Jump to content
 

Hornby dublo


ddoherty958
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

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. Fitting 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.

I took a file to the front end to cure this. Not 100% resolved but better than the original. And VERY careful bending of the tongued steel plate in the cab with long-nosed pliers this evening now means that the droopy cab is history! Thanks folks for tips & advice.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

 

 

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!

I find myself in considerable agreement  with LMS2968. But first, an apology for setting a hare running. When I implied that the Hornby-Dublo  "Duchess" firebox profile was understated I should have made clear that I was referring only to the "shoulders" on the top front. As in the photo below of "Sir William" these are quite pronounced, depending of course on angle of view and the light. I still think they are are too soft on the "Duchess" casting but, all down to the eye of the beholder.

 

1731480708_2020-07-02_101025(3).jpg.1370b8da587adcab355fa396af042c60.jpg

 

More generally, the comments quoted above sent me off to dig out unmolested examples of the two Dublo LM Pacifics for closer examination at the dining room table. My wife rolled her eyes,  affectionately of course, but in truth there's not much incentive for outside activities on a cold, rainy and windswept Southern Hemisphere winter day.

 

 To my eyes the body castings for both have their problems as the photos below may show. 

P1020966.jpg.fe9b5ddb4aa78c28a362aa82440be30e.jpg

 Both castings have compromises to accommodate the vertical motor.  Looking first at the fireboxes from the top, to my eye the "City" casting has a more convincing firebox shape.  But that's about the best news. Because to achieve this convincing top view and fit the body over the motor, the firebox top is slightly over-scale which, in turn, results in some difficulties when it comes down to meet the running plate - of which more anon.

 

While the covers for the washout plugs on the "Duchess" are probably too large, at least they are on the shoulders of the firebox and not curiously placed on the top as with the "City". The compromises in both castings become more apparent in the following views.

P1020968.jpg.78331d3b7afe5f3f5f8a30ec5055e049.jpgP1020967.jpg.98dfe95348f62107f178cb966366918a.jpg

 

1. Both fireboxes taper insufficiently back towards the cab.  If one compares the two photos above with the first photo of the real 6256, the fireboxes on both models come right up to the bottom  corners of the cab window. On the prototype they are well inside the window frames.

2. The "Duchess" firebox side has a curious curve or rounded shape throughout, not at all like the flatter profile of the prototype, seen in both prototype photos posted here. The "City" firebox side is flatter, I think as per the prototype but, because it is too wide at the top, has to have a steeper slope from top to bottom to meet the running plate at a sensible distance from the edge That gives it the square, slab-sided look referred to by LMS2968.

3. Both castings fudge the area around the rear splasher, the motor pole pieces preventing full development of this feature. The "Duchess" casting includes a curious "pipe" across the vestigial splasher, not found in any prototype photos I've examined.

 

(You may have noticed on my model of 6256 in my previous post how I spent considerable time cutting away the firebox casting and building a full rear splasher.)  

 

Finally (Thank Heavens did I hear?) a comparison of the firebox/running plate junction.  In the photograph below of the original "Duchess of Montrose" you can see how, due to the rearward taper of the firebox, the running plate widens as it goes back alongside the firebox towards the cab front.  (The firebox top and side cladding look near-flat in this view, but the top to bottom angle of the side is much more pronounced than the near vertical sides of the City casting.)

2098643243_2020-07-02_114441(3).jpg.bedd554c3bb997f7eeb839b6303d0685.jpg

 

This area on the two Hornby-Dublo castings.

 

P1020969.jpg.5619ed51ba33f29a9f40774cd4be3e68.jpgP1020970.jpg.9248efc0eb6e03db90565f9c24612249.jpg

 

The "Duchess"  casting shows this taper on the running plate, just, but the "City" casting does not. If anything, the running plate narrows slightly as it nears the cab front.

 

So what does this long-winded narrative prove.  Not much if truth be told. Both castings have their faults and, annoyingly, the later casting, while addressing some of the problems with the earlier one, introduced new ones. On balance, I still think that the "City"  casting is better but have renewed respect for the venerable "Atholl/Montrose" bodies. 

