Jump to content

ddoherty958

Hornby dublo

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

8F outing with mineral wagons

 

Yesterday's sunshine was an opportunity to give the Hornby Dublo 8F a breath of fresh air, and a train of mostly Hornby mineral wagons seemed appropriate (they're the ones with the solid brake gear!).

 

large.20200620_150714.jpg.1e6aef113309a276f36bad4229e590cb.jpg

 

 

But the wagons don't look too bad in most respects:

 

large.20200620_173411a.jpg.2bf6516bd50fe06f154242b1133ccbf4.jpg

 

 

 

large.20200620_175109a.jpg.d26ddaa456204c15e867f7183b343229.jpg

 

 

 

Anyone for rivet counting?  It's a shame about the cab full of motor.

 

large.20200620_175206.jpg.efedbd0e2038898660e07d31083dc3b0.jpg

 

 

The full story of the Dorking Garden Railway can be found here:

https://www.oogardenrailway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/354-the-dorking-garden-railway/

 

 

 

Edited by Dorkingian
correction
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dorkingian said:

 It's a shame about the cab full of motor.

 

large.20200620_175206.jpg.efedbd0e2038898660e07d31083dc3b0.jpg

 

 

I had a three-rail one of those, bought when 3-rail was being sold off cheap, but I could never stop it squealing / slowing down after a period of running.

 

With retrospect, I've a feeling that the armature expanded marginally when running, just enough to contact the interior bore of the Ringfield magnet. I tried adjusting the armature shaft rear bearing, but nothing worked.

 

The loco has now been rebuilt to 2-rail with Markits wheels, and a Pittman motor in place of the Ringfield, which no longer intrudes into the cab.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

a Pittman motor in place of the Ringfield, which no longer intrudes into the cab.

 

I'd be interested to know what model of motor was used please, and whether the replacement was a major job.  That operation would seem to allow for lowering the gearing, which would be a great improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dorkingian said:

 

I'd be interested to know what model of motor was used please, and whether the replacement was a major job.  That operation would seem to allow for lowering the gearing, which would be a great improvement.

 

It's a long time ago, but I have a recollection of it being moderately complex - ie. not just a drop-in exchange.

 

Packing under the new motor, and probably drilling the chassis for a new motor fixing screw.

 

At least there's plenty of room for the new motor when the huge Ringfield is removed.

 

I can't recall if I found a worm that would mesh with the original driven axle gear wheel; most probably, I used a Romford worm / gear set.

 

The motor was an unused, boxed Pittman bought cheaply on Ebay; it has transformed the 8F into a superb, slow-running and powerful loco.

 

Once stripped, the Hornby Dublo body has very pronounced rivet detail, which I reduced somewhat with emery paper.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

The motor was an unused, boxed Pittman bought cheaply on Ebay; it has transformed the 8F into a superb, slow-running and powerful loco.

 

I have found the spec sheet for the motor - a DC-60.

 

1730177837_Specsheet1.JPG.e8c4b0f988643fa835b8764a67781a5e.JPG

 

1992112482_Specsheet2.JPG.0d5062516995973ff0da3c078a6a8d01.JPG

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've committed the heresy of fitting an X.04 to the ringfield chassis of my latest (third) Dublo Castle (an ASP described elsewhere. The gear is from the layshaft of either a Dublo Deltic or Co-Bo. I never could stand the cab full of motor!

I have a spare Pittman (from a Formo 0-6-0 and similar to (the same as?) the above DC-60). Perhaps it would be an improvement on the X.04? I have still to finalise the motor mounting, so I would still be in time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never owned a Ringfield 8F for the reasons stated: the protrusion of the motor into and beyond the cab. But I did have two 8Fs with the half-inch motor and found them more than adequate for any task. They were capable of hauling thirty wagons and a brake around the circuit, and this on the inside track with 15 inch curves, and about 16 feet of straight between them. I don't think I could ask for more than that!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current HD restoration project. I bought a cheap, 2-railed 'Montrose' online which cosmetically was in a bad way due to a repaint although it runs absolutely fine. So far the paint has been stripped and the battered tinplate tender top switched for a plastic Wrenn one. Being a conversion, it has Romford wheels nearer to the proper size than the Dublo original ones (the magnet pole pieces have been trimmed to suit).

 

The painting and detailing is going to take a while but a lined BR green 46249 'City of Sheffield' will emerge eventually. Not quite right for L&Y territory east of the Pennines but I'll find an excuse to run it...

dublo1.jpg

dublo2.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dublo Duchess & City locos can be refinished as a very passable loco.This is my City Of Liverpool in BR green with Fox transfers & a tinplate tender.The biggest fault with the Montrose casting isthat the rear driving wheels don`t line up with the splasher,a fault that wasn`t corrected until the City castings came along.

 

                       Ray.

