Golden Fleece 30

Pulling the wheels out a little will work, but, if using set track curves it can cause resistance on the curves due to less play. That is why I turned a very small amount off the backs. This includes the original solid wheels and they run fine though modern Peco points. Peco changed their universal range to a finer standard around the 90's I think as even Hornby were making their finer wheels by then. The good thing is all old Hornby Dublo wheels run very well without any modification, that is both 2 and 3-rail. Plenty of videos on You Tube about my Tri-ang locos running on modern track. Garry

Has anyone got any drawings they could scan for me with reference to Aspinall locos BR numbers 52515 etc and or Drummonds Class 294? I have a very basic one for the Drummond loco but no real measurements to speak of. Garry

I guess it was the Eames conversion kit for the couplings. These were small whitemetal blocks that were fastened on the Dublo boss after the Dublo coupling was removed. The tail fitted between the Dublo limiting pegs to stop it turning and the Tri-ang coupling was screwed to this which was then the correct height. They were very cheap and very good although I don't know if the would fit the Deltic and Co-Bo as they had couplings on top of the casting not below. I still have some of these but don't use them now as most of the stock is Kadee fitted. The later diesels like the Co-Bo and Deltic had the screw in coupling with a nut set into a recess in the casting like the EMU and E3002 locos Garry

I have had a little time thinking of fitting a Jinty chassis to "small" locos but the large magnet/motor does limit what you can do. Therefore today I removed the motor assembly from one, modified the chassis and fitted an XT60. The result is a good runner and with a narrow motor hopefully I will be able to make smaller locos with a better shaped firebox etc fit. It may be a little high for some boilers but it would be a little harder to lower the angle. All I need to do now is start looking at a few possibilities. If I had done this with the N7 then I could have had a round top firebox although others may not have then bought any bodies. I had hoped to use an XT60 in my LNWR 0-8-0 but lowering the motor only left 0.5mm material thickness above an axle slot, and, the motor could still have been too wide for the boiler. Garry

Some Tri-ang TT ones go for far more. I have seen a few near the two hundred mark recently. Garry

I have never heard of or seen the system 5. There was the original Grey track that only fitted one way, called Universal for some reason soon, followed by the Standard Grey, this was followed by the open sleepered black Series 3 and then onto Super 4 in brown. All those had the rails offset from each other, that is one rail was in line with the front of the fishplate on the other. Everyone else (or most) all had rail ends in line so I guess that is why system 6 came out which matched the old Dublo, Peco, Lima etc. In its initial stage it did have an end half sleeper that locked onto the next section of track but that was soon dropped. The interlocking of sleepers, or twin prongs, did help prevent the accidental opening of the track if accidentally kicked/pulled etc which was not a bad thing for small children. From the Tri-ang site here is the universal system. Adapters were made to enable Standard fit to the universal as per photo. Garry

What do you class as a few years Kevin? This loco was originally produced with the first open bar and hook coupling which must put it into the 50's era before being fitted with the standard "proper" Tri-ang coupling and was still around I think in the 70's in maroon as in "The Midlander" set. It may have been taken out during the 60's I guess. Notice the maroon one has metal tyred tender wheels to help date it. Photos taken from the Tri-ang website. Garry

I cannot say mine locked to cause the motor to burn out, mine was running UNTIL the motor burnt out which itself was the cause of the locking as when I removed the motor the chassis was still free. Garry

That runs very nicely, and outruns the HST lol. Garry

That still would not work as the trains would leave the terminus in the opposite direction too so would not get the opportunity to enter the reverse curve facing forwards. Practically speaking , the reverse curve is only of use for this design is if your layout is longer so the reverse curve is completely made before the terminus platform pointwork. The other idea though would be to have the terminus on the outside of the mainline then you would be okay with a reverse curve for leaving and entering the terminus as long as it was built in to accept the train in the facing direction. If you look on the "TT3 the next big thing" thread you will see how mine works from having a terminus on the outside although in my case it is on an upper level. Garry

Slightly off topic but relating to a comment on here about Wrenn pointwork. The Wrenn double junctions were also available in 3-rail for Dublo use. They were all easy to wire up especially if you got it mounted on its card. The instructions would normally give two options as well 1) for one controller and 2) for two controllers. No matter how course they were as there was no frog drop any wheel went across very well. The main issue (apart from a fibre base) was at the start steel rail was used which corroded but the later nickel ones were a big improvement. The switch diamond was a far better crossing than a standard diamond one and it inspired me to make a curved one for my layout in the mid 70's. Garry

