Trix trains

[roythebus]

I never saw the proposed Brush 4 (class 47), but understand from talking to the Trix rep at the time it would be to 1:76 scale, same as the AL1 and Flying Scotsman. The Western diesel was a bit of an oddity, 1:76 height and width, but too short for some reason. the AL1 was a bit over-length on the boris due to the fact is used the same mazak casting as the Western diesel. 

 

The grain wagons were particularly good models for their era.

 

Not mentioned is the PWM diesel shunter, I've recently resuscitated one that's been lying around for years, though the flanges are rather over-size for my layout. 

[Legend]

Sounds like there were a fair few compromises in there. If you combine it with higher costs you can probably see why not as successful. Shame , because a range like that back in the 60s to the UK 4mm scale would probably have been very popular. Can't help feeling Trix was a bit of a missed opportunity.

[Il Grifone]

Trix Express survived much longer by sticking to 1:87 scale, eventually being taken over by Märklin.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

As you can see from this pic,i rather like Woodhead electrics.I have some Trix catenary whichi`m itching to assemble,the Triang EM2s although 2 rail should work if picking up from the OHLE!!.Thsses will hopefully run on HD 3 rail track.

 

                   Ray.trio.jpg

 

You may have trouble on HD 3 rail track. My cousins used to have HD 3 rail whilst I had Triang. Obviously my stuff wouldn't run on their layout, but IIRC, there was a problem with the height of the HD 3rd rail which meant that the driving gear wheel on some Triang stock fouled the 3rd rail itself when just set on the HD track to such an extent that it stopped the loco sitting squarely on all its wheels. I have just checked an EM2 on Trix Twin fibre base track and there is adequate clearance.

 

Also HD 3 rail was different to Trix 3 rail electrically. HD 3 rail had the running rails electrically bonded, through the metal base, whilst on Trix, whether Bakelite or the later fibre base track, all 3 rails were insulated from each other. So using HD track you would not be able to have 2 locos (no catenary) or 3 locos (with catenary) under independent control as the 2 running rails are not insulated from each other. The best that you could manage would be 2 locos, one collecting from the centre rail, the other from the catenary with both using the running rails as the common return. 

 

If you did get some Trix Twin track, you would have a problem if you followed the Trix wiring diagram for controlling multiple locos independently as the Triang EM2 would not be able to connect to the centre rail which is the common return on the Trix Twin system. Instead you would have to use one of the running rails as the common return in the normal Triang fashion for their OHLE locos and that rail would have to be the common return for all locos. That would mean setting up an EM1 set up to use the centre rail and the common return running rail, an EM1 or EM2 to use the catenary and the common return running rail, and an EM1 or EM2 to collect from the two running rails in normal 2 rail fashion.

 

Alternatively, you could use the catenary as the common return, (first loco left rail + catenary, second loco right rail + catenary, third loco centre rail + catenary), but that would mean that you could only run stock that could connect to the catenary.

 

I bought an EM2 EM1 secondhand in the late 1960s, and used to run it "under the wires" on my Triang Super 4 layout alongside my EM1 EM2, Triang Steeplecab, and AL1, but it already had Mazak casting problems on the powered bogie and never ran well. It has since had the bogie replaced with a white metal version from the TTRCA (Trix Twin Railway Collectors Association), and taken a turn or two around the Nottingham Model Railway Club's "Deepcar" layout when I was a member there.

 

I hope this is of some help to a fellow EM1 & EM2 enthusiast.

Edited March 13, 2016 by GoingUnderground

[sagaguy]

Many years ago,in the 1960,i bought a Trix EM1 with almost my first weeks wages,£2.50 (£2-10 shillings then).What i didn`t realise at the time was that it was a convertible,it took me a few weeks to realise that by cutting off the plastic flanges,it would run perfectly on HD 3 rail & under some home made catenary.I have some Marklin skates & i am thinking of converting my Heljan EM1 to 3 rail although that's in the futureI have a very large stock of 3 rail track so i will hopefully post on progress as i rebuild my HD layout.

 

                                    Ray.

