Jump to content




Photo

Post-war Hornby-Dublo and Trix couplings





  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#26 locomad

locomad

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 17 April 2018 - 16:32

Interesting but I've read in a few magazines at the time that the coupling was shown at various trade events just after WW2, I've got a complete collection of model engineer published twice a month from 1940 to about 1949, it's mentioned in there somewhere

It's also mentioned in the trix Bible

DSC_0025.JPG
DSC_0026.JPG
  • Informative/Useful x 1



#27 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:04

I thought it was a farthing a coupling. I don't know where I got this from though. It can't be the Trix Bible as I don't possess one  :(  . I would have thought that adding a penny* to the price of a Tri-ang item would have been a small price to pay to not have to suffer their horrible Mk II and III (aka tension lock :( ) couplings.

 

* A half penny for the couplings plus the standard mark up. OK make it 2d still a bargain the Peco conversion cost 1/6d (and doesn't work very well

 

It's interesting to read that the first post war production had the pre-war coupling with the uncoupling dropper. I don't think I've ever seen one, but then 1947 production would have been very limited. Dublo only managed a limited supply of 0-6-2T goods sets (That's why the black LNER N2 is so rare - I always regret not buying one in the Southgate Beatties for £5 in the early seventies. :( )



#28 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:26

Slightly off topic, but I found this comment on horn hooks hilarious!  :jester:

 

http://cs.trains.com...8/t/149328.aspx

 

(About half way down.)

 

I consider the X2f/horn hook/NMRA  coupling much maligned. Properly set up, it works and does at least look something like a buckeye - much better than a tension lock on all counts IMHO.



#29 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:34

Re prices, II Grifone, while I do remember the Airfix kits at 2/- each, you've got a far better memory than I have! I remember nothing else price-wise, despite that I spent nearly all my pocket money on Hornby-Dublo before branching into more 'scale' things (my very first foray involved extending the layout with three-rail Wrenn flexible track - I think the sleepers were fibre, and they warped in the damp dire days before central-heating!).

I have a photo (from an auction) of an N2 whose coupling differs from all others. The loco was described as a 1949 GWR with horseshoe motor in its original box. The hook itself looks peco-like (apart from a presumed blemish in the photo) but the coupling/mounting as a whole appears to be in two parts with the coupling end clamped between the mounting end, and there is what I see now as a single wire acting as a spring. This version is what I described previously as a hybrid, thinking therefore it would have come from the very earliest production runs (I cannot see it being a later modification by someone who bought it). What might be stamped on the mounting's underside?

 

Another photo I've found is of another GWR N2 but where the coupling is a single stamping, still with a single-wire spring, presumably from a later production run.

I've attached the two photos. Any comments re this first photo?

1949 0-6-2T horseshoe motor original box.jpg 0-6-2 T.jpg



#30 melmerby

melmerby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • LocationWorcesterhire

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:36

Here's a few of mine:

 

L to Right: Peco plastic uncoupler, HD metal, HD late type plastic, Trix plastic.

 

coupling2.jpg

 

Keith

 

 



#31 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,248 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:48

Slightly off topic, but I found this comment on horn hooks hilarious!  :jester:

 

http://cs.trains.com...8/t/149328.aspx

 

(About half way down.)

 

I consider the X2f/horn hook/NMRA  coupling much maligned. Properly set up, it works and does at least look something like a buckeye - much better than a tension lock on all counts IMHO.

I only encountered the X2F coupler in the UK via Airfix wagon kits, and consider it would have been excellent had it been made from a more robust material. The polystyrene as used for the rest of the kit was just not appropriate for the job.

 

I rapidly discovered how prone to breakage they were, and switched to using the metal Peco product.

 

John



#32 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 18 April 2018 - 08:57

Both of these photos of the 3-rail tank locomotive (Hornby never referred to it as an N2) show the front coupling fitted to all such tank locomotives with metal couplings.  It incorporated a spring which acted only one way, to keep the coupling closed.  Meccano presumably thought this was necessary because of the overhang of the coupling from the leading axle but as David has already said, the long-wheelbase wagons worked perfectly well.  The sprung coupling caused all sorts of problems with the hook being too far closed.  It seems to be an expensive component to produce, needing plated metal bracket, spring, spring support and modified coupling to be assembled; all for the cheapest loco in the range.

 

I have an early block magnet tank loco and both couplings are stamped with the RD number only, away from the rivet.

 

When the plastic couplings were introduced this cumbersome arrangement was discontinued and a standard coupling used; it worked much better!

 

Frank



#33 locomad

locomad

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 18 April 2018 - 12:06

I thought it was a farthing a coupling. I don't know where I got this from though. It can't be the Trix Bible as I don't possess one  :(  . I would have thought that adding a penny* to the price of a Tri-ang item would have been a small price to pay to not have to suffer their horrible Mk II and III (aka tension lock :( ) couplings.
 
