Concrete beam sets

[adrianbs]

Hi Jon, Here's the drawing. David Larkin said there was no copyright but not to be used for commercial purposes without permission. Hope this helps adrianbs

[Enterprisingwestern]

Fabulous wagon porn here.

Coincidentally I've just started hacking Triang trestrols about and had made a few initial observations/questions, as well as the ones already mentioned.

The bogie centres differ on the MRC drawing, (presumably drawn from a prototype?), and the BR diagram book, which one is right?

The model is 6 inches too wide.

Should the triangular gusset plates be in the well?

The floor is solid not open.

Unlike other well wagons, the centre spine is level with the outers.

There should be reinforcing girders running back from the buffer beam, and a different shaped horizontal gusset plate.

There is a bang plate behind the coupling.

There are a lot of mould marks across the body, maybe suggesting that Triang may have had issues with the length of the body for wahtever reason, and the model as delivered was the compromise they came to.

 

Mike.

 

Edited to add another thought,

Edited November 20, 2013 by Enterprisingwestern

[adrianbs]

Hi EnterprisingW, I am not sure about some of your queries The Bogie centres on the above are as per Essery even though the diagrams are not the same. Not sure about width as I don't have mine to hand but it may be a problem to do with the fact that Triang could not mould the internal detail on a simple two part tool. I am not sure if the Gussets are plated with top stiffeners or open and just a

diagonal brace. Triang again could not do much about this. I am pretty sure the floor is plated as on the above the open holes are marked with a few tiny dots and the end view seems to indicate a floor. The Spine is certainly level with the sides as per Essery Photo.

My photo looking down into the end gives some idea of the internal structure and also shows that not all of that area had a floor. The coupling is one of the non continuous types ( for obvious reasons ) and has a rubber ring springing system as used on many similar vehicles.

 

I suppose it is possible Triang started off making it full length and the gremlin in their back office decided to annoy the modellers as was his wont. We will probably never know that. One of the advantages of doing a C/B carrier is you can cover up a few sins commited on the area around the bogie pivot with the bearing pad support structure. By adding one of the announced Bachmann Warflats as a spacer you could make up a complete but possibly not authentic set. The problem with the Warflats which were used as carriers is that they do

not have wooden floors at all!! A Warflat spacer with floor was used between two Warwell Bs though and a kit for the latter is around.

It is highly unlikely the Bachmann model will have a fully detailed internal structure with a removeable floor !! Interestingly although

the Warflats have no floors, these NOT being intended even for wheeled vehicles, the Flat EQs which originally had no floors now have thick wooden floors in some cases but not all. I don't know if the BR batches were all built without floors but the GA I have does not show one. Best of luck to anyone making a 7 set train, I will come and visit you in the asylum when you have finished it !!

Regards adrianbs

[jonhall]

I'm not sure that moves us much further forward, its obviously derived from the LNER diagram book drawing which I don't think can be relied on for agles of gusset plates (although I'm puzzled by the reference to 113? ) I had a look at originals of the BR, LMS and LNER diagram books and conculded that the BR book re-uses the LMS diagram, but that the LNER book includes a bit more detail about the structure (although my point about diagram books stands) I didn't look at the 2nd copy of the LNER book I have to see if it was different, as the trestrols were stuck into the 1926 book later they might be.

 

Mike - BR, LMS and LNER diagrams all agree on a length of 71ft, only the Trotter drawing (which I believe was measured from the prototype that he photographed) differs. The trotter drawing in MRC is 7mm scale and consequenty only shown half length, I have not put a ruler on it. It would be easy enough to have made an error on the one dimension. I wonder if it was the trotter drawing that Triang used (or the availability of any drawing that decided the choice? )- is a copy of the MRC drawing out of copyright if its more than 50 years since publication?

