teeinox

Thank you for your advice. In an idle moment, I decided to find our if I actually could remove one of the support structures. Despite being a "heart in the mouth" moment, it turned out to be surprisingly easy. There was enough gap to insert a Stanley knife blade, and it gradually worked along and freed it. I am not sure how the structure was originally intended to be fixed. There may have been an attempt to solder it (some evidence of flux on the knife blade, and then there was definitely the use of super-glue, now embrittled. This is all good news, since my options widen! As for the side windows, originally I thought that the glazing had deteriorated. It turns out it was one of these liquid glazing products that was used. Worked well on the very small windows, not so well on the cab side windows. But the choice was limited. The casting on the inside was so rough that it would have been impossible to fit glazing strip. I still wonder when this model dates back to. Late 60s? early 70s? In a way, I view this locomotive like an ancient building. Do I replace the motorisation, whereupon it becomes something quite different from what it started life out as? Or, now that i know I can adjust the ride-height, retain the original mechanism to conserve this period-piece in as original state as possible? No, it would never be able to haul a decent load, but I have a Dapol Class 22 to help it out. teeinox

Over the years, I have bought quite a number of interesting and enjoyable challenges from Elaines Trains, so when she had a MTK class 41 for sale, and I just had to have it. I had a chat with Elaines Trains about it (One of the benefits of dealing with them; personal and knowledgeable service), so I knew I was buying a few challenges. But I let my heart rule my head and it arrived, beautifully packed in a new box and cossetted in multi-coloured tissue paper. Here is a three-quarters view. It is beautifully spray painted. It is even graced with etched plates; pity the name plates should have a red background, not black. The lamp irons are very fine, too. There are flush windows, though they have deteriorated through the years. It even has working screw couplers. Whoever put this kit together, very much cared about what they were doing. The locomotive weighs a lot, almost 500 grams thanks to the white metal construction. Both bogies are motorised. Here is a shot of them. They consist of MTK side frames glued on to a 5-pole mechanism of unknown manufacture. I have no idea who made the mechanism, and when. Can anyone shed light? But reality soon dawned. The main reveal is that the locomotive rides higher one end than the other. By quite a deal, too, at least 2mm. And that goes back to how the bogies are attached to the body. Each bogie is equipped with a press-stud which engages into its other half which is glued onto a cross beam, itself cemented into the body. It’s a clever arrangement which works surprisingly well. The photo of the underside illustrates the arrangement. And this is where the real problem lies. Whoever put these beams into place, got into a real mess. They are the wrong height, and one of them is a mile away from being level. To get anywhere, I am going to have to remove and reposition them. But how? They are glued in place, but how do I cut that glue without damaging the white-metal body? Advice gratefully sought on that one. I got the bogies up and running. They too, have their problems. The motor is actually glued, not bolted, into the chassis. Bad luck if I want to change the brushes. And it is also a pity because on one of the bogies, the worm gear is not meshing properly with the (beautifully made) gear on the axle, and I cannot adjust it. Power-wise they can just about shift the locomotive, but I have not come to a definitive conclusion of this because, despite there being a phosphor-bronze wire pick-up on every wheel, current collection is poor. So do I retain these period-pieces, or try to re-motorise the beast? Any advice and experience on how to take this forward will be gratefully received.

Fascinating films of an extraordinary time in the history of Dutch Railways. The shots of "Tommy" in action were especially interesting. There is a long article about Tommy's time in the Netherlands in E.M. Johnson's book, "Woodhead, The Electric Railway". Thanks for the link teeinox

Yes they did. The glazing held the whole structure together, to the chassis, and the roof clipped onto it. Replacing the glazing with plain glazing created a whole host of problems. I had to bolt the interior to the chassis, and i never found a satisfactory way to hold the roof on. It was not reallya successful road to take. Teeinox

A nice job! The original windows that you have retained do look rather better than they did on mine. Did Dapol improve the moulding? Or is it your polishing that did the trick? Teeinox

