Concrete beam sets

[adrianbs]

Hi Brian It's a Glass MD 902023 of which there were 8 in the 4 trains. It's next to one of the two "Triang" Trestrol halves

which formed set 3 in train 1. They have all had the support frames removed but the wells are still there. I always think of

the big Warflats as W--- B which was the original name but when disposed of they were coded as you say. They were of course reused

in various ways, most well known being the Nuclear flask carriers.

 

With regard to rejoining disconnected "Logging wagons" when unloaded I assume the train carried the short links used when not

carrying a load to join them together again. They may have been stowed in the wagons or the brake van. They were fairly easy

to replace as they probably had to be used every trip.

 

I am using Don Rowlands book to identify the wagons but the cut down Trestrols do not appear as far as I can see, I am not

exactly sure which of the 13 or so original vehicles of various diagrams were actually used but those listed above make up

6 of the wagon total. The Rowland book was published nearly 30 years ago, gosh how time flies and so it does today !!

Regards adrianbs

[cctransuk]

Hi Brian It's a Glass MD 902023 of which there were 8 in the 4 trains. It's next to one of the two "Triang" Trestrol halves

which formed set 3 in train 1. They have all had the support frames removed but the wells are still there. I always think of

the big Warflats as W--- B which was the original name but when disposed of they were coded as you say. They were of course reused

in various ways, most well known being the Nuclear flask carriers.

 

With regard to rejoining disconnected "Logging wagons" when unloaded I assume the train carried the short links used when not

carrying a load to join them together again. They may have been stowed in the wagons or the brake van. They were fairly easy

to replace as they probably had to be used every trip.

 

I am using Don Rowlands book to identify the wagons but the cut down Trestrols do not appear as far as I can see, I am not

exactly sure which of the 13 or so original vehicles of various diagrams were actually used but those listed above make up

6 of the wagon total. The Rowland book was published nearly 30 years ago, gosh how time flies and so it does today !!

Regards adrianbs

 

The concrete beam wagons were given new BR diagrams 2/800 - 804, (see http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/SpecialVehiclesIssue.pdf ); the original identity of the various component wagons are given.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[jonhall]

The concrete beam wagons were given new BR diagrams 2/800 - 804, (see http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/SpecialVehiclesIssue.pdf ); the original identity of the various component wagons are given.

 

 

Well the diagrams are at least, When it comes to the 'Triang Trestrol' I think we are talking about a total of 8 vehicles

 

LMS special dia 134A Trestrol MG (AG) 700350 and 700351 (both pictured in Essery LMS wagons) , of this pair 700350 was listed in the 1956 special wagon list, but absent from the 1964 booklet, which I think is too early for conversion to girder, therefore I propose 700351 became 909609/59

 

LNER special dia 102 Trestrol EC 217323 and 217 324 both are present in the 1964 special wagons booklet so either could be 909608/58

 

BR dia 2/681 Trestrol EC 901600/601/602/603 -these diagrams are not mentioned in dia 2/800-804, and we know that two survived quite late in R&D use, because 901601 became 'Cyclops'  (and is preserved) and 901603 became an APT tilt test vehicle (yes really! ) although it could have donated its bogies to something else. I don't think any of these are concrete beam wagons.

 

Jon

Edited November 11, 2013 by jonhall

[jonhall]

and looking at the weltrol EP's there were just 7 wagons, of which 5 were converted.

 

LNER dia 142 no's 217304,217305,217306, 217307, 217328 (the two underlined seem to have been recoded Weltrol WP) all 5 are present in the 1st Jan 1964 booklet, but 217328 was cancelled by circ1/64 dated 17th March 64 which would seem to rule this out as a conversion.

 

BR dia 2/738 with (WP) in brackets underneath 901150 and 901151 - these were both built at Lancing, which might explain the BR(S) axleboxes that Paul has observed on 909606 & 909657, therefore I would suggest that these two became 909606/656 and 909607/657

 

 

 

Jon

Edited November 11, 2013 by jonhall

[jonhall]

I wonder if Triang could have made the wagon to scale bearing in mind there is no real end throw and the centre<br />section would have been the problem. The body width is not as much as a BR Mk 1 coach. The bogie centres were<br />probably the stumbling block but had they offset the pivot that could have been reduced. Mk l Bogie centres<br />are 46'6" and by offsetting the Trestrol the centres could have been reduced to 47'6" ie 53' less half the<br />axle centre spacing at both ends which is 5'6". This increase of only 4mm should have made little difference<br />and the Trestrols are only 7'6" wide over the well, much less than the 9' of a Mk 1

It could have been shortened simply to fit into a standard Triang box size?

