Triang 0-4-0 and 4W motor bogie - improving running

[Il Grifone]

The Hornby black plastic X.03/4* worm S.9575 is single start and its matching grey gear X.1145 has 28 teeth giving obviously a 28:1 ratio. The early brass gear is twin start and its gear has 40 teeth giving 20:1 (the 'Nellie' type are 30 tooth giving 15:1) which accounts for the bat out of hell performance of Tri-ang mechanisms. I'm gradually replacing all my Tri-ang mechanisms with the later gears (and the Hornby 15 spoke wheelsets X.1022/3/4 where appropriate**). I'm not keen on nylon gears, but the improved performance makes up for my prejudice. They are chunky enough to survive I feel.

To facilitate this operation, I've bought a gear puller from the Far East  (They've even reduced the price - I paid £4.69!)  https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Motor-Pinion-Gear-Puller-Remover-Tools-Set-For-Rc-Helicopter-Motor-Pinion-P-G3W7/254437584091?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649

 

*I thought the difference between an X.03 and an X.04 was this gear, but it appears it's oil retaining bearings on the X.03. Confusingly they reused the X.03 part number, which originally  was the motor fitted to the early Princesses which required the dismantling of the whole chassis to replace the motor.

** They are only correct for the 3F 0-6-0T , but it takes close inspection to tell the difference between 14 (8750 etc.) and 15 and 15 and 16 (2721 etc.). In any case the lighter appearance of the wheels improves matters considerably. I can't understand the past enthusiasm for too many wheel spokes and too many sleepers. Why use more material than you have too?

 

I've drifted a bit from motor bogies and I trust all this is correct - it's from memory.  

[Nearholmer]

I've re-titled this thread, which has fulfilled its original purpose and moved-off into other, equally useful, territory.

 

I've consulted with Mr Markits, who advises me that he can supply new axles and wheels for a Nellie, but that the best way to tackle the gear/motor is to transfer the gear from the old axle to the new, which is knurled to accept it.

 

Which leaves the motor question.

 

I'm toying with the idea of fitting a neo magnet ........ anyone have experience of how this alters the motor characteristic?

 

Alternatively, are there any currently available drop-in replacements for the X04? I know about Romford Bulldogs and MW005, but I don't think it has been possible to buy them new for c30 years.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

8 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

*I thought the difference between an X.03 and an X.04 was this gear, but it appears it's oil retaining bearings on the X.03. Confusingly they reused the X.03 part number, which originally  was the motor fitted to the early Princesses which required the dismantling of the whole chassis to replace the motor.

 

 

I've drifted a bit from motor bogies and I trust all this is correct - it's from memory.  

 

The, as I call it, New Type X.03 motor is specifically the one without oil retaining pads, a shorter than original X.04 armature shaft ( the same length as the Scalextric version it seems), and the black plastic single start worm.

 

There are late X.04 motors, which have no oil pads, the shorter shaft, but with the brass two start worm. The worm is put on "backwards", as there is insufficient length of shaft to allow the taper to engage properly.

 

There are also "intermediate" X.04 motors, with, I think, the oil pads, shorter shaft, and reverse fitted brass worm...or it could be the standard length shaft, brass worm on the taper, and no oil pads!

 

The original 1950s X.03 motor was a removable motor, and is basically the same as the later X.04, except that it did not have oil retaining felt pads. Some have a plain rear bearing, as part of the brass rear plate.

On some motors, the plate retaining the front bearing is mounted at 90 degrees from the later X.04 standard, so that the solid sides are top and bottom, with the opening to the sides, rather than the opening being at the top and bottom.

 

Tri-ang Railways realised that if the motor was duff when the assembled Locomotive was tested, the Locomotive had to be totally disassembled to replace the motor.

 

The locating slots were changed to be open ended, with a rear motor fixing screw through a tab on the rear of the motor frame.

(Interestingly, there was only one part made, the "bottom" plate with the tab. To make the "top" plates, the locating tab is actually cut off. The scar from this is visible on the top plates!)

 

The motor front plate has two lugs that engage in the open ended slots in the chassis.

