Tri-ang track

[ian r]

Hi i have a em2 dock shunter and a jinty what is the best tri-ang track to look out for

 

many thanks

ian

[66C]

Hi Ian

 

They will run on current code 100 track without any problems.

If you want vintage track with the coarser rail then you should be looking for Super 4 or Series 3 track. Super 4 has the same geometry as current set-track. Series 3 geometry was different - large radius (2nd) is the same as current set-track at 17.25 inches but small (1st) radius was 13.5 inches and so track centres were wider. A single length of straight track was 7.25 inches long. Single curves were 30 degree arcs. Series 3 track had widely spaced, black plastic sleepers that were much shorter than scale length.

Another alternative from the mid 1950s is Standard track. This had the same geometry as Series 3 but had a grey ballast style mounded base - if you go for this be aware the the early Standard track was single ended!

 

Regards.

[Hroth]

Two more points.

 

The grey Standard track also suffers from warping issues, even with the later "double ended" track and requires a couple of good stout round-headed woodscrews* to seat it firmly level on the baseboard.  Also, while modern Code 100 plain track is mostly fine with Triang wheel standards (there can be problems with deep flanges riding on the moulded rail chairs), points can be problematic as frogs seem to be shallower and the gap between guard rails and running rails is often insufficient to pass a Triang flange.  The "Princess Elizabeth" from my R0 trainset hurdles over modern Hornby points most entertainingly, but it isn't exactly smooth running!

 

Another thing to bear in mind is that if you want to get the benefits of Magnadhesion, Code 100 nickel-silver track doesn't work. You'll need to find steel-railed Series 6 track if you want a more modern appearance to your layout, otherwise if you don't want a 50s look, then the best bet is to look for Super 4.

 

* I seem to remember that Triang recommended 3/4" gauge 3 woodscrews to secure Standard track.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Hroth

[Il Grifone]

Hi ian and welcome to RMweb!

 

Another thing to watch out for is that the early Standard track was made from cellulose acetate* and is invariably warped and useless. It is also difficult to find any items that are free of rust. (Brute force will hold it down but strained track is not conducive to good running.)

 

Personally I would avoid Tri-ang track and go for something newer, but Super 4 is probably the best bet, if you really want Tri-ang.

 

* The first was Rovex and single ended followed by the double-ended 'Universal'. This was the same as the later track, but individual units had different lengths. From around 1956 they switched to using polystyrene.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[ian r]

Hi thank you for taking time to reply i think i will try a supa 4 point and a section of track as the main problem is the flange ridding over the points or getting stuck

 

many thanks

ian 

[Jamie Douglas]

It really depends on what size of layout you want. Super 4 will be good for whatever but Standard/Universal is probably best for smaller train-set type set ups due to the smaller rail size and consequential voltage drop problems. Visually Super 4 has it if you ignore the rail height. The sleeper spacings are better IMO than much of what is available RTR today. The points are also second radius and so most modern stock "should" be able to run through them.

 

Standard has a nice retro feel to it but needs to stick in the main to stock of the period as the points here are slightly smaller than modern first radius. Care as others said needs to be taken about the Acetate earlier track. Even bolting it hard down with wood screws may not be a solution as the gauge also tightens as it warps to 16mm or even less. I would only ever use the very short pieces of Acetate and even then only after careful checking.

 

That said all the fancy stuff required is available,automatic uncouplers, isolating rails,electric points and the Series 3 power clips can be used to provide power wherever required. If buying Standard though care is needed. Run a track gauge through each rail before buying and reject any failures. If the rails lay true on a flat surface is a good indicator of good track and large radius curves only ever seem to have been made in Polystyrene.

 

There are other indicators, removable tabs for instance and underside locating bars running the full width of the rail but of course you then get full nostalgia. I also run Tri-ang demonstation setups at occasional shows and a friend does many more. We always use Super 4 for these and the reliability is not in question though fishplates need to be kept clean.

 

I have been running Tri-ang since Christmas 1953 and cannot see me stopping now. Best of luck and have fun. It is what Tri-ang does best.

