00 Guage chassis marked M/H/I

[carlwebus]

I have acquired a box of bits. Among them is  what looks like a Hornby Dublo 2 rail R1 - but I think  the chassis is wrong - possibly a Hornby Dublo Jinty.  The R1 body is clearly marked Hornby Dublo Mechano Ltd but the only marks on the chassis are the letters M/H/I on the block at the front  end.

 

The chassis is an 0-6-0 with flangeless middle  wheels and what looks like an X04 type motor.

 

Can anybody confirm for me the chassis make/ type?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Could be the H-D mechanism or the later Wrenn equivalent. It will have a screw secured worm wheel on the flangeless centre axle if it is one of these two. Keep in mind that after so many years elapsed anyone could have messed about with it to a greater or lesser extent...

[Nimbus]

A photo would help!

 

The Nim.

[Nimbus]

[duplicate post - original didn't show in page refresh]

Edited October 24, 2019 by Nimbus

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, carlwebus said:

I have acquired a box of bits. Among them is  what looks like a Hornby Dublo 2 rail R1 - but I think  the chassis is wrong - possibly a Hornby Dublo Jinty.  The R1 body is clearly marked Hornby Dublo Mechano Ltd but the only marks on the chassis are the letters M/H/I on the block at the front  end.

 

The chassis is an 0-6-0 with flangeless middle  wheels and what looks like an X04 type motor.

 

Can anybody confirm for me the chassis make/ type?

Does the R1 body fit the chassis?

 

Hornby Dublo never made a Jinty; that was Triang who later became Triang Hornby then Hornby.  The Hornby Dublo 2-rail range was produced after that company's demise by Wrenn.  The chassis sounds like a Hornby Dublo R1; AFAIK this loco never had a ringfield motor and was powered by an open frame type not dissimilar in appearance to the XO4.  The driving wheels are (correctly) larger in diameter than the Triang Jinty and the coupling rods are fixed by proper crankpin bolts as opposed to Triang's crude slotted screw heads.  The tyre profile is finer than the Triang Jinty, to Hornby Dublo BRSMB standards, but the later Triang Hornby Jinty had BRSMB standard wheels.  These were plastic centred, though; if your wheels are all-metal BRSMB you've got an R1.  Some very early Triang Jinty wheels were solid backed.

 

But both the Hornby Dublo R1 and the Triang Jinty had 0-6-0 chassis with flangeless centre driving wheels driven by a brass worm and cog transmission from an open frame motor, as did the other possibility, the Trix E1.  If the chassis block has tapped holes at the ends underneath for the screw attaching the HD/Trix 'buckeye' coupling you can discount Triang, but if it's got the rivet attachment for the Triang tension lock you can discount HD and Trix.  

[carlwebus]

Hi Guys

 

Many thanks flor your encyclopeadic knowledge.

 

Problem is the info you give seems to rule out HD, Triang and Trix!:

• Worm  wheel does not seem to have screw fixing.
• Motor is open X04 type
• crank pins on outer  wheels are not slotted
• wheels on both sides seem to be solid metal (one piece on the live  side but with a solid insert on the other)
• no  threaded fixing holes that I can see for the HD type couplings
• the chassis does not seem to fit the HD R1 body.  The rear of the  chassis has two lugs which look as though they  should fit into the  slot at the bunker end of the body - but they do not - being too far apart. The threaded hole at the front of the chassis block does,   however, line up with the screw put down the  chimney.

Photo attached!

 

[micknich2003]

Standard Triang of the mid to late '50's.

[The Johnster]

All is revealed!

 

Triang Jinty, pre 1960s vintage.  Original (1954?) tooling with solid wheels and X04 motor, and original design tension lock riveted couplings. Coupling rods have round headed screw centre drivers only and the outer crankpins are fixed to the coupling rod; they ‘float’ in holes in the wheel. 

 

It’s in pretty good nick for it’s age and may have been restored; it’s certainly been thoroughly cleaned.  The lugs fit into slots in the Jinty bunker. You are looking for the plain black livery body with the engraved unicycling lion, but I suspect that 1960s vintage Jinty bodies (lined black livery, ferret and dartboard, and later style tension lock couplings more like the current Railroad profile) are the same tooling and will fit.  This is one of the most commonly available locos from this period. 

 

It is altogether the wrong chassis for a HD R1; lugs are in the wrong place as you state, axle spacing is wrong and wheels are too small in diameter.  It’s not scale in any way for the Jinty either as the axle spacings are out for this loco too, but at least the wheels are the right size. 

 

This chassis will not run on HD or any currently available track as the flanges are too coarse for turnout or crossing flaneways.  It will run on Triang Standard (grey), Series 3 (black), or Super 4 (brown) track, and possibly Playcraft.  The rail profile of these types of track is incompatible with any non-Triang product. 

