Hornby dublo

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here are the phosphor bronze strips I had made for using on the Castle, 8F and R1 chassis's to allow shoe style pick ups fitted.  The holes were set for using a 2-rail chassis that already had tapped holes, for an old 3-rail one I drilled and tapped in the same place.

 

Also an R1 with a plunger at the front.

 

Garry

[sagaguy]

The colour code is Ford Europa 1974–78 code 894.yellow beige.

 

Ray

[MikeCW]

I must confess that i have not had a problem with plunger p/ups.I suspect that there is some corrosion in the tubes causing them to stick,some very light oil such as daywat poly should be used.The gubbins in the tender can be removed,Modern digital tvs don`t suffer from interference problems.The Phospher bronze plug is very easy to make from a strip of Phospher bronze,Eileens Emporium is the best bet for that.Slip a short length of heat shrink sleeving over the soldered join.It`s a half inch motor so it may need a remag,the later Castles had a ring field  motor so this is a Bristol castle , the chassis looks like it could do with a good clean including the wheel treads.New sets of plunger p/ups are easy to get,try John Holland at mtains.here`s a pic of a home made plug.HD Castles are normally smooth as silk,well worth time & effort to get them going.

 

                           Ray.

 

     

 

Thank you for the suggestions Ray. I have had another look at the plunger pick-ups on the Castle.  Except as a last resort I didn't want to oil them as I wanted to avoid anything which might  interfere with the electrical connection between the actual plungers  and the insides of their housings.  Instead I forced a piece of rubber or neoprene tube over the top ends of the plungers (the ends inside the tender body) and twisted them vigorously back and forth and up and down for  a few minutes each (a bit like honing the cylinder bores of Dad's 1939 Austin).  This was intended to shift any oxidation, or the grunge of age, inside the plungers which might have caused the intermittent  resistance.  I then blew some graphite powder into the plungers as a dry, conductive lubricant.  Most went over me and the tender base but some went into the plunger.  As a result of these efforts, neither plunger shows any sign at all of sticking, and there is no hesitation in the locomotive's smooth passage up and down the test track, at any speed down to a crawl.

 

The motor may well benefit from a remag, but it now runs sweetly, better than most of my other Dublo engines, and never pulls more than 0.4 of an amp (admittedly without a load).  So I think I will let well alone for the time being.

 

I'm still interested in any views on whether this is an original three rail chassis but fitted with a motor intended for a 2-rail Castle? Edit.Sorry about this question.  I was laboriously typing up this post and several replies came through which I hadn't read. My thanks to all.

Edited September 5, 2018 by MikeCW

[MikeCW]

Here are the phosphor bronze strips I had made for using on the Castle, 8F and R1 chassis's to allow shoe style pick ups fitted.  The holes were set for using a 2-rail chassis that already had tapped holes, for an old 3-rail one I drilled and tapped in the same place.

 

Also an R1 with a plunger at the front.

 

Garry

Always an inspiration and source of ideas Garry.  I was idly puzzling how shoe pickups might be fitted to a three rail Castle or 8F locomotive given the limited clearance between rail head and chassis floor.  How did you insulate the PB strips (which hold the shoes) from the chassis.  Is there a card or plastic shim under the strip? And I suppose that the same question applies to the brass screws which hold the pick-ups in place.

 

Mike 

[Golden Fleece 30]

Thank you for the suggestions Ray. I have had another look at the plunger pick-ups on the Castle.  Except as a last resort I didn't want to oil them as I wanted to avoid anything which might  interfere with the electrical connection between the actual plungers  and the insides of their housings.  Instead I forced a piece of rubber or neoprene tube over the top ends of the plungers (the ends inside the tender body) and twisted them vigorously back and forth and up and down for  a few minutes each (a bit like honing the cylinder bores of Dad's 1939 Austin).  This was intended to shift any oxidation, or the grunge of age, inside the plungers which might have caused the intermittent  resistance.  I then blew some graphite powder into the plungers as a dry, conductive lubricant.  Most went over me and the tender base but some went into the plunger.  As a result of these efforts, neither plunger shows any sign at all of sticking, and there is no hesitation in the locomotive's smooth passage up and down the test track, at any speed down to a crawl.

