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.

10 hours ago, Dava said:

 

Everyone had a good time and there were no disputes between fine and 3 rail coarse scalers!

 

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

On 19/10/2023 at 07:21, Nearholmer said:

It is nigh-on impossible to relate to anything in the UK................

 

Trains first: the top end of US 3-rail has trains that are almost as hi-fi as UK 0, except for wheel profile and current collection. Very much models, not toys. The “toy” end are unashamed toys, for kids, and in-between there are gradations of accuracy.

 

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.

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.

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.

2 hours ago, Nigelcliffe said:

You've omitted "MO+" and "MO-" from the upper photo as probably relevant.  

 

How to do this ?    Multimeter and a diagram showing the 21pin pin-out (lots of those on internet).   Identify which pin is the track input (two of them) and see which solder pads connect.  Work round all you need - pickups, motor, etc,  making notes as you go.  

 

Note on the upper photo that L1 and L2 have a component marked on the board.  So, its possible that only one side of that component connects to the socket.     (Component likely to be either a resistor or an inductive coil, depends on the purpose). 

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

51 minutes ago, peterfgf said:

This appears to be a standard Bachmann 21-pin mounting plate.

My annotated diagram (attached) suggests the following (as a starting poin):

L1 and L2 are the motor pins

L- and  R+ are the track pins

Don't worry about other pins.  These are for fitting the DC noise supression resistors and capacitors.

The two larg solder tabs sticking out at one side are for the speaker (SP+ and SP-).

If you are not intending to swop tenders, then the wiring of the connection between loco and tender is up to you, so long as both sides are consistent.  I have standardised on Motor/Track/Track/Motor and then it doesn't matter too much.  Polarity is swopped around without a problem.

I hope this helps.

Peterfgf

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

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

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.

7 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

Someone mentioned the old Airfix 4F earlier which I've always liked, it had the right 'Midland' look about it and with a bit of weathering and some real coal in the tender looked rather good I thought. 

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. 

16 hours 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!

 

Was the Hornby-Dublo Duchess any good?  What a great post. It helps, of course, that I agree with the points made by LNER4479🙂.

As I wrote earlier, the answer to a question on whether an old model was "any good" is subjective, depending on what one values most- fidelity to prototype or performance - and how much effort one wants to make to raise the standard of either of these. Nostalgia can play its part too.

In the mid 1980s I wanted a post-war "Coronation" 4-6-2 and turned to the more common Hornby-Dublo models of this class of engine:  the "Duchess of Montrose" and "City of London".  Both were themselves a quarter century or more old at that time. There are significant differences between the two models in both the body castings and chassis.

1. The "skirt" under the boiler is more pronounced on the Duchess and the splashers are not aligned with the driving wheels.  The splashers sit too far forward.  In fact, the reason for this misalignment is that the Duchess chassis sits too far back.  Compare the position of the Duchess outside cylinders with the rear edge of the smoke deflector and the chimney with the same on the City. 

2. The City has a representation of the valve gear die-block cover as part of the body casting.

3. To accommodate the magnet pole pieces on the vertical motors, both have fireboxes which are too wide and "boxy" and which "swallow" the rear splasher. In fact, the softer contours of the Montrose casting are probably more like the prototype than the angular contours of the later City body.

4. The City valve gear is more prototypical with a proper union link but the crosshead seems heavier.

5. In both models the wheels are grossly undersized. 

6. Not illustrated here, the City has a plastic tender with much more detail than the pre-war designed tinplate tender towed by the Duchess.

I decided that the "City of London" was "worth it" as the basis for my post-war 4-6-2.  Here is the result.

Pretty well all the detailing parts came from that long-lost and much-missed emporium in Watchet, Dave Cleal's "Mainly Trains".The chassis was altered by filing away the lower front portions of the magnet pole pieces which allowed 26mm Romfords to be fitted. This also allowed me to cut away the lower front areas of the firebox and remodel them in car body filler to complete the rear splashers.

With the large driving wheels the beast ran like the wind and hauled anything that was attached behind it. I suspect that the lights dimmed in the neighbourhood when it was at full throttle.

The point of all this is that my answer to "Was this Hornby-Dublo model any good" is "Yes!" - provided you are prepared to do some work on what is a basically accurate model which is mechanically powerful, simple and reliable.

