MikeCW

At our informal British model railway group meeting last weekend we got to discussing the quality of Hornby Dublo locomotives and rolling stock, particularly the locomotives from the late 50s and the Super Detail coaches of the early 60s. I've always thought that the coaches weren't bettered until very recently (despite being under scale length). I was prompted to plonk a "Castle" and some Mark 1 coaches down on my work-in-progress, 16.5mm, moderately finescale, layout, to see how they shaped up. My word, they looked as if they had just rolled in to Chester from Shrewsbury on a Birkenhead express. I was so impressed that I took a couple of photos which I decided to post here. Nothing unusual or clever; just out-of-the-box models between 50 and 60 years old. Mike

What a privilege, NCB. 1961 would still have been in the best years of the class. As the years go by, fewer and fewer people will be around who have had the experience of being hauled by a steam engine on the main line while they were still earning their living on the "front line". While it's great that so many have been preserved for future generations (and we owe a debt to all the volunteers who made it happen), somehow the highly polished and cossetted preserved engines, even running on the main line rather than shuttling up and down a few miles of preserved track, don't capture for me that tough, working day, look of the real thing earning its living. I don't know where your Duchess was shedded, but I'm told that the Scottish Duchesses were always well kept, even in the mid-60s when steam was increasingly being run down. Mike

Hello Garry On your recommendation I went to the Modelmaster website and ordered a couple of Dublo/Wrenn style nameplates - City of Leeds and City of Bradford. It wasn't intentional but surely there must have been something in my genes which steered me to the two Yorkshire representatives of the class? As you say, whether a paint finish "works" or not depends on the eye of the beholder. And as I said in my post, the effect of the orange/black/orange lining on the red background is "unusual" - for that read "strange". However, in David Jenkinson's "Power of the Duchesses" there is a two page spread of photos of members of the class in different colour schemes, including one of 6247 in this combination. Because the orange/black/orange lining is much smaller in scale on the real thing, and the black dominates the orange more than on Dennis Williams' transfers, the overall effect is much more restrained and more acceptable. But heck, in the great journey of life, the colour we paint a model train is hardly one of our critical choices - though reading some of the posts on other topics on RMweb, there may be zealots who would disagree! I've never owned a model locomotive of any class in BR blue but will likely give it a go - especially if I pick up another "City". There are a couple of rare colour photos in the Jenkinson book of 6231 and 6241 in this livery which have stirred my interest. I meant to add in the post about the two Cities that Dennis Williams' transfers went on beautifully, with none of the problems I encountered with the green 2-6-4T. I must have been holding my mouth in the right position this time round - as well as more carefully measuring out the meths/water brew. Thanks again for the steer to Modelmaster. Mike

Hello Ray I've used Fox transfers successfully on some of my "scale" trains, though I prefer Methfix to waterslide as an application method. It's just what works for me. When refurbishing or modifying Hornby Dublo items my intention is to finish them in "Dublo style", that is as if they were manufactured in the Binns Road factory. I guess that over-scale lining is part of that picture. If I were modifying a Dublo locomotive for my finescale layout (probably no need these days with so many other proprietary and kit options around) I'd do what I did with the Ivatt Pacific in a previous post - go the full monty with scale lining, put on with a bow pen in some cases. Any wobbles can be concealed under a layer of "Camden grime". When my interest in Hornby Dublo was rekindled year or so ago, due in large part to the posts on these threads, I found I had to adjust my style of modelling. Though super-fine detail wasn't required, I couldn't cover untidy workmanship with judicious weathering, and that was a bit of a challenge. "City of Liverpool" is a fine-looking model indeed. Cheers Mike

