MikeCW

Garry, "The pleasure of doing it". Spot on. Each to his own I suppose, and many people are not as handy as you, Ray and others but, in my view, "out-of-the-box" modellers are missing out on some of life's simple pleasures. Mike

When I was about to repair and recommission some dud Hornby Dublo electrcally operated signals, I found little on the web that was helpful. I took some photos as I went and, though this may be old hat to many, if it helps a few more people save some 50-60 year old Dublo accessories, then I think it's worth a page. The Dublo electrically operated signals, in my view anyway, haven't been bettered by any British, mass-produced, proprietary signals until the recent advent of the Dapol motorised variety. They are simple, but well-engineered. They weren't cheap, but the price reflected the quality. They are slightly over-scale, for strength in "toy" applications I assume. But with etched arms and added details, they can still have a place on today's layouts, except perhaps for the most fine scale. However, this post is about mechanical restoration to Binns Road "factory specs". I have found, typically, three reasons why a Dublo signal has stopped working. All three faults are readily repairable. To understand the "fixes", a refresher on how they operate might help, using a single post Home and Distant as an example. As there is no fixed connection between the signal and the operating mechansm the two parts are easily separated by removing two self-tapping screws in the base, and carefully pressing out the mechanism by gently pushing a small screwdriver down on the wiring post screws in turn. That reveals the two parts in the photos below. The two extensions which are attached to the signal balance weights and operating arms fit in the slots in the steel "slugs" which slide freely (or should) between the two solenoids. More about that later. Each solenoid exerts a "pulling" effect on the steel slug when it is energised, trying to suck the slug into the centre of its coil The close up below shows the wiring in more detail - a very nice example of 1950s "miniaturisation". Each pair of solenoids moves one signal arm. In this example of a two arm signal, one end of each solenoid coil is soldered to the common connection in the centre, indicated by the red arrow This is in turn connected to the "common" wiring post in the signal base and is wired directly to the power source. The other end of each solenoid coil, (one is indicated by a green arrow) is wired via a "D1" switch, (one switch for each pair of solenoids which move one signal arm) to the other terminal of the power source. The D1 switch is another example of Dublo quality. There have been several types over the years, probably as Meccano moved to simplify production and reduce costs, but the quality seemed to remain high. This is a "flash" or "passing" switch, which gives a momentary shot of electricity to the coil. From the photos above,the operation should be self evident, once one realises that there is a contact on the backside of the operating arm, marked by the arrow, out of sight of the viewer. An interesting feature is that, as the operator moves the lever fully across, it delivers a momentary power charge to both solenoids in turn. But because the first shot of power goes to the solenoid that was last powered, that simply holds the steel slug in the same position. Only when the arm passes the next contact is the other solenoid energised, and sucks the slug back. A study of the two photos should make all clear. So, what can go wrong with this system? In my experience - four things. First, an operator may not have moved the lever on the D1 switch fully over, and power was maintained to the coil, which cooked and melted the insulating shellac on the copper wire. That means a coil rewind. This is a scarce fault. On a dozen or more repairs, I've not found a burnt out coil so can't offer a view on rewinding. I'd welcome a post from someone who has done it, Second, broken wires. The four soldered connections, one of which is indicated by the green arrow in the fourth photo above, seem especially vulnerable. Either the soldering was barely adequate in 1953, it has broken down over time, or the end of the copper wire which was soldered has itself become brittle. Young Jimmy throwing his toys around, or any other shock, can break this connection. I've resoldered several, but have never had a break at the "common", the red arrow where the four wires come together. You can easily test for a broken wire by setting a multimeter to "buzz", putting one probe on the common screw connection and touching the other to each of the other terminals. Silence means a break somewhere. Third, distortion in the coil frame. The twin coils are mounted on a plastic frame. The slots through the centre of each coil, into which the steel slug fits, must line up perfectly or the slug will jam. I have found some which, over time, have gone banana shaped. The photo below tries to make the point. The coils here are actually well-aligned (see how nice and square the protruding slug is to the twin coils) but, if there is any slight arch or dip in the coil frame, as suggested by the crude line drawings, the slug won't be able to travel freely between the coils. Very gentle, trial and error bending will generally fix it. Fourth, and the most common, rust on the steel slug. This is unplated, and looks to have been chemically blackened. The process of using the signal on a layout means that the slug is moving constantly back and forth between the coils, and is, in effect, self-polishing. But sitting for years in the box in the cupboard, the dreaded damp starts to encourage rust. Only a small amount will exceed the tolerance for smooth operation. A good coating will seize it solid. The photo below shows the start of a rust spot, enough to render the operation of the signal sluggish. Over time the rust will get worse. In the second photo I've cleaned and polished the rust out (it was on both sides), heated the slug with a blow-torch (hence the blue colour), and dropped it, hot, into thin oil. That will cause some absorption of the oil into the metal and, when wiped off, should provide protection for another decade if the signal isn't left in a damp place. This has been a long winded effort, and doesn't pretend to be the last word. But I puzzled it out myself a couple of years ago and, as I said at the outset, if it saves someone else some time, and encourages them to save a signal or two, then I'm happy. Mike

