MikeCW

I’ve thought long about putting my tuppence-worth here. What I want to say has been said before, more than once. But the recent and, I suppose, inevitable morphing of this thread into the familiar territory of the prices of new model railway kit has persuaded me to comment. First, the Hattons closure. As a modeller in the Antipodes I have used Hattons for around 30 years. I have never bought new from them. All my purchases have been second-hand items in two categories: Hornby-Dublo locomotives which were neglected, abused and often advertised as “non-running”; and the occasional Bachmann or Hornby locomotive for my “scale” layout. I have derived much pleasure and satisfaction from refurbishing and recommissioning many venerable H-D locomotives. The “modern” locomotives have been repainted, detailed and weathered (a few fitted for sound) and fit nicely in my “scale” layout. For me, as a customer on the far side of the world, Hattons have been by far the best retailer to cater for these two interests. They had extensive stock which turned over regularly. I could always find something which met my criteria for relevance, condition and price. Their postage costs were always the lowest, despite the inevitable upward creep in the last few years. (I also appreciated the options for postage they provided.) Their website including their payment section was (too?) easy to use. The “trunk” was a great innovation. Packaging was effective (I’ve never had an item damaged in transit). Their customer communication and service was second-to-none. 80%-plus of my model railway spend in that 30 year relationship went to Hattons. With their closure I suspect that my Hornby-Dublo collection is, effectively, now complete. I don’t need or want much more for my “scale” layout. I’ve just got to get on with completing the scenery and building some accumulated kits. So, in some respects, the Hattons closure will draw a line under a chapter of my modelling. For others it will, of course, be different. But for now, it’s time for me to thank sincerely the directors, managers and staff for a great trip over those 30 years. Why Hattons closed seems pretty clear from their own statements and from the company’s published financial accounts of the last decade. And as someone wisely said on this thread, the priorities and preferences of the owners, and their willingness at their stages in life to take on the considerable challenges of this particular retail environment, no doubt played a part in their decision. No doubt too they will have their own plans for the future. Second, model railway prices. There has been a lot said about affordability and the pressures on the marginal “leisure pound” from rising living costs. These are certainly relevant. But for me the bit that’s missing is where one’s own values fit into the picture. I look at a £200-plus locomotive that would work well for my layout and think “No. Too expensive for me.” That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t afford it. I could. It doesn’t mean that I think others are profligate if they buy it. I don’t. It simply means that I don’t think the value to me is worth it. What I’m trying to say is that any buy/not buy decision isn’t solely about affordability. It’s also about the wider, personal value one places on, for example, a new release from one of the manufacturers. For now, my best wishes to Hattons staff at this difficult time.

I have too many Hornby “Dublo Castles” but rose to the challenge of bringing this one back to operational and cosmetic acceptability. It was advertised by Hattons as a non-runner and cost me £30 plus postage. I suspect that the good box (not important to me) was about a third of the price. As you can see, it had been crudely repainted at some time in its life before being stored for a long time in a very damp environment. There was plenty of “white rust” on the mazak, oxidation on the brass plated safety valve casing and copper chimney, and rust on the nickel plated steel parts. The mechanical parts hadn’t escaped either. I disassembled the locomotive completely apart from the wheels, coupling and connecting rods and treated the chassis with a commercial degreaser and hot water and the motor parts to an electronics cleaner from a spray can. The engine and tender bodies went into a bath of paint stripper. The person who carried out the repaint seems to have been heavy handed with coarse sandpaper. A couple of coats of Tamiya primer and gentle sanding filled in the worst of the scars. The motor was cleaned, lubed and remagnetised and reassembled with the Ringfield magnet turned 180 degrees as this was to be a conversion to 3-rail. All the plated parts were polished with an automotive chrome polish which removed the corrosion and left the nickel plating. After a final polish with an oily cloth they should stay corrosion-free if kept in a dry environment. I replaced the handrails with stainless steel wire. I also replaced the plastic wheels in the bogie with “Castle/Montrose” uninsulated wheels to help 3-rail pick-up. At some stage I would like to replace the tender wheels with an uninsulated “Bristol Castle” set. The reproduction tender pick-ups were from Michael (Mick) Turner. Transfers and nameplates were from Fox. It's certainly a cosmetic improvement; it runs very well; and is probably one of my better restorations.

