Collector's Corner Graham Farish

[Il Grifone]

Hi Garry].

 

The BR blue was supposedly given to fading, which is why it was abandoned in favour of the green (obviously the correct colour for locomotives - see below ), so the exact shade is rather academic. Personally I wouldn't know; I was only seven when the last blue locomotive was repainted (I understand it was 1954). I can't recall ever seeing one, though my train books had pictures (I was always into trains....).

 

Thanks for the drawings. There's only 8mm difference, but it is all in the firebox/cab area.

 

I would agree with the film colour bias. Agfa also seemed 'brighter' IIRC

 

I can confirm the Farish MN as being from around 1950, though I'm not sure of the exact year. The two pole motor was apparently a scheme to circumvent government restrictions and raw material shortages. The Formo Q and Farish NYC Hudson (1953 and 1954 I believe) both have proper motors.

 

David

[beeja40]

Hi Gary, I made an adaptor plate which uses the original Dublo chassis side fittings (a bit of a "U" shape) and then the Farish rear body fixing.

I soldered a brass Tri-ang gear the a Dublo boss which allowed me to use a Five pole XO4 type motor and worm.

The only alteration that was necessary to the Farish body was the smallest amount of metal to be removed to clear the top of the magnet screw of the motor.

I will take some pics this weekend and attempt to upload them!

 

Brian

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi Brian, about 30 years ago I was looking at using a Tri-ang motor in a couple of Dublo chassis's, cut the chassis's down but then ended up using the tender drives so the mod never materialised.  It will be interesting to see yours for this loco.

 

I like the idea of soldering the Tri-ang worm to the Dublo boss.  At least you can release it if necessary as opposed to using the Romford bush making it a press fit.

 

Garry

[beeja40]

Hi Brian, about 30 years ago I was looking at using a Tri-ang motor in a couple of Dublo chassis's, cut the chassis's down but then ended up using the tender drives so the mod never materialised.  It will be interesting to see yours for this loco.

 

I like the idea of soldering the Tri-ang worm to the Dublo boss.  At least you can release it if necessary as opposed to using the Romford bush making it a press fit.

 

Garry

Greeting Gary,

 

Herewith some photos of my loco, as promised.

 

The layout on display at Fairbourne is owned locally and is attached to a trailer for easy transportation!

 

I was concerned about the colour of my loco and ultimately air brushed it using Railmatch B.R. Green enamel mixed 2:1 with Humbrol clear varnish, which seems to suit the bill.

There is a superb book by Brian Haresnape, published by Ian Allen,  entitled "Railway Liveries BR Steam 1948-1968" which is a marvellous reference to colour.  ISBN 0 7110 1856 1

 

Brian

[Golden Fleece 30]

Very nice Brian thanks for the photos.  It looks as if it was made for it.

 

Most of the green I use is Brooklands Green as it is a close match to the Dublo shade but my choice was always Cherry Paints BR green.  Unfortunately Ian sold the business a long time ago to Precision/Phoenix paints but the paint is not as good as when Ian Cherry made it.  Their BR green is not bad and I have never used the Railmatch shade although I do use Railmatch varnish's and roof greys but all aerosols, I have never mastered airbrushing.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The NYC Hudson were only produced with the two pole motor but by way of conversion commonly had Pittmans fitted.  The Q always has a three pole motor throughout it's life.

 

My mistake - I'm sure I read somewhere that it had the Pittman motor. I wonder what our friends across the pond thought of it? It probably explains why they made so few....

[Il Grifone]

Fitting the Tri-ang type motor to a Dublo chassis is an interesting idea (heretical of course!) as is the Tri-ang gear soldered to the Dublo boss ( I have one where someone tried to drill out the axle bore and bu messed it up and ideal candidate. I would have thought there might be a meshing problem as the Tri-ang gear is offset, but obviously not.

 

I have a prewar 0-6-2T chassis which has suffered from a previous owner's attempt the replace the wheels etc. with Tri-ang parts and the armature has acquired a finer worm to match the larger gear. It possibly worked, but zinc pest stuck its nose it and the chassis block is in several bits (I have a Farish one like this too). I intend to experiment with the 'cure' described on the 'Rivarossi Memory' site, but I need to find a substitute for Trichloroethylene. (Nasty stuff!). It will then be used for display only.... A post war block may be fitted with the Tri-ang gear to utilise the armature, which appears to be OK despite having been 'got at'.

 

www.rivarossi-memory.it

 

Sorry - the relevant page (under Manutenzione/curare la peste dello Zama) is only in Italian. (Google translate is your friend but it does struggle a bit sometimes.)