 

Jon

[jonhall]

Three weeks after having my appendix out I can now sit in front of the big PC screen for long enough to actually study the photos Adrian has uploaded, which has made certain things rather clearer than they were on my netbooks 9" screen!

 

I can appreciate Arians problems with the bogie compression, my revised interpretation of the cut line is this 

 

 

to keep just a small amount of the reinforcing web the cut line needs to be more or less as indicated, but this leaves too much body over the inner spring.

 

Jon

Edited November 11, 2013 by jonhall

[adrianbs]

Hi Jon, Your new line does give the right impession with relation to the bogie side because the bogies have been made too short. The end section of the well is probably near to scale to achieve the correct width at that point which clearly upsets the relationship with the bogie. Had they altered the angle of the internal diagonals they could have matched the chopped Trestrols but of course there were no chopped wagons at that time. At our meeting of the EM/S4 group last night I brought this forum up and one of the suggestions was indeed to "fit the box" which is certainly possible as box sizes are produced with multiples of a basic unit to assist packing orders.

I have done this myself from the start with x2H; x2H & 1.5L etc. My basic box being twice as wide as high and twice as long as wide. This system has so often resulted in non scale models, especially firms like Matcbox whereas Dinky made their boxes in the early days to fit the model. From your point about the Triang Trestrols the LMS only had two AGs so does that mean the LNER had 2 to make up the 8 units. I must look at that list again on your link. Thanks for pointing the link out, I did have a look but forgot to see if it threw any light on the renumbering. John Isherwood is going the hard way round by stretching the bogies as well, its a good job Triang only

used polystyrene in those days but may mean wasting a pair of bogies unless the gaps can be filled.

Regards adrianbs

[adrianbs]

  Hi  All  I have now gone through the numbers in the link and that has proved quite interesting,  Apart from the Spacers which I have not checked the  4 trains at Poole actually contained the majority of all the concrete beam carrier units in the link. Only 2 sets of 2 x Warflat As,- 1 set of Trestrols (Triang type) and 1 set of 2 x ARM E  are missing and all the types are fully covered in the 27 sets I saw out of the 31 sets.   How lucky can you get !!      Regards  adrianbs

[adrianbs]

  Hi all   Todays tasty trio, the ex gunset, ex transfomer set with  replacement GWR style heavy duty bogies.

       At last I think I have cracked the upload sequence !! ??  We shall see  adrianbs

[cctransuk]

John Isherwood is going the hard way round by stretching the bogies as well, its a good job Triang only

 

Actually, it's a doddle if you cut 1mm. off-centre on both of the transverse braces.

 

OK, you waste one wagon but you can pick them up for next to nothing on Ebay.

 

The model is nearly finished now - it's painted and I'm just about to apply the transfers. I just need the buffers to be delivered now.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[adrianbs]

Hi  All,    I assume the modifications to the tooling on the Triang Hornby Trestrol for the "SPACE" series were not reversible.  If they had been we would almost certainly have seen both LNER and LMS liveried  variants over the years in spite of its deficiencies.   Who is going to be the first to model a concrete beam set using this model as a basis?? 

Hornby still trot out the odd dinosaur from time to time but in this case it is such a shame they chose the longer design as it would still have been an acceptable model even for many of the rivet counters.  Not sure what the spacers would have to be as there is no model glass wagon from any source as far as I know.  The set formation may not always have been fixed and perhaps it contained other spacer types.  The info is a bit thin on the ground, even PaulB seems to have had little luck with these sets.

                    Regards adrianbs

[cctransuk]

Hi  All,    I assume the modifications to the tooling on the Triang Hornby Trestrol for the "SPACE" series were not reversible.  If they had been we would almost certainly have seen both LNER and LMS liveried  variants over the years in spite of its deficiencies.   Who is going to be the first to model a concrete beam set using this model as a basis?? 

