Bing!

 

A few weeks back I lucked into a long sought after item - a Bing 00 locomotive. 

This was an American market electric, resplendent in flag decals (including an Imperial Japanese Navy flag), which were no doubt added sometime late in its life. The lead wheels are missing, and honestly the tiny locomotive looks as though it had been stomped on. 

Yet I managed to get it running. I have to still replace the lead wheels, but it runs. 

Then, last week, my friend Jack sent me another one, the mechanical (clockwork) version. 

Like the electric, it was meant for the American market, though according to my friend this came by way of Australia, and it is also missing the lead wheels. 

Sadly, one of the brass gears is completely worn through by the spring gear, so it isn't running (at the moment?). 

Yet to have these two rarities, running or not, is a joy. This is where 00/H0 began, after all. Soon other companies would begin churning out relatively small models, and they would gradually transition from toy-like to scale (indeed - here in the United States the emphasis on scale was paramount, likewise for many in the UK). 

Frankly, I feel blessed to have them. 

Well, That Turned Out Differently Than Expected

As I have mentioned here in my blog I have decided to use Trix Bakelite track for my layout. So far it has worked mostly well. 

Mostly, that is. 

The trouble are the turnouts (points). 

Trix 00/H0 track owes its geometry to Bing 00/H0 track. When Henry Greenly first imagined what would become 00/H0, he was fairly generous with some of the dimensions, specifically the flanges and wheels. Not only were the flanges tall, they were also wide, as were the wheels themselves. For this reason the track was designed accordingly. Trix followed this practice as well. 

This leads to unexpected problems. 

Left to right, Trix, Tri-Ang Series 3, Fleischmann Standard, Hornby 00

Whilst my Trix (and Bing) locomotives glide through the turnouts with relative ease, models with smaller flanges derail. 

The problem is the gap betwixt the stock and guard rails on the diverging track. 

Since Trix had to work with models on thick flanges, the guard rail gap is almost 3mm (about 1/8"). This allows for excessive lateral play on thinner flanges, with the net result being a derailment. The Tri-Ang, Fleishmann, and Hornby turnouts/points have a narrower gap, more like 2mm (around 3/32"). That slight change is enough to work effectively with those thinner flanges. 

There is of course a however. 

The one Trix locomotive I have that is two rail (an Aristo-Craft/Polk's import) derails on the other brands for the opposite reason - it rides up onto the guardrails and then derails. 

Not all of my thin flanged models have problems with the Trix track. The ones that have taller flanges (most of the early imported models) slip right through them fine. 

Yet my American made gear cannot handle those turnouts, having been undone by the quest for a more scale like appearance. 

What is to be done?

Some of my locomotives have been sold. Others will be restricted to mainline only. After all, I have put a lot of work into some of them, and I hate to see them go. 

Critters

 I have a soft spot for critters. "Critters", for the uninitiated, are small industrial or light rail switchers/shunters. They are almost always small, and here I mean "tiny", even on standard gauge. As a child I would see them occasionally working small yards around the industrial areas of my hometown of Jacksonville, Florida. Only a few major railroads owned them. Theirs was the domain of the mundane. 

The Christmas I decided to really get into model railroading, 1973, would see me gifted with my first. It's actually a funny story - for my birthday a few weeks prior I had been gifted with a crisp twenty dollar bill, and in 1973 that was a lot of money for a then twelve year old. I was allowed to purchase anything with it I desired. Mom took me to JM Field's, and I beelined straight back to the toy and hobby section. 

And bought a train set. 

It was a confusing affair, a Life-Like H0 train set, with a CP Rail F-unit, a Swift wooden refrigerator car, a gondola (forgot the roadname) and a caboose. As I recall, the caboose was not CP Rail, I think it was Santa Fe. Regardless, this came to $14.99. I had money left over for a trip to the hobby shop for more track!

Mom sort of freaked out.

She had already bought me a set for Christmas. I told her that I planned to have a number of locomotives eventually, and I would still love that set. 

The set she got me was from Tyco, and was a bit more organized than the Life-Like set. It was the "Switcher Freight", with a Tyco "Industrial" switcher, another (though steel this time) Swift  refrigerator car, a Union Pacific gondola, and a proper matching AT&SF caboose. 

Of the two locomotives I got that month, that little Tyco switcher proved the most durable, lasting until at least 1977 when I moved away from trains. 

I recently acquired another one. 

Like so many of the locomotives I acquire, this was misbegotten, dead, a non-runner. It is still missing parts, but these things are a breeze to work on (well, some of the 1970's versions are at any rate). Once I got it running it does so quietly, gliding over the rails gracefully, though you can give the Tyco/Mantua MU2 motor in it full power and it takes off like a race car. 

