cctransuk

Not a wagon, just a container.

BR A40709B - I have the cast plate, ask not how -  and ...... it appears in an episode of "All Creatures Great and Small".

Bishopdale, Yorkshire.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Not sure I understand? Is this down to cost?

Don't ask !!! - just go back a bit in this thread, reading D1030......'s postings.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

The comment in the Hornby magazine also states "  Tooling work for the 00 gauge diesel brake tender model  was completed in late November with the first sample expected to arrive imminently for evaluation"

So where do Hornby magazine go from here in order to arrive at an accurate model?

I suspect that there is some frantic research underway!

" Following feedback on the project the exact identities of the vehicles are being reviewed" suggests to me that they are hoping against hope that there is an authentic identity that they can apply to the model that has already been tooled. I think that they'll find that the answer is a resounding "No"!

I'm afraid that I have no sympathy - we did try to help when the subject was first raised but it seems that we wasted our time; our information apparently fell upon deaf ears.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Any chance of a close up of the bogie please John.

 

Mike.

As requested.

Such a cruel close-up highlights the deficiencies of my modelling and painting techniques but, like Tony Wright, I am producing 'layout stock', not museum pieces!

Regards,

John Isherwood.

The correct, shorter length of the bogies really emphasizes the length of the extended well body.

 

Sorry for the low res. - this image size limit is a real pain!

 

As promised, a photo of the TRESTROL with shortened bogies.

Sorry for the low res. - this image size limit is a real pain!

Regards,

John Isherwood.

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

Well - a bit of a fiddle, but it worked.

The correct, shorter length of the bogies really emphasizes the length of the extended well body.

Just a bit of touching up to the paintwork tomorrow, then I'll take and post some photos.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Below is a photo of one of a pair of Keyser B-set coaches that I have just completed, finished in early BR lined crimson livery.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Was the 24t hopper  a private-owner ore type?

I seem to recall that the assessment of more knowledgeable wagon experts than myself was that it is underlength - whereas the more recent Mainline / Bachmann model is overlength.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Line 10 on my screen says "In other news Model Rail magazine have today announced that their USA tank will now be produced by Bachmann rather than Dapol.".

 

Mike

Astonishing - I had scanned that page numerous times - a case of 'can't see for looking'!

Sorry,

John Isherwood.

If you read halfway down the page the link takes you to, all will become clear, John.

Nope - just the H2 announcement.

Perhaps you could give a link directly to the USA announcement, or quote the relevant text, please?

Thanks,

John Isherwood.

This model is now produced by Bachmann as anounced today: 

http://grahammuz.com/2013/08/31/Bachmann-announce-that-it-is-to-produce-a-00-scale-ex-london-brighton-and-south-coast-atlantic-h2-class-4-4-2/

 

Felix

As far as I can see, the link refers to the H2 Class 4-4-2 .......... or am I missing something?

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I came across an LMS Crab in a very rural area of Lincolnshire a few weeks ago, the wheels had been removed from the frames and running plate and the cab was separate from the rest of it but it was unmistakable. I'll keep the location under wraps to keep the metal fairies away but I'm more than a little curious as to what it was doing there?

 

Presumably it was there for some part of restoration but it was an odd place to find it, any information would I'm sure suppress my curiosity.

It's 42859; Google will provide details.

Sounds like a lost cause from what I've just read.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

...........It's a difficult one assuming what the "silent majority" will be, we simply do not have those data.......

Neil

Precisely my point - we cannot extrapolate the postings here to be representative of the situation as a whole.

I was pointing out that, just because there has been a certain amount of negativity here, we cannot conclude that there is problem with a significant proportion of the Westerns produced by Dapol.

It was because some posters were drawing this conclusion, and being reticent to purchase, that I felt obliged to comment.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Oh Dear.  All this negativity is making me wonder about the D1062 special.  Hopefully this one will be perfect. Pretty please.

Don't be put off !!

Remember - you haven't heard from the overwhelming silent majority who are perfectly happy with their Westerns and other Dapol models - amongst whom I number myself.

Just because there's a lot of 'noise' doesn't mean that the majority of models are defective - far from it!

Have a head count of those posters who report problems, and then compare that to the hundreds / thousands of models sold.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Pent9.gif

 

Pent8.gif

 

 

I thought that I'd read that this wagon had a black Rubberoid covering to the entire body.

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Another vote here for Dapol locos!

Regards,

John Isherwood.