MikeCW

Short diesel video.

 

Garry

Great work Garry. If he didn't know it was TT, someone watching the video would assume that it was 4mm, given the appearance of the trackwork, the level of detail and the quality of the running.  The buildings and scenery are starting to "hang together" nicely. I particularly like the balance you're striking between the standard of scenic detail and the retention of the traditional, 1960s, feel to the layout.

Good decision too on the painted but unballasted fibre based track.

Mike 

Funnily enough,i`ve searched for Wrenn for restoration but if they are out there,i can`t find them!.I think most of the folk who bought Wrenn looked after them.Many years ago,my wife & me went to Lanzarote & i got chatting to a chap & the subject of model railways came up.He told me that he`d collected the whole range of Wrenn locos but he kept them in their boxes & never ran them.I never saw him again but i had no reason to disbelieve him,Wrenn production had stopped by then.Ths possibly explains why so many mint & nearly mint items come onto the market,certainly with one or two minor blemishes,the models i`ve bought from hattons do appear to have been unrun or very little used.

 

                               Food for thought eh!.Ray.

 

 

 

 

  PS,even Dublo Barnstaples don`t show up in a distressed condition & as for Dorchesters,i steer well clear of.A few hours work on the kitchen table & you could make a very good copy as they have been out of production now for over 50 years & not too many people know what to look for.

I think you're right Ray.  By the time Wrenn was producing the former Dublo range, expanded with the Scot and Spamcan,and new colour schemes, the British model railway world was moving either to Triang Hornby at one end of the scale or to white metal and etched brass at the "finescale" end. This meant that Wrenn operated increasingly in a narrow collectors' market - too expensive for the so-called "average enthusiast" (*) and not quite accurate enough for the finescale boys. My guess is that the advent of Airfix and Mainline in 1980(?) or thereabouts cemented them firmly in this position.

So most  Wrenn went into boxes on the shelf or in the cupboard and the collectors, or now their families, have pretty high expectations of the prices they will realise when the time comes to dispose of them.  Maybe they are getting the high prices, but I sometimes wonder just how quickly those expensive models advertised by Hattons, JWModels etc. actually move.

(*) Remember that Railway Modeller strapline: "For the Average Enthusiast".  It was hardly inspirational or any sort of motivation to do better than average!!

Mike

Thank you Ray.  12 x 6 seems a nice balance between manageability (building and maintaining it) and useability (enough room to hold a reasonable amount of stock and give one's locomotives a good gallop) - though if locomotives keep arriving at your place with the regularity at which they seem to be coming, I can understand the need for a stock rotation policy!

I've occasionally looked at Wrenn Scots and Spamcans, but for me the prices are a bit steep.  It's not a matter of affordability so much as my preference for acquiring battered and near defunct items and bringing them back from the brink.  And while I've sporadically added to my 1950s Hornby Dublo Christmas gift with items from internet auction sites and elsewhere over the intervening years, it's only in the last year or 18 months that I've started on the repair, rebuild, refurbish and modify activity that you, Garry, David and others do so well.

(I was probably a bit lazy installing the lifting section, but I get plenty of Phys. Ed. on the end of a chain saw and other machinery on our two acre section.)

Mike 

Best traditions of Hornby Dublo,track everywhere.I`ve managed to squeeze in my six road loco shed at last.

 

                          20181120_231405 (2).jpg

 

 

 

                           Ray.

Ray, I've admired the photos of your layout that have appeared on this thread. A couple of questions.  What's the approximate size of the layout? You seem to have a central operator's space. If I've got that right, do you have a lift-up section for access? ( I installed a lifting section on my "other" layout as my knees were getting a bit creaky for the "duck under".)

Mike

Hi Garry

Thank you for the full responses, photos and the steer to Country Scenes. If I'm a bit quiet for a while (applause!) it's because I'm back to doing rather than writing.  The early summer rain has set in for a few days and that means a pause in the campaign against the last of the spring growth (we are on a 2 acre block) and a chance for some guilt-free hours in the shed/workshop.

Mike

Here is a comparison of papers and buildings.  The paper used on the layout is Superquick which is all getting replaced soon (as is all the scenery).  A piece of Faller embossed stone followed by the Country Scenes embossed paper.  This is actually Italian embossed wall paper with a brick, stone etc print on one side.  The view at an angle shows it better.

 

To me a few Bilteezi kits are a little on the small side and I am replacing a few with Hornby 00 Skaledale items.  In one view is the Bilteezi signal box is behind the J39 which has the loco height close to the roof height whereas in another view (to me anyway) the 00 signal box looks more in scale with the loco.  The gantry box is a Skaledale platform one I have put on a gantry.  The brickwork underneath is Faller which is a close resemblance to the Hornby models base.  Again this box looks in a suitable scale for TT.  One item that also looks out of place is the Bilteezi station building which looked more like N gauge than TT so this has been replaced with a Hornby 00 one which looks too small for 00 but very good for TT.  Across the road is the Skaledale 00 church entrance which will soon have the Church in its grounds.  The church will hardly be noticeable scale wise as in real life the doors and windows are always well over normal dwelling ones.