Not exactly a stripling, Ray; but the trick is to keep the mind and the old frame active - and this interest certainly helps. Evidenced by the work of you, Garry, David and others. I too still have my Duchess of Montrose, 2 suburban coaches, A3 controller, and circle of track that was a Christmas present in 1956; and the N2 Tank, and other accessories which came at intervals for a few years after that. The renewed enthusiasm and frequent additions to this boyhood set over the last decade is certainly part nostalgia; but also an appreciation of the quality of the product and the fact that it is robust, straightforward engineering, which can be repaired and rebuilt, modified and converted, and run as well as it did 60+ years ago - and probably for another 60 years after that. With some exceptions - the rare "collectors' items" - there is still plenty of it around as well. I don't have a Dublo layout at the moment. (I have a "finescale" 00 layout in a room attached to my shed/workshop which has been my main modelling focus for over 20 years. Boy it takes me a long time to build a locomotive kit or construct a building!). I am determined to get some Dublo up and running in the near future. You will have seen from posts on another topic that I'm refurbishing some recently acquired "basket cases" of Dublo motive power. I have three waiting for transfers from Dennis Williams to complete, and will post pictures when these have arrived and been applied. Signals. While I've repaired a number of electric semaphores I've only worked on one colour light, where some very fine soldering was required to reinstate the wiring after a bodged repair by a previous owner at some stage. I've got some photos of the repair of the semaphores which I can post if they would be of interest. I'll check first to see if the ground has already been covered. Meccano. I had only a small set (which I still have). The problem with Meccano for me as a youngster was that the illustration on the box lid of each set had a picture of a crane or fabulous piece of machinery like your drag line, which could never be built with the 20 parts in Set No 1! I'm sure this would never pass the relevant advertising standards authority these days! Though I was pen-pusher for my working life, a hobby was, and still is, vintage (1920s) motorcycles and over the years I've acquired a large and small lathe, combined drill/mill, welding set etc. I'm self-taught but, if I take it slowly, can turn bushes and fabricate fittings which lend themselves to basic turning. My screw cutting is patchy and milling not too bad. So basic refurbishment of Dublo chassis - bushing axle bearings, skimming wheels etc - is within my skill range. But you made a good point earlier - you have to stick at it to keep up the skill level. For a number of reasons outside this topic I haven't touched my bike restoration for nearly a year and I've found that I have got very "rusty" in the metal work department. Keeping at it is the answer. Thank you for the reference to JW Model railways. I've had a quick look at their site and the range looks good and the prices, not cheap but certainly fair; and I feel an attack on my bank account is imminent. Mike

Fully agree. In my youth, (I've now hit 70 and 71 is in sight), electric points and signals were beyond my parents' means or priorities. I had just one electric point if I recall correctly, on the far side of the 6 x 4 layout at the exit from the reversing loop. My father was not very technically minded (which was at odds with the fact that he had been a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm during the war) and wiring the reversing loop with an isolating tab and the D1 switch for the sole electric point seemed to be a source of much muttering. Anyway, like most of us I suppose, I've tried to recapture lost youth or compensate for childhood deprivation (I wasn't deprived of the important things - love, food, shelter etc), so for a period I found it hard to resist electric points, uncouplers, semaphore and colour light signals, particularly when nice boxed examples came up from time to time on the local version of Ebay. As a result I ended up with a major imbalance between the number of electric accessories and the number of Hornby Dublo switches and push-buttons to operate them. While any push-button or simple switch from your local electronic parts discounter will of course do the job, it's nice to have the "proper" Hornby Dublo ones. So I've picked them up over the last couple of years when they've come up for sale. Two things I've noticed. The price has gone up steadily. The average local price is now around £4.00 equivalent. And complete (with the knurled terminal nuts) and unbroken (typically the fixing holes get broken from overtightening of, probably wrong-sized, screws) examples are getting scarcer. I see that Tony Cooper now charges £7.00 for nice examples. But I've now matched the numbers of accessories and switches, with a few switches to spare, and all switches are complete. I picked up a large box of broken switches for a pound or so a year or several ago, and most of the wrecked switches still had the knurled terminal nuts, so I've avoided the need to buy expensive reproductions. Ray, I admire your work with the lathe and knurling tool. It doesn't matter if they took 3 hours, that's what retirement is for - doing those things which satisfy. What material did you use? I'm not certain, but I think the originals were nickel plated brass? Mike

Thank you Garry That all seems clear. And yes, I admired the County in the set of photos on the same post. I think that the trick with these Dublo conversions is not to produce a scale model but a locomotive or item of rolling stock which the Binns Road factory could (should?) have produced, and to their quality standards. IMO your conversions capture this objective nicely. Mike

Garry, It may seem odd going back two and a half years but I was searching for information on converting a Castle to a Star and stumbled on your December 2015 Post. Accepting that the Star boiler profile is slightly different from that of the larger Castle boiler, (at least so I'm told; I'm a LNWR/LMS man myself) your conversion looks the part and is exactly what I had been considering. A couple of questions if I may. You said that you soldered in a brass plate to blank off the Castle cab window. Can the HD casting be soldered? If so, low melt or regular? I don't want to wade in with a large iron and melt anything! Second, you didn't mention frame modifications. I assume that the windowless cab is shorter than the original which, in turn, would mean shortening the frame at the rear? If so, how were the footsteps retained or reinstated. A photo of the frame would be great but any information would be gratefully received. Mike

