Hornby dublo

[Golden Fleece 30]

Ray,

 

some people, myself included, do not want extra pick up wires if possible and prefer a "genuine" 3-rail loco.  Having said that I have in the past done the screw in the side of the chassis block.  I always said mine would never be going back to 2-rail so there is no need to keep them to be able to change back.  Less pick ups mean less time screwing things together making sure parts fit etc and the possibility of the wires losing contact which is why some 2-rail locos stop.  My Tri-ang locos were a doddle as spares are cheap and easy so I just removed the insulated wheels and replaced with non insulated ones.  We are all individuals and do what we want and there is nothing wrong with any method if it works.

 

David,

 

metric threads are usually easier to come by these days, taps/dies/screws. I did need some nylon screws (the same as Dennis Williams uses on his R1 conversions) and at the time only metric were available.  I do now have a few 8BA nylon screws for some TT projects but they are uncommon, and dearer.  When I was at work we only had metric in the workshop so metric it had to be lol.

 

Mike

 

Dublo wheels were always a better profile than others, especially for their day.  When Peco introduced their finer Universal pointwork (not genuine finescale) to accept modern Hornby, Bachmann etc they told me it was now too fine for Dublo and it would not run.  After trying it Dublo runs far better than it did with the old universal system proving how much better their wheels were in their day.  Peco were quite surprised when I told and showed them.  I like the gauge you have.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Regarding the tyres, I hate them, which is why I turned some steel wheels for Dublo locos.  They worked fine on the Deltic, Co-Bo, EMU but on E3001 and the Bo-Bo which were unsuccessful probably due to the weight and with swapping to TT I never pursued it.

 

There are various videos on YouTube showing the 3 with steel wheels running.

 

Garry

[Wolseley]

some people, myself included, do not want extra pick up wires if possible and prefer a "genuine" 3-rail loco.  Having said that I have in the past done the screw in the side of the chassis block.  I always said mine would never be going back to 2-rail so there is no need to keep them to be able to change back.  Less pick ups mean less time screwing things together making sure parts fit etc and the possibility of the wires losing contact which is why some 2-rail locos stop.  My Tri-ang locos were a doddle as spares are cheap and easy so I just removed the insulated wheels and replaced with non insulated ones.  We are all individuals and do what we want and there is nothing wrong with any method if it works.

 

 

My sentiments exactly.  Having a "genuine 3-rail loco", as you put it, is the simplest and easiest way to do it and, to my way of thinking, the simplest way to do something usually means that there is less chance of anything subsequently going wrong.  I have three-railed my Tri-ang locos by fitting a third rail pickup and removing the insulated wheels and replaced with non insulated ones.  Also, like you, there is no way I would want or need to change them back to two rail - I have well over 40 locomotives (not sure how many) most of which are originally three rail (most of these are Dublo with a few Trix), goodness knows how much three rail track and I am in the process of constructing a three rail layout.  I have no reason to make provision for an easy conversion back to two rail.

[sagaguy]

2mm PCB is unusuai. it's usually 1.6mm-1/16" (1.5mm fibreglas/paxolin + 0.1mm copper). it works just as well of couse. My supply came from when I was made redundant on closure of my workplace* nearly thirty years ago. I still have a lot and some brass sheet etc.

 

* The result of political interference by the Italian government and subsidies to Southern Italy (Illegal under EU rules - we had a list of these at work at the time. I noted that they had all been translated into Italian, except for the one referring to this which had been left in French.

Britain never seems to have grasped the function of the EU - everyone agrees and then carries on as before....

 

Surely using metric threads on Hornby Dublo is heresy - only B.A. and 5/32" Whitworth allowed. 

Hi David,it probably is 1.5-6mm thick,i was measuring it with a non precision 6" steel rule

 

                           Ray.

[Il Grifone]

Ray,

 

some people, myself included, do not want extra pick up wires if possible and prefer a "genuine" 3-rail loco.  Having said that I have in the past done the screw in the side of the chassis block.  I always said mine would never be going back to 2-rail so there is no need to keep them to be able to change back.  Less pick ups mean less time screwing things together making sure parts fit etc and the possibility of the wires losing contact which is why some 2-rail locos stop.  My Tri-ang locos were a doddle as spares are cheap and easy so I just removed the insulated wheels and replaced with non insulated ones.  We are all individuals and do what we want and there is nothing wrong with any method if it works.