 

Jon

[adrianbs]

Hi Jon Normally the number in the Top RH - 113 is the page number in the/a diagram book, in this case probably the LNER one as the LMS

version is page 134A Regards adrianbs

[hmrspaul]

 (although I'm puzzled by the reference to 113? )

Jon

That is the diagram number used by the LNER, They had full page diagrams as well as the little ones in the Specially constructed diagram book. I only have a few of them, and not the one Dave has submitted here.

Peter Tatlow uses that series of diagram numbers throughout his WSP multi volume series.

 

My LMS diagram book shows the Trestrol as of LNE origin. T'is a pity, as LMS diagrams show when there are 'space' instead of floor on their specials.

 

Mike - The inner longitudinal is the same height as the outers http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/cyclopsresearch/e31fd8265

 

Paul

[jonhall]

Hi Jon Normally the number in the Top RH - 113 is the page number in the/a diagram book, in this case probably the LNER one as the LMS

version is page 134A

Yes, I realised that, as a collector of diagram books I have quite a few, but I hadn't realised that the LNER had two diagram books numbering sequences, the BR special wagon index booklets tend to work from page numbers in the LNER 1926 (with updates) book.

 

That is the diagram number used by the LNER, They had full page diagrams as well as the little ones in the Specially constructed diagram book. I only have a few of them, and not the one Dave has submitted here.

 

Ah,I see, I've learnt something, the LNER specials book diagram is similar to this, but the 'plan' view is whole, and the cross section has two different widths, 7'6" and 8'0" shown, but I cant work out why - perhaps the outer girders are slightly inclined? the Trotter drawing and BR dia show 7'6" and the triang seems to be 33mm. The Trotter diagram shows bearing pads between all four diagonal girders and the bogie, and it would seem to me to be desirable that these were all a common radius from the bogie pivot?

 

Not to forget, this one is preserved

http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=7634

but important to remember that it is ex-cyclops, so may have been altered.

 

jon

Edited November 20, 2013 by jonhall

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

 The trotter drawing in MRC is 7mm scale

 

Jon, I make the Trotter drawing out to be 5/16" to the foot, a tad under 8mm to the foot, convenient for scaling to 4mm!

 

Mike.

 

Edit.

Depending on where you measure the scale, it could be anywhere from 7.4mm to the foot upwards!!

Edited November 20, 2013 by Enterprisingwestern

[jonhall]

Jon, I make the Trotter drawing out to be 5/16" to the foot, a tad under 8mm to the foot, convenient for scaling to 4mm!

 

Mike.

 

Edit.

Depending on where you measure the scale, it could be anywhere from 7.4mm to the foot upwards!!

 

I shall correct myself.. its NOT 4mm

 

Jon

[hmrspaul]

I would be grateful if someone could give a reference to the Ted Trotter drawing, not one I remember being aware of (too young!)

 

Paul

Ps I hadn't realised some remains of Cyclops were conserved.

[adrianbs]

Hi all Regarding the widths of 7'6" and 8'0" I think this is explained on the LMS dia which shows the dimension over the brake wheels as 8'0" and over the well as 7'6". The LNER diagram only says extreme width but not where.

 

In the days when this model was made and even today, making a more accurate model with correct internal detail in the side I beams and

elsewhere would be a nightmare for tooling and even an etched kit would be a mammoth task to build though it might be feasible to produce it. This is one for the latest 3D print technology because most surfaces are on the three axes ( Note NOT gas AXES Jon ) Only a few parts would need to be added as W/M castings to improve the quality. Even the Trestle could be done this way without the obvious steps encountered with the lower resolution printers. Who's volunteering ?? although without a visit to York AND access to the GA it would need a lot of guesswork. I think the latter may now be available at York although I have not checked my index.

 

The nearest anyone has got to a model of a similar sort of wagon is the batch of O gauge LNER Weltrol K 12 wheelers which amazingly were made in the 1960s, I believe, and part whitemetal. They were as good as anything today but I have no idea how many were made. I know of 4 and I have most patterns for the W/M castings. There is a picture in the "Beeson book" but I don't know who made the patterns although I believe Keysers made the castings and may even have done the whole lot. In the '50s and '60s Ken Keyser built quite a few scratch built models for clients, mainly locos but no doubt could have produced these if the client had bottomless pockets, as a few did.!! When I asked Beeson about these wagons he said he had never done them and they don't bear some of his hallmarks anyway.

