Does any real 'Gronk' have Tri-ang features?

[Rhydgaled]

'Gronks' span five TOPS classes (class 08 to class 12) and quite possibily several types that never made it into TOPS (such as the GWR loco renumbered by BR to 15100). A look at older topics suggests there are differences even between class 08s, most of which I don't seem to be able to spot. I have however managed to spot two ways that the Tri-ang model (https://www.hattons.co.uk/12868/tri_ang_r152_class_08_shunter_d3035_in_br_blue_green/stockdetail) differs from photos of a real class 08:

1. the grill on the 'nose' of the model (which I believe would be a radiator on the real loco) is made up of a series of horizontal ridges, but all the photos I've found when I've been looking into this have mostly vertical 'ridges'
2. the left hand side has an extra box on the side, covering one of four panels (I assume this to be for air brake system components, which only some locos had - however on photos I can only find examples where either this extra box is absent or it is larger, covering two of the four panels and leaving no gaps between the boxes on that side)

 

So, my question is, are/were there any real locos within the wider 'gronk' family that had these features (and any other strange features of the Tri-ang model I've missed)?

[kevinlms]

Here's a photo as to why the extra box is on the side. It's never been removed, even though the clockwork version was discontinued many years ago.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204463120089?hash=item2f9af39ed9:g:erQAAOSwKExlBEMX

[bécasse]

You have missed the most obvious difference, the "standard" 350hp shunters had outside frames, that Tri-ang model, being mounted on their "Jinty" chassis had inside ones! What is more remarkable is that I am not convinced that the much later Hornby (and perhaps Bachmann) models match precise prototypes although their "generic" appearance is good.

[33C]

The LMS 0.6.0 (08) D3/7, 7080-7119,diesels had jackshaft drive and seem to match the body style.

[The Johnster]

There were Gronks with inside frames but none were anything like the Triang R152 model in appearance, being jackshaft driven.  I believe one of the early LMS types was a drastic rebuild of a Midland 1F steam engine retaining not much beyond the feames and running plate, but the others all had wheelbases and axle spacings very different to R152.  
 

To complicate matters, the generic Jinty chassis in it’s various forms which is used under the model is not correct for a Jinty (which would at least mean it was correct for a 1F) or any of the other locos it has been used under either.  Basically, R152 is a crude toy that cannot seriously be used as the basis for a scale 08 or any other Gronk. 
 

 

[Wickham Green too]

31 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

... one of the early LMS types was a drastic rebuild of a Midland 1F steam engine retaining not much beyond the frames and running plate, ...

Yes, drastic, not only in its steam to diesel conversion - but the body looked nothing like any (?) other diesel shunter, being full width from end to end : I presume it had driving controls ( I hesitate to say 'cab' ) at both ends.

[kevinlms]

52 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

There were Gronks with inside frames but none were anything like the Triang R152 model in appearance, being jackshaft driven.  I believe one of the early LMS types was a drastic rebuild of a Midland 1F steam engine retaining not much beyond the frames and running plate,

 

 

Of course, it is nothing like subsequent diesel shunters. It was built purely to see if a diesel engine could be used in a shunting loco and an old 1F 0-6-0T chassis was used as a cheap option, with a body and cab. Little outlay, if a disaster. The LMS had spent big money on unsuccessful experiments in the 1920s - "Fury" and the Ljungstrom steam turbine to name two. They may not have paid for all the costs, but they would have been wary.

 

While in itself not that successful, but it certainly pointed the way for the LMS to consider more from other suppliers. In fact the LMS never built any more 0-6-0Ts for shunting purposes after these experiments. That suggests that the results were VERY promising.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_diesel_shunter_1831

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

... not correct for a 3F (which would at least mean it was correct for a 1F) ... 

In fact a 3F tank had what we think of as standard Midland wheelbase of 8'+8'6'' where 1831 had an 8'+7'8'' wheelbase - seemingly stretched from its original 7'4''+7'8'' form ! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Railway_1377_Class

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Of course, it is nothing like subsequent diesel shunters. It was built purely to see if a diesel engine could be used in a shunting loco and an old 1F 0-6-0T chassis was used as a cheap option, with a body and cab. Little outlay, if a disaster. The LMS had spent big money on unsuccessful experiments in the 1920s - "Fury" and the Ljungstrom steam turbine to name two. They may not have paid for all the costs, but they would have been wary.