 

David,

 

metric threads are usually easier to come by these days, taps/dies/screws. I did need some nylon screws (the same as Dennis Williams uses on his R1 conversions) and at the time only metric were available.  I do now have a few 8BA nylon screws for some TT projects but they are uncommon, and dearer.  When I was at work we only had metric in the workshop so metric it had to be lol.

 

Mike

 

Dublo wheels were always a better profile than others, especially for their day.  When Peco introduced their finer Universal pointwork (not genuine finescale) to accept modern Hornby, Bachmann etc they told me it was now too fine for Dublo and it would not run.  After trying it Dublo runs far better than it did with the old universal system proving how much better their wheels were in their day.  Peco were quite surprised when I told and showed them.  I like the gauge you have.

 

Garry

 

I was joking, hence the . I've never even tried to get nylon B.A. screws etc. but screws and taps are no problem. Even the 5/32" Whitworth taps and dies are easily available. I have used a 4M screw instead to hold my City body on but replaced it as soon as could get the relevant Meccano screw (10p as a Meccano part £1.50 - £2.00 as a Dublo part and obviously the same thing!*)

 

There is no reason Dublo wheels shouldn't run on track intended for modern wheels apart possibly from flange depth . They might need the back to back easing a fraction - not,as suggested, back in the day, in one of the reviews of the Dublo R1, to ease the check rails.. This should only be done if they are wrongly laid in the first place. Fix not bodge!

 

The problem with fitting non-insulated wheels is that, unless they are new, they will have been splined when fitted on their axle. OK if you fit an original pair, but it could be a problem getting them to quarter properly if mixed up  (been there!).

 

i've just acquired a Tri-ang/Hornby E2 body. Of course she needed a chassis, which is one of the wretched things with plastic gears and a plastic keeper plate** and drive to the leading axle. A bid on eBay secured one (less motor, but I already had a spare X.03). when it arrived it had a loose wheel. No problem fit a new wheel. On it went amd immediatly tight spots  due to duff quartering. In the end I noticed that the right hand side did not lead the left, so all the wheels came off, were refitted properly and sorted! Unfortunately the bush of the new wheel is damaged (on and off too much and lackes the flange behind the wheel. Thus it shorts occasionally, so I'll have to take it apart again  and fit one . I'm not touching the wheels however!  However while playing, I was appalled by the amount of slop between axle and what Hornby calls a bearing, The real thing would have been scrapped with less! Taking a leaf from the prototype, I decided that remetalling was needed (I was reminded of watching it done in the film 'The Train' - thats why the French for engine driver is 'mécancien'). Not having whitemetal, I resorted to solder. It was not 100% successful but the slop is much reduced and the thing now runs. It's a pity the wheelbase is wrong, as the E2 is one of the few locomotives to actually have the coupling rod knuckle between the first and second axles where Tri-ang put it for some unknown reason. For now the centre axle is staying where it is.

 

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6h3e7a

 

*Meccano screws come in various designs. We need the 1950s version obviously - cheesehead brass finish steel - though they are all 5/32" Whitworth, even the French ones!

 

** I have an aversion to plastic mechanics. Meccano gears and pulleys are plastic now!

 

I've been waffling on again....

Edited November 30, 2018 by Il Grifone

[sagaguy]

Now don`t say you can`t find `em.

 

                https://www.meccanoshop.co.uk/bolt-6mm-cheese-head-brass-c2x20875312

 

Almost any Meccano you want from this source,i`ve used them a lot over the years,

 

                          Ray.

[Il Grifone]

We need this one 1/2"  (111a).  https://www.meccanoshop.co.uk/bolts-c102x3029649

 

I see the price has gone up to 25p now!

 

I bought them from here years ago, but he is now retiring. I've since built up a collection of Meccano*, so I'll just pinch borrow one....

 

https://meccanoman.co.uk/catalog/index.php?cPath=1_21&osCsid=867819d3a5e2afd06884466a37506d57

 

* SWMBO has forbidden me to buy any more!

Edited November 30, 2018 by Il Grifone

[MikeCW]

Hornby Dublo Bo Bo.