Ray, it's so long ago now that I can't recall where I sourced the add-on details. In the 80s there were, as you will recall, plenty of small suppliers providing whitemetal detailing parts (of very variable quality). I used to order a lot of bits and pieces from Dave Cleal of Mainly Trains in Watchet in Somerset, and suspect that was the source of most of them, including the etched smoke deflectors. One of the major mods to the body was to cut away and reinstate a more prototypical shape to the front of the firebox cladding where it meets the footplate. This also meant extending the rear splasher profile which is otherwise "buried" in the Dublo body moulding. I think that this then required bevelling off the bottom front edges of the magnet pole pieces to ensure the chassis fitted back into the body. I also reduced very slightly the front shoulder of the Belpaire firebox which, to my eyes and compared with photos, looked a wee bit angular. Not visible in the photo is the steam powered coal pusher. I haven't looked at a plastic City tender for a long time and, assuming that coal was part of the moulding, I must have cut it away, built up the tender interior and fitted the coal pusher on the sloping floor, and the steam pipes and valves on the rear bulkhead. I must have had a lot of patience 35 years ago. Were I doing another one "in the spirit" of Dublo, I wouldn't go nearly that far of course - cab side sheets, trailing truck, reversing rod and maybe a few other mods; but no more than that. The object would be to produce the Ivatt Duchess that Hornby Dublo might have produced, not a scale model. Any opinion on my supposed Wrenn chassis? Mike

David, I recall that some early attempts of mine to modify Dublo Pacifics (see my previous Post), were constrained by the close fit of the curved magnet pole pieces within the locomotive body. It might be possible to gain a millimetre of forward movement of the chassis block, but I wouldn't have thought much more than that. I might be wrong but I'd be interested to know how you get on if you get round to trying it. Regards Mike

Thank you for the information Ray, and to Garry also for his full history of the "Wrenn Chassis Story" in subsequent posts. To this complex story can be added the random modifications/bodges performed by successive owners for reasons which can only be guessed at. Herewith are three more photos of the subject of my previous post (248). To recap, I bought what was described as a Hornby Dublo Montrose body mounted on a Wrenn chassis. In the first two photos, this chassis is in the centre. At the top is the Montrose body it came with. At the bottom is the Dublo City body which I will eventually fit to the chassis. A shown in Post 248, the chassis rear has been shortened and slotted to fit the Montrose cab floor. You will note in the photos below that there are two bolt holes in the chassis front - the "U" shaped one at the very front which was where the Montrose body was attached via the traditional square headed bolt through the valve chest. The second hole, normally hidden by the bogie, aligns perfectly with the rivetted plate on the City body. The third photo shows the shape of the chassis front, quite different from either chassis shown in Ray's post. So, either I don't have a Wrenn chassis but a Hornby Dublo 2-rail one: or I have a Wrenn chassis modified over time to fit both City or Montrose Dublo bodies. The "step" in the front of the frame looks roughly sawn and hogged out, (home handyman?), but the bolt hole which aligns with the City body fixing is neatly finished and countersunk. Comments welcome. (This is really just a matter of continuing education as I'm happy with the chassis as a donor to a planned project.) This thread stirred some connections in my memory banks and sent me to a long untouched box of my "other" model railway items. Is this the ultimate Dublo Pacific? It's a City of London, rewheeled, modified and detailed to represent one of the last two Ivatt Coronations running in 1948. With those large Romford drivers it runs as if it's making up time coming down Shap. It doesn't really fit my current "finescale" layout, where 4-6-0s are the largest engines required. But I've kept her for nostalgic reasons. She (I suppose it should be he as it's named after Sir William) was modified and painted, (my first crack at bow-pen lining) in the mid-1980s, so s/he has been in service with me longer than the original was with the LMS and BR. I must go back and scratch around in the box to see if I can find that missing front footstep! Mike

