When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[whart57]

In August 1957 the first of Edward Beal's articles on "Modelling in TT gauge"  also appeared in MRC. In his own earlier handbook on TT he'd adopted the scale of 1/19th inch to the foot on 12mm gauge

 

You mean 1/9th inch to the foot surely. 1/19th is pretty close to Z scale/

[Pacific231G]

You mean 1/9th inch to the foot surely. 1/19th is pretty close to Z scale/

Oops, Typo well spotted and corrected  -yes 1/9th inch to the foot. as opposed to the 1/10th inch to the foot introduced by Hal Joyce (H.P. Products)  in the U.S. in 1945.

Presumably, one reason why that didn't get adopted here was the extreme restrictions on imports at the time that seem to have continured into the 1950s.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Pacific231G

[NCB]

Oops, Typo well spotted and corrected  -yes 1/9th inch to the foot. as opposed to the 1/10th inch to the foot introduced by Hal Joyce (H.P. Products)  in the U.S. in 1945.

Presumably, one reason why that didn't get adopted here was the extreme restrictions on imports at the time that seem to have continured into the 1950s.

 

 

Well, the scale did, if not H.P products. There were several modellers working in 1/120th scale prior to Triang TT being launched. They had to make everything themselves, but there was some nice stuff being built. Can remember Model Railway News have an article on an urban terminus being built, also techniques for constructing driving wheels.

[Pacific231G]

Well, the scale did, if not H.P products. There were several modellers working in 1/120th scale prior to Triang TT being launched. They had to make everything themselves, but there was some nice stuff being built. Can remember Model Railway News have an article on an urban terminus being built, also techniques for constructing driving wheels.

People were clearly attracted to the scale and, as you say, several were working in it; however the lack of trade support, even for basic products such as brickpapers, did mean they were on their own so it was very much a niche rather like S scale. Trade support did come for TT after Tri-ang introduced it but it was all for the Tri-ang scale of 3mm/ft hence Mike Bryant's championing of "TM" scale and the huge feeling of disappointment amongst TT modellers (actual and hopeful) that the more compatible 12mm 1:120 gauge/ scale combination hadn't been chosen.

 

What I hadn't realised until going through the 1957 MRCs was that Tri-ang simply used the same check rail clearance, wheel profiles and tread widths as for OO with  no scaling down of anything apart from the gauge- handy for anyone modelling 00n3 needing to build mixed gauge track but increasing the scale/gauge compromise ever further. . For 3mm scale modellers  that did mean they could use commercially available wheels of appropriate diameters but even as a youngster totally ignorant about the scale/gauge argument, I do remember thinking that something looked wrong about my rolling stock when viewed head on.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Golden Fleece 30]

People were clearly attracted to the scale and, as you say, several were working in it; however the lack of trade support, even for basic products such as brickpapers, did mean they were on their own so it was very much a niche rather like S scale. Trade support did come for TT after Tri-ang introduced it but it was all for the Tri-ang scale of 3mm/ft hence Mike Bryant's championing of "TM" scale and the huge feeling of disappointment amongst TT modellers (actual and hopeful) that a more compatible gauge/ scale hadn't been chosen.

 

What I hadn't realised until going through the 1957 MRCs was that Tri-ang simply used the same check rail clearance, wheel profiles and tread widths as for OO with no scaling down of anything apart from the gauge- handy for anyone modelling 00n3 needing to build mixed gauge track but increasing the scale/gauge compromise ever further. . For 3mm scale modellers that did mean they could use commercially available wheels of appropriate diameters. Even as a youngster totally ignorant about the scale/gauge argument, I do remember thinking that something looked wrong about my rolling stock especially wehen viewed head on.

Tri-ang TT loco wheels are nothing like their 00 counterparts. The tread widths are narrower and the crank throws shorter. 00 (Tri-ang) wheels would therefore not be suitable to use. Also the axle bushes were different as TT used 1/8" axles and 00 9/64" axles. The crankpin screw theads were smaller with 10BA for 00 and 12BA for TT. Putting a 00 0-4-0 wheel (smallest) alongside an open spoke Britannia or Castle one looks very different.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Further to my last post even Romford 00 wheels were not always suitable as the crank throws were too great. On some locos you would get away with an oversized throw, but, on others like the 2P and 14xx they needed a crank pin hole drilling half way between the axle and standard position. This was for footplate clearance issues. I believe they made a different range specially for TT but not 100% sure.

