Tri-ang Conflat L

[locomad2]

15 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The Tri-ang wagon underframes are a legacy from their 'bought-in' Trackmaster wagons. This was obviously supposed to be a RCH 1907 type (crown plates), but had an unusual wheelbase of 9' 6" instead of the almost standard 9' 0". (I have only been able to find a Cambrian wagon with this wheelbase, 

 

Standard Trackmaster wagon with original early HD coupling

 

 

Although this been fitted with peco wheels the original wheels were the same size, yes your correct its 38mm wheelbase (9ft 6ins). The height is almost the same as HD 8F, on left is a Graham Farish with missing buffers clearly a few mm higher.

 

Underneath is the split chassis which makes replacement wheels easier, surprisingly this example has lasted quite well, must be at least 70 years old by now

 

 

Never been able to work out why the 2mm height came in ? , I know the Triang volume 1 mentions this, so assume it was to fit tension lock, but the original trackmaster wagons where the correct height

 

 

[locomad2]

Still the Conflat is an excellent wagon with good detail on the containers, these one fitted with HD insulated iron wheels, lowers the height a little

 

Note the coupling still lower than the buffer bar on the trackmaster, I've one trackmaster fitted with mk 3 triang tension lock still correct buffer height

 

[Il Grifone]

That's quite a reasonable example of the Trackmaster open wagon. They are usually quite curvy. I acquired a GW example a few years ago that was completely OK. unfortunately this happy state of affairs didn't last and one end adopted the characteristic upward curve. Tri-ang produced them in a range of strange colours. The early ones were still acetate and suffered in the same way as the Trackmasters.

*There never was any Trackmaster pointwork to cause problems.

The Dublo container wagon was indeed actually a low sided wagon, but was a special deal for the containers and cable drums. Using the standard underframe would have enabled a scale length container and they could have got away with a single drum (like the 0 gauge versions).

 

I gather the 2mm height was to cope with the acute angle between level and their inclined piers (1 in 20 IIRC). I still do not see the necessity; there is no need to couple on the angle itself. Triang TT managed without this obscenity, as did Dublo/Acho (with their piers) and every other make of tension lock.   

[Robin Brasher]

You will be pleased to see that the R60032 BR Conflat A, Tri-ang is now widely available.  Unfortunately I have not got one as I pre-ordered it last year from my local model shop which is in tier 2.  If I ever receive it I will be interested to compare it with my R561 model dating from the 1962 - 1971. Mine is BK8900 which is fairly rare.  I was interested to see that the container is based on the prototype and I have seen a picture of it in a book hauled by a BR 4MT 2-6-4T.

[Michael Hodgson]

I don't have a feel for how this cement traffic on the Conflat Ls worked.  The reason for having 3 containers rather than one big one was presumably to keep the weight of a very dense product within the limit of what typical cranes could handle. 

 

Having arrived at destination would the container be loaded onto a flat bed lorry for onward delivery, or would the container be emptied directly into a silo at some lineside siding?  Empties would have to return the same way so, like goods vans, presumably the wagons looked the same when travelling in both directions (apart from compression of the springs).  Or did these wagons (before conversion from cement to other purposes like runner wagons) also routinely run empty?

 

Photos of Conflat L seem to show either 3 containers or none, whereas you sometimes saw a single A type container in the middle of an ordinary Conflat for weight distribution.  So did the L type ever carry only 1 (in the middle) or 2 (at each end) for the same reason?  Or was the demand such that part loads weren't needed?  If so, presumably this bulk traffic would often warrant several wagon loads to a particular destination.

 

[cctransuk]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I don't have a feel for how this cement traffic on the Conflat Ls worked.  The reason for having 3 containers rather than one big one was presumably to keep the weight of a very dense product within the limit of what typical cranes could handle. 

 

Having arrived at destination would the container be loaded onto a flat bed lorry for onward delivery, or would the container be emptied directly into a silo at some lineside siding?  Empties would have to return the same way so, like goods vans, presumably the wagons looked the same when travelling in both directions (apart from compression of the springs).  Or did these wagons (before conversion from cement to other purposes like runner wagons) also routinely run empty?

