Hornby Dublo 8F

[Il Grifone]

Dublo motors normally take about 600mA max. but I'd allow 1A to be on the save side.

 

48772 was one of the LNER batch built at Doncaster during WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Stanier_Class_8F

 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

 

Our 2 Rail Hornby Dublo 8f, 48109, is from the goods train set.

 

The set came from EBay, in a lot of other HD stuff.

The chassis was seized. Solidified lubricant.

 

Some use of easing lubricant, with the motor removed, got the axles and other bearings free. 
 

When free enough to roll down a good gradient, and the motor refitted, it ran lovely.

 

It is in storage just now…

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
Photo added

[Wolseley]

16 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

Dublo motors normally take about 600mA max. but I'd allow 1A to be on the save side.

 

And if it takes more than that, it's time to take it apart, clean and service it.

[Dorkingian]

Just for comparison, here's my ringfield 8F with original 3-rail body and 2-rail chassis acquired as a later swap deal:

 

 

[locomad2]

Most powerful of my 8F's, Wrenn chassis/motor mid 80's, Hornby Dublo body tided up a bit, repainted Dublo tender. The coal gone yellow due to sulphur part of a lump taken from Welsh coal face early 70's. Quite capable of 40 HD wagons on the flat, motor and chassis in excellent condition regularly serviced and been in service over last 35 years.

 

 

[cypherman]

16 hours ago, locomad2 said:

Most powerful of my 8F's, Wrenn chassis/motor mid 80's, Hornby Dublo body tided up a bit, repainted Dublo tender. The coal gone yellow due to sulphur part of a lump taken from Welsh coal face early 70's. Quite capable of 40 HD wagons on the flat, motor and chassis in excellent condition regularly serviced and been in service over last 35 years.

 

 

Hi all,

It is true what they say. They just do not make them like they used to do. I cannot see there being many current Hornby or Bachmann engines running 60 years after they had been made.

[Prometheus]

A Hornby Dublo BR 8F repainted as LMS 8414, one of the Swindon-built batch. All original apart from plastic wheels replaced by metal ones throughout and new buffers fitted to the front. Although originally a non-working wreck, very little was required to get the motor running strongly again. The shadows cast by the rivets show how proud they sit!!!

 

 

Tony

[locomad2]

6 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

It is true what they say. They just do not make them like they used to do. I cannot see there being many current Hornby or Bachmann engines running 60 years after they had been made.

 

I've been saying it for years, quite simply most of my purchases of post 2000 locomotives are now scrap, as a result I just don't waste good money on rubbish. Good example are the recent BG's (Beyer Garrett's)  I've been asked to repair a few, I just say it's no longer worth it, buy a "neverwass" at £600 well worth the money.

 

However there is a use for New "scrap" Hornby bodies they get put on something which works

 

 

 

Still a lot to do, but who would have thought 60 years ago, new bodies put on old chassis!

 

[Wolseley]

6 hours ago, locomad2 said:

However there is a use for New "scrap" Hornby bodies they get put on something which works

 

Still a lot to do, but who would have thought 60 years ago, new bodies put on old chassis!

 

 

On the subject of new bodies on old chassis, the chassis these bodies were fitted to were not exactly scrap, as I have reused some bits and the motors will eventually find a home elsewhere and the bodies, while not exactly new, were hardly vintage, but here are two Tri-ang/Hornby streamlined Coronations fitted with Dublo A4 chassis.  In case you're wondering, I found the A4 chassis to be a better fit than the Duchess one, and it allows the cab detail to be retained.  The rear pony truck assembly is the original Tri-ang one (easily adapted with a bit of filing) and the front bogie from a Dublo Duchess (I have a few in my spares box).

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Wolseley

[TerryD1471]

Very pleased that I have been able over the years to find 4 8Fs with the old half inch motor. One was stripped of its paint and the supposedly lumpy rivets proved to be down to an overly thick coat of paint. Now resprayed, re-numbered, fine handrails and Romford wheels fitted, and it's really satisfying. It encouraged me to fit the other three with Romfords and also to alter the slide bars to a more accurate shape.

 

The 5th 8F was a ring field motored one which someone else had fitted Romfords to and repainted quite nicely. However the ring field motor was always temperamental; sometimes it was superb, sometimes not and it was always sensitive to controller settings, either stalling or running away. I eventually acquired a Scalespeed motor which was a straight replacement and this now performs superbly. All of the above can handle 45 wagon trains, the longest my layout can store.

 

I also have a couple of the most recent Hornby 8Fs which look very good, but don't quite match the H/D ones for haulage, even though those are over 60 years old!

