MikeCW

Failing more photos or an authoritative source, it crossed my mind that the designers of the current series of Hornby Princess Coronations might have done their homework and addressed this detail. From what I have been able to ascertain from photos of these models, at least (4)6256 has the "cover with four holes" as in the photos above. Does anyone have an example of any of the other models in this series they can photograph? My reference to the Roche drawing wasn't an endorsement of its accuracy. My Roche drawing is dated April 1948 and, as Il Grifone has said, they (and the Skinley blueprints) were the then standard, and sometimes used by the trade in model design (David Belcher's example of the Jamieson B1). My suggestion was that the Binns Road designers, in preparing a new mould for the "City of London" in the late 1950s, might well have used the Roche drawing, right or wrong. For the record, here is the cab end of the Roche drawing of a non-streamlined "Duchess". Mike

I had another trawl through various publications to find more photos but appear to have exhausted my supply of those which clearly show the safety valves. I've found a number (especially in David Jenkinson's The Power of the Duchesses, OPC 1979), which appear to show the same cover as on as 6233 and 6229. But drifting steam from the safety valves, reflected light, quality of reproduction, or simply the distance from which the photo was taken mean that I can't be sure. Turning the proposition around, none show clearly the uncovered recess as modelled by Hornby-Dublo on the "City" body casting. The Roche drawing shows the same arrangement as Hornby-Dublo's "City" - the uncovered, square recess with rounded corners. Perhaps this was the source for the Binns Road pattern-makers. Perhaps we'll never know! Mike

A very good point LMS2968, one that I'd missed completely, and well shown on 6233 and 6229 in BR days. Trawling through my modest library was frustrating as 90% of the photos of these engines are of the 3/4 front view popularised by Eric Treacy and imitated by generations of photographers since. Finding a view of the top of the cab and boiler was a rare occurrence indeed. Based on these two photos it also seems as if, in BR days at least, the recess for the safety valves was not quite as Hornby-Dublo modelled it on the "City" body casting. It looks to me as if the square recess with rounded corners was covered by a plate with four round holes, one over each of the safety valves - a lot easier proposition for David Belcher to incorporate in his "Duchess" modification. Mike

I looked at the photos on the previous page. The curious "pipe" on the rear "half-splasher" is clearly visible in the photo of David Belcher's bare metal "Duchess" included in his post of last Wednesday. But as you say, it's not there on your "Atholl". Neither is it on my two "Atholls" - one in a set and the other a nicely boxed original. (And I don't believe it was ever on the new casting for the "Cities".) I have half a dozen "Montroses" from different eras; some gloss, others matte. All have the "pipe"; more pronounced on some but clearly there on all of them. That itself is a mild curiosity as I've always thought that, apart from the slots for the smoke deflectors, the "Atholl" and "Montrose" castings were the same. A bit of a mystery but hardly of any great consequence for humankind. The protruding rectangle on a small number of "Atholls" is, as I understand it, explained by the nature of the moulds used for casting the locomotive bodies. The following explanation was given to me by a now-deceased English pattern maker who seemed both well-informed and not a blowhard. In those pre- computer controlled, spark erosion days, the steel moulds were cut by highly skilled pattern makers and machinists. It was far easier for them to incorporate detail which protruded on the finished model (such as pipes and oil fittings) as this only required these features to be cut into the mould. A recessed feature on the final model was a problem as it required the whole mould to be cut away to leave this item standing proud. A far more cost-efficient technique was to make the component separately and pin or otherwise attach it to the mould. In the case of the rectangular slots in the "Duchess" boiler, the pattern makers cut a corresponding slot in the mould into which a rectangle of the same size was forced. This rectangle was taller than the depth of the slot in the mould and stood proud of the surface, creating the slot in the boiler when the model was cast. But one day this piece fell out of the mould (probably stuck to one of the mazak bodies as it was released) and the "Atholl" bodies which were subsequently cast in that mould, before the problem was noticed, ended up with a protruding rectangular box instead of a recess. It doesn't say much for the quality control at Binns Road that these bodies were then painted and detailed, fitted to their chassis, tested, packaged and sent out the door, without anyone noticing. Or perhaps they did and didn't worry! This is apparently the reason those aeroplane kits we made inexpertly in the 1950s and 60s had raised panel lines - a lot easier to cut into a mould by the pattern maker. Now of course, with computer design and computer controlled machining, such constraints no longer exist. Mike

As with LMS2968's comments about the respective merits of the "Duchess" and "City" castings, your comment also sent me off rummaging for my "Atholl", "Montrose" and "City" models as well as a prototype photo or two for comparison. I had known about the misaligned driving wheels and splashers on the "Duchess" models but hadn't fully realised that this was due to the whole chassis sitting too far back under the body. The photos below illustrate Il Grifone's point. Several things registered with me when I lined up these photos. (1) On the prototype 6235, the rear edge of the smoke-deflector is almost exactly in line with the rear edge of the outside cylinder lagging cover. On the "Duchess of Montrose" the cylinder is set noticeably to the rear of this position. (2) The front bogie axle on 6235 is in line with the front of the smokebox, which can just be made out where the hand rail ends. On the "Duchess" model, the axle of the front bogie wheel is clearly to the rear of the front of the smokebox. (3) Lining up the various lubricators and sand-box lids on the running plates with the driving wheels of 6235 and the Dublo "Duchess" tells the same story. (4) However, although the rear carrying wheels of the "Duchess" are set back towards the cab slightly more than those of 6235 (put a straight edge on the axle bearing in both photos) the difference is very small. (5) The same tests on the"City" will show the chassis is a much more prototypical fit under the body casting. Incidentally, the "Montrose" model is a different one to that which featured in my previous posts (a much better cared for example!) but the body casting has the same "pipe" over the rear splasher. Indeed a mystery. The misaligned body and chassis demonstrated on the "Duchess of Atholl". Notice the position of the front bogie wheel in relation to the smokebox front; the gap between the front of the outside cylinder casting and the drop in the running plate; and, compared with the "Montrose" above, a rear carrying wheel set further back than on the real thing. Does all this have a point? Well, I found it instructive. It seems to me if, when refurbishing and/or repainting a Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" (as opposed to a "City"), I can do three things: (1) lift the rear of the body to correct the "sag" at the cab end and therefore better align the cab roof and tender; (2) move the chassis forward by a small amount as per Il Grifone's modification; and (3) shorten the engine/tender drawbar to close up the yawning gap between the two; the overall effect will be significant. It will still be a Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" but will have a "presence" and visual tidiness which Tom Coleman and his team achieved with the real thing. In fact, with these minor tweaks, I don't think I'd necessarily prefer a "City" to a "Duchess" as a basis for a repaint after all. Mike