 

Photos of Conflat L seem to show either 3 containers or none, whereas you sometimes saw a single A type container in the middle of an ordinary Conflat for weight distribution.  So did the L type ever carry only 1 (in the middle) or 2 (at each end) for the same reason?  Or was the demand such that part loads weren't needed?  If so, presumably this bulk traffic would often warrant several wagon loads to a particular destination.

 

 

I'm not sure that L containers were ever used for cement; I think of them being used in limestone traffic.

 

I'm guessing here but, as limestone was used as a catalyst in steel-making, it may well be that the containers were craned directly to, and discharged into, the furnace. The fact that containers were used may well be due to the limestone having been specially prepared; eg. ground / dried to a powder?

 

This would explain the need for smaller capacity containers; limestone in larger quantities was usually transported in hopper wagons.

 

CJI.

Edited April 27, 2022 by cctransuk

[BernardTPM]

From "Freight Transport" booklet (BTC circa 1960), two pictures, one being bottom discharged into a lorry in a railway yard, the other one being loaded onto the back of a flat trailer (as used behind Scammell Scarabs). Caption for the first picture reads "Site delivery, or discharge into lorries, of bulk materials is a feature of the L-type container."

In the main text "Towards 5,500 L-type containers, of pressed steel construction, are in sevice for carrying materials in bulk. Dolomite, alumina, limestone and cement are among the loads commonly carried in them. There are two separate compartments, each of which may be discharged independantly through bottom doors, operated by a simple lever. Dust during unloading can be prevented by the use of sheets attached to cleats. Among the advantages to the trader are the elimination of bags, sacks and the like, and of costly manhandling."

[Cwmtwrch]

The L was a small container designed for powders, commonly cement or alumina, and is the one seen in threes on Conflat Ls. They were bottom discharge and rated as 4 ton loaded, so could be handled by most mobile cranes, permitting unloading into road vehicles at the destination goods yard, or loading onto road vehicles for unloading elsewhere. In the first case the empties went back on the same Conflat, in the second the road vehicle involved would normally have returned previous containers after emptying, so empty Conflat Ls would not be common.

 

For Dolomite and other types of limestone not in powdered form the container of choice was the very different, and much rarer, LD container, which travelled in pairs on Conflat LDs. So far as I know, blast furnaces were fed with limestone in chunks, not powdered.

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm not sure that L containers were ever used for cement; I think of them being used in limestone traffic.

 

I'm guessing here but, as limestone was used as a catalyst in steel-making, it may well be that the containers were craned directly to, and discharged into, the furnace. The fact that containers were used may well be due to the limestone having been specially prepared; eg. ground / dried to a powder?

 

This would explain the need for smaller capacity containers; limestone in larger quantities was usually transported in hopper wagons.

 

CJI.

There was a photo published on here of Bridgewater yard during the construction of the original Hinkley Point power station. Not only were there some Presflos being used, but also Conflat Ls with L-type containers; one of these appears, lifted off the wagon, and being discharged into a 'Blue Circle' bulk tipper. The lorry had a semi-rigid sliding roof.

The product being carried to steel-works was burnt lime, a very nasty material. In contact with water, it 'slakes', giving out a great deal of heat. The containers are about the right size for a charge into the 'Convertor'; scrap and other additions to the 'melt' were carried in similar- sized 'boxes'. The limestone used in iron manufacture is unburnt limestone; the only treatment it receives is crushing to a uniform size

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm not sure that L containers were ever used for cement; I think of them being used in limestone traffic.

 

 

I am happy to be corrected on this point - cement does seem to have been amongst the products carried in L-containers. I think that there has been a fairly widespread belief that they were used solely for cement traffic, which was certainly NOT the case.

 

I think that Tunstead had a regular traffic in L-containers, which presumably carried limestone in one form or another?

 

CJI.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Now Triang, oops sorry, Hornby have re-issued the Pedigree container wagon, I wonder if an updated conflat L might be on the cards?

 

Mike.

