Hornby dublo

[sagaguy]

The R1tank,for some reason,these seem to be noisy little locos.

 

 

                           

 

Thre arne`t many that can`t be coverted,this is a modern Hornby 2 bil.

 

 

 

                              

 

 

                  Ray.

 

                          

[sagaguy]

The Wrenn spamcan.To fit a Dublo 3 rail collector means having to machine the chassis so i fitted it with a Marklin skate.

 

 

                    

 

 

                                Ray.

[GoingUnderground]

The Wrenn spamcan.To fit a Dublo 3 rail collector means having to machine the chassis so i fitted it with a Marklin skate.

 

 

20180219_134422.jpg

 

 

Ray.

And what you're doing is what Meccano/Hornby Dublo should have been doing to produce 3 rail locos once they introduced their 2 rail range, make only 2 rail locos but sell 3 rail easy to fit conversion kits separately. It would have been so much cheaper for retailers to stock a single loco and a much cheaper conversion kit than the cost of one of both locos. It would also have been cheaper for them, even if it meant reworking completed 3 rail locos so that they were 2 rail ex-works. If they'd done that, then they might just have survived as an independent company and not collapsed into the arms of Lines Bros.

 

As you have shown, 2 to 3 rail is relatively easy, even for models not designed for 3 rail, but 3 to 2 is harder if it means replacing the non-insulated wheels with insulated wheels. A factory designed screw on conversion kit, or kits, one for long wheelbase steam loco and another for short wheelbase locos plus the diesel and EMU, would have made it so easy to do at home. To me it always was a no-brainer, even back in the 1960s, and I never understood why Dublo didn't do it.

 

Likewise they never updated the 3 rail track, or changed over to stud contact to make the 3rd rail less obvious, or made it possible to convert 2 rail plain track to 3 rail. The early O gauge clockwork track could be converted to 3 rail by adding the centre rail, so there was the knowledge of such ideas within the company. But reading Michael Foster's book does give the impression that the top management wasn't up to the job.

Edited August 4, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[brianusa]

Certain O gauge locos have a switch for 3 or 2 rail pick up which makes it really easy for the technically challenged.  Dublo could have done the same.  For those same folks, 3 rail would be much more easier on larger layouts with return loops.

 

Brian.

[Tim V]

There was a "welcome all" running session at a local model railway club. I took along a 2-6-4 tank and rake of HD coaches. Great fun running them round, though a youngster (who didn't know who I was) sidled up to me and said "there are better models of that you know"!

[Il Grifone]

Don't get me started on the reasons for the failure of Meccano Ltd....

 

The arrival of Tri-ang on the market should have been the signal to switch to 2 rail or at least stud contact. Trix saw the writing on the wall and first stopped using AC motors (Trix Express led the way here) followed by the elimination of their coarse wheels. They introduced a fibre based universal all insulated 3 rail system, which Dublo would have done well to copy (2 and 3 rail can both run on it though not together). Previously Hornby had offered a half price new for old exchange scheme, which would have been the way to go for 3 rail to 2 rail. The awful tinplate based 3 rail track should have disappeared early on. Waiting until 1954 for a new model locomotive and then 1957 for the Castle didn't help. Tri-ang brought out several in the meantime.

 

 

Their other products suffered a similar fate. Dinky Toys were hit badly by the advent of Corgi Toys ("The Ones With Windows" - 'nuf sed!). I can remember the two tone colour schemes on the cars and thinking they were ill-advised at the age of about eight. Much better would have been proper prototype colours like the trains. Meccano likewise suffered from the  competition of Lego.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

There was a "welcome all" running session at a local model railway club. I took along a 2-6-4 tank and rake of HD coaches. Great fun running them round, though a youngster (who didn't know who I was) sidled up to me and said "there are better models of that you know"!

 

Are there?

 

The Dublo will still be running when today's trains have all clapped out.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Il Grifone

[brianusa]

The lad has obviously been got at by the scale perfection crowd.    Poor child!