There is something immensely satisfying in bringing a 60+ year old model back to life; which I've started to appreciate only recently after 50 years of conventional "scale" railway modelling. The Bristol Castle illustrated looks like a well cared for original model. In fact, like your Atholl, it was bought as a very battered, poor runner. The paint was completely missing from the footplate edges, as was all the green and brass paint on tender top,cab window and splasher beading. Random patches were missing from elsewhere over both engine and tender body from ill-use over the years. It is the locomotive featured in Post 145 on. My plan was a complete strip down and repaint but, following on from the philosophy now prevailing among the vintage car and motorcycle fraternity (of which I am a part) that "originality is good if it can be sensibly maintained",* I thought that the model may not be past the point of no return. It had been "weathered" by a previous owner, but isopropyl alcohol cleaned off the grime and dirt of ages. I mixed some Brunswick Green to match (discontinued Humbrol HR 104 (Edit. On squinting again at the round paper label on the top of the tin I suspect that the paint code is 164, not 104.) plus a drop of current Humbrol No 3) and carefully patch painted by brush, using well thinned paint and blending it in by feathering the edges. (As an aside, Dublo paint is rather thick - I assume baked on - and obscures some of the fine detail of their very clever body castings, at least the later detailed castings from the 2-6-4T on.) The black was Humbrol Coal Black. The brass beading was Humbrol Brass paint. Humbrol flat varnish, misted over the repairs with an airbrush, completed the job. It doesn't purport to be factory fresh; just the model that my family coudn't afford for me in 1960, and I'm quietly pleased with her. I've also recently acquired a fourth Montrose, or at least a Montrose locomotive body and tender on a Wrenn City 2-rail chassis. I have another battered City body so will likely repeat the exercise in Post 227, by fitting it to the Wrenn chassis, suitably 3-railed, and perhaps making a BR green City. But I too am short of a Montrose or City tender. The local internet auction site is constantly scanned - which poses risks in itself! Note that a previous owner has sawed off, and slotted, the rear of the Wrenn chassis to fit the Montrose body. I would have been inclined to do it the other way round but, each to his own. Rather than reconstitute the chassis I will probably add a cab floor to the City body to accommodate the slots in the chassis, as I did with the City body on Post 227. So much to do; so little time. Mike * But these are reasonably commonplace toys, not one-off coach-built Bugattis, (or Rembrandt paintings) so I too will strip, convert, modify and alter as the mood takes me!

Thank you for posting the photos. While the Atholl is a little darker - and perhaps more purple - it seems to my eye that it's the presence of lining on the City that makes a significant difference to the overall effect of the base colour. Which confirms a lot of the comments in this thread about colour perception generally, and crimson lake in particular. Mike

Thank you Garry I have a feeling that the Humbrol Coal Black paint may have been from a tinlet well over 5 years old, and therefore possibly from a Chinese batch? ( I have some very old paint in store which is still eminently useable, particularly if well stirred, thinned, strained and airbrushed.) Your comment on the difference between BR and LMS red interested me. Some "experts" assert that BR tried to replicate LMS Crimson Lake, and that the BR colour was therefore basically the same but for differences arising from a more modern chemical formulation, and differences in undercoat and varnishes. I simply don't know, but it looked more red than crimson to me in the colour photos I've seen - but refer to my Post 224 which effectively endorsed your views on colour perception. Were Dublo's BR "Cities" much different in colour from their LMS "Atholls"? They look very similar in your photo of the three Pacifics. It's a long time since I've seen a new, original Dublo "City" so can't compare; but Hornby Dublo seemed to take care to get their basic colours accurate. The footsteps look cleanly sawn off about halfway up the original casting, and I have a plan to reinstate something similar to the originals. I understand that the original footsteps were made significantly undersized as, if they were anything near scale, they would likely clout the solenoid housings of electrically operated 3 rail points. Mike

Following on from Post 224, here is a photo of work-in-progress on my Coronation "hot-rod" - Atholl chassis, City body, Duchess tender. The main body colour is the LMS Crimson Lake I had made up years ago, sprayed with a Badger top-feed "Patriot" airbrush. By comparison the cylinders are, as far as I can tell, the original Dublo colour. The black is Humbrol Coal Black, brush painted, and still sticky in parts after 8 hours. That variable Humbrol quality again! The body sits down at the stern slightly as a result of fabicating a body/chassis fixing arrangement for parts which were not designed to go together. But there is no problem shimming it half a millimetre as, anticipating such problems, I've provided room for adjustment. I'll post a picture when she's all finished. Mike PS I've just noticed from the photo that a previous owner, for some reason of their own, has chopped off the front footsteps. Another chore!

Fully agree with the first sentence Ray. And the Coronation Pacifics are beautiful models. The bar is getting set pretty high! Cheers Mike

Wow! An innocent question triggers a lot of views, interesting and constructive ones I should emphasise. Where to start? I suppose I should go back to my original question which, rephrased, boils down to: what paint, currently available ready-mixed or able to be mixed, is the same colour as the BR Green used by Hornby Dublo on their locomotives? The reason for asking is that, though I could mix up a brew for a particular job (Post 212), repeatability is also important. My preference is that one of my restored/rebuilt BR Green Dublo locomotives should look like another BR Green Dublo locomotive. Ray and Garry have offered a couple of options which I will check out on this side of the world. There is another option. The discussion above reminded me that I had been up and down a similar path before. My "scale" model railway is based on the LMS Western Division in the 1930s. That required wrestling with one of the most "fugitive" of colours:Midland/ LMS Crimson Lake. First, every model manufacturer and model paint company has their own version, ranging from fire engine red to dull reddish-brown. Second, because red pigment is slightly translucent, the final shade is influenced by the colour of the undercoat. Third, the degree of gloss on the finish has a pronounced effect on the appearance of the colour. Fourth, the extent and type of lining affects the way we see the base colour. (Our appreciation of the shade of green on the original Dublo A4s at the front of the photo in Garry's Post No 216 is, in my view, affected as much by the dulling down over time of the original lining, as by changes in the base colour itself.) So, I decided that I would settle on one version of Crimson Lake and stick to it. I took a tender body, which looked a pretty good shade to my eyes, to a specialist paint supplier and had them run a computer/spectrograph analysis on it and mix a 250ml can of the colour, in satin enamel, for me. Though I don't think that, despite all the scientific razzamatazz, they got the colour exactly replicated, I've used that can for a decade or more. It may not be the same as the colour applied in the Derby paint shop in 1930, but who can argue? (The shade is very close to a Dublo LMS "Atholl", but slightly lighter.) As I don't need a spray can for Dublo Green, using an airbrush as I do, I might just do the same with a "Montrose" body. The objective is different here of course, and should be easier to achieve: matching paint to an existing model rather than trying to replicate a colour in service on the real railway 80/90 years ago. Finally, I'm sure that the paint supplied to Binns Road in the early 1950s wouldn't be be exactly the same shade by 1960. Batches will always differ slightly, as Garry pointed out, despite the best manufacturing controls. A few years ago I read somewhere a discussion about the shade of BR Corporate Blue of the late 60s and 70s. The author, or perhaps a subsequent correspondent, warned against "over-precision". He recalled a visit to the paint shop of a major UK locomotive works. When the painters were adjusting their spray-gun nozzles prior to laying the blue top-coat on a locomotive, they would have a trial "squirt" or two on the wall at the end of the paint shop. As I recall the article, there were as many subtly different shades of blue on the wall as there were trial sprays. Mike

