Jump to content
 

Triang track, turnouts and motors for a retro layout


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon all,

 

I'm fishing around for potential candidates for track and locomotives for a low cost, stylised retro layout. I had considered HD but I feel that the stock I particularly would like (i.e. SR) is a little out of my reach. I'm considering Triang TT if I can establish the running characteristics and some potentially suitable locomotives for suburban workings - but also have considered Triang 00 and that is the subject of this post.

 

Locomotive and stock wise, I think I'm sorted - with even the individual sections of the SR and BR(S) fully represented - and so I'm considering track. I'm mostly looking at earlier Triang track, with wider sleeper spacings and seems that Super 4 is the best choice. The basic form of the layout requires half a dozen turnouts, and I would like them to be actuated from a central lever frame. It seems that Series 3 and Super 4 turnouts are available by the bushel on eBay, but motorised versions are more rare, and expensive. I see there are multiple versions of each, is the following correct:

 

  • R 101 & 2 - Manual, Series 2
  • R 291 & 2 - Manual, Series 3
  • R 490 & 1 - Manual, Super 4
  • R663 - Motor for Super 4 and Series 6?
  • X156/157 - Motor for Series 3?

 

I don't mind manually actuating the turnouts initially and retro-fitting the motors later, but want to ensure what I buy ends up being compatible with each other in the long run. I would also like to know if other point motors are compatible?

 

Should I be able to run Hornby Dublo on Super 4 track (I'm assuming yes)?

Should I expect to be able to run trains slowly (not at a crawl, neccesarily)  over Super 4 turnouts without stalling frequently?

I'm not 100% clear on the difference between Series 3 and Super 4 :(

 

Thank you!

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Series 3 and 4 are very different. Series 3 has black sleepers spread a long way apart. Series 4 has brown sleepers to HO spacing.

 

Running through the turnouts other than at high speed was always problematic. If this is just for an expo layout, probably best to cheat: just have the points in a fixed position and add some metal strip for conductivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph_Pestell I am not really interested in scale modelling for this particular experiment. I also went down the route of joining the 3mm Society a while back but found it rather barren. Looking through there catalogue there are no conversion parts for existing chassis, only kits for the H1, Mogul, etc. which I'm sure are great, but the main thrust of this is no/very simple modelling.

 

Thank you for the clarification on the Series 3 track - I guess in that case that's what I'm after, with the wider sleeper spacings. The layout isn't an expo - it's in theory the kernel of a modular minories to be operated primarily at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Suggest you have a look at Mr Snooze on YouTube who has a large Super 4 Triang layout . He renovates his track by nickel silver plating most of it .  Good channel, very informative .  Oscar Paisley is another excellent channel , although currently he has a System 6 layout, and seems to be covering that late 70s Hornby period at the moment  . However if you look at history you will find Super 4 layout . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One important difference between Series 3 and Super 4 was that there were separate LH and RH point motors for Series 3, while that for Super 4 was universal (LH, RH & Y) so you wouldn't be stuck looking for a particular handed motor with Super 4.

Edited by BernardTPM
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph_Pestell I am not really interested in scale modelling for this particular experiment. I also went down the route of joining the 3mm Society a while back but found it rather barren. Looking through there catalogue there are no conversion bodies for existing chassis, only kits.

Thank you for the clarification on 3 vs 4. I think the draw for 3 is that it's distinct from the H0 Hornby and Peco that we've had to deal with for decades! Is it possible to use the Gaugemaster/Peco point motors with Series 3 turnouts?

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Super4 has 00 sleepers and spacing (well approximately). It's great advantage over the previous Tri-ang track is that its standard radius is 17¼" (today it's called 2nd radius) and the pointwork is to this radius. Double track is made using a tighter radius (14⅝" - today 1st radius). The earlier types had a standard radius of 13½" which is rather tight. (Possibly too tight for Hornby Dublo?)

 

The main downside IMHO is the steel rail of coarse (code 154 IIRC) section. This is the same as the earlier systems to which it will connect. Adaptor rails are available to connect to Hornby Dublo 2 rail and System 6 (aka code 100 H0 track).