 

Brian.

[GoingUnderground]

The arrival of Tri-ang on the market should have been the signal to switch to 2 rail or at least stud contact. Trix saw the writing on the wall and first stopped using AC motors (Trix Express led the way here) followed by the elimination of their coarse wheels. They introduced a fibre based universal all insulated 3 rail system, which Dublo would have done well to copy (2 and 3 rail can both run on it though not together). Previously Hornby had offered a half price new for old exchange scheme, which would have been the way to go for 3 rail to 2 rail. The awful tinplate based 3 rail track should have disappeared early on. Waiting until 1954 for a new model locomotive and then 1957 for the Castle didn't help. Tri-ang brought out several in the meantime.

British Trix could have had it all as they were the first into the OO/H0 market in the UK in 1935, 3 years before HD. It would have been a tough fight as their origins were in Germany and there was still significant anti-German feeling from WW1 in the 1930s.

 

Arguably, British Trix didn't see the writing on the wall, which in their case was in 1938 with the launch of Hornby Dublo. They persisted with AC for too long after WW2, letting HD become top dog with its more realistic and easier to control DC 3 rail system. The thickness of the Trix wheel flanges had to be seen to be believed. However, they did lead the way with open base trackwork, introducing their fibre based "twin" track, prompting Triang to introduce Series 3 track to compete.

 

Trix gradually improved their models, changing to DC in 1957 and introducing better models, their EM1 being a good example, with their innovative catenary system. But they remained hobbled by their odd choice of scaling 3.8mm: 1 ft, neither H0 nor OO. By the time they moved to true OO it was too late, Triang were the market leaders.

 

At one point Trix's owners approached Triang about buying the business. If that had happened we could have had a Triang/Hornby/Trix Railways period and the Triang AL1/Class 81 would very probably have used the Trix bodyshell, not the HD one. If Triang had bought Trix, that might have made it more difficult for Bachmann to break into the UK market as they wouldn't have been able to buy the old Trix moulds which were the basis of their first UK models.

[GoingUnderground]

Whilst I am a dyed-in-the -wool Triang enthusiast, there are some HD and Trix models that I wish I had bought in the 1960s. These are the HD Class 501 EMU even though it would have looked so very different to the Triang suburban stock that I had, and the Class 28 Co-Bo. On the Trix side, it is the EM1, the Class 124 Transpennine set, and their AL1/Class 81. I have, however, rectified these omissions in recent years.

 

And I think that puts me back on topic.

[NCB]

Don't get me started on the reasons for the failure of Meccano Ltd....

 

The arrival of Tri-ang on the market should have been the signal to switch to 2 rail or at least stud contact. Trix saw the writing on the wall and first stopped using AC motors (Trix Express led the way here) followed by the elimination of their coarse wheels. They introduced a fibre based universal all insulated 3 rail system, which Dublo would have done well to copy (2 and 3 rail can both run on it though not together). Previously Hornby had offered a half price new for old exchange scheme, which would have been the way to go for 3 rail to 2 rail. The awful tinplate based 3 rail track should have disappeared early on. Waiting until 1954 for a new model locomotive and then 1957 for the Castle didn't help. Tri-ang brought out several in the meantime.

 

 

Their other products suffered a similar fate. Dinky Toys were hid badly by the advent of Corgi Toys ("The Ones With Windows" - 'nuf sed!). I can remember the two tone colour schemes on the cars and thinking they were ill-advised at the age of about eight. Much better would have been proper prototype colours like the trains. Meccano likewise suffered from the  competition of Lego.

 

I quite liked the 3 rail track; in retrospect I like it even more! It's what toy train track should be; robust and reliable, and easy to use. Kato Unitrack is the same sort of idea.

[Wolseley]

I quite liked the 3 rail track

 

I remember at the time thinking that the track looked a bit unrealistic and I wasn't greatly enamoured of it, but then, my childhood memories of Hornby Dublo are of a time when HD two rail had just been introduced and the promotion of the new track at the expense of the old probably tainted my view of it back then.