We enjoy visiting local Club exhibitions because they are so very individual, and not overcrowded. So there is plenty of opportunity to look closely at an interesting layout and maybe talk to the owner, which is really nice. Steyning is not very far from where we live, so the Wealden Railway Group show there had to be visited. It’s an 80 minute bus ride from where we live, but just one bus door-to-door, including a scenic ride in the rain between Shoreham and Steyning! There were about 10 layouts, mainly of the cameo variety. There was one trade stand, and a few bits and pieces for sale elsewhere. One of the larger layouts was “Xertigny-les-Bains”, a French-themed HO-scale layout. Here is a photo of the village square: Spot the “Deux Chevaux”, but also a Mini. And along with the traditional grey Citroen vans, a Ford Transit. What this scene shows is not just traditional French provincial life, but a world that is changing. Rolling stock reflects that too, as you will see in this photo: There is the elderly “Picasso” railcar but also a diesel locomotive push-pulling a charmless RIB (Rame Inox de Banlieue) unit (In reality, that might have been a cast-off from the Paris region, my husband cynically suggests). Still on the continental theme, here is a cameo layout based on Norwegian Railways: Beautiful detailed modelling in a very restricted space. And that is a feature of another cameo layout. Steyning being near the South coast, you would expect a South Coast theme in the layouts, and here it is with Shellsea Harbour: A lot of things to see in a very small space. Staying with the seaside, we really liked “Hanton Tarrant”, apparently based on Littlehampton in times past. Here is an overview along the length of the layout, with a 4-PUL in the platform, perhaps ready to set off for London Victoria. And unlike some other “Southern Electric” layouts we have seen, this 4-COR has juice; conductor rail is present and correct! You can just see the fiddle yard at the end of the layout, so the layout is not big. But it still has a sense of space and shows just what can be done in TT. Being TT, we guess most of the stock was scratch built. Here is another shot showing a 2H DEMU at the platform with a steam working behind. The £5 entrance fee included a complimentary cup of tea or coffee. At what other exhibitions do you get that? The Steyning Centre certainly caters for the inner person. Here is a photo of the servery. The “Brown Betty” tea pot ensured a fine cup of tea. And the chocolate cake was wicked. They weren’t short on bacon rolls, either. So, a great exhibition with great catering. teeinox

In James. R Snowdon’s book “Metropolitan Railway Rolling Stock”, there is a photograph of a 7-coach train of 1929 T (then MW in Metropolitan parlance) stock in Neasden shed, in what is described as “pristine fully lined crimson livery”. And on page 128, there are 2 photographs of the 1931 MW stock. These are said to be painted in “maroon” livery. They certainly look mighty fine, and certainly better than the faux-teak these steel-panelled coaches probably got later, let alone the drab brown of LT years. Unfortunately, there is no information in the book as to how long this livery lasted or how widespread it was. Maybe someone knows? teeinox

In their last years the prototypes were to be found on SouthWest – Northwest summer timetable trains. I have a picture of a Third Open in July 1960 at Exeter in a Kingswear – Liverpool train, being hauled by D809 Champion. And of D844 Spartan in 1961 hauling a train of ex-LMS stock, composed of all three periods, the leading vehicle of which is the Brake Third of the Mainline model. Both were in lined maroon. The lining on the early Mainline maroon versions could be a bit crude – their later ones and those by Replica and Bachmann were better in that respect. I don’t have these models (have been tempted), but have some of Mainline’s Collett “Sunshine” coaches from the same era. Like you, I do not like 6’ gaps between coaches, so they were converted to close coupling to get rid of the gap and to provide an NEM socket. I used spare Hornby drawbars meant for their Pullman coaches. Hornby or Bachmann 14mm metal coach wheels got installed, too. For the Keen coupling system, did you have to cut into the underframe to get enough clearance over the wheels? teeinox

I spoke to them at the Doncaster exhibition where I bought the starter pack. I already had an inkling that there was a problem with fracturing, so I put the issue to one of their sales people on the stand. What I was told that the problem with breakages occurred when the couplings were pushed in too far. So the product had been re-designed with a shoulder to prevent this happening, and indeed, there is such a shoulder on the ones I have. It was on the strength of that reassurance that I bought the pack. As for contacting them, I like to have evidence before doing so. That is why I originally posted these questions: * Have other folks had this experience? * Am I just dealing with a bad batch? * Or is there something I am doing wrong, and if so, what is the remedy? Thank you all for the experiences and views you have offered. I think the answers are emerging. But further information and views are still welcome.