* A half penny for the couplings plus the standard mark up. OK make it 2d still a bargain the Peco conversion cost 1/6d (and doesn't work very well
 
)


It's from the trix Bible published about 1996 same format as the Hornby-dublo one, think the HD one is the 3rd in series

Farthing is a 1/4 of an old penny, 240 old pennies in a £ so 940 farthing in a £

Can anyone tell us who used the same design in "O" gauge was it Lima?, I've a few somewhere

I'am looking through model engineer aboutc1946, there is an article on patent application detailed drawing etc, patents would of been pending

#34 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 18 April 2018 - 19:09

Re prices, II Grifone, while I do remember the Airfix kits at 2/- each, you've got a far better memory than I have! I remember nothing else price-wise, despite that I spent nearly all my pocket money on Hornby-Dublo before branching into more 'scale' things (my very first foray involved extending the layout with three-rail Wrenn flexible track - I think the sleepers were fibre, and they warped in the damp dire days before central-heating!).

I have a photo (from an auction) of an N2 whose coupling differs from all others. The loco was described as a 1949 GWR with horseshoe motor in its original box. The hook itself looks peco-like (apart from a presumed blemish in the photo) but the coupling/mounting as a whole appears to be in two parts with the coupling end clamped between the mounting end, and there is what I see now as a single wire acting as a spring. This version is what I described previously as a hybrid, thinking therefore it would have come from the very earliest production runs (I cannot see it being a later modification by someone who bought it). What might be stamped on the mounting's underside?

 

Another photo I've found is of another GWR N2 but where the coupling is a single stamping, still with a single-wire spring, presumably from a later production run.

I've attached the two photos. Any comments re this first photo?

attachicon.gif1949 0-6-2T horseshoe motor original box.jpgattachicon.gif0-6-2 T.jpg

 The top one is the GWR version, but whether it's a horseshoe I can't see from the photo. The front coupling has acquired a lump of gunge at some time. The second (a black LNER  is definitely a horeshoe and dates from the 1947 production run. The 1948 batch were green but still number 9596. The couplings appear to be unstamped but the photo is not too clear. The coupling is the standard N2 fitting, which can be seen to consist of the standard coupling drilled for the spring mounting and riveted to the metal plate. apart from the tags and the variations in numbers stamped. This remained the same until the chassis was modified for the 2 rail version, which appeared some time after the 1959 general switch to 2 rail.

 

AFAIK it's true that Dublo never claimed their 0-6-2T as an N2, but throughout its run it bore numbers appropriate for an N2. THE GWR, LMS and SR look nothing like the real locomotives which had those numbers (6699, 6917 (the Gaiety 0-6-2T was copied from this IMHO - same dimensional errors and 46917 as it's labelled 'BRITISH RAILWAYS') and 2594). I realise the farthing charge is quoted in the Trix Bible, but I had heard/read it some time ago. It could well be second hand from this source of course - I just can't remember. The coupling was indeed an expensive component (not that this worried Meccano Ltd. unduly unlike their competitors in Margate), As I said, I was charged 2/6d for one (1958 or 59 IIRC). I don't think Tri-ang  ever patented their couplings, but, since the design is quite ancient, would have met with challenges.

 

I tried to take a photo of an N2 coupling, but failed through lack of light. I'll try again in daylight.

 

Lima used the coupling in 0 gauge, but I think they weren't alone I'm sure I've seen it used elsewhere.



#35 D51

D51

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 18 April 2018 - 21:57

As well as Lima, the Tri-ang 'Big-Big' train also used the Dublo/Peco design, as did the Novo trains which were made from the same tools after Rovex sold them to Russia, and also a Hong Kong copy called "Mighty Red Rocket".  Although all these makes included the uncoupling arm on the coupling, I don't think any of them made uncoupling rails!



#36 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 18 April 2018 - 22:05

As well as Lima, the Tri-ang 'Big-Big' train also used the Dublo/Peco design, as did the Novo trains which were made from the same tools after Rovex sold them to Russia, and also a Hong Kong copy called "Mighty Red Rocket".  Although all these makes included the uncoupling arm on the coupling, I don't think any of them made uncoupling rails!

 

I knew there was another one!

 

Further to my failure to take a decent close up of the N2 coupling, this makes it unnecessary:

 

https://www.ebay.co....5.c100011.m1850

 

The price is frightening (I've paid less for the complete locomotive!), but then it is an acolyte of our 'friend' Gostude!

 

And lots more here:

 

https://www.google.c...s5Y2w-UC3hW_QM:


Edited by Il Grifone, 18 April 2018 - 22:12 .


#37 Golden Fleece 30

Golden Fleece 30

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,170 posts

Posted 18 April 2018 - 22:18

I knew there was another one!

 

Further to my failure to take a decent close up of the N2 coupling, this makes it unnecessary:

 

https://www.ebay.co....5.c100011.m1850

 

The price is frightening (I've paid less for the complete locomotive!), but then it is an acolyte of our 'friend' Gostude!

 

And lots more here:

 

https://www.google.c...s5Y2w-UC3hW_QM:

Couplings and rivets.

Reproduction metal couplings straight, 2 spigot & 264T cranked.

£1.40

Rivets (brass) long and short, metal and plastic coupling.