The thing is, I already have a number of these types of locomotives already, these "could-be" Plymouths. 

Tyco at the top, Mehano and Lima second row, another Mehano at the bottom

Whose was first?

For a long time I thought it was the Tyco version, but recently I discovered that AHM was offering the Mehano version in 1967 (reference this page at HOSeeker). 

So when did Tyco introduce theirs?

Near as I can tell, it popped into their catalog sometime between the 1970 and 1972 catalog (HOSeeker again). Tyco's version replaced their previous "Industrial Switcher" that had been in production since their 1969 catalog. 

Which is sad, actually. 

The previous version, while still using the MU2 power unit, was actually closer to scale, even though the prototype it was based on, the Plymough CR-4, still had to be enlarged to fit the mechanism! The Plymouth MDT, upon which the Mehano, later Tyco, and Lima (released 1975) were based was even smaller. The net result is that model is actually closer to S (in fact, probably larger) than H0. Even as a kid I found the cab to be pretty big for such a small locomotive. When I finally saw a true Plymouth MDT type, it was dwarfed by the fifty foot Railbox boxcar it was shuttling. 

There are plenty of differences between these models. The AHM/Mehano versions only have one axle drive. In fact, the reason for them choosing this design and subsequently enlarging it was because of the mechanism, which was derived from the motor that had originally driven the Rivarossi Fairbanks C-Liner and EMD BL-2. It's a fairly hefty motor. When Tyco produced their version this wasn't a problem, and in fact it's a better puller because both axles are powered (I still have yet to finish the CR-4 locomotive, but I suspect similar performance). 

The Lima version is another matter. While both axles are powered, the model is fairly light. I had to add more weight in order to obtain good performance. The motor is the common "flat" motor that Lima introduced in the late 1950's. 

There's still work to be done until I can call the old Tyco MDT finished, to say nothing about the CR-4 and the three imports. Yet they have a place in my heart. They may be odd and oversized, but you have to admit, they do have an allure. 

ALPS, I Did It Again...

 My biggest soft spot where toy and model railways are concerned has to be the mass produced department/five & dime store variety of train sets. The great bulk of these produced between 1945 and, say, 1980, have all been mostly forgotten. Unlike their hobby shop counterparts, most were never meant to last that long. 

The greatest number of these cheap train sets were made in Japan and imported under various names. One of the more interesting brands was ALPS, which was actually Shojo Ltd.. While they made a variety of train sets, the vast majority of which were either 0 or "Japanese S" gauge, they did make one H0 gauge set. Apparently, it is somewhat rare, and for that reason information on it is scarce. 

I actually lucked into a locomotive from this mysterious set. 

When I first saw it I suspected that it might be the elusive H0 model, but that design has been used over and over again. It's based on a fairly common Japanese 2-6-2 Prairie locomotive, the C58 class, though here it has been reduced to 0-6-2. I decided to chance it, and it paid off. 

It was the mysterious model. 

Mine arrived missing the pins that held the side rods in place, so I improvised with 2-56 machine screws. Scale-wise, while the model is H0 gauge, it is probably closer to 1/76 or 1/80, what is today called H0j. 

Amazingly, it ran immediately, though it was  rather loud. Motor bearings needed lubrication. 

These toy locomotives were not meant to last long, so little provision was made to open them up to do things like lubricating the various drive parts. I used a plastic eyedropper to attempt to get oil to the forward motor bearing, though the rear one was visible at the back of the cab. 

The noise dropped somewhat, but it was still loud. 

During a test run, it abruptly stopped. Was the motor dead? Did a wire come loose? There was no electrical smell normally associated with a burnt out motor, no smoke. 

I had to open the model up. 

The shell was simply held in place with two small brass rivets at the rear base of the cab. Using a small metal file I was able to drill them out, and once done the shell was slid back off the chassis, revealing the hidden mechanism. 

With the shell off I decided to examine the drive mechanism. The motor is your typical TKK can found is many 1950's era toys and trains. It uses a pinion and spur to transfer power to a drive shaft in the lower mechanism that powers the first and third axle, which I assume use worm/spur gears. The center axle and wheels essentially float. There is plenty of play, so I assume the track it was sold with used a fairly tight radius. 

As for the motor failure, one of the contacts had become dislocated. One lead is wired, whilst the other simply uses the chassis as a ground. It was simply a matter of moving the motor slightly to reengage. I also added lubricant to the forward bearing and the gears.

To reattach the shell I used two 4-40 x 0.25" machine screws. 

