Dublo and Tri-ang 00 and TT comparisons

[kevinlms]

A question if I may. Why was the bottle of oil included in the Tri-ang sets and then later discontinued, never to see the light of day again.

 

Was it because their service agents had to deal too often, with the results of over oiling the motors, i.e. on the armatures.

[Silverfox17]

47 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

A question if I may. Why was the bottle of oil included in the Tri-ang sets and then later discontinued, never to see the light of day again.

 

Was it because their service agents had to deal too often, with the results of over oiling the motors, i.e. on the armatures.

Most likely cost, every penny counted to be cheaper than a competitor and reading Pat Hammonds book change of track etc all helped with cost at one time. 

 

Garry 

[Robin Brasher]

Another Dublo and Tri-ang 00 comparison is the Hornby Dublo Duchess of Atholl set and the Tri-ang Princess Elizabeth set.  Tri-ang did not make any Princess Coronation class locomotives in TT gauge so there is nothing in TT to compare them with.

 

The Tri-ang set included a controller and some detailed instructions on the box lid.  The track and coaches have warped a bit but the locomotive runs very well. I am not sure that the Duchess of Atholl is in the correct box but the engine is worn out. The valve gear seized up on a test run and the rear driving wheels are loose on their axles.  One of the coach couplings has broken but the coaches are good representations of LMS Stanier coaches.  The track has survived better than the Tri-ang track.

[Il Grifone]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

A question if I may. Why was the bottle of oil included in the Tri-ang sets and then later discontinued, never to see the light of day again.

 

Was it because their service agents had to deal too often, with the results of over oiling the motors, i.e. on the armatures.

 

Undoubtedly cost or possibly the possible dangers of a small glass bottle in a children's toy. Dublo went from a glass vial with a cork and a bit of wire to a metal glue tube type thing. IIRC the Dublo spare cost 6d or 7d* and  the Tri-ang one was more expensive (?). The latter was labelled 'Shell' so was possibly sponsored. A can of '3 in 1' cost 1/3d....

* It doesn't look like much, but getting on for a pound in today's money.

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

13 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

Another Dublo and Tri-ang 00 comparison is the Hornby Dublo Duchess of Atholl set and the Tri-ang Princess Elizabeth set.  Tri-ang did not make any Princess Coronation class locomotives in TT gauge so there is nothing in TT to compare them with.

 

The Tri-ang set included a controller and some detailed instructions on the box lid.  The track and coaches have warped a bit but the locomotive runs very well. I am not sure that the Duchess of Atholl is in the correct box but the engine is worn out. The valve gear seized up on a test run and the rear driving wheels are loose on their axles.  One of the coach couplings has broken but the coaches are good representations of LMS Stanier coaches.  The track has survived better than the Tri-ang track.

 

The Dublo box is for the BR livery 'Montrose', as shown on the lid. Basically the same model, of course. Other items ar shown so only one picture is needed across the range and to suggest other items you NEED for your layout. (It took me many years to acquire a 'Silver KIng', but I now have two to make up for it (and 'Mallard' and 'Golden Fleece'.) It appears the return crank has shifted in the centre driver. It should point forward with the coupling rod in the 'all the way down' position) and loose wheels don't help. The pre-nationalisation models have more delicate valve gear than the later. I believe this modification came in with the 4MT 2-6-4T. Strip down, clean off all the crud and reassemble with the help of Araldite or similar and all should be well. The track has the wide tongue and could well be the original track for the set. There should be eight curved rails and two straights, one of the ten being a terminal rail. Various combinations exist, but 'Montroses' usually have a curved terminal rail and one of the straights is made up with two half straights, one of which has the roadway (to encourage sales of level crossings). There should be a date code somewhere on the box.

 

[Silverfox17]

53 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

Another Dublo and Tri-ang 00 comparison is the Hornby Dublo Duchess of Atholl set and the Tri-ang Princess Elizabeth set.  Tri-ang did not make any Princess Coronation class locomotives in TT gauge so there is nothing in TT to compare them with

The Princess was referred to as a Princess Coronation so quite a good comparison even though two different classes.  It does not always have to have all 3 versions for comparision just at least 1.