 

IMHO steel rail is not the best material for contact, but does allow the Tri-ang Magnadhesion feature to function. Nickel plating it would solve this.

 

The blade throw is rather excessive, so I doubt modern motors would work. The crossings are plastic so careful track-laying is advisable.

 

Tri-ang will run on Hornby Dublo 2 rail track (and vice-versa), albeit with a bump at the crossings due to the deeper (shallower) flanges and it does have live crossings. It's hard polystyrene and delicate and the live crossings* make it complicated to wire (probably a major reason for the failure of Meccano Ltd.).

 

* There is a 'Simplec' version with dead crossings, but introduced as a 'last ditch' measure they are hard to find.

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are still thinking Minories, or indeed any terminus, you might want to look carefully at the various 1960s point designs (but a rough one of each, cheap from eBay?) and the rails of the different systems, because, HD 3-rail and initial 2-rail excepted, they are not exactly wonderful in terms of continuous rail-wheel electrical conductivity, which when combined with the motor characteristics and gearing ratios of the time, means that running through point-work can very easily become ‘fast, or not at all’, which could get frustrating.

 

I have a feeling that operation of some of the layouts shown in 1960s magazines would not pass muster these days.

  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri-ang Railways “Standard” Track, (named thus in 1958, originally known as “Universal track, to differentiate it from the original ROVEX  track system) the first type from 1952, with a moulded base suffers as the earlier sections are made from less stable Cellulose Acetate plastic, changing the gauge and warping. Polystyrene plastic Standard Track was made, from around 1956/7, but is far less common.

 

430E80DD-CB3F-4FEE-AAC6-E27D534BBA38.jpeg.3eeca4dbae464dbb866d5e2613adaf1c.jpeg

 

34A25E62-C22C-4A92-A653-C3348E900B2E.jpeg.0f0b2b9f4a613e370aa1160ada8b3f12.jpeg
 

http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/OONew/TrackSCat.htm

 

Series 3 track, introduced in 1958,  uses the same geometry as Standard track, but has no base. The sleepers are “open”. These track sections and everything since are all made from more stable polystyrene plastic.

The sleepers are widely spaced, the same as the moulded base sleepers of Standard Track.

 

6729BF1A-2F0E-4FE2-9CB5-CD0D5651ABEA.jpeg.6a5118cb9753a2aef3879cd5ed99f6a9.jpeg

 

60EF0CBD-DE84-4D40-83A9-5B327B043F76.jpeg.fbe4c3a590619b129d73a9bd3cfbacbd.jpeg

 

(Below from 1962 catalogue)

 

C896F987-9EFC-472F-8702-E12A7408B495.jpeg.f5e214d62223cda26e5f4bb2439e8234.jpeg

 

http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/OONew/TrackS3Cat.htm

 

995BCF61-3BF1-4570-8908-C61711453A65.jpeg.6d379cfdc27f764d621ec380e8191cb5.jpeg


http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/Tri-ang 2011/Tri-ang 2011 Specials X.html

 

Both use curves of a sharper radius than later track systems. There are two radius of curves, to enable double track. These curved track sections are shorter than the later track system “double curves”. This makes for more track joints, and this is one of the problems with Series 3 track. Electrical continuity relying on the fishplates (rail joiners). 

A big problem with Standard and also Series 3 is the very wide Spacing between tracks, due in part to the sharp radius of the turnout curve.

 

This makes for space problems.

 

Super4 track was introduced in 1962.

 

EB183604-64DB-413E-AF98-BF0EDCD32A43.jpeg.872800ddd4bfc65154e3fd5090c788bf.jpeg

 

 

 

6DB80415-E3C2-4DCF-8538-5B86716877F2.jpeg.e1a5ca3cf6a49e8dbb062f03fc42fedc.jpeg


95AB7A36-2CE5-4699-967C-9138195F3E85.jpeg.8916f36ef0f347f2a684e31305c52e2f.jpeg


http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/OONew/TrackS4Cat.htm

 

This is arguably one of the best RTR set track systems for Train Sets  that has been made.