This could be titled "A Tale of Two Cities - Chapter 5". In previous posts (227,248,255, 279) I reported on a couple of City of London bodies, both in worn to battered condition, and my intention to put them on two chassis - an early Hornby Dublo horseshoe motor "Atholl" and a Wrenn "City". This is a progress report, in case anyone out there is interested. Like a Dickens novel. this is a long story (I'll spare readers that) with some plot twists. My first thought was to create some variety by grafting a "Montrose" smokebox and complete front end onto a "City" body, by cutting both behind the outside steam pipes, sleeving the "City" boiler and attaching the "Montrose" front end to it. The idea was to get the benefit of the later, more detailed body, but with the variation of the continuous footplate. A preliminary check with the calipers put paid to that plan. The "City" boiler is larger, and the whole body wider across the footplate, than a "Duchess", by an amount that ruled out even my bodging. So I was stuck with the "City" with "utility" front end. I started refurbishing it as a red engine (Post 227), in BR red with LMS-style lining. After looking at the photos of others' Dublo Coronations, after a while the red on mine looked too purple, so I sprayed a mist of Humbrol Crimson over the existing finish. That looked better - at least for the moment. Lining. Now I will probably need to put on a steel helmet and wait for "incoming" after this comment. As a long-standing LMS modeller (though more of an LNW man) I am OK with Midland Crimson Lake but somehow, the BR version always looked unbalanced to my eyes. In LMS days, on 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 engines, with lining and countershaded numbers and company lettering, the livery looked elegant. But on a Pacific, there was, simply, an awful lot of red! And when that was combined with the BR Gill Sans cream lettering, and tender totem, it didn't quite work - IMHO. But I gave it a shot, using PC/HMRS Pressfix lining. It wasn't a success. The lining was too fine for "Dublo style", and I couldn't get any lining to match the curves on the edges of the "Montrose" tender I was using. (Dublo didn't bother, on either the LMS "Atholls" or BR "Cities".) In short, I made a pig's ear of it, stripped it off, with some of the paint. After repairs to the paintwork, I had another think. What about the short-lived first version of BR red livery? Red, but with the standard orange/black/orange lining. I've not seen that modeled before. Only about a dozen engines carried it, and not all had the utility front end, but it might be worth a try. So back to the bench the next day, an hour or two with Dennis Williams' transfers, with the following result. It's a bit, well, unusual? Because the DW transfers have a lot of orange in proportion to the black, the lining is very bright compared to the prototype version. The footplate edge lining is of course, hand-painted (Humbrol orange). The tender lining had to be shortened to fit between the handrails on the "Duchess" tender I'm using. The first photo cruelly shows the breaks in the lining, about 5-8mm to the right of the rear handrail, not so visible to the naked eye. There is still plenty to do, including cylinder covers, but the biggest question is what engine she is to be?. Of Dennis Williams transfers, I think that only "City of Liverpool" had both the utility front end and this version of the BR red livery, and I understand that sales of these transfers are limited to bona fide restorations. So I may have to choose between the correct livery or the correct front footplate. If that's the case I'll probably go for the latter. The front footsteps are home-brewed replacements in brass (the originals had been sawed off by a previous owner(why?)), each soldered up with a reinforcing rod at the rear. The rod is araldited into a hole drilled in the underside of the footplate. In the background the green "City" is the one with the cab roof repair that featured in Post 279. It is mounted on a Wrenn chassis that I acquired fitted into a "Montrose" body. The chassis had been shortened and slotted at the rear to fit the "Montrose" body, so I had to make a choice between altering the body, or re-making the chassis, if it was to fit back into a "City" body. I decided that making up a plate in the cab of the locomotive body was the easiest option, as I had done the same with the red engine to fit the old "Atholl" chassis. The plate is made of 1mm brass, with square section brass tube soldered to the edge each side, the whole ensemble carefully filed to a tight fit into the cab, and then araldited in place (I wish mazak could be soldered - I'm a solderer rather than a gluer.) The reinforcing plate under the cab roof, to strengthen the replacement extension (Post 279) can be seen. The green "City" in the background is even more of a work-in-progress than its red sibling. I fitted a Dublo 3-rail pick-up to the Wrenn chassis. After removing the two-rail pick-up wires, this involved using a length of plastic tube to insulate the 3-rail pick-up fixing bolt where it comes up through the chassis, and an insulating washer under the securing nut. It was pretty straightforward. I turned the motor magnet so that the engine ran in the right direction. This involved careful work sliding keeper plates on to the magnet so that it was never without pole pieces or keepers throughout the exercise. The ammeter tells me this has worked satisfactorily . I fitted "Montrose" bogie and pony trucks which, with the "Montrose" tender, give plenty of electrical continuity from the running rails. There is still a way to go - buffers, blinkers and right front footstep for a start. And because I used the transfers I had in stock for this model on the red engine, I now have wait for a replacement set. Most modellers seem to go for the red livery on Coronation Pacifics, particularly "Cities", but I think that the green somehow conveys, in an understated way, the massive proportions and power of these machines. I'll endeavour to give an update in a week or two. Mike

