Hornby West Country/ Battle of Britain

[John Tomlinson]

I recently bought a couple of these locos on ebay, pre-owned but unused. These were R2218 Wilton, and R2388 605 Squadron. Both very nice models in perfect condition.

 

605 Squadron was first, ran quite well but the loco was obviously getting warm. I dismantled it to find the grease around the gears was all but solid, and this appears to be the cause of the heat generation. The same was true of Wilton. I think these locos date from the early noughties, and so if unused in a cupboard it is perhaps not surprising to have this issue. I mention it in case others have similar purchases of older locos bought pre-owned, mint. Clearly, protracted running with rising heat levels could have caused irreparable damage.

 

Dismantling these reminded me that they and the Rebuilt Merchant Navies have a sprung rear driving axle, a nice idea in theory but the extent of springing is ridiculous. I'm minded to partly pack the hole in the chassis that houses the spring in order to make it more taut, I wonder if anyone else has tackled this issue and has any tips?

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

[SRman]

My Wilton has sound fitted and approximately 75 grams of sheet lead wrapped inside the casing, as far forward as I could get it while leaving space for the speaker. I have left the sprung rear axle as it came from the factory, and this loco has no problems at all to report.

However, the rebuilt MNs are a slightly different kettle of fish, and the sprung rear axle does suffer from weight transfer (there's not much room to add weight at the front to re-balance the locos). I haven't tried anything yet, but it should be possible to replace the spring with some plastic rodding or a series of small washers. 

Later Bulleid models released by Hornby don't have the sprung rear axle at all.

[John Tomlinson]

I did some more work on the locos this afternoon.

 

On Wilton the brass tube that acts as a bearing for the centre axle was gummed solid to the axle. Getting a bit of movement by holding the bearing with pliers and twisting the wheels did the trick, followed by copious amounts of Slaters Track and Mechanism cleaner to remove the congealed grease. The other axles benefited from similar treatment to get them nice and free in their bearings.

 

On 605 Squadron I'd managed to loosen the slide bars on one side of the plastic holder, eventually I removed both and cleaned up all surfaces, and reassembled with superglue. The clearance between the crankpin on the front wheel and the connecting rods really isn't much at all, and I think the connecting rods need to be bent slightly convex to give a bit more clearance. It would be helpful if the motion was made of something a bit more substantial than the thin bendy "metal" actually used.

 

Anyhow, I now have two sweet free running chassis, with no jerking or binding. Time to think about adding some weight, and also detailing, perhaps knocking out some cylinder drainpipes from brass wire.

 

John.

[John Tomlinson]

A couple of related points to add.

 

After both locos were re-assembled they were tested on my layout, with 27 inch minimum radius curves. Both rapidly suffered bent connecting rods as they jammed on the leading crankpin on curves. At least my original fear had been proved justified!

 

Both sets of connecting rods have been now bent mildly convex, I'm afraid you can spot this, knowing it is there and if you look closely, but its better than having a tangled mess. The problem seems to me to be that on these locos with original valve gear, the fastening of the piston in the slide bars is far too slack, and it easily wobbles from side to side, making contact with a rotating crankpin more likely.

 

The other thing I noticed is that despite the two locos having apparently identical chassis, Wilton had been fitted with narrow spacers on the central crankpin, bringing in the connecting rods closer, 605 Squadron having wider spacers. Until this point I hadn't actually realised that Hornby did these in two sizes, and a quick rummage found a couple of wide ones in spares that are now on Wilton.

 

Can't help feeling others must have had similar experiences, or is it really just me, and it would be interesting to hear them.

 

John.

[Dunsignalling]

Wilton was one of the first four (simultaneous) releases of the air-smoothed Light Pacific, the others being Blackmoor Vale (SR Malachite), Tangmere (Early BR Brunswick with high-sided tender) and 92 Squadron BR Malachite, (naturally also with high sided tender).

 

605 Squadron is a bit later, made after the tendency of the motion on the earlier models to get its knickers in a twist became evident, hence the wider spacers.  