Hi David, it might be that as the Castle is only a 4-6-0 it does not "slop" around as much but what I found is that it has about 1 or 2mm longer overhang. I placed it on a curve pulling the buffer beam out as far as the wheels would let me then placed a small engineers square up against the buffer beam corner. I then put a Duchess in the same position and after pushing the beam over as far as the wheels would allow there was a small gap between the beam and the square. I don't know if it was like that in real life though. Garry

I don't know how you can fit the reverse loop the other way without the terminus lines being in the way? Garry

Believe it or not the Castle has a slightly longer overhang. I was told this and tried it and it is true. Cutting an aluminuim platform in half is quite easy with a normal hacksaw. Garry

At one time people tried to pass Tony's boxes of as origionals so that is when he started putting his name on them to prevent any fraud/deception. Garry

Tony's coaches are brass etchings and he uses the donors for the ends, underframes etc. I have been to his house and seen these. One way to tell that they are not sprayed either is that the window edges still show brass. The printing of the lining, numbers etc is similar to Dublo and he told me everything was done, wagons as well etc, within about 10 miles of his house. Not only that but his sides were like all my Neverwazza coaches, they had FLAT sides, and not the Mk1 curve as Dublo ones did. The maroon EMU sets he sold had cast aluminium driving cabs. He said they were slightly smaller as an original was used as a pattern so shrinkage came from that but it was not enough to worry about. The locos are at least painted by Mike Turner who does some of the building too. I did the drawings and had etched smoke deflectors and coupling rods for at least another 25 Spam Cans and Royal Scots. His replica tank wagons at least had original bases stripped and then teflon coated as opposed to paint. Garry

Hi Ray, It was not really Dublo as bodies, underframes, bogies etc were all resin with no cut outs for a motor but the loco works did do Dublo repairs etc so probably used the blue and white to stand out. There was nothing I know of to suggest Dublo, never classed as Neverwazzas. Their work and spares were quite expensive, if in stock, which often they were not, when I tried anyway. They probably expected people to use a Beetle or Tenshodo flat motor bogie that did not go through the underframes. They were mainly classed as 00 or N gauge repairers with a little second hand. From what I understand their weathering of models was quite good. See the 4DD on the link below Garry http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/models.html

Very nice layout, was it standard practice to have a signal to stop/enter a goods shed? Garry

I prefer the Trix A3 loco body to the Tri-ang one and not liking the Trix chassis's I have fitted a couple onto Dublo/Wrenn A4 Chassis's. My only criticism of the body is the awful looking head lights but In can live with them. It was not an easy fit and needed a lot of chassis block cutting away and the pole pieces reducing to fit the firebox. Garry

This is an EMU/DMU Parcels van using the Bo-Bo bogies. These 3-rail bogies are nice (apart from tyres lol) Garry

Ray, The Airfix Scot is different to the Mainline locos, Airfix 14xx and 61xx locos, it has a Ringfield tender drive (as did the 4F) which actually has 4 rubber tyred wheels fitted so should pull better than the Mainline ones at least. The Ringfields are not as noisy as the others but Mainline locos were the worst. Tender drives are another pet hate of mine 1) locos pull trains not tenders, 2) due to this they need tyres to pull anything. Garry

Not only that but Airfix used rubber tyres on their wheels including steam locos and I hate them. Even Trix have tyres on driving wheels for which there is no need, Dublo and Tri-ang locos coped well so why use something that 1) can interrupt the current flow, and 2) leaves residue on the tracks. Any track that has had tyred locos run on it needs far more cleaning than if metal wheels only are used. Mainline locos were lucky to pull 3 or 4 coaches, if you put one Dublo one behind it would struggle, a gentle push and you snap a plastic axle. Garry

Someone on another site was talking about full brakes so I photographed mine although it is not quite finished. All it is made from is the rear ends of two mainline Mk1 brakes. I know there are too many windows but it is too much hassle to start filling and sanding some of them down. Strictly speaking it is also slightly too long for a Mk1 but I did not want to start cutting a roof down either. At least it is something different at the end of a train. Garry

Both Mainline and Airfix models were let down by their chassis and motors, bodywork was very nice for the time though. The valve gear may have looked better than Margates but the rest of the chassis was useless. Noisy and push on plastic axles/gears etc were a retrograde step. You cannot beat the old Tri-ang and Dublo motors even now. Garry

Ray, Another thing is the tender is all plastic with metal wheels only so there would not be any issues. The Britannia and Standard 5 had Dublo style die cast tender frames even though the wheel carrier was still plastic. All the A class locos had plastic framed tenders even the motorised A4 ones (poor and noisy in my opinion anyway). Garry