Triang 0-4-0 and 4W motor bogie - improving running

[DCB]

17 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Has anyone tried a knurled wheel vs. plain wheels to see if any different? Presumably Tri-ang tested the idea and went down that path for a reason.

The knurled wheeled version pulls around twice the load of the smooth wheeled on Super 4 track.

The performance is much the same on code 100 / system 6 as the flanges run on the rail chairs and only let the tyres drive between sleepers. I have never managed t turn down the large flange Knurled wheel flanges to suit code 100.  I ran 3 loco TC lashups on massive trains about 18 bogies on a layout on a patio at a holiday let in Aviemore a few years ago. It needed two controllers for 2 amps.   Great Fun.

 

On 24/01/2020 at 13:15, Il Grifone said:

The Hornby black plastic X.03/4* worm S.9575 is single start and its matching grey gear X.1145 has 28 teeth giving obviously a 28:1 ratio. The early brass gear is twin start and its gear has 40 teeth giving 20:1 (the 'Nellie' type are 30 tooth giving 15:1) which accounts for the bat out of hell performance of Tri-ang mechanisms.  

 

The Triang TT single start brass worm fits the XO4  and gives a 30 to 1 ratio. I have a Romford gearset on one 0-4-0 chassis with an MW 005, 40:1 I believe, and 16mm Romfords. It ran very nicely at low speed and still went like a bat out of hell until I nicked the motor for something else.  What I find improves the Dock Shunter and strip steel 0-4-0 chassis is controlling the side play with washers between the worm wheel and the side of the chassis. It keeps the worm centred over the axle gear and stops the chassis moving sideways when changing direction.

The chassis tend to be tight to gauge so without spacers they waggle if the wheels are eased out to 14.2 or more, Washers between worm and chassis are easier to arrange than behind the wheels as you don't have to fit and then remove the wheels every time you try a different washer.  About 0.010" (ten thou) is plenty of side play

[Booking Hall]

On 03/04/2020 at 14:55, halfwit said:

I have now finished re-wheeling one of my Dock Shunters. Here's a blog post describing the job, its too long  to cut & paste here so a link will have to suffice.

Interesting to read your blog entry halfwit. I carried out something similar on the DMU motor bogie, but chose to turn down the ends of the Triang axles instead. I covered it in this thread and will be doing something similar with my Dock Shunter in the near future.

 

[halfwit]

Nice work there. For some reason I didn't think to turn the old axles down, possibly because my method was based on something that I read in an old EMGS manual that used wagon wheels and 2mm axles. The reason that I used Romford wheels was because it would be easy to convert one side for live pick-ups.

 

A Myford would be nice, but I don't think it would fit on my dining table, which is where I use the Unimat.

[Il Grifone]

Is this any help?

 

 

[Barclay]

I've just caught up with this thread. I've only recently gotten hold of one of these off ebay and carried out some improvements - it runs very well, although quite fast of course. I don't know if you are aware but Ultrascale make replacement wheelsets for this loco which appear to come with the gears already attached, and I think they come with new worms too but I believe and hope they are compatible as I really don't want to disturb the motor if I can help it. Once they arrive and it has been converted to EM, I will report back if this is of interest.

 

[Nearholmer]

That has come up really well - shows what a very good ‘toy’ this always was. Nice choice of livery too.

[Dagworth]

If anyone ever comes across a maroon Dock Shunter with my username on the side on a yellow plate please let me know, I'd love to get it back!

 

Andi

[Barclay]

The long-awaited Ultrascale wheels arrived yesterday and well worth the wait. It was the work of moments to swap the wheels over and I had another EM gauge loco ! Could this be the easiest ever R.T.R. loco. to convert to the finer scales?

 

The pack also comes with new nylon worm gears with the recommendation that they be used to replace the existing worms if these are worn. Presumably worn worms might chew up the new gear wheels. However mine were OK so there was no need to touch the motor. The pick ups on my loco. were pretty suspect so I had already replaced them with brass wire. The first picture shows the contrast between old wheels and new and the second with both sets installed.