 

It can be made capable of running on modern track by replacing the wheels, which are a force fit on the axles.   

[royaloak]

7 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

It can be made capable of running on modern track by replacing the wheels, which are a force fit on the axles.   

Or grind the flanges down a bit, okay its a bodge but does work.

[stewartingram]

I have** one of these under a Bec body that runs fine on my code 75 Peco track with a small adjustment to b2b,

 

** pedantically I have just retired the chassis for a SEF etched one that I am now building.

 

Stewart

[The Johnster]

Triang's wheels improved a little in the 60s, and I was surprised to find that a couple of 'shorty' clerestories that I use as a miner's workman's train ran very well through code 100 Peco turnouts.  I will eventually replace the bogies with Stafford Road/Shapeways Dean 8'6" of the proper type, but have worked up the original B1 types (they are perfectly acceptable B1's, by the way) into ersatz Deans by removing the tie bar and glueing footboards on). I have replaced the wheels because of dislike of plastic wheels which spread crud around rather than because of any running issues.  A 1960s Jinty will probably run ok on modern track.

 

I had one as a child, with the Saddle Tank body, and it was a very good runner by the standards of the day, controllable down to a crawl with the motor 'cogging'.  They are crude and simple, but bombproof reliable.  The Saddle Tank was numbered 784 and may have been based on the Newport Alexander Dock and Railway locomotives; if so it was my first South Wales model but I did not realise this at the time.

[BernardTPM]

I thought it was SECR, based on the one-off conversion of a C Class to S Class.

[The Johnster]

It could well have been.  It was certainly similar to this loco and I had at the time some vague notion that the thing had something vaguely to do with the Southern which I have now forgotten the origin of, but the number doesn't match; the 'S' would have been 31685 in the BR livery of the Triang model.  I would not like to state that the 'S' ever carried this number or a BR livery if it was withdrawn in 1951; the photo shows it as 1685 in late Southern livery.  748 is correct for an 0-6-0 tank in the GW absorbed locos number sequence, though the model had painted numbers rather than a GW style number plate.  The ADR locos were Robert Stephenson saddle tanks.

 

The 'S' differed from the Triang saddle tank (which may of course have simply been a freelance interpretation) by having larger driving wheels, with splashers to match, and no rearward extension to the bunker.  It was also a good bit taller, and didn't have the cut down 'Stirling' type cab of the 'S'. The dome looks about right, though, and the safety valves, turned brass as on all Triang steam locos of this period, are in the right place. IIRC the chimney was shorter than this, though, and the model had a continuous splasher (don't think any South Wales absorbed loco had one of those!) and a moulded representation of a Westinghouse air brake pump on the left side of the smokebox.  The 'S' retains the C class continuous handrail around the smokebox whereas the Triang loco had a simple moulded straight handrail on the smokebox door.

 

But I've learned not to make assumptions about Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby locos that I thought were freelance.  When Triang Hornby introduced the starter set inside cylinder 0-4-0 side tank I scoffed, then learned that this is based closely on a real South Wales loco, the designed and built in-house Dowlais steelworks 0-4-0T.  I almost got caught out with the Holden 0-4-0T as well, I mean, a half cab side tank with a taper boiler masquerading as a GW loco, come on, pull the other one it's got bells on!

 

 

[PatB]

Yes it's Triang, but it's been messed about with slightly. Looks as if the brush holder on the X04 has been broken and ingeniously bodged with fine cord or elastic. Possibly at the same time the uninsulated brush has been separately earthed to the chassis. Normally it relies only on contact with the hairpin brush spring. I'm pretty sure the brush spring is upside down too, although that might be deliberate as part of the brush gear "modifications". 

[BernardTPM]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

But I've learned not to make assumptions about Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby locos that I thought were freelance.  When Triang Hornby introduced the starter set inside cylinder 0-4-0 side tank I scoffed, then learned that this is based closely on a real South Wales loco, the designed and built in-house Dowlais steelworks 0-4-0T.  I almost got caught out with the Holden 0-4-0T as well, I mean, a half cab side tank with a taper boiler masquerading as a GW loco, come on, pull the other one it's got bells on!

Very true. The Dowlais loco in particular has very odd proportions, almost clockwork tinplate style.

[The Johnster]

It reminds me of the 'steam outline' petrol or battery locos you saw at seaside miniature railways.  It was quite advanced for it's day with it's Belpaire firebox, and there was an outside cylindered 0-6-0 built at Dowlais as well.  I'd guess that the inside cylinder format for the 0-4-0 was to improve lateral stability, she has long overhangs and looks to have a quite high centre of gravity.

 

 

[Kris]

I find one of these chassis very good at finding all of the stay ballast on my son's layout.