Were any of them any good?

[MJI]

I need a 3F may as well sort out my childhood Triang model.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Might be useful to consider which older models are best suited to attempts to work them up to pass muster on modern layouts. 

The Airfix GMR/Mainline > Dapol > Hornby N2 is a definite candidate.  Doesn't matter which brand's production, it's positives and negatives remain largely unchanged, correct dimensions and shape, lacking exterior detail finesse,  sorely compromised by the curious placement of the motor on view in the cab, granted Hornby's motor is at least quiet.

[Not Jeremy]

Oh yes, the 3F - I got hold of one of those a few years ago!

 

 

Apologies for the poor photographs, these taken a while ago on a now defunct train set and everything packed in boxes and currently can't access anything.

 

On a similar note, one of my favourite "relics" is the Triang "Midlander" train set, I don't know what it is about the box artwork and contents, but it absolutely "does it" for me - just lovely.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Not Jeremy
typos

[MJI]

45 minutes ago, MJI said:

I need a 3F may as well sort out my childhood Triang model.

I do mean the tank one.

 

As to tender 3f may look for a kit

[Hroth]

25 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Oh yes, the 3F - I got hold of one of those a few years ago!

 

 

Apologies for the poor photographs, these taken a while ago on a now defunct train set and everything packed in boxes and currently can't access anything.

 

On a similar note, one of my favourite "relics" is the Triang "Midlander" train set, I don't know what it is about the box artwork and contents, but it absolutely "does it" for me - just lovely.

 

 

 

 

 

I think I've mentioned it before, but our Labrador chewed the cab of my 3F.  They'll eat ANYTHING!!!

 

[Not Jeremy]

Respect to your labrador!

 

This represents thread drift, but at least it's a pictorial one....

 

 

[MJI]

Airfix glues really well, the strips are for locating it.

 

And i get half a 2E TSO as an offcut

[coronach]

3 hours ago, MikeCW said:

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement; and the food for thought in your comments. 

 

I enjoy both making things (not always as successfully as I would like) and bringing older models back to life.  The latter interest can be seen in my two earlier posts featuring Hornby-Dublo locomotives. I have about 60 of these, well over half bought as "non-runner for spares or repairs". 

 

For my "scale" layout I have tried to integrate kit-built and modified ready-to run in such a way that the provenance of an engine or item of rolling stock is not obvious at first glance.  It's not always easy as the current generation of RTR is so good, but a few added or changed details, renumbering, weathering, coal and crew all help.  For example, I have a couple of Bachmann G2 0-8-0s on the bench at the moment. I am replacing the late-LMS chimneys with the earlier LNWR type and changing the twin smokebox door levers to the LNWR wheel and single lever. I will change the tender on one to an earlier type which will involve heavy modifications to a vintage GEM kit.

 

The Stanier 5P5F has been mentioned on this thread so, to avoid going too far off topic, here are my twins, Hornby Armstrong Whitworth-built Black Fives in BR livery. The first is as sold by Hornby, the second is after a lengthy work-over using a Brassmasters detailing kit as well as some bits and pieces from my own store.

 

 

The locomotive benefits from a lot of additions under the footplate while considerable work has gone into the tender coal space, now only half-full of real coal. The tender frame sports cast axleboxes which replace the slightly "weak" plastic mouldings.  A repaint in 1936 LMS livery (with uneven numbers alas), some weathering and, to my eyes, the engines "lives" in a way that its untouched sibling doesn't.  It's your point about how the perfect model (though Hornby's has faults) can look "dead".

 

I like your own "Jinty" and the far more sophisticated weathering job than mine.  How much more satisfying than just taking the Bachmann model out of its box and putting it straight to work on your layout.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Very nice. In my experience, subtle weathering can turn a shop bought item into an individual model. Here is my unaltered Hornby Black 5 with some weathering applied to make it look less plastic.

 

Here is the Lima Crab with the Brassmasters  detail applied - total cost about £100
 

 

The main issue I have with both is lack of adhesive weight

Edited September 16, 2023 by coronach

[Torper]

Here's my rake of HD super-detail coaches, with additional super detail of handrails, door handles and door hinges.  The originals were in BR maroon and while I was loath to change the excellent HD livery the tinplate had gone rusty in places, so a repaint was required, albeit in crimson and cream.  (Nothing like the cawera to show where a further vtouch-up is required!)  I think I might give a similar supr-super detailing to a couple of HD sleeping cars that I have and which could come in handy on the layout (one of these days I might think about some scenery!)