Sadly, I have no work for 6256. My modelling interest has turned to the mid-1930s and the North Wales line where 4-6-0s were the "big engines" at that time.  So "Sir William" has languished in a box for the last quarter century, losing a front footstep and one of his nameplates in the process.  I wish I had access to LNER4479's Shap to give it the exercise it deserves.

Mike 

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

Mike

 

That is exactly how I created Radstock's 47316

 

 

Nice as the Bachmann model may be, I actually prefer your 7308, it absolutely looks like a Jinty and is something you created yourself. If you could only keep one of them then that is the one to keep.

 

Standing next to the Bachmann model it still looks absolutely "right" to my eyes.

 

In fact I'd go further, the subtle differences add to the realism of your scene, as in real life if you photographed two "identical" types you would likely as not see lots of minor differences between the two, and in the real world nothing is "perfect".

 

Which is why some of today's computer generated and perfect models can look a bit "dead" I think.

 

Also, great modelling on your layout too.

 

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

On 14/09/2023 at 23:13, Steamport Southport said:

 

Yes. Of course they will. If they are treated right. Don't forget that many of the "super detailed" models are now getting on for twenty or thirty years already, with Mainline and Airfix being over forty years or so.

 

If you consider that most of those old HD and Triang models are usually in terrible condition. Just look at the bargain bins at exhibitions and on eBay. There is also the fact that they made a lot of them. The ones that are in good condition are ones that have been looked after or in some cases hardly ever used.

 

 

Jason

I appreciate the point you make Jason but I'm not entirely convinced.  I think there are two factors at play here (if a factor can be at play🤔): engineering robustness and delicacy of detail. As you stated in a recent post, many of the forty year old locomotive models from Mainline and Airfix, which set new standards for detail and prototype fidelity, had poorly performing pancake motors, plastic gears and axles prone to splitting, plating on wheel treads which quickly wore away, and other design or material deficiencies.  Bye and large, Hornby-Dublo engines have already shown themselves more robust than these.  I know little about Margate's offerings of the 1950s and 60s so can't comment on Triang/Triang Hornby robustness.

In the last 20 years or so the major manufacturers have, as you note, addressed these engineering problems, although I've  read about  failures in some models, and have friends who have returned their hi-fi locomotive purchases for repair of detached driving wheels, failed gear trains and unreliable electronics.  But I assume that, in the main, these are production quality issues which can readily be dealt with.

As to delicacy of detail, I don't think I'm particularly ham-fisted but have struggled at times to dismantle some modern locomotives for servicing or decoder fitting without breaking off some fine, glued-on detail. Will they last another 40 years? Probably if, as you say, they are looked after. 

That brings me to what I see as the major distinction between the railway models of today and those of the 1950s and 60s. As a rule, the Binns Road and Margate products were intended to be bought for children, able to be run on temporary track on the living room floor as well as on the iconic 6' x 4' board. They had to be robust.  It's obvious that many of the Hornby-Dublo models which I have rejuvenated have at some stage been dropped on a hard floor but, as in the old Timex watch advertisement ("Give it a Lickin' and it Keeps On Tickin') they keep on ticking or need very little work to get them running again. Prototype fidelity became an increasingly important competitive point, but not at the expense of making these models "Wee-Johnny-proof".

Today's models aren't aimed primarily at the juvenile toy market.  They're aimed at middle-aged blokes who should be able to care for them as scale models rather than toys.

The reason that Hornby-Dublo and Triang models end up in bargain bins in "terrible condition" is, in my view, because they were toys and took a beating from many of their juvenile owners, and were then stored loose in boxes for a generation or so. But the terrible condition is often more cosmetic than mechanical and Hornby-Dublo locomotives, which are near bomb proof, can usually be brought back to life, often with no more than a few basic tools.  (Remagnetising the motor is usually the biggest challenge but I'm fortunate to own a remagnetiser.)  Some before and after examples:

A poorly repainted and renamed Castle, barely running when acquired, given a full repaint, a heavy service and a remagnetise to get the motor running. It has been converted to 3-rail with plunger pick-ups in the tender as per the original 3-rail Castles. It's now a fine runner and looks good.