 

Thank you all for your supportive comments and questions. There is always something to learn and I would never have got this far in my recently rediscovered interest in Dublo 3 rail without both the spur and the info from the folks on this forum.  A couple of comments before "Part 2".  My preference was to do away with wiper pick-ups.  They work I know, but in this instance a practical reason for dumping them was that the factory installed pick-up unit was in the place where I wanted to fit the skate, so I had to shift it anyway. And fitting new wipers seemed more of a faff, with more chance of unreliability, than de-insulating the insulated wheels with metal bushes.  (Fitting wiper pick-ups is my least favourite job when building locomotive kits.) With the Bo Bo there are no quartering concerns so the bush replacement was straightforward.

 

With my previous 2-rail "City" conversion to 3-rail I discarded the wiper pick-up unit and replaced it with a salvaged HD 3-rail pick-up.  I left the insulated wheels in place to avoid quartering challenges, but replaced the bogie, pony truck and tender with uninsulated "Montrose" items, so there is plenty of electrical continuity from the outside rails.

 

I'll come to tyres, couplings and screw threads in this saga, which is getting as long as a Peter Jackson movie.

 

 

 

Having refitted the now non-insulated wheels, my next task was to fit the Marklin skate.  (Note: the following photos were taken after the job was done, so the bogie sideframes are in place.  They were, of course, not refitted until the skate was fitted.)

 

Two points to note on the above photo. First, the 2 screw holes - one on the bogie centre line and one offset - are the fixing points of the two-rail wiper pick-up. They are tapped for 6BA machine screws.  Second, the bogie floor isn't flat.  There is a central, longitudinal ridge which stands a millimeter or so from each side.  This is more noticeable as I have cleaned up some of the casting imperfections on each side with a burr in my Dremel. I thought that I could use the existing tapped holes, and the "ridge", both to fix the skate and to lock it in place on the bogie centre line.  But first, what non-insulating material to use for the skate mounting?

 

Remember those old modelling articles from the 50s and 60s when Guy Williams and others used blocks of "Tufnol", and later "Paxolin" as insulating material. Not having any "Tufnol" to hand (and as far as I recall never having seen this product in the flesh) I pondered an alternative.  I had plenty of copper-clad material and thought that I could make a block by stripping off the copper and bonding several pieces together with Araldite.  The copper peeled off satisfactorily using needle nosed pliers, and I scratched the pieces with cross hatching to give the epoxy a "key" and laminated four layers.  After 24 hours I cut and filed it to shape as here.

To make things a bit clearer, herewith a rough sketch (not to scale) with principal dimensions.

You will see from the sketch that there is a channel filed top and bottom. This is not dimensioned on the drawing as it was a matter of trial and error. file and fit, file and fit again.  The skate sits in the top channel; the bottom channel fits over the "ridge" in the bogie floor.  The photo is of the top of the mounting block. (Hence the faint "T" marked on it.)  The hole near the centre is tapped 6BA to fix the skate. (But see the "Edit" in the second paragraph below.) I had intended to fit a captive nut in the block but it took a thread sufficiently well that to date there has been no need. And if the bolt protrudes through the insulated mounting block, no problem with short circuits as it will simply go into the hollow bogie mounting column.

 

The countersunk hole to the rear is clearance for a 6BA bolt to pass through and screw into the former fixing hole for the 2-rail wiper pick-up. The head of this bolt has been filed to reduce its height and it sits flush with the surface of the channel. During assembly I put a small square of plastic tape over it to ensure there is no contact with the copper of the skate.

 

(Edit: on re-reading the comments on "Episode 1" I noted that Ray uses 8BA screws to hold the skate in place.  That would be better than the 6BA bolt I used as I recall that I had to ream slightly the hole in the skate for 6BA clearance, and the "fatter" 6BA bolt head won't go through the hole in the skate shoe. And even with its head reduced in height, it can be a bit of a struggle to manoeuvre a 6BA bolt under the skate shoe and into the hole in the skate bottom plate.  8BA next time I think!) 

 

 

 

Here it is in place. What looks like poor filing in the top left is in fact deliberate, to relieve a point of pressure where the soldered connection to the skate was preventing it sitting nice and square.  You will see that the shape of the block, with channels top and bottom, lock both it and the skate in place with the no need for more than one machine screw or bolt in each instance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The finished article, yet to be painted.  The 6BA bolt which holds the skate in place has had its head filed down (and the slot deepened to compensate) so that it gives plenty of vertical movement of the skate, allowing it to compress well past the level of the wheel treads. In the top photo it looks as if the front (right hand end) of the skate, might compress or rock into the bogie frame and cause a short circuit. The clearance above the axles also looks tight.  Both are an optical illusion.  There is plenty of clearance at full compression of the skate, comfortably beyond what it would compress in "normal service".