I find myself in considerable agreement with LMS2968. But first, an apology for setting a hare running. When I implied that the Hornby-Dublo "Duchess" firebox profile was understated I should have made clear that I was referring only to the "shoulders" on the top front. As in the photo below of "Sir William" these are quite pronounced, depending of course on angle of view and the light. I still think they are are too soft on the "Duchess" casting but, all down to the eye of the beholder. More generally, the comments quoted above sent me off to dig out unmolested examples of the two Dublo LM Pacifics for closer examination at the dining room table. My wife rolled her eyes, affectionately of course, but in truth there's not much incentive for outside activities on a cold, rainy and windswept Southern Hemisphere winter day. To my eyes the body castings for both have their problems as the photos below may show. Both castings have compromises to accommodate the vertical motor. Looking first at the fireboxes from the top, to my eye the "City" casting has a more convincing firebox shape. But that's about the best news. Because to achieve this convincing top view and fit the body over the motor, the firebox top is slightly over-scale which, in turn, results in some difficulties when it comes down to meet the running plate - of which more anon. While the covers for the washout plugs on the "Duchess" are probably too large, at least they are on the shoulders of the firebox and not curiously placed on the top as with the "City". The compromises in both castings become more apparent in the following views. 1. Both fireboxes taper insufficiently back towards the cab. If one compares the two photos above with the first photo of the real 6256, the fireboxes on both models come right up to the bottom corners of the cab window. On the prototype they are well inside the window frames. 2. The "Duchess" firebox side has a curious curve or rounded shape throughout, not at all like the flatter profile of the prototype, seen in both prototype photos posted here. The "City" firebox side is flatter, I think as per the prototype but, because it is too wide at the top, has to have a steeper slope from top to bottom to meet the running plate at a sensible distance from the edge That gives it the square, slab-sided look referred to by LMS2968. 3. Both castings fudge the area around the rear splasher, the motor pole pieces preventing full development of this feature. The "Duchess" casting includes a curious "pipe" across the vestigial splasher, not found in any prototype photos I've examined. (You may have noticed on my model of 6256 in my previous post how I spent considerable time cutting away the firebox casting and building a full rear splasher.) Finally (Thank Heavens did I hear?) a comparison of the firebox/running plate junction. In the photograph below of the original "Duchess of Montrose" you can see how, due to the rearward taper of the firebox, the running plate widens as it goes back alongside the firebox towards the cab front. (The firebox top and side cladding look near-flat in this view, but the top to bottom angle of the side is much more pronounced than the near vertical sides of the City casting.) This area on the two Hornby-Dublo castings. The "Duchess" casting shows this taper on the running plate, just, but the "City" casting does not. If anything, the running plate narrows slightly as it nears the cab front. So what does this long-winded narrative prove. Not much if truth be told. Both castings have their faults and, annoyingly, the later casting, while addressing some of the problems with the earlier one, introduced new ones. On balance, I still think that the "City" casting is better but have renewed respect for the venerable "Atholl/Montrose" bodies. On the bevelled smokebox, thank you LMS2968 for the correction about the reasons for and process of replacement. I had read somewhere of an ex-streamliner having a cylindrical smokebox fitted at a heavy general repair and assumed, wrongly, that this was the usual practice. In that case it seems that the life-expiry of the smokebox just happened to correspond with a scheduled "heavy general". Mike

Adding to my last post, here is my Ivatt Pacific, bodged from a Hornby-Dublo "City of London" at least 30 years ago, fitted with Romford driving wheels closer to scale which, as in David Belcher's conversion, required filing of the motor pole pieces. I've posted the photo before but am putting it up again as it shows my modification to the front corners of the firebox. I've softened the square shoulders of the Hornby-Dublo casting by filing and sanding, probably too much in retrospect. The engine still sits too low at the stern when engine/tender height are compared. I'm pretty sure that this is the result of my fitting a new tender chassis with larger, near-scale, wheels, inside the original Dublo tender chassis casting. The following photographs illustrate the other comments in my earlier post. The Hattons photo of a "Duchess of Montrose", which I bought for repair and repainting, shows to advantage the enormous gap between engine and tender. (Because the chassis hadn't been properly slotted into the body at the cab end when the photo was taken, the cab sits far too high.) "Duchess of Buccleuch", another "Montrose" repaint previously posted, shows the customary "Atholl/Montrose" dip at the cab end, resulting in misaligned cab roof and tender top, as well as the large engine/tender gap. And my most recent repaint, a three rail "City of Glasgow" in early BR Blue with the bevelled top to the front of the smokebox carried by the ex-streamliners until their next "heavy general". I think that this photo shows the altogether better appearance resulting from a properly aligned cab and tender, and a closer engine/tender coupling, when compared with 46230 above. (With reference to David Belcher's question, my understanding is that this smokebox modification (to fit under the streamlined casing) was the only significant difference in firebox/boiler/smokebox dimensions between the streamlined, un-streamlined and de-streamlined Coronation Pacifics.) Mike