With the locomotive rebuilt, it was now time to test it again, and it ran even better, though it is still rather loud. Nature of the beast, I suppose. 

I have to admit that I have become rather enamored of this weird locomotive. 

Gwynn, however, doesn't share that feeling. 

Well, It's A Start

 My modest layout. 

My previous layout base had to be taken down as it was sagging in spots. This gave me an opportunity to lengthen my layout a little. Since this layout will not be permanent (in fact, henceforth they all must be temporary) I simply decided to use a green fabric over my folding table. 

The yard in the center is based on a Hornby Dublo switching puzzle, and is actually deceptively complicated in operation. The track still needs some cleaning before it will be completely operational. 

Again, it's a start. 

High Rails, Deep Flanges, & Small Scale

Left to right, Bing, Trix (Bakelite), Trix (fiber), Fleischmann, Tri-Ang, Atlas (brass). 

 

Make no mistake, I love very early H0 and 00 locomotives and rolling stock. 

Years ago when I was considering building a massive H0 scale empire, I acquired a junk Rovex Princess Elizabeth Pacific. Its shell was warped, chassis missing a center driver wheel, and frankly I was unsure what to do with it. It really didn't fit in with the theme I was planning, that being an American Appalachian line with hefty American style locomotives and American style rolling stock. 

Yet the trim little English locomotive had my attention. 

Sadly, I discovered that attempts to run it on my track was for naught. 

The oversized flanges were bottoming out on the molded plastic spikes on my track. 

The model was sadly lost not quite a year later due to various misfortunes that befell me. I would love to have another. 

Anyway, the problem is a duel betwixt accuracy and reliability, as well as nostalgia. 

Accuracy demands rails that are closer to scale. Reliability demands wheels that won't derail. Nostalgia, well, that's another matter. 

The early proponents of scale model railroading started pushing scale standards early in the hobby. This was particularly notable here in the United States. Most early American made H0 and 00 made an attempt to keep wheels closer to scale, within reason. Modelers elsewhere who were concerned with accuracy did pretty much the same. 

Yet the manufacturers, especially European, continued to produce deep flanged equipment. This goes back to the hobby's tinplate roots. 

Bing was the company that brought us the 16.5mm gauge standard for H0 and British 00 (as opposed to "scale" 00, which is a can of worms!). Their initial offerings included stamped metal track, which would later include a center rail for electric models. It is from those humble beginnings that our more common standards emerged.

Bing track had a rail depth of almost 1/10" (2.5mm). If this size seems familiar it's because it is the same as modern code 100 rail, which despite efforts to be pushed aside is still remarkably popular. 

After Bing's bankruptcy, Trix, on both the Continent and in the UK, made Bakelite roadbed track that now used rails that were slightly higher, in fact closer to 1/8" (3.2mm). The next generation Trix track, which switched over to fiber ties, dropped back to what was essentially code 100, albeit still in tinplate. This was the standard that other European and Japanese manufacturers would use for some years, as well as Marx in the United States. 

Rovex went in the other direction. Their initial offerings used deep track yet again, 1/8". This would be carried over to Tri-Ang and would persist for some time (I have no idea how Hornby fared). 

Finally, with the advent of mass produced brass, and then nickel silver, rail, variously on fiber and plastic tie strips, the age of tinplate in 16.5mm gauge pretty much came to an end. The initial standard was again code 100, but other rails sizes were already being offered, such as code 83 (0.083" or about 2mm) and even lower. 

The craftsmen side of the hobby had been using lower rails for a few years since the 1940's. The difference was hand laying versus mass produced. 

Still code 100 still remains the most common. 

Yet if code 100 hasn't really changed since the inception of the hobby with the Bing track, why do "toy" locomotives bottom out?

It's not the rails, it's the ties, specifically the spikes. 

Tinplate rail is fastened to the tie strips with metal tabs. Sometimes these jut from the bottom of the rail, occasionally they are separate pieces, but either way, they are much lower than spike heads. The clearance is tight, to be sure, and frequently the rolling stock has problems with turnouts (points) and diamonds (level junctions or flat crossings). But the lack of perturbances is why deep flanges can ride on this rail even though it is still roughly the same height as code 100 (and how Rovex/Tri-Ang got around it by making their rail taller yet still featuring spikes to hold the rail down).  

Since I have decided to change course on how I want to do my hobby, I have chosen to use Trix track, both the Bakelite and fiber variety, to allow me to run my older equipment in unmodified form. 

And I wish I still had that Rovex Princess Elizabeth, warped shell and all.