Garry, that will be a treasure trove for someone if you decide to sell off the boxes that you've illustrated in Post 361. Over the years I cannibalised a few Hornby Dublo locomotives for various projects, some of which even came off! And I acquired a few non-runners and wrecks. The left-over parts filled one modest box - nothing like your own "parts department". About 5 or 6 years ago, in one of those "I've got too much stuff and too many projects and not enough years" moments, like a bloo silly fool I binned the lot and have kicked myself regularly over the last year or so. I'm now occasionally forking out good money for non-runners and wrecks to provide parts for projects. Such is life. May I ask a question about the Bristol Models Scot on the R1 chassis in the 5th photo. The driving wheels line up well with the engine splashers and the whole ensemble "holds together" very well. Has the R1 wheelbase been stretched between the leading and centre drivers, a modification I believe you've made in the past? I ask because the wheelbase looks longer than those of the B1 and V2, which are also on the R1 mechanism. Something which appeals to me about the layouts and stock featured on this thread (and the TT Next Big Thing topic which I try to keep an eye on) is that they are interesting. Many (not all - some of my friends have inspiring layouts) of the current 00 layouts I see illustrated in the mainstream model press or at an occasional local exhibition, are populated with the latest, unmodified, out-of-the-box offerings of the trade from Chinese factories and as a result have a sameness and sterility about them. They are no doubt better than the Railways of the Month from the 50s and 60s, but somehow lack the character of the retro scenes that you and the "regulars" on these threads have created.

I can sort of understand the person's comment if you were the owner of a unique, priceless medieval illuminated manuscript and wanted to draw moustaches on the saints in felt pen. In that case there is probably an argument that some social responsibility goes with ownership, But for mass produced 20th century toys which are there to enjoy. Come on! Ah. Yorkshire tea! We buy it for a treat at our local supermarket to remind us of good times past. Mike

I'm with you there Garry. I don't criticise collectors who pay big prices - provided that their families are supportive and are not going without to fund an obsession - but it's not for me. I admit to being a bit of a collector, among other things boys' books of the 1910-20 era. You know the ones - the cloth bindings with gold titles and pictures of plucky ex-public school subalterns holding off the Zulus at Rorkes Drift, or a British Tommy giving the Hun a straight left in the trenches. For me it's about social history and memories of my late father's and uncles' childhood books. They also make a fine display in a bookcase in our hall. But with one exception (an impulse buy at the York book fair when Tanya and I were holidaying in the North of England a couple of years ago - we must have felt good being up there Garry!) I have rarely paid more than 15-20 pounds for a book in good condition, and often much less than that (though prices are climbing unfortunately), and I go for long periods without buying much at all. If it appeals, and if it's a good (fair/low) price, I may buy. But if someone wants a fancy price, they can sell it to someone else. The same with trains. For me it's the pleasure of fixing, restoring, running and preserving for another 50 years, rather than the thrill of possession alone. And after all, these are 60-80 year old toys, not a Michelangelo painting. So the difference between a pre-war A4 and a post war Silver King certainly isn't 2500 pounds worth for me but, to each his own. On the local internet auction site a year or two ago a person put up a post-war Nigel Gresley, in very good condition and in its original box, also in v. good condition. The seller put a low opening bid price and didn't set a reserve. In the "Ask the seller a question" section a Dublo collector querulously demanded to know why the seller was setting such a low price and "reducing the value of our collections"? The seller gave a very polite reply - much politer than I would have given. I look forward to a photo of that retro TT layout. Mike

