Jump to content
 

What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?


Recommended Posts

A recent topic started me thinking, a dangerous habit I know, but it prompted me to wonder why Triang Railways ended up as the market leader in less than 10 years after it was launched in 1952, bypassing Trix in the process. Whilst I am a Triang enthusiast through and through, this is definitely not an attempt to knock Dublo or Trix.

 

Pat Hammond's, Michael Foster's, and Tony Matthewman's books describe the history of the three systems, but neither Hammond nor Foster really offers an explanation for the reversal of their fortunes. Matthewman does say that in the case of Trix it was staying with coarse scale wheels, 15V AC and their use of 3.8mm:1ft scale, too long. But Trix were the first to introduce their system, marketed by Basset Lowke, 3 years before Dublo.

 

The first OO train set that I saw and played with was my cousins' and that was HD 3 rail. I loved it. But when the time came for me to go OO in 1959 I ended up with Triang. I don't know how that came to be, but the only catalogue that I had was a Triang one even though the toy shop at on the High Street at the end of our road stocked Triang and Dublo, but not Trix. I don't know if my parents directed me towards Triang because it was generally cheaper, or if the shopkeeper recommended it to them or to me, or it was the catalogue that attracted me, or how the models looked, or that 2 rail looked better than 3 rail. But Triang it was for me, and has been ever since. I don't think I knew about Trix at the time, and only became aware of then through ads in Railway Modeller. But the first non-Triang loco that I ever bought was a Trix one from a toy/model shop about 10 years after I got my first Triang loco.

 

In the 1950s and early 1960s the differences between the three systems and the companies that made them were very marked.

 

What do you think are the reasons why/how did Dublo become more successful than Trix, and why/how did Triang manage to become more successful than either of them, ending up buying Meccano/HD in 1964 and turning down an opportunity to buy Trix in 1966?

 

I put it down to 5 things:

 

1. 2 rail just looks better than either of the two opposing 3 rail systems. Dublo 2 rail was too late and initially too complicated, (should they have gone for stud contact like Maerklin with a moulded plastic base instead of 2 rail in the mid 1950s) , and Trix's move from their most unrealistic-looking bakelite track to fibre came far too late. 

 

2. The look of the models as, to my eye anyway, injection mouldings look crisper, sharper and more "realistic" than the diecast bodies and printed tinplate on offer from Dublo and Trix in the 1950s.

 

3. Triang had the financial backing of Lines Bros which, as a major toy producing company (some say one of the largest toymakers in the world at the time) and maker of Pedigree prams and kids tricycles and bicycles, also gave them ready access to High Street toy and some cycle shops, with an ample advertising budget to push their new range of toy trains.

 

4. Triang were generally cheaper than Dublo and Trix, particularly in offering lower priced sets with cheaper to produce smaller locos which let financially harder pressed parents give in a bit to their kids' pester power.

 

5. Triang had a wider range of locos, being the first and only one of the three makers to produce an EMU and a DMU, with fewer large locos but more of the more affordable smaller locos based on their 0-6-0 chassis and from 1959/60 their 0-4-0 chassis which gave their range a broader, more diverse look. They also had the Transcontinental range whose locos used many of the same components as the BR range.

 

You may totally disagree with some or all of the above, or think that other factors are more important than the ones that I've listed. Please share your thoughts.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say two things:  cheaper and a better range.

 

It took from 1954 to 1957, for Dublo to introduce their fourth locomotive, by which time, Tri-ang had two separate ranges (British and Transcontinental). 

Trix were hampered by high prices (around £10 for a Pacific was a non-starter) and restricted availability.

 

I had Dublo from an early age (Xmas 1951) and was discouraged from Tri-ang by it's tendency to warp and incompatibility  (couplings and wheel standards - resolved by Peco in the late 50s) and I added a UD milk tank, a ridiculously short green coach, a double bolster wagon*, and a utility van to my collection.