A Box Of Docksiders

 In Louis Hertz's classic "Riding the Tinplate Rails" he mentions something of a poll that was taken to determine what model and toy train enthusiasts wanted. This was the late 1930s, at a time when tinplate was dominated here in the United States by 0 gauge. Scale model railroading, however, was becoming dominated by H0. 

One of the replies amongst tinplaters was a need for smaller scale ready to run equipment that was reasonably priced. 

Naturally, over in Europe you had several companies who were meeting that demand. 

Stateside?

Not so much. 

The two smaller scale locomotives that were ready to run that had been introduced by American companies were both Hudsons - the Lionel 00 scale model, a masterpiece, and the less expensive H0 Gilbert model. 

In 1939, the Gilbert Hudson sold for $12.50. In 2026 dollars that is whopping $297. It was as much as a small 0-27 train set. 

Even then, what they really wanted were smaller locomotives, 0-4-0 and 2-4-0 types. They did exist, but they weren't quite ready to run, and for folks who weren't mechanically inclined that was a problem. Most of the kits at that time required tools like taps and the ability to set rivets and solder. 

It was Varney that answered the call, though it was still a kit. 

In 1941 they introduced their "Lil' Joe" dockside switcher. 

It was not too expensive, and was easy to build. If you chose to detail it with more realistic valve gear, sure, there was a kit for that. But most of them remained relatively simple, and more importantly they were fairly reliable if built properly. 

It is little wonder that when the Italian company Rivarossi decided to enter the American market that one of their first locomotives was a Docksider, a read to run model. This model remained in production into the early 1950s, when it was replaced by a better proportioned version. 

I have no idea if the tinplate enthusiasts of the late 1930s and early 1940s were ever satisfied by the later offerings. Gilbert and American Flyer introduced S gauge tinplate in the immediate postwar period, so there came around a smaller tinplate scale, though the equipment was still about the size of 0-27 equipment (Marx and American Flyer made 3/16" sized models before the war, and while they didn't admit as much, some of the smaller rolling stock that Lionel produced after the war, namely the boxcars, were that size as well). European and Japanese companies would step in eventually, with more ready to run offerings arriving from American companies by the 1950s. 

Anyway, I just spent an hour testing out my collection of Varney, LifeLike, and Rivarossi Docksiders on my temporary Trix Bakelite layout, and they all ran very well, aside from some dirty sections. While the two heavy Varney diecast models (1941 and 1948 vintage) ambled down the right of way with dutiful intent, the lighter LifeLike versions and the Rivarossi ran a little lighter and faster, though they seemed to have no problems whatsoever, coasting over the remaining dirty spots with ease. 

They still need work. Couplers are needed, some damaged sections repaired. But they run. For now, that'll suffice. 

A Surprising Sausage Powered Locomotive

I ordered this model in early April from the UK. Every time they popped up here in the States they would be bought up before I had a chance to place to nab one. On the international market, though, they seemed fairly commonplace. 

I took a chance and bought a "dead". 

It took three weeks to arrive. 

But here it is, a Jouef (for Playcraft) model 431 0-4-0T, sitting on some century old Bing 00 tin track - 

It is actually based on a US Army 0-6-0T that was made to help restore European railways, and they proved to be quite popular. 

So did the model. In addition to being sold as an electric model, it was also sold as clockwork. 

This one is a very early electric version. The motor had actually popped out. The engineers at Jouef designed an ingenious method of installing motor where there was very little or no wiring to deal with, and everything snapped into place. This pinion/crown gear motor had just popped out of place. It took all of five minutes to repair. 

It was running in no time. 

But what about the "sausage"?

The motor, a Jouef design, is known as the M40, and is nicknamed "the Sausage". 

I admit I love this locomotive. The pinion/crown gear transmission and the hefty motor means that it coasts with ease. It glides over any glitchy track with ease. It might not be the most powerful, but it is really reliable. 

I'm pleased with it. 

And Then There Were Three... Rails

 

Left to right - Nomura, Tri-Ang, Trix (fiber ties), Trix (Bakelite base)

I know that it has been some time since I last posted. There has been a lot going on in my life that has kept me even more distracted than usual. While I have still poked around with the trains, I haven't quite been up to sharing it. As I move along, I will likely get to posting some more of my projects. 

It is important for me, though, to mention that my plans have changed. 

I cannot have a permanent layout. The cats, as well as the ever looming possibility of having to relocate (due to health) make that an impractical notion. And honestly?

I tinker. 

One layout fixes your plans. You cannot, on a whim, decide that the spur you stuck in there needs to be relocated, or that you'd like to try an crossover/figure eight design. 

I am also fascinated by how the different H0/00 manufacturers worked out their designs. 