A Golden Fleece "kitset" rebuilt as 22 at the time of the post-war locomotive exchanges.  Despite the appearance the motor ran well but a spare set of valve gear was required. The tender required some miniature panel beating work.

This "West Country" was bought on the local internet auction site.  It ran sluggishly and appeared to be covered in some scrofulous substance.

And the Duchess of Montrose in the condition these are typically found.  The rebuild has yet to have the orange line applied along the running plate.

The increase in complexity and prototype fidelity from the pre-war A4 and Duchess designs (the Montrose body was a slightly modified version of the Atholl casting which, designed pre-war, wasn't released until 1948-49) to the 1958 Castle and the late 1961 West Country is noteworthy. The A4 and Duchess can't be regarded as scale models.  Fitted with near full-size driving wheels, the Castle and West Country could be. I haven't tried to make any of them into silk purses or scale models but painted them in the Hornby-Dublo style as if they were Binns Road products. 

But the main story here is that, with heavy and well engineered chassis, simple and owner-serviceable motors, and cast bodies, it took a lot to get a Hornby-Dublo locomotive past the "point of no return".

Mike

Another 60 year old model which hasn't made the good/bad/ugly lists in this topic is the Hornby-Dublo Class 20, the first diesel locomotive in the Dublo range. The two-rail version had electrical pick up problems arising from a combination of traction tyres and a tendency for the torque of the power bogie to lift one of the wheelsets under load.  But the three-rail version was a big seller, a good runner and, like the "Castle" garnered a lot of favourable press for its accuracy.

Here is one of mine, a battered, non-running example which I stripped down, repainted and repaired.  The only differences from the Binns Road original are the green paint (Hornby-Dublo relied on the moulded green plastic) and the replacement of rusty handrails with stainless steel ones in matching wire gauge. Unlike the Dublo Deltic and Co-Bo, I think that this model stands up well when compared with the next generation of models from Airfix and Mainline.

I'm a tad surprised that the Hornby-Dublo "Castles" haven't featured more often in the positive review lists.  When Bristol Castle appeared in 1958 it was celebrated in the model press in almost the same way as the new generation of Mainline and Airfix models a quarter century later. It had two major dimensional errors: undersized driving wheels and equal driving wheel spacing rather than the 7ft -7ft9ins of the original.  And yes, it had all the other characteristics of model locomotives of the era such as over-scale valve gear, flangeless centre driving wheels, over-scale or moulded hand rails, and the like.  But it was dimensionally accurate and looked the part.

Here is a one of mine.  Windsor Castle is an original Bristol Castle with the "half inch" motor, untouched but for replacement stainless steel wire handrails (the originals were prone to rust), and new name, number and tender transfers in the H-D style.  It looks and runs well after 60 years of service.

And can these venerable models still hold their own today? Here is another of my Hornby-Dublo Castles, this time a 2-rail Cardiff Castle with the later Ringfield motor filling the cab, now fitted with Romford drivers and scale bogie and tender wheels, fully repainted with new plates ,having a canter on my "scale" layout. Again, after 60 years, it runs smoothly and powerfully.

I sometimes wonder if the high-fidelity models of today will prove as robust and last as long as these Binns Road products.

I have a slightly different starting point when considering the “high fidelity” rolling stock offered by Accurascale and others.  The late Iain Rice in his 1993 book on plastic wagon kits put it better than I probably could. He poses the question whether each item of rolling stock on one’s layout is “to be to a prize winning standard” in its own right or to be part of the goods stock of the layout. If the latter, one of his main requirements is that it blends in with the setting and the rest of the stock. Nothing, he writes, makes an OK wagon look less than OK than being marshalled next to one “with all the bells and whistles”.

All the rolling stock on my modest layout is either kit-built or has been “personalised” in some way – detailed, repainted and weathered. Many vehicles are modelled from photographs of individual wagons.  Certainly none are to “museum standard”. So my questions when considering a new release from a manufacturer will be: (1) is it a good fit for my layout’s location and period; (2) can I ensure that it “blends in” with the rest of the rolling stock; and (3) am I prepared to pay the asking price?

(Note that I haven’t asked whether I need the item. None of us “needs” a model railway.)

The first question can usually be answered without too much agonising.  Answering “yes” to the second usually means that, at the least, weathering is required. (Some might regard this as bringing the new wagon “down” to my standards. But each to their own.) And answering the third will probably depend on my mood and sense of affluence at the time.

