Hornby dublo

[LMS2968]

Brand new on a running in turn, so late June or early July 1938, certainly not circa 1935! This shows up the beautiful finish of these five engines: those shiny bits aren't polished steel but chrome plated.

[TerryD1471]

On 08/07/2020 at 19:19, LMS2968 said:

The 'City' tender isn't an accurate representation of any tender produced by the LMS. The front sides where they drop down to the level of the handrail level are the high type, as used for the streamlined tenders, but the back end is entirely of the non-streamlined variety: running steps below the tank; three steps per side up the rear of the tank, single central filler. When the streamlined tenders had their streamlining removed they retained the ladder up the back, two fillers, sides extending a few inches behind the tank rear and cut down supporting brackets side panel extensions. If you look at the photos I put up a few pages ago, that's a 'City' tender but with the panels at the front lowered as per the non-streamlined type.

My theory, for what it's worth, is that the designers in Hornby Dublo were preparing a model which was to represent "London" in 2 rail form and "Liverpool" in 3 rail form; they assumed that both locos towed the same type of tender and used the front of "London's" tender and the back of "Liverpool's" tender as the basis for the model. They did not realise that "London" towed an ex-streamline tender (Type 1) and "Liverpool" a type 2 tender originally built for the 5 non-streamliners. Hence they finished up with a tender which was a hybrid type 1/2, and accurate for neither and not even as accurate as the original tender behind Atholl/Montrose.

[Il Grifone]

1 hour ago, TerryD1471 said:

My theory, for what it's worth, is that the designers in Hornby Dublo were preparing a model which was to represent "London" in 2 rail form and "Liverpool" in 3 rail form; they assumed that both locos towed the same type of tender and used the front of "London's" tender and the back of "Liverpool's" tender as the basis for the model. They did not realise that "London" towed an ex-streamline tender (Type 1) and "Liverpool" a type 2 tender originally built for the 5 non-streamliners. Hence they finished up with a tender which was a hybrid type 1/2, and accurate for neither and not even as accurate as the original tender behind Atholl/Montrose.

 

We're back to the scant information available at the time and a redesign of the tender chassis was not likely in any case (probably no-one noticed!). We got the change in height of the front of the tender and that's your lot. Any photos available would have been the usual three-quarters front as like as not.

 

I did consider modifying a tender in the past and dropped the idea.

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

We're back to the scant information available at the time and a redesign of the tender chassis was not likely in any case (probably no-one noticed!). We got the change in height of the front of the tender and that's your lot. Any photos available would have been the usual three-quarters front as like as not.

 

I did consider modifying a tender in the past and dropped the idea.

But Meccano could have gone out and photographed them at any time, back then. Maybe they did take a small number of photos and confused themselves. After film was relatively expensive then.

[Il Grifone]

IIRC a film (monochrome) was around 4/-. processing around 2/- and 'Enprints' were 6d each. Not a problem for Meccano Ltd. of course. (It was for me!)

 

'Copping' either 'Liverpool' or 'London' would have been the problem. I suspect they just didn't care - "Near enough is good enough. It's just a toy!"

 

They modelled a 70xx series 'Castle' and then numbered her as '7013 Bristol Castle'*. Unfortunately this was actually '4082 Windsor Castle' and thus wrong. As a 70xx, she should have had a Hawksworth straight sided tender**. Probably again they relied on dodgy drawings and photos.

 

* The only correct choice was '7032 Denbigh Castle' of the four variations.

**  The (G)WR was fond of swopping tenders so probably a pedantic point anyway.

 

Still when you can sell your LNER N2 0-6-2T in the livery of all four companies....

[TerryD1471]

10 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

We're back to the scant information available at the time and a redesign of the tender chassis was not likely in any case (probably no-one noticed!). We got the change in height of the front of the tender and that's your lot. Any photos available would have been the usual three-quarters front as like as not.

 

I did consider modifying a tender in the past and dropped the idea.