Hornby still trot out the odd dinosaur from time to time but in this case it is such a shame they chose the longer design as it would still have been an acceptable model even for many of the rivet counters.  Not sure what the spacers would have to be as there is no model glass wagon from any source as far as I know.  The set formation may not always have been fixed and perhaps it contained other spacer types.  The info is a bit thin on the ground, even PaulB seems to have had little luck with these sets.

                    Regards adrianbs

 

Adrian,

 

The bogies on my two (now one) TRESTROL have moulded fixings for pick-ups - presumably for the searchlight version. So it may be that the moulds, if they still exist, could still produce the TRESTROL.

 

Finishing off my cut-and-shut TRESTROL, I found that the model sat way too high with 12mm. wheels fitted, but was much better when non-authentic LOWMAC wheels were substituted. (This 'fix' is not obvious because of the heavy outside frames).

 

It suddenly occurred to me that the reason for the 'shortie' length of the Tri-ang TRESTROL was nothing to do with track radii; rather the limiting factor was track gradient changes.

 

The flyover bridges and gradient piers were a much-vaunted feature of the Tri-ang railway system at the time that the TRESTROL was introduced. The transition from level to gradient was quite abrupt and a long, low wagon such as the TRESTROL would 'ground' at the top of the gradient, or lift its wheels at the bottom, if it was scale length.

 

I've now fitted the buffers and, after a dab of black paint on them, photos will be taken.

 

Off to scrape at the prototype of the Airfix meat wagon now !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[adrianbs]

Hi John, That is a very plausible reason especially if the wagon rides high on its original wheels. This is of course yet another good reason for doing the shorter version especially as the "ground" clearance on the shorties is 3/8" larger, a whole 1/8 of a mm more !! Not having one of the Space wagons I am not sure if they can be cut into C/B carriers or the Mould mods prevent this.

Regards adrian

[hmrspaul]

I noticed a Triang Newsletter in MRC last evening (when looking for Meat vans) sometime around 1961. Anyway it discusses the Trestrol in detail, mentioning the prototype dimensions and that the trestles were grey, despite the photograph of the model being as we all know it - sans trestles!

 

Paul

[hmrspaul]

The info is a bit thin on the ground, even PaulB seems to have had little luck with these sets.

                    Regards adrianbs

Umm not true, there are quite a lot in my collections and others at home. What I didn't do well for is side on photos in good light, mine are cramped in the rain. Yours are an excellent addition to our knowledge.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Edited November 13, 2013 by hmrspaul

[jonhall]

Not having one of the Space wagons I am not sure if they can be cut into C/B carriers or the Mould mods prevent this.

 

 

The battlespace wagons had alterations on the well - effectively the backbone spine has a 'box' cutout near one end - try this ebay item

 

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Triang-Trestrol-55-Ton-Flat-Bogie-Well-Wagons-x3-Used-/00/s/MTAyNlgxNjAw/z/kK8AAOxydINSWrCq/$T2eC16V,!ycFIdWYrQKVBSWrCpw3cw~~60_58.JPG

 

 

 

Jon

Edited November 13, 2013 by jonhall

[cctransuk]

I've now fitted the buffers and, after a dab of black paint on them, photos will be taken.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

As promised, the photos; (which are not flattering to my modelling or photographic skills)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

 

 

 

[Norm81]

Incase anyone wants some reference material for stretching a Trestrol to scale length, there is an article in Model Railway Enthusiast, July 1997 issue.

[adrianbs]

Hi PaulB Did you get any photos of the "Triang" type C/B showing the spacers at all. Obviously if the photos were very oblique then identification would be a problem. Making up any of these sets in model form, in any scale, without major scratchbuilding is very

difficult although I did hear a rumour Bachmann were doing a Warflat A and there has been a limited edition Warwell B by one of the Mags??. From what Jonhall says, cheapo battlespace wagons could be modified to C/Bs with a bogie stretch to a fairly accurate model, assuming there are any cheapo ones available but from the Diagram book there would only have been 2 sets.

Regards adrianbs

[CloggyDog]

I stretched a Triang one some years back and added the trestle from Plastrut and microstrip (based on the drawing in the 1958 RM), plus plate load.

