The odd tale of the Co-Bo and it's price.

[cypherman]

Ok folks. I am now the proud owner of a H/D MetroVic Co-Bo and my collection is now complete. I have at least 1 of every H/D engine. I think I also have at least 1 of each of every Wrenn engine except for those Rocking horse dropping engines like the Spam Can and Royal Scott. Their prices are well beyond my price range. Will post some pictures when it arrives.

[Silverfox17]

Some of you may have seen this but here is what I call my "genuine" Tri-ang Hornby Co-Bo. It is a scrap Dublo body, which will get repainted, on a Tri-ang class 37 chassis with a Hymek non motorised bogie at one end. 

 

Garry 

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

Well a turn up for the books. In the latest Model Rail magazine Rapido trains are going to make an N Gauge model of the Co-Bo. I wonder if that will fare any better.

 

You do realise that Heljan already make a model of the Class 28 in 00 gauge?

 

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/283645/heljan_2812_class_28_cobo_d5710_in_br_green_with_no_yellow_ends/stockdetail.aspx

 

 

Out of stock everywhere at the moment, but surely due a re run, possibly as part of the EFE Rail range.

 

Yes. I do know you really want a Hornby Dublo version. But at those prices?

 

 

Jason

[GoingUnderground]

2 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

Some of you may have seen this but here is what I call my "genuine" Tri-ang Hornby Co-Bo. It is a scrap Dublo body, which will get repainted, on a Tri-ang class 37 chassis with a Hymek non motorised bogie at one end. 

 

Garry 

I've got a spare body as well, or will have when I put my 3 rail running number body on the chassis of my second 2 rail Co-Bo. So I might try that myself. 

 

I also found what I was looking for on the subject of a Triang Co-Bo. In Pat Hammonds Rovex 1 he has a picture of a Co-Bo bodyshell in plastic. It certainly look much crisper than the diecast H/D bodyshell. He points out that it isn't known when this was made, but there doesn't seem to be any sense in producing it in the 1960s when they were still knee-deep in unsold H/D diecast models. So, to me, a 1970s timescale looks more likely, unless it was actually produced in Binns Road  in an attempt by H/D to make the model more popular by using the running gear under the new body, and recycling the olddiecsst bodies. I doubt that it was a proving shot from a complete mould, probatbly more likely to be a modelmaker's proof of concept. Was this the reason for the Co-Bo on the cover of the 18th catalogue?

Edited January 1, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[kevinlms]

15 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

A not unreasonable question given that Wrenn produced various Ex-H/D items. But think about it, if the H/D original was unpopular and hard to shift, there would have been little financial sense in making it again even with with the diecast body. According to Michael Foster, only 130 Co-Bos were sold in 1964 and 3,150 were in stock when Lines Bros/Triang took over Meccano/Hornby Dublo. Or to put it another way, Triang had enough Co-Bos for 24 years worth of sales. Some must have been moved from Binns Road to Margate as Pat Hammond says that 725 were taken into stock at Margate, and I'm guessing these would have been the Triang Hornby overstickered examples. Triang did have some success in moving them, they included a coupling converter wagon in the price, and apparently had sold all but 120 by the end of 1966. How long they remained on retailers' shelves is another matter. This information would have filtered down, I'm sure, to Wrenn in Basildon one way or another.

 

The Co-Bo wasn't an attractive looking model at least not to my eyes, and I wasn't alone as reviews in the model railway press at the time weren't particularly flattering either. The Class 28 locos under BR had a reputation for engine problems. It was a small class, only 20 were built. So, it is unlikely that it would have been a modeller's first choice when wondering which loco to buy next.

 

 

Given those statistics of remaining stock of HD, it's only too obvious why the company folded.

 

Reminds me of Dick Smith, an electronics retailer in Australia who went bust.

Turns out that amongst other problems, they had sufficient AA & AAA batteries in the warehouse to last more than a decade each! Which of course is longer than their shelf life. Now locos such as HD, will presumably last a long time sitting on a shelf, but batteries?

DS ended up selling some of their excess batteries back to their supplier, but I suspect the value of batteries with a company name on them, must have been close to zilch. You can't put a new sticker on them, because the extra width will prevent them from fitting into most battery holders.

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Ok here are some pictures of my new Co-Bo. Waiting in anticipation for it's arrival.