It is robust. Looks good despite the deep rail section, the same as used previously in Standard and Series 3 Track.

 

6E71D30B-DC2B-4FF4-B9B4-16E5FC022136.png.7723a04d2bd510acf1d1a16917c7db77.png

 

The geometry of Super 4 Track is that now used by most UK outline Set Track systems.

The track spacing is far less than the previous track systems, due in part to the use of the second radius as the turnout curve.

 

From a Beatties track plans leaflet.

 

B1B11AE7-9C5F-4028-A155-CFDC711A86F8.jpeg.6d3ed370542e15bba2468699da8c9765.jpeg

 

A “Y” point was also made, as well as Left and Right handed Diamond Crossings.

 

This enables quite complex junction layouts to be made.

 

41CD30B6-52A5-4257-9965-60B4BBDFBEB3.jpeg.cacd4babea96be87fd8660e08c1b3910.jpeg

 


As well as single and double track straight level crossings, a double track curved level crossing, for first and second radius, was made for a time.B19010B3-6A73-48D3-ADC1-0448C57185E6.jpeg.441bb7130b03877f7d6466518295b94d.jpeg

 

A late introduction to Super 4 track, and thus less common, is the third radius curves and double curves, enabling a three track layout to be easily constructed, or double track using second and third radius curves to be constructed.

17BDA4B6-B80A-4DC8-82B4-9E321A62090E.jpeg.b140916f452e4c3caf8b6e5697fc18e6.jpeg

 

It is possible to use the longer super 4 rails threaded onto Series 3 track sleeper bases, to lessen the number of rail joints, but this is a bit more involved, and only suitable for a fixed down layout.

 

All these track systems suffer from a large plastic dead frog/ crossing, making slow running with the existing pick ups on the Locomotives problematic .

 

Tri-ang  Track Systems.

 

http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/OONew/indexTrack.htm

 

Tri-ang  Railways Series 3 track (and TT) suggestions.

 

http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/OONew/layout Instructions.html

 

56C56F10-5790-4444-A145-02252DA49B97.jpeg.d55590563a7e6a0b92b2835c69dcb66f.jpeg

 

Hornby Dublo Track sections from a late 1960s catalogue.

 

B5C3856D-4FE4-40F8-9BCA-6364EAAC8386.jpeg.1c8ab5256311aefe6779d82ec7d6bb26.jpeg

 

 

 

Edited by Ruffnut Thorston
More added….date changed!
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Tri-ang Railways “Standard” Track, (named thus in 1858, originally known as “Universal track, to differentiate it from the original ROVEX  track system) 

 


 

I knew it was ancient, but I didn't realise Brunel and Robert Stephenson were still around to see it !

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Universal' track was common at the time (the only way to run everything together). This varied from the excellent Peco to the awful Wrenn ("Sleepers scaled to match the rail" - unfortunately the scale of the rail was 0!). The sleepers were made of fibreboard which was not a problem unless they got wet.

 

Trix made an R-T-R version, but it suffers from tinplate folded rail section and 13½" radius curves. The large radius curves are 15¾", but the pointwork is 13½" which rather limits its usefulness. It is 3 rail all insulated, so anything 00/H0 can run on it. I use an oval as a test track.

 

IIRC the Tri-ang track was called 'Universal' because it could be joined either way round, unlike the 'Rovex' which could only form a circle or oval. I have a box of the stuff (boot sale) of which only a few bits are polystyrene and usable. The rest is only fit for landfill....

 

Early Tri-ang and Trix 00 geometry is based on 30º curves; Tri-ang TT and Super4 and Dublo on 45º curves. The former is good news or bad news depending on whether you are selling or buying the track. The short sections are particularly sought after today.

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I knew it was ancient, but I didn't realise Brunel and Robert Stephenson were still around to see it !

But it does indicate just how incompatible some brands of 00 track were to one another!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That's prototypical - Brunel & Stephenson's tracks were also incompatible with one another.

 

Yes but only concerning gauge - solved with the addition of a third rail. There were no other problems and conversion 'just' involved cutting the distance pieces and shoving the rails closer together. They could be joined using just a special fishplate.