 

EDIT  For some unknown reason the link appears to have a problem (Error 404) and places a load of carp after the '.it' . Deleting this carp allows it to work.    Mysteries of the faith?

Edited June 25, 2016 by Il Grifone

[beeja40]

Fitting the Tri-ang type motor to a Dublo chassis is an interesting idea (heretical of course!) as is the Tri-ang gear soldered to the Dublo boss ( I have one where someone tried to drill out the axle bore and bu messed it up and ideal candidate. I would have thought there might be a meshing problem as the Tri-ang gear is offset, but obviously not.

 

I have a prewar 0-6-2T chassis which has suffered from a previous owner's attempt the replace the wheels etc. with Tri-ang parts and the armature has acquired a finer worm to match the larger gear. It possibly worked, but zinc pest stuck its nose it and the chassis block is in several bits (I have a Farish one like this too). I intend to experiment with the 'cure' described on the 'Rivarossi Memory' site, but I need to find a substitute for Trichloroethylene. (Nasty stuff!). It will then be used for display only.... A post war block may be fitted with the Tri-ang gear to utilise the armature, which appears to be OK despite having been 'got at'.

 

www.rivarossi-memory.it

 

Sorry - the relevant page (under Manutenzione/curare la peste dello Zama) is only in Italian. (Google translate is your friend but it does struggle a bit sometimes.)

 

EDIT  For some unknown reason the link appears to have a problem (Error 404) and places a load of carp after the '.it' . Deleting this carp allows it to work.    Mysteries of the faith?

In defence of herecy - the motor is by MW Developments

with a five-pole armature and 2mm shaft.

The only Tri-ang parts are the worm and gear, which mesh and are in-line. Margate brass is as good as Liverpool brass in this instance!

When bought, the West Country chassis was motorless. If I had attempted to use a HD ring-field motor, the Farish body would have had to be severely chopped to fit it in - herecy indeed!

So I hope I am forgiven??

 

Brian

[Golden Fleece 30]

the Farish body would have had to be severely chopped to fit it in - herecy indeed!

 

 

I agree but also it is not easy to get a replacement these days in good or bad condition.  40 years ago I might (no would) have cut the body up which was before the times of keeping decent items for posterity.  That is why I am using the Dublo A4 chassis for this loco as these are plentiful.

 

I certainly forgive you lol.

 

I have to say though when talking of Heresy I do change most of my Dublo couplings and replace coach bogies etc  Basically most will look as normal but do have minor modifications.

 

Garry

Edited June 26, 2016 by Golden Fleece 30

[bertiedog]

On the motors, the Formo always had a Pittman motor, and the Hudson was made to take the Pittman, and produced as such at first, but read on........

 

Farish had jumped the gun a bit after the War, in ordering the motors from the States. It was assumed by a lot of businesses that it would be business as usual after the war ended, and it came a very big shock to find the new Socialist Ministries putting into place very severe restrictions, and the US only aiding German industry to recover at first.

 

As the Farish company was small, and new to Model Railways they never received any attention from Whitehall, unlike Hornby who were placed under restriction, and Hamblings, who were forced out of business in manufacture.

Toys were simply not a "priority".( A Priority was a special term of description of goods)

 

It was then pointed out to the Ministry of Trade, under Harold Wilson, that toys were exported, so Model Trains were listed as suitable for priority for raw materials, if going for export.

 

Hornby could not show vast exports, but got permission to make toys again on promises to export, and on employment considerations in Liverpool.

 

Farish received a stock of thousands of the motors before Whitehall found out, and immediately designed the Hudson to become an export item, to justify the buying in of the motors.

 

But the Formo sets were in production, and took most of the motors, leaving just a small batch of Hudsons with the 5 pole motor.

 

In the meantime the board of trade served them with a notice to stop importing the motors, and Farish turned to designing the two pole motor without using any materials that were restricted. The Hudson was modified to take the two pole motors, and continued in production.

 

It's failure in the States was due to the high cost, and too many US rival makers. Farish later tried to sell all the other locos in the States and failed on cost, and near total lack of interest in UK locos.

 

The Board of Trade slowly withdrew the restrictions on materials, and the big companies like Hornby recovered, but it knocked out the smaller makes like S-R, Hamblings, etc.