 

On the bevelled smokebox, thank you LMS2968 for the correction about the reasons for and process of replacement. I had read somewhere of an ex-streamliner having a cylindrical smokebox fitted at a heavy general repair and assumed, wrongly, that this was the usual practice. In that case it seems that the life-expiry of the smokebox just happened to correspond with a scheduled "heavy general".

 

Mike

Edited by MikeCW
Clarification
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's a piece of research worthy of Sir Harold Hartley himself, scientist in charge of the LMS's department of that name! I can't agree with the conclusions that the City firebox is better than that of the Duchess as, to me, there's just too much of the former, but as pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We can agree to disagree.

 

We mustn't forget that this model's tooling dates from before World War II and, even with it's faults, it was an incredibly accurate model for its time. The City came much later so there is less excuse for its failings, but if you then stand it alongside a Triang model of a Princess, it's much better and looks far more realistic.

 

As you say, both models have their strengths and weaknesses, but must be considered as toys for the nursery floor, yet it's still possible to make fairly accurate scale models from them; it says a lot. Although there were many later models of the class from various manufacturers which included far more detail, I always felt the original Dublo model was far better at giving the IMPRESSION of the engines, and relinquished this superiority only in recent times.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't really noticed, though I remember, as a child, having trouble refitting the Duchess chassis in the body. I was instructed by Dad not to take it apart again! (Needless to say, I didn't take any notice.... that little spanner just asked to be used!)

 

In any case either Dublo firebox (and the tender) is far better than the Rowell effort (which was allegedly a scale model). (IMHO)

 

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rowell-metal-kit-built-duchess-831871783

 

(Usual disclaimer.)

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MikeCW said:

P1020968.jpg.78331d3b7afe5f3f5f8a30ec5055e049.jpg

2. The "Duchess" firebox side has a curious curve or rounded shape throughout, not at all like the flatter profile of the prototype, seen in both prototype photos posted here. The "City" firebox side is flatter, I think as per the prototype but, because it is too wide at the top, has to have a steeper slope from top to bottom to meet the running plate at a sensible distance from the edge That gives it the square, slab-sided look referred to by LMS2968.

3. Both castings fudge the area around the rear splasher, the motor pole pieces preventing full development of this feature. The "Duchess" casting includes a curious "pipe" across the vestigial splasher, not found in any prototype photos I've examined.

 

I've been pondering on this and why I had never noticed it on my models, and I now realise that that's because it isn't there! Have a look at the photos on the previous page and you'll see what I mean. Why it's appeared on your model I have no idea.

 

The slot in the boiler barrel was there on the real engines and provided sufficient clearance to lift the lids of the mechanical lubricators. On some models, the slot was changed to a protruding rectangular lug, on one side only, I think. Michael Foster Mentions it on page 103, although I've only ever seen one example in the metal. Again, I've no idea why.

Edited by LMS2968
Missed a bit of original post!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2020 at 02:21, Il Grifone said:

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. 

 

As with LMS2968's comments about the respective merits of the "Duchess" and "City" castings, your comment also sent me off rummaging for my "Atholl", "Montrose" and "City" models as well as a prototype photo or two for comparison.  I had known about the misaligned driving wheels and splashers on the "Duchess" models but hadn't fully realised that this was due to the whole chassis sitting too far back under the body.

 

The photos below illustrate Il Grifone's point.

864796402_2020-07-03_133915(3).jpg.91426fe1252fc18983ffad73a23a6ed2.jpg

813450451_Inv29.jpg.58d18630c79bd95abd4e9e4373c33d8d.jpg

1985921344_Inv1.jpg.3cd8880310bce98eb9a6b25ab5da0451.jpg

Several things registered with me when I lined up these photos.

(1) On the prototype 6235, the rear edge of the smoke-deflector is almost exactly in line with the rear edge of the outside cylinder lagging cover. On the "Duchess of Montrose" the cylinder is set noticeably to the rear of this position.

(2) The front bogie axle on 6235 is in line with the front of the smokebox, which can just be made out where the hand rail ends. On the "Duchess" model, the axle of the front bogie wheel is clearly to the rear of the front of the smokebox.

(3) Lining up the various lubricators and sand-box lids on the running plates with the driving wheels of 6235 and the Dublo "Duchess" tells the same story.

(4) However, although the rear carrying wheels of the "Duchess" are set back towards the cab slightly more than those of 6235 (put a straight edge on the axle bearing in both photos) the difference is very small.

