Jump to content
 

Concrete beam sets


LNERGE
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right - off to have a hack at the TRESTROL bogies - again!

 

Well - a bit of a fiddle, but it worked.

 

The correct, shorter length of the bogies really emphasizes the length of the extended well body.

 

Just a bit of touching up to the paintwork tomorrow, then I'll take and post some photos.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, My enquiries about the date the Concrete beams sets were in Poole has yielded a result, somewhat to my surprise I can now

reveal that the Flyover in Poole was built 1975/6 so the trains must have been either 1974 or more likely 1975.

I am sure this is not of earthshaking importance but is nice to add to my files Regards All adrianbs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Re the tie down shackles.

I collected a set of Wizard "bolster wagon stanchions and shackles" ref ABW from Andrew at the NEC over the weekend to see how they were sizewise for the trestrol, (and other wagons with similar shackles).

These are an etched fret of 8, which regrettably turned out to be too large, but all is not lost, as the conversation I had included the proviso that if they turned out to be incorrect, Andrew would look at manufacturing the correct sized ones if I could provide the details and drawing. So I will be seeing him at Wakefield exhibition this weekend armed with said info, so watch this space.

 

Mike.

 

Mike/all,

 

Ambis Engineering also do similar shackles and turnbolts for wagon loads, in 'big' and 'small' sizes for 4mm. Combined with some fine chain, they do add that finishing touch to loaded bolsters, trestrols and the like.

 

Reading the thread above, my trestrol EC was a simple cut 'n' shut lengthening job. I left the bogies well alone, apart from fitting better buffers (ABS self-contains) and EM gauge 12mm 3-hole discs running in brass bearings. (and we've never had a problem with buffer height when running it on the layout). The trestle was an exercise in plastrut and microstrip!

 

I also wasn't aware that the important bit of Cyclops had been saved... must plan a trip to the ELR, assuming it's accessible/viewable??

 

Cheers,

Edited by CloggyDeux
Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct, shorter length of the bogies really emphasizes the length of the extended well body.

 

Sorry for the low res. - this image size limit is a real pain!

 

 

As promised, a photo of the TRESTROL with shortened bogies.

 

Sorry for the low res. - this image size limit is a real pain!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

post-2274-0-72353000-1386085531_thumb.jpg

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of a close up of the bogie please John.

 

Mike.

 

As requested.

 

Such a cruel close-up highlights the deficiencies of my modelling and painting techniques but, like Tony Wright, I am producing 'layout stock', not museum pieces!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

post-2274-0-66680000-1386149817.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,   Why oh why could Triang  not have done it corresctly !!    If they had done, it could still have been a steady seller today, assuming the tooling had survived..

  The axleboxes are a pretty fair representation fortunately and although perhaps slightly 2 dimensional, partly to disguise the necessary draught angle, stand up

   well against some recent introductions. Get it right first time and the model can be a long term seller and thereby make a profit even if the initial sales are slow.

   Get it wrong and you stand to lose money when people decide, as the years go by, that the model is not worth buying.  This model was never produced in LMS

   or LNER livery as it could have been, nor, apart from the fantasy Battle Space items  was it ever supplied with interesting loads.  It could even have been made

   as a concrete beam carrier  by cutting a copy tool of the end platforms.  Just goes to show that lack of research and background knowledge can deprive

   modellers of useful models over a lifetime long timescale.  These specialist wagon models never sell in huge quantities especially as, in this case, there were

   only 4 built.  They carried their loads all over the country  ( ie  Poole in Dorset for the C/Bs ) so they have an advantage that they are not restricted to one

   area and modellers love oddities.    It is not the prototype I would have chosen but nevertheless it is unlikely that, had they made a more numerous design,

   sales would have been significantly better. The only plus point would have been they would have been able to get it in the same size box without making it

   shorter than scale.   Alas this attitude towards accuracy still prevails and the costs of research are not that high.   If one man band cottage industries can

   do the required research surely the major multinationals could do even better  and even smalle RTR firms can match that level.

            Still, no point in crying over this spilt milk, there's always another bottle just toppling over and a whole crate full waiting to do the same.

                            Regards    adrianbs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,   Why oh why could Triang  not have done it corresctly !!    

 

To be fair to Tri-ang, it was a very different era. They were still rooted in the train-set era, more so than Hornby Dublo, it seems to me. Anything in their catalogue had to be compatible with the train-set equipment they assumed their customer had started with. So, 13" radius curves, with attendant bogie swing and overhang problems. Looking good alongside 'shortie' coaches. Matching Tri-ang's 'group standard' for buffer height. Etc.

 

Unfortunately, the adjustment method they chose for buffer height was to uniformly stretch the bogie sideframes and detail vertically, as they did also on the R.127 crane wagon and Dean Single, for example. After Battle Space was introduced, the floor of this wagon was modified by turning a section of the moulded detail end-to-end, losing a transverse rib.

 

None of this stopped my fascination with R.242 as a toy/model, and I have tucked away probably more than were built full-size! It was the bogie scaling issue that stopped me tarting one up for 'serious' use.

 

The Nim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have uploaded some historic pictures of a conger set in transit mode.  The Congers are on SR bogie bolsters and they are accompanied by an ex Maunsell third acting as a mess and tool van.  They had been used to deliver the girders for an overbridge that carried the Brighton - Lewes line over the A25 by-pass at Lewes.  The pictures were taken near the Dyke Road bridge just outside Brighton Station.

Conger Set - Congers on Flat

Conger Set - Staff and Tool Van

lewes bypass bridge

Edited by The Bigbee Line
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have uploaded some historic pictures of a conger set in transit mode.  The Congers are on SR bogie bolsters and they are accompanied by an ex Maunsell third acting as a mess and tool van.  They had been used to deliver the girders for an overbridge that carried the Brighton - Lewes line over the A25 by-pass at Lewes.  The pictures were taken near the Dyke Road bridge just outside Brighton Station.

Very nice, I hadn't heard of them being carried on SR Bogie bolsters. What date is this please?

 

Regards

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice, I hadn't heard of them being carried on SR Bogie bolsters. What date is this please?

 

Regards

 

Paul

Paul,

 

It's just after the bridge girders were positioned on the Lewes Southern Bypass, suspect about 1976ish.

 

I've tried to get the date from the internet by without success,

 

Regards,

 

Ernie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice, I hadn't heard of them being carried on SR Bogie bolsters. What date is this please?

 

Regards

 

Paul

You just reminded me of a Conger sighting in the middle of the night at Doncaster: a search through some old notebooks, and I found a cryptic note "plate E292775 with Conger underframe" in June 81. Was that their more normal transport? I see you've some Congers on SPAs in your collection.

PS I could have had the plate number wrong, as it was too dark to see a number on the Conger, let alone try a photo.

PS2: why on earth do we remember stuff like this?!

Edited by eastwestdivide
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh, nice, and in colour, I'd always assumed the steel bridges were grey, not a rather odd pink!

 

Jon

 

You should have seen the pink Brush Type 4's (Class 47s) on test down the Midland Mainline in the 1960s !!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, nice, and in colour, I'd always assumed the steel bridges were grey, not a rather odd pink!

 

Jon

I do wonder if those are bridge girders, or part of a large gantry crane- the sloping bit at the ends is a bit odd for a bridge. From what I remember of steel fabrications, they used to be cleaned/shot-blasted in the fabrication shop, then given a couple of coats of whatever primer was specified (red lead or aluminium oxide). Final painting, often with something called 'micaceous iron' paint (dark grey, with shiny flakes) would be done after installation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 years later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...