 

I know the background as my Grandfather supplied Graham Farish with any transport he required for the Farish businesses in Bromley and Tonbridge. Farish had made fertiliser and rubber seal products at Tonbridge during the war, and the wooden boxes used for the Export Hudsons were in fact in boxes made to take bulk packs of Kilner Jar seals! The Kilner name was sanded off and Farish added. At one point we had thousands of these boxes in my Grandfathers stores in Tonbridge.

 

As a child I meet Mr Farish several times and heard a lot about the companies efforts to establish themselves in production.

 

I do not claim expertise to exact dates or numbers produced of the early items, but I have placed the general picture here.

 

We visited the factory many times, my fathers interest was with radio and experimental TV, as Farish made or had stocks of many electrical and electronic parts, as this was the real business they once did. I was shown the models in the factory many times.

 

Stephen.

Edited June 26, 2016 by bertiedog

[bertiedog]

Adding a bit to why Farish failed in the States, the model market in the USA rocketed to popularity after the war, as there were few if any restrictions on materials etc. Many firms dropped war production to turn to models in a big way, using for then, very modern factories and equipment and the latest processes, all of which were banned in the UK, unless developed here or for export.

Varney could make loco for a fraction of the costs of UK Production, and there were others like Bowser, Penn line, Gilbert (H)),

The other forgotten factor restricting business expansion in the UK was the 100% income tax above the personal limits, yes 100%+ could be imposed. US makers faced none of this at these penal levels. Existing UK companies put up with it as they knew the war had to be paid for as Germany could not pay, and the US was loathe to loan to a UK Socialist Government. They finally did, under the Marshall Plan, but it was too late to aid many firms how had folded under the strain of post war austerity.

Farish simply cost too much for what they offered. The Hudson was still on sale whilst you could buy an early Tenshodo brass model from Japan at a similar price level......enough said?

 

Stephen.

[Il Grifone]

I think the main problem was that following the war we were broke! (I gather it had cost £3,000,000 per day (around half a billion in today's money and probably an official underestimate!). We simply lacked the foreign exchange to import things*, whereas the Americans didn't have these problems (though they did have the high taxes- just not as bad as us). The start of the cold war didn't help (why the Americans were supporting Western Germany!) or the start of the break up of the British Empire. I can remember the utility marks and the ration coupons and it was sometime before my 'Duchess of Atholl' (Xmas 1951) had a proper Dublo coach to pull and then only one (plenty of wagons though - most I still have). Things must have been better in 1952 I got a 'Sir Nigel Gresley' set.... Trix produced a D.C, 2 rail scale version of their U.S. switcher for export only - some didn't make it and were sold 'under the counter' - I was pleasantly surprised when I acquired one (many years later) to find she was one of these. Apart from the finer wheels she lacks the reversing mechanism (a nice empty cab) and has a permanent magnet in place of the field winding.

 

*Witness the oil burning fiasco on the railways and the decision to continue with steam, later reversed at great cost, though still less than today's subsidies STOP! politics!.

[Devo63]

The Trix shunter may have been for export but it was actually advertised for sale in the United Kingdom. Railway Modeller Vol.1 No.3 from Feb/Mar 1950 has a full page advertisement on the back cover from ABC listing them for sale. How many would have been available is another matter entirely. RM Vol.1 No.1 Oct/Nov 1949 has a 3 page trade review for the Trix Twin system and includes a photo of the shunter incorrectly labled as an 0-6-0. 

 

 

 

ps. Vol 1 No 3 was also the first issue with a full page advertisment from Graham Farish on page iv.

 

 

Dave R

Edited June 27, 2016 by Devo63

[Il Grifone]

They could possibly have got away with it as a kit. This would obviously have been for enthusiasts rather than a toy....

 

Perhaps the Americans had been less than impressed? The Rivarossi B & O switcher was available at the same time and at a similar price....

[bertiedog]

The advert explains itself, "the Quota" is available, meant that the Board of Trade had approved the supply of a batch of production. To get permission to sell in the UK, you had to for fill the priority export orders first, there was no rationing, just limited supply of goods like toys and trains.

 

It all faded with a couple more years, with sweets the last item to be de-rationed, although another factor remained and it is long forgotten that to build a layout, you needed wood, and wood purchases were limited to so much a week, I think about 7s or so.

 

This remained till at least 1957/8, when the popularity of DIY programmes on TV forced the dropping of the wood restrictions. It was kept so long as all wood was imported in the 1950's.