Previously I wrote about my interest in the tinplate style track made by Nomura, Fleischmann, and others, and how I thought it was good for what I do. It has deep rails, upon which large flanges can operate smoothly. Scale flanges operate fine on them as well, so for someone like me who would prefer to keep his vintage equipment in original (or close) condition, it makes more sense. 

I had played around with Tri-Ang Series 3 track, and found that it worked well enough, though it looks to me more like a larger scale narrow gauge track. 

This is where Trix comes in.

My interest in Trix goes back years, to at least 1979 when my high school library got a copy of Allen Levy's classic "A Century Of Model Trains". I saw how Bing created the first "00" scale (and H0 gauge) trains back in the 1920s, and how Trix came about from that incursion. 

Unfortunately, Trix in any form aside from MiniTrix N scale was rare where I am from. There was Märklin, with its three rail (well, two rail with "nubs") system. There was also the other European and Asian companies. There was even Tri-Ang and Hornby. 

But no Trix. 

After finally landing some Trix pieces, I finally had a chance to see what this system was like. 

The locomotive needed work, but a friend supplied me with another, plus some track. 

And the track has unlocked a realm of possibilities. 

In profile, the rails are similar to the tinplate rails of Fleischmann and its clones (Nomura, Marx, et al). It is deep, so it is forgiving of large flanges (indeed, my Distler American switchers seem to think little of it). The outer rails are insulated from one another. This allows two locomotives to operate on the same track with different controls, using the center rail as a common. 

With a proper setup, one can run both two rail and three rail locomotives. 

There are problems with current, though. 

Most classic Trix runs on AC. After 1957 or therabouts they began a switch to DC, and later in the 1970's Trix Twin switched to two rail. 

With proper switches, and being forever mindful of what one is doing, it is possible to use both currents. 

I have setup a couple of simple circle tracks so far and am rather impressed with the build of the equipment. There is still so much to learn here, but this might be the best solution for me. 

NewOne "Teakettle" With An Italian Heart

 This actually happened a couple of weeks back, finally getting around to writing about it. The NewOne B&O "Teakettle" 0-4-0T has been remotored, but not with an original. I received a box of motors, and one in particular, a Rivarossi vertical motor, I suspect from their original Indiana Harbor Belt 0-8-0.

The brass mounting strip, which is soldered to the end bell of the motor, was almost a perfect fit, needing just a screw hole refiled and the whole strip itself slightly reshaped. Another concern was the worm gear pitch, but it works well enough, if a bit loud (contrast that to the NewOne Camelback, whose motor assembly purrs). 

The shell had to be slightly reworked, as the motor sits slightly more forward than the original rectangular NewOne motor. To accomplish this, I ground down a portion of the interior just at the joint between the cab and boiler. For now, this is being left open, as it really isn't too obvious. Also, I filed off the rest of the broken pilot and replaced it with a diecast one that was almost the right size, though I had to adjust it a couple of times, as it was shorting out. 

While it is still a bit loud, it runs, and rather well at that. Next, we need to do some painting and couplers, and this model should be ready to go. 

Building A StromBecker Tank Car & A Controversial Choice

 I recently received a StromBecker H0 gauge tank car. This one is for Shell Chemicals, though I'm unsure if there were other variants.

While I feel that the StromBecker hopper car was probably their most complex from a manufacturing standpoint, this one is more complex for the builder. 

As usual, I made sure to scan and take measurements of all the parts before constructing the model. Again, I do this for preservation sake. 

There was some warping of the thinner wooden pieces, which made the construction of the frame a little tricky. There was a constant need to bend the pieces to get them to lay flat, If I make another one or reproduce this, I will probably use the old model airplane method and pin the pieces down to a building board. 

Once I was satisfied with the fit, the frame was painted flat acrylic black. I found that color that best matched the wrap to be Apple Barrel Country Gray. Only the ends of the tank and the dome were painted. The rest would be covered by the wrap. 

When the tank wrap was applied, a problem surfaced that I had worried about. There were slight wrinkles in the very thin wrap, and when it was attached to the wooden core, these wrinkles manifested as large "bubbles". They refused to lay flat. Using a combination of burnishing and slits, I was able to get them to lay flat. In hindsight, I wish I had printed a copy and used that.

The two "valves" on the top of the dome were missing. I hand turned to replacements from what was supposed to have been 1/8" doweling, though I suspect it actually thinner. 

Another problem was that the end "decals" had to have multiple slits and wedges cut out to fit properly. One of these was damaged when I tried to move it, so I simply removed it. They are actually very oversized and probably should be replaced entirely. 

I used Mantua Bettendorf trucks with brass wheels. These provide additional weight. Again, I made a brake wheel from a clothing snap. 