[kevinlms]

On 01/01/2021 at 21:07, GoingUnderground said:

 

 

The Co-Bo wasn't an attractive looking model at least not to my eyes, and I wasn't alone as reviews in the model railway press at the time weren't particularly flattering either. The Class 28 locos under BR had a reputation for engine problems. It was a small class, only 20 were built. So, it is unlikely that it would have been a modeller's first choice when wondering which loco to buy next.

 

 

I think the HD Co-Bo is an ugly model of an ugly prototype. Along with the Deltic, they were by a fair margin the worst looking HD models. At least the Class 20 and Class 08 diesels were fair representations of their respective prototypes.

 

But I can understand why people might want to collect one of each of the HD range.

[stewartingram]

OK I promised I'd take a couple of pics of mine, which you've all prompted me to sell.

Basically straight out of store, literally, in the garden shed. I'd noticed it needs a little tlc; a clean, headcode disc missing, one digit from a number transfer missing, traction tyre (1) missing, no (HD) coupling at one end. And obviously a service but it should be good. Otherwise I think it will be ok as it is

History of this loco is that Ipicked it up as an incomplete wreck. I sourced all the correct parts to make it go. Added traction tyres, then Flushglazed it and a repaint. It became surplus when I got a Hattons/Heljan version.

Hopefully a sale will add some funds for the upcoming Hornby ECML locos!

 

Stewart

[Silverfox17]

The Co-Bo might have been an ugly loco, real and model, but that gives it a certain appeal and character, just like the SR Q1.  I have some Dublo Co-Bo's and waiting to get a TT one. 

 

I wonder if Dublo chose this as it was for a named frieght, The Condor, which they maybe thought would appeal to the generation at the time. There were not many named frieght trains and the others if I remember were steam hauled.  Dublo did have plans to do a V2 Green Arrow but at the time when they might have been starting to have money problems the Co-Bo would be the cheapest and easiest option. They had the motor bogie from the Deltic/Co-Co and a trailing bogie from the EMU, or were planning it.  We will never know the real reason though. 

[Halvarras]

On 01/01/2021 at 16:49, Silverfox17 said:

Some of you may have seen this but here is what I call my "genuine" Tri-ang Hornby Co-Bo. It is a scrap Dublo body, which will get repainted, on a Tri-ang class 37 chassis with a Hymek non motorised bogie at one end. 

 

Garry 

 

I did something like this to one I was given in bits (body and bogie sideframes) in 1990, although it took me about 15 years to get a round tuit as I had no requirement for a Co-Bo. I stripped the body with Nitromors (hah, try that with plastic!!.......on second thoughts, DON'T!), filed away the unnecessary rainstrips between the cabs, drilled for windscreen wipers (not easy!) and prepared it for SE Flushglaze (not a great result but quick). When finished as D5711 in Gsy livery it had a VERY heavily butchered Hornby 'pancake' Class 37 underframe with an unpowered Co end (axles set to Western spacing, spot-on) and a 4-wheel drive unit in a Class 29 bogie frame at the shortened Bo end. The Hornby bogie detail was filed off and the HD sideframes glued on. The 2D battery boxes were removed from the body and glued onto more accurate 3D creations with half-relief air tanks on the chassis. The chassis was screwed onto a piece of 1970s Mopok CCT wooden flooring (never throw anything away!) which was in turn bolted onto the body via the original chassis mounting. One happy coincidence was that the Co-Bo had unusually small wheels at 3' 3" diameter and the standard Hornby wheels were pretty much spot-on there too. It looked quite presentable but I never intended to keep it so sold it on. I have a couple of photos.....somewhere......

Edited January 2, 2021 by Neil Phillips
Added 'second thoughts'....just to be clear!

[MarkC]

Ugly they might have been, but the concept wasn't bad. Remember, they were part of the Pilot Scheme, and were the only <conventional> 2-stroke fitted Class 2s. (The Class 23 Baby Deltics had an unconventional engine, of course - opposed pistons in a Delta arrangement with 3 crankshafts...).

 

What let them down was an engine which wasn't suited to rail operation.

 

The other curious thing about them was the high RA they had - RA8 - which wasn't helpful for a supposed 'mixed traffic' Type 2.

 

Mark

[sagaguy]

I refinished a tatty example in rail blue.

 

                      Ray.

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

The Co-Bo might have been an ugly loco, real and model, but that gives it a certain appeal and character, just like the SR Q1.  I have some Dublo Co-Bo's and waiting to get a TT one. 