Thank you Ray The Duchess and West Country certainly look the part. The NZ model shop paint selection is pretty good, but biased towards US railroad modelling, wargaming and plastic kit construction (Floquil, Vallejo, Tamiya etc). Precision (if they are still in business), Railmatch and paints which are designed for UK railway modellers, are less common, though Humbrol is readily available, sometimes in a large hardware/home improvement chain. I'll check out the automotive paint suppliers. There are plenty around and I'll see what they can do - though I might be limited to automotive acrylic, and the cost of a 500 ml tin or spray can might be eyewatering. I'm a slow worker and a novice at this branch of railway modelling (restoration and adaptation of vintage Dublo), rather than so-called "finescale" 00, but I'm happy to post a photo or two of progress in due course. Mike

Thanks to all for the encouragement and informative responses. A few comments, in no particular order, about a number of matters raised over the last couple of pages: As NCB said - there are acrylics and acrylics. My other hobby is the restoration of vintage motorcycles, from an era when painting meant "enamelling", dipped or brushed and often baked. My understanding is that, for most of last century, enamel paint consisted of pigment mixed with oils and driers (turpentine, linseed oil etc.) which dried partly from evaporation of the "carriers" but also from changing chemical composition when exposed to the air, a hardening or setting process which could be accelerated by baking. Though more and sophisticated chemicals were increasingly added over time, the basic idea remained the same. In the late 20s, when Dupont came up with lacquer for automobile spray painting, the concept was quite different. The pigment was carried in volatile, toxic, cellulose-based carriers, and the drying of the paint was principally caused by rapid evaporation of these carriers, Two completely different systems whose chemicals wouldn't mix. But then along came "acrylics" (and emulsions). Initially these were almost an equivalent to an enamel paint, but with water-soluble chemicals replacing the oil/turpentine carriers. (Think Humbrol enamel and Humbrol acrylic.) So far so good, but now we have "acrylic lacquer" and "acrylic enamel" in spray cans, and my knowledge of their characteristics is minimal. Because I know what works for me, I'll try to keep to enamels as long as they are available, or at the least to paints which have compatible thinners, turpentine principally, which I use successfully in lieu of the expensive Humbrol thinners. If I must use "acrylic lacquer" (whatever that is) I will use it only as a base coat and let it dry thoroughly, sometimes accelerating the drying on a low temperature in the oven, (notwithstanding pointed remarks about the chemical smells) before applying decals or enamels. Floquil paint was mentioned. I used this US product, through an airbrush, for many years. It had a very finely ground pigment which made for a beautiful finish; but its thinner was xylene, rather than a turpentine based product. Xylene can melt plastic, doesn't mix well with turpentine, and healthwise is very nasty stuff. Floquil, other than their acrylic line, seems to have all but disappeared. My recent experience of Humbrol enamel has been mixed. What bugs me is the variability of the product these days. Some paint is very thin, other paint is "gloopy"; and these are from high turnover outlets. I bought tinlets of brass and copper two days ago, (about 3 Pounds equivalent a tinlet over here) for touching up the trim on "Bristol Castle" whose restoration has featured above. I was disappointed at how coarsely ground were the metallic flakes. Despite endless mixing, the over-large flakes can impart a "sparkly" effect to the chimney and safety valve cover in certain lights. Varnishes. My preference is good quality polyurethane satin, filtered through my wife's cast-off nylon tights, thinned with turps, and shot through my top-feed Badger "Patriot" airbrush. It sets rock hard and protects the paint finish; but some recent cans have been a little too glossy for my taste. As Garry suggested, I would like to let it down slightly by mixing in some straight matte varnish, but can't get "Matte" from my local hardware store anymore - only Gloss and Satin. So I will experiment with the Humbrol clear finishes, though they are not as hard as polyurethane. BR locomotive green is problematic, at least in trying to match the Dublo green for touch-up jobs. I have a nearly untouched tinlet of Humbrol HR104 (I think that's the number), BR Loco Green, which is a long-discontinued colour. It is close to the green used on the Castles and West Countries, but very slightly more "olive". A drop of the current Humbrol No 3 brings it very close indeed, but what I'll do when this is exhausted I don't know. A matter from way back in the thread. Dublo motors. I found the Meccano Magazine article reprinted in Michael Foster's book, showing the winding of armatures in the Liverpool factory, so vertical armatures were definitely made in-house, and probably the later open-frame motors too. Finally, on the local equivalent of Ebay I've just bought a Duchess of Montrose body and tender mounted on a reportedly nicely running Wrenn 2-rail "City" chassis, plus four unboxed superdetail maroon coaches. I have a "City" body in the spares box so this is another project. (I said this could get addictive.) Two of the coaches have printed destination "boards" poorly stuck on the coach eaves. Does anyone have any experience of getting these stickers off without damaging the paintwork, or should I say litho printing, on the coach sides? Mike