 

While in itself not that successful, but it certainly pointed the way for the LMS to consider more from other suppliers. In fact the LMS never built any more 0-6-0Ts for shunting purposes after these experiments. That suggests that the results were VERY promising.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_diesel_shunter_1831

 

The evolution rapidly developed to fill a particular niche, marshalling yard and hump yard shunting where a loco was required 24/7.  A diesel could be left in service, occasionally topped up with fuel and coolant, replacing three steam equivalents or freeing them up for other duties.  Bit of a no-brainer, build or buy a 350hp shunting engine for 24/7 work and get three free steam 0-6-0tanks for other jobs.  All of the big four went down this route to various extents, but the LMS led the charge...  This led to the familiar Gronk outline with a short wheelbase to maximise adhesive weight and outside frames to accommodate big traction motors, and I would argue that no better British engine has ever been produced for that particular purpose.  It also lent itself to station pilot work for similar reasons, but did not have the ability that a steam station pilot had of replacing failed locomotives if necessary, the speeds were too low

 

One wonders (well Johnster does anyway) why the longer wheelbase was abandoned, though.  It would have made the locos much more versatile, capable of being used on trip and even local passenger work in the same way as the six-coupled steam tank engines they replaced on shunting duties.  The Southern's 40mph 500hp engine is the sort of thing I mean, though that was designed with a particular yard-yard transfer duty in mind.  An 0-6-0 designed purely for shunting was a rarity on main line railways until the Gronks appeared; many are thought of as 'shunters' but were not, they were general purpose small mixed traffic engines that did a lot of the shunting work.  As a child I always considered that panniers were 'shunters' because that's all I'd ever seen them doing, until father took me on a run over Torpantau just before the B&M line closed in 1962.  Here was an 8750 hauling main line express gangwayed Hawksworth coaches, dropping down the 5-mile bank at around 50mph (plus!), definitely not shunting. What I'm getting at is that something like a scaled-up R152 might have been a useful small diesel locomotive on real railways!

 

The answer, probably, is that it didn't occur to anyone.  There were plenty of 0-6-0T engines around, some of them like 57xx/8750s, Jinties, or J50s, quite modern with a lot of mileage left in them.  The GW/WR considered it was worth building hundreds more well into the 50s, including new designs, some of which had very short working lives but that was due to traffic collapse and a later policy of dieselisation rather than any problems with the locos themselves.  Easy to avoid being shortsighted when you have 20/20 hind-vision!

[keefer]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The answer, probably, is that it didn't occur to anyone

It did though but the result seemed to be (with diesel-electric particularly) if they were geared for shunting then they were too low-geared for trip work - or if geared for trips, they were too high-geared for shunting. 

[Wickham Green too]

.... then there were the D9500s.

[F-UnitMad]

A few Bescot Gronks had side skirts a bit like on that Triang one, except they were stiff canvas or rubber, to help prevent water ingress from Oxley carraige wash.

[The Johnster]

First there were various South Walian constituent/absorbed 0-6-2Ts inherited by the GW at the grouping.  Policy was to survey the fleet, rebuild any that were any good with GW boilers (some of which owed their original design to this policy, like no.10), work the others out, and scrap the rest (most of the Barry fleet).  Very sensible in hindsight.

 

Then there were the 94xx panniers, designed to replace the rebuilt/Swindonised engines coming to the end of their useful live late 40s/early 50sn  Job done by 1958, by which time traffic was haemorraging and nsome 94xx were being withdrawn after less than five years service.  Not very sensible in hindsight, but we didn't foresee the situation when we ordered them, not making that mistake again!

 

Then there were the class 14s, and, actually, belay that, we are going to make that mistake again, a 600hp dh replacement for the 94xx that was ordered when the 94xx were already proven surplus to requirement, with not enough power to pull much and useless brakes if you had to stop it.  Highly not sensible at all in hindsight, as the failures should have been obvious in foresight!  Introduction was supposed to be in late '62/early 63 but was delayed by bay-blocking broken down Warships at Swindon and the desperate rush to finish the badly needed Westerns so that they were put into service after Beeching, when it was already obvious that they were not needed; in the event they were not liked either.  They were neither fish nor fowl, too big to outclass the 08s, too small to match 22s or 37s, too slow for main line work, and too weak in the brakes for any job that was not on level track (and we all know how common this was in their South Wales stomping grounds).

 

Despite their unsuitability for trip work, they proved very effective as heavy industrial locos in private service for the NCB, the steel industry, and others, especially as they were sold off at a knockdown price apparently.  This was a very poor consolation prize.  But Swindon's long-term policies took a bit of shifting once they were rooted in the culture, and the replacement of 19th century saddle tanks with 'modern' panniers, continued until 1956 with the 16xx, is another example.

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Despite their unsuitability for trip work, they proved very effective as heavy industrial locos in private service for the NCB, the steel industry, and others, especially as they were sold off at a knockdown price apparently. 

(Re D95xx/Class 14s) Presumably the canny leaders of heavy industry knew a Bargain when they saw it. 😉😁

[The Johnster]

Absolutely; knowing a bargain when you see one is a prerequisite for being a captain of heavy industry!  The secondhand teddy bears were 'priced to sell', much cheaper than the equivalent heavy Bagnalls and GM Bo-Bos that some of the big steelworks were using, low-mileage, and one (fairly) careful owner.  Brush-Bagnall probably lost some sales and the locos hit the market just when the big NCB systems at Philadelphia and Hetton were looking to replace their steam engines.  They were snapped up quite quickly.