 

Thats all for now folks adrianbs

[jonhall]

I would be grateful if someone could give a reference to the Ted Trotter drawing, not one I remember being aware of (too young!)

 

Paul

Ps I hadn't realised some remains of Cyclops were conserved.

 

I did earlier in the thread MRC Sept '58 - at 50+ years old is it out of copyright? If it is I might take the sheet to work tomorrow and PDF it on the A3 scanner and post here, but I don't want a) any aggro, or b )this to become a circular copyright debate that gets locked.

 

Jon

[hmrspaul]

Hi all Regarding the widths of 7'6" and 8'0" I think this is explained on the LMS dia which shows the dimension over the brake wheels as 8'0" and over the well as 7'6". The LNER diagram only says extreme width but not where.

 

 

Adrian - just to confirm that is correct, there is no confusion about the width.

 

Paul

[Portchullin Tatty]

  ( Paul B will  know as Tatlow's last volume is not yet in print )  

 

Rumour has it from Wild Swan that it will be out imminently.  we heard that it might be Christmas but as no proofs have come in for checking I think this is likely to be missed.

 

Soon though.....................

[Enterprisingwestern]

Inspired by this thread, I am in the process of cutting & shutting two Tri-ang TRESTROLs to match the BR 2/681 diagram, in as-built condition.

 

The two bodies were cut 12.5 mm. off-centre and the two longer sections were combined.

 

The bogies were cut into three parts, 1 mm. off-centre of the two transverse bracing bars, and the longer outer sections were combined with the longer central pivot section.

 

This gives a model that matches the BR diagram and is much more impressive than the original Tri-ang shortie wagon.

 

I also fitted brass pin-point bearings; in my case spaced 0.5 mm. off the sideframes with plastic card to match the axle length of the wheels that I am using.

 

When the buffers arrive, these will be fitted along with cosmetic coupling hooks and HD / Peco functional couplers.

 

Trialled on my test track, the wagon glides through Peco medium radius crossovers even without additional ballast, and without undue overhang.

 

In the meantime, I'll get on with the painting and lettering - photos here when completed.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

John, are you aware you've created a bit of a monster by altering the bogies in the way you have, the Triang sideframes are correct length by and large, the difference in wheelbase is caused by Triang moving the two outer axleboxes inwards towards the centre one which is in the correct place.

The best way of achieving a more correct bogie is to cut off all the axlebox detail and replace with new castings. I assume the axleboxes are standard LMS/LNER ones of some variety, does anyone more knowledgable know if this type is available from anywhere?

 

Are the transfers available on your website, can't seem to find them.

 

Mike.

[cctransuk]

John, are you aware you've created a bit of a monster by altering the bogies in the way you have, the Triang sideframes are correct length by and large, the difference in wheelbase is caused by Triang moving the two outer axleboxes inwards towards the centre one which is in the correct place.

The best way of achieving a more correct bogie is to cut off all the axlebox detail and replace with new castings. I assume the axleboxes are standard LMS/LNER ones of some variety, does anyone more knowledgable know if this type is available from anywhere?

 

Are the transfers available on your website, can't seem to find them.

 

Mike.

 

Mike,

 

I'm away from home at present, but I'm sure that I checked the stretched bogies against the diagram (reduced to 4mm. scale).

 

Whatever; I'll check when I get back. Anyone got a pair of TRESTROL bogies to dispose of, just in case?

 

Transfers - something that I compiled for myself, I'm afraid.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[adrianbs]

Hi all,   I am afraid EnterprisingW  has indeed got a good point about the bogie length. Looks like that Gremlin/boffin has played an even crueller trick on

the rivet counter than I had thought.   Alas I know of no available spring/axlebox unit to use, not even one similar for, say, a tender.   The trick is even

crueller than E--W--   might have noticed  insofar that should one actually  move the axleboxes,  the access holes in the sideframes become asymmetrical.

