Was this engine based on a real locomotive.

[kevinlms]

On 23/06/2020 at 00:46, Il Grifone said:

. Why they numbered her 748 I have never been able to fathom.

 

 

Probably for some silly reason, such as the model designers phone number!

 

These two red locos had numbers on them representing the Hornby sales & repair phone numbers.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_details.asp?itemid=54

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=229

 

Not sure which way round, but I remember reading that was the reason for the numbers.

 

Not really practical on direct dialling with area codes!

[PatB]

So what happens if you ring Margate 47606?

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

 

Not really practical on direct dialling with area codes!

You might be able to do part STD numbers with TOPs.

 

To refer back to the original subject, and divert it OT a little, is there an identifiable prototype for the Triang Dock Authority shunter/yard switcher?  Recently got one of these to use as a colliery shunter, and it's scrubbed up not too bad.  Of course the gearing is far too high and it can break the sound barrier, but I can control it to a decent low speed.  It'll pull a house down with the knurled steel wheels!  It is noticeably wider at the running plate level than my other locos, by about 1mm each side, within loading gauge.

 

It has IMHO a generally sort of British 1950s industrial look, there are elements of Rustons, Barclays, and North British about it.

[rockershovel]

From recollection, the Dock Shunter was a small diesel type body mounted onto the power bogie from the Transcontinental series. Given the wide loading gauge and the working headlight, I’ve occasionally wondered if it was intended originally to be part of the Transcontinental range but never quite made it? 

[Il Grifone]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

From recollection, the Dock Shunter was a small diesel type body mounted onto the power bogie from the Transcontinental series. Given the wide loading gauge and the working headlight, I’ve occasionally wondered if it was intended originally to be part of the Transcontinental range but never quite made it? 

 

There is a Transcontinental version. It's just the same as the others apart from being yellow with TC transfers and lacking buffers.

It's quite a beefy device and goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. A prototype does not exist AFAIK.

 

The usual North American small shunter is a Plymouth. The models are invariably grossly out of scale (The real thing is relatively small).

[PatB]

There's a touch of Bagnall about the nose shape of the little Dock Shunter, but, overall, I'm pretty sure any prototype came from the works of that little documented but prolific manufacturer of small locomotives, Generic . 

[Blackthorn]

On 22/06/2020 at 10:46, Il Grifone said:

It was Tri-ang's solution to replacing the ex Trackmaster clockwork N2 (can't have anything with a zinc alloy body...). Why it had to be hugely out of scale when the N2 wasn't is lost in Margate's archives! The choice was between this and their dreadful diesel shunter* - no contest! I would have thought she was not worth converting to P4. The errors in the model are considerably worse than a couple of millimetres in the track gauge. Why they numbered her 748 I have never been able to fathom.

 

One is on the Grifone 'to do' list. I don't think I have enough years left (especially considering it seems to get longer and longer...). It would help if SWMBO and daughter didn't conspire together to find jobs to do and things to spend money on.

The Sardinian sun looks tempting, but there is a new gazebo to put together. The result of a female safari to Sassari on Saturday. I followed the instructions, which resulted in 3 unmanageable sections to bolt together. A rethink is required

 

* This remains my choice for Tri-ang's (everyone's?) worst ever model. It even beats their 'Princess'.

Hey, I still have my Tri-ang Princess.  It might be awful, but it was my first 'trainset engine'. I wouldn't trade it for the world...

[HonestTom]

I have a feeling the Dock Shunter was based on a Bagnall export model, but I can't find any photos online. However, I understand the chassis was entirely dictated by the availability of a suitable motor bogie. I've always rather liked them, even if they aren't realistic.

EDIT: This one?

 

ANOTHER EDIT: Better view here.

Edited June 26, 2020 by HonestTom

[kevinlms]

16 hours ago, PatB said:

So what happens if you ring Margate 47606?

Most numbers were within reason, not 100% accurate.

[Il Grifone]

16 hours ago, PatB said:

So what happens if you ring Margate 47606?

 

You get a supercilious voice saying the number does not exist!

[Il Grifone]

8 hours ago, Blackthorn said:

Hey, I still have my Tri-ang Princess.  It might be awful, but it was my first 'trainset engine'. I wouldn't trade it for the world...

 

I have two - black and green - and the Trix 'Princess' which I reckon it was copied from. Trying to fit a 00 British Pacific (noted for length) body onto an H0 German chassis has made the result rather short, especially when the tender has been shortened to match.

 

I still have my first Dublo 'Duchess', (though some inferior things which preceded her have gone to the great scrapyard in the sky).