 

 

And another one:

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Torper

[LNER4479]

In the spirit of the OP (ie pre-1970s) - and hopefully driving a horse n coaches thru any assertion that the loco type featured could ever possibly exist n a 'worst of the worst' listing - may I present:

 

Original Hornby-Dublo Duchess. Purchased (by Dad) as a 2-rail City of London circa 1960, these days running as 46228 'Duchess of Rutland'. Only significant change is re-wheeling with 24mm Romfords, which Dad got done some while ago. Still undersize but an improvement nonetheless.

 

Now, OK, I accept that in terms of looks / accuracy, the current Hornby offering is in a different league. But let's consider performance.

 

Here she is, tackling Shap unassisted with a 15 coach test train.

 

If above photo is a bit fuzzy, you can count them for yourselves here.

 

But I've just posed these photos, haven't I? Well, watch this:

 

 

 

Still not convinced? OK, now let me present:

 

 

Current Hornby 'Hornby-Dublo' (die-cast body) Duchess, on the same train. Let's see how this one gets on:

 

 

Oh dear! Bit disappointed, actually but hopefully proves the point re the original product. 46228 is 63 years old, original motor, still going 💪. Wonder how the new one will be faring in 63 years' time?

(In case you were wondering, I dropped 3 coaches off the back to make 12 and then the new Duchess managed the restart)

 

Hornby-Dublo Duchess any good? You bet!

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by LNER4479

[coronach]

38 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

In the spirit of the OP (ie pre-1970s) - and hopefully driving a horse n coaches thru any assertion that the loco type featured could ever possibly exist n a 'worst of the worst' listing - may I present:

 

Original Hornby-Dublo Duchess. Purchased (by Dad) as a 2-rail City of London circa 1960, these days running as 46228 'Duchess of Rutland'. Only significant change is re-wheeling with 24mm Romfords, which Dad got done some while ago. Still undersize but an improvement nonetheless.

 

Now, OK, I accept that in terms of looks / accuracy, the current Hornby offering is in a different league. But let's consider performance.

 

Here she is, tackling Shap unassisted with a 15 coach test train.

 

If above photo is a bit fuzzy, you can count them for yourselves here.

 

But I've just posed these photos, haven't I? Well, watch this:

 

 

 

Still not convinced? OK, now let me present:

 

 

Current Hornby 'Hornby-Dublo' (die-cast body) Duchess, on the same train. Let's see how this one gets on:

 

 

Oh dear! Bit disappointed, actually but hopefully proves the point re the original product. 46228 is 63 years old, original motor, still going 💪. Wonder how the new one will be faring in 63 years' time?

(In case you were wondering, I dropped 3 coaches off the back to make 12 and then the new Duchess managed the restart)

 

Hornby-Dublo Duchess any good? You bet!

 

Is it simply down to weight / weight distribution over the driving wheels or is it something more subtle such as the flange profile, metal used in the wheels etc. it is amazing the difference in performance 

[ikks]

1 hour ago, coronach said:

Is it simply down to weight / weight distribution over the driving wheels or is it something more subtle such as the flange profile, metal used in the wheels etc. it is amazing the difference in performance 

Do you build kit locomotives??

Mike

[coronach]

1 minute ago, ikks said:

Do you build kit locomotives??

Mike

One or two. I know kit built locos are much heavier but this comparison is between two Hornby models isn’t it?

[CKPR]

Ah, but the modern Hornby engine is more 'authentic'...in that it needs an additional banking engine to get over Shap ! 

[33C]

5 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

what it is about the box artwork

I have this set and I know what you mean, even has the tension lock coupler depicted! 

[ikks]

1 hour ago, coronach said:

One or two. I know kit built locos are much heavier but this comparison is between two Hornby models isn’t it?

Apologies, I meant to reply to LNER4479

Mike

[melmerby]

30 minutes ago, 33C said:

I have this set and I know what you mean, even has the tension lock coupler depicted! 

And colour light signals, a late crest BR loco etc.

[Invicta]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Might be useful to consider which older models are best suited to attempts to work them up to pass muster on modern layouts.  I'm thinking in particular of models that have not been released to current standards, where the older RTR might be a useful starting point.  We have decided that the HD 8F has potential, but not for this consideration as a modern equivalent exists and is generally available.

 

 

 

And any others you might be able to remember that I've forgotten.  To qualify for this list it must have been available in the past in RTR form but is not currently available; desired upgrades of old models in current production like Hornby shorty clerestories or Dapol Fruit Ds don't count!