Buying Duchess "non-runners" cheaply is a great option - though there are pitfalls I've found. Buying a non-runner for under £25 equivalent for parts can give me a pick-up skate, bogie and pony truck with non-insulated metal wheels which can improve the electrical pick up on 2 rail "City" conversions, a set of fine valve gear for more radical conversions, and in one case a near perfect locomotive body which I swapped with an original, nicely boxed example in my very modest collection to make it even nicer. And if it comes with a tender, that's even more useful. The pitfall is that, like you, I've found that non-runners can be readily made into runners, (testimony to Hornby Dublo's sound, straightforward engineering) and then my thrifty instincts kick in. So it goes in the "repaint/conversion" project box and I look for a another non-runner for cannibalising for parts! And is it possible to have too many Duchesses? There were 38 of them as I recall (but stand to be corrected), and both of us have a very long way to go before we can match Garry's line up of A4s! Mike

I bought from John two v.good Duchess tenders in original boxes for £20 each, and the airmail postage to NZ was £6.75. The stinger of course is that John didn't deduct VAT, as Hattons do, from their list prices, which would have made a helpful difference to the overall cost! An advantage to us overseas folks of buying from John (and other commercial sellers) is that the postage costs are shown on the draft invoice before the final decision to hit the "Buy" button is made. Buying from private sellers on Ebay can be a bit of a lottery as some will prefer to negotiate postage charges after purchase. (And I simply won't place a bid on any item where the seller is part of their Global Shipping Programme.) Edit. By chance I was tidying the shed/workshop today (a glorious spring day), and found the box that the two tenders had come in. The Royal Mail postage sticker read £9.50. So John absorbed around £3 of the postage cost. My thanks to him. Mike

I've tried John Winkley (jwmodelrailways) on Ray's recommendation. The service was excellent and postage costs to New Zealand reasonable, perhaps slightly higher than Hattons' postage costs which are my benchmark. Mike

Fully agree with you, Ray and David. It depends on what one wants. I'm trying to get a Dublo-style look to my Dublo rebuilds, but use PC/HRMS (and sometimes Fox) on my "scale" models. Mike

I haven't made much progress with the "City" rebuild in Post 227 - waiting for transfers and a suitable tender. But I've not been idle. In Post 248, which was about a Wrenn City chassis internet purchase, which came under a well-worn Montrose body, I mentioned that I had another, battered City body which I might put on the Wrenn chassis. I dug it out and "battered" was a bit of an understatement - no buffers, a broken off footstep, and a cab roof that had suffered a "long drop". It looked as if the locomotive had been dropped vertically on the cab end. The rear overhang was bent through 90 degrees at one corner, and slightly cracked along the bend. Perhaps I should have binned it, but I must have heard the admonitions of my Yorkshire forebears about waste. Not really - as was stated by Garry in a previous post, it sometimes comes down to the simple satisfaction of fixing something. I tried to bend the roof back into shape, helped with gentle heat, but no luck. It broke into several pieces. So, as a last resort, I thought I'd try to rebuild it. The photos below show the sequence. I sawed off and filed the roof overhang square to give a straight edge to work with. I then cut a replacement rear cab roof from 1mm brass, using my other City body as a template, and with some difficulty, curved it with fingers and pliers to match the curve of the cab roof on the engine. But what to do about beading? I found some nickel silver wire that was close in dimension to the cab roof beading and soldered it round the edge of my brass roof extension. This isn't the job for your 15 watt electrical soldering iron. I used my late father's iron - it must be 60-80 watts - to tin the new roof extension, then moved quickly to tack the wire in place, and fill any gaps with solder. I araldited a thin piece of brass under the roof to create a ledge and reinforcement for the extension, which I then araldited to the roof. All that is required now is a smear of filler and a light sand to blend the beading and she'll be ready for paint. I think that this one will be a green Duchess or City. Further progress will be reported in due course. [Edit. I subsequently noticed that tiny blob of solder in the bottom right hand corner of the beading in the last photo. ( Photographs are cruel exposers of untidy work.) That has now been tidied up with a fine engraving burr in my Dremel.] It is a very solid job, though if at some stage in the future, another owner drops the body into paint stripper preparatory to a repaint, he or she will get a shock when the roof comes apart! Mike