 

The loco runs beautifully, a little fast of course but quite controllable. It holds the track well and, somewhat galling to a modeller wedded to compensation, it is pretty much unstallable. I put this down to the fact that the wheels appear to have a fair amount of slop vertical travel in the downwards direction. Most satisfactory and to be recommended.

[Barclay]

I must be turning into a serious Dock Shunter botherer now....

 

Working on another one at the moment and I have noticed a difference between this Tri-ang version and the Hornby one I did earlier in the year - It concerns the riveted panel behind the cab steps. On the orange (Hornby) one this panel has a raised ledge at the bottom to match the sides and top. However on the grey example (Tri-ang) there is no bottom to this panel, and clearly never has been, as the rivets run right to the bottom. It seems strange to change the tooling, unless it was necessitated by wear or damage ??

 

 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

The very first Dock Shunters, C1958 with the MK2 Open Loop Couplings, had no infill panel between the steps and the rear buffer beam.

 

http://www.tri-ang.co.uk/docks.html
 

 

 

This made the buffer beam corners fragile and vulnerable...

 

Later models from C1959 had the infill panel.

 

Black No. 5 shunters were made in 1958, with MK2 couplings, then from 1959 to 1961 with MK3, Closed Loop, Couplings. 
 

There are also some red shunters, with the No. 5 printing, possibly from around 1961-1962?

 

 

This Red one doesn’t have the bottom ledge...

 

Red No. 3 shunters were made 1962 to 1971.

 

 

Whereas this later black model, still with the cast buffers, does have the ledge.

 

Black No. 3 shunters were made 1972 to 1977.

 

 

 

The very last C 1977 models had the buffer stocks moulded into the buffer beam, with the later style of separate buffer heads, replacing the cast metal buffers complete with stocks.

 

This loco also has the bottom ledge.

 

 

 

I have not noticed the difference that you have spotted there before.

 

I will have to look harder at our collection next time, thanks, 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
Tidying..Red No. 5 added...

[Barclay]

Thank you - I knew you would be able to enlighten !

[GoingUnderground]

The Dock Shunter was also issued as a Transcontinental series loco, R.353, moulded in yellow.

 

The origins of the loco are quite simple. The body was a freelance design to widen the use of the chassis of the motor bogie from the Transcontinental Bo-Bo locos to let Triang introduce another low priced loco, in this case 2 locos, one UK the other Transcontinental, into their range as cheaply as possible.

 

As this Transcontinental motor bogie chassis was also used on the Electric loco R.257, all of this particular variant of the 4 wheel motor bogie chassis with Mk3 Tensionlock couplings will have the "I" and "R" markings on the bogie, as the Electric Bo-Bo was introduced in 1959 the same time as the Mk3 coupling was introduced. Therefore I don't believe that Dock Shunters with the Mk2 open coupling will have those "I" and "R" markings. I'm sure that Ruffnut will correct me if I am wrong.

 

The Transcontinental version, like all the Transcontinental locos, didn't have buffers. But apart from that, and the livery, it was the same model, and appeared in the Triang catalogue at the same time as the "UK" version.

 

As far as I know, the UK Black and Red versions were not produced at the same time, the Black one was simply replaced with the Red one and the catalogue number remained the same R.253. In general, Triang were quite strict about giving models which were sold concurrently separate catalogue numbers, but if they simply changed the livery they kept the number the same. The sleeping car R.339 is another example of the number remaining the same when the livery changed - first maroon, then blue & grey.

 

The 0-4-0T Industrial loco, was different as blue "Nellie" R.355B, red "Polly" R.355R, and yellow "Connie" R355Y were sold at the same time, hence the separate catalogue numbers, not forgetting the first version of this loco R.359 which was black.