 

Best wishes

Jamie

 

[GoingUnderground]

Triang and Triang Hornby will be fine on Standard, Series 3, or Super 4 track, as they were designed for the wheel flanges of the time. System 6 seems to be the same as Code 100, but as has been said, the wheel flanges are too coarse to use with modern Code 100 track. I don't know if that also applies to System 6 track when it was first introduced in '69, or was it 1970?

[russ p]

Going slightly off topic how come there was no ' five' in the numbering owas it something that didn't get to production. So it went from super 4 to system 6

[GoingUnderground]

Going slightly off topic how come there was no ' five' in the numbering owas it something that didn't get to production. So it went from super 4 to system 6

Pat Hammond's History of Rovex suggests that "5" may have been the originally intended name, but the alliteration "System 6" probably sounded better for marketing purposes.

 

Incidentally. Super 4 track geometry is still folowed by modern Hornby track and by Peco Setrack

Edited July 1, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[russ p]

Am I right in thinking super 4 was 1964 and system 6 was 1970?

I remember getting a TPO set as birthday present about 71/72 and my dad having to alter it as it was for super 4 and I had system 6. It must have sat in the shop for a while

[28XX]

Although the rail height is very much over scale, the sleeper spacing of Super 4 is actually nearer to scale than System 6 or Peco Setrack or Streamline.

[GoingUnderground]

Am I right in thinking super 4 was 1964 and system 6 was 1970?

I remember getting a TPO set as birthday present about 71/72 and my dad having to alter it as it was for super 4 and I had system 6. It must have sat in the shop for a while

Super 4 first appeared in the 8th edition catalogue, which I think was 1962.

 

System 6 made its debut in the 16th edition/1970 catalogue.

 

For the sake of completeness, Series 3 was introduced in 1958, first appearing in the 4th edition catalogue.

Edited July 1, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[Il Grifone]

Going slightly off topic how come there was no ' five' in the numbering owas it something that didn't get to production. So it went from super 4 to system 6

 

I have seen it suggested that 5 was to be the Hornby Dublo 2 rail track acquired in the takeover, but in the end it was just cleared out.

 

Whether this is true or not I have no idea, but a few Dublo items did appear in the Tri-ang range.

[russ p]

Super 4 first appeared in the 8th edition catalogue, which I think was 1962.

System 6 made its debut in the 16th edition/1970 catalogue.

For the sake of completeness, Series 3 was introduced in 1958, first appearing in the 4th edition catalogue.

I didn't realise super 4 was so early, series 3 wasn't produced for long

[GoingUnderground]

Hammond says that some System 6 items appeared on stocktaking sheets prior to its introduction as "5". So it is doubtful that the Dublo 2 rail track would have been "5".

 

The ex-Dublo items that appeared in the May 1965 merger catalogue, and the 12th edition 1966 catalogue were the more expensive items, i.e. locos and station buildings which supplemented the existing Triang range.

 

A converter track to join Dublo 2 rail track to Super 4 was introduced in 1965, and reappeared in 1970 with System 6 to join Super 4 to System 6. I use them to connect Super 4 to Peco Streamline Code 100 track.

Edited July 1, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[GoingUnderground]

I didn't realise super 4 was so early, series 3 wasn't produced for long

Accordimg to Hammond, Series 3 was introduced to counter Trix's introduction of cheaper fibre based track in 1957. Series 3 had the same geometry as Standard track.

 

Super 4 was Triang's response to Dublo's 2 rail track, which looked more realistic than Series 3. Super 4 geometry was new, the only things it shared with Series 3 was the size of yje rail, the radius of 2nd radius curves, the placing of the fishplate on one rail, and the way you could clip items to the track. However, clip fit items for Super 4 would fit Series 3, but not the other way round, e.g. Catenary mast bases. Series 3 can be connected to Super 4 without a converter track, but you can't mix Series 3 and Super 4 points and diamond crossings because of the geometry diffetences.

Edited July 1, 2017 by GoingUnderground