(5) The same tests on the"City" will show the chassis is a much more prototypical fit under the body casting.

 

Incidentally, the "Montrose" model is a different one to that which featured in my previous posts (a much better cared for example!) but the body casting has the same "pipe" over the rear splasher. Indeed a mystery.

 

The misaligned body and chassis demonstrated on the "Duchess of Atholl".

 

486306746_6231DuchessofAtholl-XL(3).jpg.e950b96b8e646a9d4c6192b4f718a5a3.jpg

P1020981.jpg.70bfd039f680d6c5ad43ac4bb9357d33.jpg

Notice the position of the front bogie wheel in relation to the smokebox front; the gap between the front of the outside cylinder casting and the drop in the running plate; and, compared with the "Montrose" above, a rear carrying wheel set further back than on the real thing.

 

Does all this have a point?  Well, I found it instructive.  It seems to me if, when refurbishing and/or repainting a Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" (as opposed to a "City"), I can do three things:

(1) lift the rear of the body to correct the "sag" at the cab end and therefore better align the cab roof and tender;

(2) move the chassis forward by a small amount as per Il Grifone's modification; and

(3) shorten the engine/tender drawbar to close up the yawning gap between the two;

the overall effect will be significant. It will still be a Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" but will have a "presence"  and  visual tidiness which Tom Coleman and his team achieved with the real thing. In fact, with these minor tweaks, I don't think I'd necessarily prefer a "City" to a "Duchess" as a basis for a repaint after all.

 

Mike

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2020 at 02:42, LMS2968 said:

I've been pondering on this and why I had never noticed it on my models, and I now realise that that's because it isn't there! Have a look at the photos on the previous page and you'll see what I mean. Why it's appeared on your model I have no idea.

 

The slot in the boiler barrel was there on the real engines and provided sufficient clearance to lift the lids of the mechanical lubricators. On some models, the slot was changed to a protruding rectangular lug, on one side only, I think. Michael Foster Mentions it on page 103, although I've only ever seen one example in the metal. Again, I've no idea why.

 

I looked at the photos on the previous page. The curious "pipe" on the rear "half-splasher" is clearly visible in the photo of David Belcher's bare metal "Duchess" included in his post of last Wednesday.  But as you say, it's not there on your "Atholl".  Neither is it on my two "Atholls" - one in a set and the other a nicely boxed original. (And I don't believe it was ever on the new casting for the "Cities".) 

 

I have half a dozen "Montroses" from different eras; some gloss, others matte.  All have the "pipe"; more pronounced on some but clearly there on all of them. That itself is a mild curiosity as I've always thought that, apart from the slots for the smoke deflectors, the "Atholl" and "Montrose" castings were the same. A bit of a mystery but hardly of any great consequence for humankind.

 

The protruding rectangle on a small number of "Atholls" is, as I understand it, explained by the nature of the moulds used for casting the locomotive bodies.  The following explanation was given to me by a now-deceased English pattern maker who seemed both well-informed and not a blowhard. In those pre- computer controlled, spark erosion days, the steel moulds were cut by highly skilled pattern makers and machinists.  It was far easier for them to incorporate detail which protruded on the finished model (such as pipes and oil fittings) as this only required these features to be cut into the mould.

 

A recessed feature on the final model was a problem as it required the whole mould to be cut away to leave this item standing proud.  A far more cost-efficient technique was to make the component separately and pin or otherwise attach it to the mould. In the case of the rectangular slots in the "Duchess" boiler, the pattern makers cut a corresponding slot in the mould into which a rectangle of the same size was forced.  This rectangle was taller than the depth of the slot in the mould and stood proud of the surface, creating the slot in the boiler when the model was cast.

 

But one day this piece fell out of the mould (probably stuck to one of the mazak bodies as it was released) and the "Atholl" bodies which were subsequently cast in that mould, before the problem was noticed, ended up with a protruding rectangular box instead of a recess.  It doesn't say much for the quality control at Binns Road that these bodies were then painted and detailed, fitted to their chassis, tested, packaged and sent out the door, without anyone noticing.  Or perhaps they did and didn't worry!

 

This is apparently the reason those aeroplane kits we made inexpertly in the 1950s and 60s had raised panel lines - a lot easier to cut into a mould by the pattern maker.  Now of course, with computer design and computer controlled machining, such constraints no longer exist.