 

Like the Dock shunter, the 0-4-0 chassis also had the "I" and "R" markings as the chassis was first used on the R.254 0-4-0 Steeple Cab Electric loco and its Primary series version R.252 in 1959, and then in 1960 on R.359 also a Primary Series loco. Whilst the 0-4-0 chassis was made specifically for the Steeple Cab, the Steeple Cab body was also a freelance Triang design, as were the 0-4-0 tank locos. I suspect that the Steeple Cab might have been inspired by the German E69 locos as when it first appeared in the catalogue in 1959 the Green R.254 wore the Transcontinental livery, but with buffers. Put a Triang Steeple Cab next to one of the E69 locos (and the E69 class locos were not all the same design anyway) and you can see the resemblance. But there are several UK designs of industrial electric loco which might also have been the inspiration.

 

The 0-4-0T R.359/355 etc. was also a freelance design, which Pat Hammond says owed much to the Urie C14. I suspect that was true, but with the body enlarged to fit over the Steeple Cab's 0-4-0 chassis.

 

The "I" and "R" marks remained on the 0-4-0 chassis until it was redesigned to take a can motor, long after the Steeple Cab, and the rest of the Triang/Triang Hornby era Electric locos were withdrawn from the range. But the wheelbase of the 0-4-0 chassis lives on today in all Hornby's cheaper 0-4-0 locos.

 

Whilst the Dock Shunter used the generic 4 wheel motor bogie design (which was also the basis of the motor bogies on the R.156 EMU and R.157 DMU), the 0-4-0 chassis used the X.04 motor. But, being Triang, they still had common components, the motor brushes and arms. I suspect that  the motor magnets might have been the same, but I can't check the service sheets to see if I'm right as I don't have the relevant sheets.

 

So there you have it. Rovex using as many common components as possible to expand the Triang Railways range at the lowest cost.  Even if the models weren't based on specific prototypes, they looked like they could have been, and being toys, that was all that mattered. Nevertheless, I do think that these small locos, the Dock Shunter, the Steeple Cab, and the 0-4-0T had a certain charm or attraction, which persists to this day, at least for me.

Edited March 9, 2021 by GoingUnderground
To correct reference to Urie C15, it should be Urie C14..

[GoingUnderground]

One more point.

 

In the Rovex 4 wheel bogie design, the axles are metal as the bogie sits on the axles and forms part of the electrical path to the motor, i.e. a live chassis. These axles did not project beyond the sides of the wheels.

 

But on the 6 wheel bogie the axles did project beyond the wheels because the chassis sits on the ends of the axles, the axles being nylon, not polystyrene. I think nylon was used as it is more "slippery" that polystyrene and be more resistant to wear. Thus the 6 wheel motor bogie chassis is not live.

 

On ebay there are often geared Triang wheelsets with white nylon axles for sale where the ends have been cut off so that they will fit the 4 wheel bogies. This is a problem for anyone thinking of doing a swap to replace knurled wheels with smooth ones. With the nylon axle there is no electrical path between the wheels and the chassis. So if you are thinking of such a swap you will need to add a second pickup strip to connect one set of wheels to the chassis electrically.

[BernardTPM]

The diesel dock shunter was freelance, but in body at least was based on an actual Bagnall prototype.

 

The Polly/Connie/Nellie can be cut down into a pretty good C15 body:

 

Remove the shaded areas.

Edited March 9, 2021 by BernardTPM

[GoingUnderground]

2 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

The diesel dock shunter was freelance, but in body at least was based on an actual Bagnall prototype.

 

The Polly/Connie/Nellie can be cut down into a pretty good C15 body:

 

Remove the shaded areas.

Personally, I think the Dock Shunter might be better described as "inspired by the Bagnall prototype" as it differed in several ways, notably the size of the cab windows, much the same as the Steeple Cab differed from the E69. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/E69_02_Koblenz_Luetzel_02062012_02.JPG and https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/be/1e/5c/e5/c8/f6a0e68b74c359660549dff132c1ac45_preview_featured.JPG and Spondon No. 1 http://www.emus.co.uk/spondon.htm

 

As regards the 0-4-0T, Hornby did try a similar exercise for real, and had a model maker shorten and alter the 0-4-0T body 40 years ago to produce "Katy", but still without the outside cylinders of the C14. But Katy never went on sale, see page 128 of Hammond Vol. 3. The illustration in Hammond Vol 3 suggests that the chassis was also cut down but without altering the wheelbase. I would reproduce the photo from Hammond, but that would probably be a breach of copyright.