Inspired by the work of Garry, Ray and others, I decided to have a shot at a Dublo "Neverwazza". The donor was a nicely running N2 with a body which was well past the point of cost-effective restoration. A few comments which might be of interest: 1. I used a locally (well, Australian) made paint stripper and, though it wasn't up to the violent effectiveness of the lethal stuff which we could get 20 years ago, it did the job. I've got some drain cleaner (pretty well straight caustic soda) ready for the next effort, of which more anon. 2. Part of the reason for "starting small" was that I wanted to test how far I needed to go in cleaning up the body castings beyond what was done at Binns Road 60 years ago. I did some modest fettling but, on closer examination, I think I'll need to go a bit further next time as my painting sequence shows up the ridges and imperfections on the body casting in a way I don't remember on the originals - but that could be the rose-tinted glasses looking back at childhood. 3. The painting sequence was etch primer for non-ferrous metal (spray can); gloss black (spray can); transfers; Humbrol flat varnish (airbrush). The etch primer gave a very coarse finish and, by the time I'd smoothed it off with wet and dry, most of it was rubbed away. I don't know whether I'll repeat it next time. Hornby didn't use a primer as far as I can tell.* I'm an airbrush man myself and, personally, found the spray can paint delivery too heavy for effective control - but that's down to my lack of practice with rattle cans given the fine results others achieve. The gloss black showed significant "orange peel" and I was going to strip it all off and start again but decided to first test the final appearance by brushing a small square of Humbrol flat finish on the inside of the body. The orange peel largely disappeared under the varnish so I pressed on. 4. The transfers were PC Pressfix which I've had in stock for approaching 40 years. My preference is Methfix but this was a low-cost test run so I made do with what I had. They stuck well, though I seem to have lost the top of a "6" from the number. 5. Humbrol gloss red on the buffer beams, varnished with Humbrol flat; a touch of brass paint on the safety valves; reinstallation of the now polished and oiled handrails and split pins, and job done. 6. Among some items on route to NZ from Dennis Williams (the Dublo Surgeon) is the Hornby Dublo transfer for the bunker rear. 7. The sharp eyed will notice that the spring wire on the front coupling is yet to be replaced. A previous owner had soldered a too-heavy replacement wire in place and I have yet to sort out a spring wire of the right tension. This wasn't as easy as I had anticipated. I've painted a lot of model locomotives over the years, both my own kit builds and (modified) offerings from the trade. I'm more the artist than the engineer perhaps, but all my "scale" locomotives are weathered, and individualised. Painting a locomotive in the style in which it would have emerged from the Hornby factory required a different mindset, and a dodgy application of transfers or lining (none on this model of course) can't be hidden under a layer of in-service grime. Also, I'm not convinced about the dead-flat finish. I prefer a faint sheen - say mid-way between satin and flat -especially for the larger passenger locomotives. Re the box. I decided that the unboxed Dublo items I am renovating deserve a proper home so I've made a number of boxes, "in the style of" Hornby Dublo, rather than straight copies. They aren't the easiest things to make, but give a certain satisfaction. It's also quite an experience going down to the local craft supply store and mingling with the "arty" women who are getting their craft and scrapbooking supplies! Two other locomotives are now on the Crewe "belt". First, a Coronation Paific - a renovated "City of London" body on a horseshoe magnet "Atholl" chassis - the components I had on hand. It will be finished in BR maroon with the shortlived orange/black/orange lining before the reversion to the LMS lining style for red pacifics. The only transfers that Dennis Williams stocks for a locomotive which carried this colour scheme are for "City of Liverpool", but for good reason these are not readily available; so history will be re-written and another locomotive, which didn't appear in this scheme, will carry it in model form. The first coat of BR maroon has been airbrushed on the body casting. The next will be a 2-6-4T in BR lined green as per the preserved example finished in this scheme (which it never carried in service). I recall that Garry did one of these? The body is ready for the paint stripper this evening. This could become addictive! Mike * I assume that base colour of Hornby Dublo cast locomotive bodies was sprayed and then baked?