It is not too difficult to shorten the inner end which is anyway rather clunky but the outer end would need to be cut right off and moved inwards. This probably means the angled top surface of the frames would be all wrong.  It depends whether the buffer height in relation to the axle line is correct or, as was often the case in those early Triang days , raised by about 2mm.  You might just get away then by setting back the headstock AND lowering it a bit so the angle does still meet it.  

 

There is of course the ultimate option,  jump on it and chuck it in the bin !!!!  Then produce an accurate set of patterns for a kit or get one

of these 3D printer whizzkids to make a master for resin casting or small scale production.  Sorry it's all gone a bit pear shaped but that Gremlin/boffin has

always been really good at his job and is still busy sub-contracting his skills to other manufacturers.

 

I think, in the classic words of the Irishman when giving directions to the lost traveller  "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here" 

I think the asylum beckons John.         Regards  Adrian

 

                       

[adrianbs]

Hi all   Postscript to my last post which may have made anyone contemplate giving up, or putting up with what they have done.   I have done some quick scaling up and comparison with my side on photo of the bogie and it looks as though the buffer beam could be moved back by the requisite amount  , approx 5mm I calculate and it would

not need lowering much to meet the angled top of the sideframe. In addition the top flange of the sideframe is not correctly arranged and if the flange were carefully removed  only on the side, a new flange could be added on top and also extended inwards along the horizontal top edge to get very close to the original !!

 

NB  there should be similar angled top edges on the inner bogie longitudinals as well.  By my calculations the springs are only  2' 6" long on the full size and the frames

end at both ends 1' 6" from .the axle centre  How do I know the measurements, well, on my side on photo you can see a horizontal white line above the springs, that is my "yardstick" (actually 2yds and a bit ) so that I could scale off dimensions on that plane at least. At the outer end though there is an extension to fit the Brakewheel cross

shaft  whose centreline is about 3" outboard of the headstock.

 

It's beginning to look as if Triang could have made the well full length  as they have added about 1' 6" by distorting the bogies for no good reason ??.

            Regards all   Adrian

[cctransuk]

John, are you aware you've created a bit of a monster by altering the bogies in the way you have, the Triang sideframes are correct length by and large, the difference in wheelbase is caused by Triang moving the two outer axleboxes inwards towards the centre one which is in the correct place.

The best way of achieving a more correct bogie is to cut off all the axlebox detail and replace with new castings. I assume the axleboxes are standard LMS/LNER ones of some variety, does anyone more knowledgable know if this type is available from anywhere?

 

Are the transfers available on your website, can't seem to find them.

 

Mike.

 

Mike,

 

You are correct in that my bogies are now too long; you have also solved the mystery as to why the buffers are too high, and require the substitution of LOWMAC wheels to correct this.

 

In order to restore the correct relationship between the buffer-beams and the outer axleboxes, it will be necessary to move back and consequently lower the buffer-beams.

 

Tri-ang moved the buffer-beams out and higher, following the rake of the frame ends, in order to move the outer axle inwards.

 

So, ASAP, I will move the buffer-beams and, I trust, install the correct diameter wheels.

 

Photos to follow.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Scratch building anyone? (also need a tongue in cheek emoticon!)

 

Mike.

[cctransuk]

Scratch building anyone? (also need a tongue in cheek emoticon!)

 

Mike.

 

Mike,

 

A razor saw and a bottle of solvent - no probs!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[adrianbs]

Hi  John I      How easy is it to get the wheelsets in and out ??   I wonder if the dimensional changes may have allowed more flexibility to the sides so that

 the wheels could be sprung in.  Did you fit bearings ?? Difficult to do  with the bogies in one piece. Just a  thought, if the front and rear "headstocks" were only attached to the inner structure would that make life easier or just allow the axles to push the sides out.??  I had not realised you had fitted Lowmacwheels to lower the headstocks.  