I agree that the firebox profile on the "Cities" was too pronounced, but have always felt that the firebox profile on the earlier casting was not pronounced enough. Somewhere between the two seems about right to my eyes. I agree too that it makes a considerable difference to the overall stance and "presence" of the locomotive if that slight "droop" towards the stern of the "Duchess" locomotives can be corrected, as shown to advantage in LMS2968's photos. The photos also show a correction to another visual problem with the Hornby-Dublo LM Pacifics, the yawning gap between engine and tender. This may be necessary for the models to negotiate the tight curves of tinplate track but, again to my eyes, it makes the model look like it is made up of two disconnected items. If the locomotive cab roof can be raised to line up with the tender, and the engine/tender gap reduced, the result is a far better proportioned unit, conveying a sense of the power of the prototype - again as LMS2968's Duchess of Atholl shows well. By contrast, I think that the smaller gap between engine and tender on the Dublo A4s makes for a more convincing unit straight out of the box, notwithstanding the well-known problems with the A4 body casting. Mike

To clarify the way I wired the points on my test track above, the following photo may be useful. Red dots are feed; green dots are return; mauve dot is isolated i.e. no power. The drunken blue arrow is the insulation gap. This "traditional" 3-rail wiring of turnouts is simplicity itself. All outside rails including frogs/common crossings, but with the exception of the point's switch and closure rails, are wired up solid - think the Hornby Dublo tinplate track base. The switch and closure rails are left "un-wired". With the point set for the diverging route above, the curved switch/closure rail (the upper one) is physically connected to the outside rail and energised - red dot. The lower switch/closure rail is not physically connected (nor wired) and is electrically "dead" - mauve dot. On an engine coming from right to left, its third-rail pick-up shoes slide from the centre rail (green dot), over the dead closure rail and then continue on to pick up power from the next "green dot" rail. Relying on physical contact between switch and stock rail for electrical connection, unreliable in 2-rail wiring, is perfectly fine for 3-rail for, as seen in the example above, there is already a continuous feed to the locomotive's wheels - uninsulated on a 3-rail locomotive - from the outside "red dot" rail at the bottom of the photo. All isolation of sidings, creating track sections etc, is done only via the third rail. My apologies if this comes across as "teaching Grandma...." or as stating the bleeding obvious, but I thought that a picture might be a useful addition to the discussion. Keep safe Mike

Going back to the discussion on converting Hornby Dublo 3-rail locomotives to 2-rail, do I remember correctly that the following method was favoured by some modellers in the 1960s? With the driving wheels still in the chassis, every second spoke on the driving wheels on one side was sawn through and the saw cuts filled with Araldite, a new and very high tech product back then. When the Araldite had cured after 24 hours or more, the rest of the spokes on the same wheels were cut through and the Araldite filling process repeated, After sanding and painting the spokes where they had been cut and filled, one had a chassis with insulated driving wheels on one side, and with quartering undisturbed. I assume that bogie and pony wheels were replaced with insulated equivalents. I wonder if these "conversions" fell apart 20 or 30 years later, completely mystifying some new owner. Mike

As D51 noted, Garry Hall had an impressive three-rail layout based on Peco track, which is well worth finding on YouTube. His work inspired me to have a shot at something similar. I built a test track using Peco streamline points and flex track. One of the points was insulfrog, the other live frog. Both were well-used, second-hand items. As you can probably see from the photo above, the third rail is normal Peco Code 100, attached by inserting copper-clad sleepers at intervals into the streamline track and soldering all three rails to the sleeper. Remember to cut insulation slots each side of the centre rail. I kept the third rail consistently centred by using a couple of crude jigs made out of MDF. The third rail was attached to the points by a drilling the sleepers for small stationery staples and soldering the third rail to these. These were older Peco points with the over-centre spring in a housing on top of the sleepers, so I ground away the underside of the third rail where it crosses this housing. Modern points won't require as much work. The only mistake I made was bringing the third rail which starts from the toe of the point too close to the outside rails. As a result, the pick-up shoe on some engines sometimes touched both and caused a short. This is shown in the photo below with the yellow dot and was easily fixed by trimming a couple of mm off the third rail at this location. I'd forgotten how simple three-rail wiring is. The outside/running rails are all just wired up solid, requiring some bridging wires where the two rail points are insulated, and all sections, siding isolation etc are controlled through the third rail. I'm not saying that this is the only way, but it has worked for me.

The camera is a pitiless critic isn't it! Thank you for the photos. I really like your repairs and repaints. They make a fine display and also give me further ideas and a spur to keep my own production line moving. That line-up of Duchesses could be at Camden shed. I've just heard of the next tranche of restrictions being imposed in Australia. We're a couple of weeks behind you in the spread of the virus (as well as a long way away) and with the benefit of your and European experience the Government here has moved fast to close the border, shut down gatherings, impose and urge "lock-downs", make self-isolation in some cases mandatory by law and push over-70s like me to stay home. So I've spent a few extra, guilt-free hours at the modelling workbench yesterday and today. I suspect I'm one of many. Mike