C of L 2.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly true, but the firebox was far better on the earlier engines. The later ones look as though they were trimmed slightly from a square block. The earlier ones were also too low at the rear so the cab roof didn't line up with the tender front plate, although that's not too difficult to correct.

 

These are a modified 'Duchess of Atoll', and one of the two types together.

6231_2.JPG

6231_3.JPG

6231_4.JPG

6231-32_24-11-13_1.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

That is certainly true, but the firebox was far better on the earlier engines. The later ones look as though they were trimmed slightly from a square block. The earlier ones were also too low at the rear so the cab roof didn't line up with the tender front plate, although that's not too difficult to correct.

 

These are a modified 'Duchess of Atoll', and one of the two types together.

6231_2.JPG

6231_3.JPG

6231_4.JPG

 

 

Thanks for the post - if you've a top tip on how to correct the 'droopy' driving cab I'd be interested to hear it! It is very apparent from my photo that 46249 doesn't currently have a matching tender/cab height aesthetic. :-(

 

The really tricky job I've saddled myself with is adding the safety valves/recess to the cab roof, so some careful drilling and filing will be needed to make a square hole...

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sagaguy said:

The Dublo Duchess & City locos can be refinished as a very passable loco.This is my City Of Liverpool in BR green with Fox transfers & a tinplate tender.The biggest fault with the Montrose casting isthat the rear driving wheels don`t line up with the splasher,a fault that wasn`t corrected until the City castings came along.

 

                       Ray.

C of L 2.jpg

 

As a teenager I had the tender driven Rovex one...there was always something about it (even though it had the right size driving wheels) that didn't look at all right compared to the Wrenn/HD one...too short perhaps, or too compact a wheelbase? The scale-length Princess was much better, on the other hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

That is certainly true, but the firebox was far better on the earlier engines. The later ones look as though they were trimmed slightly from a square block.

Just a thought - was there any noticeable difference in real life? I wasn't sure if this might be a genuine consequence of 'defrocked' Pacifics like London & Liverpool having a slightly different prototype appearance from ones like Atholl & Montrose that were unstreamlined from the off.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

That is certainly true, but the firebox was far better on the earlier engines. The later ones look as though they were trimmed slightly from a square block. The earlier ones were also too low at the rear so the cab roof didn't line up with the tender front plate, although that's not too difficult to correct.

 

These are a modified 'Duchess of Atoll', and one of the two types together.

 

I agree that the firebox profile on the "Cities" was too pronounced, but have always felt that the firebox profile on the earlier casting was not pronounced enough.  Somewhere between the two seems about right to my eyes.

 

I agree too that it makes a considerable difference to the overall stance and "presence" of the locomotive if that slight "droop" towards the stern of the "Duchess" locomotives can be corrected, as shown to advantage in LMS2968's photos.

 

The photos also show a correction to another visual problem with the Hornby-Dublo LM Pacifics, the yawning gap between engine and tender. This may be necessary for the models to negotiate the tight curves of tinplate track but, again to my eyes, it makes the model look like it is made up of two disconnected items. If the locomotive cab roof can be raised to line up with the tender, and the engine/tender gap reduced, the result is a far better proportioned unit, conveying a sense of the power of the prototype - again as LMS2968's Duchess of Atholl shows well.

 

By contrast, I think that the smaller gap between engine and tender on the Dublo A4s makes for a more convincing unit straight out of the box, notwithstanding the well-known problems with the A4 body casting.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding to my last post, here is my Ivatt Pacific, bodged from a Hornby-Dublo "City of London" at least 30 years ago, fitted with Romford driving wheels closer to scale which, as in David Belcher's conversion, required filing of the motor pole pieces.  I've posted the photo before but am putting it up again as it shows my modification to the front corners of the firebox.  I've softened the square shoulders of the Hornby-Dublo casting by filing and sanding, probably too much in retrospect.  The engine still sits too low at the stern when engine/tender height are compared.  I'm pretty sure that this is the result of my fitting a new tender chassis with larger, near-scale, wheels, inside the original Dublo tender chassis casting.610305009_P1020015Dublo.jpg.91080af630892adb91ee6310448db2b2.jpg

 

The following photographs illustrate the other comments in my earlier post.  The Hattons photo of a "Duchess of Montrose", which I bought for repair and repainting, shows to advantage the enormous gap between engine and tender.  (Because the chassis hadn't been properly slotted into the body at the cab end when the photo was taken, the cab sits far too high.) 

1222590187_EDL12-PO21_3546177_Qty1_2(2).jpg.e85527a5663b88c13e6727c6495e05ad.jpg

 

"Duchess of Buccleuch", another "Montrose" repaint previously posted, shows the customary "Atholl/Montrose" dip at the cab end, resulting in misaligned cab roof and tender top, as well as the large engine/tender gap.