While not perfect, I'm content with the model. Since I have enough information to build another, I probably will, and provide it with a decorative wrap and colors, as the grey Shell Chemicals wrap is rather bland. 

X2F Y?

In other news, I have decided on couplers. 

Good old Paul Mallery NMRA committee designed X2F "hook & horn".

Why, you ask?

Before you lecture me on the benefits of Kadee, yes, I know. It must be remembered that I was in the hobby business, sold hundreds of them, and used them on my previous H0 equipment. 

My reasons for going back to X2F are many, but boil down to two. 

First, I plan on running a lot of vintage equipment, and the old X2F couplers were quite common. At this point, swapping them out is pricey for me. And let's face it, X2F are plentiful and cheap.

And they do work. I've heard some wild claims about their performance, but when my layout is built, it will be small and fairly simple. These will do. 

That's The Way The Plastic Crumbles...

 One of the locomotives I have a real soft spot for is the Marx battery powered 0-4-0. It is a cantankerous beast, yet looks so much like what one would imagine early American made H0 might have looked like if, say, companies like Marx or American Flyer (pre-Gilbert!) had gotten into it earlier. In fact, it is very similar to the Trix Twin 00 scale/H0 gauge "American" 0-4-0 from 1938.

(From the TCA Western Trix page)

By itself, I think it resembles any number of locomotives from the Pennsylvania Railroad, what with its somewhat Belpaire-esque firebox, as witnessed by my conversion of one into an ersatz E6 Atlantic.

I had another one arrive, specifically to have spares, but decided to try and resurrect the little beast.

Things went wrong rapidly. 

It arrived on the heels of some more parts for a planned PRR H8 conversion from a Tyco "Chattanooga Choo Choo" Consolidation. Again, I found myself thinking of how similar the Marx boiler was to the Trix and Pennsylvania Railroad designs, and wondering how easy it would be to simply use those parts. But now I had this new "parts" Marx arrive, so naturally I decided to restore it. To that end, I carefully removed the chassis and wheels. That spare Marx "Green Valley" boiler was the one planned for another project.

Sadly, this was the end result.

Aside from the boiler, all the chassis plastic was remarkably brittle. It crumbled, right down to the gears. I've never seen a hard plastic disintegrate like this. 

In the end, the intact boiler will be used to replace one that is not quite in the best shape on another of my Marx models. However, the Green Valley unit boiler is now facing a future as the one for the Pennsylvania H8 Consolidation project. It's just too close. That, however, is for another time, as I have other projects in queue. 

Repairing A Sad Faced Marx F-Unit

 When I started back into H0 trains, I was picking up parts lots. Over time, I built up enough parts to rebuild a couple of locomotives, including this one. 

This is an early Marx F-7. No headlight, and what can only be described as a "sad" face. There are a number of theories about why Marx and American Flyer/Gilbert H0 F units look so much alike. Some have said that they are actually the same dies, but elsewhere it's been pointed out that there are minor differences. I suspect that Marx either copied Gilbert's design, or rhey used the same die maker. 

Either way, this one was almost complete. There are a couple of steps knocked off, something I need to repair at some point, but my biggest concern was getting the motor running.

As usually happens with these models, the brush holders break in time. Usually, these are made from an insulated board, akin to Bakelite. Sometimes they are made from electrical insulation paperboard. In this case, it was the Bakelite. 

Originally I had planned on using a PET type plastic, but this motor runs very hot, so I looked for other materials. What I ended up using was a thin, sturdy carton board. 

It worked. 

These old Marx diesels have such a great growl when they run. 

Repurposing Gift Cards

Another model that I have in my "to-do" stack is this New One "Teakettle". After the parts that I had purchased to repair it went into restoring that Camelback, I was left without a motor. I decided to use one of my 12 VDC can motors, and to that end purchased a supply of worm gears. 

After much consternation, I managed to get one of those gears hammered onto the motor's shaft, and then came the matter of mounting it. I would have preferred to have made a proper metal motor mount, but I didn't want to waste the matereal just yet, Instead, I decided to simply use E6000 adhesive and bits from a plastic gift card (it was nearby). 

This was meant to be a temporary mount. Even though E6000 is a tough adhesive, it can be removed. 

Which is what is going to have to happen here. 

The motor could not engage the gear properly. I suspected there was a gear pitch problem, and this confirmed it. 

Alas, the only way to repair this locomotive is with the proper motor. Once more, it returns to the repair pile.

Megow Uh-Oh

 While I should be working on things like the bridge and general layout design, I am also wanting to have enough rolling stock ready. A lot of that I want to be vintage. 

