Triang R357 and it's threaded screw

Don't bother, it's useless. Even in perfect condition it's limited to static display or running on retro-layouts with Code 140 steel, Super-4 track.

(kim)

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? My 31, 1968 or something vintage, did many happy hours on Peco Streamline. It would pull reasonably except on my "slight" incline on the branch, but on the "main" it was fine, but did need "driving" to prevent wheel-slip - quite prototypical really (except a 12" to the foot 31 was so gutless slipping wheels was pretty near impossibe!).

Richard

Strange, I have 25 models of the Tri-ang R357 Brush Type 2's made between 1962 & 1976 and all of them run fine on either the Code 140 Super 4, or Code 100 System 6 (steel). As for running on Nickel Silver track, they do tend to slip when moving off with 5 or 6 coaches in tow. Once moving, they run well and no derailments when running over the modern points.

To cure the wheels slipping, remove the steel wheels from the plastic axles, and fit the wheels with traction tyres from the Hornby Class

37/47 locos. Also, add extra weight to the body. This will cure slipping on the Nickel Silver track.

Dragon Heart, To remove the screw from the nut, jam a thin blade screwdriver between the nut and plastic cover, then you should be able to unscrew the screw. If this doesn't work, email me your home address, and I'll send you the armature/magnet holder, plastic cover and screw and nut.

Wilson

email: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Try running it on modern day Hornby or Bachmann track. See what happens?

(kim)

I have quite a few old Triang locos running on my new Peco Setrack and PECO Streamline and they work very well... e.g. Metro Cammell DMU, Diesel Dock Shunter, Polly etc.. Some need the wheels slightly pushed out on the axles, but I like them... :) There's enough stuff going into landfill without putting old model trains in there as well...

Put a second motor bogie in it!

Greg.P.

And tell me what's the difference between Hornby/Bachmann modern day track and the Peco Streamline track?

If I'm correct, all of the above use the Nickel Silver Code 100 rail, and are fixed to a plastic base.

Wilson

Fit a traction control unit :-)

Seriously, fitting a second motor bogie requires some alteration to the body, but easy if your not afraid to use a sharp knife and super glue.

The only problem you might have is finding two power bogies running at the same speed.

Wilson

Peco Streamline is code 75, not code 100, so in theory if something runs OK on Peco Streamline, then it 'should' run OK on Code 100.

Not according to my 1986 Peco catalogue. There are two brand names for the Peco Track, "Set Track" and "Streamline" and both are Code 100. AFAIK, this hasn't changed, and the "Streamline" track that I bought over 20 years ago, still connects to the Hornby/Bachmann track that's produced today.

Unless I'm mistaken, the rolling stock produced today designed to run on Code 100 rail, will not run on Code 75 unless you change the wheel sets.

Wilson

Peco does both Code 100 and Code 75 track in HO. The Code 100 has been in production for fifty-something years while the Code 75 first appeared about 10 years ago. Most HO/00 runs on Code 100 track but not everything makes it through their pointwork. Peco used to do "Universal" pointwork that would accommodate older Hornby and Triang-Hornby wheels.

Regards, Greg.P.

Greg.P. NZ.

The 37 equivalent is working fine on my layout but you will need high ampage decoder though the TCS decoders with dither work very well with this motor.

Chris

Peco also does Setrack fixed-radius curves and turnouts compatible with Hornby's. They recently also introduced Code 83, mainly for the North American market I believe, where it competes with Atlas Code 83.

BTW I prefer Atlas flextrack to Peco, as the plastic web is attached to the rail on one side, making it easier to get even sleeper spacing. It's also cheaper than Peco in the US and Canada.

I'd forgotten about that - not really my scene. I'd guess the wheel/track standards are coarser than their model turnouts.

That doesn't look anything like the prototype I model so I ignore it - I'd assume it is to strict NMRA standards? (or something reasonably compatible)

I use ME code 70 and cut the webs to get the correct sleeper spacing. :-)

I do use Code 100 in my hidden staging yard, partly because I have 20 years worth stockpiled from old layouts etc. Peco and Atlas work fine.

Greg.P.

The body doesn't need modification, though the 'chassis' unit does- over the years, I've known of several Triang-Hornby locos of this generation modified in this way. A friend's Hymec would haul 20+ bogie coaches on a graded and curved garden line. Drawbacks were :- soft iron wheels became pulley-shaped over time, though they could be re-turned in an electric drill. energy consumption was 'rather high', to the extent that track joints that were not 100% (we didn't bond them at the time) would heat up and even smoke or glow. It might be worth splashing out on new bogies and central motor/flywheel from a Hornby spares dealer, and modifying the chassis accordingly. I've done this on several types, when I've wished to retain an old, but detailed, body. Brian

There are so many other things wrong with the Triang it's not worth the bother. The bodyshell may be nice but the roof panel is distinctly blurgh! The recessed windows consist of celluloid collar stiffeners which eventually fall out and are never seen again. There are no bulkheads behind the driver's cabs. I totted up the amount of work that needed doing to bring it up to a *reasonable* standard and decided it was easier to buy the new Hornby instead. Even the Airfix and Lima are a vast improvement over the Triang.

(kim)

It wouldn't run very well on my 0 gauge I fear.

Richard

Drill the sideframes and extend the axles a bit!