 

I have seen "Katy" in the flesh, so to speak, as Pat Hammond displayed the loco at a Train Collectors Society meeting some years ago. Sadly, I didn't take a photo at the time, and now wish that I had.

 

The bunker on Katy is considerably shorter than on the 0-4-0T and she didn't have the steps. Also the tool box was moved forward away from the tank. These changes do make her more closely resemble the C14 as shown on the image on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSWR_C14_class#/media/File:Eastleigh_Locomotive_Depot_geograph-2653368-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg.   

Edited March 9, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[Nearholmer]

This has been analysed to death, but the slightly bigger S14 is the one to look at, rather than the C14.

 

Not sure whether this link goes direct to the S14 or the set of photos, if the latter, cog through looking for loco 101. 

https://1920slocomotives.blogspot.com/2014/04/226-230-curious-lswr-bunch.html (the captions are a bit off-beam in places!).

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Nearholmer

[GoingUnderground]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

This has been analysed to death, but the slightly bigger S14 is the one to look at, rather than the C14.

 

Not sure whether this link goes direct to the S14 or the set of photos, if the latter, cog through looking for loco 101. 

https://1920slocomotives.blogspot.com/2014/04/226-230-curious-lswr-bunch.html

By calling it a C14, I was quoting Hammond. But I do not want to reopen the debate on the origins of the 0-4-0T loco as that is a pointless exercise as it is really a generic small 0-4-0 tank loco designed to be cheap, not accurate. 

[Nearholmer]

I was thinking more of hacking-potential than the origin of species.

 

They nicked the idea from Bassett Lowke anyway. Steam, electric, or clockwork, in gauges 0 and 1 from c19920 onwards.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Nearholmer

[BernardTPM]

It definitley has that Scottish/Southern/Drummond look to it, so does have potential as good 'bashing' fodder.

[BernardTPM]

59 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

Personally, I think the Dock Shunter might be better described as "inspired by the Bagnall prototype" as it differed in several ways, notably the size of the cab windows, much the same as the Steeple Cab differed from the E69.

Yes, that's fair, though personally I think the body is closer to the Bagnall than the other 0-4-0 diesel on the Polly chassis is to the oft-quoted 'North British' design. There's barely one accurate detail on that one at all.

On the other hand, Playcraft/Jouef's North British is quite recognisable, even if it isn't a scale model.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

11 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

One more point.

 

In the Rovex 4 wheel bogie design, the axles are metal as the bogie sits on the axles and forms part of the electrical path to the motor, i.e. a live chassis. These axles did not project beyond the sides of the wheels.

 

But on the 6 wheel bogie the axles did project beyond the wheels because the chassis sits on the ends of the axles, the axles being nylon, not polystyrene. I think nylon was used as it is more "slippery" that polystyrene and be more resistant to wear. Thus the 6 wheel motor bogie chassis is not live.

 

On ebay there are often geared Triang wheelsets with white nylon axles for sale where the ends have been cut off so that they will fit the 4 wheel bogies. This is a problem for anyone thinking of doing a swap to replace knurled wheels with smooth ones. With the nylon axle there is no electrical path between the wheels and the chassis. So if you are thinking of such a swap you will need to add a second pickup strip to connect one set of wheels to the chassis electrically.

Don’t forget that there are Tri-ang 4-wheel motor bogies with plastic axles too...

 

These are of the same basic construction as the “6” wheel (actually 4 wheel, with dummy centre wheels) bogies.

 

First used on the Budd Diesel Railcar, the same design, but with a different bogie casting, was used on the Hymek Diesel Hydraulic locomotive.