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, the wiring. The wiring from the two-rail pick-up was discarded.  The grey wire - the existing wire from the "live" unpowered bogie - was moved and soldered directly to the motor brush spring, making the two bogies, both now with uninsulated wheels, electrically common to the outside rails.  The brown wire, the new wire from the Marklin skate, was soldered to where the grey wire had been.  With luck and some squinting, the photo should make it clear. And all now works satisfactorily. A three rail Hornby Dublo Bo Bo.

 

In the final instalment, which might be a few days away as I'm yet to finish the new paint job on the body, I'll cover final fettling, couplings, traction tyres and body work.

 

Thanks again for the comments (and apologies for the length of a story about a common and pretty inconsequential model).

 

Mike 

Edited December 1, 2018 by MikeCW

[Wolseley]

This looks like a neater job than the one I did when I fitted a Marklin skate to my Tri-ang-Hornby Caley single.  I might revisit that loco once I have a few other projects out of the way.

[Il Grifone]

Sometimes I think that I'll fit everything with Märklin* skates and convert to stud contact. (There was an article in the model press many years ago on how to convert Dublo pickups, but they weren't valuable collector's items back then!) Then I reconsider the idea and drop it!

 

* I always wondered how to pronounce this name. I book I had as a child said it's pronounced "Maerklin and sometimes spelt that that way". Not a great help, that would be Meerklin, like 'meerkat'.

It was resolved when I was watching 'Eisenbahn Romantik' on German TV* via satellite years ago in pre-digital days. They were covering the Nuremburg Fair amd pronounced it 'Merkleen'. ( It figures really, that is the standard German pronunciation of its spelling!

 

* I still have lots of VHS tapes (yes that old!) of this programme (some still to watch! ). Every so often I have to defend them from distaff (both wife and daughter!) attempts to throw them out.

[MikeCW]

Sometimes I think that I'll fit everything with Märklin* skates and convert to stud contact. (There was an article in the model press many years ago on how to convert Dublo pickups, but they weren't valuable collector's items back then!) Then I reconsider the idea and drop it!

 

* I always wondered how to pronounce this name. I book I had as a child said it's pronounced "Maerklin and sometimes spelt that that way". Not a great help, that would be Meerklin, like 'meerkat'.

It was resolved when I was watching 'Eisenbahn Romantik' on German TV* via satellite years ago in pre-digital days. They were covering the Nuremburg Fair amd pronounced it 'Merkleen'. ( It figures really, that is the standard German pronunciation of its spelling!

Hello Ray. I've sometimes wondered why stud contact never took on on the UK.  The obvious reason I suppose is that it never had a commercial manufacturer/sponsor of the influence of Meccano, Trix, Rovex etc, but it has a lot of advantages for larger layouts (rather than finescale "shunting planks" which don't really appeal to me that much). For those of us who stick with pre-digital, traditional model railways, electrical reliability and simplicity (of both layout wiring and locomotive and stock construction) as well as nostalgia are pluses for three rail - and stud contact gives us these plus more prototypical appearance.

 

I recall that Peco provided a stud contact strip to use with their fibre-based "individulay" track, a kind of zig-zag ladder of phosphor bronze strip. Back in about 1974 I decided, inspired by Gavin Wison's Highland Railway layout, to use stud contact, and built a Gem 4-4-0 with a Marklin (sorry, can't find an umlaut to stick on the 'a') skate.  It ran well on plain Peco track with their stud strip, but we were left to our own devices to modify pointwork, and peer pressure and laziness persuaded me to go two-rail.

 

I posted a pic of the late Gavin Wilson's Highland Railway in the TT3 thread during the ballast or no ballast discussion. I've posted a few more (from the August 64 "Modeller") below. (Edit: He used mainly small, dome headed wood screws as studs, each one wound several times with fuse wire which was then carried on to the next screw and the process repeated. Those post-war days of austerity when modellers made do.)

 

Hornby Dublo stud contact.  That would have been, and would still be, a great system!