Yes indeed I do Ray! But there's also satisfaction in getting an inexpensive, poor runner, and bringing it back to life with a bit of fettling, perhaps a transplant of a part or two, and even a low-cost home paint job. Garry is an inspiration to us there. It's a trade-off in time vs cash (and at some point the lack of the former will be more important than lack of the latter!) but as you say, it keeps the brain engaged. (Edit. Just like those "platform extensions" of yours that I spotted after I made this post.) Speaking of inexpensive non-runners, this battered E3002, advertised on New Zealand's version of Ebay, was sold this week for the equivalent of 250 Pounds. No info as to whether it was a runner or not, but in any event, it didn't seem much like an inexpensive project to me. Mike

I hit the "Agree" button on Il Grifone's post. Then it got me thinking. (I have a regular hour of uninterrupted thinking time as I mow the lawns, sitting on the mower, on our 2 acre property. My wife claims she can read my mind from the expression on my face as I pass by the living room windows!) First, Il Grifone has hit the nail when he refers to Meccano Ltd. Many of the opinions on the fall of Meccano which I've read don't distinguish (or at least not explicitly) between the problems of the company (Meccano Ltd) or the Hornby Dublo product line. If I were (God forbid) one of those high-priced corporate suits who might have been brought in to save Meccano, I'd be looking at the profitability, and the productivity (profit over costs) of each product line, and each separate product within that line. For every product I'd take and analyse every component in detail - for HD: body castings, motors, coach side pressings,etc etc etc and analyse which could be outsourced more cheaply than in-house production - while maintaining quality.. But all that is just conventional business management outlined in those tedious books which line the shelves of airport newsagents and bookstalls. All it's really providing is information on which the production of existing products can be made more cost-efficient. It doesn't answer some more fundamental questions about the business. All the efficiencies in the world won't affect customer demand, and a focus solely on cutting the costs of production, without producing things that are wanted, has been shown time and time again to prolong the death throes of a business, and possibly make that process sadder and more painful. A small example is the cost-cutting around the production of the E3000 electric locomotive, which generated unfavourable comment in the modelling press and appeared to confirm the sentiment that Dublo had "lost it". An alternative strategy (which I'm not saying would have worked), would have been to increase the quality of E3001, raise the price, and target a smaller, more discerning market. As I say, it may not have worked, but it seems from what I've read that a major repositioning of the business was really the only option to a takeover. Why? Well, the world of 1962 was a very long way from the world of 1952; and 1962 was a universe away from 1942. No longer was an Empire a captive market, Disposable incomes were increasing. Rationing was over. (Some) class distinctions were blurring. Europe was again producing quality manufactured goods, thanks to the U.S Marshall Plan. I could bore you all with paragraphs on such contrasts. But it boils down to Triang producing a mass market model railway (and slot car system), for the "ordinary" boy, while Marklin was producing high quality, and expensive, model trains which were the standard for quality *, and many niche manufacturers were chipping away at a market which was becoming more fractured- Farish, Chairway track, Gem, Ks Playcraft etc etc. The model press from the 60s starts to fill with their advertisements. Dublo seemed to be floundering in the middle of this, looking for its own niche. My instinct is that the biggest impact on Dublo's market was social change. Would a 14 year old Liverpool lad in 1962 be hankering for the new locomotive from Binns Road, or would his greatest wish to be to get into the Cavern to hear the new band, in that teenage crush with the promising smells of hair lacquer and female cosmetics (probably pinched from Mum's dressing table). I know what my choice would have been. On re-reading, this seems a bit of a ramble, but it still rings true for me, and I'll probably hit the "Post" button. Meccano's Hornby-Dublo was a quality, fairly pricey, product; better than a toy train, but not quite a scale model; being sold into a shrinking market, with model railway competitors eating into both the top and bottom ends; and major social change and other opportunities for spending disposable income, making their products seem dated and definitely not "cool". But we've been left a great legacy which we can continue to enjoy. (I'll stick to technical and modelling matters from hereon!) Mike * In the provincial New Zealand town where I grew up, I recall that, around 1960, a majority of my schoolmates who had model railways had Triang trains (manufactured under licence locally); a few of us had Hornby Dublo; and the sons of Branch Managers at the local banks, or local solicitors, had Marklin.

Garry, I hadn't thought to check out the direction of travel of the Castle. As you may have spotted in the previous photos of my test rig, the track is powered by a pair of alligator clips from a modern (well, mid-1980s, very sophisticated for the time) US controller. When I attach the clips I don't take much notice of which way I hook them on, and simply use the direction switch on the controller to set the locomotive off in the direction I want. (Usually I'm testing anything but direction polarity.) Armed with your information I checked and, yes, this is indeed a 2 rail motor as the Castle runs in the opposite direction to other Dublo 3 rail locomotives. Rather than turn the magnet, removal of which night weaken it, I thought that a simple way to bring Bristol Castle into line would be to strip off the duplicate suppression equipment on the motor, and swap the leads to the brushes. 10 minutes work and the job was done. The locomotive now runs beautifully in the right direction. Another Castle saved from Woodhams of Barry. The attached photo shows the modifications and can be compared with the first photo in Post 145. I must say that I thought my soldering was much neater than the photo depicts. Those close-ups can be very sobering. The Dublo open frame motors seem very well engineered, with the armature supported by decent bearings at both ends - less chance of whip and flex in the armature, or lateral bearing wear over time. A five pole conversion (like the Airfix/MRRC type five pole armatures made for X04 conversions) would have made a first rate motor. As a matter of interest, do you or others know if Meccano contracted out the design and manufacture of its motors or were these in-house production? Mike

