Golden Fleece 30

Two out of Two is not really unfair labeling Ian. Maybe the issues are not on the same scale, but, there are issues. Screwing coupling rod screws into a plastic wheel so when the screw is undone bits of the plastic comes away is not good. The valve gear was so flimsy someone dislocated the parts without knowing, not good again and very similar to the Garratt. My 02 will be a recent unopened NuCast kit and possibly with a Hornby Dublo 8F chassis depending on a couple of things to look at when it arrives. My models might look old (most are over 50 years already) but I certainly don't have the issues with any of them that modern stuff throws up. At the end of the day we all do our own thing whether others like it or not, it is what gives us enjoyment and makes us all different. God forbid we were all the same, I might have turned into a diesel nut but as we are not that will not happen. Regarding Hattons, I may still buy a loco I want from them but it will be from a reputable source, Hornby/Bachmann not someone who has two out of two issues. Garry

Hi Tony I forgot to say to you 2 days ago Hattons e-mailed me asking if I was interested in either of these. They said it was because I had expressed an interest, well yes I did, but, that was about 1 year before I placed my order which was about 2 years before delivery so why now? Maybe it is because they cannot sell them and they have not checked their recent records to see I wrote to them about the motors and sent the photos. As you say why do they not do the repair? I suspect they know there is a bigger issue, just look at why one of my lights did not work, the wire had shorted out to the body. I think they are trying to just get rid but not at all costs as they are now dearer from them second hand than when new. I did mention the Tango a while ago and now that is now starting to hic-cup, although, it seems to have a good motor (so far). People said at the time "This will be fine and there wont be any issues as Heljan will have realised their mistake and wont do that again" mmmm flimsy valve gear seems to be similar to me for starters! Garry

Running motors "out of sync" surely cannot be the reason unless there was a very large discrepancy? How many times have people over the years double headed trains? A lot with different classes and makes of loco without either ever burning out so that excuse does not come into the factor here. You cannot say a Bachmann Jubilee is geared and motored the same as a Hornby 4-4-0 yet they can run happily together without burning out. I did say after removing my burnt out motor that the valve gear/chassis was still free running as much as I could turn it by hand due to the small drive shaft. To me the chassis locked up as the motor had ceased to work. I cannot run mine for a while now as the layout is being dismantled for other work to be done but if the new replacement motors from Heljan do not work then I will be using Mashima's which I had already thought of before the replacements came. To me (and a few friends electrical and mechanical) it is just very poor motor design. The looseness of the valve gear is not good, pretty poor really but that has not been the cause in our opinions. I see from the Heljan 2-8-0 thread there are loose valve gear issues, crankpins just screwed directly into plastic which then strip, sounds like another issue. I said I would never have another Heljan loco (I am not a diesel man) and this just proves me right. Garry

Hello Kevin, Your SR coach has what looks like Exley corridor connectors, certainly Exley style painted numbers and possibly ends, but, I dont remember them having separate roof vents. In both 00 and 0 they were pressed into the shell. In 00 the SR curved rain strip was always pressed in but the 0 gauge ones usually had wire through a hole at each end and a split pin in the middle. Your ends should be cast with some copper wire at the top going through the roof and bent to the outside and a piece each side of the buffer beam going through the solebar. These can break off if bent to remove a few times though. Therefore yours could be Exley with separate roof vents added. Garry

If the replacements are 12mm in diameter then even with flats on as above they should just drop in. The chassis castings are machined to be 12mm dia with two small grooves for the O rings to hold the motor. Therefore there should be no cutting or machining of the chassis blocks as such. The Mashima's are supposed to have the same size shaft to fit the flywheel too.

I was looking at the 1024's for mine but waiting to see how the replacements went first.