 

The original cast iron rails on stone blocks had to go though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

Yes but only concerning gauge - solved with the addition of a third rail. There were no other problems and conversion 'just' involved cutting the distance pieces and shoving the rails closer together. They could be joined using just a special fishplate.

 

The original cast iron rails on stone blocks had to go though.

3rd rail, an expensive change to the permanent way. I wonder how much in today's terms money was wasted on the Brunel Gauge?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

3rd rail, an expensive change to the permanent way. I wonder how much in today's terms money was wasted on the Brunel Gauge?

 

Brunel was Brunel!  I think he expected everyone to be overcome by the superiority of the Great Western Railway and change over. Maybe they were, but they didn't!

 

His original estimate for London to Bristol was £2,000,000. It cost £4,000,000.  How much of this was due to the Broad Gauge is hard to calculate. (He wasn't alone in optimistic estimates - St. Pancras was somewhat similar I gather.) Officially* these figures can be multiplied by about 110 to give today's value.

 

Overall I reckon the Broad gauge cost billions in today's money. Extra earthworks, more timber (a lot more using Brunel's original rigid design) etc.

 

* I'll leave everyone to their own opinion of official figures!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

 

Brunel was Brunel!  I think he expected everyone to be overcome by the superiority of the Great Western Railway and change over. Maybe they were, but they didn't!

 

His original estimate for London to Bristol was £2,000,000. It cost £4,000,000.  How much of this was due to the Broad Gauge is hard to calculate. (He wasn't alone in optimistic estimates - St. Pancras was somewhat similar I gather.) Officially* these figures can be multiplied by about 110 to give today's value.

 

Overall I reckon the Broad gauge cost billions in today's money. Extra earthworks, more timber (a lot more using Brunel's original rigid design) etc.

 

* I'll leave everyone to their own opinion of official figures!

It's no wonder the LNWR, went to great lengths (including legal action), in avoiding a break of gauge location, with the GWR. Even by 1846, it was basically all over for the broad gauge as a Gauge Commission had ruled in favour of standard gauge.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2021 at 12:16, Il Grifone said:

'Universal' track was common at the time (the only way to run everything together). This varied from the excellent Peco to the awful Wrenn ("Sleepers scaled to match the rail" - unfortunately the scale of the rail was 0!). The sleepers were made of fibreboard which was not a problem unless they got wet.

 

Trix made an R-T-R version, but it suffers from tinplate folded rail section and 13½" radius curves. The large radius curves are 15¾", but the pointwork is 13½" which rather limits its usefulness. It is 3 rail all insulated, so anything 00/H0 can run on it. I use an oval as a test track.

 

IIRC the Tri-ang track was called 'Universal' because it could be joined either way round, unlike the 'Rovex' which could only form a circle or oval. I have a box of the stuff (boot sale) of which only a few bits are polystyrene and usable. The rest is only fit for landfill....

 

Early Tri-ang and Trix 00 geometry is based on 30º curves; Tri-ang TT and Super4 and Dublo on 45º curves. The former is good news or bad news depending on whether you are selling or buying the track. The short sections are particularly sought after today.

To be specific, Triang Standard and Series 3 track used 30 degree curves, 12 to a circle.

 

Triang Super 4 used 22 1/2 degree curves, 16 to a circle, but the range included "double curves" which were 45 degrees, 8 to a circle and were available in 1st, (438mm) 2nd (505mm) and latterly in 3rd (572mm) radius. The 1st radius (371mm) double curves were used in many of the Triang train sets to keep the price down.

 

Modern UK set track geometry can trace its origins directly back to Triang's Super 4 track which was introduced in 1962, almost 60 years ago.

 

If you're thinking of using Series 3 or Super 4 my advice would be to use Super 4 for the reasons that Ruffnut's already given. Also Series 3 points use the 1st radius whereas the Super 4 uses 2nd radius for the diverging route. And Series 3 point motors are handed, X.156 for for the R.292 Left hand points, X.157 for the R.293 Right hand points.