 

Garry

[Silverfox17]

This is quite an interesting one as the body is the same moulding but made by both Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang.  Both companies were designing an AL class around the same time and Dublo got theirs out first but at the time the company was being bought out by Tri-ang.  I think (but correct me if wrong) I read that the Dublo model was put on the shelves AFTER Tri-ang had agreed to buy Dublo out.  As the Dublo one was finished Tri-ang then dropped their own design and decided to use the Dublo mould but modified it slightly.  The changed the roof mounting switch and the interior (to take their own switch for power from rail to OHL) to accept their own chassis instead of Dublo's.  It was interesting that Dublo advertised in magazines it using the Tri-ang catenary system.  My Tri-ang model still has Tri-ang cast on the weight before they changed to Tri-ang Hornby so still valid on here.  To save on cost Dublo used the later plastic R1 buffers but I changed them for the Nickel R1 version.  Ignore the wiring as I had 3-railed them both but just converted the Tri-ang one back to 2-rail. Tri-ang continued to use the Dublo pantograph for a while as well.

 

Another player at the time involved in OHL was Trix who had the AL1 before the others although at the time it was a Lilliput before Trix then back to Lilliput later.  The Trix loco with Dublo coaches was used on the very large model of the proposed channel tunnel in the early 60's.  Mine here is a genuine twin motored version of which only a few were made.

 

Garry

Edited October 3, 2020 by Silverfox17

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Strictly speaking, the early Tri-ang model should also have two pantographs.

 

The change to a single pantograph came later, following the change on the real ones, and was most certainly a Tri-ang Hornby model by then...

Tri-ang Hornby being launched with the amalgamation leaflet dated May 1965...

[Silverfox17]

3 minutes ago, Sarahagain said:

Strictly speaking, the early Tri-ang model should also have two pantographs.

 

The change to a single pantograph came later, following the change on the real ones, and was most certainly a Tri-ang Hornby model by then...

Tri-ang Hornby being launched with the amalgamation leaflet dated May 1965...

Mine did have parts of a second that was mostly missing so I removed what was left and thought of buying a replacement but not at £70 each at the time, I thought the Tri-ang scissor ones were bad at £45.  If you look at mine you can see the slots where the second one was.

 

Garry

Edited October 3, 2020 by Silverfox17

[Silverfox17]

My Tri-ang one is even better now as I have found a spare body (minus glazing) which fits on a treat after removing the Tri-ang OHL switch, it is a lot cleaner and unmarked like the Tri-ang one was.  Gives it a different number too if I ever get another Tri-ang one

 

Garry

[Silverfox17]

Here are the two Tri-ang A1A locos, 00 and TT.  The TT one was the first produced by a year or two and its power bogie design was copied for the 00 version (and EE type 3 and EM1 although the casting was a different design for the EM1) .  The other major difference was the roof as the TT version did not have the headcode panel and was referred to as "skinheads" by train spotters at the time.  The TT system was the first to use the tension lock coupling by a year or two.  The 00 version had small yellow panels as they were appearing on BR at the time it was produced but you can see on the TT one the BR crest was the one they got into trouble about with it facing right giving BR two and the Heraldic association told them they could only have one and BR decided on the left facing one which Tri-ang then copied.  Both the early style tracks are seen with a brown base for TT and grey for 00.

 

Both models were also produced in different shades/styles of blue.

 

Garry 

[sandwich station]

9 hours ago, Sarahagain said:

Strictly speaking, the early Tri-ang model should also have two pantographs.

 

The change to a single pantograph came later, following the change on the real ones, and was most certainly a Tri-ang Hornby model by then...

Tri-ang Hornby being launched with the amalgamation leaflet dated May 1965...

 

I Thought all AL1's came under the Triang Hornby Banner?

[Enterprisingwestern]

10 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

The other major difference was the roof as the TT version did not have the headcode panel and was referred to as "skinheads" by train spotters at the time. 

 

A very interesting thread, I know little of the history of Triang and Hornby, very informative.

I would question the skinhead reference being used that early though, the culture from which the name derived only arrived in the late 60's, and even then, in my spotting days of the time I never heard them called that.

 

Mike.

[Silverfox17]

1 hour ago, sandwich station said:

 

I Thought all AL1's came under the Triang Hornby Banner?

At the time Tri-ang introduced it the name had not changed and as you can see they obviously had to make a new chassis weight in which the name Tri-ang was cast in. 

 

Garry 

[Silverfox17]

6 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

A very interesting thread, I know little of the history of Triang and Hornby, very informative.