[Blackthorn]

3 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

I have two - black and green - and the Trix 'Princess' which I reckon it was copied from. Trying to fit a 00 British Pacific (noted for length) body onto an H0 German chassis has made the result rather short, especially when the tender has been shortened to match.

 

I still have my first Dublo 'Duchess', (though some inferior things which preceded her have gone to the great scrapyard in the sky).

I've never found one in green....There was supposed to be the Great British Train Show this year where I was going to look, but like everything else was cancelled.....

 

Hopefully it will be re scheduled for 2021, as its usually every other year and I missed the 2018 show!!

 

Mark. 

[Il Grifone]

Tri-ang* 'Princesses' originally were black with simplified motion and green with Walschaerts gear (or at least part of it and laid out so one side goes forward and the other backwards - but never mind!). Both were 46201. Later on they brought out a maroon version and they all acquired different names. Since the bodies and chassis are basically the same, hybrids are possible/likely.

 

* The Rovex version was only in black, but their initial rarity and cellulose acetate plastic has ensured that there aren't many around today.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, HonestTom said:

I have a feeling the Dock Shunter was based on a Bagnall export model, but I can't find any photos online. However, I understand the chassis was entirely dictated by the availability of a suitable motor bogie. I've always rather liked them, even if they aren't realistic.

EDIT: This one?

 

ANOTHER EDIT: Better view here.

Many thanks Honest Tom!  The Bagnall’s nose is spot on, and the sides not far out but of course Cyclops (her nameplates arrived this morning) has more doors, and until I source a jackshaft drive chassis for her, is of necessity a de or dh. Her headlight still works!  She’s a Bagnall for my purposes from now on; I may remodel the deltic windows at some point.  She goes like a stabbed rat on acid, but will run slowly driven with care!  
 

I’ll have nowt said against Rovex Black Princesses, my first train set and the loco that proved that 2-rail 00 was viable, the progenitor of all 4mm RTR locos.  Perhaps a better prototype could have been chosen; SpamCans were in existence in 1949, and Triang eventually cottoned; the choice of the very long Princess Royal class is strange, though in proportion with the (dire) 6” alleged LMS coaches.  The next choice, the Jinty, was inspired!

[PatB]

There was a thread a while back about using a Dapol Terrier chassis as the basis for a jackshaft drive 0-4-0 by removing the rear axle and hiding the resulting free ends of the coupling rods behind cab steps. Looked very effective, and much cheaper and easier than a scratchbuild or etched kit solution. 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

Tri-ang* 'Princesses' originally were black with simplified motion and green with Walschaerts gear (or at least part of it and laid out so one side goes forward and the other backwards - but never mind!). Both were 46201. Later on they brought out a maroon version and they all acquired different names. Since the bodies and chassis are basically the same, hybrids are possible/likely.

 

* The Rovex version was only in black, but their initial rarity and cellulose acetate plastic has ensured that there aren't many around today.

 

You interest me strangely? How does that work? How is it evident? 

[rockershovel]

19 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

There is a Transcontinental version. It's just the same as the others apart from being yellow with TC transfers and lacking buffers.

It's quite a beefy device and goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. A prototype does not exist AFAIK.

 

The usual North American small shunter is a Plymouth. The models are invariably grossly out of scale (The real thing is relatively small).

 

That doesn’t surprise me. 

[Il Grifone]

16 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

You interest me strangely? How does that work? How is it evident? 

 

I take it you intend my comment on the valve gear.

Since the return crank has only one possible position on a Tri-ang (and Hornby*) wheel it faces forwards (as usual on the prototype) on one side and backwards on the other (without alterations to the cylinders (inside/outside admission) this would result in the locomotive running in reverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

 

*Incorrectly positioned return cranks are still a feature of R-T-R today (not just Hornby). It must be my engineering background that causes it to annoy me intensely. Hornby Dublo always got it right.

[PatB]

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

 

I take it you intend my comment on the valve gear.

Since the return crank has only one possible position on a Tri-ang (and Hornby*) wheel it faces forwards (as usual on the prototype) on one side and backwards on the other (without alterations to the cylinders (inside/outside admission) this would result in the locomotive running in reverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

 

*Incorrectly positioned return cranks are still a feature of R-T-R today (not just Hornby). It must be my engineering background that causes it to annoy me intensely. Hornby Dublo always got it right.

Whereas, in spite of knowing a little (only a little) about how valve gear works, it bothers me not a bit, as long as there are a satisfactory number of twiddly bits waggling around below the running plate to give that "busy" appearance. 