Stephen

Edited June 29, 2016 by bertiedog

[Golden Fleece 30]

Farish Merchant Navy part 3

 

A start has been made on the chassis now, a Dublo A4 chassis with Boxpok wheels fitted. These are a full set of new Dublo 3-rail wheels I have had for a couple of years waiting for that "special project" and so I guess this is it. As opposed to my usual tapping on wheels onto an axle I bought a cheap Hamblings wheel press recently and modified it for Dublo wheels. I owned one of these presses a long time ago (40+ years ago) and threw it away saying never again but relented and it has not done too bad now. Now to look for some replacement Wrenn style valve gear I made for a job like this and then reassemble the rods and motor, the motor and its ancillary parts being removed for the wheel press tool to fit.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Farish Merchant Navy part 4

Here we have the wheels painted and coupling rods fitted. Also the bodies have been sprayed gloss varnish on the blue only. This actually shows some of the casting "imperfections/original paint issues" so I may go back to an all over satin. One major deciding factor maybe is that I put the number transfers on the satin and the new gloss did not change the shade due to the transfer film so a paler shade shows through.  A new buffer beam has been made from brass angle and Dublo R1 buffers, for some reason it looks to droop at the moment. The tender body (which needs a front making) is only resting on a new Wrenn base which needs new wheel clips and proper wheels fitted. I may however make a new full interior base similar to Dublo.

[beeja40]

Farish Merchant Navy part 4

Here we have the wheels painted and coupling rods fitted. Also the bodies have been sprayed gloss varnish on the blue only. This actually shows some of the casting "imperfections/original paint issues" so I may go back to an all over satin. One major deciding factor maybe is that I put the number transfers on the satin and the new gloss did not change the shade due to the transfer film so a paler shade shows through.  A new buffer beam has been made from brass angle and Dublo R1 buffers, for some reason it looks to droop at the moment. The tender body (which needs a front making) is only resting on a new Wrenn base which needs new wheel clips and proper wheels fitted. I may however make a new full interior base similar to Dublo.

It's all coming along nicely! I had the same problem with the tender front. I found a nice picture of an original Bulleid tender front in an old magazine which was a useful reference.

 

I know little about Wrenn but I have noticed that they used an A4 style motor/chassis in their later West Countries, instead of the Ring Field motor. Possibly this was 5-pole?

 

Brian

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi Brian, Wrenn did do a handfull of locos with a 5 pole motor, all the B/B Hurricane locos had one and a couple of others had the odd batch done but mainly they were 3 pole. The last batch of A4's and City's had 5 pole motors too along with all flanged Castle wheels. Their W/C and Scot chassis's are very, very expensive, thats if you can get hold of one. They may fit but at the price I would not contemplate buying one anyway. My loco chassis is an old Dublo Mazak 3-rail one which seems to be coming along nicely.

 

Wrenn Scots and Spamcans had backheads cast into the bodyshell so Ringfields would not fit, and, due to the size of the Ringfield protruding at the rear I prefer the vertical motors.

 

I am hoping to find somewhere in the loft or garage or shed an old tender I can cut out the front from to use before I go to the extent of making one.

 

My next part will be the slidebar fitting to the A4 chassis and seeing if the Wrenn cylinders are suitable. For their own Spamcan the cylinders from the rebuilt version were used and therefore too wide protruding outside the body instead of level.

 

Garry

Edited July 1, 2016 by Golden Fleece 30

[beeja40]

Hi Brian, Wrenn did do a handfull of locos with a 5 pole motor, all the B/B Hurricane locos had one and a couple of others had the odd batch done but mainly they were 3 pole. The last batch of A4's and City's had 5 pole motors too along with all flanged Castle wheels. Their W/C and Scot chassis's are very, very expensive, thats if you can get hold of one. They may fit but at the price I would not contemplate buying one anyway. My loco chassis is an old Dublo Mazak 3-rail one which seems to be coming along nicely.

Wrenn Scots and Spamcans had backheads cast into the bodyshell so Ringfields would not fit, and, due to the size of the Ringfield protruding at the rear I prefer the vertical motors.

I am hoping to find somewhere in the loft or garage or shed an old tender I can cut out the front from to use before I go to the extent of making one.

My next part will be the slidebar fitting to the A4 chassis and seeing if the Wrenn cylinders are suitable. For their own Spamcan the cylinders from the rebuilt version were used and therefore too wide protruding outside the body instead of level.

Garry

Good Morning Gary, I know exactly what you mean about the cylinders protruding. I filed mine down slightly to be flush on the outside and flat on the top. The Farish body must be marginally wider than the Wrenn version as the fit is much better.