 

IMHO they should have copied Märklin and gone stud contact or converted to 2 rail much earlier.

 

*Dublo's was/is awful - the solebars are too far apart and emphasised by being painted grey. I only acquired one many years later (collection completion and all that!).

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely price in the 60's. One mate had a 3 rail Hornby Dublo layout which ran superb, but the track always looked odd to me. My brother had a 8' x 4' mainly Tri-ang layout. He later got a couple of 2 rail Hornby locos which were far better than Tri-ang in the running department.

 

I started with Tri-ang TT around 1960 an a 4' x 3' board, later 8' x 3' Still have my TT stuff boxed up, virtually worn out by 1971 when I went OO. Had my moneys worth !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As I was in the frame at the time for toy trains an interesting observation:

  • Me - initially Hornby clockwork in O, then H/Dublo 3-rail, later going 2-rail with a Tri-ang loco, converted HD stock and Wrenn track
  • Neighbour Richard. - Old clockwork O Gauge, then IIRC Tri-ang
  • Acquaintance ??? (R’s neighbour and boarding school) - TRIX 15v AC.
  • Friends Mike & Rob S - H Dublo 2 rail.
  • Senior school friend G - IIRC started with OOO his father was an excellent S Gauge modeller.
  • senior school friend Rob L - Tri-ang
  • School club layout - had been O Gauge tinplate then a TT3 round roundy.
  • Cousin Chris - never got into model trains. Perhaps another factor in the decline. 
     

Like the British motor bike industry Meccano did not evolve fast enough to new technology coming in (plastics) and also, when they did, made a mistake with the more complicated two-rail wiring as my memory is that they used live frog points not the self isolating one’s Tri-ang used. The other Tri-ang game changer, if my memory is correct, was their swap from the grey base to series three track. 
 

Edited by john new
Added an extra bullet point. Also changed the note to series three in light of later post.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

True! Dublo two rail track correctly used live crossings on the points, but the complicated isolating rails needed to make it work were not straightforward to use and the Dublo plastic base, while very realistic, was also delicate and very liable to fracture, being made of polystyrene.

 

Tri-ang's Series 3 was altogether a beefier product. The rail is steel code 150 or thereabouts against Dublo's nickel silver code 110.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be the 1958 introduction of the black open sleeper base Series 3 track.Original Rovex grey based track being in effect Series 1.

The Tri-ang “Universal “ track was, in effect, Series 2. It became known as “Standard Track” with the introduction of Series 3, which kept the same geometry.

 

From 1962, arguably the best “toy” RTR track system so far released, Super 4 track took over as the main track system offered by Tri-ang Railways, and from 1965, Tri-ang Hornby.

 

From around 1971 (this date always escapes me) System 6 track was introduced, which was in effect a code 100 version of Super 4, but with basically HO scale sleepers.

 

EDIT: 1970. Thanks. :)

 

Not quite as robust as Super 4, which for a time was still supplied with starter sets, especially clockwork.

 

Hornby Dublo abandoned clockwork after WW2.

 

Tri-ang, and Hornby, developed it. At first the use of the same track and couplings as the main range meant that nothing was wasted as the train set evolved.

 

Only much later did the simple peg and loop couplings, and plastic track come about.

 

Backwards compatibility was a rule with Tri-ang. Though this did lead to the holding back of some upgrades, such as finer wheel and track standards…

 

 

 

Edited by Ruffnut Thorston
More added…System 6 date added, thanks.
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There was a thread earlier this year on that topic, which I can't find at present.

 

A lot of it was to do with the quality control of basically all Binns Road products later. Some of the moulding wasn't that good and also slow to respond to Tri-ang's cheaper 2 rail product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Agree with Il Grifone

 

Primarily price

 

But it was an exciting well balanced range .  From little shunters to express locos , Steam and ,for then, modern image eg Class 31/37/Met Cam dmu . AL1/EM2 .   Trans Continental as well , of course . I always fancied the 2-6-0 Western loco after watching Casey Jones and all these Westerns . There was a bit of excitement to it and it had popular appeal. 