Thank you for the supportive reactions to my previous Hornby Dublo locomotive refurbishments. The latest off the line comes from Swindon, rather than Doncaster, works. The starting point was a very sad "Bristol Castle", sold by Hattons as a non-runner. Ex-VAT and plus postage, it cost me just over 30 pounds landed in NZ. The main reason for the purchase was that I had a spare half-inch motor in good condition, picked up last year at a local model railway show. I also had a set of Dublo-style plates (i.e. transfers) for "Windsor Castle", bought some time ago from the "Dublo Surgeon". So my idea was that a motor swap and a repaint would give me a another project to keep me busy at home at the modelling bench in these difficult times. The starting point, All parts were there, but everything was either dirty, rusty or just plain tatty. The first job was to try and identify the reason why the engine wouldn't run. In fact there were three reasons, best explained by reference to the picture below of the refurbished chassis. First, electrical continuity problems. The wire which connects the nearside motor brush to the phosphor bronze plug to the tender had been shortened at some time, and the plug itself was crushed and distorted. Because of the short wire, the plug couldn't be pushed fully home into the tender connection and, because the plug was misshapen, what contact it made was intermittent. Furthermore, the brass sleeve over the insulated end of the "V spring" which bears against the brush arm on this side had been slid rearwards to compensate for the shortened wire. As a result, it barely made contact with the brush, So I straightened the tender plug and replaced the wire with one of suitable length. This enabled the tender connecting plug to be pushed fully home and the brass sleeve on the "V spring" to be pushed down to its proper position and bear fully on the brush arm. Job done. Well, no. Second, mechanical problems. A previous owner had tightened the adjusting screw on the worm end of the motor shaft so there was no fore and aft play. He or she had then put a ring spanner on the lock nut, put a three foot length of pipe on the end of the spanner to give some extra leverage, and then commissioned Arnold Schwarzenegger to swing on the end to ensure it was nice and tight. Boy it took some effort to free! Perhaps as a result of motor shaft pressure on the top end bearing, the whole top end bearing housing had started to rotate in the motor end plate. There was no option but to dismantle the motor, degrease the end plate and top bearing, and fix the bearing in place in the end plate with permanent Loctite. Both top and bottom bearings were lubricated, the motor re-assembled and re-magnetised, and all ran smoothly with a low current draw. So my spare half-inch motor remains in store for another project. With the chassis sorted, I turned to the locomotive body and tender. The picture below shows the locomotive body and tender dismantled and after I had gently scrubbed the bodies clean with mild detergent and a paint brush. At this stage I had also removed rust from the engine/tender draw-bar and chemically blackened it. I had also started rubbing rust off the reversing rod with a fine fibreglass pencil. It became obvious that, much like "Empire of India" described on a previous page, the paintwork was in poor shape but the lining was pretty good. The tender body makes the point well. So I decided to repeat the "Empire of India" approach of patch-painting the body while retaining the lining. But the problem I had with the A4 was that masking the lining with tape pulled parts of the lining off when the tape was removed . After some contemplation I decided to try the technique used by plastic modellers to obtain a soft demarcation line between different sprayed-on colours for aircraft camouflage. This uses "snakes" of Blu-Tack instead of masking tape. Note in the picture above that I carefully removed the remnants of the BR totem transfer with a fibreglass pencil. Probably because the Hornby Dublo transfers were affixed with varnish, removing the transfer alone will often leave a "ghost" of the transfer shape which I suspect is the varnish adhesive which forms a layer between the transfer itself and the surface of the model. While the masking looked bizarre, the end result was gratifying. The photos were taken straight after removal of the masking. There are a few spots of Blu-Tack to be removed, and the odd tiny spot of chipped green paint close to the boiler bands which will need to be touched in by brush, but the technique worked well with no damage at all to the original transfers. Obviously, the running plate is yet to be repainted by brush and other black parts of the body (cab roof, smokebox etc) either fully repainted or touched in with Humbrol enamel No. 85. One of the challenges of refurbishing a "Castle" is getting the continuous handrail both symmetrical and a good fit to the locomotive body. To avoid scratching the new paintwork I did all the trial fitting of a new 1.0mm stainless steel wire handrail on a scrap "Castle" body from the junk box. (I was not responsible for the butchery on the body!). I can recommend this method of stress-free handrail trial fitting. The final stages of the project were: (1) Restoring all the "brass" trim and safety valve bonnet with Humbrol Brass applied with a good quality brush; (2) Applying decals for the name and number plates. As stated above those for the engine are Dublo style and were applied by varnish-fixing. The tender crests were 30 year old PC/HMRS Pressfix type. I used the early crest rather than the later totem as I prefer the earlier design and it also makes a change from the standard "Bristol Castle"; (3) Polishing and oiling the reversing lever. It remains to be seen how long it will last before rusting again where the nickel plating has worn off the steel stamping. My models are kept in a dry atmosphere so it may well last. (4) Cleaning the bogie wheels and touching in a few spots of wear on the chassis with Humbrol 85. (5) Giving "Windsor Castle" an overall coat of domestic satin polyurethane varnish. This is always a fraught process. Spray it insufficiently thinned, from too great a distance, or with too high a pressure and it dries as it hits the surface, leaving a rough, "frosty" finish. If too thinned it will run in an instant. In both cases a repaint is about the only option. In this case all was well except that the varnish dried more semi-gloss than satin. Perhaps I hadn't stirred it enough. But I'm happy with the ex-works finish. And here it is. After I took the photos I noticed that the cylinder lining needs to be replaced. A job for the weekend. Another engine saved from Woodham's scrapyard at Barry. Mike

This looks the same as a number of wagons kindly given to me by a friend who knows of my eccentric interest in 1950s/60s model railways, They were bought and assembled by his late father for use on his Hornby Dublo layout. They seem identical to the chassis in Cessna's photo: metal solebars, clear base, diagonal ribs and nut and bolt fixing for the coupling. I was fortunate in that the original box for the "Guards Van" came with the wagons. It is branded as a "New Rex" kit which, given the comments above, I assume to be an ERG brand? Two things about the box are noteworthy: the advice about the chemicals to use as adhesive (supporting David's comment about the difficulty of sticking the perspex parts together); and the "HD" notation which I assumed (perhaps wrongly) to indicate that the wagon was supplied with either mountings for Hornby Dublo couplings or the couplings themselves. In the box were some of the bits and pieces which modellers tend to accumulate. Perhaps the 3-link couplings are ERG originals? I don't think that the fish hook came with the kit.