[Fat Controller]

45 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I am happy to be corrected on this point - cement does seem to have been amongst the products carried in L-containers. I think that there has been a fairly widespread belief that they were used solely for cement traffic, which was certainly NOT the case.

 

I think that Tunstead had a regular traffic in L-containers, which presumably carried limestone in one form or another?

 

CJI.

It would have been burnt lime; apart from steel manufacture, this was used in water purification. 

[BernardTPM]

42 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Now Triang, oops sorry, Hornby have re-issued the Pedigree container wagon, I wonder if an updated conflat L might be on the cards?

Looking at the model it is just the old Airfix GWR container wagon in Pedigree colours, not the proper plywood type (LNER design originally, I believe) that Pedigree used. In that respect less accurate than the Tri-ang version.

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

I am happy to be corrected on this point - cement does seem to have been amongst the products carried in L-containers. I think that there has been a fairly widespread belief that they were used solely for cement traffic, which was certainly NOT the case.

Indeed what was being unloaded in the photo was rocks of some sort, not powder. You're right though that most modellers associate them with cement.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

On 27/04/2022 at 08:14, Robin Brasher said:

You will be pleased to see that the R60032 BR Conflat A, Tri-ang is now widely available.  Unfortunately I have not got one as I pre-ordered it last year from my local model shop which is in tier 2.  If I ever receive it I will be interested to compare it with my R561 model dating from the 1962 - 1971. Mine is BK8900 which is fairly rare.  I was interested to see that the container is based on the prototype and I have seen a picture of it in a book hauled by a BR 4MT 2-6-4T.

 

Some may remember the Tri-ang Toys and Pedigree Prams Container Wagon, R.561, made by Tri-ang Railways...

 

http://www.tri-ang.co.uk/oonew/container.htm

 

Hornby announced in 2020/2021 what is basically a new version of this wagon, but using the ex Airfix Railway System (etc.) Conflat wagon and container.

 

Initial pre release artwork had an incorrect container type number, prefix BD.

A BD container had doors in the sides. The model container, and the real ones, illustrated in Pat Hammond's The Story Of Rovex Volume 1, Page 264) (the Tri-ang Railways The First 10 Years book), had plain sides, without doors.

 

 

I "pre ordered" one from Hornby back in January 2021.

It has recently arrived.

 

 

I am pleased to note that there are some differences between the pre release artwork, and the actual item received. 🙂

 

The new model Tri-ang container has the same number, BK8900B, as the original Tri-ang model container!

 

 

 

The Tri-ang R.561 container had the container number and details heat printed, and a moulded clip often prevented the suffix B from printing properly, often looking like a number 1.

 

(Your container is actually the first type, with the vertical part of the B suffix present.)

 

This led to the number tool to be ammended to read BK8900 for a time.

 

It seems that someone pointed out that the container number was missing the suffix, and the printing tool was changed again, to read BK890B.

 

The centre panel of the R.561 container was a self adhesive label.

 

The red and white stripe of the real container was represented as a white stripe on the original models.

 

"Return to Wimbledon S.R." was the yard near to the large Tri-ang factory at Merton.

The container wasn't used at the Margate, Roxex, factory.

 

The R.561 model used the second version of the short Bolster Wagon, which had first been released in 1962.

From 1963, a plastic chassis was used, with pin point steel axles, carrying plastic wheels.

There was a little known modification made to the body tool from the 1962 models. A groove was made at either end of the cross bolster, to allow the R.561 container to clip into place.
The container will not fit onto the 1962 Bolster Wagons, which do not have this groove!

 

The Bolster wagon wasn't a real container flat, or Conflat.

The Three Containers Wagon with 3 "L Type" containers did use a proper Conflat, coded Conflat L, as it has the location brackets for the L Type containers.

We have modified a Tri-ang Conflat L to take the R.561 container. 🙂

 

The Hornby model has the container entirely tampo printed, allowing more detail, including the lettering on the ends. Although the container number hasn't been printed on the ends.

(I seem to recall that the) The real containers in the book photo had end numbers on the door end, at the top of the left hand door. BR containers also mostly had a cast number plate on the end, visible in the book photo.