 

Replacing duff motors was now a simple operation!

 

To confuse things, the felt pads on the X.04 were at first only fitted to the front bearing.

 

The X.01 is the original motor design, with the disc commutator, used in the first Princess models, and is located by tabs that engage in slots in the side frames. The frames have to be taken apart to release the motor.

 

I think that the X.02 was the same, but with a drum commutator, the same as used in the later motors.

 

 

(Also from memory, so this will need checking...my reference library not available at the moment!)

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Sarahagain
extras

[Il Grifone]

I've never noticed the 'scar', but the X.04 to hand has it! I would have thought that it would have been easier to make two stamps rather than cut them off.

The gear being the wrong way round would explain the struggle I had with one. A large file solved the problem in the end....

Edited January 25, 2020 by Il Grifone

[Ruffnut Thorston]

As part of the collection of spares that we have inherited from retired Service Dealers, there was a large box of assorted X series motors.

 

If a loco came in for repair, and the motor was suspect, a new motor was fitted and the original put into the box, "for spares".

 

We have spent some time going through the motors, and sorting them into various catagories...

 

Working.

One dead sector ( runs if turned over past the dead sector).

Dead...no life when power applied.

 

This has led to a lot of discoveries about the X series motors!

 

The motors cover a wide date range!

 

 

[Il Grifone]

X.03/4 motors are prone to dry joints between the windings and the commutator. These are usually fairly easy to repair, but ideally you need a good soldering iron and better eyesight than mine (advancing years   ).

The insulating material of the commutator can catch fire (probably due to excess oil) and results in a short to the frame. I have managed to clean a couple, but time will tell if the repair is successful or not.

There should be a reading of around 10 ohms between adjacent segments. A reading of about twice this indicates an open circuit - a dry joint if you're lucky, a broken winding if you're not. Unlike Dublo motors which are 'star' wound, these are 'delta' wound and thus there are two soldered joints per commutator segment (and thus twice the chance of a dry joint).

Weak magnets are uncommon in my experience (again unlike Dublo), but I've had success with attaching a couple of 6mm cube neodymium magnets

to the original magnet.

I've just restored one of the original motor bogies with an X.04 motor to life (new brushes and insulated mounting plate). It now needs two new spur gears as they've stripped their teeth and fail to mesh correctly. I can't imagine how that could have happened. 

[halfwit]

As it happens I have a Dock Shunter heading for my workbench which I intend to re-wheel. Mine is from the early seventies and has plastic gears on the axles. I would like to keep the original axles intact, so I'll be making up new axles. So, are those plastic gears available seperately?

[Ruffnut Thorston]

The original Tri-ang Railways Service Sheet 12b has the gear wheel as part S.2016.

 

 

 

This is the same part number as the gear wheel on the 0-4-0 Tank Locomotives, "Nellie", etc.

 

 

These are the brass version, but the teeth are the same on the black plastic, or nylon, gear wheels.

 

There should be sources out there...

[Nearholmer]

That is a very valuable posting; thank you.

 

The big difference in performance Nellie vs Dock Shunter must be down purely to the wheel diameter, which causes the DS motor to be at "above cogging" RPM at shunting speed, so ............ what if one were to fit DS wheels to a Nellie?

 

The original C14 were 2-2-0T, and couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, so any resultant lack of tractive effort due to lack of coupling rods would be entirely prototypical!

[halfwit]

Thank you Sarah.

So it seems that the worm gear was shared amongst several designs, which does make sense. Now to track a couple down.

[Nearholmer]

There might be an oddity, though.

 

I had a look at my late-made DS, and on one axle only, there appears to be a collar/stop, at the end of the knurling, against which the plastic gear rests.

 

Its either a manufacturing defect, where the axle hasn't been turned properly, or a deliberate design change to prevent the gear being pushed too far along the axle when it was fitted.

 

Train-spottery level of detail, or what?!

[Ruffnut Thorston]

As it's only on one axle, it could indeed be a defect.

 

It looks like I'm not the only one to stare at train parts, and notice small differences!

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Some more Service Sheets.

 

Dock Shunter, etc.

 

 

 

"Nellie" etc...