 

None of the above will suit everyone but looks better in my view, and I am not a building maker.

 

Garry

Garry, you've put your finger on the fact that many proprietary buildings marketed for "00" have been selectively "shrunk", presumably to fit "everyman's" layout where room for non-railway items is at a premium. And if the layout builder can fit three buildings in a space which would, if they were true scale, fit only two, that's even better for sales. I suspect that the plastic "Hansel and Gretel" Faller buildings, which were everywhere in the 60s and 70s, were also underscale for "H0". (Do you have battered, poorly made, glue-smeared examples, with hopeful price labels, sitting on the second-hand sales tables at exhibitions, as seems to be the case at every show in this country?)

I think too that modellers have got used to this distortion of scale, hence the modelling cliches of tiny trees and pocket handkerchief sized fields which we see so often. (I see that the previous owner of your layout was also a user of dyed lichen, used in the 50s and 60s to simulate shrubbery before the advent of Woodland Scenics materials.) 

The good news, as your photos nicely demonstrate, is that many of the supposedly "00" items fit very well on your TT3 layout, better than the buildings supposedly to 3mm scale.  The Bilteezi signal cabin definitely looks too small, and the supposedly 4mm/ft Skaledale models look spot on. I wonder if the Bilteezi cabin were planted on underlay the same thickness as that under the track, it would look a bit more to scale. On my 00 "scale" layout the track (SMP plain track and copperclad pointwork) is laid on American "Midwest" rubberised cork roadbed.  Prior to ballasting I was playing around with the siting of a Prototype Models card signal cabin which, supposedly to scale, didn't look right at all, especially if stock was on the adjacent track. The light bulb went on when I realised that the cabin was sitting on the baseboard, about a scale 4 feet below the rail head.  Putting it on an appropriate base, later covered in ground material, transformed its visual proportions. The photo below shows the "after" scene.  Unfortunately I didn't take a "before" picture. (Apologies. Another 4mm photo on a TT3 thread.)

You can see that the steam shed in the background still needs to be "jacked up".

Also on mixed scale buildings, on my layout I am using American "HO" buildings, heavily "anglicised", for an urban area on the far side of the tracks.  They fit well and give a little bit of forced perspective.  That might be a role for your non-railway Bilteezi items, like the stone hotel I can spot on the road behind the station.  They are true to the TT3 period if not exactly to scale.

The Country Scenes embossed paper certainly looks the part, and if it comes in larger sheets than Faller, then I will be investigating further. You're developing a unique and interesting layout there Garry, and I'm following your progress with interest.  No chance of that "sameness" in this case!

Now, back to the Dublo Class 20 which I'm converting to 3 rail and which should appear on the Hornby Dublo Forum in a day or two.

Mike 

I guess that Merco was the first choice in the 50s (slightly before my time) but by the 60s SuperQuick had taken over. I still like SuperQuick brick paper as the colouring is nice and subdued and the mortar courses very fine. From the proverbial "normal viewing distances" you'd be hard pressed to see any relief on a brick wall on the prototype anyway.

The launch of Superquick card kits (in 1960 I think) was one of those events which made the 1960s such a decade of change for railway modelling (as well as in society more generally). For example, the greater availability of whitemetal kits, plastic sleepered flexible track, and all kinds of accessories - not to mention that this was the decade of TT3 a.k.a. "the next big thing"!.

I binned most of my model railway magazines a few years ago, but kept a few with articles or items of interest from the likes of Denny, Jenkinson, Dyer etc.  Looking now at the magazines from the early 60s,(I have a 1963 "Constructor" before me), I'm struck by the limited amount of advertising space, relatively small numbers of advertisers, and the "traditional" products such as fibre-based "Chairway" track , Merco and other items from Hamblings, Exley coaches, H&M electrical items, and so on, which were still being advertised. There were a small number of white-metal offerings from Esanel, Bec, Wills, Ks and Gem, but overall it felt closer to the 50s than the 70s.

The layouts in the magazines of the early 60s were (naturally as they would have taken several years to build), dominated by the products of Eames, Hamblings, early Wrenn, modified Hornby Dublo, Exley and the like,and often had very few non-railway related items.  But by 1970 most "mainstream" layouts had the Superquick low relief Cinema and Post Office somewhere on the backscene.  While the average quality of the layouts no doubt went up with the greater availability of these and other products,my personal opinion is that there was an increasing sameness or loss in variety, and the numbers of layouts with "character" went down.  Maybe I was just looking at things with a more "adult" eye.

I don't know when the Superquick building papers first appeared; some time in the 1960s I assume.  I fully agree with you that from the "normal viewing distance" the texture of a brick wall is pretty smooth.  Frank Dyer had the same view and used Superquick papers on at least one of his railway buildings on Borchester Market. I recall that he considered it unnecessary to add (overscale) relief to buildings and that it was more important to have the building square and rigid.  That said, I have laboriously scribed the brick and plank courses on my Prototype Models card, kit-built, ex-LNWR station building and steam shed because (a) they are alongside moulded buildings and needed some relief for overall consistency and (b) the scribed grooves do take weathering more readily.