 

 

A final thought re the comments about Metric and BA threads, According to my source on thread specifications (for my vintage motorcycle restoration), BA is a metric thread  - 0BA is 6mm diameter with a 1mm pitch, and as the BA numbers go up, the diameter and pitch reduce proportionately.  Apparently somewhere along the line the neater metric scale was converted into thousandths of an inch, so we've ended up with something of a hybrid - a bit like 4mm to the foot?!

 

Mike

Edited December 1, 2018 by MikeCW

[Colin_McLeod]

On a smartphone press and hold on 'a' and the full range of accents are made available.

 

ä

[Il Grifone]

Windows 10 supplies a character map among all the junk that appears when you click on the Windows symbol in the tool bar. I've pinned it to mine. There are whole alphabets of foreign characters, but one can always cut and paste.

 

B.A. is indeed a metric thread, but obsolete ( or at least, obsolescent - it was supposed to have disappeared by 2000 - it didn't happen, like the UK was supposed to be totally metric by 1975). The current metric threads are rather different. 4 B.A. and 4M.A. will start to scre up anf then jam...

 

IIRc there was also a third rail whic could be added to Sreamline, but it was withdrawn rather before the stud contact strip

[MikeCW]

3-railing the West Country chassis is easy as a standard Dublo assembly fits. There are different ways to short the wheels and in the past I have drilled a hole in the insulating bush between the wheel and axle and forced a brass pin in to short it out, it is permanent though.

 

I see that you and Wolseley are supportive of this method Garry.  It's not a technique I've heard about before but it looks to have the advantages of simplicity, permanence, and no risk to the quartering of a sweetly running chassis.   When you refer to a "pin" I assume that you mean a short length of brass rod, about the same length as the thickness of the driving wheel boss, driven in to the insulating bush at right angles to the face of the driver? To save me some trial and error, can you give me an idea of the diameter of the rod. I assume it has to be thick enough to firmly bridge the space between axle and driving wheel, but I'm not sure how far, if at all, the pilot hole one drills for the rod cuts into the axle and driving wheel.

 

The crude sketch should explain the question.

 

 

 

In "B" the rod is simply a tight fit between the axle and wheel, (which is my interpretation of your post quoted above), but not so tight that it compresses the plastic insulating bush on the opposite side of the axle, and cause the wheel to lose concentricity..  In "A" the hole cuts into both axle and boss That might give a more positive electrical path but would be a challenge (for me anyway) to avoid breaking a drill between the hard steel of the axle and the mazak of the driver. Drilling pressure might generate heat and distort the rest of the plastic bush and also cause the wheel to lose concentricity.  (A photo would be appreciated but I suspect that your locomotives so modified have had their wheel bosses painted to conceal the pin.) Any help or advice gratefully received.

 

Mike 

[Golden Fleece 30]

I see that you and Wolseley are supportive of this method Garry. It's not a technique I've heard about before but it looks to have the advantages of simplicity, permanence, and no risk to the quartering of a sweetly running chassis. When you refer to a "pin" I assume that you mean a short length of brass rod, about the same length as the thickness of the driving wheel boss, driven in to the insulating bush at right angles to the face of the driver? To save me some trial and error, can you give me an idea of the diameter of the rod. I assume it has to be thick enough to firmly bridge the space between axle and driving wheel, but I'm not sure how far, if at all, the pilot hole one drills for the rod cuts into the axle and driving wheel.

 

The crude sketch should explain the question.

 

P1020150.jpg

 

In "B" the rod is simply a tight fit between the axle and wheel, (which is my interpretation of your post quoted above), but not so tight that it compresses the plastic insulating bush on the opposite side of the axle, and cause the wheel to lose concentricity.. In "A" the hole cuts into both axle and boss That might give a more positive electrical path but would be a challenge (for me anyway) to avoid breaking a drill between the hard steel of the axle and the mazak of the driver. Drilling pressure might generate heat and distort the rest of the plastic bush and also cause the wheel to lose concentricity. (A photo would be appreciated but I suspect that your locomotives so modified have had their wheel bosses painted to conceal the pin.) Any help or advice gratefully received.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

What I used were brass track pins but no idea of diameter but about 1mm I think. The hole was drilled using a pin chuck in my hand and I am fairly sure it was just through the bush most likely touching the wheel and axle, I doubt I would have been able to drill the wheel or axle that way. The pin was a tight fit which must have removed what was left on the bush (if any) or if it was all removed was squashed slightly between wheel and axle with being being brass. Once tapped in with a hammer the top was snipped off and filed down, then as you say, painted over. I don't remember which locos I did but they are all put away. If I do come across one soon I will photograph it but don't hold your breath on that. You have to be carefull that the pin is not tapped deep enough to catch the chassis but I never had that happen as the pins were that tight once started I could not pull out with my fingers.