Wow. Looking at the photos I had a flashback to 60 years ago when I would read those boys' adventure books about the discovery of Captain Kidd's buried treasure. Apparently it wasn't hidden in a chest on an island in the Caribbean, but in Rowville Victoria. I wonder what the "back story" is to this collection. (The 4kg postage cost may be a challenge for the out-of-State buyers.) Mike

That's a really good score Ray. I've paid close to that for a single, boxed, example! Like Garry, I think that the Dublo signals were the best of the proprietary brands and, as I may have said in Post 682, they are well worth refurbishing. I've had trouble resisting putting a bid on them when they've come up on the local internet auction site, and I've then had to pony up for D1 switches to go with them. Another brand of signals which may have just outclassed the Dublo ones were the SME signals of the 50s and 60s. But they were a little more expensive, perhaps with more hand-finishing, and seemed to be aimed at the "scale" rather than the "toy" market. There is a brief discussion on them (with a contribution from yours truly) on this thread elsewhere in the Collectable/Vintage corner of this Forum. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116828-scale-model-signal-4mm-by-sme-co-ltd-sussex/

Thanks for the advice Nigel. Like Garry I've used Methfix transfers (PC/HMRS) for years with no problems, and they are my preference over waterslide and Pressfix (Though when the Pressfix ones get old and lose their tackiness they can be applied as if they were Methfix - best of both worlds?). I've used them (Methfix) successfully on both gloss and matt surfaces, and didn't know that they were intended to work on matt paint rather than gloss.. I've included the PC/HMRS instructions below, which can be interpreted in two ways: (1) the instructions assume that the transfers will be applied only to matt surfaces, and include a warning about some matt paints and advice about how to mix one's own; or, (2) the instructions assume that the transfers will be applied to any paint surface but warn about some matt finishes, and give advice about how to mix "Methfix friendly" matt finishes if that is the user's preference. "You pays your money ............." I might add that the varnish on the 2-6-4T was satin but, because I inadvertently sprayed it on a bit "dry", the finish was nearer matt than the satin intended. So, on balance, I don't think the paint finish was the main source of my problems. In my research (aka cruising the net for 10 minutes) I looked at the FAQs on the transfers section of the HMRS website, but there was nothing definitive there. Elsewhere there were a few comments that Methfix transfers can go "off" after a number of years and may need heavier applications of meths/water, and longer drying times, to get them to stick satisfactorily. Perhaps implied in the fifth sentence in the instructions?