My wife and I have walked from Rock across the golf links, (avoiding the occasional pulled or sliced drive), to pay a visit to John Betjeman. St Enodoc's was readying for a wedding and on our walk back we passed the bride heading for the church on a golf cart.  It made a refreshing change from the stretched limo!

Mike

I used to like and use the Faller embossed card but it is quite expensive now, that is when you can find it. I do still have a few sheets but not enough for what I want. The card itself was not that big but now I use Country scenes embossed paper which is about twice the Fallers size. I used the Country scenes paper on the earlier layout and yesterday bought more sheets for the new layout.

 

Garry

At least in part inspired by Marthwaite I too used Faller embossed stone paper for a building or two in the 1960s.  At least the stone walls looked good! I recall that, being German in origin, it was even at that time very expensive compared with the offerings from the UK - as Marklin trains were expensive compared with Hornby Dublo and Triang.  I didn't know that it was still available.

Not long ago I found one lonely sheet, which must have been at least 50 years old, among some bits and pieces in a box in the railway room.  I didn't quite have the heart to bin it. Didn't David Jenkinson use it also for his 7mm layouts?  I can't remember  whether the Faller  sheets were produced in other than the notional "H0" that I used, or whether David J. just used the same sheets for the Midland buildings on his 7mm Kendal Castle(?) layout as for his 4mm buildings on Marthwaite and Garsdale Road.  Prototype cut stones come in different sizes after all.

Wasn't the UK "industry standard" of the 50s and 60s Merco brick paper?  Although the bricks were over-scale, in the hands of modellers like Peter Denny, (who scribed the horizontal courses and weathered the brick paper with charcoal) the results were very good indeed. If I recall correctly "Smokey Brick" was his Merco paper of choice.  But used on a TT layout, the bricks, overscale for 00, to my eyes just didn't quite look the part.

In my view, brick and stone papers, and Bilteezi card buildings, can still look good, especially on traditional, "retro" layouts featuring Triang TT, Hornby Dublo, and the products of the other contemporary manufacturers, as featured here and in other topics on RMWeb.  Did Hamblings scale down their 4mm Bilteezi sheets for TT3?  I believe they did for 2mm but don't know if any 3mm sheets were available.

Over the years I've used embossed, vacuum-formed, and injection-moulded plastic in model buildings, and even built some US manufactured resin building kits with some success, but I personally find traditional card and building papers the most satisfying materials to work with for making model buildings; and they can still yield excellent results.

Mike

No criticism intended, I was just saying....

 

That white corrosion (zinc oxide?) is nasty stuff. My second 'Bristol Castle' ( the one that hasn't been repainted (several times!) kept coming out with spots of it. I think (hope) I've sealed her in the end. She has been packed away for some time. I'll have to dig her out and check. I've just acquired a low sided wagon suffering from it in a job lot. There were about a dozen of the things, so it's not a great loss. Now what can I do with all these wagons? I was going to scrap some for spares, but I haven't the heart. There was also an N" body. It wasn't until I got the swag home and cleaned her up I realised she is a black 9596. Unfortunately the condition of the paintwork is so poor that there is just enough to identify her. Still I didn't have one, so until I find a better one at a Grifone friendly price, she'll do. The lot was priced at £15, but while I was looking at it the seller said you can have it for £10. A tenner swiftly changed hands....

I have seen a spot of that white corrosion on only one locomotive body that came through my hands.  I take it that it's not the same as the dreaded "mazak rot" (which I think has something to do with lead contamination and causes the structure of the alloy to disintegrate(?)) but a different beast entirely which, as your post suggests, can be treated?  (£10 seems like a good score in anyone's money - not just in Grifone-friendly currency!)

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

Strange as it seems but today I was at a local exhibition and looked through a lot of magazines for loco and signal drawings and the copy of RM June 1964 was there with Marthwaite inside as the feature layout just as I had seen it at York show just before.  Here is a scan of one page showing his unballasted track.  His statement on track building was " My track is not ballasted except for the cork underlay since loose bits can clog the works of locos however well the ballasting is done but when both underlay and track have been painted the cork looks surprisingly effective on its own".

 

I will do the same now for mine.

 

Garry

 

ps I did not but the magazine just for this I wanted the 3F tender loco drawing to make a model of one day.

Thank you for this post Garry.  I haven't seen that magazine for many years now but your picture confirms my recollection of how good the trackwork on Marthwaite looked.  You won't go wrong following that style for your fine TT3 layout.

1964! Was it really 54 years ago?

Mike

I just discovered another one - I forgot I had a three-railed City of London.....

Me too!  A parcel arrived from the UK in Friday's post.  "Ah," I thought, "that'll be the City Of London in poor condition which I ordered from Hattons a couple of weeks ago". (My proposed pre-Harrow City of Glasgow in blue.) The parcel felt a bit light and when I opened it up I found a boxed 0-6-2T. I had no immediate recollection of buying it, but after a quick check of my Paypal account found the transaction!  My memory isn't usually that bad.