I recall having read about Magna Models elsewhere when I was stumbling around RMWeb. I found the topic here: I believe this might be another copy of your recently acquired 3F kit which is illustrated in the thread. Good shopping! Mike

A couple of items I forgot to include in my long-winded post about E22 Mallard. As this an A4 in LNER days I ground and filed away the bracket for the BR smokebox number. (I see that gtis has also done this for his conversion.) The nameplate has a red background which is rather bright. I know little about LNER liveries and suspect that the colour should be more crimson (like the wheels). The Fox nameplates are etched brass. The Modelmaster pair I originally ordered and which failed to arrive were stainless steel, which I would have preferred. Finally, for my blue A4s I have simply copied where the Hornby Dublo factory workers applied the black paint on their Sir Nigel Gresley models, continuing the black of the parabolic curve of the smoke box along the top of the residual valence as far as the cab. Photos of the real thing seem to show this demarcation (with red/white lining) ending close to the bottom of the parabolic curve. But as this is a Hornby Dublo "Neverwozza" rather than a scale model, I decided to retain the Binns Road factory style. Mike

I spent an hour or two today finishing off the second of my A4 projects which have been waiting for nameplates. For several reasons this was more challenging than 60011 above. First, the starting point was a disparate collection of parts, some of which were not in good condition. The second was that I decided to fit proper stainless steel numbers to the cabside, of which more later. This was the genesis of the rebuild. A battered tender, an incomplete but running chassis, and a Golden Fleece body. Before the late 1950s I believe that only four A4s sported double chimneys. One was No. 22 Mallard. I have a couple of photos of her at the time of the locomotive exchanges of 1948, in Garter Blue, with "E 22" on the cabside (the number in cut-out stainless steel letters), and "British Railways" on the tender, which at that time happened to be the 1928 pattern corridor tender as modelled by Hornby Dublo. So E22 it was to be. At an early stage I acquired a more complete chassis which gave me the nudge to start the rebuild. I began with the tender. Dublo A4 tenders seem to suffer from two habitual problems. The first is the well-known and well-canvassed "banana shaped" tender top. The tender top in this example seemed to be a replacement, not distorted but far too small, as though the casting had shrunk. It was replaced with a modern reproduction which fitted well and is moulded in a stable material. The second problem is that the tender sides at the front (locomotive cab entrance) end are often distorted. They are not well-supported and are very prone to damage when young Johnny drops the tender on the floor. This was a particularly bad example. One wheel-set was missing and the tender bogies were heavily rusted. After a strip down I had the following kit of parts for the body. After cleaning off the rust with a wire brush in my Dremel and applying a rust preventative and etch primer to the areas inside the tender where the tinplate had worn or corroded away, I contemplated repair of the distorted tender front and the bent sides. I did my best with pliers, gentle panel beating with a miniature hammer on wooden dollies and then filled the worst of the remaining dents on the side with solder. I used solder rather than model filler as the side was split for a few millimetres from the top beading and I thought the solder would repair as well as conceal. Following a spell of filing and sanding things were starting to look more promising. After further removal of external rust and residual Binns Road paint, some priming and sanding, and a smear or two of filler, the body was looking good - not perfect but good enough and far better than it was when I started. I carefully levered up the edges of the rivets holding the bogies to the tender underframe (wheels can't be replaced with these in situ), only just enough to ease the bogies away, and put the rivets aside for re-use. As well as the missing wheel-set and rust to be treated, the coupling had lost its dropper at some point. So the rivet holding the coupling in place was drilled and punched out. All the wheels were removed for cleaning and to allow rust treatment of the bogies themselves. The result - bogies cleaned of rust and chemically blackened, replacement wheel-set installed, all wheels cleaned and reinstalled with a smear of oil on the axles, and the wheel faces painted with Humbrol Crimson. A replacement coupling has been installed with a home-brewed rivet. You can see that the low spring sunshine (the photos were taken in October in the Southern Hemisphere), reveals that the tender side, despite all the work, isn't perfectly flat. The bogies were re-installed in the underframe and the tender body put aside for painting. Now for the locomotive itself. The old Golden Fleece body had two problems. First, it was missing a vital part: the plate at the front which holds the threaded rod for the body fixing nut. This is held in place by the buffers, the inside ends of which are peened over, effectively riveting this plate in place. To cut a long story short(er), I stripped a replacement from an old Sir Nigel Gresley body and secured it partly with the residual buffer stems, and partly with epoxy, unseen between the plate itself and the inside of the sloping smokebox. The second problem with the body was the result of another long drop in the engine's history, The cab roof was buckled where it had hit the floor. In fact the cab was quite distorted and had a twist which I have not quite eliminated. With gentle heat and more miniature panel beating, I restored the cab roof close to its original shape. I didn't want to go further as the mazak casting can become brittle with age and work-hardening. The locomotive and tender bodies were given a coat of Tamiya fine primer, then my own mix of Garter Blue (effectively as close a match as I can get with Humbrol enamels to the Hornby Dublo shade on Sir Nigel Gresley) was applied with an airbrush. Humbrol 85 Satin Black was hand-painted using a quality synthetic brush; and an overall coat of polyurethane satin varnish sprayed through the airbrush after the decals for the tender lettering (Fox Transfers) had dried off . Paint chips and wear on the chassis were also touched in by brush, With new handrails from 1mm stainless steel wire and Modelfixings 1.2mm split pins, and with Fox numbers and nameplates, here is the result. The painting and transfer application didn't go smoothly. I was so concerned at getting the tender lettering straight that I didn't notice that I had applied the transfer too low. As it was still wet I thought I could remove it with some meths. The meths removed the transfer and the paint. So a major sanding, priming and repainting job was needed on the tender side. The Fox stainless steel numbers were fixed with superglue. Those on the left hand side (photo above) went on with no trouble. Those on the right hand side didn't. I have a turbulent relationship with Cyano glues. Today was hot (27 degrees C) and very dry. Glues and paint go "off" very quickly. The superglue grabbed the first "2" on the RH cabside and held it firmly at an angle of 20 degrees to the vertical. I prised it off with a scalpel blade and took a patch of paint away with it. This happened twice before I finally had a satisfactory result. This time I carefully brush-painted around the "2" with blue paint and shot some varnish on the cabside with the airbrush. It's slightly rougher than the other side but well within my standards. The tiny "E" above the number, which was applied from early 1948 until BR numbers were finalised, is a Fox transfer. Two more additions are needed: the plaque on the body side commemorating the world speed record and a number transfer on the "buffer beam" . I have neither on hand but will get them in due course. My apologies for the length of this post - but the rebuild took a lot longer! Mike