 

The motor may well benefit from a remag, but it now runs sweetly, better than most of my other Dublo engines, and never pulls more than 0.4 of an amp (admittedly without a load).  So I think I will let well alone for the time being.

 

I'm still interested in any views on whether this is an original three rail chassis but fitted with a motor intended for a 2-rail Castle? 

As I mentioned before your chassis is an original 3-rail one.  The motor was identical for both 2 and 3-rail apart from the magnet with North to the top or North to the bottom. 2-rail locos had their magnets the opposite way to 3-rail ones.  The easiest way to check is does it run the same way as other 3-rail locos, if so the magnet was set for 3-rail running. Having said that a previous owner could have changed the magnet around or even replaced the motor.  This motor is identical to the one used in the R1 and then by Wrenn for the 0-6-2 as well as the R1.

 

Garry

[MikeCW]

As I mentioned before your chassis is an original 3-rail one.  The motor was identical for both 2 and 3-rail apart from the magnet with North to the top or North to the bottom. 2-rail locos had their magnets the opposite way to 3-rail ones.  The easiest way to check is does it run the same way as other 3-rail locos, if so the magnet was set for 3-rail running. Having said that a previous owner could have changed the magnet around or even replaced the motor.  This motor is identical to the one used in the R1 and then by Wrenn for the 0-6-2 as well as the R1.

 

Garry

Thank you Garry.  I had just edited my post to apologise for that last question, which you had already answered but which I missed among the flurry of replies.

 

Mike

[sagaguy]

The 8f & Castle were never intended to have p/ups under the loco,as you have seen,current collection is made by the plunger p/ups under the tender.The Bo Bo & i think,one version of the green CoCo locos,had plunger p/ups.

 

                             Ray.

Edited September 5, 2018 by sagaguy

[Golden Fleece 30]

The 8f & Castle were never intended to have p/ups under the loco,as you have seen,current collection is made by the plunger p/ups under the tender.The Bo Bo & i think,one version of the green CoCo locos,had plunger p/ups.

 

                             Ray.

That is why I decided to make them Ray.

 

I don'y think any Co-Co had plungers, I have never seen or heard of one anyway, just the Bo-Bo diesel along with the 8F and Castle.  I made them as at times the chassis only is used so pick-ups were needed, and, I prefer not to have a wired connection to a tender although I have many that do have this system.

 

Here is the 8F chassis with my pick-ups.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

T

 

Always an inspiration and source of ideas Garry.  I was idly puzzling how shoe pickups might be fitted to a three rail Castle or 8F locomotive given the limited clearance between rail head and chassis floor.  How did you insulate the PB strips (which hold the shoes) from the chassis.  Is there a card or plastic shim under the strip? And I suppose that the same question applies to the brass screws which hold the pick-ups in place.

 

Mike 

Mike, there is a thin plastic washer under where the screws fit. The holes in the phosphor bronze was etched larger than the screw so it would not touch and then a nylon washer holds the screw head. You can use nylon screws but I did not have any at the time. Dennis Williams uses nylon ones (3mm) with his R1 conversions and I now have some for my TT builds both 3mm and 8BA.

 

Garry

[MikeCW]

As I mentioned before your chassis is an original 3-rail one.  The motor was identical for both 2 and 3-rail apart from the magnet with North to the top or North to the bottom. 2-rail locos had their magnets the opposite way to 3-rail ones.  The easiest way to check is does it run the same way as other 3-rail locos, if so the magnet was set for 3-rail running. Having said that a previous owner could have changed the magnet around or even replaced the motor.  This motor is identical to the one used in the R1 and then by Wrenn for the 0-6-2 as well as the R1.