You seem to have found out about as much as I had about this livery, so I’m afraid I can’t enlighten you further.  Before I embarked on this repaint (actually it was a bit more than a repaint - the locomotive was bought as a rather scruffy “non-runner” for £17.50) I started a thread in the prototype section of this forum to see what information was available.  It was an interesting exercise - for one thing I had always thought that this livery was more grey than blue, but found that the reverse was the case.

 

My reason for not lining the loco was partly because I did not want to finish a loco lined on one side and not on the other, even if it was like that in real life and, secondly, I wanted it to look like something that came from the Meccano factory rather than an accurate scale model, and the original Dublo Duchess of Atholl wasn’t lined.

 

The paint I used was a spray can of Tamiya AS8 US Navy Blue from their aircraft colours range.  I won’t claim it is 100% accurate but the one thing I noticed is that it is more or less the same colour that Ace Trains used for their Duchess of Abercorn.  The black was brush painted afterwards and, after the transfers and plates were added, I gave it a couple of coats of clear semi-gloss.

 

The lettering used was from Fox Transfers: LMS Post-War Locomotive Livery Lettering and Numbering, FRH4200_28666.  I have no idea if the lettering used on the Duchess of Abercorn had the red border used on standard LMS post-war lettering or not but I suspect, at this point in time, no-one else knows either.

 

The nameplates have a black background - until I saw your post in this thread I didn’t know if they were red or black, so I guessed, incorrectly as it turned out, but I’m not going to change them now.  It also seems I have spaced the tender letters a bit too far apart but, once again, I’m not going to change them now.

I didn't think to check the forum itself for info on the 1946 experimental livery - an obvious place to start when I come to think of it now!  Looking again at the relevant section of Locomotive Liveries of the LMS, the reference to the red background of the numberplate is to "Midland Red", i.e. LMS "maroon" rather than buffer beam red.  The assumption in the text also seems to be that the lettering and lining was in the standard express passenger form for 1946 which I interpret as the numbers and letters with fine red (maroon) lining towards the edge, as per your model. (*) But as you say, who would know much for certain these days aside from a few contemporary reports of  mixed reliability, and Casserly's photo, taken in a dim Willesden shed in the pre-digital camera age?  And your model certainly looks the part.

I was started on the path of Dublo restoration by a combination of nostalgia and Garry's posts and videos, combined with the simple satisfaction I get out of bringing battered items back from the brink. In that context I like your very workmanlike restoration of the Duchess of Atholl.  I did something similar with a couple of Bristol Castles, though I will change the name and number of one to add a little variety.

Duchesses  are my most populous model also. I have about seven, though two are in sets, an Atholl and a Montrose, and I'm hesitant about breaking up boxed sets, even pretty rough ones.  One problem for me is that, like you, I've bought two or three £20+ "non-runners" for parts (pick-ups, and metal wheeled bogies and pony trucks for "three-railing" Cities), and in all cases have got the Montroses running satisfactorily again. And then I want to restore or renew, rather than cannibalise them.  As I've said somewhere else on this thread - this can get addictive!

Mike

(*) Edit. After posting this I re-read the relevant section of Locomotive Liveries and found a footnote I had failed to read earlier.  For completeness in case anyone else regards this post (unwisely) as authoritative, I'll repeat the footnote in full: "All three engines [5573 6234 5594] were given unshaded sans serif insignia and lining in what is recorded as "gold" colour.  However. this is believed to have been in fact a pale yellow of golden shade (hence the confusion) and painted on.  The most likely explanation is that it was the "straw" shade later used with the 1946 livery and the insignia were also, probably, of the 1946 pattern but without the maroon edging.  It is not known for how long 5573 ran in grey livery." 

While we should be grateful for the exhaustive research which the authors have made available in this an other books, their work really does need a tough editor/peer reviewer at times. Two examples from just the footnote.The footnote refers to "grey" as the colour of 5573.  The text refers to "blue/grey" as the colour. And the second sentence of the footnote states "...this is believed to have been in fact a pale yellow......".  My old university history teacher would have put a thick line through this and written in the margin "Believed by whom?  Identify your sources, Mr W!"  Such is the way that things take on the status of immutable truth.  But, let's go back to that simple satisfaction of fixing and running Hornby Dublo!

M

 

Here they are.

 

The Duchess of Abercorn in 1946 LMS experimental Blue - not intended as a perfect scale model but rather something that Meccano could have produced in 1946 but didn't:

 

 

 

I very much like your Duchess of Abercorn in the blue/grey colour scheme (which no doubt Meccano might have produced had the factory been up and running in 1946 and had the LMS persevered with the colour). If I may ask, what decals did you use and what was the shade of  blue/grey you settled on - not that I'm a perfectionist I hasten to add!?  I ask because your photos sent me off to my small library and start thumbing through Jenkinson and Essery's volumes on LMS Locomotives.  Surprisingly I couldn't find much about this experimental colour scheme in these otherwise exhaustive tomes, though the structure of the books means that one has to spend a lot of time scanning the text for key words and an occasional sentence can be easily missed.  So I went to their first, 1967, edition of Locomotive Liveries of the LMS which I bought as a young chap at Foyles on Charing Cross Road while on my first visit to the UK in 1973.  There was a slightly confusing reference to this blue/grey colour scheme in this book, which I'll try and paraphrase.