 

in retrospect I like it even more! It's what toy train track should be; robust and reliable, and easy to use. Kato Unitrack is the same sort of idea.

I think that the fact that it looks so old fashioned (it looks like a product of the 1930s which, of course, it is) is part of its appeal today, and the reason that there is still so much of it in use, when a lot of its competitors track (and, let it be said, HD two rail track) has faded into obscurity.  There is something about it that harks back to a more comfortable era.  It also has the benefit of being robust and has stood the test of time: 60+ years old and still working.  There's also something very satisfying about the sound of tinplate stock running on metal - especially if you leave the odd gap of 1mm or less here and there.

 

[sagaguy]

Being retired,i have a lot of time on my hands.I seemed to have collected a few HD EMUs & with the aid of photoshop,i have created a few that never came out of Binns rd.

 

         

 

 

         

 

 

        

 

 

        The Trix BG Transpennine,this set was converted to 3 rail by fitting a Trix brake end coach with a Marklin skate wired through the motor coach with a plug & socket arrangement a la HD 3rail 8f & Castle.

 

 

       

 

I also have a green unit which was originally Trix 3rail but the P/up shoes need a slight modification as the Trix shoes can jam in the points,a short video.

 

 

        

 

 

                           Ray.

 

 

[Il Grifone]

IIRC Mr. Cooper produced a maroon EMU. Very attractive, but incorrect as the prototype was always green until disfigured with Rail Blue. Even the Watford sets (which are nearer to the Dublo model despite its Southern numbering).

 

Trix had two main problems 1. the scale (I only realised this later though)  and 2. it was exceedingly expensive. £10 for the 'Scotsman' put it out of reach for most pockets. You could get a complete Dublo train set for that sort of money. I have never seen an official figure for Trix Twin back to back - from measurement it seems to be around 1/2". I assume the later 'scale' wheels adopted the Dublo setting of 14.2mm (it's something imperial but no-one uses that anymore ). The gauge started as 5/8" (Half  0 1¼"/2) but finer wheels needed a bit more play so it's now 16.5mm. The 3 rail Märklin track I have seems to be 16mm gauge. I've never measured it, but Dublo wheels don.t like it at all.

 

Dublo 3 rail track was robust (important) , but expensive (3/3d a length or more than £10 a yard in today's money. (According to a official graph I saw recently, we have twice as much disposable income as in the seventies. I have to say that I never noticed! They must have forgotten house prices in their calculations for a start....). I believe it was copied from the Märklin product (originally 3 rail - stud contact came later) with a lower base, but the same strange yellow colour. They will connect without problems apart from the height. If they had made the base a bit wider (as in the Formo version) and possibly stamped rather than just printed the sleepers (like both Märklin and Formo) and printed it in a decent grey colour, it would have been considerably better. Trix track was black but has a representation of the sleepers and ballast moulded in and Triang copied Rovex and made theirs grey. (Both these suffer from excessive height and being too narrow

[sagaguy]

Tony coopers maroon EMU was priced at £1,100 pounds,i did enquire but i would have had problems getting that past my wife.I ended up buying a chassis & 2 ends from him from which the Maroon EMU was consructed using some tatty SD Mk1 coaches &  modified the roofs which were fitted with the correct number of roof vents.

 

                        Ray.

[GoingUnderground]

IIRC Mr. Cooper produced a maroon EMU. Very attractive, but incorrect as the prototype was always green until disfigured with Rail Blue. Even the Watford sets (which are nearer to the Dublo model despite its Southern numbering).