[Il Grifone]

There shouldn't be any problem with Dublo centre rail height as the system is 'all level' like Trix. The closure rails of the pointwork are insulated to avoid 'shorts' for this reason*. this can give problems with 'conversions', unless current is collected from both rails.

 

'Scale' stud contact and LT Underground have raised studs/centre rail as an alternative solution. (Märklin is also 'all level').

[railroadbill]

 

 

A timely thread.  I've been going through some of my stored stuff and came across these.

 

These 2 Trix coaches (they've got  " TTR made in England"  moulded underneath so I guess that's what they are )  have been in a box of "stuff"  that I got from  a friend as part of a swap some years ago.They belonged to his wife Julie's late uncle who had a big layout in a shed. My friend had some of the remains of my old N gauge (his scale)  in exchange. 

 

 

They are plastic, to a smaller scale than oo, presumably 1:80 as stated above. They have commonwealth bogies. The one with both bogies has plastic wheels, while the other has deep flanged metal wheels. The original couplings have gone.

 

I've vaguely wondered about getting them running but....

 

Compared to OO coaches, the sides are nearly the same height, but the coach is noticeably shorter and the bogies are too small. I could fit a pair of either Bachmann Mk1 bogies which look too big against the TTR coach, or a pair from some of the nondescript "underscale" bogies I've got in one of Julie's uncle's bits boxes. So they're not really going to fit in on the layout.

 

But I'm intrigued enough to ask:

 

Are the plastic or the metal wheels correct?

 

They are branded TTR , commonwealth bogies were first being used on BR in the late 50s,  when would these coaches have been made?

 

[sagaguy]

They may be from the Trix coachbuilder kit series.They were produced to a scale of 3.8mm to the foot.Not certain of the parentage of these,the couplings seem wrong,they should be at this point HD type couplings also they were fitted with metal insulated for 2 rail use.the early 1960s would be about the time for these.

 

                            Ray.

[GoingUnderground]

The couplings are wrong, and look like some sort of hook and eye device. The Trix couplings, like the HD ones, had a tendency to part if the trackwork was uneven. perhaps the hook and eye was intended to get over that problem.

 

The coachbuilder series was simply models from the standard range of coaches but supplied unassembled, just like the Triang CKD range, to reduce the selling price. Apart from substituting nuts and bolts for fixings where the factory assembled versions would have used rivets, they were identical to the factory assembled versions.

 

The coaches were quite good, I have some for my Transpennine sets, but as they were kept to the same scale as the existing locos, 3.8mm:1ft, if you tried mixing them with HD or Triang coaches they looked wrong which limited their appeal and marketability.

 

 

For me that really is the story of British Trix, they stayed with AC, and coarse scale wheels, even by Triang's standards, for too long. When the did finally move away from AC to DC in 1956 they should have bitten the bullet and produced all subsequent new models in OO which by then was the standard for UK railway modelling. When they did eventually start producing OO locos, starting with the AL1/Class 81 it was by then too little too late for the Trix brand. However many of the later Trix moulds ended up with Liliput and eventually Bachmann, and the rest we know.

Edited March 13, 2016 by GoingUnderground

[sagaguy]

Funny thing was that Trix extended the upright hook part before Hornby dublo,the first time i saw that on a HD loco was when my dad bought me  one of the first 2-6-4 tanks at Xmas,1954.

 

                         ray.

[railroadbill]

The coaches were quite good, I have some for my Transpennine sets, but as they were kept to the same scale as the existing locos, 3.8mm:1ft, if you tried mixing them with HD or Triang coaches they looked wrong which limited their appeal and marketability.

 

 

 

 

 

And here is the Trix coach in the middle looking wrong!  HD coach above, Hornby below, [which is based on the old Triang moulding but with flush windows].

 

Feeling motivated by this thread I ran the Trix coach behind a  train of OO Mk1s round the layout. The couplings are a hook one end and a loop the other made of wire. presumably by the previous owner. Crude, but did couple ok to a tension lock coupling bar. As was mentioned earlier the Trix coach runs very asily, [as well as the Hornby one which has  metal wheels and pin point bearings]. 