In effect, the author's say that in March/April 1946, Jubilee 5573 was painted in blue/grey in the fully lined out style of the 1930s.  The lining, instead of yellow and black, was "gold" and crimson - the "gold" probably a pale straw colour.

At about the same time, 6234 was painted blue/grey with crimson edging and "gold" (straw) lining in a style similar to the first examples of the 1946 black livery i.e without boiler lining and with close spaced tender lettering.  She had a red background to the nameplate. Although there were reports that the blue/grey was darker on the Jubilee, a "noted authority" (probably H C Casserly) saw them together and considered the background colour pretty much identical.

The slightly confusing bit.  Photographs show that 6234 was either painted on one side only, or lined out on one side only, presumably for assessment purposes, but the authors go on to say that she "ran in this livery until at least January 1948".  So my assumption is that the LMS management liked the scheme sufficiently for the paint job on 6234 to be completed before return to service, as she wouldn't have run in service in a half-and-half colour scheme.

The authors speculate that the blue/grey of 5573 and 6234 "was probably similar in colour to RAF blue/grey road vehicles".

I suspect that in the last 40 or 50 years more information has emerged and is more readily accessed.

The rather poor photo reproduced below was taken by Casserly in Willesden shed in March 1946.  Note the half and half paint job on the rear of the tender.  It seems to me unlikely that it would have been painted in Willesden, but also odd that the LMS would want it to run down from Crewe in this "semi-clad" state.  While all this is no doubt interesting for the inner anorak in some of us, none of it is particularly relevant for your very fine model, which has sent me off to scanning the auction sites for another Duchess in need of a paint job!

Mike

I used to use half-round wire instead of split pins, a standard trick in the "old days". These days it's usually possible to find decent handrail knobs.

If I were using a Hornby Dublo locomotive as the basis for a conversion to a more "scale" model, I would fill the split pin holes with a hard-setting autobody filler, and re-drill to a push-fit to accept turned handrail knobs.  I'd roughen the shafts with a fine file and epoxy them in place.  I'm pretty sure I followed this course with the Ivatt Duchess in Post 255.

But like Garry's impressive work, my Dublo renewals and repaints are not intended to be scale models, but Dublo variations in the Dublo style. So the retention of split pins and overscale wire is my preference.

You are in very good company with your comment about half-round wire and the decent handrail knobs available these days. The late Guy Williams, as you will know the builder of many of the first generation of Pendon locomotives, commented in his first (pub. 1979) book on 4mm locomotive construction (which was a revision and consolidation of a series of articles in the Model Railway Constructor during the decade) that he had no use for commercial handrail knobs: "overscale; holes too small for scale diameter wire; no variation in length to bridge boiler contours; etc etc". So he followed your path of half round wire; the results looked very good indeed. By the time his second, completely new, book was published by Wild Swan in 1988, he was using commercial handrail knobs, noting that they were now being produced in scale sizes and different lengths.

But fitting Binns Road's split pins, particularly if re-using distorted originals, is still for me the last, anxiety-generating, hurdle of any Dublo locomotive renewal - probably a bit like coming up to Bechers Brook for the second and last time in the Grand National! Next time I'll try Ray's method with low-tack masking tape to protect the still fresh paintwork.

Mike

Don't worry about getting onto the TT pages Mike, its model railways and that's it.

 

I don't remember the Highland railway one but certainly do with Marthwaite, I saw it in the flesh unballasted  but cannot recall seeing it with ballast at a later stage.  I saw Lydney many times and here it is with some ballast but I think mine will be without, certainly a lot easier to do leaving it off.  I had a photo somwhere of a Black 5 in Birmingham New street with all the pointwork without ballast so I have an excuse.

 

In those days Kings X model shop used to sell bags of ballast that when opened dried rock hard (no pun intended) in the air but if I remember correctly it was not cheap and nce opened you had to use fairly quickly.

 

I think mine without ballast will not be too bad as it will have static grass and modern buildings on it plus fencing as seen in the photo.

 

Garry

That photo brings back memories.  Wasn't Lydney the layout with the disused branch line, with lifted track, disappearing off into a tunnel?  That was cutting edge modelling for the time.  And getting back to a point I made elsewhere, Lydney was a layout, like Peter Denny's Buckingham and others, which had character, or personality, or that extra bit of something which made it that much more interesting.  And being TT3 made it even more "different".

Below is a photo of Gavin Wilson's Highland Railway. It will be the only 4mm photo I post on this thread but I think it's relevant to Garry's ballast question. The trackwork, while very well made, is firmly 1950s technology. According to Gavin Wilson in the 1964 Railway Modeller, the track was made up of "Evans" fibre sleeper bases, drilled for Peco chairs crimped around bullhead rail, the whole then pinned to "sponge" rubber underlay. He went on to say that he had visited a layout where, due to "heat, cold and dampness, the fibre base showed signs of warping". Because he cut the webs of the fibre base at alternate sleepers each side, he said he had experienced no warping on his layout.  It seems that, with the warping risk on his mind, he wouldn't have used any form of "wet" ballast.