 

When I built live steam I did drill into both wheel and axle to pin to lock in place but trying something like that on a model had the drill moving onto the wheel as it was softer than the axles.

 

Garry

I see that you and Wolseley are supportive of this method Garry. It's not a technique I've heard about before but it looks to have the advantages of simplicity, permanence, and no risk to the quartering of a sweetly running chassis. When you refer to a "pin" I assume that you mean a short length of brass rod, about the same length as the thickness of the driving wheel boss, driven in to the insulating bush at right angles to the face of the driver? To save me some trial and error, can you give me an idea of the diameter of the rod. I assume it has to be thick enough to firmly bridge the space between axle and driving wheel, but I'm not sure how far, if at all, the pilot hole one drills for the rod cuts into the axle and driving wheel.

 

The crude sketch should explain the question.

 

P1020150.jpg

 

In "B" the rod is simply a tight fit between the axle and wheel, (which is my interpretation of your post quoted above), but not so tight that it compresses the plastic insulating bush on the opposite side of the axle, and cause the wheel to lose concentricity.. In "A" the hole cuts into both axle and boss That might give a more positive electrical path but would be a challenge (for me anyway) to avoid breaking a drill between the hard steel of the axle and the mazak of the driver. Drilling pressure might generate heat and distort the rest of the plastic bush and also cause the wheel to lose concentricity. (A photo would be appreciated but I suspect that your locomotives so modified have had their wheel bosses painted to conceal the pin.) Any help or advice gratefully received.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

What I used were brass track pins but no idea of diameter but about 1mm I think. The hole was drilled using a pin chuck in my hand and I am fairly sure it was just through the bush most likely touching the wheel and axle, I doubt I would have been able to drill the wheel or axle that way. The pin was a tight fit which must have removed what was left on the bush (if any) or if it was all removed was squashed slightly between wheel and axle with being being brass. Once tapped in with a hammer the top was snipped off and filed down, then as you say, painted over. I don't remember which locos I did but they are all put away. If I do come across one soon I will photograph it but don't hold your breath on that. You have to be carefull that the pin is not tapped deep enough to catch the chassis but I never had that happen as the pins were that tight once started I could not pull out with my fingers.

 

When I built live steam I did drill into both wheel and axle to pin to lock in place but trying something like that on a model had the drill moving onto the wheel as it was softer than the axles.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

I see that you and Wolseley are supportive of this method Garry. It's not a technique I've heard about before but it looks to have the advantages of simplicity, permanence, and no risk to the quartering of a sweetly running chassis. When you refer to a "pin" I assume that you mean a short length of brass rod, about the same length as the thickness of the driving wheel boss, driven in to the insulating bush at right angles to the face of the driver? To save me some trial and error, can you give me an idea of the diameter of the rod. I assume it has to be thick enough to firmly bridge the space between axle and driving wheel, but I'm not sure how far, if at all, the pilot hole one drills for the rod cuts into the axle and driving wheel.

 

The crude sketch should explain the question.

 

P1020150.jpg

 

In "B" the rod is simply a tight fit between the axle and wheel, (which is my interpretation of your post quoted above), but not so tight that it compresses the plastic insulating bush on the opposite side of the axle, and cause the wheel to lose concentricity.. In "A" the hole cuts into both axle and boss That might give a more positive electrical path but would be a challenge (for me anyway) to avoid breaking a drill between the hard steel of the axle and the mazak of the driver. Drilling pressure might generate heat and distort the rest of the plastic bush and also cause the wheel to lose concentricity. (A photo would be appreciated but I suspect that your locomotives so modified have had their wheel bosses painted to conceal the pin.) Any help or advice gratefully received.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

What I used were brass track pins but no idea of diameter but about 1mm I think. The hole was drilled using a pin chuck in my hand and I am fairly sure it was just through the bush most likely touching the wheel and axle, I doubt I would have been able to drill the wheel or axle that way. The pin was a tight fit which must have removed what was left on the bush (if any) or if it was all removed was squashed slightly between wheel and axle with being being brass. Once tapped in with a hammer the top was snipped off and filed down, then as you say, painted over. I don't remember which locos I did but they are all put away. If I do come across one soon I will photograph it but don't hold your breath on that. You have to be carefull that the pin is not tapped deep enough to catch the chassis but I never had that happen as the pins were that tight once started I could not pull out with my fingers.