 

The contrast between the two, though, does reinforce my belief that Meccano acted like an engineering company who happened to make toys, whilst Triang were a toy company who happened to make trains. 

[cypherman]

22 hours ago, Blackthorn said:

I've never found one in green....There was supposed to be the Great British Train Show this year where I was going to look, but like everything else was cancelled.....

 

Hopefully it will be re scheduled for 2021, as its usually every other year and I missed the 2018 show!!

 

Mark. 

Hi Blackthorn.

There is at least one green Princess for sale on Ebay at the moment with full valve gear.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TRIANG-LOCO-TENDER-PRINCESS-ELIZABETH-46201-433/184336258983?hash=item2aeb4c17a7:g:QqMAAOSwCf9e73EH

[Fat Controller]

On 26/06/2020 at 09:13, HonestTom said:

I have a feeling the Dock Shunter was based on a Bagnall export model, but I can't find any photos online. However, I understand the chassis was entirely dictated by the availability of a suitable motor bogie. I've always rather liked them, even if they aren't realistic.

EDIT: This one?

 

ANOTHER EDIT: Better view here.

There were (possibly still are) some Brush/ Bagnall 0-4-0s at the former Steel Company of Wales plant at Port Talbot:-

https://www.philt.org.uk/Industrial/PT/i-w8QjW4x

[rockershovel]

Drawing together a number of points above...

 

Lionel and American Flyer both produced viable models pre-WW2, in American OO (1:76, 19mm Gauge) and HO respectively. Both used the later Tri-Ang format of a large locomotive, in an accurate scale length, combined with markedly under-length rolling stock - presumably to allow the advertising point of “scale size” (which Lionel had already used successfully with O Gauge, the “700e scale Hudson” ) with manageable train lengths. 

 

Lionel also used moulded plastic rolling stock, although not the Tri-Ang acetate composition. 

 

Tri-Ang were influenced by Lionel and had some designs leased, or derived  from them - notably the “giraffe car” and later “Battlespace” series (and why not? Lionel were a market leader at the time, and currency restrictions and exchange rates  prevented them exporting effectively to countries using sterling). 

 

So I’d regard the Rovex “Princess” as essentially a derivative of the Lionel “Scale Hudson”, for a market in which O Gauge was not likely to succeed, for historic reasons.

 

 

Regarding valve gear, here’s the 1990 Lionel Hudson - just about the last model which derives directly from the 1938 design, before the complete redesign of the “offshore production, electronic features” era. This is Baker valve gear, but if I understand the previous comments (I’m also an engineer, but my experience doesn’t extend to steam locos) it is “back to front” on one side? Lionel were very much “a toy company which happened to make trains” and also long-habituated to the somewhat elastic US notions of advertising, so doing something like that for production engineering reasons would be entirely in character. 

 

[Il Grifone]

Baker valve differs from Walschaerts mainly in only having rotating rather than sliding surfaces. however in the case of the Lionel Hudson (like/want*...),the valve gear is almost totally inoperative due to the returh=n** crank being inline with the wheel crank ( did say Hornby weren't alone).

I gather Tri-ang had some arrangement with Lionel as regards gimmicks etc.

 

The U.S. is not alone in "somewhat elastic notions of advertising".  

 

 

* I have a Rivarossi one (needs a tender) and the Kitmaster and Revell/Monogram (this claims to be ATSF but fails!) plastic kits.

 

** This is the fault of Kira the kitten    walking over the keyboard en route to finishing off some chicken.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Il Grifone
talking rubbish - I must check first, I must....

[rockershovel]

That’s an interesting observation about the return crank. There are numerous variations of how Baker valve gear is modelled, and it occurs to me from your observation that the return crank may be inoperative because it is designed that way, having a fixed detail part (reversing rod) joined to it? 

 

Here’s another variant - here, the crank is operating, as is the oiler but the reversing connection is static 

 

 

The valve gear on the Williams Scale Hudson is simply incomplete 

 

 

while the MTH K4S has Walschaerts motion with all moving parts, but a static reverser, as does the Baker gear on the brass Williams Pacific 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by rockershovel

[Steamport Southport]

On 25/06/2020 at 16:35, PatB said:

So what happens if you ring Margate 47606?

 

You get the Jolly Boys Outing....

 

 

 

 

I believe they used 47606 as it was the number quoted in one of the magazines at the time as the "legendary" lined black Jinty.

 

I've never seen any evidence that such a beast existed.

 

47606 was just an ordinary black jinty.

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/rickmansworth_church_street/

 

 

 

Jason