P1020604.jpg.718eae2062484908a29197d315696a7e.jpg

 

And my most recent repaint, a three rail "City of Glasgow" in early BR Blue with the bevelled top to the front of the smokebox carried by the ex-streamliners until their next "heavy general". I think that this photo  shows the altogether better appearance resulting from a properly aligned cab and tender, and a closer engine/tender coupling, when compared with 46230 above.  (With reference to David Belcher's question, my understanding is that this smokebox modification (to fit under the streamlined casing) was the only significant difference in firebox/boiler/smokebox  dimensions between the streamlined, un-streamlined and de-streamlined Coronation Pacifics.)

 

828473935_CityOfGlasgow1.jpg.092aacb70c41f3c8aea7840c23e5cf56.jpg

 

Mike

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. I didn't think that would provoke so much reaction! The Atoll conversion was done many decades ago and it was a static model; it wouldn't run on a three-rail layout with those wheels! But the Montrose in the lower photo was in regular use and a couple of the modifications made.

 

How to line up the cab roof? MikeCW has supplied part of the answer: the body, all of which is too low at the trailing end, is retained by two tongues protruding forward from a steel plate riveted to the cab sides and engaging in slots in the rear of the cast chassis. I filed away the tongues, then added more sheet steel (two sheets, if I remember) below the original flat plate, the lower one including filed out tongues. The effect is to raise the rear of the body by  few millimetres, which is all it takes.

 

The tender drawbar was changed for another fabricated one, but, if memory serves, six millimetres shorter. Why Macanno made that big gap, I don't know, as the engine still easily negotiates 15 inch curves, but looks a lot better.

 

I can't agree that the Duchess firebox is understated; it's actually a bit overlarge to clear the motor pole pieces behind it. On the real engines, the trailing splashers are discrete items and visible for their full length; on the model the firebox overlaps them. But the main issue is the that real engines had firebox sides and roofs which were slightly compound curved and this is far better reflected in the Duchess model; the City's is far too flat and slab sided.

 

The sloping smokebox has its own tale. It wasn't replaced at the first Heavy General overhaul but only when it was life expired: 6246 retained the sloping top to mid-1960! And then it was only the top section which was changed, with new cylindrical steel welded in. I suspect that the front ring where the door is located was worn out and had to be replaced, so the top had to be changed to conform to the new ring. As an aside, The doors on the sloping top engines were not central in the ring but lowered a few inches to give clearance at the top. Strange but true!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, David_Belcher said:

The really tricky job I've saddled myself with is adding the safety valves/recess to the cab roof, so some careful drilling and filing will be needed to make a square hole...

 

Try using a square hole bit. ;)

 

https://www.woodmagazine.com/woodworking-tips/techniques/drilling-boring/how-a-mortiser-drills-square-holes

Edited by Colin_McLeod
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Try using a square hole bit. ;)

 

Answers the age old question how do you get a square peg in a round hole?

 

Use a mortiser to make the peg fit. :D

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see...so the later firebox casting is to clear the updated motor assembly. Mystery solved!!

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

 

 

How to line up the cab roof? MikeCW has supplied part of the answer: the body, all of which is too low at the trailing end, is retained by two tongues protruding forward from a steel plate riveted to the cab sides and engaging in slots in the rear of the cast chassis. I filed away the tongues, then added more sheet steel (two sheets, if I remember) below the original flat plate, the lower one including filed out tongues. The effect is to raise the rear of the body by  few millimetres, which is all it takes.

 

 

 

Thanks. Sounds like a ticklish job but worth thinking about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. the HD body looking more like a Stanier Pacific than the Rovex one - the latter is too stretched at the back end; firebox is too long and the trailing truck is stretched out. I'm assuming this was maybe done to allow the Scotsman chassis block to be used with little alteration??

 

At the front end, the cylinder moulding is over-deep and the front bogie too short in wheelbase.

 

Final score: Binns Road 1 Margate 0

 

David

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David_Belcher said:

 

Thanks. Sounds like a ticklish job but worth thinking about!

Not really, it just takes time.

 

If it were difficult, I couldn't have done it!

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Part of the problem with the Athol/Montrose is that the front of the frames does not fit the curved part of the running plate correctly. Filing off the protruding part or the chassis block so that it seats properly makes the driving wheels line up better with the splashers. I did this with the 'Montrose' I converted to 2 rail in the early sixties (with genuine Dublo spares) along with cutting off the front prong on the tender, allowing it to close couple to the locomotive. My intention was to lift the cab to line up with the tender, by fitting the correct (or at least 26mm) drivers, but that is one of those jobs.... (The tender gained flanged wheels on all axles and a real coal load). At some time I repainted her and lined/lettered with P.C. Models (that long ago) Methfix transfers. She still awaits nameplates, probably as 46230, but is still numbered 46232 at present.

Edited by Il Grifone
Keyboard finger trouble "Fitting"???
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.