 

As a comparison I dug out a pair of H-D coaches that came with my Flying Scotsman set that I've still got.   They haven't actually run in many a long year (although i give the locos a run from time to time). Since they have plastic wheels i gave them a run as well. I'd forgotten just how much friction there was with these compared to modern stock. Still, good to see them running again. .

 

I did think theTrix coach could go with the H-D stuff but it makes those coaches look too short!

[roythebus]

The Coachbuilder kits were introduced about 1967 IIRC. They had pin-point axles and metal wheels insulated one side and were remarkably free running, in fact I've never seen any coaches before or since that have gone round the MRC test track twice with a hard shove form my hand.

[Il Grifone]

Funny thing was that Trix extended the upright hook part before Hornby dublo,the first time i saw that on a HD loco was when my dad bought me  one of the first 2-6-4 tanks at Xmas,1954.

 

                         ray.

 

I believe the upright hook on the Trix coupling was to permit coupling with the pre-war loop couplings, though it does reduce the tendency to uncouple. The resulting gap between vehicles is enormous! Dublo's modification was indeed first applied to the 2-6-4T. The later Trix couplings copy Dublo's hook design.

The secret to avoiding uncoupling involves minimal vertical play in the coupling (just enough to ensure free movement), the correct height and the hook must be vertical (otherwise they slide up or down against each other) (Good track laying is taken for granted).

 

The Trix Mk I coaches use a plastic underslung version of the coupling (the pivot bar is moulded underneath rather than above the hook). It is correct for Dublo's coaches to be shorter, as they are a 57 foot Stanier design. (I believe the Brake/third should actually be 60 foot, but they share an underframe, which actually measures about 54 foot). This is a compromise for vicious train set curves - Trix mounted the headstocks to the bogies on their 'scale length' tinplate coaches. (I am considering trying this bodge on my scale coaches, it avoids the buffer locking problem. (I don't have room for the six chain radius the real thing requires, but intend to hide the sharp curves!)

 

All dimensions quoted are full size of course. (Six chains is apparently the minimum radius for a Mk I, which don't suffer from buffer locking anyway. I assume it's much the same for all coaches.)

[railroadbill]

The H-D Stanier coaches (LMS design on the Flying Scotsman train?  tsk tsk)  look fine together but I ran them round the layout behind a Mainline exLMS 57' coach and they made the mainline one look overlong!

I believe the full size Mk1s could either use a buckeye coupling with the buffers retracted or screw link couplings with the buffers out so the H-D/Peco etc coupling is sort of like the real thing (closer than tension lock type anyway).

[GoingUnderground]

P1130819.JPG

 

And here is the Trix coach in the middle looking wrong!  HD coach above, Hornby below, [which is based on the old Triang moulding but with flush windows].

 

Feeling motivated by this thread I ran the Trix coach behind a  train of OO Mk1s round the layout. The couplings are a hook one end and a loop the other made of wire. presumably by the previous owner. Crude, but did couple ok to a tension lock coupling bar. As was mentioned earlier the Trix coach runs very asily, [as well as the Hornby one which has  metal wheels and pin point bearings]. 

 

As a comparison I dug out a pair of H-D coaches that came with my Flying Scotsman set that I've still got.   They haven't actually run in many a long year (although i give the locos a run from time to time). Since they have plastic wheels i gave them a run as well. I'd forgotten just how much friction there was with these compared to modern stock. Still, good to see them running again. .

 

I did think theTrix coach could go with the H-D stuff but it makes those coaches look too short!

Is the HD coach the pre-1961 older style or one of the super detail coaches introduced in 1961?

 

I'm definitely not an expert in HD, Triang was my boyhood trainset/layout, but the HD coach does look to my eyes like the pre 1961 style, where the windows were shaded rather than cut out, at least when I compare it to the photos of the 1961 super detail HD coaches in Michael Foster's book on HD.