£0.65

Longer rivets for trucks, metal and plastic.

£0.65

062T front coupling, complete.

£4.75

Screw to fix front coupling, 2R & 3R.

£1.35

Mounting plate for 062T front coupling.

£0.40

Do it yourself kit for 062T front coupling.

£1.90

062T front coupling repair kit.

£2.40

Repaired 062T front coupling. (Please send old one).

£3.70

Plastic couplings, straight and cranked single spigot.

£1.70

Fixing screws, metal and plastic couplings.

£1.35

Coupling rivet for comp bogie S/D coach.

£0.60

Pre war 062T front and wagon couplings.

£1.50

Bolt for 0-6-2T body/chassis and pre-war

£1.50

Replica 2 spigot couplings both types diesels

£2.20

 

 

Here is Denis Williams (The Dublo Surgeon)'s price list for couplings.  You will see the complete 0-6-2 front one is only £4.75

 

Garry



#38 Fordyce

Fordyce

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHampshire

Posted 19 April 2018 - 08:53

Morning II Grifone,

 

The two images I attached were not of high resolution, but to me the coupling in the first one is different, mainly due to a vertical line between the main mount and the horizontal strike plate (Pritchard called it the abutment) making it look like the main mount is clamping the abutment - I'll guess I'll have to put it down to being an optical illusion. (BTW, the auction blurb stated the motor was a horseshoe version.)

The ebay close-ups are clear and the reg design number can be made out (although in one of the photos the coupling's been mounted incorrectly - odd!), showing how the coupling itself has been modified. With the mounting, I can see how the spring works and why it's asymmetric - to force the coupling to return to centre after coupling -  but there's no limit to the swing of the coupling the other way yet it would have been easy to either not have an open slot so that the spring would act in both directions, or to utilise the tail on the coupling by having stops on the mounting - which was the sole intention of that tail in the first place.

This smacks of retrofitting the coupling to something that pre-existed. Which is fair enough, but what was it that pre-existed? The pre-war coupling? Or something else?

By the way, on one of your earlier posts, you said "The main difference between peco and the rest is that the Peco vesion does not have the tail behind to limit its sideplay." True enough per the examples I have, but all the drawings in Patent 605283 do show a tail and sideplay stops, although he allowed for 'other embodiments'.

To complicate matters further, he adds that "a light spring may be provided ... to locate [the coupling] yieldably in a normal central position". This springing concept first appeared in his second Provisional Specification as part-and-parcel of the coupling's design, but was stated as a non-essential feature in the Complete Specification and wasn't shown in those drawings.



#39 Il Grifone

Il Grifone

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • LocationEssex next to the LT&SR and Sardinia Costa dei Grifoni

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:09

Morning II Grifone,

 

The two images I attached were not of high resolution, but to me the coupling in the first one is different, mainly due to a vertical line between the main mount and the horizontal strike plate (Pritchard called it the abutment) making it look like the main mount is clamping the abutment - I'll guess I'll have to put it down to being an optical illusion. (BTW, the auction blurb stated the motor was a horseshoe version.)

The ebay close-ups are clear and the reg design number can be made out (although in one of the photos the coupling's been mounted incorrectly - odd!), showing how the coupling itself has been modified. With the mounting, I can see how the spring works and why it's asymmetric - to force the coupling to return to centre after coupling -  but there's no limit to the swing of the coupling the other way yet it would have been easy to either not have an open slot so that the spring would act in both directions, or to utilise the tail on the coupling by having stops on the mounting - which was the sole intention of that tail in the first place.

This smacks of retrofitting the coupling to something that pre-existed. Which is fair enough, but what was it that pre-existed? The pre-war coupling? Or something else?

By the way, on one of your earlier posts, you said "The main difference between peco and the rest is that the Peco vesion does not have the tail behind to limit its sideplay." True enough per the examples I have, but all the drawings in Patent 605283 do show a tail and sideplay stops, although he allowed for 'other embodiments'.

To complicate matters further, he adds that "a light spring may be provided ... to locate [the coupling] yieldably in a normal central position". This springing concept first appeared in his second Provisional Specification as part-and-parcel of the coupling's design, but was stated as a non-essential feature in the Complete Specification and wasn't shown in those drawings.

 

I see what you mean but I think its just the fold in the metal or it might have been repaired, breakages of the couplings are not unknown. It only takes a couple of bends and the metal will fatigue fracture. (Trix are worse and will only usually stand a single restraightening if that.) The tail may be present in the patent but did not appear on production Peco couplings; two stops under the headstock on on the mounting bracket being prefered. The Airfix kits have four pips under the headstock as stops for peco couplings or mountings for Tri-ang tension locks. Unfortunately they are useless for either coupling.

 

A centring spring is a de-luxe feature, but is totally unnecessary, except possibly in the case of a vehicle with an exceptional overhang, As I said all Dublo post-war production had their version of the coupling. previously they had the pre-war flat plate coupling, which is a hook and bar type and patented (509333). Incidentally this relies on the couplings being at different heights to couple otherwise one will not ride over the other. The Continental loop coupling has the same problem.