 

Mike  

 

 

 

 

Edited by MikeCW
Grammar. Clarification.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2020 at 02:49, MikeCW said:

 

More generally, the comments quoted above sent me off to dig out unmolested examples of the two Dublo LM Pacifics for closer examination at the dining room table. My wife rolled her eyes,  affectionately of course, but in truth there's not much incentive for outside activities on a cold, rainy and windswept Southern Hemisphere winter day.

 

 To my eyes the body castings for both have their problems as the photos below may show. 

P1020966.jpg.fe9b5ddb4aa78c28a362aa82440be30e.jpg

 

Thanks for the bird's eye view - this'll come in handy for modifying the Montrose body to take a set of Rovex brass safety valves!

 

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Watch for the whistle, which wasn't central but offset to the fireman's side.

 

A very good point LMS2968, one that I'd missed completely, and well shown on 6233 and 6229 in BR days. Trawling through my modest library was frustrating as 90% of the photos of these engines are of the 3/4 front view popularised by Eric Treacy and imitated by generations of photographers since. Finding a view of the top of the cab and boiler was a rare occurrence indeed. 

 

 Based on these two photos it also seems as if, in BR days at least, the recess for the safety valves was not quite as Hornby-Dublo modelled it on the "City" body casting.  It looks to me as if the square recess with rounded corners was covered by a plate with four round holes, one over each of the safety valves - a lot easier proposition for David Belcher to incorporate in his "Duchess" modification.

 

Mike

235490599_2020-07-06_095628(2).jpg.7062c7b05aea417121479f31dd2483c9.jpg

 

2020-07-06_101106_(2).jpg.7dd2320d734cdfa1d4212e5542afd347.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! Was the plate a feature of the streamliners or possibly only fitted to the earlier ones and left off later and/or non-streamlined examples ('City of London/Liverpool' for example)?

 

There appears to be a difference between the pony truck mounting on the 'Atholl' and 'Montrose'. I don't think there is any difference in the truck castings.

 

I can't check at the moment, as I'm still stuck in Sardinia (My thermometer was stuck against its end stop (50℃ +) the other day as I'd left it in the sun!). We're due to fly back on Thursday, but will still have to quarantine, I understand, as this will be lifted on Friday! Typical! SWMBO has already stated she is not going and I am undecided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that the 'plate' was fitted to all and was very necessary. The safety valves, remember, were sited within the cab roof to bring them below the loading gauge limit. It probably isn't realised how much steam and boiling water escape sideways when the valves lift, and in this case would enter the cab proper where it would be a positive danger to the crew. The plate had vertical walls to prevent this, but by all accounts it wasn't a hundred percent effective. Great trouble was usually taken to prevent a Big Lizzie blowing off, not assisted by a tendency for at least one valve to blow off light, working down to 180 p.s.i. instead of the designed 250.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had another trawl through various publications to find more photos but appear to have exhausted my supply of those which clearly show the safety valves. I've found a number (especially in David Jenkinson's The Power of the Duchesses, OPC 1979), which appear to show the same cover as on as 6233 and 6229. But drifting steam from the safety valves, reflected light, quality of reproduction, or simply the distance from which the photo was taken mean that I can't be sure. Turning the proposition around, none show clearly the uncovered recess as modelled by Hornby-Dublo on the "City" body casting.

 

The Roche drawing shows the same arrangement as Hornby-Dublo's "City" - the uncovered, square recess with rounded corners.  Perhaps this was the source for the Binns Road pattern-makers.  Perhaps we'll never know!

 

Mike

Edited by MikeCW
Punctuation
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MikeCW said:

I had another trawl through various publications to find more photos but appear to have exhausted my supply of those which clearly show the safety valves. I've found a number (especially in David Jenkinson's The Power of the Duchesses, OPC 1979), which appear to show the same cover as on as 6233 and 6229. But drifting steam from the safety valves, reflected light, quality of reproduction, or simply the distance from which the photo was taken mean that I can't be sure. Turning the proposition around, none show clearly the uncovered recess as modelled by Hornby-Dublo on the "City" body casting.

 

The Roche drawing shows the same arrangement as Hornby-Dublo's "City" - the uncovered, square recess with rounded corners.  Perhaps this was the source for the Binns Road pattern-makers.  Perhaps we'll never know!