I wish I had been around to see Marthwaite.  I don't believe that there is a video of it either, or at least not one that I have heard of.

Mike

To wrap up the Tale of Two Cities in Post 366 and earlier, herewith are the all but completed City/Duchess locomotives.  Perhaps, given the names, this should have been a Tale of Two Yorkshire Lasses. Anyway, I'm quite pleased with them, and the Modelmaster name plates, recommended by Garry, nicely set them off.

As the short-lived red paint scheme with orange/black lining on City of Bradford was, reportedly, the same as the green paint scheme but for the base colour, I suspect that the cylinder covers should be black.  I painted them red when I initially planned on completing her in the later LMS-style BR red livery.  The yellow cab-side numbers are a bit of a bodge. I had run out of sufficient pale cream 4s and 6s by the time I came to letter her, but had plenty of the yellow ones on my sheet.  I may be making a virtue out of necessity but I think that the yellow numbers clash less with the unusual livery than pale cream ones would. I really must brush off the workshop dust before taking close-up photographs.

I haven't attached the smokebox numbers yet.

The handrails were something of a struggle to install.  The two very battered original bodies had none, so I used handrails recovered from a couple of Montrose bodies, polished and oiled, and installed re-using the original split pins. They aren't completely straight, but neither were the protoypes' at times. I made a couple of scratches on the boilers but, by the time the fourth handrail was going on, I had just about got the hang of it!  I think that I'll use new split pins next time - proper practice as any automotive engineer will tell you.

The tenders are bog standard Montrose items, the green one not even repainted, just cleaned and sprayed with satin varnish to match the locomotive.  Not quite accurate for former streamliners I know, but good enough for this purpose.

I'm waiting for the delivery of a City of London in rough condition.  The plan is to convert her to three rail and refinish her as City of Glasgow in pre-Harrow condition: BR blue with bevelled smokebox.  But that may be a post-Christmas completion at the speed I work.

Finally, my thanks to you all for your constructive comments and encouragement.

Mike

A little experimentation, I had thought of ballasting the track but having tried a little on the head shunt end using "Ballast Bond" which is a ready made type of PVA mix it did not work with most of the stones not gluing.  I did not want to wet the fibre sleepers too much obviously so thought about just painting the sleepers and base.  This is a short section which was quickly done last night with a brush.  It looks reasonable so I may do it this way but with a can to get everywhere or stick to the brush.  The fencing is Hornby cut down which looks fine so with a little painting will be okay for the boundary fence.  Also a view looking down after testing a few locos.

 

Garry

Garry

An apology for inserting myself into the TT3 topic, but I assume that ballast matters cross all scales. I recall two layouts (both 00 Edit -should be 4mm/ft:at least one of the two was EM ) of the 1960s which had a significant impact on me in my teens.  The first was the late Gavin Wilson's Highland Railway: stud contact, largely scratchbuilt, with the single track main line travelling through the pine-clad hills of Highland scenery.  The other was the late David Jenkinson's first Settle and Carlisle layout, "Marthwaite". As I recall, neither were ballasted, though David J. may have ballasted Marthwaite at a later date.  I don't have the relevant magazines on hand so can't confirm.  But both looked superb, especially compared to most of the other layouts which featured in the contemporary model press.  David J. commented in one of his articles that the absence of ballast was more apparent in photographs than on the model itself.

It seems to me that a decision on ballasting depends on what one is trying to achieve: a "scale" model railway that might grace the pages of the Model Railway Journal, or a well engineered, nostalgic tribute to the inspirational work of 50 years ago.  The trick is often to find the middle ground that works for oneself, and where one lands will influence the ballast/no ballast decision.

I can't remember whether "Lydney" trackwork was ballasted.  There was one "Railway of the Month" at around that time which was ballasted retrospectively with, as I recall, the contents of the filter from a WWII gas mask!

Keep up the good work

Mike 

A question. I have finally got around to digging out my Dublo. First off the block is the Bristol Castle which I converted to 2-rail, using Romford drivers and pony wheels, and Jackson tender wheels. Thought I'd see if it would run. It didn't, so removed body, managed to get just a hint of movement from it, so decided to test the motor on its own. Unscrewed it from the body, and wow it did in fact run, although with a bit of a rasping sound.

 

This is not surprising; don't think it's been used for 40 years, and I doubt if there's a trace of oil anywhere. So first thing is to oil the motor. Question is, am I right in thinking that all that's required is a drop of oil each end of the motor shaft where it disappears into the bearing?

 

Thanks

Nigel

Hello Nigel

To endorse and add to what's been said by others, and based on my own experience of resurrecting a couple of non-running Bristol Castles: (1) lubricate the motor shafts at the bearing ends sparingly, and as Ray said, not with 3-in-1 or similar solvent-rich products; (2) clean the commutator with isopropyl alcohol or electrical switch cleaner using a cotton bud, and gently clean out the slots with a wooden toothpick.  It's remarkable how much grunge can build up there over the years and affect the electrical path to the windings; (3) also as Ray advised, push the motor-less chassis along.  It should run freely.  Clean out fluff and dirt and lightly oil the axles.

