Ts86
- Thread starter bag man
- Start date
wuddy
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders
Can’t answer your first question but I know of one in New Zealand been there since early 70s
kverneland es 80
Member
- Location
- clonakilty , co cork
2 local to me here , one sold new
Timo@hattonfarms
Member
- Location
- Warwickshire
3 within a 4 mile radius here all with the original owners or owners family’s one being my old chaps
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
What price would a new ts86 have been
And how long were they in production
And how long were they in production
Farmerpickle
Member
What did RWM stand for?
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
Around the £300 mark toward the latter end. Guy I know, his mother said it was far too much at the time, finally relinquished and paid thick end of £6k or more when she bought him one 10 years ago.
There are more about than you think - at least 15 or 20 in this neck o’t woods and thats before you even contemplate the copies. Whilst virtually every plough in the Classic class is an 86, a good few were fitted with spacers and world style bodies - not all of them Ransomes bodies either.
Last edited:
Fergie Ploughman
Member
- Location
- Cheshire, UK
They must have made a few hundred, obviously nowhere near the quantity of TS54, 59's etc. Just the simple fact at what they fetch on todays markets means they're relatively rare and sort after. I suspect there's a few squirrelled away in sheds! There's certainly plenty around me in use in the classic class! I've never seen any production numbers for ploughs, I don't think they list any in the oracle TS blue book...
What's the benefit a TCN bodied TS86 would give you over a TCN bodies TS59 ? (providing you have sufficient mods like depth wheel, cross shaft, weights, etc ?)
What's the benefit a TCN bodied TS86 would give you over a TCN bodies TS59 ? (providing you have sufficient mods like depth wheel, cross shaft, weights, etc ?)
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
I think I would be correct in saying that an 86 has greater interbody clearance than a 59
A help in some conditions, but a hinderamce for others
I think something like 29" as opposed to 24". More options for longer bodies , greater fore and aft stability, more scope for skimmer settings but detrimental to ins and outs.
30”. 2’6”. 762 mm in new money.
In’s is the hard bit. Small price to pay - especially when it is rarely judged correctly - when you take into account much greater sability side for side and much more constancy length and depthwise. If the length were a problem everybody would have cut ‘em down and made 59’s of em.
TS86. Probably the best plough Ransomes ever made. Possibly one of the best ploughs ever made in its era.
Last edited:
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
How would a ts63 compare against an 86 as both have the same interbody clearance, albeit the front leg is further back on a 63
Never had one but they are more or less a stretched 59. A 64 and an 86 have better underframe clearance but as you say, having the disk stalk trailing on a 63 is a real pain and the only way you can adjust the disc relative to the body is to change the crank for one which is either lesser or greater.
Unlike a 63 - bearing in mind the 63 was made primarily for RND’s, RWM’s being very similar, the 86 uses two types of leg. The standard one for YL’s & TCN’s and one which, if my memory serves me right, is set 4” further back for RWM’s.
So - as has been said so many times on here - ok if you are just starting out and a 63 is what you can afford - but spend wisely, get the best and buy or make an 86........unless of course you plough vintage in which case stick with a 63.
How does an 86 have greater side to side stability over a 59.?
Trust me. All to do with the length and configuration. Have had them both and a TS86 is far more stable in all directions and much easier to use. Thats why nobody cuts 86’s up to make a 59’s
Ha ha. Not your usual convincing argument and it took you all day to come up with this effort
Farmerpickle
Member
My eyes are untrained, but would I be right in saying that this TS 86 has got RWM legs on? The bodies are TCN, but the legs look like they should have RWM bodies on the end of them.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RANSOMES...098926?hash=item3d4450012e:g:5MMAAOSwAItZjbf9
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RANSOMES...098926?hash=item3d4450012e:g:5MMAAOSwAItZjbf9
Having never used an 86 I’ll take your word for it. Can see how more point to point clearance will give better front / back stability, but how it achieves better side stability is a bit of a mystery
QUOTE="arcobob, post: 5557766, member: 4112"]Ha ha. Not your usual convincing argument and it took you all day to come up with this effort[/QUOTE]
My humble apologies Bob for taking liberties and going judging all day, especially having sneaked a bit of me time watching Rugby League on Friday evening.
With regard to the argument, what more is there to say apart from that mine has a much longer landside than normal, more weight applied in the right place,and that triangulated between the two bodies with extended landside and the wheel, then the bigger footprint gives rise to better stability.
Sorry for the tardiness of this particular reply Bob but have just arrived home after staying away last night for dinner - or perhaps should I have squeezed a meaty reply in between the fish course and dessert?
Possibly not, but possibly not TCN legs either. Always difficult to proportion from a photograph. In the
pictures the curve of the leg is a long way behind the rear leg bolt on the RWM’s, Silghtly in front on the proper TCN legs. Might be my eyes but it looks as though the ones for sale are only slightly behind the rear leg bolt whilst the overall profile is more similar to that of the TCN. Look where the front disc is with the shank trailing. They will still plough but go better when fitted with the right legs. Slightly out of balance weight wise as TCN bodies sit too far back on RWM legs. Fair few about with TCN’s on RWM legs though.
Hardly a snip though at £7200! Despite years of opposition, recently manufactured copies are now legal.
Rwm’s on RWM legs, TCN’s on TCN legs in the background.
[/QUOTE]My humble apologies Bob for taking liberties and going judging all day, especially having sneaked a bit of me time watching Rugby League on Friday evening.
With regard to the argument, what more is there to say apart from that mine has a much longer landside than normal, more weight applied in the right place,and that triangulated between the two bodies with extended landside and the wheel, then the bigger footprint gives rise to better stability.
Sorry for the tardiness of this particular reply Bob but have just arrived home after staying away last night for dinner - or perhaps should I have squeezed a meaty reply in between the fish course and dessert?
Possibly not, but possibly not TCN legs either. Always difficult to proportion from a photograph. In the
pictures the curve of the leg is a long way behind the rear leg bolt on the RWM’s, Silghtly in front on the proper TCN legs. Might be my eyes but it looks as though the ones for sale are only slightly behind the rear leg bolt whilst the overall profile is more similar to that of the TCN. Look where the front disc is with the shank trailing. They will still plough but go better when fitted with the right legs. Slightly out of balance weight wise as TCN bodies sit too far back on RWM legs. Fair few about with TCN’s on RWM legs though.
Hardly a snip though at £7200! Despite years of opposition, recently manufactured copies are now legal.
Rwm’s on RWM legs, TCN’s on TCN legs in the background.
Last edited: