Hornby dublo

[Pak75]

Thanks Ray

Sahara beige it is.

Yes, it is a Duchess tender - I tried to say it was separate as in separate set but didn’t make myself clear.

Cheers

[Wolseley]

6 hours ago, Pak75 said:

Recently acquired a HD Silver King with plastic bogie wheels and nickel driving wheels finished in gloss green. 

Presumably a late HD innovation?

HD's brief flirtation with gloss finishes pre-dates the introduction of nickel plated drivers and plastic bogie wheels.  1954, I think, but it might have been 1953.  Silver King was the original BR A4 though, so I suggest the finish is original (and in very good condition) but the body has at some point been fitted to a later chassis.

 

 

6 hours ago, Pak75 said:

A seperate  tender has some Mazak rot on chassis - can this be treated? I put some light oil on it which seems to have slowed it down...

You can't repair Mazak rot, but from the photo it appears that the axle boxes on the tender have some sort of whitish powder on them which would be more like a reaction to dampness, somewhat akin to a bit of light rust, rather than Mazak rot, which would lead to distorted surfaces and small cracks.  Perhaps a closer photograph would help .  Does the matching locomotive, which appears to be lurking just out of the photograph to the right, have any issues?

[Il Grifone]

The initial 1953 BR livery releases were gloss finish, but this was soon dropped, starting with the 4MT 2-6-4T in 1954.

The BR(E) coach appears to have faded a bit over the years, The crimson was quite dark.

I have not encountered zinc pest in post-war Dublo. The white powder is a different matter and AFAIK is a reaction to damp (zinc oxide?). It should brush off, unless the metal is too far gone. Plastic carrying wheels and plated drivers date from the 2 rail period, so this one has had a body swop. She should be 'Mallard', with a slot for the train nameboard post 1958. A 3 rail nickel/plastic chassis commands a higher price.

 

The Castle/Star/Saint classes are very difficult to model in 4mm scale. By the time you add the flange depth to the tyre diameter, there is very little space between the leading coupled wheels. (You can just about get your hand in!)

It was solved, in the case of Dublo, by fitting undersize wheels (about 24mm diameter), not having flanges on the centre wheelset and increasing the wheelbase. This done the temptation to use the existing coupling rods was probably too hard to resist!

The Kings are beefier all round than the Castles. Hence the double red special restrictions.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Il Grifone

[Pak75]

Hi there David and Wolseley 

You are spot on, as confirmed by Foster. There is also a Mallard with headboard slot in my purchase which has now been reunited with its correct chassis.

Seller was unable to provide any info other than being in loft for 20 years, so I have no idea why they were swapped. I didn’t even know if locomotives would work.

I am relieved that Corrosion is not Mazak rot although fungal like white/grey powdering twice the size of the axle boxes was alarming when I first saw it. Photo was taken after I cleaned up what I could. Strangely only the Duchess tender was affected, everything else is in good nick.

 

Thanks

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Pak75

[Il Grifone]

My surmise is that some batches of alloy are more porous than others, but it might just be a question of storage.

 

A 3 rail nickel 'Mallard' is the most valuable variant (pre-war 'Gresleys' excepted of course - there weren't that many to start with and they were subject to the pest. A visit to Binns Road for repair would  likely have resulted in a new replacement being returned).

Edited September 11, 2022 by Il Grifone

[Wolseley]

Here are a few photographs I took today.  As you may notice, I still have to letter the City of Bradford's tender and I have to paint Princess Alice's wheels blue.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2022 by Wolseley

[SR71]

Thanks @Il Grifone and others for your advice a page or two back. Unfortunately winter virus' took me out of action just after my post to the extent I didn't know until a few days before if I'd do the show. At which point I was too busy to get a post on here. As it turns out the anyrail plan translated into reality although I kept it simpler for time.

 

A very busy but good day. 7hrs to set up. 7hr show. 1hr to get it packed away and out the door.

 

 

 

[TerryD1471]

On 29/08/2022 at 12:40, Il Grifone said:

 

That's the one!

My theory is Meccano Ltd. were offered a job lot of this awful colour in the forties....

 

 

Possibly the later plastic version of the bridge? Tri-ang would have wanted to clear these out to promote sales of their own bridges.

 

The short straight is not an eighth, but the correct length to make up the gap in a reverse loop. I could work it out, but the brain is on strike (just before lunchtime!). All the Dublo track sections stem from the 15 inch radius 45 degree curved rail. A 30 degree curve is a non-starter in Dublo geometry. (Märklin and Formo have 30 degree curves, but present other problems (not least supply!).

 

EDIT

 

Browsing the 'net, I found this (sorry heretical Non-RMweb site):

https://uk.Hornby.com/community/forum/curves-geometry-for-the-older-3-rail-track?p=1%2F&ccm_paging_p=1&ccm_order_by=&ccm_order_by_direction=

 

There's a list of the dimensions (unchecked) of Dublo track and a couple of unanswered queries:

 

1. The track with red under the base is (some is black like Dublo)* and 2. Märklin will join to Dublo. The former has a wider base than Dublo, but otherwise joins perfectly and the latter has a higher base which presents problems. The three rail Märklin (at least the pieces I have) is 16mm gauge, which I find is a bit tight for Dublo wheels, especially the Duchesses. Both have steel rail (again at least mine do) which is definitely inferior. Apart from the Korean war period**, Dublo always used brass, though pre-war it was not plated.

* It's rather rare as Formo was only sold for a short period in the 50s and Farish products were not that readily available anyway.

** My advice is to leave this in the stallholder's box, unless you really want a few bits for the sake of a complete collection.

 

Dublo large radius (17¼") is the same as Radius 2, but radius 1 is less than Dublo's standard 15". The blame here is Tri-ang Super4 which used Dublo's 8 to a circle geometry, but based it on large radius pointwork.

 

EDIT 2

 

A Dublo catalogue gives 1 5/16" for the short rail. (It also gives 11½" for the straight rail which IIRC are actually 11.48" but that is being pedantic!)

 

http://www.stagniweb.it/foto6.asp?File=Hornby&InizioI=1&RigheI=50&Col=5

 

 

 

 

 

I always liked the geometry of the H-D system and the fact that the track centres gave a nice close(ish) 2 1/4 inch spacing between outer and inner curved sections. HOWEVER, I did find that when I built some old Kitmaster Mk 1 coaches (64 ft) and ran them on the outer circuits, the coaches' overhang inwards was such that the bufferbeam of locos on the inner circuit would clout them.

 

I can only assume that this was the reason why H-D never built their Mark 1 coaches to the full 64 ft length, but preferred to make them the same length as the Mk 1 full brakes (only 58 ft). Even then, their Mk 1s had the bogie pivots slightly inward of where they should have been, as this would have further eased the potential "clouting" problem.

Edited October 17, 2022 by TerryD1471

[Colin]

IMHO it's a great shame there was never a 3rd radius curve - the bigger steam locos would have looked a whole lot better negotiating them.

[cypherman]

6 hours ago, Colin said:

IMHO it's a great shame there was never a 3rd radius curve - the bigger steam locos would have looked a whole lot better negotiating them.

Hi Colin.

It was also a shame they did not expand their range of points to include 3 way, curved and double slips. With such an expansion of pointwork, it may have allowed H/D to last a bit longer in the marketplace, as it would allow much more complicated layouts to be built.

[sncf231e]

This rainy afternoon I fetched the box with the Hornby Dublo "Duchess of Montrose" train set and made a video:

 

Regards

Fred

[railroadbill]

Thanks, Fred.

Apart from my having the Flying Scotsman set with Mallard, (EDP15) that could have been my living room floor around 63 years ago...

Cool!

According to the 1956/57 price list that you have as a title shot, the EDP12 Duchess set was  £7 1s 6d which was the most expensive set they did.

[railroadbill]

 

Fairly recent acquisition,  a Hornby Dublo 2 rail City of London.  So I finally got a H-D Duchess...

Here with my ancient  original classic H-D D12 LMR coaches from Flying Scotsman set.

Just had to go up in the loft and take a picture of it on the track....

Edited October 24, 2022 by railroadbill

[Il Grifone]

The Duchess is gloss finish and probably comes from the  first 'Montrose' production batch in 1953. The set was probably someone's Christmas present that year (when I got mine!).

Interestingly the box shows the pre-war wooden buildings, by then long put of out of production. I did have an island platform, but, not aware of its origins, it went in a clear out of wooden buildings, probably when we moved to Solihull from Bristol at the end of the decade.

[railroadbill]

Think my Flying Scotsman set with Mallard must have been 1957 or 58.  I ended up with a Tri-ang station a year or so later for no apparent reason, but Hornby signals, water crane etc.

[Il Grifone]

Probably it had something to do with the cost of the Dublo stations!

See my last post and wooden buildings....

