Fordyce

Problem found (I hope) was a disintegrated brush: on second dismantling (to try the IPA suggestion), the bottom carbon brush was all but disintegrated to dust. How it had held together- even with (gentle) handling - on first dismantling to make it look as though it was whole, defeats me. Testing with a simple brass rod in place of the dusty brush showed the motor does still work, even with the springless brush (which will be 'sprung' with two very old Kean Maygib loco buffer springs - the smallest springs I've ever seen. Thanks for the suggestions - we've got there!

Thanks for the responses. Further investigation showed there was a spring in the bottom brush holder. But further testing has showed that even when there is an electical path through the motor, it's not turning. I don't know why not. Total motor replacement might be the only option.

Unidentified Mashima can motor, measured at 24mm x 13mm wide with a Branchlines gear box, has failed. Cause is the brush not making contact with the fixing screw which is screwed down as far as it'll go. There is no brush spring (and, no, one didn't escape when I dismantled it). Should this motor have had springs? What's the best way to fix: pencil lead to provide a miniscule bit of extra length and hope-for-best fixing screw adjustment, or a light spring (which I haven't got!) pushing on a cut-down brush?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Since they're momentary, then yes, they're fine. Just don't hold them at the on position! The only disadvantage is that you cannot tell the direction of the points from the position of the lever. I'd also say yes to a CDU - it's not the size of the layout that matters, it's just to guarantee a good whack when you do switch any one point or a couple at the same time. I have several Seeps (as well as hoary old H&Ms fettled up) operated through a CDU - never any problem.

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!