That's generous of you Colin. I get a lot of satisfaction from this sort of "modelling". In part it's nostalgia but a large part is taking a 60-70 year old item, getting it running again and returning it to something like it's former glory. I think that Hornby Dublo locomotives are ideal for this sort of treatment. With one or two exceptions they are still plentiful and careworn examples can be obtained at reasonable cost. They are solid, well made items and can generally be repaired with traditional hand-tools and a soldering iron. Where "cannibalisation" of examples which are past the point of no return can't provide those elusive parts, reproduction or used parts can be sourced from several suppliers. And when refurbished, they can both be used and make an attractive display. As one contributor to this thread said a year or so ago, "Much of it's about the simple pleasure of fixing things." Mike

It's a while since I've posted anything on this topic. Part of the reason is that I've had several Hornby Dublo rebuilds and repaints on the workbench complete but for nameplates. After waiting over three months for these from Jackson Evans I gave up and ordered several from Fox Transfers. They arrived here in New Zealand within a couple of weeks. Empire of India started out as a sad Silver King which had sat in a damp box for too long. Condensation had set to work and, where the locomotive had been lying on its side against the cardboard, the handrails had started to rust around the split pins (4th Form Science: 2 different metals in an electrolyte?) and the rust had caused irremovable staining in the paint around the holes in the body-side. On the plus side, the mechanism was sound and ran quietly, or as quietly as Hornby Dublo vertical motors ever do, and with a mild service it pulled only about 3-4 milliamps with no load. The nickel plating on the valve gear was still bright, with none of the yellowing as brass starts to show through the plating. I thought it well worth a repaint. Then I had a closer look at the lining and rest of the paintwork. The lining in particular was in good shape and I wondered if I could fix the rust marks without embarking on a full repaint, which would then mean a decision whether to use reproduction Hornby Dublo decals or "scale" ones. So the hand-rails came off and I set to work with a fine fibreglass burnishing tool to eradicate the stains and the "nameplate". I covered the boiler band lining with Tamiya masking tape and loaded my airbrush (a Badger "Patriot") with a few well thinned mls of my own brew of BR Green. With the air pressure at about 20 psi I was able to "mist" on the colour, gradually building it up and feathering it into the existing paint. Very pleased with myself I removed the masking tape and pulled off sections of the lining with it! After commenting aloud on the quality of the varnish used in Roland Hornby's factory I prepared to throw the locomotive body across the shed. But then I thought, perhaps I could replace some of the lining with Dennis Williams'/Dublo Surgeon's lining, a small supply of which I had to hand. Alternatively I could piece together some of the detached sections of lining and re-affix them with varnish. In the end I replaced two small sections of lining with recovered pieces. But most of the repair was done with a "000" brush, orange and black Humbrol enamel, and a desk-top lamp/magnifier. I then worked over the engine, touching in chipped black paint with Humbrol 85 and repainting the cab roof entirely. After applying the cabside decals (Fox waterslide) and shooting the locomotive with an overall spray of domestic polyurethane satin, the job was done. I put it aside to harden off before fitting stainless steel handrails. This locomotive came to me without a tender, The tender you see here was a complete repaint and is another story entirely. The coal/tender top is a modern, stable casting sourced off the internet. The nameplates arrived today from Fox and were fitted with epoxy. In summary, I'm rather pleased with 60011. If there is any interest I can post the stories of the other rebuilds and repaints as they are completed. Mike

I should add that another reason for using split pins that fill the body-side holes is that, when spreading the tails of the pins inside the locomotive body (always a struggle), split pins which are a loose fit in the holes will tend to open up around the handrail wire, Pins which are a snug fit in the body-side holes will remain crimped around the wire. This both looks better and holds the handrail straight. Also, having looked again at my photos of the wire coils, it looks like the thicker wire is labelled as 1.0 mm and not 1.2 mm. Careless of me! However, when I put the dial calipers on the thicker wire it came out as around 1.1+ mm. I don't think that that the difference matters much in this context! The main thing is that it's a good match for HD handrails. I've edited my original post accordingly. Mike