Thank you Garry. I had just edited my post to apologise for that last question, which you had already answered but which I missed among the flurry of replies. Mike

Always an inspiration and source of ideas Garry. I was idly puzzling how shoe pickups might be fitted to a three rail Castle or 8F locomotive given the limited clearance between rail head and chassis floor. How did you insulate the PB strips (which hold the shoes) from the chassis. Is there a card or plastic shim under the strip? And I suppose that the same question applies to the brass screws which hold the pick-ups in place. Mike

Thank you for the suggestions Ray. I have had another look at the plunger pick-ups on the Castle. Except as a last resort I didn't want to oil them as I wanted to avoid anything which might interfere with the electrical connection between the actual plungers and the insides of their housings. Instead I forced a piece of rubber or neoprene tube over the top ends of the plungers (the ends inside the tender body) and twisted them vigorously back and forth and up and down for a few minutes each (a bit like honing the cylinder bores of Dad's 1939 Austin). This was intended to shift any oxidation, or the grunge of age, inside the plungers which might have caused the intermittent resistance. I then blew some graphite powder into the plungers as a dry, conductive lubricant. Most went over me and the tender base but some went into the plunger. As a result of these efforts, neither plunger shows any sign at all of sticking, and there is no hesitation in the locomotive's smooth passage up and down the test track, at any speed down to a crawl. The motor may well benefit from a remag, but it now runs sweetly, better than most of my other Dublo engines, and never pulls more than 0.4 of an amp (admittedly without a load). So I think I will let well alone for the time being. I'm still interested in any views on whether this is an original three rail chassis but fitted with a motor intended for a 2-rail Castle? Edit.Sorry about this question. I was laboriously typing up this post and several replies came through which I hadn't read. My thanks to all.

Can I ask the old hands (or new hands too) on this thread for an opinion on a recent purchase? I have never owned a Dublo Castle. They were financially out of reach for our family back in the day. However, I recently bought, from the UK, an early "Bristol Castle", described as a poor runner. A bit of cleaning and lubing, adjusting armature end-float, and fixing the poor and intermittent electrical connection between locomotive and tender via a very distorted phosphor bronze spring "plug", resulted in a quiet and mostly steady runner. (That plug seems a poorly engineered method of connecting the third rail pick-up to the motor but I suppose it must have worked satisfactorily on most 3 rail Castles for 60 years?) Having stripped the bodies off both engine and tender I ran the naked engine/tender combination on my test track, (described in a previous post), each time I made a repair or adjustment to improve running. Based on bitter experience I made these adjustments one at a time so I could keep track of what actually made the most difference in performance! Though running is mostly excellent, I still get, on occasion, a very minor interruption of power to the motor. (My ammeter reading drops to zero so I know it's a lost connection rather than a short.) At anything above crawling speed it will simply hesitate briefly and then continue. At a very slow speed it will sometimes stop. The slightest touch of my jeweller's screwdriver on the top of one of the tender pick-up plungers will restart the motor immediately. As the track and all wheels have been cleaned and electrical connections checked, my guess at this stage is that the plungers, which seem a very sloppy fit in their housings, with very weak springs, and which can hang up briefly when pushed fully up with very light finger pressure, are simply not doing the job properly. But, my only experience having been with engine mounted "spoon" type pick-ups, and not having a less worn example of a 3 rail Castle (or 2-8-0) to set alongside mine, I don't know what the "standard" should be. So, to my two requests for help or comment. First, has anyone had a problem with tired 3 rail plunger pick-ups, and found a solution? Or indeed does anyone have any other suggestions? Second, removing the bodies of engine and tender revealed two sets of radio/TV interference suppressors. I found an on-line copy of the manual which came with the Bristol Castle when new and, while the inside of the tender wasn't illustrated, the locomotive without body was. This illustration showed no suppression fittings on the motor. So I assume that the tender components are the originals. But the 3-rail Castle one-page service sheet, dated 1962, which can be down-loaded from the "mtrains" website, shows these fittings on the motor. The bottom of the locomotive chassis shows no sign of any fittings for 2-rail wiper pick-ups. So my guess is that, at some stage, the motor has been replaced, either with one from a 2-rail Castle, or perhaps in a factory repair where the latest (nearest?) motor was taken from the parts box and fitted? My inclination is to strip the suppression fittings off the motor on the grounds that every soldered connection, now matter how good, is another point of risk of electrical failure. But I'd be interested in Forum members' views on whether this looks like an original 3-rail Castle chassis with a later motor, and if anyone has views on removing one or other of the sets of suppressor components. Mike PS I'm never sure if this is the right thread for such tech matters. But point me in the right direction if I've got it wrong.