 

Trix had two main problems 1. the scale (I only realised this later though) and 2. it was exceedingly expensive. £10 for the 'Scotsman' put it out of reach for most pockets. You could get a complete Dublo train set for that sort of money. I have never seen an official figure for Trix Twin back to back - from measurement it seems to be around 1/2". I assume the later 'scale' wheels adopted the Dublo setting of 14.2mm (it's something imperial but no-one uses that anymore ). The gauge started as 5/8" (Half 0 1¼"/2) but finer wheels needed a bit more play so it's now 16.5mm. The 3 rail Märklin track I have seems to be 16mm gauge. I've never measured it, but Dublo wheels don.t like it at all.

 

Dublo 3 rail track was robust (important) , but expensive (3/3d a length or more than £10 a yard in today's money. (According to a official graph I saw recently, we have twice as much disposable income as in the seventies. I have to say that I never noticed! They must have forgotten house prices in their calculations for a start....). I believe it was copied from the Märklin product (originally 3 rail - stud contact came later) with a lower base, but the same strange yellow colour. They will connect without problems apart from the height. If they had made the base a bit wider (as in the Formo version) and possibly stamped rather than just printed the sleepers (like both Märklin and Formo) and printed it in a decent grey colour, it would have been considerably better. Trix track was black but has a representation of the sleepers and ballast moulded in and Triang copied Rovex and made theirs grey. (Both these suffer from excessive height and being too narrow

Michael Foster's book says that the EMU was based on the North London/DC Lines Class 501 units. They lack the window bars thst all the 501s have, and were probably given SR running numbers to appeal more to folks in Southern England where EMUs were the local trains for so many.

 

Tony Cooper used HD parts and had new tin printed bodyshells and plastic ends made. The result is rather pleasing to my eyes, but they were hideously unaffordable - for well-heeled collectors only. Being unprototypical isn't exactly against the ethos of Meccano/Hornby, who had no qualms over turning out the same loco in all 4 of the "Big 4" liveries before nationalisation.

 

You might have a touch of "It was better then than now" syndrome in thinking we have less disposable income now. We have more disposable income, but we spend it on things that didn't exist in the 1970s, like mobile phone, internet, and digital TV subscripions, and take more expensive holidays and buy higher spec'd cars. Domestic freezers and dishwashers were a rarity in a home, likewise tumble dryers. There would only have been one TV in homes with a TV at all, and it mght still have been a rented monochrome set for quite a few people. Microwave ovens didn't exist in the 1970s, and neither did personal computers. Tablet computers we a science fiction fantasy. These days many homes will have both, plus several smartphones. All these appliances were comparatively much more expensive than they are today. If you had a mortgage, interest rates were higher. En suite bathrooms wers a rarity reserved for very up market homes. Central heating was less common than it is today. If you had a car, petrol was cheaper, but we didn't drive so far. 2 car families were restricted to the much better off. We use far more energy than we did in the 1970s, with all our expensive technology and more comfortable homes. And I think we ate out less, judging by the plethora of restaurants and fast food eateries that occupy so much of our shop space these days, not to mention the increase in our collective weights.

 

Oh, and Triang didn't copy Rovex. Lines Bros bought Rovex and marketed it under their house brand name, Triang. The boxes for products made in the UK all had the Rovex name on them right through to the collapse of Lines Bros, and the acquisition of Rovex by Dunbee Combex Marx.

Edited August 5, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[GoingUnderground]

Being retired,i have a lot of time on my hands.I seemed to have collected a few HD EMUs & with the aid of photoshop,i have created a few that never came out of Binns rd.

 

      

          20171108_124819.jpg

 

 

         20171204_165142.jpg

 

Ray,

 

I particularly like the 501 in rail blue. If I have a criticism of it, and I'll admit it isn't justified, is that as I remember it as the 501s were my transport home from Central London for much of the 1980s, the blue never looked that bright even when the carriages were clean. But it does look good all the same, possibly better than the original HD model in SR green livery?

 

I've seen a Triang "2NOL" that's been repainted into rail blue, and it too looks good. I'll post a picture in the Triang Railways sub-forum for you all to see.