[sagaguy]

Some of the older ringfields were fitted with one carbon brush and one copper carbon brush.This over the years soaked up oil and caused slow running with lots of sparks.My original Barnstaple had been packed away for many years and when placed on the track,ran sluggishly ,slow down and sometimes stopped.I swapped the armature,adjusted back lash,cleaned the commutator.The only thing i didn`t do was to remag.The magnets in ringfields hold their magnetism,after years of removing them,rotating 180 degrees to make them run in the right direction after 3 railing them,all to no avail.In the end,having run out of thoughts on this,i eventually swapped the carbon brushes for two new pure carbon brushes and that did the trick.The moral of this tale is,do the easy bits first!.

                           Ray.

Edited September 17, 2021 by sagaguy

[locomad2]

 

 

The other one, 1/2 inch motor converted to 2 rail about 1964 hattons ? Popular conversion then. Excellent service since on all the layouts Romford wheels always looked the part.

 

About 1990 pickups removed and converted to "American system" where as tender is opposite live side to engine, small wire and insulated drawbar, this engine has closer gap just about copes with 27in radius. This the performance was greatly improved perhaps less drag without pickups, copes well with 40 HD wagons although at a lower speed, then a  Ringfield. I reckon it "sits" better on the track better balance.

 

Paintwork far more realistic got that "dull look", this is the one I try and get all goods engines to look like yet never achieved it.

 

Very popular never causes any problems reliable, never stalls on points etc pods along just like real thing

[Il Grifone]

My 8F used the 'American System' in her 2 rail days. Ever mean careful with money, I replaced two flanged drivers with new 2 rail ones and just insulated the centre pair with chrome tape. Plastic wheels on the other side of the tender completed the pickups and a piece of insulated wire, replacing the drawbar, carried the current to the motor. Since then she has borne LMS livery, been reconverted to 3 rail, and restored to her original BR livery as 48158.

She will handle around 18 HD wagons* before slipping, possibly due to the two nickel plated driving wheels?

The drivers were about 1/6d at the time (early 60s obviously). IMHO the HD wheels look much better than Romfords (and cost much less) having the right profile and number of spokes. The downside is the coarse flanges, but she was to run on coarse (HD) standard track. Romfords really need the track to BRMSB standards they were designed for.

 

*Slightly less than a 0-6-2T, but this does have the advantage of not having to shift the heavy tender.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Il Grifone

[locomad2]

16 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

My 8F used the 'American System' in her 2 rail days. Ever mean careful with money, I replaced two flanged drivers with new 2 rail ones and just insulated the centre pair with chrome tape. Plastic wheels on the other side of the tender completed the pickups and a piece of insulated wire, replacing the drawbar, carried the current to the motor. Since then she has borne LMS livery, been reconverted to 3 rail, and restored to her original BR livery as 48158.

She will handle around 18 HD wagons* before slipping, possibly due to the two nickel plated driving wheels?

The drivers were about 1/6d at the time (early 60s obviously). IMHO the HD wheels look much better than Romfords (and cost much less) having the right profile and number of spokes. The downside is the coarse flanges, but she was to run on coarse (HD) standard track. Romfords really need the track to BRMSB standards they were designed for.

 

*Slightly less than a 0-6-2T, but this does have the advantage of not having to shift the heavy tender.

 

Interesting about 10 years ago put though most of my stock locomotives on performance pulling test and found big differences with the HD 8F, some slipped other didn't. On investigation found some fitted with a yellow lead weight over the cylinders, no doubt materials of the wheels play a big part, plus condition of the track. Other factors condition of the wheels really important clean shinning wheels slip while a bit of dirt or corrosion found on 3 rail wheels help stop slipping. 

 

As for track has to be perfectly dry, I do use ATF fluid to help conductivity but restrict it to points. Peco 100 code track in straight yard lengths cleaned dry using "Blue roll". Course stock condition is important, big variable rolling resistance  tests with HD standard wagons also found  light oil helps so does metal wheels plus constant cleaning

[simes]

Apologies for re-opening an old topic.  I have just bought a Dublo 8F which has been converted from 3-rail to 2-rail by a previous owner, using Romford & Jacksons wheels and adding brake pipes and screw couplings - a nice job.  I had intended to dismantle it for spares but I like it too much for that (this keeps happening with my loco purchases!).  It is clear that the loco used to have an electrical connection between loco and tender, which is no longer in use.  Was the 3-rail pickup shoe mounted on the tender, or if not, what was this for?