 

I wonder if Dublo chose this as it was for a named frieght, The Condor, which they maybe thought would appeal to the generation at the time. There were not many named frieght trains and the others if I remember were steam hauled.  Dublo did have plans to do a V2 Green Arrow but at the time when they might have been starting to have money problems the Co-Bo would be the cheapest and easiest option. They had the motor bogie from the Deltic/Co-Co and a trailing bogie from the EMU, or were planning it.  We will never know the real reason though. 

I suspect that you are correct regarding 'The Condor' and it's fame. That freight train was the 'state of the art' for the time and was seen as the way to get premium freight, to it's destination quickly and efficiently.

 

I wonder how much the service suffered as a result of the Co-Bos unreliability?

A similar project at the time was the RailRoader, which also tried to be fast & efficient, with a wave of publicity, which failed as well.

 

The answer proved to be much simpler, a train of basically chassis flats with standard containers, locked onto them. Any 'standard' loco could haul them, the power rating of the loco depended on routing and load. A lot happened in those intervening 5 or 6 years.

 

[MarkC]

4 hours ago, sagaguy said:

I refinished a tatty example in rail blue.

 

                      Ray.

Now THAT definitely didn't suit them, did it?

 

The green with grey(ish) stripe, with or without the small yellow panel, suited them much better. IMO, of course

 

Mark

[Hroth]

13 hours ago, MarkC said:

The other curious thing about them was the high RA they had - RA8 - which wasn't helpful for a supposed 'mixed traffic' Type 2.

 

The thing was that they were originally designed to be Bo-Bo but they were such porkers that one end became Co just to spread the weight out a bit.  Hence the application of the high RA.

[MarkC]

5 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

The thing was that they were originally designed to be Bo-Bo but they were such porkers that one end became Co just to spread the weight out a bit.  Hence the application of the high RA.

I believe that it's more than just axle loading when RA is calculated, although it's certainly a big part. I'm sure that I've recently seen a table showing both axle loading and RA of the various Type 2s, and at least one other loco had a slightly higher axle loading, yet was RA6., which struck me as slightly odd.

 

Mark

[Il Grifone]

RA started out as axle loading, later modified when trials/service showed things like excessive 'track bashing'.

[H2O]

18 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

RA started out as axle loading, later modified when trials/service showed things like excessive 'track bashing'.

AFAIK wheel diameter has an influence on the loading too with larger wheels being kinder to the track.  If the Co-Bo had unusually small diameter wheels this would be another negative for the class.

 

Wikipedia has 3' 3.5" for the Co Bo and 3' 9" for class 25. The wear limits would reduce those a bit for in-service worse case.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by H2O
Added numbers

[Hroth]

On 01/01/2021 at 17:12, Steamport Southport said:

 

You do realise that Heljan already make a model of the Class 28 in 00 gauge?

 

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/283645/heljan_2812_class_28_cobo_d5710_in_br_green_with_no_yellow_ends/stockdetail.aspx

 

 

Out of stock everywhere at the moment, but surely due a re run, possibly as part of the EFE Rail range.

 

Yes. I do know you really want a Hornby Dublo version. But at those prices?

 

 

Jason

Its interesting that both HD and Heljan did the flat-faced "remodelled" version of the class 28, rather than the first attempt with the curved windscreens.  I wonder if the Rapido N gauge version will do the curvd windscreens?

 

[BernardTPM]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I suspect that you are correct regarding 'The Condor' and it's fame. That freight train was the 'state of the art' for the time and was seen as the way to get premium freight, to it's destination quickly and efficiently.

I wonder how much the service suffered as a result of the Co-Bos unreliability?

A similar project at the time was the RailRoader, which also tried to be fast & efficient, with a wave of publicity, which failed as well.

The answer proved to be much simpler, a train of basically chassis flats with standard containers, locked onto them. Any 'standard' loco could haul them, the power rating of the loco depended on routing and load. A lot happened in those intervening 5 or 6 years.

Condor was a container train, though using the existing railway containers. As well as the Co-Bo Metrovicks Derby type 2s (Class 24) were also used. There were two 'Condor' services: London-Glasgow and Birmingham-Glasgow.

The next overnight container service, London-Manchester, was 'Speedfreight' using new steel/alloy containers with a fast locking system and designed for pallet loading (eight 48" x 40" pallets). These were a step closer to modern containers and remained in use until the end of the 1970s.

