railroadbill

I've got a couple of the Brawa ones, very good runners and will run very slowly.  I've seen several of the full size in Denmark over the years, ones on private sidings apart from preserved lines. (DSB had their own version as a standard small shunter apart from imported German ones).   I believe it would have been a very common DB loco.

If you want a Kof III then Roco do a good one, bit bigger loco but again an excellent runner. The Kof II is a very small loco so for a minimalist layout would be perfect.

Just my opinion. 

On 04/11/2022 at 22:24, Il Grifone said:

 

I would say yes. The Continental loading gauge is larger than the British, but less than the American.

This results in British 1/76, Continental 1/80 or 1/82 and American 1/87 all being about the same size.

 

Strangely, Rivarossi 1/80 buffers are spaced at the 1/87 setting and British Trix, though also 1/80 scale, has the 1/76 spacing (or even a fraction more).  (Scale tends to be rather flexible in both cases.)

I have a programme to shift my Rivarossi buffers outwards a bit. (Don't hold your breath!) Their FS Gr835 0-6-0T in particular looks rather strange end on.

 

When I win the lottery, I'll replace her with this:

 

I shouldn't have to sort out the valve gear at this price though (well over 200€).

(The settings of the return crank mean one side tries to go forwards while the other is trying to go backwards.)

Really superb model!  Pity about the return cranks setting as you say. As an aside the video shows that the  mech has the centre and rear axles geared together, leaving the front axle to be driven just by the rods.  Coincidentally an old Ho gauge Fleischmann 0-6-0 I was running yesterday has the same arrangement. Wonder why they didn't gear all the axles together (as other models). Runs very well though. 

On 04/11/2022 at 09:12, Ruffnut Thorston said:

 

The Black plastic single start worm motor is the 'New Type' X.03 (The part number being a re use of the earlier, pre X.04, motor part number.

 

 

 

These use a different (28 Tooth) gear wheel from the X.04. To differentiate these from the X.04 type gear (40 Tooth), they are usually in the silver grey plastic, though  other colours did get used, especially later on.

 

We even have seen black versions, which are confusing, as the X.04 compatible gear wheel was always made in black plastic, or made from Brass.

 

The two gears will not work properly with the wrong motor.

 

The X.04, and earlier motors, use a two start worm. This is always made from Brass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ᚱᚢᚠᚠᚾᚢᛏ × ᛏᚼᚬᚱᛋᛏᚬᚾ🐉🤷🏼‍♀️

 

Thanks, Ruffnut, that's very useful info, basically an XO3 with a black worm will fit a chassis with a 28 tooth grey wormwheel.  The few motors/chassis etc in my bits box (one of!) seem to be that spec so I should have parts to be  able to get my 1980's WC/BoB repair project running ok.

The parts/service sheets are very helpful.

Bill

33 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Do not be so hard on the Sir Dinadan. Yes, it had its faults, especially the original hi gloss finish. But I liked it as it came out at a time when there were very few Southern outline models in RTR. And it was a nice and easy model to improve. On the other hand, I fully agree with you over the Saint. These are a couple of my Sir Dinadans after a bit of an uplift.

 

Good point about those locos being easy to improve, details like crew, headcodes, etched nameplates etc. drew the eye away from the basic nature of them and you had the satisfaction of making them better..

Final thought about the Hall, the green livery (I think) looks better than some of Hornby's latest green locos!

I'll raise you a basic undecorated Saint body with no fittings,  on the Hall chassis. 🙂

I believe there was a later Hornby Saint that had a tender drive using a smaller 3500gal tender.

I think these models, like the N15, were of their time and better than what had gone before (arguably!)   I've got a Bachmann Hall and Hornby Granges etc. which are very good looking and authentic models, capable of running very slowly and reliably.  However, when they were available, teh Hall, N15 etc. were the only kids on the block and now have a certain charm about them. Anything with an XO3 sees to last very well.

I had the Saint body because a) I came across it and 2) to modify it, which would have taken some alteration, into a Star body.  I also had a GBL 28xx body that I was going to remove the boiler and cab from and join it to a castle footplate from a GBL Castle, then attach the bodies to  Hornby Castle chassis (I'd got hold of 2 cheap Castles) to make 2 Stars....

Anyway, fortunately Hornby released their Star model and I had a couple of those (bargain price from a West Country dealer)  which was frankly a much better proposition, and they look great running round the layout.

Which leaves a box of bits and 2 earlier type Hornby Castles. I guess they fit in the  era of this thread as well but I think they are Chinese made.

This is actually the Hall chassis from above, but this is a general question.  With XO3/4 powered locos having this plastic worm drive, was the worm a standard type  across the range, i.e. would an XO3/4 motor with that gear fit ok into another loco with the same diameter of driven gear or were there different specs in that era?

Another Hornby Margate built loco that fits into Robin Brasher's time scale, the Hall.  This one's a bit battered, got given it for future restoration (needs buffers for one thing).  Seems to have been continually made from 1966-1977 (Albert Hall 4983) then 1978-79 Kneller Hall 5934 (this one) and finally 1980-83 Hagley Hall 4930.  