Thank you for the supportive comments Garry. In response to some of your questions and suggestions - I used the 3:1/meths:water mix recommended by Dennis, though I admit it was a pretty rough estimate of the quantities. I'll be much more precise next time. I can't recall the proportions you gave on your video but if you have a recommendation on a different meths:water proportion I'd be keen to give it a go - all my responsibility of course! I cut the bunker and tank transfers to about a millimetre from the lining on the outside before peeling them off the heavy backing paper but, like you, left the internal carrier paper in place so that the transfers retained their shape. After they were in place on the locomotive, and the thin carrier paper washed away, there was a definite transparent "film" showing for about a millimetre or less along some of the edges of the orange lines on these transfers, very similar to the carrier film of waterslide transfers. It even appeared to have lifted in a couple of places. As there isn't (or shouldn't be in my experience) any such carrier film on methfix transfers, I now wonder, after relaxing with a glass of Australian red, if it was adhesive which hadn't been fully activated by my water/meths mix? I didn't want to wash it too vigorously after the backing paper was floated off with water as I wasn't confident about how well the lining had adhered. In fact the more I think about it, the overall problem seemed to be insufficient activation of the glue by my water:meths mix. My experience with PC methfix transfers has been that 10-15 minutes is adequate for adhesion, but in fairness Dennis recommends a longer time for his transfers - perhaps to give a margin of safety. The Dublo red lines on black engines certainly look like separate lines each side of the cast "boiler band". But the ones on the Bristol Castle which I refurbished recently looked like very fine orange/black/orange transfers on the boiler band - but who knows after all this time. It's notable how such knowledge can disappear as soon as a generation passes.. It was repairs to the paintwork of the Castle, including restoring chipped boiler lining by painting, which gave me the confidence to have a go at hand-painting the boiler lining on 80135. My hand-painting was done with a quality 000 sable brush under a bench-top magnifier with built-in led lighting - a piece of kit which is increasingly used as the eyesight gets older. Three colours were on hand: black, orange and locomotive green (all Humbrol enamels). The black boiler bands were painted first; then the orange lines each side using the cast boiler band as a guide. The orange edges were straightened and adjusted by touching in with locomotive green on the body side, and with black on the boiler band side. Then, where I had splodged green or black on the orange lines, more orange paint was applied. This process was repeated until it looked presentable, or until I had lost the will to live. After the paint had dried I airbrushed the whole body with satin varnish which pulled it all together very well. I suppose I can spend the time on it as I have only a few Dublo projects on the go (though growing). I wouldn't like to have done it on your 30 plus A4s! As always, thanks for the help and encouragement. Mike

I was in two minds whether to post the following here, or on the "Playing With Hornby Dublo Again" topic, where the "action" seems to have moved. But as I mentioned above that I was going to have a crack at a BR green 2-6-4T, I decided I would finish the story on the thread where it started. Herewith my version of 80315. This was something of a struggle, due mainly to my inability to get on with the transfers. Though "methfix" is my preferred transfer type, my experience to date has been with the HMRS/PC variety So, armed with this experience, Garry's helpful Youtube series on painting a Dublo A4, and Dennis Williams' own instructions, I set about the previously painted model (Humbrol discontinued BR Green and Coal Black, and semi-gloss varnish).The bunker and tank lining were attempted first. I struggled to get the lining to stick. After brushing on the meths/water mix, and pressing down with the fingers, the lining would shift at the slightest nudge. So I followed the instructions (!) and left it alone for the evening and washed off the paper carrier next morning. Most of it had stuck , but some was still detached. Applications of Microsol decal softener finally got it to stay fast. However, I then struck another problem. The tank lining has a carrier film, which I usually associate with waterslide transfers and which I wasn't expecting on methfix ones. This lifted at the edge in places, and is visible in some lights under the finishing coats of protective varnish. But overall it worked eventually, though the black line in the orange/black/orange is so thin, compared with the orange lining, that the lining is very bright, almost too bright. (Compare it with the original lining on your Bristol Castle.) Then the boiler band lining. I couldn't get this to stick at all. The boiler bands on the 2-6-4T are prominent and "half round" in shape, and the lining transfers simply wouldn't snuggle down around them, no matter what I did. So I decided that I would paint the boiler bands black, and make my own orange stripes to lay either side by painting a blank waterslide decal sheet orange, slice off thin strips, and lay them each side of the boiler bands. No luck. They were either too thick or, when cut sufficiently thin, just disintegrated. So I resorted to a "000" brush, and hand-painted the lining on the boiler bands - with shaky hands and failing eyesight. I'm afraid it shows but is the best I could do. Then the BR totem. I didn't want to go through this drama again, so dug out two "pressfix" totems and stuck them on, and made a real pig's ear of them. I must have been getting tired as they were not properly centred on the tank sides. Removing them ripped off the paint. I then had to sand the tank side smooth without wrecking the lining, and then respray the tank sides through a "letterbox" mask cobbled up out of a bit of card. Seeing on a photo that the prototype on the NYMR had the small totems I used these. I thought that some of the problems may have been because the locomotive body wasn't glossy enough to hold the decals, I gloss varnished the cylinders before applying the lining. No discernible improvement so I varnish-fixed the lining. So there she is. Not quite as good as I might have wished, and not always fun to do, but it'll pass for the time being. I may drop it in the paint stripper and try again, but that's for another day! And I'd like to note that nothing in this saga is a criticism of Dennis W's transfers - as opposed to my use of them!. We are very lucky that people like Dennis do the hard work to keep us involved in Dublo restoration and conversion - and probably for little financial reward. I've just noticed that I need to scrape the paint off the brass safety valves. Mike