 

Mike

Roche drawings are prone to errors, mind, a classic was the Footballer tender on the B1 - a mistake replicated in the Jamieson metal kit.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Mr. Roche getting the blame again. His drawings and  the awful Skinley blueprints were all we had at the time. There were others in the model press from time to time, but....

 

I would have thought the plate ensured that steam/boiling water was directed into the cab.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing more photos or an authoritative source, it crossed my mind that the designers of  the current series of Hornby Princess Coronations might have done their homework and addressed this detail. From what I have been able to ascertain from photos of these models, at least (4)6256 has the "cover with four holes" as in the photos above.  Does anyone have an example of any of the other models in this series they can photograph?

 

My reference to the Roche drawing wasn't an endorsement of its accuracy.  My Roche drawing is dated  April 1948 and, as Il Grifone has said, they (and the Skinley blueprints) were the then standard, and sometimes used by the trade in model design (David Belcher's example of the Jamieson B1).  My suggestion was that the Binns Road designers, in preparing a new mould for the "City of London" in the late 1950s, might well have used the Roche drawing, right or wrong.

 

For the record, here is the cab end of the Roche drawing of a non-streamlined "Duchess".

 

69933414_RocheDrawing(2).jpg.b012e673656d80642136abdd01503635.jpg

 

Mike 

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Near the bottom of page 83 82 of the thread about the retooled Hornby Coronation Pacifics

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117259-Hornby-princess-coronation-class-duchess/page/82/

 

Robin Brasher has helpfully posted a photograph of the current Hornby "Duchess of Montrose" compared with Hornby-Dublo's 1950s product. Zooming in on the modern model shows clearly that Hornby have modelled the safety valve area as a "cover with four holes" rather than the "open-topped recess" of the Hornby-Dublo model.

 

"You pays your money....." 

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited by MikeCW
Correction. P82 not 83
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whistle now filed off ready for an off-centre brass one to take its place!

 

If the safety valve cover is a viable option then it makes the fitting and drilling a less daunting task.

 

(For the record, the old Kitmaster 'Gloucester' has a square recess and so does the original Rovex 'Sutherland').

 

I've found a grainy pic of 46249 that looks like it has the square cover too. Sadly 'from above' pics of the prototypes are few and far between (Jim Carter's books are a rare exception?).

 

UPDATE: quite a good one of 'Nottingham' here with the square plate. Same batch as 46249 so that's settled it for me...

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/4096400304

 

David

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My original 'Atholl' is to become 46251 so that picture is useful. She should have a 'streamlined' tender, but so should 'Atholl' (from 1946) so I'll let it pass. (or maybe a 'City' tender for both).

 

Dublo were unlucky with their Duchess of Atholl. Her prototype had been painted black and swopped tenders and gained blinkers before their model could be released. I have found a photo in the 1956 TTR Year Book that shows her boiler top, but it isn't very clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

My original 'Atholl' is to become 46251 so that picture is useful. She should have a 'streamlined' tender, but so should 'Atholl' (from 1946) so I'll let it pass. (or maybe a 'City' tender for both).

 

In my photo of 6231 ("Atholl") put up a dozen or so posts back I'd cropped out the tender as the discussion was about the relative positions of locomotive body and chassis. I've included the tender in the picture below.  From your comment quoted above I'm assuming that this must be a 1946, or soon after, photo as she is pulling a partly "de-streamlined" tender, as well as being very scruffy?  (Aside from the more obvious give-aways, the height of the tender side above the front handrail, pointed out by LMS2968, is very apparent.)

1010374358_6231DuchessofAtholl-XL(2).jpg.6d93cb19ae68a9b41672650dd475695e.jpg 

 

For me, there is a judgement call about how far one goes in modifying a Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" (or other Hornby-Dublo locomotive).  It  depends on what one is aiming for on a scale between a Hornby-Dublo "might have been" at one end, and an accurate model at the other.  My own preference is to keep any modifications both modest and in the spirit of Binns Road.  These days, if I'm after an accurate model for my "scale layout", I'll start either with a kit or a good proprietary model and a Brassmasters detailing pack.  But, as always, each to his or her own.

 

Mike  

Edited by MikeCW
Clarification
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...