 

The containers in the book photo don't actually have BRITISH RAILWAYS on the door end, but do have Tri-ang Toys on the left hand door, and Pedigree Prams on the right hand door.

The non-door end isn't visible in the photo, which includes the door end of the container BK8900B, the subject of both models.

 

It is possible that the Hornby model is taken from a different reference photo. (Or is just an error.)

Likewise the container in the prototype photo is not a planked version...

 

 

 

The Hornby model has a proper Conflat A, as used for the real containers in the book photo.
The running number isn't the same as the Bolster Wagon, probably because it is a proper Conflat number.

Whether it is the same as the wagon in Pat Hammond's Volume 1 (the First 10 Years book), I will have to check sometime! 😉🙂

(It's not. The model wagon number is B503287. The real wagon is B504188.)

 

So, at some point, I'll need to get the R.561 wagons out, and take some comparison photos.

In the meantime, here is the original Hornby pre release artwork, and our new model...

🐉🙋🏼‍♀️

 

Additional...

Stocks of this Hornby wagon are just now reaching model shops....🙂

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
Corrections since I've been in our reference library!

[BernardTPM]

Glad they changed the number as a BD number was wrong for both the prototype and the type of model container used.

[Steamport Southport]

Here's a real one. No idea on number as I can't make it out.

 

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/bcontainer/e6c7f14db

 

 

 

Jason

[Ruffnut Thorston]

I have been looking in our reference library...

So my previous post now has some corrections!

 

It has turned out that the prototype photo I was thinking of isn't in fact in the Tri-ang Railways The First Ten Years book. Not surprisingly, as the book was published a year before the R.561 wagon was released! 🤷‍♀️

 

The photo is in fact in Pat Hammond's The Story Of Rovex Volume 1 (New Cavendish Books. 1993. 2nd Edition 2001. Reprinted 2003)

 

 

The R.561 Tri-ang Container Wagon was first released in 1963.

Pat Hammond states that 15,000 R.561 wagons were sold that year.

The container number was BK8900B

(The prefix B indicated that this was a design adopted as a BR Standard design. K was the container type. The suffix B indicated that the container was built by/ for British Railways, after nationalisation.)

If the number printing tool was positioned correctly, the number missed the moulded clip.

If it was a little bit lower, the B was misprinted. Thus made the number look like BK89001.

(Looking at the prototype photo, the clip was actually in the wrong place, and should have been much lower.)

 

 

Some of the dates in Ramsey's Catalogue are guestimates.

 

According to Ramsey's, the original number was used from 1962-1964?

 

The number tool was changed to miss the clip by leaving off the suffix B, so reading BK8900, from 1965?-1968?

 

The number tool was changed again, to replace the last 0 with the suffix B, so reading BK890B, from 1969? -1971.

 

Ramsey's lists two versions made in black, rather than the usual blue/ black, plastic.

BK8900. Date unknown.

BK890B Date Unknown.

 

If the black plastic batch was only the one batch, then the probability is that it was made in 1968-1969, going by the Ramsey's guestimates.

 

With the collapse of the Lines Brothers Group, the Tri-ang trade mark was sold off to a separate company from DCM, who bought the Roxex side of the Lines Bros. Group. This meant that the Tri-ang name had to be removed from the Rovex products, and the model railway side was renamed Hornby Railways.

(It took a very long time to remove the Tri-ang name from all of the models.)

This spelt the end for the R.561 model, in 1971. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
Added illustrations.

[Mark Saunders]

The Pedigree Prams livery has reappeared!

[Ruffnut Thorston]

13 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Glad they changed the number as a BD number was wrong for both the prototype and the type of model container used.

 

 

A link to a photo of a real BD type container...with side doors.

 

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/bcontainer/h6C7F14DB#h68c08f7e

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
Typo

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Coincidence...

 

The Bachmann Times (Bachmann Collectors Club Magazine) Summer 2022 issue, received today, has a feature on Conflats and containers, but only the Conflat A and A and B type covered containers, as made by Bachmann...

 

The article has a photo of a BK type container in Tri-ang livery.