Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

I think that it was a 3F, not a 4F - the 4F came later from Airfix.

 

Regards,

John isherwood.

So it was, on checking. Loco was R251, tender R33.

 

Looking through the numerous eBay postings, this seems to be a “steam-roller wheels” era model with no more modern equivalent?

Edited by rockershovel
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3F tender loco was made for quite a few years initially having the solid driving wheels, then the black iron tyred open spokes until late on in the, 70's getting nickel plated rimmed wheels.

 

Garry

The black 3F tender loco was made until 1965 and the maroon version wasn't made past 1968.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some doubt that the cycling lion version saw the light of day. I certainly don't remember one. The illustration shows no rivets - correct for the prototype but not for the model. The chassis was the same as the Jinty apart from the rear coupling, resulting in underscale driving wheels. some of the class had 4' 11" wheels which would have been better. Incidentally the real 43775 had already been scrapped before the model appeared,

 

http://www.railuk.info/steam/getsteam.php?row_id=8773 

Edited by Il Grifone
Link to post
Share on other sites

In practice the 3F body fits the Jinty chassis as long as you have the old 3F chassis to swap bits off, principally the tender draw bar and fixing screw.

My dad bought me the Red MR livery version in "The Midlander" set circa Christmas 1968 as my first foray into 2 rail after 3 years or so with 3 rail.

 

It used to be frustrating to run as it would go like a bat out of hell or crawl along but was impossible to keep it at a sensible speed, it turned out to be the Triang/ Hornby  "Westminster" controller which changed from half wave to full wave at half speed.  The faster 0-4-0s were better as they remained in the half wave settings at reasonable speed.

 

I haven't run my Triang for a year or tow as my son grew out of building floor layouts when we go on Holiday, but I find the split axle stock will run equally well on Super 4 and on code 100 Peco if you put a small 8BA(?) washer between the wheel halves to ease the Back to Back out a bit or stop it closing up.  Driving wheels are a bit more awkward but the early non see through can be turned down in a drill chuck, or by running the loco against a file or even sandpaper.  The later separate tyre type can be turned down on a mandrel on the lathe, and I am sure there must be a way to turn down the knurled wheel type but I gave up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of mine, I have always liked the 3F and was very happy to get this one, only because it has Mk2 couplings so is from 1958. It was a good ebay deal as also came with a dock shunter also with mk2s.

 

Cant say I have come across others similar, everything here I have seen has mk3 couplers.

 

post-6952-0-21365200-1523887505_thumb.jpg

Edited by TT3
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember petrol being 5/3d a gallon when I passed my bike test (1971). I had a James 250 twin at the time, with a Villiers engine, so I had to use the oil dispenser on the forecourt which cost an extra 6d if memory serves... remember to rock the bike to mix the oil!

 

You were supposed to put the oil in the tank before putting in the petrol! (My granddad apparently used to regularly get this wrong when filling his BSA Bantam...) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were supposed to put the oil in the tank before putting in the petrol! (My granddad apparently used to regularly get this wrong when filling his BSA Bantam...)

 

My first bike was a Fanny-B which smoked like crazy, even by the standards of 1950s strokers. The handbook said 16:1 mix, so no wonder really... after a while I cut it back to 24:1, then 32:1 with no adverse effect and a lot less stink, better oil I suppose. I tried it on a 50:1 mix using a racing oil that a friend of mine used in a Grasstrack Bultaco, the engine noise was pretty terrifying so I went back to 32:1 ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first bike was a Fanny-B which smoked like crazy, even by the standards of 1950s strokers. The handbook said 16:1 mix, so no wonder really... after a while I cut it back to 24:1, then 32:1 with no adverse effect and a lot less stink, better oil I suppose. I tried it on a 50:1 mix using a racing oil that a friend of mine used in a Grasstrack Bultaco, the engine noise was pretty terrifying so I went back to 32:1 ...

Are these Tri-ang bikes? Lol

 

Garry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest spet0114

Are these Tri-ang bikes? Lol

Garry

 

Noisy, use oil to make smoke, go like the clappers...all attributes of Tri-ang locos....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were supposed to put the oil in the tank before putting in the petrol! (My granddad apparently used to regularly get this wrong when filling his BSA Bantam...) 

 

That's not a good idea when the tank is empty, you get almost neat oil in the fuel line. Now that really was difficult to start and smokey - guess how I know!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Tri-ang Railways lives on, with last week's announcement by "Hornby" including the reissue of various items from the Tri-ang Hornby era. This includes the Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge, R.8008, formerly R.264, which judging by the illustrations on the Hornby website, still includes the hoop supports for the Mk2 Tri-ang Railways catenary contact wire.

 

I found it rather useful feature in the 1960s as I put my Series 3 yard of track on it. The yard of track had a fibre base so there was no way to clip-fit the catenary mast bases to it. But laying it on the Suspension Bridge got round that problem as the bridge had its own catenary contact wire supports.

Edited by GoingUnderground
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Further to my previous post about the Triang Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge, there have been various comments about how unrealistic it is as there isn't a railway suspension bridge, or at least not from the Victorian era. But that isn't true.