 

 

Note change of part number for gear wheel. As it is for the X.04 motor, it is the black plastic or nylon gear wheel 26 teeth, part number...S.8042. A later part reference, SS 82A,  is R253-0020...The dock shunter is R.253.

 

This suggests that the plastic small gear wheel was first used for the Dock Shunter...or the fact that the small gear wheel was first used on the T.C. motor bogie...which was used for the Dock Shunter...

 

 

Note the different worm and gear in use with this can motor...Single Start Worm and 18 teeth Gear Wheel S.9571, and note about older chassis top right...

 

I wonder if the New Type X.03 motor, with the black plastic or nylon single start worm would work with the 18 teeth gear?

 

A better gearing should result?

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Sarahagain
notes added...

[Il Grifone]

I had got hold of the idea* that the 0-4-0T chassis used a 30 tooth gear giving 15:1. 26 teeth would give 13:1, which  accounts for Nellie's extreme alacrity. A quick calculation allowing 15,000 rpm for the X.04 motor (quoted 20,000 but that would be off load) gives about 165 mph! The same calculation for the 0-6-0 chassis gives only 125 mph!

 

* Can't think where! 

[halfwit]

Another question if I may, do the Dock Shunter and Tri-ang DMU power bogies share the same armature?

 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Service Sheets for the EMU R.156, DMU R.157, and Blue Pullman, R.555, Motor Bogies.

 

 

 

 

 

The DMU armature is part no. X.112, the same as for the TC Motor Bogie.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Sarahagain
more added...

[halfwit]

Thank you again Sarah.

It looks like the armatures are the same across all the motor bogies, which is handy as I have an old DMU motor bogie that I acquired for its gears, which now might end up donating its armature to the Dock Shunter sat in front of me.

[halfwit]

I have now finished re-wheeling one of my Dock Shunters. Here's a blog post describing the job, its too long  to cut & paste here so a link will have to suffice.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Nice job.

 

It does help having the right tools!

 

The mismatch in the original wheels would be down to someone tampering with the loco in the past.

 

The knurled wheels were intended to give a better grip on the rails.

 

This pre dated traction magnets, Magnahesion.

 

The smooth wheels with the plastic gear were a later version.

 

Most of the "extra" wire is TV interference suppression components.

 

There is an in line choke, and the little square thing is a capacitor, which was wired across the power and return sides of the wiring.

 

 

[laurenceb]

There is (was) a film on u tube of someone swaping the wheels on these bogies keeping one knurled wheelset to act as a track cleaner ?!

[Il Grifone]

From what I remember the knurled wheels failed to increase traction and soon clogged up with crud. They are also noisy. Mine all have smooth wheels....

[halfwit]

Thank you Sarah. Yes, having a lathe is very useful, even if all it does is free you from searching around for the right size bearings and bushes etc.

 

I can't imagine that knurled wheels would be of any use for cleaning track, quite the opposite perhaps if they slip and scratch the surface, smoother track being more conductive (micro-scratches can fill with dirt).

 

My first DS, which I've had since I was about 5 or 6, has smooth wheels but will be fitted with Romfords at some stage,

[kevinlms]

On 05/04/2020 at 17:26, Il Grifone said:

From what I remember the knurled wheels failed to increase traction and soon clogged up with crud. They are also noisy. Mine all have smooth wheels....

Has anyone tried a knurled wheel vs. plain wheels to see if any different? Presumably Tri-ang tested the idea and went down that path for a reason.

[Nearholmer]

9 hours ago, kevinlms said:

went down that path for a reason.

Temporary insanity is about the only good reason I can think of.

 

The idea betrays a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of how electrical conductivity between moving contacts takes place.

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Temporary insanity is about the only good reason I can think of.

 

The idea betrays a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of how electrical conductivity between moving contacts takes place.

Yet they went to an enormous amount of trouble and expense. I've read that those wheelsets are next to impossible to machine flat, so presumably more expensive to make in the first place?

 

But my question related to whether or not, the knurled wheels increased the tractive effort over plain wheels. I've played with a couple and it seems that they did not, only noisy runners!