Arrived today the Hornby Dublo A4 Silver King for 3 rail DC (not AC as for Maerklin).
She is an absolute beauty!
Purchased some Trix Express (3 rail DC) track and she seems to fit perfectly in these rails.
Boxes for loco and tender are new replica boxes.
Comparing her with earlier purchased Hornby A4 Mallard for 2 rail DC,the Dublo version seems to be smaller in scale,almost H0.

Enjoy!

Why?

John,

The way i understand it is that you first have to post a comment,and then attach the picture,so there are always a couple of minutes between the two steps before the picture can be seen.
Also,the picture has to be made smaller before attaching it.
Anyway,you can see my second Hornby loco now.
Please do not worry,i will return to buying Maerklin again later,when my bankaccount has been replenished.

Kind regards,
Paul.

Steven,

I purchased the loco and the boxes from Coopertrains!

Paul.

Dear Kimball,

Cooper have done a good job,the parcel was very well packed and despatch was speedy.

One thing which disturbes me about the A4 3-rail Silver King is the roughly shaped coalbed in the tender.
I do recall that on Youtube i saw someone who replaced it with a much more detailed coalbed.
The coalbed seems to be fixed at a centerpoint,both sides front and back are a bit tilted,not a pretty sight.
Perhaps Cooper can help me out.

About difference in size: the A4 3- rail DC is lower than the 2-rail DC,i wil put them both on the diningtable and take some more pictures,to follow asap.

Cheers,
Paul.

Hi Paul,

I really appreciate the effort you have put into that, thank you.

Firstly, do you give me permission to put that comparison pic on my website (Hornby Dubo stuff), so long as I give you acknowledgment?

Secondly, regarding the HD tender. Yes, the plastic casting was done in the days when not very good quality materials. The casting itself, was probably realistic enough for the standards of the time. For example, the size of the coal lumps seems large, but firemen in those days were expected to climb onto the tender, and break up large lumps with a hammer. The distortion in hte plastic (if on your example) is very common.

Most of the old HD engines I have seen, this moulding has gone out of shape. Almost the same effect as leaving plastic in the sun. There is no quick fix. To remove this plastic, you must first undo the sheet-metal fold-over tabs at the bottom of the tender. The plastic was fixed to the metal tender top by protrusions through two holes in the metal, then touched with a hot iron to splay the protrusions. First you have to get rid of these protrusions, then you can reshape the plastic in a fashion, by immersion in hot water. This is not always entirely successful.

In my opinion, it is better to leave the Silver King tender as it is, because it is normal for most models of that era. But you can always ask Cooper what he can do to fix it.

You might notice too, Paul, that the HD has a corridor (vestibule used for exchanging crew while running) tender, whereas the Hornby Mallard is a plain tender. That is how many of the prototypes were first equipped, some with corridors, some without.

Regarding "fat on the bones", I believe the valances (covers, skirts) over the driving wheels really add to that perception. They were removed from all 35 of the A4 engines during the early 1940s, and never replaced.

regards
Kimball

Edited by user 30 April 2012 06:09:47(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hi Bryan,
I often wonder about the use of miniature open-framed 12v motors in that time. It was the then standard voltage for many motor vehicles and trucks, and I might presume, standard in aviation as well.

Was the manufacture of these miniature motors part of the pre-war effort to test and prove such methods, and other applications? The Hornby Dublo motors certainly proved robust. They did change the design slightly about 1949, going to a modular block magnet design, rather than a whole horse-shoe shaped magnet.

I have purchased some of these old HD products manufactured before 1950, put them on the track, and they run without effort.

The appeal of these models is as much for their being made completely of metal, like most Marklin.

regards
Kimball

Dear Kimball

Hornby Dublo continuing 3-rail after the introduction of 2-rail in 1959 may have been a small part of Meccano's financial problems.
Richard Lines (ex Rovex Ltd) has stated this was Meccano's basic problem, writing about Dublo's duplicate systems in one of his Tri-ang reflection books.
However the main problem was in the understated recession in the model train industry in the UK and USA in the early 1960's.

The two big sellers in 1964 were slot cars and LP records not model trains.

In 1964 the following happened:
1) Bassett-Lowke went into liquidation.

2) Leeds Model Co went into liquidation.

3) Lionel in the USA took over the distribution of Scalextric to help with its model train sales decline.

4) Trix twin (UK) was bought out by the Courtaulds Group.

5) Tri-ang themselves were having a hard time with model train sales.
They were very lucky as the company manufactured the X04 motor used in the Scalextrix cars which helped their production lines.
Tri-ang did though discontiniue their TT range of trains.

6) The Lone Star range of 000 electric trains went off the market having a bright start.

6) Meccano's Dublo model train sales were brilliant in 1959 - 61, in 1962 they were half the 1961 sales figures.
In 1963 sales dropped by half of 1962, and in 1964 once again they were half of 1963.
Meccano took a huge financial gamble to produce their 2-rail Super Detailed range of Hornby Dublo from 1958 -62.
They were just too much in debt with the banks in producing the new SD tooling. With this debt they unfortunately hit the early 1960's model train recession and that was their end.

The Super Detailed range of Dublo with their Ring-Field motors was even better quality than Marklin at the time.
The irony was Wrenn went on to use the Dublo tools and made vast quanties of trains in the 1970's only.
Also Tri-ang's greatest fear in 1966 was if someone else got control of the Dublo tools.
This is why Wrenn was bought by the Lines Bros in 1965 before Wrenn were given the Dublo tools.

And so Hornby Dublo's demise was due to very bad luck in the Model Train industry in the early 1960's.

Dear Kimball,

You are entirely free to use my comparison in any way you want.

Have corrected the sizes measured.

Cheers,
Paul.

Hi Kimball

The mechanism in the Dublo A4 was superbly designed in 1938 and beat all other manufactures in their day.
The two engineers at Meccano responsibile for the 1938 Dublo design were Donald Smith (general design) and Ronald Wyborn (electrical design).
Both men were of a previous era were British was best and perfection was paramount.
I did correspond with Ron before he died and he was certainly a perfectioist in my view.
His detailed letters on Dublo motor design and magnetiser specifications were quite something.
Ron stated from the outset he wanted the Dublo motors to have pin point shafts with ajustable thrust ball bearings.
Dublo motors went through 3 stages of development, first the 3/4 inch standard type as in the A4, the 1/2" in the first Castles and finally the 3/4" Ring-Fields.
All 3 of these motor designs had thrust ball bearings. Not even Marklin had this design quality and only the Swiss manufacture Hag do today, testiment to Dublo's quality.
Dublo loco mechs were also the first with radio suppression units in 1950. Meccano actually defined these British standards to the government of the day as they were also the leaders in this area.

Very good, thanks for sharing the pictures hellwigm.