Edited March 14, 2016 by GoingUnderground

[russ p]

I think the bogies on these coaches could be rotated 180deg and there were mountings on the bogie for triang tension locks

[Il Grifone]

Dublo made LNER coaches up to about 1956 though the last ones had the Dublo BR bogies. Pre-war there was a 3rd class articulated Br/3rd - 3rd pair and a single 1st/3rd composite. They are about 7" long, but being based on 52' coaches this is not too bad. The tinplate finish is not altogether wrong either as the prototypes were steel panelled. Post war the coaches were only available as single units. With the switch to BR liveries (1953 belatedly due to the Korean War) the composite and brake (no full third) appeared in crimson and cream livery, but for some reason they continued with the faux panelling, which I'm sure BR didn't bother with!

 

As I said above the Dublo LMS Staniers are a bit short - not too bad but compared to true scale models noticeably short especially against the 60 ' br/3rd. These unlike the LNER coaches had proper windows (still not beaten IMHO as R-T-R models of steel flush sided stock window wise). The LMS and early BR versions had proper LMS bogies (short in the wheelbase though). but around 1954 (with the introduction of the non-corridor coaches for the 2-6-4T) they were all fitted with BR bogies (like the one above). These bogies are not reversible though there are two positions for the pivot depending which coach is to be fitted. The LNER coaches were withdrawn around 1956 and from then on the A4 sets were supplied with Stanier coaches. The Castle was also supplied with them but in chocolate and cream BR(W) livery (with Mk I numbers!). Around this time a Restaurant Car was issued, based on a GWR design but sharing parts with the other coaches. In due course they appeared in BR maroon and eventually were replaced by the SD6 Pullmans and Mark Is.

 

No Dublo stock ever had any provision for fitting tension locks. Any Dublo type casting fitted with them will be of Wrenn manufacture.

The windows of the above Dublo coach are transparent it's just the photo that makes them appear opaque. (one of the later issues of the BR(M) Staniers -  circa 1955 onwards as it has the tabs on the coupling hooks). I believe remaining stocks ensured their availability to the end, but I might be wrong on this.

 

Trix were first here, as all their coaches have transparent windows, though the coaches are even shorter than Dublo's (scale length excepted), In the mid-fifties they also brought out non-corridor coaches and a full brake, which bears a passing resemblance to an LMS 42' vehicle - even more so, if you do what I did in my youth and fit a pair of Dublo bogies.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Il Grifone

[D51]

There shouldn't be any problem with Dublo centre rail height as the system is 'all level' like Trix. The closure rails of the pointwork are insulated to avoid 'shorts' for this reason*. this can give problems with 'conversions', unless current is collected from both rails.

 

'Scale' stud contact and LT Underground have raised studs/centre rail as an alternative solution. (Märklin is also 'all level').

Dublo three-rail track is not all level.  The exception is the uncoupler rail where the centre rail is a rod held by clips at each end and is perhaps slightly higher than the running rails.  I once made a three-rail locomotive using two Trix pick-up shoes for the centre rail pick-up and mounted this just too low.  It worked everywhere on the Dublo track except over uncoupling rails!

Edited March 15, 2016 by D51

[BernardTPM]

As I said above the Dublo LMS Staniers are a bit short - not too bad but compared to true scale models noticeably short especially against the 60 ' br/3rd.

With Staniers it's the Composite Corridors that are 60 foot, Brake Thirds are 57 foot.

[Il Grifone]

With Staniers it's the Composite Corridors that are 60 foot, Brake Thirds are 57 foot.

 

Oops!  I was convinced it was the other way round, but my main interests lie elsewhere (see below). It would explain why I couldn't get the compartment lengths to fit my calculations the other day.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

Dublo three-rail track is not all level.  The exception is the uncoupler rail where the centre rail is a rod held by clips at each end and is perhaps slightly higher than the running rails.  I once made a three-rail locomotive using two Trix pick-up shoes for the centre rail pick-up and mounted this just too low.  It worked everywhere on the Dublo track except over uncoupling rails!