[Prometheus]

There was a "welcome all" running session at a local model railway club. I took along a 2-6-4 tank and rake of HD coaches. Great fun running them round, though a youngster (who didn't know who I was) sidled up to me and said "there are better models of that you know"!

 

Exactly the same thing happened to me when I took my restored 2-rail Duchess to the club! Explaining to him that his five year-old model was certainly 'different' but not therefore 'better' didn't make any difference.

 

Tony

[sagaguy]

I think it resembled a 2EPB,the cast cab fronts came from comet models with their electrical detail. They were modified to fit the coach profile.

 

Ray

[Wolseley]

Being retired,i have a lot of time on my hands.

 

 

I am retired too, but I don't seem to have anywhere near as much time on my hands as I expected.  But then we do babysit the grandchildren three days a week.....

[DCB]

The R1tank,for some reason,these seem to be noisy little locos.

   

                  Ray.

Mine ran very quietly for years until Bachmann brought out a 64XX and my R1 converted to a 64XX became redundant.

Only after taking it out of service did I remember it has a 5 pole K's armature from the Mk 1 or Mk2 Motor. I had shortened the armature shaft

both ends to fit the H/D 1/2" motor and soldered on a H/D worm and it worked very smoothly and quietly as a local passenger loco and also on some station pilot turns shunting

rakes of 7 coaches up a 1 in 40

[GoingUnderground]

I think it resembled a 2EPB,the cast cab fronts came from comet models with their electrical detail. They were modified to fit the coach profile.

 

Ray

As I said, I'm no expert on SR EMUs but the ends of a 501 is often described as being of the EPB style. The 501s were built at Eastleigh, and were 57 ft 5 in long, or 9in in 4mm scale. The EPBs were longer, having 8 passenger doors per side as opposed to the 501's DMBS/DTBS which had 7 doors per side.

 

That's why I took to be a 501 lookalike. But it's your model, and I'm sure you're pleased with the result.

[sagaguy]

As I said, I'm no expert on SR EMUs but the ends of a 501 is often described as being of the EPB style. The 501s were built at Eastleigh, and were 57 ft 5 in long, or 9in in 4mm scale. The EPBs were longer, having 8 passenger doors per side as opposed to the 501's DMBS/DTBS which had 7 doors per side.

 

That's why I took to be a 501 lookalike. But it's your model, and I'm sure you're pleased with the result.

This was how i modified the Comet cab castings.

 

                  

 

Fitted to the coach.

 

                 

 

The artwork for the 501/2EPB.

 

                   

 

 

                  Ray

[Il Grifone]

On 05/08/2018 at 10:26, sagaguy said:

Tony coopers maroon EMU was priced at £1,100 pounds,i did enquire but i would have had problems getting that past my wife.I ended up buying a chassis & 2 ends from him from which the Maroon EMU was consructed using some tatty SD Mk1 coaches &  modified the roofs which were fitted with the correct number of roof vents.

 

                        Ray.

 

I knew it was expensive, but not that much!     I believe his V2 was around £500.

 

On 04/08/2018 at 03:10, sagaguy said:

The R1tank,for some reason,these seem to be noisy little locos.

 

omis

 

                  Ray.

 

I think that, like the Airfix GWR Prairie tank, the plastic body serves as a sounding box. Another reason for doing the job properly in diecast metal.

 

 

On 05/08/2018 at 11:28, GoingUnderground said:

Michael Foster's book says that the EMU was based on the North London/DC Lines Class 501 units. They lack the window bars thst all the 501s have, and were probably given SR running numbers to appeal more to folks in Southern England where EMUs were the local trains for so many.

 

Tony Cooper used HD parts and had new tin printed bodyshells and plastic ends made. The result is rather pleasing to my eyes, but they were hideously unaffordable - for well-heeled collectors only. Being unprototypical isn't exactly against the ethos of Meccano/Hornby, who had no qualms over turning out the same loco in all 4 of the "Big 4" liveries before nationalisation.