 

Garry

 

Garry, I hadn't thought to check out the direction of travel of the Castle.  As you may have spotted in the previous photos of my test rig, the track is powered by a pair of alligator clips from a modern (well, mid-1980s, very sophisticated for the time) US controller.  When I attach the clips I don't take much notice of which way I hook them on,  and simply use the direction switch on the controller to set the locomotive off in the direction I want.  (Usually I'm testing anything but direction polarity.) Armed with your information I checked and, yes, this is indeed a 2 rail motor as the Castle runs in the opposite direction to other Dublo 3 rail locomotives.

 

Rather than turn the magnet, removal of which night weaken it, I thought that a simple way to bring Bristol Castle into line would be to strip off the duplicate suppression equipment on the motor, and swap the leads to the brushes.  10 minutes work and the job was done.  The locomotive now runs beautifully in the right direction.  Another Castle saved from Woodhams of Barry.

 

The attached photo shows the modifications and can be compared with the first photo in Post 145. I must say that I thought my soldering was much neater than the photo depicts.  Those close-ups can be very sobering.

 

The Dublo open frame motors seem very well engineered, with the armature supported by decent bearings at both ends - less chance of whip and flex in the armature, or lateral bearing wear over time.  A five pole conversion (like the Airfix/MRRC type five pole armatures made for X04 conversions) would have made a first rate motor.  As a matter of interest, do you or others know if Meccano contracted out the design and manufacture of its motors or were these in-house production?

 

Mike

 

 

[Golden Fleece 30]

Garry, I hadn't thought to check out the direction of travel of the Castle. As you may have spotted in the previous photos of my test rig, the track is powered by a pair of alligator clips from a modern (well, mid-1980s, very sophisticated for the time) US controller. When I attach the clips I don't take much notice of which way I hook them on, and simply use the direction switch on the controller to set the locomotive off in the direction I want. (Usually I'm testing anything but direction polarity.) Armed with your information I checked and, yes, this is indeed a 2 rail motor as the Castle runs in the opposite direction to other Dublo 3 rail locomotives.

 

Rather than turn the magnet, removal of which night weaken it, I thought that a simple way to bring Bristol Castle into line would be to strip off the duplicate suppression equipment on the motor, and swap the leads to the brushes. 10 minutes work and the job was done. The locomotive now runs beautifully in the right direction. Another Castle saved from Woodhams of Barry.

 

The attached photo shows the modifications and can be compared with the first photo in Post 145. I must say that I thought my soldering was much neater than the photo depicts. Those close-ups can be very sobering.

 

The Dublo open frame motors seem very well engineered, with the armature supported by decent bearings at both ends - less chance of whip and flex in the armature, or lateral bearing wear over time. A five pole conversion (like the Airfix/MRRC type five pole armatures made for X04 conversions) would have made a first rate motor. As a matter of interest, do you or others know if Meccano contracted out the design and manufacture of its motors or were these in-house production?

 

Mike

 

P1010993 Castle.jpg

Nice to know everything is sorted Mike. I don't know why people say the magnet needs turning, I know I did for some reason, but I always used to just swap the insulated side of the brush to the other too. That is what I did on all the Tri-ang locos I converted. I guess it stems from the vertical motored locos which is very difficult to do without drilling a new hole for the tube insulation etc.

 

I always prefered the 1/2" motor over the Ringfields, to me more reliable, easy to work on, easy to use in a conversion.

 

I have no idea about who made them but possibly in house. I do go around the Tri-ang factory once and watched them winding the armatures on the production line so I guess Mecanno did theirs too but cannot say for definate. As Wrenn used these motors for far longer and in greater quantities maybe they were in house builds.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

I pretty sure Meccano did the motors in-house. There was an aticle in 'Meccano Magazine' about it once (about the time of the introduction of the 2-6-4T and reprinted in the 'bible' IIRC).