Here is my Hornby King on the Dublo Castle chassis. Garry

Hi Brian, Go along with Davids words which a very good. I have not tried the latest V2 yet but when I do I will put a video up. At the moment things are being put away so I have to find suitable pick-ups or wait until I find a new tender for it (the original should be somewhere but no idea where). The Schools would go quite fast as you should have seen but it was not full on. Regarding a King, I don't know about the Farish one but a genuine one should have offset wheels, the rear ones are further back. I have a Margate body on a Castle chassis which had the rear wheels moved back to align with the splashers. Garry

After a little discussion in various places yesterday, I decided to have a go at a better more realistic Dublo looking V2. The Classic Collections, Michael Foster and my own previous one all fall short with the wheel base being the 2-6-4 tank or A4. In real life the centre wheel was a lot closer to the front wheels than the back. Also the wheels should be "inside" the curved footplate not going far back into it. I know this is done for a reason but it can be overcome. I therefore decided to use the R1 chassis again as this has offset wheel spacing's. The original small wheels were removed and replaced by some 2-6-4 tank 3-rail ones. I had to remove the connecting rods from all the wheels to use the R1 set with the larger wheels. Then, it was a question of spacing the wheels correctly in between the the footplate curves and a piece of brass screwed to the front of the chassis and then a brass block made for the loco body rear which had a cutout for the R1 lug. Once this position was set I turned to the valve gear and to keep this in line with Dublo, and, LNER I used the A4 version. In real life due to the centre wheel position the connecting rods were considerably shorter than an A4, a fact missed by other builds. First the position was marked on the brass front support and then the shape of the valve gear marked and filed to suit. This was then soldered onto the brass. I then found that the A4 wheels had a slightly smaller throw than the 2-6-4 as the crosshead would hit the front and rear of the slide bars so the ends were trimmed down. After that it was a matter of cutting the connecting rods to join back at a shorter length along with the top support frame. There is still a bit to do like cylinder covers, motion bracket, another tender etc but I have a more realistic Dublo version of this chassis, AND, it fits a body without cutouts for the pole pieces as all the others do but I thought you could see it before any other work is done which may hide the Dublo fittings.

Here it is although the cylinders are a little high as there is only 1.5mm left on the chassis where they are. Really it needs a plate mounting underneath to lower them slightly. The loco body back has not had its slot set up for the Dublo lug, it is a little big as I filed it the wrong way, but the body does go down. I also need to look at larger bogie wheels although if the cylinders do come down it might not be as bad. The Hornby return cranks do not work properly so they have been removed for now for some reason they are tight as if too long, but, as mentioned not enough time to do everything. If you look in the "Playing with Dublo 3-rail again" thread my Dublo County and Star etc are in there. Garry

Excellent work Beeja 40.

I have sent you a PM 5050. Here are my Pannier and Prairie tanks. The 61xx really needs some false frames at the front and rear to close the daylight gap. The 94xx is fitted to the R1 chassis which has had Mazak wheels fitted and the 61 to an A4 chassis with Castle cylinders. Also included are two Gaiety models, one on a Tri-ang chassis the on the Dublo R1 again. The Tri-ang one has had the wheels re profiled to go through modern Peco track.

I too have recently just moved the front wheels on a Dublo R1 chassis to put under a 4F. Also the rear wheels on a Castle moved back for a B17. I prefer Dublo chassis's but there is a limit to what you can do with them. I did once use a Dublo W/C chassis for a Britannia swapping the wheels for Dublo A4 ones. The A4 chassis got the boxpok ones as I used that for a Wrenn Spam Can body. I have just turned an R1 chassis into a 4-4-0 for a Schools moving the rear wheels back.

I am looking for a Farish Spam can to do the same as you Beeja40 but they are not too common. My Pannier and Prairie are on Dublo chassis's bit the King and Black 5 don't appeal to me. I did get a Black 5 but sent it back as it was all cracked and after seeing it close up it was not for me.