 

I also have a Wrenn 8F which I've owned since new.  This had a Ringfield motor and I must have got a poor one because it never had much power.  Eventually I abandoned the Ringfield and acquired a Hornby Black 5 tender drive to push it around and renumbered the loco to one with a welded tender so all was good... except that the tender sits a couple of mm too high like most old Hornby products.  But my latest purchase has the older 'half inch' HD motor, extraordinarily like an X04, which performs much better that the Wrenn Ringfield and doesn't stick out of the rear of the cab.  I wonder why HD switched motor design?

[cctransuk]

56 minutes ago, simes said:

Apologies for re-opening an old topic.  I have just bought a Dublo 8F which has been converted from 3-rail to 2-rail by a previous owner, using Romford & Jacksons wheels and adding brake pipes and screw couplings - a nice job.  I had intended to dismantle it for spares but I like it too much for that (this keeps happening with my loco purchases!).  It is clear that the loco used to have an electrical connection between loco and tender, which is no longer in use.  Was the 3-rail pickup shoe mounted on the tender, or if not, what was this for?

 

I also have a Wrenn 8F which I've owned since new.  This had a Ringfield motor and I must have got a poor one because it never had much power.  Eventually I abandoned the Ringfield and acquired a Hornby Black 5 tender drive to push it around and renumbered the loco to one with a welded tender so all was good... except that the tender sits a couple of mm too high like most old Hornby products.  But my latest purchase has the older 'half inch' HD motor, extraordinarily like an X04, which performs much better that the Wrenn Ringfield and doesn't stick out of the rear of the cab.  I wonder why HD switched motor design?

 

The HD 3-rail 8F tender had two sprung plunger centre rail pick-ups, as used on their diesel and electric outline locos.

 

CJI.

[Il Grifone]

I never did work out why they went to the expense of fitting the Castles and 8Fs with the ringfield motor. No increase in performance (was there one?) was worth that unsightly chunk of motor sticking out of the back of the cab. One of my stalled projects involves fitting an X.04 to a ringfield Castle chassis. It's a 'Ludlow' chassis so no drastic mods.....

I filed all the rivets off one of my 8F tenders to represent the welded version.

3 rail models had a rather flimsy wire and a bit of phosphor bronze  passed off as a plug to connect the motor to a piece of paxolin in the front of the tender. A metal insert in this (not fitted to 2 rail tenders) was then connected to the two plunger pickups by wire. It was not unknown for these to catch in the centre rail, if this latter got bent up slightly.

 

Most (all?) Wrenn produced* tenders have the two holes for the pickup plungers filled in.

* I believe the early Wrenn models were rebadged (and repriced upwards)  unsold Dublo stock.

 

[TerryD1471]

On 08/06/2022 at 18:21, Il Grifone said:

I never did work out why they went to the expense of fitting the Castles and 8Fs with the ringfield motor. No increase in performance (was there one?) was worth that unsightly chunk of motor sticking out of the back of the cab. One of my stalled projects involves fitting an X.04 to a ringfield Castle chassis. It's a 'Ludlow' chassis so no drastic mods.....

I filed all the rivets off one of my 8F tenders to represent the welded version.

3 rail models had a rather flimsy wire and a bit of phosphor bronze  passed off as a plug to connect the motor to a piece of paxolin in the front of the tender. A metal insert in this (not fitted to 2 rail tenders) was then connected to the two plunger pickups by wire. It was not unknown for these to catch in the centre rail, if this latter got bent up slightly.

 

Most (all?) Wrenn produced* tenders have the two holes for the pickup plungers filled in.

* I believe the early Wrenn models were rebadged (and repriced upwards)  unsold Dublo stock.

 

I quite agree; the use of ring field motors always struck me as being retrograde. I acquired one many years ago which seemed to be pretty temperamental; sometimes it would pull a house down, sometimes it would just give up. It always seemed to be pretty touchy on the controller settings. Unless you watched it like a hawk, it would either stall or run away. Eventually I replaced the motor with a Scalespeed replacement and I have never looked back. I also have four of the original ones with half inch motors; they have all been fitted with Romford drivers and various other improvements made and they all run very well. Quite capable of handling the longest freights my layout can store (45 modern wagons), and that seems to be superior to the more recent Hornby models.

[sagaguy]

Over the years, ringfields can be temperamental.Having had several that were a bit dilatory, I discovered that some of them had one pure carbon brush and one copper carbon brush, this being impregnated with oil over the years causing sparking and sometimes, the burn out of the armature. Once fitted with pure carbon brushes, the problem mainly disappeared. As an aside, the National Physical Laboratory used these motors in the scale model hulls in their test tanks.

      Ray. 

[Il Grifone]

The idea of one metal and one carbon brush (Rivarossi were keen on this) is supposed to reduce electrolytic corrosion of the commutator or something. I've never found any advantage in it.