 

Triang/Hornby  raised the buffer centrelines  for decades with obvious detriment to the models.   In many cases that involved raising the whole chassis ( Wagons & coaches and some locos) on some locos they reduced the drop down of the front buffer beam/footplate.This was done because most of the locos already had undersized wheels and would have looked even odder with raised bodies. In most cases this meant that the wagon chassis had axle bearings too low in the axleguards and also on some coaches but coaches often had their bodies raised up relative to the bogies as well which meant the axle bearings were not so far out of position.  They always claimed that it was ABSOLUTELY necessary  for clearance on the front of locos with bogies, presumably again because of the sharp transitions on their elevated track approach.  Doesn't seem to be necessary these days though !!  I remember there were quite a number of reviews which complained about this, to no avail !!  

 

Of course it did not happen on Hornby Dublo because the couplings were lower down and sometimes cranked to give better clearance. Triang were not prepared to make a cranked tension-lock  which might have solved this problem.  In those days however the Triang products were so toy-like that the few rivet counters that existed avoided them like the plague. Sadly there are still not as many rivet counters as one would like.  Those that are do now have a louder voice, even though there are some who do their best to silence them. !!      Regards adrianbs

[cctransuk]

Hi  John I      How easy is it to get the wheelsets in and out ??   I wonder if the dimensional changes may have allowed more flexibility to the sides so that

 the wheels could be sprung in.  Did you fit bearings ?? Difficult to do  with the bogies in one piece. Just a  thought, if the front and rear "headstocks" were only attached to the inner structure would that make life easier or just allow the axles to push the sides out.??  I had not realised you had fitted Lowmacwheels to lower the headstocks.  

 

Triang/Hornby  raised the buffer centrelines  for decades with obvious detriment to the models.   In many cases that involved raising the whole chassis ( Wagons & coaches and some locos) on some locos they reduced the drop down of the front buffer beam/footplate.This was done because most of the locos already had undersized wheels and would have looked even odder with raised bodies. In most cases this meant that the wagon chassis had axle bearings too low in the axleguards and also on some coaches but coaches often had their bodies raised up relative to the bogies as well which meant the axle bearings were not so far out of position.  They always claimed that it was ABSOLUTELY necessary  for clearance on the front of locos with bogies, presumably again because of the sharp transitions on their elevated track approach.  Doesn't seem to be necessary these days though !!  I remember there were quite a number of reviews which complained about this, to no avail !!  

 

Of course it did not happen on Hornby Dublo because the couplings were lower down and sometimes cranked to give better clearance. Triang were not prepared to make a cranked tension-lock  which might have solved this problem.  In those days however the Triang products were so toy-like that the few rivet counters that existed avoided them like the plague. Sadly there are still not as many rivet counters as one would like.  Those that are do now have a louder voice, even though there are some who do their best to silence them. !!      Regards adrianbs

 

Adrian,

 

The old wheels, (sliding wheels / half axles on a plain axle), came our very easily by springing apart the bogie sideframes.

 

The bearing holes were drilled a little deeper, brass pinpoint bearings dropped in, and Markits wheels sprung into place - no bother at all.

 

Right - off to have a hack at the TRESTROL bogies - again!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[adrianbs]

   Hi  John I,   Go out and buy a couple of those Warwell B kits and a Bachmann Warflat when it arrives  !!    Adrian

[Enterprisingwestern]

Re the tie down shackles.

I collected a set of Wizard "bolster wagon stanchions and shackles" ref ABW from Andrew at the NEC over the weekend to see how they were sizewise for the trestrol, (and other wagons with similar shackles).

These are an etched fret of 8, which regrettably turned out to be too large, but all is not lost, as the conversation I had included the proviso that if they turned out to be incorrect, Andrew would look at manufacturing the correct sized ones if I could provide the details and drawing. So I will be seeing him at Wakefield exhibition this weekend armed with said info, so watch this space.

 

Mike.