Were any of them any good?

[Captain Kernow]

And now I'm back home again - here it is!

 

38 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

And very good it looked too

Thank you, old fruit. The livery is fictitious, but I like lined BR black...

 

Features turned Romford wheels running in the original Hornby Dublo chassis, with added detail etc, including continuing the boiler underneath.

 

And yes, it is still very noisy, it still has the original Hornby Dublo motor!

 

[Captain Kernow]

As the old Airfix 4F has been mentioned, this is my 44422, done back in the 1990s.

 

Features an Airfix body, Comet chassis and an Alan Gibson tender.

 

[Torper]

22 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

And now I'm back home again - here it is!

 

Thank you, old fruit. The livery is fictitious, but I like lined BR black...

 

 

That R1 is very nice - what transfers did you use for the lining?  I was rummaging through an old cupboard a few days ago and discovered a green R1 in original condition.  It couldn't have been run for about 50 years, but after some cleaning of brushes and connection and some suitable oiling it ran very well, albeit with rather a pronounced whine, but I reckon I'd be whining too if I'd been rudely disturbed after 50 years of inactivity.  As a P4 modeller of Scottish prototypes I've no idea what to do with it now and I'm not even sure if the original thick Dublo wheels would go through modern 00 pointwork.

[Barry Ten]

20 hours ago, Barclay said:

Also shown is a heavily reworked Tri-ang B12 by Harry Flatman. Both in EM. The slightly dodgy models of yesteryear were much more fun because it gave us a chance to do something with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone summarise the main things needing doing to the B12 to get it looking good? I presume lowering the body would help, but are the basic dimensions of the boiler, wheelbase OK? I've got one of the slightly tarted-up Chinese B12s (with the sandpaper chuff-chuff effect) and always fancied doing something with it.

[stewartingram]

I've always thought the B12 boiler was modelled on actual diameter WITHOUT the cladding. Just compare it to the latest Hornby model. The chimney is too tall, way back when it was the done thing to slice it off with a junior hacksaw blade, then stick it back on. Yes it suffers from the normal Triang ride height being too tall. It also has the standard X04 motor (itself not a problem to me) and the wrong gear ratio. Again, an old trick was to swop gears from a TT motor. I think this changed the ratio fro 20:1 to 40:1.

Strangely enough, I kept my old B12 (for sentimental reasons - my 1st loco), and I've also bought a late Chinese one in blue livery - why?

Well, 1) it was a cheap reject, new from a trainset as faulty, I got it at a Warley show for less than £10. The axle gearwheel was stripped; I had a spare in stock.

2) I like the colour though totally unprototypical.

3) When I got it home and examined it, I was astounded at the improvement in finish. Beautiful paintwork, wire handrails etc.

Although still a 'poor' rendition of a B12, I treat it as a 'Shedmaster's Pet', semi preserved, so it gets very occasional use.

But I still regard the old B12 models as mere toys. Not very accurate nor worth trying to update them 

[PMP]

Ye olde Airfix 12t open can get a few makeovers..

to

and clasp brake

Parkside chassis’ with Gibson wheels.

Same recipe for Bachmann’s China clay

Edited September 19, 2023 by PMP

[Captain Kernow]

2 hours ago, Torper said:

 

That R1 is very nice - what transfers did you use for the lining?

Thanks - it was actually done several decades ago!

 

I can't remember about the lining at this remove, but I was using SMS waterslide transfers around that time, so that may be the answer.

 

[Barclay]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Can anyone summarise the main things needing doing to the B12 to get it looking good? I presume lowering the body would help, but are the basic dimensions of the boiler, wheelbase OK? I've got one of the slightly tarted-up Chinese B12s (with the sandpaper chuff-chuff effect) and always fancied doing something with it.

I don't know exactly what Harry did to his - I think the main problem with this loco is that it's about a foot too short, and I don't think he fixed that, but he certainly made it look nice!

[Captain Kernow]

2 hours ago, Torper said:

I'm not even sure if the original thick Dublo wheels would go through modern 00 pointwork.

I doubt it, to be honest, which is partly why I changed the wheels on mine, although a friend did turn down the Romfords to a finer (RP25) profile for me.

