublo couplings could be obtained for 6d (not sure if this was for a pair or just one). As they were for Airfix wagon kits which cost 2/- at the time this would have been a good saving. Also the plastic stud supplied in the kit is a fraction too large for the Peco coupling which needs to be reamed out, whereas the Dublo couplings fit perfectly.


Edited by Il Grifone, 16 April 2018 - 18:15 .


#19 BernardTPM

BernardTPM

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,244 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 23:54

<<According to one story Pritchard was making hair grips during the war>>
He had several patents jointly with Nestle since 1932 until 1945 even, for Hair Driers! The big things with hoods... Nestle wasn't the chocolate firm, or if it was it was based in Seaton, Devon.

Can't have been chocolate - everyone knows the chocolate firm has an apostrophe 's'.



#20 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 17 April 2018 - 07:27

Most of my collection is stored at the moment* and not accessible, but I did find the following early items.

 

N2 tank with pony truck ftted with zinc alloy wheels. (The sintered iron wheels came out in 1951 so it must predate this.) the coupling is stamped "RD. NO. 848012".

 

Trix Twin tender (0-4-0 loco.)  early post war with coupling fitted in tinplate mounting and LNER green livery - no stamping on coupling.

 

* SWMBO has finally had her way and we are retiling the bathroom.... (obviously this wastes much valuable modelling/internet time! :( )


  • Funny x 1

#21 Golden Fleece 30

Golden Fleece 30

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:16


* SWMBO has finally had her way and we are retiling the bathroom.... (obviously this wastes much valuable modelling/internet time! :( )

I know how you feel David.  Woman have too many ideas that interrupt our modelling.

 

Garry


  • Agree x 1

#22 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:31

II Grifone

Does this imply that Design 848012 embraces more than one physical design? Was the '848012' stamped on the front coupling as well as the pony truck coupling?

Also, reading the actual Patent texts in all their turgid glory, there is one differentiating aspect that stands out. Uncle's Patent 617544 features an inboard centring spring; Peco's Patent 605283 does not. You describe HD's N2 as having such a centring spring.

I interpret this as a sign that the front coupling mounting at least had its origins in Patent 617544 rather than Patent 605283. Yet the hook ends are in the same familiar style. A hybrid design only ever used on the initial runs of the N2?

It's the first bit of hard evidence that Meccano could have started out with something other than the Peco coupling.

A centring spring also features on the pre-war Trix wagons a friend showed me yesterday (a standard short wheelbase coal wagon, a bogie tank wagon, and some sort of caboose - he's digging out his post-war stock today at least some of which are pre-1954). Did pre-war HD have such an arrangement?

By the way, the body of the text of Patent 617544 cites Patent 605283 as a prior specification (a formal term apparently that has a narrow legal meaning), and describes it in quite an extensive paragraph, but it doesn't actually do any comparisons. So there was formal recognition by the Patent Office of two similar/same Patents co-existing with equal legal status - no wonder there followed such a stushie.
 



#23 melmerby

melmerby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,827 posts
  • LocationWorcesterhire

Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:37

And an aigu (acute) over the "e" = É

 

Keith


  • Agree x 2

#24 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 17 April 2018 - 10:44

The upper photo here shows, from left to right, the pre-war Dublo coupling, the post-war Dublo coupling with RD No. 848012 marked away from the rivet (and powdering Mazak wheels), the post-war Dublo coupling with PAT. No. 605283 and RD No. 848012 (and rusting sintered iron wheels), and the Trix coupling with no markings.  There is also a post-war Dublo coupling with the RD No. marked towards the rivet, this being the first Dublo post-war version.

 

The lower photo shows the packaging for the Peco coupling when first introduced.  The cardboard box accounts for the selling price of 2/9d!

Attached Thumbnails

  • Hornby+Trix Couplings.jpg
  • First Peco Coupling.jpg

  • Informative/Useful x 1

#25 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,595 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 17 April 2018 - 12:01

II Grifone

Does this imply that Design 848012 embraces more than one physical design? Was the '848012' stamped on the front coupling as well as the pony truck coupling?

Also, reading the actual Patent texts in all their turgid glory, there is one differentiating aspect that stands out. Uncle's Patent 617544 features an inboard centring spring; Peco's Patent 605283 does not. You describe HD's N2 as having such a centring spring.

I interpret this as a sign that the front coupling mounting at least had its origins in Patent 617544 rather than Patent 605283. Yet the hook ends are in the same familiar style. A hybrid design only ever used on the initial runs of the N2?

It's the first bit of hard evidence that Meccano could have started out with something other than the Peco coupling.

A centring spring also features on the pre-war Trix wagons a friend showed me yesterday (a standard short wheelbase coal wagon, a bogie tank wagon, and some sort of caboose - he's digging out his post-war stock today at least some of which are pre-1954). Did pre-war HD have such an arrangement?

By the way, the body of the text of Patent 617544 cites Patent 605283 as a prior specification (a formal term apparently that has a narrow legal meaning), and describes it in quite an extensive paragraph, but it doesn't actually do any comparisons. So there was formal recognition by the Patent Office of two similar/same Patents co-existing with equal legal status - no wonder there followed such a stushie.
 

 

The spring on the pre-war Trix couplings serves to line up the coupling on the centre line of the vehicle. Most Continental couplings have these. Lima (pre-Hornby) (for one) does not. In the case of the Dublo N2 coupling it only woks one way - not sure why as the spring pushes it over centre and the knuckle can then go behind the one on the other vehicle. I'll try and post a photo of one. Unfortunately the N2 I have to hand has a later post '54 front coupling with the two tags. It serves double duty as the nut for the body fixing screw and thus easily gets lost/swopped. This has the two numbers 605283 and 848012 stamped on it. However all N2 couplings were to the same design until they changed the model to fit the plastic couplings introduced with the 2 rail version. Since the actual coupling only differs in having a hole drilled to accept the stud that holds the spring, I can see no reason the original would have differed from the rear coupling on the pony. The 2 rail R1 also had a sprung coupling but in this case the spring was merely a piece of tubing pushed over the 'tail' of the coupling.

 

The pre-war coupling did not swivel and was firmly fixed to the underframe or bogie of the vehicle. Sideways movement for curves was accomodated by the slot in the coupling. See the above photo and patent 509333A.

 

https://www.meccanoi...Pdoc=GB0509333A

 

The Trix bogie wagons would be from their US range which appeared just before the war. Pre-war the matching loco was a German Pacific bodged to look slightly American and post war they produced two U.S outline 0-4-0s basically the same casting with different add-ons to make a switcher and a passenger locomotive. The switcher at least was avilable with scale wheels and a 2 rail DC motor. Alleged only for export, some got released 'under the counter'. One has come my way :) .