 

One I don't think anyone has mentioned is the Lima LMS 42' GUV (Diagram 1870 or something like that?), one of the bits of ex-Lima tooling that I don't think has ever reappeared in a Hornby box. IIRC the body is pretty spot-on dimensionally, and the underframe is pretty ropey (in particular it's on BR1 bogies rather than anything LMS), but I'm told it scrubs up quite nicely with a change of bogies and a bit of work

 

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Clearly of Airfix parentage and a sibling of their 4F.  The latter looked very good indeed to me and got a number of additional grabrails and other details, but the tender drive as supplied was awful and needed a remedial bearing on the front right wheel (40 thou plasticard Evostuck to the chassis) to mesh its gears and stay on the track.  After that it would plod round nicely with all my wagons, but it was never quiet. A good example of how the new manufacturers of the time prioritised their efforts.

 

Hornby have never attended to the skinny dome on their Midland pair, with its odd taper for easier mould extraction.  A decent 2P or Midland 483 is a hole waiting to be filled when all the freaks and one-offs have been done by current manufacturers. (LMS fans should be required to show proof of purchase for at least one before they are permitted to buy a Lickey Banker or Turbomotive.)

 

Although it certainly has it's faults, I've always quite liked the Airfix 4F (I currently have two, plus a Hornby version, and have bought and sold a couple more over the years). As you say, that Airfix tender drive was awful, although my oldest one in particular (one of the early blue-boxed releases, bought new when I was about 12/13) has always been quite a nice slow runner, much like you describe - and at least I've established my credentials to own a Lickey Banker or Turbo! 😄

Edited September 16, 2023 by Invicta
typo

[teeinox]

4 hours ago, Torper said:

Here's my rake of HD super-detail coaches, with additional super detail of handrails, door handles and door hinges.  The originals were in BR maroon and while I was loath to change the excellent HD livery the tinplate had gone rusty in places, so a repaint was required, albeit in crimson and cream.  (Nothing like the cawera to show where a further vtouch-up is required!)  I think I might give a similar supr-super detailing to a couple of HD sleeping cars that I have and which could come in handy on the layout (one of these days I might think about some scenery!)

 

 

And another one:

 

Lovely rake of coaches.  Incorrect length or not, HD captured the "essence" of the Mk1 coach.  Curiously, though, the exception to that, in my view, is the sleeping car.  Unlike the other coaches, it does seem to look "short".  I don't know why that is.

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, ikks said:

Do you build kit locomotives??

Mike

Yes ... occasionally.

 

Latest offering, outshopped earlier this year.

 

But we're way off this thread's topic, aren't we?

 

[Steamport Southport]

18 hours ago, MikeCW said:

Was this one any good?

 

Over 30 years ago I wanted a 3F 0-6-0T for my layout and the best commercial offering was this Margate example. I acquired a second-hand one for small money and, after a brief spell of buyer's remorse, thought that I would try to do something with it. I bought a Perseverance chassis kit from the long-gone Puffers of Kenton, some MayGib wheels and a Portescap motor. This was a lot of "high spec" and expensive underpinning for a poor body shell. But I got the chassis running and decided that I would have a shot at turning the body into something that would pass muster from that mythical "normal viewing distance". The work included cutting away the skirt from under the boiler and creating a new boiler underside from car body filler, as well as cutting away and replacing moulded handrails. It was a lot of effort but the result looked something like a "Jinty" (or "Jocko" as I understand that footplate crew called them). With its Portescap motor and lead weight in the tanks it could haul more than enough for my layout.

 

This year it was joined by a Bachmann version fitted with Youchoos DCC sound. I have renumbered, weathered and coaled the Bachmann model. 7331 is definitely superior in fidelity to the prototype than its poor relation No. 7308. Although 7331 is digital and 7308 is analogue I have lined them up on the same track for a photograph.

 

Current practice would have me consign 7308 to a shelf or drawer but I'm keeping it in service for several reasons. My locomotive roster is small but sufficient to operate the layout under either digital or analogue control. I think that 7308 can still pass muster as a recognisable "Jinty".  But the main reason is that there is a lot of effort and modelling history in this engine. That is part of my layout story, and interest, which I would hate to see lost.

 

From "normal viewing distance:

What isn't noticeable from this distance is that the Triang/Hornby body is shorter than the Bachmann version by a couple of millimetres.  I assume that Bachmann have got it right. For all that, 7308 is better than than the Bachmann model in a couple  of respects. It has front guard irons and, although both are Kadee fitted, it doesn't have the prominent, and in my view ugly, NEM coupler socket filling the space under the front and rear buffer beams. But I wonder what happened to the balance weight on the centre driving wheel?