I use stainless steel wire, available from my local hardware chain store. Though I live in New Zealand I'm told the same or a similar product is sold in UK hardware stores. I use two sizes: 1.0mm and 0.8mm diameters. The heavier wire, though marked as 1.00mm, is nearer 1.2mm (at least my batch is) and is a good match for handrails on older Dublo engines such as the Duchesses and A4s, the 0-6-2T and 2-6-4T. The finer wire is good for later models such as the Bo-Bo (see below) and for some Wrenn products. The wire needs to be cut to length (don't use expensive Xuron shears!) and straightened. Clamp one end in a bench vise, grip the other end in decent pliers. and pull hard, at the same time praying that the wire doesn't come out of either the vise or the pliers. I use split pins which are available at a very reasonable price from Modelfixings in the UK. More details about these and a comparison with Dublo originals is in the post below. When I use 0.8mm wire I sometimes use the 1.2 mm split pins, crimping them up on the wire with pliers. Finer split pins sometimes don't seem to "fill" the holes in the body sides sufficiently. Duchess of Buccleuch is a repaint with 1.2mm stainless steel wire handrails and Modelfixings 1.2mm split pins. Bo-Bo D8036 is another repaint but this time using 0.8mm stainless steel wire with 1.2mm split pins. Finally, Sparrow Hawk in early BR guise (yes I know that she didn't haul the 1928 pattern corridor tender as modelled by Hornby Dublo, and that "British Railways" on the tender side isn't level!) has 0.8mm wire handrails with finer Modelfixings split pins. I'm not that happy with the result for a couple of reasons. As I noted above, the split pins don't "fill" the original holes in the boiler casing sides. Also, at least to my eyes, they don't look sufficiently like Binns Road products, the style I'm trying to retain. One can't make a "scale" A4 out of the venerable Hornby Dublo casting and I'm careful not to try. So my other A4 repaints have reverted to 1.2mm wire handrails which are very close to the originals. Hope this long-winded response is of help. Mike

Hello again Mark I made a couple of very crude gauges out of 3mm MDF to keep the third rail central. I went out to the shed a few minutes ago to look for one to photograph but, having had a tidy up out there recently, typically couldn't find them. A sketch is attached. A trick is to cut and file the central slot first until it is a snug fit on Peco Code 100 rail, and then mark the centre-line and make the cut-outs for the 16.5mm track gauge. When I did it the other way round, I always seemed to get the third rail slot slightly off centre. That said, Hornby Dublo 3-rail pick-up shoes and plungers are very forgiving and a half mm off centre won't really matter. On my test track I didn't bother with fishplates. (I don't think I had any Code 100 ones in stock when I threw it together one weekend). In fact, you'll often want gaps in the third rail as that is the primary control for section switches, isolating sections and the like. Where I wanted continuity in the third rail I just soldered feeds to each section. Where there was a gap in the third rail between one section of track and the next (or where the collector was to slide over closure and switch rails in pointwork) I smoothed off the end of the third rail with a file to give a nicely rounded surface to be kind to the collector. Incidentally, when wiring up the test piece, I was reminded just how simple third rail wiring is. and how reliable and forgiving third rail electrical pick up can be. I've just picked up Il Grifone's helpful comment about points and crossings. The picture below may illustrate the point (sorry). The drunken blue arrow indicates insulating gaps in the running rails. The rails which are wired with the feed and return from the controller are indicated with red and green dots - red for the running rails; green for the third rail. The mauve dot indicates a rail which is electrically dead. You can see how the third rail collector shoe, when following the diverging road from top right to bottom left, slides across the electrically dead rail before it picks up power again from the third rail just in view at the bottom left. When the point is set for the through road across the top, the switch rail with the mauve dot will pick up power from the running rail at the bottom of the picture and become red. Its opposite number loses contact with the top running rail and becomes electrically dead (and mauve). The electrical clearances on this bodged converted turnout look tight but it all seems to work. I've no plans to turn the test track into a layout. But what I would ideally like is a simple, three-rail, continuous-run, double track, exhibition-style layout, with a gentle, sweeping curve on the visible section and storage sidings behind, so I can watch my Hornby Dublo collection roar past in a cloud of ozone in a nicely finished scenic environment. In my view Hornby Dublo deserves to be run and the quality of the engines and rolling stock, signals and lineside accessories can be appreciated in a more "scale" setting from time to time rather than restricted to tinplate track on a 6' x 4' board - though that too has a strong nostalgia pull as shown by some of the layouts on this and other threads. Incidentally I have three A4s, two in blue and one in BR green, rebuilt, repaired and repainted, resplendent and ready for the road but for nameplates and stainless steel numbers which I ordered (and paid for) from Modelmaster over three months ago. I'll post some before and after pictures when the nameplates finally arrive and are fitted. Mike

Hello Victor Welcome to the (addictive) world of Hornby Dublo - whether collecting, modifying, restoring, running or just playing trains. I have a modest collection - accumulation really - of Hornby Dublo 3-rail, dating from my childhood in the 1950s, which I've added to over the years. But a couple of years ago, inspired by many of the contributors on this thread, I became more involved in repair, restoration and modest modification. To illustrate, I had about 8 or 9 locomotives two years ago. The number is now closer to 50, though I have rarely paid over 50 pounds for any of them, and often very much less. A couple of comments on the matters raised on this thread. Running Quality I have found controllability of Hornby Dublo engines to be quite acceptable, provided that: (1) the locomotive is in good mechanical condition (adequate magnetic force; bearings in reasonable condition and lubricated; axles and running gear clean and oiled; slight end-float on the armature; (important) commutator slots cleaned of carbon build up; and brushes clean where they bear on the commutator (no fluff or that grunge made up of graphite, grease and household dirt). Re the bearings, make sure that the tiny steel ball thrust bearing is in situ at each end of the armature. (2) you use a quality modern controller with plenty of amps available, The original Dublo resistance controllers are nice period pieces but won't give as smooth running as modern electronic controllers, and might even be dangerous if rubber insulated cords on units with integral transformers have degraded. I use a U.S. made controller I bought when living in the States in the 1980s. It was a state of the art "transistorised" controller at the time, with momentum and braking features which I don't use, but is rated for 2.5 amps. Track I have found (with one exception noted below) that Hornby Dublo three-rail engines and stock run well on older Peco Code 100 "Universal" track, which is readily and cheaply available second-hand. (They may run well through modern Code 100 Peco Streamline. I simply haven't any on hand to run a trial.) With the exception of the flat tread on Dublo wheels (no coning) they were fine scale for the time, They may well have been to the old BRMSB standard but I stand to be corrected. I have made a test track out of Peco Code 100 and a couple of old points (one electrofrog and one insulfrog), using lengths of Code 100 track for the third rail. The third rail on the plain track is simply soldered to copper-clad sleepers inserted at intervals to replace the plastic sleepers. The third rail in the turnouts is soldered to miniature stationery staples inserted in holes pre-drilled in the sleepers - a bit of a faff but once into the swing of things it all went together well. One complication is that the housing for the over-centre locking spring for the point blades sits high on these old Peco points. I ground off sufficient of the underside of the third rail to clear the housing. Almost all my locomotives ran well through the points but two or three were a fraction of a millimetre on the tight side and just scraped either the wing or check rails. They went through but with very slight hesitation. A quick check with my NMRA standards gage (sic) showed that these wheelsets, which were on early 1950s engines, were fractionally tight in gauge, probably within Hornby Dublo standards of the time but narrow in gauge by the standards (such as they are) of more recent "00" stock. A careful bang on the axle ends with a spring loaded centre punch and all was well. My view is that a simple layout, using Peco Code 100 Universal track, with a third rail added as above, would be a very viable option. Have you seen Garry Hall's layout? He ran a lot of restored and modified Hornby Dublo on Peco and Hornby Track before switching to TT. A link is below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUuFUyZFec&t=254s Finally, there is a lot of useful material on Hornby Dublo repair and modification on two other RMWeb threads in the Collectable/Vintage section: Hornby Dublo and Playing With Hornby Dublo Again. You can sit up and happily "binge" for a couple of hours - as I confess I once did. Best of luck Mike