There was also the rather odd "Lord Westwood"  which I think had Hornby's phone number if that's 2555, as its loco number...although a red Hall would work well with Harry Potter.

Tri-ang has disappeared from Tri-ang Hornby...

Wot! No Triang oil bottle then? The missing goodie!

10 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

A  nameboard is likely to cost nearly as much as the engine thanks to the collector's market! They cost something like 6d IIRC.

 

 

I have several of the Dinky buses (there are several different versions). I have my doubts over the scale of the Routemaster. It seems a trifle oversize to me. There are a couple in the picture, (restored I hasten to add, though it was originally red and grey.)

 

The 29c Dinky double decker (AEC type) was 3s 9d in 1954. (Gone up to 4s 3d by 1958...)  Might have to repaint my one now.  I think the Corgi Routemaster was better than the Dinky one, but it's a very long time since I've seen either!  EFE came along much later with their very realistic buses, which was a great boost for authentic model railways. 

59 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

There were problems with the two rail version of the Bo-Bo diesel and the model had to be withdrawn.

Even the shorter coaches were slightly reduced in length.

I've heard this before about the 2 rail Bo-Bo running badly. I've got a 3 rail one which runs ok, it does have traction tyres on all wheels on the power bogie so I wonder if the 2 rail one had poor pickups? Is there a fix now?

The Tri-ang station isn't bad really, still got it and I put one of the buildings on the current  layout a while back as  a kind of place holder and it's still there...

You weren't the only one led astray by Meccano catalogues, as I've still got several which I was looking at today after seeing sncf231e's excellent Duchess video, I guess I can still be led astray... Meccano Magazine was a major influence back then!

The e-bay poster looks nice, got the bus ( in poor condition,) and the Castle, but not the bridge.  Tri-ang as mentioned on another thread had a good selection of bridges - which current  Hornby still make!

I must have had the Scotsman set Christmas 1958 then, thanks for that, David.  The 2 coaches do indeed have the destinations/train name boards on them  but the loco board that fitted into the little slot on the smokebox of the A4 has long gone. If I go on following this thread I'll have to search one out. 🙂  Set coming up for 64 years then... good grief.

Bill

Think my Flying Scotsman set with Mallard must have been 1957 or 58.  I ended up with a Tri-ang station a year or so later for no apparent reason, but Hornby signals, water crane etc.

I agree with Chas Levin above about DL Glue n Glaze,  which I got recently primarily to attach cockpit canopies to plastic models. I'd previously used PVA applied with a cocktail stick but this is easier and less likely to go wrong!

Very impressed by your roof with that very fine framing.

22 hours ago, ISW said:

That was one of my thoughts / options, but I've yet to hear of anyone successfully employing the method.

 

I have some Repositionable Adhesive Spray (from Hobbycraft) but I was under the impression that this was not 'permanent'. However, the 'Uses' on the tin says it's permanent.

 

Anyone used it?

 

Ian

Purely on this point, I've used this exact product for mounting photographs onto card, also calendars etc. , previously used 3Ms   equivalent and also some from £1 shop which was a bit stringy but otherwise OK.  The Hobbycraft and 3M stuff sprays well and easy to apply.  I've just looked at some photos I mounted in 1988 and they are still firmly attached with spray mount.

Fairly recent acquisition,  a Hornby Dublo 2 rail City of London.  So I finally got a H-D Duchess...

Here with my ancient  original classic H-D D12 LMR coaches from Flying Scotsman set.

Just had to go up in the loft and take a picture of it on the track....

Thanks, Fred.

Apart from my having the Flying Scotsman set with Mallard, (EDP15) that could have been my living room floor around 63 years ago...

Cool!

According to the 1956/57 price list that you have as a title shot, the EDP12 Duchess set was  £7 1s 6d which was the most expensive set they did.

Fitting into Robin Brasher's timescale, the Hornby HST. I believe a very large number of these were made. This one is in the first Intercity livery before the "rasberry ripple" paint  was applied along the whole power car. 

This is the rake with Jouef coaches. This must be from a time when the new livery was just coming out 🙂. The Jouef coaches are the right length rather than the one bay too short Hornby ones.  They do still have buffers which the HST Mk3s shouldn't have so some work still to go. This is a 3 car set, I have actually traveled on a 3 car HST, one of the GWR 255 ones last year, (they are normally 4 cars) so a (modern) short rake is plausible. I've got another 3 Jouef coaches to add, but they need  work to bring them up to scratch and be able to use them.  (Original 253 had 7 cars which effectively makes the train 9 cars long with the power cars).

A friend modified a couple of original Hornby HSTs with CD motors, and TTS sound chips, he's got a Valenta and an MTU rake. They run very well, so there's still potential in upgrading the old ones.  My one has the ringfield motor,  got a spare ringfield power bogie that could be fitted to the trailer power car, or have 2 power units in the powered one.  I've also got a spare 4 wheeled power bogie as fitted to the current railroad HST (and indeed the 121 and 73 etc)  so some possibilities there with the original Hornby ones, a work in (slow) progress.