I have a real soft spot for 1930's through 1960's craftsman kits, and especially the Megow cars. 

The problem is the cast parts.

In the short time that I bought these two hopper cars, the metal rot has accelerated. The hoppers themselves (the actual chutes) have become brittle but are still usable if glued into place on the undersides, which will stabilize them, while the paint will seal them.

The trucks are another matter. 

As the metal deteriorates it expands as microscopic crystallization occurs. The cross bars have now pushed both sets of trucks horribly out of gauge, by as much as a 1/16".  I could trim these pieces down, but then there is the problem of the sideframes becoming fragile as well. One of the B&O kit's truck had a journal just fall right off.

I know I can cook up a solution, but for now my plan to build either one of these kits will be put on hold.

Finishing The StromBecker Hopper (Mostly) & The Unexpected Restoration

 The long awaited StromBecker hopper has been finished, sans couplers. I have run out of dummy couplers, but I am reaching a point where I need to consider what sort of operational couplers to use. My biggest concern are the radii on my layout, so more than likely truck mounted couplers will need to be considered. As for the trucks on this model, they are an unknown 1940s - 1950s heavy diecast variety, which resemble Megow, though they do actually use what appears to be rubber cushioning for springs. 

As with my other StromBecker builds, I used clothing snaps for the brake wheel. 

Overall, I'm pleased with it. I can't wait to see it on the line.

The Unplanned Camelback

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was unsure what to do with those parts I purchased. I decided to simply reassemble the shell as nest I could, using E6000 with aluminum tabs for the initial assembly before moving on to J-B Weld for the permanent repair. After some sanding/filing/grumbling, I managed to smooth the joint down as best as possible. For some time I wondered if these parts may have come from two different shells, but on closer inspection believe this was just one shell. What has happened is as the parts have aged there has been some warping, as happens with these castings occasionally. I suspect we have reached the end of that... I hope. 

Once I had that done, I decided to just go with rebuilding the Camelback. A previous owner had reversed the motor's position on the mounting strip, and the only way to undo that was to take the motor apart and rotate it 180º around. This resulted in hours of grief, as the bearings and armature were now improperly aligned. I should mention that before this I had reassembled that mounting strip using copper sheet and our friend E6000. 

After getting the motor to run again it was attached to the chassis using E6000 again in addition to the couple of mounting screws remaining. I needed it to be in position as firmly as possible. 

Test fitting the shell revealed another problem - the top of the motor was preventing the shell from going all the way to the chassis. Further inspection revealed the reason - the chassis and steamchest had been modified as well. 

Using J-B Weld SteelStik I fashioned replacement sections, which were filed and sanded into shape as best as possible, based upon pictures of New One Camelback kits. 

With that accomplished, the entire model was reassembled, and for the first time on who knows how long, the little locomotive's motor was run.

Now, we just need to wait for warmer weather to prime the model and prep it for its final paint. 

One final observation. 

Philadelphia & Reading A4 and A5 Camelbacks were actually kind of small. Compared with my other 0-4-0's, this locomotive is not. In fact, it's kind of chunky and not correct in proportions. Measuring it reveals that it is probably 1/80 scale, common for H0j (Japanese H0) than 1/87. This means that if the model were regauged it would probably look right on proper 00 scale track, 19mm. American OO Today, if you're reading this...

Indecision & Decision

 When I sought batches of junk locomotives, I would occasionally find items that had once been of prize importance to me. In previous early H0 plans, one such locomotive was the LifeLike "Teakettle" 0-4-0T. This was actually a plastic version of an even older diecast model imported by Aristo-Craft, manufactured by the Japanese company "New One". 

Some months back, I found a seller who had that latter version, sans motor. They made me a great offer, just a few bucks, for the unpowered locomotive. 
When it arrived, I discovered that the later motor that LifeLike had used would not work in the diecast design. It was set aside while I would occasionally search for the correct parts. 

And lo! The correct motor appeared!

It came with a box of parts, which included another motor and parts to another Aristo-Craft/New One locomotive, their 0-4-0 Camelback switcher, listed as "parts".

Once the boxload of parts arrived, after taking a circuitous route (thanks to Mike Sullivan of Wandering Iron for the great service), I discovered that, in fact, most of the parts to the Camelback were there. 

There was just one problem.

Some previous owner had cleanly cut the boiler shell in half, just behind the front of the cab. I am unsure what they were doing. 

Regardless, the motor needed a little work, but would mostly fit in my Teakettle. I needed to trim a piece off the brass mounting strip, however, but instead of being fastidious I simple bent the piece back and forth until it snapped. 

