Tri-ang AL2 (Class 82) Conversion

[Halvarras]

36 minutes ago, Morgenergy said:

Receiving notifications about responses only to see folks still debating what bogies Dublo fitted is rather flummoxing.

 

It's called 'thread drift' Morgan, a common phenomenon of which I am occasionally guilty myself! 😬

[Waveydavey]

If you are looking at using Triang trailing bogies you'll find that Triang made them 9'3" wheelbase rather than 10' so you'll need to extend them. I'm not convinced that Triang got the various holes, axleboxes etc in the correct place. The plastic is very brittle too so not easy to carve off the footsteps.

 

 

A possible start for the bogies is the Hornby ringfield motored bogie frame. It is, at least, 10' wheelbase but needs work to make it more class 82 shaped. Below is the Hymek sideframe, the Hymek sideframe with a start on fettling, and the Triang sideframe at the bottom.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

 

 

 

 

[Waveydavey]

Just for fun, here's an 82 bodyshell I bought from ebay a couple of years ago.

 

 

It's resin, very clearly cast from a modified Hornby 86 and not very well done at all. As you can see, a combination of insubstantial wrapping and the Royal Mail didn't end well. I glued it back together but can't see it being any use other than as a door stop.

[25kV]

19 minutes ago, Waveydavey said:

Just for fun, here's an 82 bodyshell I bought from ebay a couple of years ago.

 

 

It's resin, very clearly cast from a modified Hornby 86 and not very well done at all. As you can see, a combination of insubstantial wrapping and the Royal Mail didn't end well. I glued it back together but can't see it being any use other than as a door stop.

With that diamond pantograph on the end, I can only assume they were going for a representation of E3055, which trialled the first AEI cross-arm pantograph on one end before catching fire in 1966 and writing itself off.  😉

[Morgenergy]

On 09/12/2023 at 09:27, Waveydavey said:

If you are looking at using Triang trailing bogies you'll find that Triang made them 9'3" wheelbase rather than 10' so you'll need to extend them. I'm not convinced that Triang got the various holes, axleboxes etc in the correct place. The plastic is very brittle too so not easy to carve off the footsteps.

 

 

A possible start for the bogies is the Hornby ringfield motored bogie frame. It is, at least, 10' wheelbase but needs work to make it more class 82 shaped. Below is the Hymek sideframe, the Hymek sideframe with a start on fettling, and the Triang sideframe at the bottom.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of input I live for; thanks a bunch.

 

I was hoping to use Triang bogies since they loosely look the part; I've seen Hymek bogies used before by an infamous former member of the forum and it's very clever. I'm inexperienced in building and detailing bogies at the moment though, so I'll stick with working on the Triang ones when I find some. For the basic representation that I'm going for, they'll do as a starting point.

 

I purchased a pair of ringfield Hymeks fairly recently at a toyfair for cheap, that had been outfitted with Ultrascale wheels. The idea of swapping things over was certainly present, though they're too nice to break up...

 

Morgan

[BernardTPM]

There's quite a good side-on shot with clear view of the bogies here. The Tri-ang AL2 type are pretty close, I'd say, just 3mm short in the middle really. The big difference is where they tooled on the AL1 style bracket, top centre (which is actually attached to the body in real life).

[25kV]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

There's quite a good side-on shot with clear view of the bogies here. The Tri-ang AL2 type are pretty close, I'd say, just 3mm short in the middle really. The big difference is where they tooled on the AL1 style bracket, top centre (which is actually attached to the body in real life).

Worth noting that the much larger AL2 "brackets" are also attached to the body on the real thing - they're part of the underframe and are connected through the bogie by a beam.

[roythebus1]

On 05/12/2023 at 15:15, BernardTPM said:

Perhaps it was fortunate they didn't use the EMU sideframes then and were spared 3rd rail pick-ups on an overhead electric! 😀

Class 92? :)

 

[Morgenergy]

9 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

There's quite a good side-on shot with clear view of the bogies here. The Tri-ang AL2 type are pretty close, I'd say, just 3mm short in the middle really. The big difference is where they tooled on the AL1 style bracket, top centre (which is actually attached to the body in real life).

Cracking photo that - exactly what I needed for eventual bogie work. Been looking for ages.

 

The brackets have been a subject of much of my thoughts for this bash - I think besides giving the bogie frames more length, slapping those on will be the biggest improvement to the Tri-ang frames and should make them look the part...

 

I'll attach them to the underframe  a la Hornby 86 Zebedees.

 

Morgan

[97406]

On 09/12/2023 at 09:57, 25kV said:

With that diamond pantograph on the end, I can only assume they were going for a representation of E3055, which trialled the first AEI cross-arm pantograph on one end before catching fire in 1966 and writing itself off.  😉

 

At least one of the Euston 83s had cross arm pantographs in service and I will be having my own go at modelling it alongside IC 82008 which looks to have had had a Faiveley ‘bike frame’ in service.