Dad brought me back a road overbridge from one of his business trips. It had approach roads angled at around 45 degrees with a vicious hump in the middle that most road vehicles would ground on! IIRC the Dinky Euclid dump truck could manage it (but was a trifle out of scale!).

In my defence, I was seven or eight at the time and led astray by Meccano Ltd. catalogues,

 

In particular I was thinking of this one:

https://www.ebay.co.uk

(The bus and train are the same scale!)

 

The actual scales (not just 'fit the box') were the subject of a 'top secret - eyes only' memo:

https://www.planetdiecast.com

 

Incidently the Austin Seven (in the bottom picture) is actually too large for 4mm scale (or 5/32" in Meccanoland). I always found the wheels fell off and got lost if one actually tried to play with the wretched things! (9d IIRC).

 

'Mallard' was introduced in 1958 along with the train/destination labels and headcode boards.

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Il Grifone

[railroadbill]

The Tri-ang station isn't bad really, still got it and I put one of the buildings on the current  layout a while back as  a kind of place holder and it's still there...

You weren't the only one led astray by Meccano catalogues, as I've still got several which I was looking at today after seeing sncf231e's excellent Duchess video, I guess I can still be led astray... Meccano Magazine was a major influence back then!

The e-bay poster looks nice, got the bus ( in poor condition,) and the Castle, but not the bridge.  Tri-ang as mentioned on another thread had a good selection of bridges - which current  Hornby still make!

 

I must have had the Scotsman set Christmas 1958 then, thanks for that, David.  The 2 coaches do indeed have the destinations/train name boards on them  but the loco board that fitted into the little slot on the smokebox of the A4 has long gone. If I go on following this thread I'll have to search one out. 🙂  Set coming up for 64 years then... good grief.

 

Bill

Edited October 24, 2022 by railroadbill

[Il Grifone]

A  nameboard is likely to cost nearly as much as the engine thanks to the collector's market! They cost something like 6d IIRC.

The Tri-ang buildings aren't bad, if you ignore their habit of modelling grooves as raised lines. I acquired another last Sunday in a swopmeet clearance along with a thrown together Airfix mineral wagon kit. I didn't need either but the price was irresistable....*

A rather sad looking Hornby LMS 0-4-0T came home with me too. My first 'proper' toy engine was one of these. Unfortunately I was too young to appreciate her properly (two) and she is no longer with us. I've been trying to atone for this childhood sin ever since and have most of my stock again or reasonable facsimilies. An LMS '101' was just the ticket, even if I expected a broken spring along with the 2 missing wheels and motion. closer examination revealed the missing motion was because she was actually a pre-war M3. Oh well, near enough! On getting her home, I dug out my prized genuine key (this cost nearly as much as I paid for the locomotive, but is still nice and shiny) and wound her up and off she went! Great! no messing about with vicous recalcitrant springs and gas flames! Straightened out the bent footplate and a polish and amost as good as new. She just needs two wheels, a bunker back, front coupling and a pair of buffers.

 

*SWMBO must never know I even went.... 🤫

 

The relevant MM is here:

http://meccano.magazines.free.fr/html/1958/5809.htm

 

The lathe on p433 looks interesting, but I suppose it can't to expected to do very much. Perhaps I should build it and see.

 

I have several of the Dinky buses (there are several different versions). I have my doubts over the scale of the Routemaster. It seems a trifle oversize to me. There are a couple in the picture, (restored I hasten to add, though it was originally red and grey.)

Edited October 28, 2022 by Il Grifone

[DCB]

On 17/10/2022 at 15:46, TerryD1471 said:

I always liked the geometry of the H-D system and the fact that the track centres gave a nice close(ish) 2 1/4 inch spacing between outer and inner curved sections. HOWEVER, I did find that when I built some old Kitmaster Mk 1 coaches (64 ft) and ran them on the outer circuits, the coaches' overhang inwards was such that the bufferbeam of locos on the inner circuit would clout them.

 

I can only assume that this was the reason why H-D never built their Mark 1 coaches to the full 64 ft length, but preferred to make them the same length as the Mk 1 full brakes (only 58 ft). Even then, their Mk 1s had the bogie pivots slightly inward of where they should have been, as this would have further eased the potential "clouting" problem.

BR changed the Mk1s from circa 58ft to 64ft during the design process by adding largely useless center doors to many variants. They had already gone for 9ft 3"  or an extra 3" width  over existing stock because they were a bit shorter and then lengthened them.   They were nationalised so it didn't matter, laws of physics can be altered by the stroke of a bureaucrats pen.  Still doesn't explain H/D making their stock short when their Mk1 was scale length for a Stanier give or take a bit and the Full brake came out later than the passenger stock.