 

I have four Wiltons; one will remain as Wilton, one is now Salisbury, one is on the way to becoming Seaton and the other is destined to become Lynton. I also have a Tangmere, which I changed to Hawkinge (a personal favourite) and I later acquired an ex-train pack Tangmere with cut-down tender. A bit of an oddity that I initially had difficulty identifying.

 

The strange thing about the motion issue is that they don't all do it even though they appear identical, it presumably being dependent on manufacturing tolerances.

 

 I won't go into the rest of my fleet here, but must advise you that you may be on a slippery slope.

 

Enjoy the journey.

 

John

Edited November 10, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[SRman]

I usually check that clearance between the con rod and the leading crankpin, and bend the connecting rod outwards if necessary. I try to keep this subtle, but I think running properly overrides appearance concerns.

Edited November 11, 2017 by SRman

[John Tomlinson]

Thank you both for your comments.

 

I can see John why you find these locos a bit addictive, and I've since bought a Malachite Clovelly for yet more variety! Having done the full clean and service on my two so far, I have to say I think they are very fine models indeed, both in terms of looks and performance. I haven't yet added any weight as Jeff has recommended, but they happily take 8 Bachmann Mk1's (albeit without the weights), up my 16ft of 1 in 55. Slow running seems pretty good too.

 

I'm glad its not just me with the motion issue, it does occur to me there's probably something could be done to reinforce the back of the slide bars to keep the piston and connecting rod from oscillating, however I'm quite likely just to leave it there as the thing now actually works!

 

John.

[SRman]

I agree, they are very nice models. I have quite a few of the variants myself (original and rebuilt, WC, BoB and MN). I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they may be multiplying in the darkness of the drawers they are stored in!

Edited November 12, 2017 by SRman

[2ManySpams]

It's not just you, many of my early release Bulleids had the same issue. Also be aware that the back to backs on the early releases could be up to 1mm too narrow. Something to look at if the loco thumps its way through paintwork.

[Dunsignalling]

I agree, they are very nice models. I have quite a few of the variants myself (original and rebuilt, WC, BoB and MN). I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they may be multiplying in the darkness of the drawers they are stored in!

That's not something I'd object to.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[John Tomlinson]

It's not just you, many of my early release Bulleids had the same issue. Also be aware that the back to backs on the early releases could be up to 1mm too narrow. Something to look at if the loco thumps its way through paintwork.

 

Thanks for this. My two both had undersize back to backs, fortunately I twigged this while they were in bits making adjustment a lot easier. Strange that such a basic thing should be done wrong.

 

John.

[DCB]

The back to back problem exacerbates the motion clearance issue, it's not enough to ease out the B to B to 14.5 or 14.25 sliding fit which I use you also need to shim the axle to get rid of the excess sideplay.  A cynic would suggest that Hornby (or the Chinese factory) reduced the B to B to stop the conrods hitting the crankpins.  Whether the shims are horseshoe slipping over the axle in situ and superglued to the chassis or washers requiring the wheels to come off is a personal taste.   

[John Tomlinson]

The back to back problem exacerbates the motion clearance issue, it's not enough to ease out the B to B to 14.5 or 14.25 sliding fit which I use you also need to shim the axle to get rid of the excess sideplay.  A cynic would suggest that Hornby (or the Chinese factory) reduced the B to B to stop the conrods hitting the crankpins.  Whether the shims are horseshoe slipping over the axle in situ and superglued to the chassis or washers requiring the wheels to come off is a personal taste.   

 

Thanks David. You may well be right about the back to backs being wrong in order to achieve clearance.

 

I did think about adding some packing to reduce sideplay, my choice would definitely be for shims here as quartering can be a nightmare, and if it isn't broke already then...! I have some ancient K's plastic washers that can be snipped and pushed over the axles to achieve this end, if the wheels were off I'd fit some superglued strips to the chassis around the axle holes to give the same effect.

 

John.

[RFS]

I think the back-to-back of 14.2mm was fairly standard for early China models and not just the Light Pacifics. I purchased 34067 Tangmere a few years ago and I've never had a problem with the connecting rods. But I did have a problem with intermittent DCC shorts when traversing code 75 slips, the problem being around the frog area where the wheel touched the opposite rail of the centre diamond. Easing the wheels to 14.5 mm (all of them, including tender wheels) solved the problem.