Personally, I greatly admire the extraordinary fidelity of these new releases, whether or not the detail can be seen. Do I resent the price margin (whatever it is or even if there is any) that this extra detail has added?  Not particularly. In fact the price problem seems to lie with older models and new releases of old mouldings coat-tailing in price on the newer models. But detail which is invisible (Rice’s “bells and whistles”?) when the wagon or van trundles by doesn’t figure in the three questions above and will have no influence on my decision whether or not to buy. I will look at the price as if it were for a goods vehicle with no hidden detail. As others have pointed out, if the items sell at the prices asked by the manufacturers, then the manufacturers are acting as sensible commercial organisations should. When and if buyer resistance increases and demand falls away, then prices may stabilise.

All that said, I am fortunate not to be dependent on RTR products.  In the last three years I have bought two Bachmann LMS brake vans and two Bachmann ex-LNWR Coal Tanks, one of which has been fitted with home-brewed auto-train vacuum gear.  I prefer to wrestle with kits and occasional modifications to second-hand RTR.  I don’t regard that as a more virtuous or morally superior form of railway modelling.  I just get more satisfaction, eventually(!), from it. If others derive satisfaction from the possession, display and operation of pristine examples of these high fidelity models, then good on them I say.

Back on August 1 I posted this photo of my next restoration project, a near-scrap "Silver King".

Yesterday I put the finishing touches to "Sea Eagle" in late 1941 condition, after a photo in Yeadon's book of the A4s. Yeadon says that 4487 was one of the (few?) A4s that had the valences removed when blue and ran briefly (circa 4 months) in this condition before being painted wartime black.

In Dublo style it has no lining on the smokebox.  HMRS Pressfix transfers provided the lettering and numbers; Fox provided the nameplate.  In the oblique light the tender shows, at top right, some remaining signs of its heavy damage.  The valve gear on the donor chassis had been mutilated at some point and I'm not sure about the position of the return crank, but it runs well and I'm inclined to leave well alone.

This was a speedy restoration job for me, perhaps one advantage of a week of rain in a Southern Hemisphere winter.

Mike

16 hours ago, DCB said:

The difference between GW and BR (WR) livery was the valances became green and the cab side lining became a single rectangle below the windows instead of going up around the window. 

I'm no expert on GW and BR(W) matters but weren't the cladding bands on the firebox also lined out in GW days?

Mike

16 hours ago, DCB said:

 Its odd a 1957/62 loco working in a link with 2020 models and out performing them. Just shows how much progress we have made in the last 65 years.

Well said.  Each time I've refurbished a H-D careworn "Castle" it has reinforced for me why the original "Bristol Castle" was greeted with such enthusiasm when it arrived in the model shops 65 years ago.  It really was a remarkably good model for its time.

16 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

From what I remember the valances are black with the thick raised section painted  orange. The real line should be ⅛", but Dublo's are something like 1½". (Pedantic I know, it is a toy!)

David,

You have forgotten more about Hornby-Dublo matters than I've ever learned, so it's with some trepidation that I suggest that this isn't so. Unlike the "Montrose" body, where the cast ridge along the footplate edge was painted orange in the factory, all the unmolested "Castles", 2- and 3-rail, I have seen, have plain black valences; as in the  three, randomly selected photos of "Castles" currently for sale on specialist websites.

As far as the real thing is concerned, I've again checked my small collection of reference books and it seems that, in BR days and in contrast to the lined green of other regions, the footplate edge of WR lined green engines was unlined green.  The photo of "Clun Castle", carefully restored to BR condition shows this well in the Wiki entry below.  As always, I'm happy to be corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_4073_Class_7029_Clun_Castle

I fully agree that the non-driving wheels of all factory-standard Ringfield Castles, 3-rail or 2-rail, were plastic. I suppose that the decision whether to change them depends on whether one is doing a factory-faithful restoration or a (hopefully sensitive) conversion. My decision to fit metal wheels on some of these conversions (reversions?) to 3-rail means that I don't have to break the insulation on the driving wheels (as well a general dislike of plastic wheels).  Now if I had a nice, original "Ludlow Castle", its plastic bogie and tender wheels would certainly be left alone!

All the best

Mike