 

It seems to me that the answer to "Is it any good?" is in large part subjective, dependent on how far one is prepared to go in modifying a commercial model and whether the work involved is regarded as drudgery or a satisfying modelling exercise.    

 

 

The Hornby Jinty was fine. The first model with the newer chassis.

 

It was the Triang one that had the issues. It was somewhere between a MR Jinty and an LMS version. Virtually a MR Jinty boiler and fittings with later style cab and bunker.

 

For clarity this is the Triang Jinty photo borrowed from Hattons.

 

 

Jason

Edited September 16, 2023 by Steamport Southport

[The Johnster]

On 14/09/2023 at 23:51, melmerby said:

HD's motors were certainly powerful and with the metal bodies the steam outline locos would completely outclass Triang locos haulage.

 Absolutely, especially the famous cab-filling Ringfields.  Triang’s answer was ‘Magnadhesion’, which was at least better than traction tyres (one of my pet hates, satan’s expectorant, ruins pickup and leaves crud all over your track!).  Only worked on steel rails of course. 
 

The hobby went through a motor/gearbox ‘dark age’ of pancakes, splitting plastic spur cogs, and traction tyres during the ‘Mainline/Airfix/Lima’ period, joined 

enthusiastically by Hornby.  Current practice, can motor/worm driving idler reduction gear, delivers enough grunt to dispense with satan’s expectorant and improve slow running!  

[33C]

On 14/09/2023 at 00:21, number6 said:

but I think they had charm

They now have that grubby, B.R., worn look when you buy them. The shade of cream is just right to me. I have a couple of rakes. Clean wheels, oiled axles and they run well enough behind a Triang Princess. Lovely!

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

 

One I don't think anyone has mentioned is the Lima LMS 42' GUV (Diagram 1870 or something like that?), one of the bits of ex-Lima tooling that I don't think has ever reappeared in a Hornby box. IIRC the body is pretty spot-on dimensionally, and the underframe is pretty ropey (in particular it's on BR1 bogies rather than anything LMS), but I'm told it scrubs up quite nicely with a change of bogies and a bit of work

 

It does.  Mine’s got Airfix bogies off a Stanier coach and new cast whitemetal buffers, and a coat of weathering (quite a heavy coat, it repesents a vehicle still in LMS livery innthe early 50s), which results in  something that looks a lot more like an LMS 42’ GUV!  Don’t do this particular workup if you use sub-2’ curvature, the Airfix bogies will foul on the solebars.  Proper buffers, with the flat in the top to support the end-loading drop-flap, were needed, but almost anything would’ve been an improvement on the silly little Lima pimplebuffers!

 

The other Lima workup is the Siphon G, needs new gangways which I haven’t done, and won’t now as the Accurascale will replace it, decent buffers, and bogie replacement, mine has Collett 9’ off a Mainline H, which, renumbered, rides on Americans from a K’s A31 autotrailer take deep breath, for which they were incorrect because the A31 is a rebuild of a steam railmotor some of which were built at Swindon and some outsourced to Gloucester RCW; the Gloucester SRMs had inward-opening double passenger vestibule door, which the K’s trailer represents, but were given fishbelly bogies while the Swindon built examples had Americans and the normal Swindon single wide vestibule doors though some autotrailer rebuilds  of both types got 9’ Colletts but none of the Gloucesters ever had Americans o what a tangled web they weave…

 

The A31 has the correct fishbellies but is to be worked up in to an ersatz A10, W 26 W, to run with Diagram N W 37 W when Dapol make it and send it to Rails who will then send it to me; the two designs are fairly similar and a worked up A31 will pass as an A10 layout model.  I’ve already given it a Swindon vestibule door and it can use the fishbellies. 
 

Even in the modern world of hi-fi RTR there is still a place for worked up older models of reasonable scale provenance.  The A31/A10 will need a lot of metal removing and a lot of work with handrails, lamp irons, footsteps, Cable terminal boxes and such.  It’s already got a floor and an interior, and a new bell.  It’ll need a repaint into BR crimson/cream as well.  Proper modelling, and a Dapol N will be a tough act to follow if it is to at least make respectable showing running with it!  

Edited September 16, 2023 by The Johnster

[sncf231e]

Tri-ang or Hornby Dublo, I like them both:

Regards

Fred