 

When I built live steam I did drill into both wheel and axle to pin to lock in place but trying something like that on a model had the drill moving onto the wheel as it was softer than the axles.

 

Garry

I see that you and Wolseley are supportive of this method Garry. It's not a technique I've heard about before but it looks to have the advantages of simplicity, permanence, and no risk to the quartering of a sweetly running chassis. When you refer to a "pin" I assume that you mean a short length of brass rod, about the same length as the thickness of the driving wheel boss, driven in to the insulating bush at right angles to the face of the driver? To save me some trial and error, can you give me an idea of the diameter of the rod. I assume it has to be thick enough to firmly bridge the space between axle and driving wheel, but I'm not sure how far, if at all, the pilot hole one drills for the rod cuts into the axle and driving wheel.

 

The crude sketch should explain the question.

 

P1020150.jpg

 

In "B" the rod is simply a tight fit between the axle and wheel, (which is my interpretation of your post quoted above), but not so tight that it compresses the plastic insulating bush on the opposite side of the axle, and cause the wheel to lose concentricity.. In "A" the hole cuts into both axle and boss That might give a more positive electrical path but would be a challenge (for me anyway) to avoid breaking a drill between the hard steel of the axle and the mazak of the driver. Drilling pressure might generate heat and distort the rest of the plastic bush and also cause the wheel to lose concentricity. (A photo would be appreciated but I suspect that your locomotives so modified have had their wheel bosses painted to conceal the pin.) Any help or advice gratefully received.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

What I used were brass track pins but no idea of diameter but about 1mm I think. The hole was drilled using a pin chuck in my hand and I am fairly sure it was just through the bush most likely touching the wheel and axle, I doubt I would have been able to drill the wheel or axle that way. The pin was a tight fit which must have removed what was left on the bush (if any) or if it was all removed was squashed slightly between wheel and axle with being being brass. Once tapped in with a hammer the top was snipped off and filed down, then as you say, painted over. I don't remember which locos I did but they are all put away. If I do come across one soon I will photograph it but don't hold your breath on that. You have to be carefull that the pin is not tapped deep enough to catch the chassis but I never had that happen as the pins were that tight once started I could not pull out with my fingers.

 

When I built live steam I did drill into both wheel and axle to pin to lock in place but trying something like that on a model had the drill moving onto the wheel as it was softer than the axles.

 

Garry

[Wolseley]

I don't have anything of substance to add to Garry's comments above.  It seems that we have pretty much the same approach to the task.

 

And, seeing as how we seem to be on first name terms in this part of the forum.....

 

Jim

[Wolseley]

I well remember those silver lined stick on demisters :-), :-), :-)

 

Garry

 

The offending demister on display at the Wolseley Car Club of NSW concours last month:

 

 

I have tried David's suggestion of sticky tape, but it doesn't stand up to the rigours of the Australian sun......

 

Jim

Edited December 3, 2018 by Wolseley

[Golden Fleece 30]

Sorry for all the duplicate posts above, my phone played up and it seems all the times I pressed post were suddenly  accepted.

 

Garry

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Well for the first time in ages I have managed to have a play with some of my engines and stock. I laid some track out on the bedroom carpet and had a happy hour or so. I got to run 2 of my 2-6-4 tanks, Class 20 diesel and one of my Bristol castles. I really need to sell my house and get the bungalow my wife and I want. It will have a dedicated railway room and a garage for my bikes.Sadly I had to put my engines and stock away again till next time.

[Il Grifone]

The offending demister on display at the Wolseley Car Club of NSW concours last month:

 

CCH 11.jpg

 

I have tried David's suggestion of sticky tape, but it doesn't stand up to the rigours of the Australian sun......