 

I was channel hopping on Freeview the other night and came across "Impossible Engineering" I think it was, with the story of the building of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.

 

The Brooklyn Bridge is a suspension bridge, but in addition to being a road and foot bridge, it was built with 2 railway (or should that be railroad as we talking US English here) tracks, and also had rails in the roadway for trams, sorry trolleys. Construction started in 1869, and it opened in 1883. It was the first suspension bridge where cables were used, previous suspension bridges, such as the Clifton Bridge, had used chains.

 

The rail tracks were removed in 1944 to create extra lanes for vehicle traffic, and the trams/trolleys went in 1950.

 

But it wasn't the first railway suspension bridge. That honour goes to the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge which opened in 1855 and was used until 1897 by 3 separate railway companies and the track was laid as mixed gauge. It was replaced by the Whirlpool Rapids steel arch bridge due to the increasing weight of trains.

 

The US manufacturer of steel ropes John Augustus Roebling was involved in the completion of the Niagra Falls bridge, but was the originator and designer of the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Both the Niagara Falls and Brooklyn Bridges were combined road and rail bridges.

 

So now there are at least 2 precedents for a railway suspension bridge, and Triang's bridge, rereleased this year by Hornby, should be regarded as quite feasible after all, even if there isn't an actual prototype. 

 

But here's a thought. What about emulating the Niagara Falls and Brooklyn Bridges and turn it into a combined Road/rail bridge, using the deck and suspension hangers but remodelling the towers so it was wide enough to take some Minic Motorway RM910 Road/Rail track, or making it 2 decks, with rail on top and road below, or even vice versa. If you wanted to go "big" include the R.269 extension kit to add an extra tower and span or join 2 of the suspension bridges together. Now that would be a show-stopper on any vintage Triang layout. 

 

With thanks to "Impossible Engineering" and Wikipedia for this enlightening information. I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere on RM Web today, but have repeated it here, this time with some specific Triang related additions.

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

Yes, highly untypical of a railway bridge, but not totally unprototypical.

 

This nice spindly steel one is on an SNCF Metre gauge, and is seriously impressive to ride across. I think it was designed by Gustav Eiffel, and it is classed as an historic monument, being the only one left carrying trains of quite a few on French metre gauge lines. (Photo Wikipedia commons licensed)

 

Lower photo is one that used to carry another metre gauge line, but I think is a cycleway now.

 

EDIT: I got the wrong designer, it was Gisclard, and the poor fellow died along with five others when the train that had been used to load-test the bridge ran away due to brake failure and derailed spectacularly https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gisclard

post-26817-0-80694900-1532514343.jpg

post-26817-0-37176500-1532515041_thumb.png

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my previous post about the Triang Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge, there have been various comments about how unrealistic it is as there isn't a railway suspension bridge, or at least not from the Victorian era. But that isn't true.

 

I was channel hopping on Freeview the other night and came across "Impossible Engineering" I think it was, with the story of the building of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.

 

The Brooklyn Bridge is a suspension bridge, but in addition to being a road and foot bridge, it was built with 2 railway (or should that be railroad as we talking US English here) tracks, and also had rails in the roadway for trams, sorry trolleys. Construction started in 1869, and it opened in 1883. It was the first suspension bridge where cables were used, previous suspension bridges, such as the Clifton Bridge, had used chains.

 

The rail tracks were removed in 1944 to create extra lanes for vehicle traffic, and the trams/trolleys went in 1950.

 

But it wasn't the first railway suspension bridge. That honour goes to the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge which opened in 1855 and was used until 1897 by 3 separate railway companies and the track was laid as mixed gauge. It was replaced by the Whirlpool Rapids steel arch bridge due to the increasing weight of trains.

 

The US manufacturer of steel ropes John Augustus Roebling was involved in the completion of the Niagra Falls bridge, but was the originator and designer of the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Both the Niagara Falls and Brooklyn Bridges were combined road and rail bridges.

 

So now there are at least 2 precedents for a railway suspension bridge, and Triang's bridge, rereleased this year by Hornby, should be regarded as quite feasible after all, even if there isn't an actual prototype. 

 

But here's a thought. What about emulating the Niagara Falls and Brooklyn Bridges and turn it into a combined Road/rail bridge, using the deck and suspension hangers but remodelling the towers so it was wide enough to take some Minic Motorway RM910 Road/Rail track, or making it 2 decks, with rail on top and road below, or even vice versa. If you wanted to go "big" include the R.269 extension kit to add an extra tower and span or join 2 of the suspension bridges together. Now that would be a show-stopper on any vintage Triang layout. 

 

With thanks to "Impossible Engineering" and Wikipedia for this enlightening information. I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere on RM Web today, but have repeated it here, this time with some specific Triang related additions.

 

Combined road / rail bridges - with just a single shared carriageway / rail track - seem to be quite common in New Zealand, if my experience is anything to go by.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This page gives some interesting arguments about the suitability of suspension bridges for rail traffic - https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/435/what-makes-suspension-bridges-unsuitable-for-railways

 

Jim

 

Following the link the Stockton and Darlington railway suspension bridge over the River tees looks suspiciously like the Triang Hornby suspension bridge . I wonder if that's where the inspiration came from

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...