That was when a problem became apparent. 

The worm gear is mounted further down the shaft on this design, with the end result being it wouldn't sit properly in the Teakettle's frame. Either I had to drill out the well in the frame, or dismount the worm gear and reattach. 

Which presented another problem. 

The Japanese model workers, much like their American and European counterparts at the time, would solder these gears into place. In my experience, the Japanese solder was found to be a higher temperature mostly silver variety. 

Makes for a strong connection, but makes replacement a chore. 

I considered raising the motor's mounting location up a little, perhaps with washers or metal shims. However, this now presented another problem - space. It would be pressed up against the cab roof of the Teakettle, probably resulting in shorts. 

And shorts are bad. 

There was another motor in the parts, also apparently from New One, but it has a universal of sorts. There was a long shaft in the parts and another set of gears, but I think these will be set aside (I really want to know what these parts came from). 

Therefore, planned work on the Teakettle came to a halt.

My attention turned to the Camelback. 

One thing to note about these two locomotives. They used identical motors, these squarish, squat, powerful little Japanese open frame DC motors. This motor was a derivative of a universal ("AC") motor that the Japanese had been using in their H0 gauge models. But Japanese H0 isn't the same as everybody else's H0. Instead of being 1/87, the Japanese models were (and still are) 1/80. 

This is known as HOj. 

If these models had been made to proper H0 (3.5mm = 1'), they'd have been too small. They are actually closer to HOj, and in the case of the Camelback, probably closer to 1/76 - 00 (it could probably be regauged). The Reading Railroads A4 and A5 classes really weren't that big, and this model is oversized, specifically in that cavernous cab.

Yet... it appealed to me.

Using aluminum shim stock to shore the pieces up, I used E6000 silicone glue and reassembled the two parts. Part of me is wondering if these are even from the same casting, as the fit wasn't quite perfect. This is something that calls for J-B Weld, which will be deployed tonight. 

In short, the Teakettle will wait. I'm going to see what we can do with this Camelback. 

More StromBecker H0 Arrives And We Work On The Hopper

The StromBecker hopper kit was long sought after, but not long after it arrived I located four more of their cars at a very good price. 

 Not only did I manage to score another hopper, I also managed to obtain two more boxcars. If you look at the side of the M-K-T double door, near the left end, you'll notice a ding. I'm afraid I did that in my zeal of unwrapping them. Easy fix, though. 

The M-K-T car is sitting on archbar trucks, which would be wrong, and unlike the other two boxcars, these are improperly positioned, being too far from the ends. 

There was also one remaining coupler on the M-K-T boxcar, which was covered in a thick layer of contact cement. After removing it and then soaking it in acetone, I got this. 

Unsure which brand at this point, but it definitely predates Kadee. 

The hopper is carrying a partial load of what appears to be real ground up coal. 

Current plans are for the cars to be restored, and maybe slightly detailed. I have a StromBecker tank car arriving soon, and now we just need the vinegar car and caboose.

Building a StromBecker Hopper

While we await the arrival of the tank car, this is has proven to be the most impressive of StromBecker's freight cars so far. This model really shines, given its simplicity. 

First order of operation was sanding the main frame piece as well as possible. When wood ages, the darker grain sections, which are normally heavier in sap content, grow very hard, and that was definitely the case here. I don't like using power tools for projects like this, so I decided that it was best to simply leave that grain somewhat visible. The rest of the assembly proceeded easily. 

There was one area of concern, and that was the gussets ("RF4 - Crossbearer Arms"). These were attached to the top strips and the center peak of the hopper floor. This left a gap of about 1/16" from the sides. My concern was that this might allow the sides to pinch in a little over time, so I added small filler pieces. Once these had set all of the areas that would be exposed were painted black, leaving sufficient areas for glueing.

Attention was now turned towards the cardboard pieces, the sides and ends. StromBecker had enough foresight to die cut the smaller sections. It would be up to the builder to do the rest of the cutting. The die cut sections came out easily and only needed a modicum of cleanup. 

(Yes, one of my cats was helping)

Next, I used an alcohol ink marker and colored in all the edges and insides of the ends and sides. 

Once these had dried we added them to the frame, ends first, making sure that the tops were level with the wood strips.

Then, the ends were added. It was important to make sure that the edges of at the ends were glued together, which would give us rigid cardboard braces.

Finally, the hopper bay doors were cut out, edges colored, and glued into place.

At this point the hopper's body has been assembled. Now, we have to wait for trucks and couplers to arrive. I want to use heavier metal trucks on this model due to the lack of internal weights. Also, I will probably add a brake wheel. 

For now, it waits.