I too am blessed with a supportive and loving wife. The three or four fellow railway modellers with whom I associate most frequently have wives and partners who encourage their modelling efforts which, let’s face it, can cost both time and money. On their part, I’m sure that my friends are open with their partners about the costs involved. But I have also known a few railway modellers (all male) who concealed from their spouses the nature and extent of their spending on the hobby. A few years ago a local railway modeller died and his wife was faced with the disposal of his model railway collection. The deceased had controlled the family finances, had consistently claimed that they could afford neither a holiday nor her reasonable requests for renovations and modest upgrades of household furniture and fittings. When, with the assistance of a couple of railway modeller friends, she had his model railway collection catalogued and priced, she understood that she had been lied to for a large part of her married life. Half of the amount he had spent on his models would have made life much easier, and probably more fulfilling, for her. The double whammy was that she would recover only a fraction of his expenditure when the models were sold. So, when I hear about modellers taking steps to conceal from their wives and partners the extent of their expenditure on railway modelling, or of wives who are hostile to their husband’s hobby, my reaction isn’t to blame either party. All I know for sure (and which you implied in your post) is that there is something wrong in their marriage. As my wife, who can often cut to the chase faster than I can, put it: these stories aren’t about railway modelling, or any other hobby, they’re about relationships.

Even the Pennsylvania RR was happy to mix coarse and fine scale track on its own layout🙂

This layout makes the point about the "top end" pretty well. The only thing that might jar for the British modeller is the third rail. But I think I would forget about that extra rail in the pleasure of watching these trains go by.

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.

I have followed the developing discussion, in this thread and elsewhere, on the financial cost of railway modelling and the possibilities which “budget modelling” holds to make the hobby affordable for more participants. I agree with most of the contributions but have one significant reservation. All of us are probably familiar with the old saw that the young have no money to do the things for which they have the energy and enthusiasm and the old have the money but lack the “mojo”. I think there is an analogous situation in railway modelling. Earlier this year I went to a small-but-good model railway exhibition. A young family – Mum, Dad and two boys aged about 6 and 8 – were standing nearby, obviously captivated by some of the layouts on display. Later I saw the four of them approach one of the retailers’ stands and start looking at new Hornby train sets. The parents were visibly shocked by the prices and hastily moved on. I’m certain that there will be no model railways in that house for some time. There were no tables of second-hand stock at this venue but, even if there had been, I don’t think they would have made much difference to this family. Such tables are often filled with a mixture of junk and gems both cheap and overpriced. And here in New Zealand they often have a mix of European, American and British models of various ages and wheel standards. How would those parents know what second-hand items to buy and would they have the experience and skills to help their sons get a layout up and running – let alone to modify and detail the engines and rolling stock? Which brings me to where I started. By and large one needs to have the experience to recognise a candidate for an upgrade and to have developed the skills to carry out the upgrade with a reasonable chance of success. So the second-hand tables and bargain bins may be a great hunting ground for the impecunious modeller with a modicum of experience but may not be a solution to the cost of entry for many, perhaps most, new-comers to this hobby. My personal preference is to restore and upgrade older, second-hand engines and rolling stock rather than buy new. But I have 50 years of experience to help me discern what is a “good buy” viz. an item which, with work, could become an acceptable addition to my layout. And I have learnt (sometimes the hard way) the limits of my modelling skills. But for the complete novice the second-hand market can be a source of mistakes; perhaps less expensive than if buying new, but with a financial risk nonetheless.

Thank you Nigel. Of course I should have thought of the 21 pin diagram and worked from there with my meter. But now Peter has provided the solution for me and I'll get the decoder reconnected in the morning. Mike

Thank you Peter. Your diagram makes it all crystal clear. I could perhaps have got there myself with a meter and 21 pin diagram as suggested by Nigel but (a) I thought that someone would have the answer for me already and (b) I wanted to take a low risk approach, avoiding any chance of blowing an expensive sound decoder. The 0-8-0 should now be back "in steam" tomorrow. Mike

Can I have some advice please. I have acquired a Bachmann G2 0-8-0 from which the previous owner stripped out the decoder socket and blanking plate from the tender, and cut the wires between locomotive and tender, soldering them together for DC operation. I have the original 12 pin decoder socket and blanking plate and want to reinstall these in the tender prior to fitting a sound decoder. My problem is that I can't work out the locations on the decoder socket on which to solder the four wires between engine and tender. Although the four wires are, in fact, black, I will refer to them using the standard DCC colour codes. They are: Red -From right hand rail to decoder. Black - From left hand rail to decoder. Orange - Right motor brush. Grey - Left motor brush. The decoder socket (without blanking plate) viewed from the top. The four wires from the engine were soldered, from the underneath, to the positions L1, L2, L-, R+. And the underside view. Can anyone advise me which of the four wires (Red, Black, Orange, Grey) go to which of the four locations on the decoder socket (L1, L2, L-, R+). Thanks, Mike

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

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.