 

I never could fathom why they went overbard for the ringfield motor. The Castle and 8F already had a cab full of motor and the revised version (also the  rebuilt West Country) was ridiculous. More powerful it's true, but the existing motors were quite adequate. Fitting pin-point bearings to the rolling stock would have been far cheaper, especially as they were revising the wagon underframe. I suppose it's just one of the many poor management decisions that led to the downfall of Meccano Ltd..

[sagaguy]

The memory isn’t what it was,the Co Co that I have was bought in the 1980s.Having looked at it,it’s fitted with plungers that i made & fitted by me being a 2 rail original.

 

Ray

[Nearholmer]

Can we have a picture of a pre-WW2 HD motor, if anyone has one, please?

 

I’d be interested to compare it with contemporary Pittman.

 

 

Thanks in advance, Kevin

[sagaguy]

Can we have a picture of a pre-WW2 HD motor, if anyone has one, please?

 

I’d be interested to compare it with contemporary Pittman.

 

 

Thanks in advance, Kevin

Dublo motors were an integral part of the chassis,Pictures are few & far apart these days,a lot of prewar & early post war have succumbed to the dreaded mazak rot,however,i have found a pic of a very early Duchess of Atholl chassiswith a horseshoe magnet,all prewar production locos had this type of Chassis.The Atholl model has to be early post war as none were made before the war.This magnet was superseded by the block Alnico magnet.Nothing like a Pittman i`m afraid.

 

                     

 

                      Ray.

[sagaguy]

I pretty sure Meccano did the motors in-house. There was an aticle in 'Meccano Magazine' about it once (about the time of the introduction of the 2-6-4T and reprinted in the 'bible' IIRC).

 

I never could fathom why they went overbard for the ringfield motor. The Castle and 8F already had a cab full of motor and the revised version (also the  rebuilt West Country) was ridiculous. More powerful it's true, but the existing motors were quite adequate. Fitting pin-point bearings to the rolling stock would have been far cheaper, especially as they were revising the wagon underframe. I suppose it's just one of the many poor management decisions that led to the downfall of Meccano Ltd..

Apparently,the National physical laboratory used a lot of ringfield motors in their model ship hulls on the test tank.I used to go past  their tank building just on the outskirts of St Albans in the 60s & 70s.I have never known a ringfield magnet to weaken after all these years.

 

                    Ray.

[MikeCW]

............. I suppose it's just one of the many poor management decisions that led to the downfall of Meccano Ltd..

 

I hit the "Agree" button on Il Grifone's post.  Then it got me thinking.  (I have a regular hour of uninterrupted thinking time as I mow the lawns, sitting on the mower, on our 2 acre property. My wife claims she can read my mind from the expression on my face as I pass by the living room windows!)

 

First, Il Grifone has hit the nail when he refers to Meccano Ltd.  Many of the opinions on the fall of Meccano which I've read don't distinguish (or at least not explicitly) between the problems of the company (Meccano Ltd) or the Hornby Dublo product line.  If I were (God forbid) one of those high-priced corporate suits who might have been brought in to save Meccano, I'd be looking at the profitability, and the productivity (profit over costs) of each product line, and each separate product within that line.  For every product I'd take and analyse every component in detail - for HD: body castings, motors, coach side pressings,etc etc etc and analyse which could be outsourced more cheaply than in-house production - while maintaining quality..

 

But all that is just conventional business management outlined in those tedious books which line the shelves of airport newsagents and bookstalls. All it's really providing is information on which the production of existing products can be made more cost-efficient.  It doesn't answer some more fundamental questions about the business. All the efficiencies in the world won't affect customer demand, and a focus solely on cutting the costs of production, without producing things that are wanted, has been shown time and time again to prolong the death throes of a business, and possibly make that process sadder and more painful. A small example is the cost-cutting around the production of the E3000 electric locomotive, which generated unfavourable comment in the modelling press and appeared to confirm the sentiment that Dublo had "lost it". An alternative strategy (which I'm not saying would have worked), would have been to increase the quality of E3001, raise the price, and target a smaller, more discerning market.  As I say, it may not have worked, but it seems from what I've read that a major repositioning of the business was really the only option to a takeover.