Interesting you should say that, David, as I did just that on 3 H/D tenders (and probably gave H/D collectors apoplexy!). The mods were:-

1 Grind away the rear frame steps so the rear frames were flush(ish)

2 Extend the sides at the rear with styrene strip

3 Extend the tender sides upwards ditto

4 Remove the breather pipes at the back of the tender and install two tank fillers

5 Fit a ladder over the rear of the tender.

6 Make  the coal pusher gubbins on the back of the coal space using scrap styrene

 

The end result was tolerable until the Comet tender kits became available.

 

Terry

 

PS 7013 Bristol Castle was indeed an unfortunate choice of prototype as the inside cylinder covers were a different shape from those of 4082 as well.

Edited July 16, 2020 by TerryD1471
Add PS

[Il Grifone]

I was thinking along the lines of soldering tinplate strip rather than styrene, but the killer was filing off the steps - Dublo alloy is hard! Replacing the acetate and invariably shrunken coal load with real coal is also worth doing.

IIRC The Tri-ang Streamlined Coronation used the Dublo tender chassis as is (Actually from the 8F, but it's much the same as the Duchess apart from the rivets.

 

HD Duchess tenders are common enough not to be collectible (MIB and CPR versions excepted).

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Yes, the Tri-ang Hornby Streamlined Princess Coronation locos used diecast chassis supplied by G&R Wrenn, former Hornby Dublo tooling...

[TerryD1471]

On 16/07/2020 at 14:43, Il Grifone said:

I was thinking along the lines of soldering tinplate strip rather than styrene, but the killer was filing off the steps - Dublo alloy is hard! Replacing the acetate and invariably shrunken coal load with real coal is also worth doing.

IIRC The Tri-ang Streamlined Coronation used the Dublo tender chassis as is (Actually from the 8F, but it's much the same as the Duchess apart from the rivets.

 

HD Duchess tenders are common enough not to be collectible (MIB and CPR versions excepted).

Actually I was referring to modifying the later plastic bodied tenders. At the risk of sounding facetious, I can't solder plastic, but having said that, I have taken one older tinplate bodied H/D tender and done exactly what you suggest viz. soldered a brass or tinplate strip on top of the tinplate sides. The results were not perfect, but acceptable(ish).

 

I haven't tried grinding off the steps from an older tender chassis, but have used dental burrs in a mini-electric drill to remove the steps from the later type of tender chassis; this was not that arduous.

 

It's very good to hear of the experiences of someone who has tried similar mods to mine.

[Il Grifone]

Yes it would be easier to start with a plastic tender, but the donor would have been an 'Atholl' or 'Montrose' in my case.

I have a Kitmaster tender in bits in a box somewhere. IIRC this fails to be an ex-streamlined tender as well, but seems dimensionally challenged to my eye. Perhaps it's just me.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

I seem to remember that the Kitmaster Princess Coronation was researched from some inaccurate drawings...

[David_Belcher]

On 18/07/2020 at 22:41, Sarahagain said:

I seem to remember that the Kitmaster Princess Coronation was researched from some inaccurate drawings...

It's a bit of a funny one. There's something about the Kitmaster tender that looks a bit odd (it seems more like a Scot one) plus the front end of the loco has a curved footplate which is wrong for 46225...but the deflector plates are the right sort for that name/number combo!!

 

David

[LMS2968]

Yes, it's a while since I've seen one, but as I recall, the tender was more like a nine ton type than ten to. I seem to remember it was riveted but could be wrong on that.

[Il Grifone]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Yes, it's a while since I've seen one, but as I recall, the tender was more like a nine ton type than ten to. I seem to remember it was riveted but could be wrong on that.

 

Yes rivets and a raised moulded line for the lining.

 

The locomotive seemed large to me, but that could have been the effect of the correct size driving wheels.

Despite being 46225 the model had the curved dropped running plate of the later Duchesses.

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/kitmaster-4-duchess-gloucester-coronation-class--182031

 

The model (made up as 46231):

 

https://uamf.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=12843

 

and the real thing:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#/media/File:Crewe_railway_station_geograph-2413395-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

[David_Belcher]

15 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#/media/File:Crewe_railway_station_geograph-2413395-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

Brilliant photo, very atmospheric and full of interesting little details like the wicker baskets etc. on the platform.