Edit.  It crossed my mind a week or so later that I had omitted one important check to do on the motor. The main armature shaft requires some slight fore and aft movement or, when the motor gets warm, expansion of the shaft will mean that it will be pushed too tightly into the end bearings and start to bind or drag. Adjustment of the end play of the armature is achieved by loosening the locknut at the worm end of the shaft and, with a screw driver, turning the threaded bearing back or inward. It's a matter of trial and error but I usually aim for about a half millimetre of movement, ensuring that the motor brushes always stay fully on the commutator, and checking that there is still some very slight play when the motor is warm.  Adjustment can also be made while the warmed up motor is running (out of the chassis of course) by adjusting the bearing until a sweet spot is reached with the motor running at its best. End of edit.

If the motor runs freely out of the chassis, and the chassis without motor can be pushed along easily with a finger, then all should be well, provided (4) when assembled, the motor worm and axle gear are properly meshed.  When motor and chassis are reunited, you should be able to rock the driving wheels on the driven axle very slightly back and forth. If there is no movement, the gear mesh is too tight and, when things get warm, will likely become even tighter. If I recall correctly, there are two machine screws through the bottom of the chassis which hold the half-inch motor in place. Do these up evenly.  Backing off the rear one and tightening the front one will pull the worm down onto the gear wheel, the reverse process will lift it slightly.  These are extremely small adjustments and Hornby Dublo is usually so well engineered that tightening both up evenly and gently (no need for a torque wrench!)  should give satisfactory mesh. (I had a problem with a Castle where one of the screws was missing and a previous owner had compensated by doing up the remaining (front) one so tightly that it pulled the worm too far down onto the gear.)

If there is still poor running, (5) clean the wheels and check the electrical pick-ups.   If the motor runs fine with no load, but struggles when required to pull a locomotive chassis, then, (6) the motor magnet may be weak.  But on the assumption that the magnet is fine, cleaning, lubing,and adjusting motor and chassis, and a 10 minute canter at moderate speed round the track, should sort it all out.

Good luck!

Mike

'City of Glasgow' may have been blue until 1953, but the last year or so she was in Crewe works being rebuilt. While in blue she had a 'semi' smokebox. so strictly needs attention from a file.

 

My 'City of Glasgow' will be in green or rather she is already green, but awaiting nameplates and numbering. I must fit the name transfers I have (Wrenn) (She started life as 'Duchess of Montrose'). I have still to decide on the identity of my Blue Duchess.

 

The 'Coronation'. in the painting is 46256 'Sir William A. Stanier F.R.S.'.

 

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

Thank you David.

The Coronation/Duchess class are is a minefield even if one keeps to the three principal BR variations of smokebox, front footplate and livery.  Trying to get the three in alignment is about as chancy as getting the triple on a fruit machine - not that I frequent casinos. And it doesn't help when I misread reliable printed sources. I've in fact corrected my Post 397 as I misread the table in my Jenkinson book. As the oft-used but still wise saying goes - find a good photograph of the engine one is modelling.

The same table confirms what you've posted above about 6242 (City of Glasgow).  During her rebuild at Crewe after the terrible Harrow accident she was given the cylindrical smokebox, was repainted in green and, uniquely for an ex-streamliner and what I had forgotten until reminded by your post, was given the "Duchess of Montrose" style of full front footplate.

The Wiki Table is sourced to Jenkinson's  1982 "Profile of the Duchesses" book.  My source has been his 1979 "The Power of the Duchesses".  The dates can differ by a month or two between the two sources but some of the dates in the table in the 1979 book are based on observations of the locomotives on return to service, rather than records of when they were in the Crewe paint shop.  But I suppose that all this is getting some way from the simple fun of Hornby Dublo!

Mike 

Hi Mike, on enlarging the photo I took the number can be clearly seen which is 46226 which ever loco that is.

 

Garry

Very impressive Garry, just like those TV crime shows where they sharpen up CCTV footage to identify the villain!  According to the Jenkinson book on the Duchesses, 46226 was Duchess of Norfolk, one of the second batch of streamliners, finished in red when new (the first five were blue).  Interestingly (at least for the anoraks among us!) Jenkinson says that the de-streamlined 6226 was painted BR blue until September 1956 when she was then painted green.  But it wasn't until November 1956* that she was given a fully cylindrical smokebox.  If he is correct, then she should have the "bevelled" top to the smokebox in the picture. But, in the great scheme of things, it's still a very nice picture.

This reminds me that, when I do a blue Dublo Duchess/Coronation, I'm likely to be faced with the decision whether to modify the smokebox to the bevelled-top variety characteristic of the former streamliners with the so-called utility front footplate (the City of london body) or I could chicken out and use a "Montrose" body of course. Decisions!

*Edit.   I'm wrong about the smokebox of 46226.  Put it down to elderly eyesight squinting over the microscopic print in the table at the back of the Jenkinson book, in the fashionably subdued light over the dining room table.  In the bright sunlight of a spring Sunday morning I can see clearly now that she had her smokebox returned to full cylindrical shape in November 1955 not 1956.  She ran as accurately depicted in the painting for 10 months.  Mea Culpa!