 

Why?  Well, the world of 1962 was a very long way from the world of 1952; and 1962 was a universe away from 1942. No longer was an Empire a captive market, Disposable incomes were increasing. Rationing was over. (Some) class distinctions were blurring.  Europe was again producing quality manufactured goods, thanks to the U.S Marshall Plan. I could bore you all with paragraphs on such contrasts.  But it boils down to Triang producing a mass market model railway (and slot car system), for the "ordinary" boy, while Marklin was producing high quality, and expensive, model trains which were the standard for quality ^*, and many niche manufacturers were chipping away at a market which was becoming more fractured- Farish, Chairway track, Gem, Ks Playcraft etc etc. The model press from the 60s starts to fill with their advertisements. Dublo seemed to be floundering in the middle of this, looking for its own niche.

 

My instinct is that the biggest impact on Dublo's market was social change.  Would a 14 year old Liverpool lad in 1962 be hankering for the new locomotive from Binns Road, or would his greatest wish to be to get into the Cavern to hear the new band, in that teenage crush with the promising smells of hair lacquer and female cosmetics (probably pinched from Mum's dressing table).  I know what my choice would have been.

 

On re-reading, this seems a bit of a ramble, but it still rings true for me, and I'll probably hit the "Post" button. Meccano's Hornby-Dublo was a quality, fairly pricey, product; better than a toy train, but not quite a scale model; being sold into a shrinking market, with model railway competitors eating into both the top and bottom ends; and major social change and other opportunities for spending disposable income, making their products seem dated and definitely not "cool".

 

But we've been left a great legacy which we can continue to enjoy.  (I'll stick to technical and modelling matters from hereon!)

 

Mike

 

^{* In the provincial New Zealand town where I grew up,  I recall that, around 1960, a majority of my schoolmates who had model railways had Triang trains (manufactured under licence locally);  a few of us had Hornby Dublo; and the sons of Branch Managers at the local banks, or local solicitors, had Marklin.}

Edited September 7, 2018 by MikeCW

[sagaguy]

A lot oo Meccanos woes stemmed from complacency,Roland Hornby didn`t have the drive his father had,apparently the only drive he had was on the golf course.Another problem was slot car racing,i remember buying one of the first Scalextric sets in about 1962 but my future wife could always beat me.Meccano panicked & bought a French system called Circuit 24,total disaster,it ran on 24v AC rather than the 12v DC of their rivals.By the time of Meccanos bankrupcy,us lads who grew up in the austerity age were more into pop music,beer & girls.I`ve never lost my love for model railways having gone from 4mm to 1" to the foot steam locomotive,then to 2mm scale & now back to Hornby Dublo.These toys,because honestly,that`s how i see them,but highly satisfiying by keeping the old brain ticking over,will go on long after me,check out the face book pages,Dublo is still well and truly kicking.The only other thing is that nostalgia is bloody expensive LOL.

 

                       Ray.

[sagaguy]

Speaking of nostalgia,this what entertains me in my retirement & it`s still growing!!!.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       You see what i mean about nostalgia being expensive  LOL.

 

                                        Ray.

[sagaguy]

A poster on here mentioned Hornby Dublo metal platform extensions,they seem to go for quite high prices.I scoured ebay for cheap island platforms & ramps & on the odd occasion,extensions with fence which are in poor condition or painted.Remove the building,fill the rivet holes,rub down or strip any paint,Halfords white primer & finished with the aformentioned sahara beige & you have a reasonably cheap stock of extensions,i think these cost me about £8 +p & p.Before & after.

 

                     Ray.

 

 

[MikeCW]

 

 You see what i mean about nostalgia being expensive  LOL.

 

                                        Ray.