Your Coal Engine is a very fine model Jol. Is it photographed running on "Clarendon"? If so this might be the very same engine I photographed at Expo EM in Partington while visiting the UK in September 2017. Your reference to the George Norton tender on your model triggered some memories. My second white-metal locomotive kit was the GEM 18 inch Goods Engine or"Cauliflower", bought via mail order from W&H Models of 14 New Cavendish Street in the mid 1970s. That was nearly 50 years ago and I was then a slim chap in my late 20s. The kit had a white-metal chassis and was powered by a Triang XT-60 motor. I got it to work after a fashion but, by the late 1980s, had decided it needed a major rebuild. 8592 would probably have been classed as an "accounting rebuild" by Crewe Works as about all that remains of the GEM kit is 90% of the locomotive body. This venerable model now has an etched, compensated chassis, Sharman Wheels, Mashima motor and 2-stage Branchlines gearbox. I have cut away the top of the original round-topped firebox and built a Belpaire version in brass. Ross "pop" safety valves, Cooke buffers, and smokebox door levers all bring 8592 into LMS condition. This is a far from perfect model. For one thing the distinctive spring hangers should be visible behind the splashers. But it runs satisfactorily, is unique and, for good and ill, is my own work. I binned the original cast tender and, like you Jol, replaced it with a George Norton etched version - my first ever etched kit. The reason was that I had become dissatisfied with the solid cast "rails" on the GEM tender and, after filing these off, found I was unable to solder up a neat replacement set from brass wire. The tender is now a far more sophisticated model than the engine which, like most GEM kits, is a "rivet free zone". But the dimensions and "character" of the original GEM locomotive body work well enough for me. I must fit a vacuum pipe and hose to the rear of the tender. I hope Mr Wright notices that 8592 has a crew and carries a lamp on its front buffer beam (although the front coupling seems to have fallen off). Mike

Hello Tony In an earlier post you asked for examples of tatty RTR models which had been brought back to life. I can’t help you there I’m afraid. My RTR models have been through a kind of reverse process: starting in pristine condition and then “devalued” with some extra details, weathering, coal, crew and fire irons. (I must confess that I am less virtuous than I should be in the matter of train indication lamps.) But I can’t seem to pass up the chance of rebuilding a poorly assembled and/or non-running kit-built engine if it is cheap and if it fits within my layout time-frame. Sometimes this isn’t all that cost-effective if new motor, gearbox, wheels and other parts are required. Furthermore, it often takes me longer to carry out a rebuild than to assemble a new kit, particularly if I have to dunk an epoxy-glued engine and tender in paint stripper to reduce them to a collection of white-metal parts, some of which may need repair or replacement or may even have been mutilated by the original builder. But there is immense satisfaction to be had from a successful rebuild. I bought this M&L “Coal Engine” on the local internet auction site a few years ago. It was a non-runner for three reasons that I could establish. The worm wasn’t anywhere near centred over the gear wheel – in fact they barely touched; the motor wasn’t getting a steady supply of power; and even out of the chassis and with power leads applied directly to the brushes, the K’s motor ran erratically - not uncommon I believe. On further investigation I discovered that the brass bearings on the “live” side of the chassis had been held in place with some form of epoxy resin. How could power get from the wheel rim, to the axle, through the bearings and to the frame through a barrier of Araldite? I felt sorry for the original builder. He or she must have had a frustrating and ultimately disappointing experience. I reduced the whole ensemble to a kit of parts and started assembly afresh, with a new motor and gear cradle from my own store. The cognoscenti on this thread will note that the engine had incorrect wheels, generic Romfords rather than the distinctive Crewe “H” spoke types. I used the original wheels to test the rebuilt chassis until I had sufficient of the correct pattern available. You may be able to make out in the following photo that "H" spoke wheels are fitted on the other side of the chassis. Rather than order new (and expensive) wheels I turned the flanges off some old uninsulated "H" spoke Mazak Romfords and pressed on the tyres recovered from the wheels originally fitted to the Coal Engine. I could take a thousand or more words to tell the full story but, in summary, this rebuild took a long time and, eventually, the job was done. I dispensed with wiper pick-ups and used the "American" system by breaking the insulation on the plastic-centred tender wheels on one side. In the photos below 28091 is almost complete (red buffer beams, coal, crew and couplings needed) but is plodding satisfactorily around the layout. Perhaps my greatest achievement was getting the numbers on the cabside aligned. Mike

I have two Airfix GMR 4Fs. On one the tender drive never worked well. On the other, it worked but was very noisy. But, as you say, they looked good - especially for the time. The main visual fault lay with the splashers which were noticeably oversize, reportedly to clear "train set" flanges. One of the 4Fs sits in a drawer in its maroon GMR box, the other works on my layout. I binned the latter's tender drive, made up a new floor and built and fitted an etched tender chassis. I shoe-horned a complete Bachmann 3F chassis into the locomotive body. Derby's praiseworthy standardisation/blind conservatism (delete according to prejudice) enabled this transplant as the 3F and 4F share the same wheel diameter and axle spacing. Original Airfix GMR The Airfix/Bachmann Hybrid 35 years old and, in my view, still worth a place on a layout today. I have an etched chassis kit and new wheels for the unmodified engine. If I live long enough to build and fit this, I will use the spare tender from the Bachmann donor to make the Midland version of the 4F.