 

Jim

 

I had one of those! black with red interior. Which reminds me - I paid £60 for her (late 60s) and scrapped her when the clutch failed. The S.U. carburettor dashpot keep leaking and causing misfiring. I gather the bodge involves grease.... Her condition was basically what you would expect for 60 quid. (Inpecunious student.) I got her up to 80mph once (on the clock and downhill). Some time after her acquisition. I discovered thar she had been fitted with the A50 van engine, which explained her sluggishness. A girlfriend asked why I double declutched on a roundabout. I had to explain that the synchromesh on second no longer functioned. I did repair the clock though (burnt out contact on the escapement*). Obviously she couldn't compare with your beauty!

 

*Probably not the right term, but I couldn't thing what else to call it,

 

What's a sun?  It's raining here (again)! And almost dark ar 4.15!

Edited December 3, 2018 by Il Grifone

[Wolseley]

Mine is an Australian built 15/60. There are a few differences between UK and Australian built cars, the main two being that it has a 1622cc engine instead of 1489cc (the larger engine was an initiative of BMC Australia - the UK parent company said it wouldn't work, but ended up adopting it when the 16/60 was announced) and it has a Zenith rather than an SU carburettor (a change  made, I believe, to increase local content - as were the components used in the rear axle assembly, which incorporates a number of parts common to the FE Holden).  Pundits will tell you that the 15/60 was discontinued in 1961, but they continued in production in Australia until February or March of 1962.  Mine is a 1962 model and is one of the last ones built - the Club's expert on numbers told me it has the highest body number he has ever seen on a 15/60.

 

Not really relevant to a discussion on Hornby Dublo, although it is contemporary......

 

Jim

[MikeCW]

The offending demister on display at the Wolseley Car Club of NSW concours last month:...

 

Jim

Off Topic Warning. A boyhood friend of my late father's was a what was called a "Rehab Farmer", the name given to returning ex-servicemen who applied for farms, often in the remote "high country", which had been roughly cleared and broken in by the Government, and were then allocated by ballot to qualifying ex-servicemen applicants. Life was initially very tough for them, and their families, physically and financially, but the Korean War saw wool prices rise to "a pound for a pound of wool" and life became very much easier. With access to overseas funds, many bought new cars unavailable to most NZers under the then exchange control rules. Dad's friend bought a maroon Wolseley 6/90, a thing of beauty and luxury in the grey 50s. Truth to tell, it probably wasn't as well suited to the rough, water-scoured, gravel roads of the high country, as the pre-war American Ford V8s and Chev 6s that most farmers favoured.  But as a status symbol ................!  He must have bought it about the same time as I was given my first Hornby Dublo train.

 

Mike

[Il Grifone]

Mine is an Australian built 15/60. There are a few differences between UK and Australian built cars, the main two being that it has a 1622cc engine instead of 1489cc (the larger engine was an initiative of BMC Australia - the UK parent company said it wouldn't work, but ended up adopting it when the 16/60 was announced) and it has a Zenith rather than an SU carburettor (a change  made, I believe, to increase local content - as were the components used in the rear axle assembly, which incorporates a number of parts common to the FE Holden).  Pundits will tell you that the 15/60 was discontinued in 1961, but they continued in production in Australia until February or March of 1962.  Mine is a 1962 model and is one of the last ones built - the Club's expert on numbers told me it has the highest body number he has ever seen on a 15/60.

 

Not really relevant to a discussion on Hornby Dublo, although it is contemporary......

 

Jim

 

Mine was a 1589 c.c. (should be millilitres today, bur never mind!) or at least I assume so. As I said it wasn't the original engine (they didn't last so long back then). I'm sure that the Zenith carburettor was a great improvement. I never had carburettor trouble with any of the the various Fords I had with them. Likewise the 1622 engine, but even 60 horsepower is far short of what is considered necessary today (again should be kilowatts and again never mind!).

 

More on topic, I have a Matchbox one, but it's the inferior Austin version    It still has the lovely fins though! 

I wonder if I could do a 'cut and shut' with the Wolesley 1500? Being Matchbox they are probably different scales.

 

David

[Wolseley]

Dad's friend bought a maroon Wolseley 6/90, a thing of beauty and luxury in the grey 50s.

 

 

There was a maroon 6/90 there but, rather than post a photo in this Hornby Dublo thread, here's a link to the "For those interested in old cars" thread on this site, where I have posted 18 photos of the cars on display (OK, 17 photos of the cars and one of the house), one of which is of the maroon 6/90:  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73445-for-those-interested-in-old-cars/page-380