 

Yes indeed I do Ray!  But there's also satisfaction in getting an inexpensive, poor runner, and bringing it back to life with a bit of fettling, perhaps a transplant of a part or two, and even a low-cost home paint job. Garry is an inspiration to us there.  It's a trade-off in time vs cash (and at some point the lack of the former will be more important than lack of the latter!) but as you say, it keeps the brain engaged.

 

(Edit. Just like those "platform extensions"  of yours that I spotted after I made this post.)

 

Speaking of inexpensive non-runners, this  battered E3002, advertised on New Zealand's version of Ebay, was sold this week for the equivalent of 250 Pounds. No info as to whether it was a runner or not, but in any event, it didn't seem much like an inexpensive project to me.

 

Mike

Edited September 7, 2018 by MikeCW

[Golden Fleece 30]

Apparently,the National physical laboratory used a lot of ringfield motors in their model ship hulls on the test tank.I used to go past  their tank building just on the outskirts of St Albans in the 60s & 70s.I have never known a ringfield magnet to weaken after all these years.

 

                    Ray.

Ray, are you talking about the Dublo Ringfields?  If so I have had quite a few weaken which were fine after a remag, prior to getting the remag machine I replaced with Neos before I discovered the issues with them, bought the remag and used MOST of the originals.  I say most as a couple would not take and before I left the HRCA there was a discussion about a few faulty Ringfields Dublo used that were always weaker and would not take any remaging.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Yes indeed I do Ray!  But there's also satisfaction in getting an inexpensive, poor runner, and bringing it back to life with a bit of fettling, perhaps a transplant of a part or two, and even a low-cost home paint job. Garry is an inspiration to us there.  It's a trade-off in time vs cash (and at some point the lack of the former will be more important than lack of the latter!) but as you say, it keeps the brain engaged.

 

(Edit. Just like those "platform extensions"  of yours that I spotted after I made this post.)

 

Speaking of inexpensive non-runners, this  battered E3002, advertised on New Zealand's version of Ebay, was sold this week for the equivalent of 250 Pounds. No info as to whether it was a runner or not, but in any event, it didn't seem much like an inexpensive project to me.

 

Mike859071992 E3002.jpg859071976 E3002.jpg859071963 E3002.jpg

Thanks for your comment Mike.

 

I don't think I would have paid that for this loco as it is not the easiest to repair.  The plastic body may be pitted/scratched and which would not be an easy job to repaint unlike the R1, 08, Bo-Bo are. If it is dirt then okay it could be washed and new white cabs done.  The pantographs look as if need replacing and these are very expensive IF you can get them and replacement etches were very poor, mine were and I binned them, they were weak and flimsy and would not stay in shape.  If the early Tri-ang one, after they bought Dublo out, was available it was a little stronger but again expensive.  Someone at a show (Tri-ang man?) had some new including the EM2 ones for £65 EACH.

 

Chassis wise would not be an issue but I would fight shy of this body at that price.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

A poster on here mentioned Hornby Dublo metal platform extensions,they seem to go for quite high prices.I scoured ebay for cheap island platforms & ramps & on the odd occasion,extensions with fence which are in poor condition or painted.Remove the building,fill the rivet holes,rub down or strip any paint,Halfords white primer & finished with the aformentioned sahara beige & you have a reasonably cheap stock of extensions,i think these cost me about £8 +p & p.Before & after.

 

                     Ray.

 

 

20180714_213636.jpg

 

It's 'collectibility' yet again. Dublo didn't make many extensions (they were a late afterthought) and hence they are rare and thus expensive.

[Wolseley]

A poster on here mentioned Hornby Dublo metal platform extensions,they seem to go for quite high prices.I scoured ebay for cheap island platforms & ramps & on the odd occasion,extensions with fence which are in poor condition or painted.Remove the building,fill the rivet holes,rub down or strip any paint,Halfords white primer & finished with the aformentioned sahara beige & you have a reasonably cheap stock of extensions,i think these cost me about £8 +p & p.

 

 

 

Which is exactly how I got all my metal platform extensions too, although I haven't got around to respraying them yet..