 

Garry

Edited August 14, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[whart57]

At one time Romford did produce wheels specifically for TT3, 14mm and 15mm diameter if I recall. Then somewhere in the 80s they did a dirty and while they sold those diameters as TT3 wheels they were in fact OO gauge ones with far too few spokes. I built a loco with the proper TT wheels and a few years ago I replaced them with the new Society SQ wheels. What an improvement!

[Il Grifone]

Tri-ang TT wheels are 2.75mm thick (0.25mm than BRMSB 00 and 0.5mm more than BRMSB TT) with a back to back of 10mm a direct reduction of the 00 dimension of 14.5mm, both being 2mm less than the gauge, of course, and allowing too much 'slop'. I would hesitate to suggest a TT-SF gauge of 11.7mm however (dives for cover!).

[Pacific231G]

Tri-ang TT loco wheels are nothing like their 00 counterparts. The tread widths are narrower and the crank throws shorter. 00 (Tri-ang) wheels would therefore not be suitable to use. Also the axle bushes were different as TT used 1/8" axles and 00 9/64" axles. The crankpin screw theads were smaller with 10BA for 00 and 12BA for TT. Putting a 00 0-4-0 wheel (smallest) alongside an open spoke Britannia or Castle one looks very different.

 

Garry

Interesting Gary. It was Edward Beal who said they were the same in the first of his "Modelling in TT Gauge" articles in August 1957 MRC "One of the useful features of the Tri-ang engines is that the wheels- also like those of the rolling stock- are made to OO gauge tread and flange-widths.Stated in writing this may arouse a sense of antagonism in scale fans, but really on the actual model it is not any drawback. On the other hand, this means that the full range of existing OO  gauge wheels in all diameters is at the disposal of the locomotive department." I would have expected a modeller of Beal's distinction to have got his facts straight but there were suggestions from Bryant that his knowledge of TT at that time was theoretical rather than practical. 

Bryant worked simultaneously in 3mm scale for Grassington and in TT-3 for his Pint Pot layout so he did have practical knowledge and it may be telling that MRC ended Beal's articles rather abruptly after the first four which were immediately followed by Mike Bryant's totally practical series on building the 4x2 Pint Pot layout.

 

What a lot of people were saying at that time was that the BRMSB had totally missed the bus by not coming up with standards for TT earlier and so again leaving it for a toy train manufacturer to set them instead. I think though that there was a general misapprehension that the BRMSB was a permanently established fully staffed standards body rather than an ad hoc committee. 

 

David (Il Griffone)

You've mentioned the BRMSB standards for TT. Do you happen to know when these were published and how close they are to the 3mm society's current standards? I only have the 1950 edition of Standard Dimensions published by META for the BRMSB several years before TT surfaced in Britain.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Golden Fleece 30]

Interesting Gary. It was Edward Beal who said they were the same in the first of his "Modelling in TT Gauge" articles in August 1957 MRC "One of the useful features of the Tri-ang engines is that the wheels- also like those of the rolling stock- are made to OO gauge tread and flange-widths.Stated in writing this may arouse a sense of antagonism in scale fans, but really on the actual model it is not any drawback. On the other hand, this means that the full range of existing OO  gauge wheels in all diameters is at the disposal of the locomotive department." I would have expected a modeller of Beal's distinction to have got his facts straight but there were suggestions from Bryant that his knowledge of TT at that time was theoretical rather than practical. 

Bryant worked simultaneously in 3mm scale for Grassington and in TT-3 for his Pint Pot layout so he did have practical knowledge and it may be telling that MRC ended Beal's articles rather abruptly after the first four which were immediately followed by Mike Bryant's totally practical series on building the 4x2 Pint Pot layout.

 

What a lot of people were saying at that time was that the BRMSB had totally missed the bus by not coming up with standards for TT earlier and so again leaving it for a toy train manufacturer to set them instead. I think though that there was a general misapprehension that the BRMSB was a permanently established fully staffed standards body rather than an ad hoc committee. 

 

David (Il Griffone)

You've mentioned the BRMSB standards for TT. Do you happen to know when these were published and how close they are to the 3mm society's current standards? I only have the 1950 edition of Standard Dimensions published by META for the BRMSB several years before TT surfaced in Britain.