I recently bought an “Elite Starter Pack” of West Hill Wagon Works magnetic couplings. These couplings are designed to go into NEM sockets and so have fishtails. The intention was to experiment with them to replace the Hornby close couplings on my coaches. The experiment didn’t go well, and I want to find out if my experience was typical, or I am doing something wrong? The starter pack contains 3 lengths: Close Coupling: 9.5mm long, Intermediate Coupling: 11.7mm long, and Standard Coupling: 12.5mm long. The one relevant to Hornby coaches is the 9.5 mm close coupling, and this is the one I did most of my experimenting with. Inevitably, if you are experimenting, you tend to insert the coupling, then take it out to try out a different arrangement, maybe several times. No problem doing that with Hornby close couplings. But with these, out of the 4 couplings I used, on one, one fishtail broke off on the second insertion, and on another, on the first try. This is a 50% failure rate. Hornby’s NEM sockets can vary in size, some being a little tight, but these are on Hawksworth coaches which are quite easy, offering little resistance. So…. * Have other folks had this experience? * Am I just dealing with a bad batch? * Or is there something I am doing wrong, and if so, what is the remedy? I have used clip-fit Hunt couplings very successfully, and I very much want to make this work. So advice would be very much appreciated. teeinox

I put the fishtail into a NEM socket, then drilled a hole through the socket and fishtail for a screw which then screwed into the extension on the bogie which supported the tension lock coupling. But not tightly, so it is free to move, but it is not self-centreing so coupling can be a pain. It is a kludge, and not a nice one. I have not come across the bending issue - yet. All the more reason to explore the Hunt option! I have managed to install proper kinetic couplings on other coaches, including an LMS restaurant car (a pig for clearance reasons). The only reason I didn't do so on these coaches is that I ran out of drawbars which were those sold by Hornby for conversion of their pullman coaches to NEM sockets. They are no longer obtainable. On further investigation, I found that the design of the buffer headstock prevented me from using the Hornby type drawbar to install a kinetic coupler. Haven't found another way. teeinox

The photograph below is of my two D1915 coaches after renovation. It was taken to show the differences in window treatment. On balance, I prefer the simple glazing. They run with the later super detail Hornby Stanier coaches and look O.K. For compatibility, they have Hornby close couplings. The photos show just how ugly those are. I am mulling over replacement with Hunt magnetic, which may be a challenge to fit on the D1915s. The Hornby coaches have heavily opaque white lavatory windows. When I used the SEFinecast glazing, I copied this, as you can see from the photo. But, while some LMS coaches did have this degree of opacity, judging by the pictures of D1915s on pages 16 and 127 in Jenkinson and Essery’s book, they had a more translucent treatment. So, the plain glazing was sandpapered to get the translucence, and a light coat of white washed over to strengthen the effect. Also, the interior of the toilet compartment was painted white to increase the white “presence”. Judging by Severn Valley coaches, the reality was a rather unpleasant shade of mint green. I passed on that! I also managed to find a photo of the interior of the Severn Valley CK. For copyright reasons, only a fragment appears here, enough to illustrate the upholstery colour. The treatment is said to be authentic for 1949/50 when these coaches were built. As for the sides of seats and partitions, the LMS typically used “Empire” wood veneers, so I left them Replica Railways plastic brown. I have no idea what an authentic floor colour would have been; grey or brown, I would guess! The Severn Valley railway does have a D1915. Originally numbered 9355, the SVR converted it into a buffet car, renumbering it to 149. The interior is completely changed, so no guidance there! teeinox

I had a similar journey with the glazing on my first D1915. I replaced the original, cloudy, Replica glazing with SEFinecast. I was never happy with it. Optically, it was no better than the original, and I discovered that in some windows the glazing actually sat slightly proud. Plus, the offering to go into the ventilators was just awful, so they were glazed with plain strip. When I got another D1915 (I am very fond of them), it was reglazed with plain strip. So, no flush affect, but the interior could be clearly seen and no strange optical affects. The result was better than the SEFinecast in the first coach, so I ended up ripping the SEFinecast out and replacing it with plain glazing. How did you choose the colours for the interior? I chose a dingy red for the seats, a bit like the colour the Severn Valley railway has used in the 3rd class of its recently refurbished Porthole CK. But what about the table tops? Were they covered in the ubiquitous BR grey vinyl, or left with what I would assume to be the original LMS varnished wood finish? teeinox