Thanks for the explanation and photos on Post 737 Andy. I particularly like the idea of the self-adhesive vinyl, though if it's a "one shot only" chance of getting it to stick in the right place - like the impact adhesive typically used for attaching Comet and other etched sides to donor coaches - tension would be running high if I were doing the sticking! I suppose the beauty of home printed sides is that another one can always be printed out. Mike

Hi Ray. I've admired your EMU creations on earlier posts. My question to Andy was prompted in part by the blue/grey coach side I could see. It looked from the photo as if the windows may have been transparent (but that may have been an optical illusion of course). I wondered whether, if they were transparent, had they been laboriously cut out or were they printed on a clear plastic like those screen printed coach sides that Peter Chatham marketed in the 1970s? Now then, modern versions of the PC type overlays; for Dublo coaches. That would be something. I've understood that your photo-shopped sides have"solid" windows like a modern equivalent of the first Dublo coaches, the LNER "Gresleys" and BR suburbans which had silver printed windows. (My first ever coaches were a pair of such suburbans) The window effect you've achieved is very convincing - at least it certainly is in the photos.. Can you tell me what the sides are they printed out on? Mike

That's a beautiful thing Andy. I'm particularly impressed by the printed sides which you say are based on a recycled (isn't "up-cycling" the new-age term?) SD coach. Any further info on how that was done would be of interest, at least to me anyway. Mike

On the basis of David's well spotted problem with the Atholl valve gear I spent an hour putting the return crank on the right-hand side of the chassis back to something closer to its proper position. The result is included in a photo which I have added, with a comment, to the original post (715) above. This also sent me on a quest among my books and on the net for a good photo of the prototypes' valve gear to compare to the Dublo version. Typically, I couldn't find a decent side-on view of the right side of a Duchess/Coronation Pacific, but found a couple of left side views of the centre driving wheel and return crank, reproduced below, together with a photo of the left side of the horseshoe magnet Atholl. Notwithstanding the small wheels and other compromises, to my mind these pictures reinforce David's view - Meccano took the trouble to get it right. Mike

You're right David. Thanks for pointing it out as I hadn't noticed it. It should be to the right of the driving wheel centre as on the City. I'll see if I can correct it (and check the other side at the same time). Mike Edit. I adjusted the return crank (as much as I could) to approximately its correct position, and have included a photo of the revised layout in the post above. Thanks again. Mike