Here is a Margate Schools class loco and tender body fitted to Dublo chassis's. The loco is set on the R1 chassis that has been heavily modified making it into a 4-4-0. This needed a new rear axle hole drilling to keep the wheels in alignment with the body splashers, this new hole had a bush fitted for some reason I cannot remember but the hole is for lubrication. The front end need a considerable amount of metal removing for the cylinders to fit, body to fit and the Castle/City bogie to run underneath. The driving wheels are original Tri-ang (Hornby) bushed with aluminium to fit the Dublo axles, the photo shows why there is a wobble so the wheel will need "tweaking" a little . These wheels were used so the valve gear would be easier to fit. At the moment the return crank and its linkage needs some adjustment to run smoothly. Unfortunately I forgot to clip the back end down so it shows it raised slightly. The tender body has been fitted to a Castle tender chassis with plunger pick-ups, the shape of this frame is more in keeping with the Schools class. I was worried that it would be too light as 4-4-0's are not the best/easiest loco to balance out but without any issues it will pull a short train. At the moment the loco has no added weight and is quite light, being 197 grams for body and chassis in total, after all the chassis material removed but it still pulls 4 Exleys with glass windows. Like a few of these recent ones the bodies were painted 30 + years ago and too good to strip and redo. Garry ps it seems I never got around to renaming it, the number is for Cheltenham but the name is as Hornby produced it as Stowe. Looks like a set of nameplates are called for

Here are both modified chassis's working but using a temporary pick-up for testing purposes.

Here is a modified R1 chassis that has its wheels equally spaced and will be 3-railed later depending on what loco it turns into. As yet I do not know what body I am putting on it, it was going to be a Wills 4F but I ended up 3-railing the Wills chassis which worked fine so this may have another 4F, a J39, a J11 or something I have forgotten about in the "spares" box of bodies. I am looking to hopefully find a metal body but not take an already fitted Tri-ang Jinty one out if it is working. The chassis runs fine with just wires to the motor so there is no reason to think it will be different on the track and so there are a few other possibilities in my mind for a few other spare chassis's I have . The front end had its original coupling rod cut in half but this time I had some brass coupling rods from another project so decided to file the pin hole to fit OVER the already inserted one slightly larger so no jamming and then cut the other end close to the centre pin before soldering it to the existing cut halves. Far easier than making all new rods, removing the pins and reinserting them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but t would have been nice if Dublo had drilled a different spaced hole to use for other possibilities like Hornby did with their County/Schools/Compound/Shire where the chassis had a fixed rear axle position but two different front ones in the same block. Garry

I have read within the last couple of months that a Vic Michael in Edinburgh had quite a few replacement ones cast but I do not have a contact address for him Ray. Try asking on other sites and there might be someone on here who knows. Garry

John, If it is still the same point after the mods then that should say change the point. This issue has been a little concern for a few people of the years but with plenty not having an issue. I have about 6 of these and only 2 or 3 pony trucks gave issues. I fitted a small phosphor bronze strip acting like a spring by putting a little pressure on it which cured my issues. One thing to look at is if the toe end of the point comes off a curve? It was always recommended to have at least the short straight or better still a quarter one in front of the point. This goes for two points joined together, ideally a straight between the two should be in place. It is strange it very rarely happens with the 8F which has the same pony truck. There is always the chance that the frog has lifted slightly or the point itself been twisted. Garry

This might be why Dublo never classed the loco as an N2, it was always referred to as an 0-6-2. Because of its similarity in looks enthusiasts all called it an N2 and I am guilty of that too Garry

Very nice Ed, well done.

Thanks Tony. At least I can say the loco is pure Dublo and not Wrenn as the Wrenn ones were fitted with the R1 chassis modified. The chassis had a plate screwed on to it and a slot in the bunker base for the plate to attach. This means also the guard irons on a Dublo loco protect the pony wheels but on the Wrenn they are only protecting the driving wheels which is another giveaway..

I have been told the LNER loco has a Wrenn number. There are various reasons why 1) a Dublo number was not available from Dennis Williams at the time I did the repaint, 2) I took a guess at a number from what was available, 3) the previous owner had done this number and I just copied it without thinking. At least it was an original LNER 0-6-2.

My bit of pure Dublo here. All these wagons are boxed and mint or new bought in the last 3 years very cheaply at car boots and toyfairs. Info on the YouTube clip. I do not often have this much unmodified stock running at once so it is a rare occurrence.

Here is a little information which tries to explain the difference but as usual we have accept some American terms used as it starts of with A dining car (American English) or a restaurant carriage (British English), Part way down it does mention why full dining cars were used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_car Garry