You are probably on to it already but, for the benefit of the random browser looking for information, the Marklin skate I have used successfully is number 7164, Its length is almost exactly the same as the distance between the points of contact on the 3rd rail of the spoons of a standard Dublo 3-rail pick-up. If the skate were any longer there would be a risk of electrical shorts when running through the diverging road on Hornby Dublo points. I bought three from Gaugemaster a year or two ago and they appear to have them in stock at the moment for about a fiver, http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=MN07164&style=main&strType=&Mcode=Marklin+7164 On another matter, when I tarted up the Gem "Cauliflower" and "Super D", I filed off the rather heavy cast boiler bands and replaced them with strips of self adhesive lining tape, cut from a small roll I bought from the local automotive parts and accessories chain store. It made a huge difference to the "look" of the locomotives. Mike

Wolseley, very well done on the Cardeans! I have a soft spot for George Mellor's kits. As a LNWR modeller in the 1970s, they provided me with a cost-effective introduction to kit-building. Apart from the Prince of Wales 4-6-0, which I suspect might have been stretched to fit a Triang 4-6-0 chassis (B16? - I know little about LNE matters), the LNW kits were accurate in major dimensions, even if devoid of fine detail. I have three in use on my scale railway, and have dug out some pictures which may be of interest. At the least they show what can be done with these kits by a modeller of only "intermediate" skill level. The first is is the "George V" 4-4-0. I built this some time in the 1970s when, inspired by Gavin Wilson's Highland Railway, I was dabbling in stud contact, (remember the Peco stud contact strip - that roll of zig-zag phosphor bronze ?), and it was then fitted with a Marklin skate. The chassis was the Gem white-metal version of the Triang "L1" chassis, complete with white-metal coupling rods, and an X04 motor with coarse plastic worm and gear wheel. Despite, or perhaps because of, these simple specs, it ran beautifully. In later years I brought it back to 2-rail, made up new coupling rods from BH rail in traditional fashion, changed some details (Ross pop safety valves; LMS buffers) to bring her to LMS condition and after a repaint, numbered and named her "Ptarmigan". The chassis has rudimentary brakes. Locally made bogie wheels have replaced the old Jackson ones. I suspect she should have the cab cut down to fit the LMS composite loading gauge. Boilers however were swapped randomly between Belpaire and round-topped versions, as were large and small boss drivers. She is still on her Gem cast chassis and original X04 motor and still runs smoothly, though pulls a lot more amps than a Portescap powered engine! My epoxy construction is holding up well. The photo below was taken 2 or 3 years ago on my under-construction layout. She is hauling an original PC ex-LNWR screen-printed coach. And that's the K's Coal Tank on the right. The "Cauliflower" o-6-o is a different kettle of fish. Originally built in about 1978 with a white metal chassis and XT60 motor she now has a brass chassis, Mashima motor with two-stage Branchlines gear cradle, and hauls a London Road Models etched brass tender. Apart from goodwill, all that remains of the original Gem kit is the locomotive body, and even that has been chopped to incorporate a Belpaire firebox. And finally, the "Duck 8". Like Wolseley and his Cardeans, I bought two of these from a now deceased acquaintance before the Bachmann version hit the shops. They were poorly assembled but complete. The epoxy glue was already deteriorating as can be seen from the photo below. But a soak in paint stripper gave me a kit of parts. I was at the point of rebuilding the first of the 0-8-0s when the Bachmann version arrived. So I decided to introduce some variety by back-dating the model to "G1" round-topped boiler configuration. The full story is probably best told elsewhere but, in summary, I made a new firebox from copper tube, re-assembled the locomotive and tender with low melt solder, added chimney and dome from Brassmasters, and discarded the original white metal chassis for the Brassmasters one. A Mashima motor and gearbox of unknown provenance provided the "go". The other original and the rebuild under construction are shown below. And this is where I've got to so far. The crankpin retaining washers to be soldered on, a few other details added and off to the paint shop. I really must get on with it as she's been sitting on the bench in this state for a year. This post has turned out more long-winded than I intended - I blame a Wednesday of wet, unseasonable Southern Hemisphere weather. But the message I am trying to get across is one of support and encouragement to Wolseley to salvage and restore the Cardeans as far as possible. Gem Kits are simple, even crude by the standards of today but, assembled with care and with some enhancements if desired, I think they can hold their own with both Hornby Dublo and more modern models. Mike