Garry's post sent me off to the shed/workshop to examine an Atholl and (Wrenn) City valve gear more closely. I knew of course that the Duchess valve gear was "deficient" in that the combination lever was attached directly to the crosshead instead of via drop and union links, as Garry noted. I assumed that, because the City valve gear had corrected this, it was better - but I hadn't looked at it closely. On a close inspection it seems to me that the Duchess gear is more refined overall, (despite the fluted con-rod on the City) and the lifting arm to the expansion link is represented better than on the City - which has no lifting arm at all! I was sufficiently intrigued to take a couple of photos, reproduced herewith, for those who may be less familiar with Dublo's pacific valve gear The Atholl chassis is an early one with a horseshoe magnet, which shows how advanced Dublo were for their time. None of those beautifully detailed (but mechanically dodgy) Mainline and Airfix locomotives which started appearing in the 1980s had the radius rod moving the valve piston like Meccano managed a generation earlier. They were all stuck in mid-gear. Edit. After putting up these two photos, Il Grifone, in the following post, pointed out that the return crank on the Atholl valve gear appeared to have shifted on the crankpin, and was sitting behind the axle centre line in the first photo, instead of the correct position as it was installed at Binns Road. With the aid of "blacksmith" engineering I adjusted the return crank to approximately its correct position, (the green arrow in the photo below) It looks better and, in particular, the expansion link (orange arrow) is now oriented correctly. And it still runs satisfactorily. As the crank was firmly secured in the incorrect position, and the horseshoe motor had at some stage been fitted very professionally with a neo magnet, my guess is that the wheels may have been off the chassis and reinstalled with the return crank in the "trailing" rather than the correct "leading" position. I wonder how Jenny Emily is getting on with her father's Hornby Dublo trains. She started this thread almost exactly 3 years ago and it's been enthusiastically carried on by us old blokes! Mike

Very nice work Ray. It looks like it has come from the Trix factory last week, which scores high marks from me as I rate highly conversions like this which "hold together" and don't look like a mish-mash of bits. Overhead has appealed to me since I saw those Trix ads in the late 50s and early 60s (?) extolling the ability to control independently 3 trains on one track. That was cutting edge technology! I went to the UK in the early 1970s, when I was still in my 20s, and caught up with an English buddy who had worked with me in NZ. For a couple of weeks we travelled around with tent and sleeping bags thrown in the back of his long-suffering mother's borrowed Morris Minor Traveller. (The Morris was long-suffering too, especially when we ran it low on water through the Peak.) I remember, on a grey day, skirting Manchester, through Stalybridge and other "post-industrial" landscapes, and seeing the wires of the Woodhead route crossing the open country nearby, I think it was closed by then, but not lifted. But it was dramatic and evocative. Given that I've got a lot of unbuilt kits and bits for my "scale" railway, and there is a decreasing number of years ahead, I'm not venturing into non-Hornby Dublo conversions (for the time being?). I'm keeping to Garry's simple pleasures of refurbishing and recommissioning dead or faulty Dublo items. Spring has arrived in the south of the planet; the blossoms are out; daylight saving will be here in a week; and the sun shines earlier through my workshop window. Energy is higher and after mowing the lawns yesterday I spent 3 hours salvaging another Bristol Castle. I'd bought it for about £20 as a non-runner for spares. The wheels wouldn't even turn a full rotation. But she is now running sweetly and I need another one for spares! The suppressor fittings on the 2 rail motor which was fitted (the second time I've encountered a replacement 2 rail motor in a 3-rail Castle - thanks for the previous help in ID-ing the difference, Garry) looked as if they had been attacked with a 200 watt soldering iron. The motor was bone dry, the commutator clogged, and there was about 1-2mm of fore and aft movement in the armature. Clearing off the suppressor gear, tidying up the feeds to the brushes, cleaning the commutator, adjusting and lubricating the bearings, and the motor ran beautifully, pulling barely 1ma under no load. But the chassis was still jammed. I worked out that a previous owner had somehow disturbed the driving wheel quartering, I removed all the wheels, keeping one side still on their axles, and removed coupling and con rods. That required very carefully grinding away the peening on the rear of the crankpins. I didn't have a quartering tool which would work with the Dublo axle/crankpin system. So I very carefully marked, in fine felt pen on the wheel treads, the crankpin position on one side, and the crankpin position plus 90 degrees on the other side and, lining these marks by eye and an engineer's square, pressed the wheels on, testing the accuracy of the quartering with temporary crankpins after two axles were done, and then after the third. It worked. Beginner's luck. I would like to see the quartering jig that was used in the Binns Road factory as it looks, from the peening over of the crankpin on the rear of the wheels, as if the crankpins and coupling rods were fitted to the wheels while they were off the chassis, and then the wheels were pressed on together. But to go back to a post above. It's about the satisfaction of reviving a 60 year old engine, and the pleasure of a job well done. Mike