 

 

Here’s the 83 looking smart with its black dominoes and cross arm panto. I’ll be using the Bachmann 85 as a starting point which will be simpler for the 82. There are subtle differences in the 83’s cab and what appears to be a higher solebar/shallower bodyside than classes 81/2/5 so I may use a different approach when I get to doing it.

 

 

Pics from Flickr. Gordon Edgar for the 82 and Leighton Logs for the 83.

Edited December 13, 2023 by 97406

[25kV]

7 hours ago, 97406 said:

 

At least one of the Euston 83s had cross arm pantographs in service and I will be having my own go at modelling it alongside IC 82008 which looks to have had had a Faiveley ‘bike frame’ in service.

 

 

Here’s the 83 looking smart with its black dominoes and cross arm panto. I’ll be using the Bachmann 85 as a starting point which will be simpler for the 82. There are subtle differences in the 83’s cab and what appears to be a higher solebar/shallower bodyside than classes 81/2/5 so I may use a different approach when I get to doing it.

 

 

Pics from Flickr. Gordon Edgar for the 82 and Leighton Logs for the 83.

 

82008 also had a cross arm at withdrawal (and still carries it today), and as you say 83009, 83012 (still fitted) and 83015 also carried them during their Euston ECS days.  I think 82005 retained its Faiveley until withdrawal. 

 

The subtle shape differences between the classes are what give them their individual character - even the proportions/shapes of the three windscreens subtly vary between the types.  The 83 was by far the shortest of the classes, which gives rise to its more squat appearance - alongside the other types, there's not much in it in terms of height dimensions.

This photo shows the 83 alongside the 81 at Barrow Hill (Ryan Tranmer on Flickr) and while the 83 is set back a little the lower edge of the bodywork is about the same level:
 

 

[97406]

39 minutes ago, 25kV said:

 

82008 also had a cross arm at withdrawal (and still carries it today), and as you say 83009, 83012 (still fitted) and 83015 also carried them during their Euston ECS days.  I think 82005 retained its Faiveley until withdrawal. 

 

The subtle shape differences between the classes are what give them their individual character - even the proportions/shapes of the three windscreens subtly vary between the types.  The 83 was by far the shortest of the classes, which gives rise to its more squat appearance - alongside the other types, there's not much in it in terms of height dimensions.

This photo shows the 83 alongside the 81 at Barrow Hill (Ryan Tranmer on Flickr) and while the 83 is set back a little the lower edge of the bodywork is about the same level:
 

 

 

That’s a good reference picture. There’s something about the 83’s screens that reminds me of the Trix 81, although the outer screens are a little wider looking on the 83 itself.

[25kV]

The photo gallery on the ACLG website has a lot of my photos from their early preservation days - 1997 through 2005 or so contain plenty of images where the locos were stabled together, which may or may not be useful for gauging dimension differences, naturally taking into account unlevel track, tyre wear etc! 😉  Back when I originally scanned/made the digital images the internet was much lower resolution, so they're not the largest of photos.  Looking at their current gallery, your best bet for viewing is to right click an individual image and open it in a new tab for the full 800x600 glory, as the page layout displays them smaller than this.

[97406]

Also worth looking out for a copy of this on the likes of Ebay. It'll prove invaluable for the chassis detail.

 

[Dagworth]

1 hour ago, 97406 said:

Also worth looking out for a copy of this on the likes of Ebay. It'll prove invaluable for the chassis detail.

 

Beware of using the drawings as gospel though, I found measurement errors on the 85. 
 

Andi

[97406]

51 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

Beware of using the drawings as gospel though, I found measurement errors on the 85. 
 

Andi

 

It’s just got to look like the prototype, so there will also be much referring to photographs and no doubt a few happy accidents along the way!

[25kV]

As well as the Carter drawing book, there are also drawings in BR Main Line Electric Locomotives by C. Marsden & G. Fenn (two editions I believe), though pay no heed to the oft-repeated therein concept of the "6.25kV pantograph" on the roarers.  That was not a thing.  😉 

[97406]

1 hour ago, 25kV said:

As well as the Carter drawing book, there are also drawings in BR Main Line Electric Locomotives by C. Marsden & G. Fenn (two editions I believe), though pay no heed to the oft-repeated therein concept of the "6.25kV pantograph" on the roarers.  That was not a thing.  😉 

 

Just got myself a copy. Many thanks for the tip!

[Morgenergy]

I've been looking for the Carter book of drawings (I have the diesel equivalent somewhere) but don't wish to pay over the odds; I've got the diesel one and it cost me something ridiculous like 4 quid, I was most pleased. One will turn up soon enough.

[97406]

6 hours ago, Morgenergy said:

I've been looking for the Carter book of drawings (I have the diesel equivalent somewhere) but don't wish to pay over the odds; I've got the diesel one and it cost me something ridiculous like 4 quid, I was most pleased. One will turn up soon enough.

 

I got mine for £11 off Ebay a while back. The other one was £16 off Amazon Marketplace.

[roythebus1]

I'm sure I've got a copy of that book somewhere, I've just been clearing out m railway room...