 

You might have a touch of "It was better then than now" syndrome in thinking we have less disposable income now. We have more disposable income, but we spend it on things that didn't exist in the 1970s, like mobile phone, internet, and digital TV subscripions, and take more expensive holidays and buy higher spec'd cars. Domestic freezers and dishwashers were a rarity in a home, likewise tumble dryers. There would only have been one TV in homes with a TV at all, and it mght still have been a rented monochrome set for quite a few people. Microwave ovens didn't exist in the 1970s, and neither did personal computers. Tablet computers we a science fiction fantasy. These days many homes will have both, plus several smartphones. All these appliances were comparatively much more expensive than they are today. If you had a mortgage, interest rates were higher. En suite bathrooms wers a rarity reserved for very up market homes. Central heating was less common than it is today. If you had a car, petrol was cheaper, but we didn't drive so far. 2 car families were restricted to the much better off. We use far more energy than we did in the 1970s, with all our expensive technology and more comfortable homes. And I think we ate out less, judging by the plethora of restaurants and fast food eateries that occupy so much of our shop space these days, not to mention the increase in our collective weights.

 

Oh, and Triang didn't copy Rovex. Lines Bros bought Rovex and marketed it under their house brand name, Triang. The boxes for products made in the UK all had the Rovex name on them right through to the collapse of Lines Bros, and the acquisition of Rovex by Dunbee Combex Marx.

 

Not to disagree....

 

The only difference AFAIK between the Watford sets and their Southern Region Sisters (apart from the window bars) was that the latter were built on the long carriage underframe rather than the short and thus had an extra compartment. The window bars on the Watford sets (for clearance reasons) would have been a bit much to expect on a toy in any case.

 

The graph referred to disposable income, not what we spend it on. In my case, I started work in TV service on £1600 p.a. in 1973 and finished doing the same thing as temporary agency staff on £19,000, which allowing for inflation is much the same, but the earlier salary was increased by the private use of an estate car (a dogbone Escort and rubbish but...). On this, I was able to buy a 3 bedroom house in West London, a colour TV which it real terms cost as much as all todays electronic 'must haves' put together* install central heating and run my own car (a Corsair). That house today is worth around £600,000 according to 'Zoopla' (I should have kept it! - errors of youth!). The higher interest rates are a myth. The mortgage rate was higher at first sight (10-15%), but that was only about half the inflation rate, whereas today they are around twice inflation, so actually much higher. Rents likewise, but back then they were controlled, so properties to rent were thin on the ground. Petrol cost around 35p a gallon in 1973 so not a lot less in real terms (part of the  difference is tax, I believe, to pay for lower income tax for the well off. (Indirect taxes have all increased to not touch the sacred income tax levels. VAT started at 10% (levied on almost everything including many things like services which previously were tax free (After Brexit?    ) and was later reduced to 8% as revenue was "too much".) Against this the Escort guzzled the stuff at 25 m.p.g. (More than my Corsair - thirst was one of its many failings - not due to my heavy right foot - it wouldn't go otherwise!- as all my workmates got the same. I tried a lighter foot and managed 28 m.p.g. - not worth the effort!). I managed to eat out regularly. There was no shortage of restaurants.

 

* A 'deluxe' 26" colour set cost around £300, twice what a similar sized flat screen costs today and far more unreliable (which kept the rental firms in business!). Today that would be £3500-4000. More than enough left over for mobiles, laptops etc for all the family.

 

The Tri-ang range was based on the bought in Rovex train set, but needed immediate improvement. The Tri-ang track was based on and hence copied from the Rovex product. Apart from the grey base and steel rail section, it differed in nearly all details.

 

I'll sign off - too much waffle and to steer clear of politics....

Edited October 16, 2023 by Il Grifone

[sagaguy]

Someone had a go at the window bars,i bought this trailer cheaply on Ebay,had a devil of a job removing the paint job.

 

 

                    

 

 

It formed the basis of this two car unpowered unit

 

 

                 

 

 

 

                         Ray.