Triang 3F Jumping On Points.

[Tiddles]

I have a very old (1965) Triang 3F that catches the check rails on modern Peco code 100 points. The tender wheels go over ok but the driving wheels catch causing the loco to jump.

The loco runs fin through the point and on plain code 100 track.

The Triang wheel flanges do not look any bigger than the ones on my old Smoky Joe loco and that does not jump on the points.

I called Rails of Sheffield as they are a Romford Wheels dealer but they say that the wheels I need are no longer available. I did this conversion on a Triang Jinty about 20 years ago and they were expensive then!!!

[Bigmet]

Back to back is usually 0.5mm or thereabouts tighter than it would nowadays be set. With the chassis in your hand apply a slim punch to the insulated side axle end, and give it a tap with a hammer to slightly move the axle through the bush without disturbing the quartering.

[Bufferstop]

If the flanges are too thick for that to work, Markits/Romford still do a Triang diameter axle but as you say they were expensive last time. The Triang 0-6-0 chassis were all very closely related and went on well into Triang/Hornby days, so there's a possibility that a set of Triang/Hornby spares might sort it out. Failing that look for an 0-6-0 with a trashed body.

[Tiddles]

Back to back is usually 0.5mm or thereabouts tighter than it would nowadays be set. With the chassis in your hand apply a slim punch to the insulated side axle end, and give it a tap with a hammer to slightly move the axle through the bush without disturbing the quartering.

Would that not put the gearing out of alignment or do you only do it to the flanged wheels

[SRman]

For the amount of movement required, no, although you are quite correct in observing that the unflanged wheels would not really require adjustment. It would be better for the coupling rod alignments that you do the unflanged wheels to match, though.

I rewheeled an old Triang pannier tank many years ago using the standard Romford wheels and axles with brass bearings. Two extra bearings were wedged on each side of the gear and extra pick ups rigged.

[Tiddles]

To do this properly then I guess I need a 'back to back' gauge.
But there seems to be some debate as to whether it should be 14.4mm or 14.5mm

The loco is MIB 1965 model so I am reluctant to mess it about too much but I do want to run it otherwise there is no point in having it.

Am I right in thinking that a set of wheels from a latter Hornby (not Triang) X04 fitted 0-6-0 would fit and solve the problem.

[K9-70]

To do this properly then I guess I need a 'back to back' gauge.
But there seems to be some debate as to whether it should be 14.4mm or 14.5mm

The loco is MIB 1965 model so I am reluctant to mess it about too much but I do want to run it otherwise there is no point in having it.

Am I right in thinking that a set of wheels from a latter Hornby (not Triang) X04 fitted 0-6-0 would fit and solve the problem.

Correct, move the wheels out to 14.5mm

The wheels from any Hornby 0-6-0 models made after 1976 should fit. However, be aware that many 0-6-0 locos made from the late 80's had rubber traction tyres fitted to aid grip.

[SRman]

While this may not help the OP (who wants to leave it reasonably original), here are a couple of photos of the pannier Romford conversion I referred to earlier. Note that I also replaced the flangeless wheels with flanged versions but anyone contemplating doing this could use flangeless Romfords as an option. Ialso added thin discs of plasticard behind the insulated wheels to prevent them from contacting the live chassis.

[GeraldH]

As the others have said, it's probably the tight back to back measurements that are causing the wheels to jump up on the checkrails. I used to try and lever the wheels apart with punches, levers etc.. but found it all a bit imprecise. I often went too far and then had to push them back on a bit. If you do this too much you loosen the wheel-axle joint. I now have a GW Models Wheel Puller with little arms that hook over the wheels and a screw which you turn that pushes on the axle.

I wouldn't necessarily go out to 14.5 mm, as the Triang axles are not that long and the wheels might become a bit loose. Anything over 14 mm might be enough for Universal Code 100 pointwork.

Sometimes the flanges can also be too deep - especially on the old wheels without see though spokes. You can take these off and turn them with a drill and a file, but you will have to get them back on correctly quartered. The centre ones obviously don't need spreading, or turning, as they have no flanges.

Be careful with the old Triang plastic axle bushes on the insulated wheels - they get pretty brittle with age and are larger than the later Hornby ones and hard to find.

Fitting new Romford wheels will be pretty expensive. I think that the later Hornby 0-6-0 SSPP etc. wheels may not be a straight swap as I think that the axle diameter was reduced [metricated?] when the new front drive 0-6-0 chassis was introduced in 1979[?] with the new Jinty. I have a feeling that some later models, which used old chassis blocks with new wheels (e.g. the 9F, B12), may have had shouldered axles which allowed the new wheels to be fitted to old chassis blocks? I'm open to correction on this last bit .

[6C]

TBH - it could be simpler than the back-to-back idea - I think you may find that the flanges themselves are too coarse/wide to fit through the Peco check rails on the points.

To prove - remove body from loco (to aid visibility only) then manually push the Jinty chassis carefully along the point until it starts to stick - this will be near the jumping area... you should then be able to see visually if the wheel are unable to pass smoothly through the point.

The solution remains the same - post '76 wheels - or the chassis from the same era for a Jinty.

[Stufiley]

I have had the same problem with my Triang 3Fs. I bought some newer Hornby chassis from ebay with newer wheels sets and swapped the flanged driving wheels leaving the original flangless center wheels on the old chassis. This meant that quartering wasn't a problem.
I have done all three of mine and I'm now doing my old Triang Canadian Pacifics. They now all run well over points.
The only problem was finding the chassis at a sensible price.

[pete12345]

The back to back dimension of wheels is actually not the one that needs to be precisely set. The important dimension is the check gauge, which is the back to back plus the flange width. This needs to be less than the check gauge of the track (the 'span' between the wing and check rails plus the flangeway width) This ensures the check rails can do their job. With older stock that has thicker flanges, you'll need to set a slightly narrower back to back compared to modern wheels. Don't just set everything to 14.5mm or you'll have problems with wheels jumping the crossing.

In practice, setting the back to back of the wheels so that they are just slightly wider than the span should give good running.

[Ken Shabby]

I've just bought a very cheap 3F and swopped the chassis with one from a Hornby 57XX Pannier, which was a perfect fit. The Pannier was one of the late ones made between 1980-81 ( I recall It was marked in the 1981 catalogue as being limited availability) and the flanges are slim enough to go through my curved Hornby points without trouble. For some reason It doesn't run too well in one direction and runs fine in the other, but that's another story.

Ken

[Rob-B]

i have a set of hornby wheels which i think are from the late 80s early 90s which are the finer scale compared to the triang wheel set ,if your interested drop me a pm and ill get them in the post tomorrow

[Tiddles]

i have a set of hornby wheels which i think are from the late 80s early 90s which are the finer scale compared to the triang wheel set ,if your interested drop me a pm and ill get them in the post tomorrow

PM sent.

Thanks.