 

David

[Il Grifone]

The next photo (to the right) shows 6233 in black as preserved.

 

Now I need yet another Duchess....

Edited July 21, 2020 by Il Grifone

[MikeCW]

On 19/07/2020 at 09:41, Sarahagain said:

I seem to remember that the Kitmaster Princess Coronation was researched from some inaccurate drawings...

 

On 21/07/2020 at 05:21, Il Grifone said:

Despite being 46225 the model had the curved dropped running plate of the later Duchesses.

 

 

The Kitmaster Duchess in the photos referenced by David is beautifully finished.  I noticed that, although the model has the continuous, curved dropped running plate at the front, the smoke deflectors are the abbreviated type used on engines which have the "utility" style break in the running plate i.e. the smoke deflectors have no lower extension following the curve of the running plate.

 

This (incorrect) combination features in the Roche drawing of a non-streamlined Duchess.  So perhaps this was the source of the Kitmaster mouldings? Probably we will never know.

 

Mike

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by MikeCW
Clarification

[LMS2968]

Possibly. It doesn't explain the tender, though. Roche shows a drawing of the nine ton type (M/TE/20) but also the ten ton (M/TE/25), although this is for the non-streamlined version, and specifies, "FOR 7P PACIFICS".

[MikeCW]

You'll note on the drawing towards the bottom right that Roche (correctly) specifies M/TE/25, his drawing of the ten ton type for non-streamlined Duchesses, as the tender for this engine.  As you say LMS2968, the Kitmaster combination is all a bit of a mystery.

[David_Belcher]

On 22/07/2020 at 20:31, MikeCW said:

You'll note on the drawing towards the bottom right that Roche (correctly) specifies M/TE/25, his drawing of the ten ton type for non-streamlined Duchesses, as the tender for this engine.  As you say LMS2968, the Kitmaster combination is all a bit of a mystery.

Did the Kitmaster Duchess come first, or their TT Rebuilt Scot? If the latter, I wonder if they just scaled it up from the existing Scot tender blueprints etc.?

 

David

Edited July 28, 2020 by David_Belcher
Signed the post.

[Il Grifone]

IIRC the Duchess was one of the first series.

[rockershovel]

I’m enjoying this thread, not least for its balanced view - “things were different then, and in some respects better - but only in SOME respects, and significantly worse in others”.

 

I’ve been working through the sizeable collection of Hornby 3-Rail which I’ve become, more or less, custodian of for the Club. On the whole, and from experience of Tri-Ang in my own youth I’d offer the following observatiins

 

- Hornby cast-body locomotives are far superior to Tri-Ang, in terms of general “sense of the prototype” but in play value, less so. The painted metal bodies take on a “play-worn” appearance which is difficult to address. 

 

- Hornby tinplate Track is definitely more durable than Tri-Ang track, with its open moulded sleepers, fragile clips and tiny fishplates. Later track systems, from Lima to Lionel, definitely fare better with their moulded “simulated ballast” bases, given that no “serious modeller” uses any of them. 

 

- having endorsed Hornby locos so ringingly, I’ll vote the other way for tinplate rolling stock, especially carriages. These looked “old fashioned’” in the 50s and 60s, and are impossible to touch up or refinish effectively 

 

 

[Il Grifone]

To be fair Dublo did modernise their range in the late fifties. (I can remember rushing to my local shop with 6/(d in my hot little hand to purchase the new Grain Wagon.) The tinplate SD6 coaches captured the look of flush sided vehicles better than anything in plastic. If only they had made them the right length! The 2 rail track is very good, but fragile. Again with hindsight polythene would have been better than polystyrene.

 

Which is worse scratched finish or bits broken off? Tri-ang transfers rub off easily and the heat printing is awful.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Il Grifone

[rockershovel]

I definitely thought that the Tri-Ang TPO was far superior in operation, to the Hornby Dublo version. 

[Il Grifone]

I'll have to differ on that one! The Dublo one was based on a real (ex GWR) van and like its prototype discharges the bag on the same side as it collects. On the other hand, it does tend to jam.