 

 

 

 

The main difference between these later LMB 4-wheel and the 6 wheel bogies is that the 4-wheel bogies have brass bearings at the outer ends of the drive shaft, similar to the earlier, EMB Transcontinental design, but the 6-wheel bogies have plastic bearings inboard of the worms on the driveshaft.

 

 

 

And, for motor magnets comparisons...the X.04 motor Service  Sheet...

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
Images added

[33C]

13 minutes ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Don’t forget that there are Tri-ang 4-wheel motor bogies with plastic axles too...

 

These are of the same basic construction as the “6” wheel (actually 4 wheel, with dummy centre wheels) bogies.

 

First used on the Budd Diesel Railcar, the same design, but with a different bogie casting, was used on the Hymek Diesel Hydraulic locomotive.

 

The main difference between these later LMB 4-wheel and the 6 wheel bogies is that the 4-wheel bogies have brass bearings at the outer ends of the drive shaft, similar to the earlier, EMB Transcontinental design, but the 6-wheel bogies have plastic bearings inboard of the worms on the driveshaft.

 

 

And when the plastic loop on the inboard bearing collapses, replace with a slither (2mm) of hollow cotton bud stalk/tube! What a difference in running! 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

And to think that I thought I’d invented that work around! 

 

There is also plastic tube, Evergreen Styrene...but Bud Tube is perfect! 

[Halvarras]

6 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Yes, that's fair, though personally I think the body is closer to the Bagnall than the other 0-4-0 diesel on the Polly chassis is to the oft-quoted 'North British' design. There's barely one accurate detail on that one at all.

 

 

I think the cab side windows might be that one barely accurate detail, if you squint at it (from the far side of a darkened room......)  No, wait, it's the running number!!

[GoingUnderground]

10 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Don’t forget that there are Tri-ang 4-wheel motor bogies with plastic axles too...

 

These are of the same basic construction as the “6” wheel (actually 4 wheel, with dummy centre wheels) bogies.

 

First used on the Budd Diesel Railcar, the same design, but with a different bogie casting, was used on the Hymek Diesel Hydraulic locomotive.

 

 

 

 

The main difference between these later LMB 4-wheel and the 6 wheel bogies is that the 4-wheel bogies have brass bearings at the outer ends of the drive shaft, similar to the earlier, EMB Transcontinental design, but the 6-wheel bogies have plastic bearings inboard of the worms on the driveshaft.

 

 

 

And, for motor magnets comparisons...the X.04 motor Service  Sheet...

 

 

 

Thank you for that.

 

My assumption about the motor bogies using the X.04 motor magnet was wrong. But looking at the sheets, all the motor bogies use the same motor magnet. S.5147. 

 

What is interesting is that Rovex developed the 6 wheel motor bogie in 1959/60 for the OO gauge EM2, (was it first used on the TT Class 31 as well?) and then used that new design for a 4 wheel motor bogie, as fitted to the Hymek and Budd Railcar. But they went back to the mid 1950s design as used on the EMU, DMU and Transcontinental Bo-Bo locos for the Blue Pullman and AL1, complete with knurled wheels.

 

On the nylon axled bogies, you may find that the performance of the locos using them, EM2, Hymek etc, degrades. This is caused by the magnadhesion magnets tending to pull the axle to one side. The end of that axle on that side wears and eventually the clearance between the nylon drive gear and the bottom plate closes up causing the loco to run much slower than you would expect because of the friction between the gear and the bottom plate. The fix is to insert a thin metal shim into the axle housing on the bogie frame on the worn side to stop the gear touching the bottom plate. Do that and the loco returns to normal running. But it does need to be a thin shim or the axle won't locate properly in the frame or the other end of the axle will bind against the frame. Also that will result in increased wear on the axle as the bearing area between it and the bogie frame is reduced.

 

There was one change that Rovex did make in the Hornby Railways era to improve running on the 6 and later 4 wheel bogies and that was to fit metal wheels and pickups to the dummy bogie so that the loco was no longer solely reliant on pickup from the wheels on the motor bogie - reducing the chances of stalling when passing slowly over dead frogs.