 

[Captain Slough]

23 hours ago, Torper said:

I'm not even sure if the original thick Dublo wheels would go through modern 00 pointwork.

 

Dublo 2-rail and 3-rail used the same wheel profile and code 100 rail in their 2-rail track. Hornby used the Hornby-dublo wheel profile from 1967 onward into the 1990s. Dublo stuff runs fine on any track that will accept a Hornby ringfield power bogie

[MikeCW]

I have had no difficulty with Hornby-Dublo wheels running through older Peco Code 100 pointwork.  I have refurbished a fair number of Hornby-Dublo non-running locomotives and, if I haven't a circle of tinplate track set up, I "bench test" them on this rig which is made from second-hand Code 100 Peco track which I have fitted with a third rail.

As can be seen, the points are a mix of insul- and electrofrog.  Hornby-Dublo wheels were, during the 1950s and 60s, regarded as quite "fine scale".  Their design quirk was the flat tread where the absence of coning caused the distinctive slowing on the very tight radius of the old tinplate track.

 

[F-UnitMad]

5 hours ago, MikeCW said:

 I "bench test" them on this rig which is made from second-hand Code 100 Peco track which I have fitted with a third rail.

I'm going to ask a Daft Question. How are short circuits avoided on a 3-rail system when the centre rail pick-up - skate, roller, whatever - crosses - & presumably contacts - the 'normal' rails at points??

As my main interest is American O Scale 2-rail, I see a fair bit of 3-rail O Gauge, but have no idea how shorts are avoided at points. This is the opposite of the majority of State-side O Gauge 3-railers who seem to think 2-rail is fraught with potential for short circuits at every turn. It's as if they don't realise HO & N exist at all... 🤣

Edited September 20, 2023 by F-UnitMad
Spelling!!

[PeterStiles]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

How are short circuits avoided on a 3-rail system

From reading Ye Olde editions of RM - different height rails... third rail higher than the others (I thinks)

[Titan]

Pretty sure the rails are the same height. The switch rail that the skid passes over is "floating" as it is not connected at either end and the skid can run over it without shorting. It only becomes connected when the point is thrown the other way and the switch rail contacts the stock rail, and then of course the skid runs over the other now disconnected switch rail instead.  There is a risk that a wheel passing through the gap could cause a short, but if the b2b is OK it should clear it.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Titan

[MikeCW]

4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I'm going to ask a Daft Question. How are short circuits avoided on a 3-rail system when the centre rail pick-up - skate, roller, whatever - crosses - & presumably contacts - the 'normal' rails at points??

 

Not a daft question at all.   The cruel enlargement below shows one of the Peco points in my lash-up set for the diverging road toward the bottom left.

 

The key is to isolate the frog (or common crossing) by the saw cuts indicated by the yellow arrow. The third rail is positive - marked with the red dots. The outside rails are negative - marked with the black dots. The switch rail for the diverging road is also negative (marked with the black dots) as it is up against the outside rail, out of sight at top right. The switch rail for the straight  through road is electrically dead - the pale blue dots.

 

(Power feed relies only on the contact of the point blades to stock rails. Although this can be unreliable in 2-rail it's fine in 3-rail as power is also coming from the running rail on the opposite side.)

 

As the locomotive comes in from the right its third rail skate starts to slide off the centre rail about where the first red dot on the right is located. The skate crosses the electrically dead switch rail for the through route and starts to pick up power from the third rail on the diverging route, about where the red dot at bottom left is located.

 

I hope this helps.

 

And I too think that F-Units are the bees knees!

 

Mike

 

[F-UnitMad]

Thanks Mike, very helpful & informative. 👍👍

[Cunningham Loco & Machine Works]

The Dublo/Wrenn Class 08 can look rather good when nicely finished. Here's one I repainted as an industrial locomotive for a future micro layout. I made no modifications save replacing the tension link couplers with Kadees.

 

While she looks wonderful aesthetically, she nonetheless suffers from certain mechanical defects. 

First that which is in no way attributable to her basic design.

A large part of the trouble with her running has been attributable to rust on her crankpins; this was obviated, first with penetrating oil and subsequently with lapping compound, but I do not believe it fully cured at the moment.