Looking at my locomotive collection of 16, 7 came from Hattons. Why did I choose Hattons? Because buying from them was low risk, they tended to have what I was specifically looking for, and all the purchases turned out well. But I only bought when there was a good price, and those could be found on Hattons. Prices of my locomotives ranged from £60 for a second-hand Bachmann Class 42 through to £109 for a new DCC ready Dapol Class 52. Rolling stock was different because the financial risk was low. Hattons did not offer anything particularly special that could not be found elsewhere, often at a better price. There are small businesses from which I have bought second-hand stuff with satisfaction such as Elaines Trains, Hampshire Models, The Junction Box, Triang-Man, and JW Model Railways. Quality of website, ease of search and payment vary widely, but that’s just part of the fun. Maybe businesses like these will benefit from the demise of Hattons? Let's hope so. As for eBay, it’s an entertainment. In my eyes it’s high risk, so I have only bought cheap locomotives on there, plus a lot of rolling stock. There have been “issues” with some purchases, but never a total dog. But when it comes to expensive locomotives, no, especially when the terms are “no return”. So, will I miss Hattons? Given my locomotive collection is complete, probably not. But for idle browsing, “window shopping” if you like, yes I shall!

No. Santa provided me with a Dapol class 22 instead!

Many thanks for your reply. It gave me the right direction and I got the coach apart. In fact, the tabs are part of the chassis, and hook into the glazing. There are 4 on one side and 3 on the other. One of the tabs at the end has broken and allows the chassis to sag: a bolt is required! teeinox

Santa brought me a Dapol ex-GWR Centenary composite coach for Xmas, the one which was originally an Airfix model. Charming though it is, I need to dismantle it, and unfortunately Santa did not leave any instructions on how to do that. Can anyone advise? Thanks teeinox

I thought it worth photoshopping the photo to see if the colour could be improved. It could be: it makes a rather "Hornby Dublo" scene, especially those refrigerated containers in the top right hand corner.

Whoops! My misreading your post. Thanks for correcting me. 17mm would not work on the pullmans. As you say, one can have the mixed 20/17 mm arrangement. As you say, orientation becomes a problem. I resolved it on the pullmans by equipping those types which would not run together with Roco couplings, the others kept the Hornby ones.

Many thanks for your reply, scouse889. It is most helpful. Taking into account the measurements you give, it looks like the spacing would be as it is now if I went ahead as follows: Hawksworth: 20mm. Stanier: 20mm (a pity, they could do with something shorter, but not as short as 17mm). Gresley: 17mm. The 20mm dimension you give for the buckeye variety is interesting since I have some Hornby Pullman coaches for which they would be good. But the Hornby R8200 gives too large a gap. So it looks like there would be no improvement in closeness; probably an aesthetic benefit, though. Interesting what you say about Hunt Elite couplings. The only type I’ve used has been the “clip-fit” type designed to fit over a spigot. I had to alter them and was struck by the rigidity and the brittleness of the plastic. That caused me to pause going for the NEM variety. Given your experience, looks like that was a wise decision. But then, I have had quite a bit of handling damage with the Hornby close couplings, too, which is why the Hornby magnetic offering seems attractive. On balance, the 20mm seems the safest bet. So, thank you for your advice.

I’m thinking of changing the Roco/Hornby couplers on some of my stock to Hornby magnetic couplers, the “vacuum pipe” type. Hornby apparently offers two lengths: 17mm and 20mm. Can anyone advise what is suitable for which coach? The candidate coaches are: Hawksworth Stanier LNER Buffet Any experiences and advice would be appreciated. teeinox

Yes, there appear to be a variety of lengths available in the type of coupling that can be fitted with a screw, all called "Clip" by West Hill Wagon Works because they are designed to be clipped over a spigot. As well as wagons, some are for Airfix Mk2s, others for various elderly Hornby productions. I've found lengths from 14.7mm to 16mm available. When I bought the 16mm ones, it was the nature of an experiment and I simply didn't know what size I would need: a leap in the dark! In fact a shorter one would have been better.

Many thanks for your replies. Looks like I can buy with confidence!

I am thinking of getting a new OO gauge Hymek to be a stable-mate for the 1st generation Heljan I already have. I am considering the EFE version in unweathered green. It is available new for little more than the price of a second-hand 1st generation Heljan one. As for Heljan’s latest release, for what you get in improvements, it doesn’t seem worth the money. As far as I can gather, the EFE product appears to be identical to the 1st generation Heljan one. Is this true? And is its green livery, quietness, pulling power and construction quality as good as the Heljan original? Apparently, an obsolescent feature is that the lights are still incandescent bulbs! Does anyone offer a LED replacement? Like to read the views and experiences of those who own one. teeinox

Hymeks working in Multiple! Thank you for giving me an excuse to buy another to go with the single one I already have. It will be in green, though.