 

Brian

[Il Grifone]

Farish Merchant Navy part 3

 

A start has been made on the chassis now, a Dublo A4 chassis with Boxpok wheels fitted. These are a full set of new Dublo 3-rail wheels I have had for a couple of years waiting for that "special project" and so I guess this is it. As opposed to my usual tapping on wheels onto an axle I bought a cheap Hamblings wheel press recently and modified it for Dublo wheels. I owned one of these presses a long time ago (40+ years ago) and threw it away saying never again but relented and it has not done too bad now. Now to look for some replacement Wrenn style valve gear I made for a job like this and then reassemble the rods and motor, the motor and its ancillary parts being removed for the wheel press tool to fit.

 

Garry

 

Hi Garry

 

That looks just like mine! (Mine has Wrenn wheels not that there is any difference AFAIK). I made use of some spare A4 valvegear that had lost the return crank etc. cylinders will come from the Airfix kit that provided the body and tender* (A source of a tender front? I think there are some Wrenn tender bodies on offer at the moment -  I'm debating whether I need a pair of Stanier tenders...) and I've acquired Wrenn bogie and pony to fit. We have friends who lived in Wadebridge for many years. so that solved the Identity problem. I have the plates.... I can remember seeing 'Bodmin' and 'Wadebridge' together in the shed (72F) - before the former was rebuilt obviously - the North Cornwall line was off limits to rebuilt light Pacifics.This is a possible ID for my Dublo rebuilt WC - she came with a thick layer of paint (why? - this came off leaving the factory green in reasonable condition, but sans lining etc.). The original 'Barnstable' had been replaced with a pair of insignificant plates less crest. The name escapes me at the moment - possibly 'Brentor'? - they're still around somewhere....)

 

* She's one of the projects in a 'to do' drawer at the moment....

 

From the above drawings the MN is 6" wider than the WC which would explain the better fit. I know later WC/BB were 9' wide, but it would depend which drawings Wrenn used. I believe the earlier ones were widened later (or was it only some ot them?).

Edited July 2, 2016 by Il Grifone

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi David, 

 

I don't think there is any difference between Dublo and Wrenn wheels although I was told the axles were different.  I was told (rightly or wrongly) Dublo plated their axles but Wrenn did not.

 

My first Spam Can used the A4 valve gear but after getting a Wrenn chassis (and then some locos) and producing my own it is now a candidate for a replacement set.

 

As for a bogie and pony truck, I am certain I have the pony truck but unsure about the bogie.  The pony will need to be set further back as that was one of the areas of a larger difference in size, length ways that is.

 

With reference to the drawing it could be the first one was wider and the remainder narrower, the first one was a completely different shape with curved cab sides, widows peak top front casing, tender sides to match cab, smoke deflectors and fairings etc.  It was rebuilt I think to the later Spam Can profiles, but I did say I think, not fully sure.

 

I have thought about a Wrenn tender top but want to see what is available in the household first

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Farish Merchant Navy part 5

 

Here we have the cylinders, slide bar and connecting rods fitted. The whole valve gear as such I drew up in AutoCAD and had etched in Nickel Silver. The cylinders, as with Wrenn Spam cans, are too wide and should not have a radius at the top so thankfully there was plenty of metal on which allowed me to file down to a better width. Because I was using the A4 chassis I obviously had to remove some metal from this too but I could not get the body quite low enough so I filed a small ridge on top which helped locate the body and drop it into position.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

Hi Garry,

 

It's true the A4 motion is a bit on the puny side (further evidence for my theory that Dublo was initially intended to be H0 scale) and yours looks much better. I was going to use the Airfix* parts, but, not being keen on plastic for working parts, I decided on the Dublo instead (the advantage being I already had them...).

 

* This shows how long I've had them! Some of the parts I have are marked 'Kitmaster' and were bought new....

 

David

Edited July 3, 2016 by Il Grifone

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi David,  I would not say the Dublo A4 was puny as such, to me it was a better scale than the Hornby/Tri-ang offerings but it was not intended for use as a Spam can set.  Both you (I guess)  and I have used it because it is a single slide bar as such.  I do prefer the older Duchess valve gear as opposed to the later City ones which did look over scale although still far superior to the competitions versions.

 

 

This shows how long I've had them! Some of the parts I have are marked 'Kitmaster' and were bought new....

 

 

That is old, when did Airfix buy them out, early 1960's ?

 

I remember my father buying the Kitmaster Biggin Hill and their Perfecta kit to motorise it with the Tri-ang XT60.  It was not a success, even trying to glue the metal rings on the wheel treads was not straight forward if I remember correctly.

 

Garry