 

This leads to the first problem with the design: the model is not engineered to facilitate comprehensive servicing. Crankpins are formed by rivets instead of shouldered screws; thus they and the rods to which they attach cannot be removed to be cleaned or else worked on without destroying the crankpins. Driving wheels cannot be dropped as they can be on models with separate keeper plates forming the lower portion of the axle-holes. Driving axles lack septate bearings, instead bearing directly on the main frames. 

 

Second, her side-rod transmission is built with sufficient slop as to cause some minor crankpin binding to be practically inevitable at times.

 

This would not constitute a real defect if not for her third issue; her gear ratio, in proportion to the slow speed torque and starting voltage of her motor, is entirely inadequate. Depending on the position of her drivers, and whether the temporary crankpin bind has again occurred, she will start adequately slowly, but will presently stall. She has not sufficient low-speed motor torque to overcome the bind in her transmission. The only solution to this is to give the motor more power, but as her gear ratio is too low she then accelerates in a most un-shunter-like way.

 

In light of these points, I do not understand what seems to me the inordinately high esteem placed on Hornby-Dublo's mechanical quality. I am sure that their engines ran (and run) pretty well as toys, but they certainly aren't the top of the line miniature machinery they have been claimed as. Indeed, even such humble latter-day model engines as the Hornby Railways Margate-edition Jinty and its mechanical derivatives have separate bearings, removable crankpins, and droppable drivers (though the "Ringfield" tender drive was no good as a scale model mechanism, though fine as a toy).

[The Johnster]

I once owned a HD 08 and rather liked it, but the key to good slow performance with this model is to ensure that everything is as free-running as possible.  It can then be controlled down to about scale 10mph, and will stop on the overrun and start quite smoothly, building to about 20mph once the motor overcomes the physical resistance.  Once you got used to this quirk and drove it accordingly, it was a very effective shunting engine, and powerful enough to pull a house down. 

 

There were some surprising features in some of the RTR of those days; the Triang Nellie, for example, considered a very basic model, had a 'proper' chassis with side plates and spacers, and even the original Rovex Black Princess had cab detail!  And there were no plastic gears...   I remember being in awe of my first Triang Black Princess, xmas '58 when I was 6, which came with a small glass bottle in the set box of 'Shell Highest Grade Whale Liver Oil, for use in precision machinery' (and in my mind obtained by gnarly men in rowing whalers with harpoons thrown by hand in terrible storms, aaaarrrrr, Jim lad), to be reverently applied once a year by father.  It gave a wonderful impression of being in posession of precision engineering in  way that Triang didn't in general!

 

 

[Southernman46]

On 14/09/2023 at 19:24, Barry Ten said:

A few more golden oldies, all bought between 40 and 50 years ago.

 

Of similar vintage, the Triang-Hornby Co-Co with slightly tweaked body on a Railroad (ex-Lima) chassis. The paint job and wonky lettering is from my early teens.

 

 

I love that - not quite daring to call it a Class 37 because the original model sort of wasn't ..................... 🤣

Amazing the amount of chat in the Accurascale 37 thread of example, about the thrupple nuts not quite being the right radiused shade of pink on the particular model of a particular 37 - they should be so lucky when we had the above to deal with - required a leap of imagination back in the day 🤦‍♂️

[MikeCW]

On 10/10/2023 at 07:28, Cunningham Loco & Machine Works said:

 

 

In light of these points, I do not understand what seems to me the inordinately high esteem placed on Hornby-Dublo's mechanical quality. I am sure that their engines ran (and run) pretty well as toys, but they certainly aren't the top of the line miniature machinery they have been claimed as.

I haven't had any experience with the Hornby-Dublo 08 shunter - at least not yet.  I have a 2-rail version in pretty good cosmetic condition which I am going to convert to 3-rail operation.  So I wouldn't want to hazard an opinion whether your experience with the performance of your own 08 is typical or not.