 

There was never a huge market for heavy industrial shunting engines in the UK, and the sudden unexpected release of 56 600hp hydraulic teddy bears on to it in 1969 must have flooded it a bit!

[jjb1970]

The Triang 08 must be one of the worst models ever. The body does do a reasonable job of representing a generic 08/EE shunter, crude and way off the pace but it's still very obviously a gronk type. however the bit below the body is awful and is one of the few instances where it is a fair comment to use that old modeller favourite - 'it looks nothing like an 08'.

[kevinlms]

4 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The Triang 08 must be one of the worst models ever. The body does do a reasonable job of representing a generic 08/EE shunter, crude and way off the pace but it's still very obviously a gronk type. however the bit below the body is awful and is one of the few instances where it is a fair comment to use that old modeller favourite - 'it looks nothing like an 08'.

I don't think anyone will disagree, but it was primarily intended for the toy market and I suspect sold in huge numbers. Quite possibly by people looking for present for a child that was known to have a model railway and since it was probably at the cheap end of the range, why not?

[jjb1970]

1 minute ago, kevinlms said:

I don't think anyone will disagree, but it was primarily intended for the toy market and I suspect sold in huge numbers. Quite possibly by people looking for present for a child that was known to have a model railway and since it was probably at the cheap end of the range, why not?

 

Indeed, though I think that's a bit of a simplification. In my younger days it was marketed by Hornby as an 08 and wasn't that cheap. The fact that more recent iterations have been very clearly marketed as cheap entry level models doesn't mean that was always the case.

[Wickham Green too]

I guess it was the only 08-ish loco on the market when introduced .......... the Hornby-Dublo model wasn't perfect by a long chalk but far better : I presume it came along later.

[TinTracks]

49 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

I guess it was the only 08-ish loco on the market when introduced .......... the Hornby-Dublo model wasn't perfect by a long chalk but far better : I presume it came along later.

http://www.hornbyguide.com/year_details_pricelist.asp?yearid=64

Hi. According to the above the Triang R152 was thrust upon us in 1956. According to the book by Michael Foster on the history of HD the Dublo version was first announced in the December 1960 Meccano Magazine. Dublo 2 rail version arrived on the market first followed in May 1961 by the 3 rail version.

 Regards, Rich

[giz]

From around 1980 it appears to have been re-tooled with a new, more accurate body but still with inside frames:

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=163

 

The original one then looks to have been used in the Thomas range

Edited October 16, 2023 by giz

[BernardTPM]

Earlier than that. The new model (initially R.156) first mentioned in 1976. The retooled model featured an automatic uncoupling device for a while, but that had gone by 1980. A much better body and the steps up the front were separate metal pressings (very like those on the Brit/9F tender) but again it was hopeless below the running plate. There were some moulded guidelines round the cab and bonnet for Australian liveries. Of course, the 1976 catalogue only showed the pre-production mock-up and I'm not sure if it the new model was actually in the shops before 1977. The old tool version subsequently acquired a face and became Devious Diesel.

Edited October 16, 2023 by BernardTPM

[The Johnster]

It must still be turning an honest (if you discount the dishonesty of something so obviously not an 08 being described as an 08) bob for Hornby after all these years, because they bring it out at every excuse.  I believe it is still being marketed in a military themed 'task force' train set, and is likely to turn up in catalogue train sets as well. 

 

TTBOMK it was the first RTR diesel for 00, and it is a pity it was so hopeless as a model!  Triang's

[BernardTPM]

The 'Task Force' shunter is the 1976 model* rather than the 1956 one. The last use of the 1956 model was this in 2011.

 

* at least in body terms. More than one design of chassis has been used since introduction.

Edited October 16, 2023 by BernardTPM

[kevinlms]

I don't understand why some expect it to be a scale model. This '08' is a model that designed way back to utilise existing parts from the Tri-ang stock, mostly the inaccurate anyway, 'Jinty' 0-6-0T chassis with a new body made to fit - allowance was even made for a clockwork version, which meant provision needed to be made for a key and the control levers out of the rear of the cab.

Holes are easily filled, but not remodelling the panels where the key was located.

 

So Tri-ang (and their descendants) have done nothing different in reusing moulds and parts, over many years. Richard Lines was proud to make models available at fairly modest cost. Yes, I know some will argue that they weren't cheap! But they were much cheaper than Hornby Dublo and THAT was a key reason, why Tri-ang didn't keep making HD. Richard Lines said so in an interview in Model Railway Constructor in 1966 February - so that news is more than 57 years old!

 

If you don't like particular models (I don't like the old 08 either) and so I've joined lots of you and never owned one!