I would question the skinhead reference being used that early though, the culture from which the name derived only arrived in the late 60's, and even then, in my spotting days of the time I never heard them called that.

 

Mike.

Here is part of the description of the class, "These first 20 locomotives, originally numbered D5500–D5519,[6] were always easily recognisable as they did not have the headcode box mounted on the roof above the cab, leading to the nickname "Skinheads"."

 

Garry 

[Robin Brasher]

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

A question if I may. Why was the bottle of oil included in the Tri-ang sets and then later discontinued, never to see the light of day again.

 

Was it because their service agents had to deal too often, with the results of over oiling the motors, i.e. on the armatures.

 

[sandwich station]

27 minutes ago, Silverfox17 said:

At the time Tri-ang introduced it the name had not changed and as you can see they obviously had to make a new chassis weight in which the name Tri-ang was cast in. 

 

Garry 

 

Non wear actually sold until 1966.

[Robin Brasher]

I don't know why Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo stopped including bottles of oil with their locomotives and sets. Since then I have had problems possibly caused by using the wrong type of oil.  A Wrenn City of Liverpool and the locomotive part of several Hornby tender driven locomotives have seized up possibly due to using the wrong type of oil and the gear wheels of some Hornby locomotives have worked loose possibly for the same reason.  If oil is supplied with a locomotive as it was in Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang days this should not happen. I have still got a tube of Hornby Dublo oil.

[Silverfox17]

4 minutes ago, sandwich station said:

 

Non wear actually sold until 1966.

Maybe, but irrespective of date the name used is still Tri-ang and not Tri-ang Hornby which is why it is put on here.  Even the boxes it was sold in at the time were marked Tri-ang. 

 

Garry 

[Il Grifone]

20 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

I don't want to be rude etc but I set this thread going for a comparison of the major 2 competitors of the 50's to mid 60's, ie before Tri-ang Hornby.  It was to show LIKE FOR LIKE and not to about individual items and certainly not about things not made by either company or wrong size wheels etc. There are plenty of threads for those things or start another. For instance Tri-ang only made a 00 saddle tank (clockwork and electric) so there is nothing to compare it with so it is irrelevant, that is unless Dublo and TT had one I have never heard of. 

 

Garry 

 

I was merely stating what Tri-ang replaced their N2 with. The diesel shunter was made by both companies, though only Tri-ang made a clockwork one. There is no comparison between the Tri-ang and Dublo diesels however. The latter actually looks like its prototype!

One can stretch a point and compare the Dublo 2-6-4T (excellent for the time) with Tri-ang's 2-6-2T (dimensionally challenged)* .  Since they made a new block for it, I would have thought it cheaper to use the Princess motion they already had and which would have been nearer to scale (mysteries of the faith?).

* I forgot there's also the TT ex-GWR prairie tank (again excellent for the time). The TT range seems generally to have enjoyed rather more care in its design than the 00 one.

[Enterprisingwestern]

34 minutes ago, Silverfox17 said:

Here is part of the description of the class, "These first 20 locomotives, originally numbered D5500–D5519,[6] were always easily recognisable as they did not have the headcode box mounted on the roof above the cab, leading to the nickname "Skinheads"."

 

Garry 

 

Is that from the Triang notes with the locomotive from when it was first issued?

 

Mike.

[sandwich station]

20 minutes ago, Silverfox17 said:

Maybe, but irrespective of date the name used is still Tri-ang and not Tri-ang Hornby which is why it is put on here.  Even the boxes it was sold in at the time were marked Tri-ang. 

 

Garry 

 

 

What does it say on the end of the box?

[Silverfox17]

15 minutes ago, sandwich station said:

 

 

What does it say on the end of the box?p

No idea as it is not mine but my long lost one did have the number and description on. 

[sandwich station]

12 minutes ago, Silverfox17 said:

No idea as it is not mine but my long lost one did have the number and description on. 

 

According to Pat Hammond, only one has ever been seen in a Triang box correctly labeled. He is not sure how or why this happened because the loco was released in 1966 under the Triang Hornby name.

[Silverfox17]

4 minutes ago, sandwich station said:

 

According to Pat Hammond, only one has ever been seen in a Triang box correctly labeled. He is not sure how or why this happened because the loco was released in 1966 under the Triang Hornby name.

All this is irrespective as the loco clearly has Tri-ang cast into it so comes in this thread.