 

I think that there are two aspects to mechanical quality: the sophistication of the design and the quality of the construction. Hornby-Dublo model locomotives are not mechanically sophisticated.  In fact, until the advent of that Ringfield motor which filled the cabs of the "Castle", "8F" and "West Country", the mechanical specs were pretty basic, derived from what was regarded as sound pre-war practice.  But, within that limitation, they were very well built and (with the exception of the 2-rail Class 20) highly reliable.  I can recall two stunts by Meccano to publicise the reliability of the Ringfield "Castle" and the hauling power of the "Co-Co" diesel. In 1960 Meccano set up a circle of track in their London showrooms and set a "Castle" with six coaches on a four day continuous  run.  The locomotive and coaches ran non-stop for 150 actual miles, the distance between Paddington and Cardiff.  And at a 1961 Trade Fair, a Co-Co diesel hauled a small child, sitting on a specially built trolley, along a straight length of track.

 

I have a collection of around 70 H-D 3-rail locomotives.  Some are boxed originals (including my "Duchess of Montrose", a Christmas present in 1955) but most are rebuilt, repainted survivors from the scrapheap. I can recall only one, an A4, where the non-bushed axle bearings were worn to the extent where running was compromised. On only one other engine did I need to remove the driving wheels which were locked solid with years of corrosion. The crankpins were certainly a pain, particularly as they were peened over at the back. (I replaced them with 10BA bolts.)

 

I have rebuilt two battered "Cardiff Castles" with Romford driving wheels and scale bogie and tender wheels for 2-rail operation.  Apart from the change of wheels and some filing down of the slide-bars on one, mechanically they are as built in Binns Road.  Both run very well on my "scale" layout. They will never match the performance of a modern engine fitted with a five-pole can motor and 2-stage gearing, but they are still very good runners. One was illustrated in an earlier post.  Here is the other one.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by MikeCW
Grammar

[Hroth]

Just thought I'd share this lineup of three Princesses, all aligned on their cab fronts .

 

 

Nearest the camera is not quite the oldest example of a Triang Princess, having neither roller or plunger pickups, but is the R.0 set.  At the time I photographed them the coaches hadn't banana'ed but I haven't had them out for a couple of years so its a case of Schrodingers Cat!  The middle 'un is a late 50s example with the first Triang attempt at valvegear. The furthest is the early 2000s Hornby "new tooling" (Princess Arthur of Connaught?) with some Dapol coaches .

 

Over the years, the models have tended towards prototypical accuracy and finish and all still run quite happily, although Princess Elizabeth at the front tends to hurdle code 100 pointwork...

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 19/09/2023 at 12:32, stewartingram said:

I've always thought the B12 boiler was modelled on actual diameter WITHOUT the cladding.

There were two LNER period roundtop boiler B12 class parts, B12/3 and B12/4. The smaller B12/4 boiler diameter is I suspect what Triang used, along with all the other standard inaccuracies on their 'B12/3'.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/B/b12.php

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 19/09/2023 at 13:26, PMP said:

Ye olde Airfix 12t open can get a few makeovers..

Airfix GMR made an excellent subject choice, as it well represents late 30's general merchandise open designs constructed by all the companies. Sadly Hornby don't know what to do with it...

[Barry Johnson]

I believe two of the problems with the Dublo 08 were overheating due to lack of ventilation (increased in later versions by removal of some metal?), and the coupling rods, which were binding if in one piece (later ‘cured’ by having two piece rods).

 

I don’t run my 3-rail 08 version (converted from 2-rail as it was cheaper to buy) very much, but it pulls quite well. I could not fit a 3D crew inside as there is no space, so I printed a driver on paper instead.

 

The worse problem with later Dublo locos was the nickel-silver wheels which did not grip as well. One of the best ‘pullers’ is the Co-Bo as this has traction tyres.

[Torper]

I've got an ancient Dublo 08.  Its appearance is rather (actually, enormously) spoiled by a great big screw in the middle of the roof.  Unforgiveable and something that makes it quite unacceptable by today's standards.  What were they thinking of?  Mine doesn't work but indications are that it might be got going by some judicious cleaning, but is it worth it?  Probably not.

 

As for the title of this thread, "Were Any of Them Any Good" well of course they were.  By the standards of the time they were terrific - OK, some details were far from correct but who cared?  And as someone who might now qualify as a "serious modeller" (I do P4 for goodness sake) I can state categorically that I had more fun with my trains back then than I ever do now. But as a "serious modeller", fun is not what its all about, is it?