 

They should be level, but sometimes the centre rail doesn't fit too well and stands a bit proud.  I've bent the adjoining centre rail to provide a smooth passage in the past, but it should really have been resoldered. (On uncoupling rails, the centre rail is a length of rod soldered to a 'chair' of tinplate strip at each end.)  I've just checked a couple of rails to hand (one manual and one electric bought recently), which reminded me I found one was dry jointed when I got it. (It would be a bit late for a guarantee claim!  . Meccano only gave 90 days anyway IIRC.)

Trix shoes are a bit flatter than Dublo ones (possibly the same as the plungers fitted to some locos?) and may need bending into a sharper curve for best results. I converted my Dublo Deltic to 3 rail with Trix shoes (heresy  ) and have had no trouble.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Il Grifone

[railroadbill]

Well had my trix coach running round the layout. Very free running but sadly being underscale compared to the rest of the stock it is noticeably too narrow etc.

I also tried running a pair of Hornby Dublo stanier coaches which have plastic wheels so ok for 2 rail. Haven't used those for many years so I'd forgotten how high rolling resistance they were. I tried using a bit of graphite grease on the axle bearings which improved things. A Hornby tornado had no problem pulling the pair plus the trix one and a Bachmann coach but a small loco like a Hornby sentinel couldn't move them at all! So one up to trix stock on free running then...

 

When I went to the ally pally exhibition there was a large h d 3rail layout plus a mainly wrenn 2rail one. Seen several Hornby dublo layouts exhibited over the years, must be a lot of stock still out there, also triang layouts. Can't remember seeing any trix though. Did they have lower sales than their competitors perhaps?

[andyman7]

Can't remember seeing any trix though. Did they have lower sales than their competitors perhaps?

Well I don't have production figures to hand but based on over 30 years of toy fairs etc it is very clear that Trix lags quite a bit behind Dublo and a long way behind Triang in terms of quantities out there so it was clearly never sold in anything like the quantities of the big 2.

[Il Grifone]

Trix free running represents 25 years of technological progress. The Dublo coaches were originally designed in the late thirties (though the Stanier coaches didn't appear until after the war). Trix tinplate stock is just as reluctant to move as Dublo's. I suspect that Dublo would have been forced to adopt pinpoint axles had they survived. (Hornby Acho already had needle bearings and Wrenn eventually modified the castings to take pinpoint bearings.)

 

Trix sales were always less than Dublo and Tri-ang. Their three year head start means that pre-war Trix is much more common than pre-war Dublo, but the  lower price and greater availability of Dublo and later Tri-ang must have seriously affected them. The A.C. motors and inferior realism didn't help.

 

As a boy, I always hankered after the Trix Twin American series, but it was 1. expensive and 2. incompatible with my Dublo. I've since remedied this situation (I just need an observation car and a day coach that hasn't suffered a repaint - mine's crimson!). I'm not too worried about having the two complete sets of coaches - one gloss and one matt. The numbers on some of the freight cars vary too, but again not too worried. One interesting variant I do have is a stake car with buffers. Apparently a batch of these were produced (one Friday afternoon?).

 

The TTRCA have exhibitions every so often. Details will be on their website.

 

EDIT   to close bracket left open (oops!)

Edited March 27, 2016 by Il Grifone

[railroadbill]

Back when I were a little lad etc.  model railways were very popular and most of my friends had H-D (then just 3 rail but 2 rail was coming out).  Other people had tri-ang but of course we couldn't use our trains on each others layouts.  Trix was certainly around, adverts in magazines, and technically interesting in that 2 trains could be run together. But yet another incompatible system. One lad at school whose father was a stockbroker (or the  like)  had a marklin layout. Of course his trains definitely weren't going to be  running on our layouts, ha ha. 

 

Later on when everything oo was 2 rail and any manufacturers locos could run on standard Peco etc track, we've got the pick n mix situation when you can choose from large ranges from different manufacturers but it's interesting to go back to an era when H-D, Tri-ang, Trix, Marklin had different technical approaches to the same product and had their own "house style"

 

Oddly, everyone I know who had H-D 3 rail seems to have kept it when other childhood possessions have long gone.  There seemed to be another conflict between who had an A4 and who had a Duchess but lets not go there.

 

But Trix is certainly intriguing...