Here you are David, an early spoked Tri-ang 00 wheel against a TT one.  Even when Tri-ang (by now Hornby) initially changed to plated wheels there size was the same.  It was a long time after the demise of TT that their 00 wheels were slimmed down a little.  The depth of the flange was only just a little larger in 00 but everything else was considerably smaller.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

Here you are David, an early spoked Tri-ang 00 wheel against a TT one.  Even when Tri-ang (by now Hornby) initially changed to plated wheels there size was the same.  It was a long time after the demise of TT that their 00 wheels were slimmed down a little.  The depth of the flange was only just a little larger in 00 but everything else was considerably smaller.

 

Garry

Thanks Gary

I've still got a couple of TT-3 wagons and a Jinty lurking around somewhere but nothing from the same era from Tri-ang in OO to compare them with so it's interesting to see them together.

[NCB]

David (Il Griffone)

You've mentioned the BRMSB standards for TT. Do you happen to know when these were published and how close they are to the 3mm society's current standards? I only have the 1950 edition of Standard Dimensions published by META for the BRMSB several years before TT surfaced in Britain.

 

Mixed Traffic no.2, which published proposals for 14.2mm gauge, also included the BRMSB standards for 12mm gauge. Broadly speaking, the BRMSB standards lie within the 3mm Society's Intermediate standards for wheels. The track is a bit different; the check gauge is smaller (10.75 +- 0.05) and the check gap (1.25 +- 0.05) is larger.

 

Not sure the track standards would work correctly; there's a danger of the wheel flange hitting the crossing nose. If the check gauge is at the upper limit and the check gap close to the smaller it becomes just about safe; it would be wise to adjust them a bit further, e.g. 10.85 and 1.15, which are close to Triang standards.

 

Nigel

[Il Grifone]

I can't remember where I found the standards - somewhere recently on the internet! I find Firefox tends to loose open tabs (too many open?), so finding things again can be a problem. To mention Tri-ang, I would assume 1957 or later.

 

There is a little tolerance on check gauge because of the flange taper. As can be seen in Garry's post, Tri-ang 00 wheels don't have any.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Il Grifone

[NCB]

The other thing about Triang wheels is that fact that the tread is flat. This means is it sits firmly on the (flat) top of the rail. If you've ever wondered why Triag locos seem to keep going with crud on wheels and rail this is probably why. In contrast, "better" wheels with coned treads only have a small area in contact with the rail (the rail edge), because the rail isn't canted to match the cone, unlike the prototype.

 

Nigel

[locomad]

The other thing about Triang wheels is that fact that the tread is flat. This means is it sits firmly on the (flat) top of the rail. If you've ever wondered why Triag locos seem to keep going with crud on wheels and rail this is probably why. In contrast, "better" wheels with coned treads only have a small area in contact with the rail (the rail edge), because the rail isn't canted to match the cone, unlike the prototype.

 

Nigel

Is this why triang locos once weight is added seem to have quite good pulling power, more contact with the rails hence more traction

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here are 3 locos now repainted along with how they came after purchase.  The Standard V was not bad but I wanted a cleaner version, I did try to put the red boiler bands on but the cast bands were too proud and it did not look too good so I decided to leave them off.  The 2P actually needs some larger tender wheels which I thought I had in store but unfortunately no so they will need to be bought. This loco is near the end of its working life so the smokebox numberplate has been removed, actually the cast plate is not big enough for the 5 BR numbers and the paint shop has been instructed not to line it out (not the fact I have no suitable transfers lol).  The satin varnish seems to be a little more glossy than usual but it will do, the base black from Railmatch is a lovely finish but the transfers do need a protective coat. 

 

Garry

[Robert Shrives]

Hi , Like the way the std 5 turned out  Works waiting for tender wheels? In fact all are lovely models. 

 

It does make we wonder where Triang would have gone next - I know about the Mogul plans,   but the STD 5 would have been a possible surely given parts to hand.  Would the dmu have become an emu in time using the suburbans as middle coaches thus reducing costs or more of the 4 cep mainline style train.

Would the 31 bogies given a class 37  given it was in the OO range or perhaps a class 55 to go with the Pullman coaches.   

 

Given the A4 kit was quick to market would an A3 as (4472 of course) been a stablemate based on the Brit  . Would the market accept a Q1 with the BOB wheels?

 

How about EM1 or EM2 to downsize the OO model and a range of ole to match?- certainly would give use of the mechnical of the dmu and 31 respectively.   

 

I wonder if the early "built in"motor would have been replaced on the first models with the lovely later motor from the Brit.

Perhaps a french diesel ?

 

Just saying , I will get my coat as it is late,

Robert 

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi , Like the way the std 5 turned out Works waiting for tender wheels? In fact all are lovely models.

 

It does make we wonder where Triang would have gone next - I know about the Mogul plans, but the STD 5 would have been a possible surely given parts to hand. Would the dmu have become an emu in time using the suburbans as middle coaches thus reducing costs or more of the 4 cep mainline style train.

Would the 31 bogies given a class 37 given it was in the OO range or perhaps a class 55 to go with the Pullman coaches.

 

Given the A4 kit was quick to market would an A3 as (4472 of course) been a stablemate based on the Brit . Would the market accept a Q1 with the BOB wheels?

 

How about EM1 or EM2 to downsize the OO model and a range of ole to match?- certainly would give use of the mechnical of the dmu and 31 respectively.

 

I wonder if the early "built in"motor would have been replaced on the first models with the lovely later motor from the Brit.

Perhaps a french diesel ?

 

Just saying , I will get my coat as it is late,

Robert

Hi Robert,

 

I decided to try to use more scale wheels in the tender which in this case are spoked but were a pain to fit. Due to that I want to make sure all wheels sit true so the centre axle boxes need altering or a different wheel assembly is required first.

 

Regarding what Tri-ang might have beens being made I agree with you on the locos etc. After all in those days using a common part even if it was slightly wrong was common place and we all were happy to accept a new model. It's just a pity none of it happend.

 

I would think the XT60 may have become the standard as it does fit most locos and would then have given Tri-ang the opportunity to redo the Castle with a proper Belpaire firebox, but, its all supposition now.

 

Garry

Edited August 17, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[detheridge]

 

  Would the market accept a Q1 with the BOB wheels?

Hi Robert,

 

you may remember that Bec or Esanel did produce a Q1 kit to go on the Jinty chassis complete with Boxpok overlays.

3SMR still have it on the books IIRC, plus wheels.

I've seen the odd one on 'a well known Internet site' to coin a phrase.

 

Regards,

 

David

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi Robert,

 

you may remember that Bec or Esanel did produce a Q1 kit to go on the Jinty chassis complete with Boxpok overlays.

3SMR still have it on the books IIRC, plus wheels.

I've seen the odd one on 'a well known Internet site' to coin a phrase.

 

Regards,

 

David

These "overlays" were cast whitemetal and very thick putting about 1mm on the thickness of a wheel, I think the coupling rod screw actually screwed into the casting too.  I am hoping to have some etches made as an extra on one of my future kits.  These will be brass and fit inside the wheel rim.

 

Garry

[whart57]

The 3mm Society now offers Bulleid wheels (15mm and 18mm diameter) in the SQ range (with square ended axles)

[Robert Shrives]

hi Quite right on chassis and wheel inserts were cast in the day but 3SMR do an etched inlay version and of course the Soc wheels are just the job in every way !  The recent ebay 3smr Q1 chassis etch and inserts went abroad I am told so hopefully joy created - I wonder if we will see pictures here

 

An internet buy got a Triang DMU bogie it arrived today and " me " it has a 5 pole armature and is brilliant compared to some of mine.  Now that would have been a Triang "what if " to die for !!  

 

Happy modelling

Robert 

[Golden Fleece 30]

A few spare minutes tonight gave me the chance to drop the BEC Brush type 4 into some Caustic Soda, clean it up and then solder it together as it had previously been glued.  It was a little distorted but the sides easily were "flattened" as much as they could be.  Once completed I will see if I can glue some brass sheet inside to strengthen them as they are quite thin.

 

Robert, was the DMU bogie the one that finished a couple of days ago?  If so you beat me to it and it sounds to be a beauty .

 

Garry

[Robert Shrives]

Hi lovely looking 47 castings , there was one on ebay as well last night but not for me I dislike the front nose shape - close  and have one anyway albeit as D1733 in XP64 livery. Great soldering job.

 

Plausible deniability on the bogie.  But would love to track down the 5 pole motor armature source.

 

Robert  

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi lovely looking 47 castings , there was one on ebay as well last night but not for me I dislike the front nose shape - close and have one anyway albeit as D1733 in XP64 livery. Great soldering job.

 

Plausible deniability on the bogie. But would love to track down the 5 pole motor armature source.

 

Robert

I lost out on the 47 while in the swimming pool but I had already put my limit on it.

 

Could the 5 pole armature in the motor bogie be from the same source as the ones used in the Castles etc? I don't know who made them but understand it was a long time ago and the chap stopped a fair while ago.

 

Garry