 

 

 

It gets a regular outing on Shirebeck (East Midlands 1970s in EM gauge), even though (from the info earlier in the thread) it had likely been hacked about by the layout's timeframe. 

[Fat Controller]

Hi PaulB Did you get any photos of the "Triang" type C/B showing the spacers at all. Obviously if the photos were very oblique then identification would be a problem. Making up any of these sets in model form, in any scale, without major scratchbuilding is very

difficult although I did hear a rumour Bachmann were doing a Warflat A and there has been a limited edition Warwell B by one of the Mags??. From what Jonhall says, cheapo battlespace wagons could be modified to C/Bs with a bogie stretch to a fairly accurate model, assuming there are any cheapo ones available but from the Diagram book there would only have been 2 sets.

Regards adrianbs

To add to these, Adrian, 'Wild Boar Fell' has done the Flatrol MLL as a 3D print.

[jonhall]

The battlespace wagons had alterations on the well - effectively the backbone spine has a 'box' cutout near one end - try this ebay item

 

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Triang-Trestrol-55-Ton-Flat-Bogie-Well-Wagons-x3-Used-/00/s/MTAyNlgxNjAw/z/kK8AAOxydINSWrCq/$T2eC16V,!ycFIdWYrQKVBSWrCpw3cw~~60_58.JPG

 

 

 

Jon

 

Having studied a few battlespace wagons at a swapmeet today, it would appear not all of the bs trestrols had modifications. the bomb carrying wagon didn't, nor did the ramp wagon that I now posess, but I was too taken aback by the price being asked for the wagon with gun turret to notice if it was modified, and i'd have to assume that the searchlight wagon was modified, although i didn't see one in the flesh.

 

Jon

[jonhall]

I've discovered another moulding difference on the Triang trestrols - my first pair which are both blue (not sure what if anything that certifies) have these little blocks in the well at one end, but the battlespace wagon doesn't?

 

 

I've also had the gas axe out and cut down one of the extra bits to see where a concrete beam wagon would be cut.

 

 

Jon

[adrianbs]

HiJon, If you want to be pedantic, and guess who does, there seems to be a problem as your photo stands. The front end of the well does

seem to be in the correct position on stretched bogies (see John Isherwood, side on ) but where you have made the cut line ( Great work with a gas axe on plastic by the way!!, I think I would have tried to find a razor saw) the side goes too far back. With stretched bogies the end of the "Bolster" should be over the inner spring hanger of the rear axlebox. I am wondering if the diagonals on the Triang model are actually in the right place. I have looked at my photo,as posted, with a bright light behind and the point of the diagonal looks like it does on your photo. but evenb with stretched bogies you will be 2-3mm behind the hanger I reckon. Unfortunately

neither the drawing here or in Essery nor the photo gives any idea what that bit might have looked like. The cut on the real wagon seems

to leave the pennanted end of the reinforcement Z plate still on the side but that is ALL. Your cut line leaves a few mm more and if

you go by the photo of the end of the reinforcing plate the line cannot be straight across. I rather doubt they would have rebuilt the inner stucture so I guess Triang are the chief suspect, as usual. Not sure where we go from here, Bob Essery has sent all his drawings to the HMRS so I can't ask him as I used to. Perhaps someone could find out if the drawing is available. Regards adrianbs

[adrianbs]

Hi C/Bers Problem solved on the Triang trestrol !!, or at least explained. The sides should be cut as I explained above and if you look at the side on photo you can see the remains of the pennanted Z plate are still present. Unsurprisingly the error is on the model as I now have a copy of the Diagram from Peter Tatlow ( to be posted if there are no copyright problems ) which shows the inner diagonals at a different angle and perhaps starting slightly outboard with the vee meeting on the correct cut line. With stretched bogies this would make the C/B fairly dimensionally accurate.

 

You are still OK Jon as you have not cut too much off but you will have to extract the inner vee and spine and at the very least

move it outboard. I will try and get the exact angle in case you want to try changing it on the diagonals. By intruducing a razor saw

cut ( not a gas axe ) on the obtuse angle side of the diagonal you should be able to bend and set with glue to be spot on.

 

I will report back if I get the go-ahead to post the diagram Regards Adrian