The bogies had their pivots offset towards the middle on the later coaches and central on the older ones, I don't think any RTR has equaled the last compensated H/D coach bogies for smooth running.  I don't know why but we have a set with Wrenn style metal tyre wheels which almost never derail or uncouple, they are sods to change the wheels on so I can't explain how metal tyre wheels found their way into them.    The set also compares very favourably indeed for appearance compared to a recent Bachmann set when running at speed the way the light reflects off the tinplate is just like the real thing, whereas the semi matt Bachmann finish looks  dull and lifeless.

The unforgivable sin H/D made due to the geometry was the Deltic, It looks like someone use the Baby Deltic length and squeezed six axles under it.  Its second only perhaps to the Jouef class 21 as the ,most inaccurate 00 RTR loco ever, though maybe it actually beats the 21.   Like the AL1 motor bogie takes pride of place as the most useless 00 power bogie, despite H/D having an excellent Bo bogie under the Emu and class 20.   

[Il Grifone]

There were problems with the two rail version of the Bo-Bo diesel and the model had to be withdrawn.

Even the shorter coaches were slightly reduced in length.

[railroadbill]

59 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

There were problems with the two rail version of the Bo-Bo diesel and the model had to be withdrawn.

Even the shorter coaches were slightly reduced in length.

I've heard this before about the 2 rail Bo-Bo running badly. I've got a 3 rail one which runs ok, it does have traction tyres on all wheels on the power bogie so I wonder if the 2 rail one had poor pickups? Is there a fix now?

Edited October 26, 2022 by railroadbill

[railroadbill]

10 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

A  nameboard is likely to cost nearly as much as the engine thanks to the collector's market! They cost something like 6d IIRC.

 

 

I have several of the Dinky buses (there are several different versions). I have my doubts over the scale of the Routemaster. It seems a trifle oversize to me. There are a couple in the picture, (restored I hasten to add, though it was originally red and grey.)

 

The 29c Dinky double decker (AEC type) was 3s 9d in 1954. (Gone up to 4s 3d by 1958...)  Might have to repaint my one now.  I think the Corgi Routemaster was better than the Dinky one, but it's a very long time since I've seen either!  EFE came along much later with their very realistic buses, which was a great boost for authentic model railways. 

[Il Grifone]

I believe the problem was indeed pickup. The power bogie was prone to rocking fore and aft. This was not a problem in three rail, apart from a tendency to derail, but drastic in two, especially with traction tyres.

Solutions could have been: all wheel pickup (as I did mine) or, as almost everyone else has done, traction tyres on one side and pickup from the other on the power bogie and pickup from the other side of the unpowered one,

I don't know Wrenn's solution. My two are three rail.

Back in the day you used Dinky buses or various awful plastic efforts. Meccano were caught napping with the Corgi range - The ones with windows! - This and Tri-ang Railways surge in new and quite passable (sometimes at least) releases must have hit them hard. Not to mention the slotcar fad.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Il Grifone

[roythebus1]

there was nothing wrong with with my AL1 motor bogie. the same bogie was fitted to the EMUs I had, all now long gone! BTW, I found an EMU motor coach chassis in the box of bits a few days if anyone needs one, also a HD platform ramp.

 

As for the dinky buses, I have a fairly large collection of them. they made the double decker with various radiators to represent the AEC, Leyland and I think a Thorneycroft radiator. The single deck half-cab coach appeared to be a Leyland; the half-deck observation coach; there was a BOAC single decker and a Leyland single decker with full front. I forget what that was based on. But back in the late 1960s they fetched a "good price".

 

At the time I was saving to buy a real-life GS bus and started selling my model buses for "a good price" which helped. A year or so later after I bought said GS bus (I still have it), I was at  collectors fair in Islington. someone there had a box of Dinky buses at half-a-crown each. a sensible price. I was broke at the time and had about ten bob on me. Luckily Prince Marshall (who subsequently restored Tilling ST922) happened to be around. He lent me a tenner to buy a box of these Dinky buses. I sold them at bus rallies over the next couple of weeks for far more than I paid for them. It helped keep my bus restoration going.

 

But since then we've been spoilt for choice for model buses.

[Il Grifone]

Haif a crown does seem reasonable. They had got up to silly prices but recently (pre-Covid) a stall holder had a tray of double decker restoration candidates at a couple of quid a throw. I would have indulged, but I already had too many quite a few,