Liner train prototypes appeared in 1964.

Railroader had the drawback of the extra tare weight in both road and rail modes of the dual road and rail wheels/axles and associated equipment which reduced the weight that could be carried.

[cypherman]

7 hours ago, sagaguy said:

I refinished a tatty example in rail blue.

 

                      Ray.

Hi all,

I hate to say this but it is even uglier in BR Blue.......lol

[MarkC]

Thanks for the RA info above, gents. That confirms my thoughts.

 

How interesting it is, that even diesels (and presumably electrics) would be affected by such things. It was more obvious with steam locomotives - reciprocating forces, hammer blow etc., of course.

 

Mark

[hayfield]

When I was in a Junior school many years ago my dad used to go to Shoreditch on Sunday mornings and buy items mainly men's shirts to sell during the week at his place of work. Arround the time when Hornby Dublo went bust. I had a 3 rail set and he saw a pile of 3 rail Co Bo's and EMU's all ay £1 each so he bought me 1 of each

 

A few years back when I was into golf my wife suggested selling my trains which were up in the loft doing nothing, both were play worn and the EMU whilst boxed had a couple of bits missing, well the CoBo which I started very low sold for about £150 and the EMU for over £300, I could not believe it, they were both very play worn and certainly the EMU was missing the odd plastic bogie side.  Prices have tumbled !!

 

Like all collectables & antiques they go in and out of fashion. 

 

[cypherman]

19 minutes ago, hayfield said:

When I was in a Junior school many years ago my dad used to go to Shoreditch on Sunday mornings and buy items mainly men's shirts to sell during the week at his place of work. Arround the time when Hornby Dublo went bust. I had a 3 rail set and he saw a pile of 3 rail Co Bo's and EMU's all ay £1 each so he bought me 1 of each

 

A few years back when I was into golf my wife suggested selling my trains which were up in the loft doing nothing, both were play worn and the EMU whilst boxed had a couple of bits missing, well the CoBo which I started very low sold for about £150 and the EMU for over £300, I could not believe it, they were both very play worn and certainly the EMU was missing the odd plastic bogie side.  Prices have tumbled !!

 

Like all collectables & antiques they go in and out of fashion. 

 

Hi all,

Hayfield you are quite right. Many years ago when Noah was still building the ark I needed a replacement H/D tender for my H/D Barnstable. The one I had was for some reason very tatty compared to the engine. Could be that they were from 2 different engines and put together to make a whole. The only place that had a spare one in good condition wanted to charge me £75.00 for it. I was told it was a very rare item. Well as a 14 year old that was well out of my pocket money range. So I did what many people did and repainted the original tender and for a 14 year old it sufficed. Any way fast forward 45 years and I was looking on Ebay and there was a mint condition tender for £22.00. So I snapped it up straight away. So yes prices have come down a lot for items like that. I think that things were only that rare because no one could find these items and go out and buy them. But as the internet has now grown people can now advertise and sell things much more easier. More availability reduces the rarity for a period of time. Till old age and wearing out reduces and degrades the items being sold. Plus as you say fashion does also have an effect. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by cypherman

[hayfield]

2 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

Hayfield you are quite right. Many years ago when Noah was still building the ark I needed a replacement H/D tender for my H/D Barnstable. The one I had was for some reason very tatty compared to the engine. Could be that they were from 2 different engines and put together to make a whole. The only place that had a spare one in good condition wanted to charge me £75.00 for it. I was told it was a very rare item. Well as a 14 year old that was well out of my pocket money range. So I did what many people did and repainted the original tender and for a 14 year old it sufficed. Any way fast forward 45 years and I was looking on Ebay and there was a mint condition tender for £22.00. So I snapped it up straight away. So yes prices have come down a lot for items like that. I think that things were only that rare because no one could find these items and go out and buy them. But as the internet has now grown people can now advertise and sell things much more easier. More availability reduces the rarity for a period of time. Till old age and wearing out reduces and degrades the items being sold. Plus as you say fashion does also have an effect. 

 

Certainly Wrenn locos had a very strong following a few years back and were fetching absolutely stupid amounts, for what were very old locos using a reliable mechanism. People of my age harking back to their childhood with too much money in their bank accounts, the fashion has now moved on to very expensive RTR locos. At my club I see many either showing or looking at a £200 + model with their eyeballs popping out. For £200 I would expect it to be correct in every aspect including the gauge.