 

Standard Track used the X.97 point motor for motorising both the Left R.101, and Right R.202 manually operated points, which were also available with the point motor ready fitted as R.201 Left, and R.202 Right points. The black RT.44 passing contacts lever frame section to work them was sold separately.

 

As has been said, the Super 4 point motor, X.404, fitted the Left R.490, Right R.491 and Y R.437 Super 4 points and was sold separately for many years under the X.404 catalogue number, with RT.44 continuing to be sold separately. RT.44, (renumbered as R.44 when TT was discontinued) is still sold today as Hornby Hobbies's R.044. But seeing as you needed both an X.404 and an RT.44 and leads to motorise a point they were eventually sold together in a blister pack as R.663 Points Remote Control Pack. If you're intending to use Super 4 with motorised points you're much more likely to find X.404's for sale on ebay and the like than R.663, and you can buy R.044s new, or find RT.44/R.44s for sale as well. 

Edited by GoingUnderground
To correct year of Super 4 introduction
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't think Hornby Dublo locos will reliably run on Super 4 track: many years ago I had a secondhand HD "Deltic" which derailed every time on the points — although some Triang-Wrenn locos were fine. The later System 6 track was effectively to HD wheel standards.

Note that while the geometry is generally similar to that used today, the Y-point was quite different (each branch was 2nd radius) and most of the larger radius curves hadn't been invented yet…

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I don't think Hornby Dublo locos will reliably run on Super 4 track: many years ago I had a secondhand HD "Deltic" which derailed every time on the points — although some Triang-Wrenn locos were fine. The later System 6 track was effectively to HD wheel standards.

Note that while the geometry is generally similar to that used today, the Y-point was quite different (each branch was 2nd radius) and most of the larger radius curves hadn't been invented yet…

It's not just "generally similar", as today's set track uses exactly the same basic geometry, i.e. track length, curved track radii and arc lengths and the same 3 standard radii for curved track 371, 438 and 505mm as Super 4, and the range of track pieces very closely matches what was available under Super 4.  4th radius was only introduced some years after Super 4 was discontinued, as were the curved points which incidentally use the Super 4 438mm 2nd radius and could have been made in Super 4. I did look at whether it was possible to modify Super 4 to create curved points by mirroring the design of the System 6 ones.

 

Triang Hornby System 6 used exactly the same geometry and track parts as Super 4 and the same design philosophy - clip fit along the entire length of straight and curved tracks and interlocking sleepers. The only change was that the track was code 100 with H0 sleeper spacing and the rail joiner handedness reversed.

 

When Hornby track replaced System 6 it deliberately used the same geometry, but not the same design philosophy, only 2 clip fir slots and no interlocking sleepers, but apart from that it had exactly the same geometry as System 6 and was totally interchangeable with System 6 as regards layout planning.

 

When the Y point finally arrived in the Hormby Railways/Hobbies era it had a non-standard radius at 852mm, too big for 9th radius and too small for 10th radius, and the half curve arc of 11.25 degrees. The Express points use the same non-standard radii and are not a multiple of the standard 168mm long straight and the short straights are the wrong length to allow them to be used to bring up the length of an Express point to a multiple of 168mm. The Y and Express points and the 852mm Half Curve that goes with them are the odd ones out in my view as they don't match the geometry of the rest of the Hornby track and hence UK set track standard. That's why in the catalogues showing the geometry they're shown apart from the main diagram.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I put  45º, I intended the basic curved rail 8 to a circle (I grew up with Dublo). Pointwork used a half curve 22½º of course. Super 4, I see, called this double curve just to be awkward.

 

Intended for Tri-ang wheels, the crossings and flangeways are a bit sloppy for Dublo standards, though they were passed off as compatible in the early Tri-ang - Hornby era.

On the other hand the Dublo Co-Co is not the most reliable trackholder even on Dublo track in my experience. I think the trouble may  lie in the traction tyres which cause the wheels to lift. The motor bogie pivots are high up in the body. The 2 rail Bo-Bo suffered from the same problem.

 

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Informative/Useful 1
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...