Mike

I can`t find that painting by Barry Price but this is similar for sale on ebay.

 

 

                       royal scot painting.jpg

 

 

 

                           Ray.

Nice one Ray.  Sir William A Stanier himself, picking up water from the troughs at Bushey ?  I don't know whether it's an up or down train but either way the fireman would be watching the water consumption carefully as well as toiling to shift 9 or more tons of coal into that wide firebox if the train's non-stop between Euston and Carlisle, especially if there are 14 or 15 coaches behind, with at least one 12 wheel dining car.  6256 is much prettier in the painting than my version (Post 255) in grimy post-war LMS black.

Hi Mike,

 

Funny we were talking about colours as this painting was in a shop in Blackpool today.  We passed it on the way back to the station and I was tempted but carrying it would have been an issue with cases, a little one and 3 trains to catch. I would love this in TT.

 

Garry

Hello Garry

I would have been very tempted, especially as, with the red and green Dublo  "Cities" nearly ready for the final spray coat of protective satin varnish (just the red buffer beams to repaint and Modelmaster nameplates somewhere in the air between the UK and NZ), I've started looking for another one to re-finish as "City of Glasgow" in blue which, according to Jenkinson in "Power of the Duchesses", (OPC 1979), was in blue from 1949 to 1953. Dennis Williams has the name and number set.

I can't make out the number of the engine in the painting.  I may be mistaken of course but it looks as if it's running through the Lune Gorge, perhaps starting the climb to Shap (if its a Northbound Down train of course). Not only the locomotive has gone but of course the gorge is changed out of all recognition with the M6 now slicing through.

How did your little one like the Illuminations?  Those are the sort of things which make for magical childhood memories.

Mike

I haven't done any coaches, but have fitted a WELTROL with sucess. It required special short axles to fit top hat bearings, but they are easily turned in an electric drill.

 

I did replace the plastic wheels with Dublo metal ones in a full brake which solved their reluctance to turn, They are quite variable, my Castle hauled express could be seven chocolate and cream coaches, but only five maroon ones.

 

The compensated coaches work well as long as the bogie frames are free to rotate. This isn't always the case due to over enthusiastic tightening of the rivet in the factory. The frames are fixed to U shaped piece of metal which can be easily flexed sufficiently to release the wheels. Pin point bearings and wheels can then be fitted, but will require shortened axles. Hornby disc wheels are the right diameter (12.6mm), but have reached ridiculous prices. The later bogies have the usual tinplate insert which can be removed by lifting the lug on the top of the bogie. Removal and refitting can usual be done twice before the metal fatigues and breaks. A new tab can be soldered on of course.

Thank you for the helpful advice.  I did a quick scan of Hattons website and confess I was surprised that Hornby wheelsets retail for about £1.20 per axle! I expect to pay a solid price for scale wheels from the cottage industry specialists, but  factory bulk-production Hornby items? And if a pair of Bachmann Mk 1 bogies, with wheels, retail for under £7.00, then I can see the attraction of a straight bogie swap if running is a priority over retaining originality.

Rather 'state of the art' at the time, though they had been around for a long time and Continental manufacturers were fitting them. Conversely, Dublo locomotives were quite able to handle a reasonable train of them. The short length was to not look out of place on the system's vicious curves, but they would have been better to scale. I used to run Kitmasters (they were rather cheaper (6/6 against 15/- or thereabouts) and the windows were almost as good.

Ah, Kitmaster coaches!  They were a very fine model for the time, very good value for money as you say, and even now look good if well-built and painted. 50 years ago I had half a dozen, moulded in green plastic if I recall correctly.  I built a couple more or less successfully but, though I avoided the dreaded plastic cement smears on the windows, neatly painting the ventilators to match the body sides defeated me. I gave the others away and, inevitably, wish I had them now.

Mike

Very nice Mike,they certainly don`t look out of place.The only crticism i can make about the SD coaches is that Meccano never fitted pin point axles.

 

 

                             Ray.

Although I have no intention of running them on my "scale" layout, I was surprised how well they fitted in when I set them up for the "photo shoot", and how a rake of seven coaches looked like a sensible length train. Though they're under scale length, the fact that almost all our layouts are too short, due to the inevitable space constraints, means that the eye doesn't notice it, as they are in proportion to their surroundings - unless a scale length coach is put in the consist of course.

You're right about bearings.  A few of my SD coaches are poor runners, due to worn axles in worn plastic bogie sideframes, as well as the temperamental behaviour of the Dublo bogies with that compensation arrangement involving independently pivoting sideframes. I seem to recall that  Garry addresses this by replacing the Dublo bogies in their entirety with Bachmann(?) replacements.  I don't want to go that far if I can avoid it, but would like to fit metal wheelsets, with pinpoints running in brass bearings, in the original bogies.  Have you, or anyone else out there who happens to pick up on this thread, done this successfully - preferably without having to drill out the bogie retaining rivet?

Mike