Just one ringfield power bogie isn't bad though, I have fitted extra pickups so runs more reliably.

Up and down HSTs cross at Ferndean Junction, a very obscure station on what must be the Western region as these are 253s.  (Those particular  full size power cars were allocated to Old Oak common HST depot).

2 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

Caustic soda doesn't seem as effective with acrylic paint. For this I use alcohol.

"Ah, alcohol, the cause and solution to all of life's problems"  - Homer Simpson goes modelling.

Sorry. 😎

I've used Modelstrip which has worked reasonably well, being a white paste to paint on then leave in a sealed ziplock  polybag  for a while before rubbing off with old toothbrush.  Also if the pot dries out  you can add some water to make it a paste again.  Tried this recently on an old plastic kit car I came across,  worked well in places but some paint left, however paint was many years old (could well have been enamel).

Also tried Precision paints superstrip  (as recommended by GoingUnderground) not bad but I personally had better results with Modelstrip (which could be mainly caustic soda perhaps?) However it probably depends on the paint/plastic combination being worked on.

There have been some good suggestions to try on this thread.

22 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

I think the main problem with the A4 front is the excessive buffer height together with the chunk of metal sticking out from the front of the bogie. The valve gear detracts as well.

The Dublo model is not bad at all, seeing it dates from 1938. The model had a minor revamp in 1958 becoming Mallard and gaining a double chimney and a headboard slot. My first Dublo A4 was 'Sir Nigel' for Xmas 1952, 3 weeks short of my 6th Birthday. To its makers immense credit, it still functions almost seventy years later, despite being well (mis)used in the first ten years of its life.

Well they were built to last....

The front of an A4 is very difficult to model (or indeed draw) as there are so many curved edges and it looks different from different viewing angles. On the other hand it's so distinctive that it's easy to get something sort of right and it can still only be an A4.

I believe that when A4s were being built the casings were just made to fit on the shop floor rather than following drawings to 100% accuracy so they were probably all a bit different anyway.

57 minutes ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

 

Yep, Langstone Harbour Bridge, with the old opening span.

Complete with Terrier hauled train.

 

The Mallard is posed in a section from the Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge, minus the support cable mouldings.

 

ᚱᚢᚠᚠᚾᚢᛏ × ᛏᚼᚬᚱᛋᛏᚬᚾ

🐉🙋🏼‍♀️

 

The bridge must be one of their longest running products as I think it's still available (or it's back again?)

12 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Yep. That was the model that to me said they were trying to up their game due to the competition.

 

Mainly due to this image.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Looks like Hayling Island line in the background...  and a rather nice bridge the A4 is on.  The bridge rail does hide the worst of the  valve gear, the big fixing screw on the return crank and the large rivets in the front of the valve gear, which was the standard on later locos, but compared with say the earlier X03/4 loco drive Flying Scotsman it was a big step forwards.

Here is R350 again on the track.  I think the problem with the look of the front is that radius at the foot of the smokebox where it curves to meet the footplate.

This is the current Hornby A4 which gets a very difficult shape spot on in my opinion. An absolutely cracking model.

And a real blast from the past, a Hornby Dublo Mallard.  My very first 00 gauge loco, from the Flying Scotsman set, another Christmas present, this must be (glup) coming up to 64 years old..... actually think the streamlined nose is a better shape than R350, although that got the  curve of the top of the boiler better.

Curiously, looking down from above there isn't so much obvious difference.

From bottom up,

1. Hornby Dublo 3 rail Mallard

2. Hornby Railways R350 Mallard

3. Hornby Golden Plover

4.  Another Mallard, actually GBL (!)   The body is of course a copy of the current Hornby one anyway....

Apologies for drifting away from specifically Hornby Railways models, but interesting to see its place as similar oo gauge models have developed.

Here's one that fits your timescale, Robin,  Hornby Railways  R.350,  Mallard.

Got given this as a Christmas present in 1980.   Cost £13.75 in Beatties, as the label says. Tender drive, 6 wheel power unit with trailing axle. Pickup one side on loco drivers, the other side on the tender, as they did.  Didn't have a layout when I was given it, didn't run that well up and down a length of track but some years ago I dug it out again and with a bit of TLC got it running reasonably well on current layout.

The speed record badge and the works plate were good touchs for its era,  single colour lining though, as was the norm.

What really let it down though was the terrible shape of the streamlining nose.

There we are,  a bit of nostalgia from almost 42 years ago...

Here's an ERG rule for different scales. You can mark off appropriate distances converting  feet to the appropriate number of millimeters depending on scale.  7mm to foot and 3.5 mm to foot scales on one edge,  4mm to foot and 2mm to foot scales on the other.

Never actually  used it, cheap digital calipers (and calculators etc.) have made it possible to measure model parts more accurately now.

Got given it ages ago by a (long deceased) friend who was heavily into coarse scale O gauge, and built a large layout over many years.  Having dug it out the bits box, perhaps I should polish it up, but it does have a kind of modelling patina on it from his many years of building model railway stuff so I'll leave it as it is.