 

Might have been cheaper , but you know what , it worked straight from the box . You weren't apprehensive as to whether you got a good one or not 

 

And it was cleverly designed , lots of common components .

 

My first trainset was 1965 Tri-ang Freightmaster .  Never looked back from there . I think it changed in the 80s when Dunbee Combex went bust and it was bought out by management . Seemed to lose impetus then  . The company I knew and respected is certainly not the Hornby of today . Aside from the fact it relocated back to Margate , there's really not much of a connection . Its just a commissioner of models from China with a famous name . 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, friscopete said:

All my middle class  type  friends had Hornby and the less well off Triang ......

That may have been true in the early 1950s, but I don't think it was by the end of the 1950s judging by me and my friends. Lines Bros had an excellent reputation in making good toys. And their range was vast. It will have taken time to build the reputation of Triang Railways and lay to rest the acetate problems following the introduction of polystyrene i nthe mid 1950s..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Triang vs HD, Item 1: Triang won on price, unless your dad was well-heeled, or himself an enthusiast, or (my dad's case) was great pals with a guy who had an HD agency.

 

Triang vs HD, Item 2: Triang won on simplicity and dependability when HD got themselves tangled-up in live frog 2-rail points and iffy design of 2-rail chassis.

 

Triang vs HD, Item 3: Triang won on product innovation, making HD look a bit staid and boring to boys who wanted a lot of play value.

 

Trix vs Anybody: Trix lost on lack of visibility. They simply didn't seem to get products into toy shops, and the certainly didn't get product into some of the odd places that Hornby did. I was pretty much unaware of the existence of Trix.

 

My two closest "model railway friends" when I was c10yo had respectively a very good HD 3-rail layout (dad was a fan himself), and a very good Triang layout (dad was an enthusiastic and skilled DIY'er, although not really into railways), while I had an unholy mix of HD 3-rail, plus anything I could get at jumble sales, which meant mainly Triang, but with a bit of HD 2-rail and Grafar 3-rail for good measure.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the arrival of the L1 signed the death knell for Dublo. Here was a decent model (excellent for the time) at a reasonable price (59/6d IIRC - £75/80 today). All Dublo produced after this was an overpriced (and less than good - that chimney!) West Country and loads of diesels that no-one wanted (except perhaps for the shunter, though that was also expensive).

 

Their record:-  N2 (well a GP locomotive is necessary*), A4 (what else at the time?), Coronation (yes), 4MT tank (a mixed traffic design - filled a vital need), Castle (still their best ever IMHO), 8F Heavy goods - another vital need Bo-Bo Diesel (OK we need a Diesel and it was a good model**) and then it started to go downhill!  :(   The R1 was quite a good model and not a lot more expensive than the Tri-ang 'Jinty' but a very obscure prototype. (A 57xx pannier tank would have sold much better IMHO). And then ringfield mania took over. Retooling the Castle and 8F must have cost a fortune in tooling and lost sales from people like me who couldn't bear a cab overflowing with motor (a bit of motor is OK - you can hide it with the crew).

 

* It wouldn't have been my choice but they seemed to have an LNER fan in charge at the time.

** So good that it overrode my dislike of diesels and I got one!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just struck me that quite a few of my school pals, beyond the two I've mentioned, had been given "train sets", plus a few add-on bits, as Christmas or Birthday presents, and then didn't pursue things beyond playing with it for a bit on the floor, then moving on to the next thing.

 

These were all Triang of various stamps (TransContinental, and the precursors of BattleSpace etc), and my surmise thinking back on it is that these were bought by parents on a "let's see if he warms to it" basis, very likely ordered through "club catalogues", which all mums seemed to have then. I don't think HD ever appeared in such catalogues, and certainly by the early 1960s nobody bought HD "on spec". Meccano did have a last blast with the plastic Percy 0 gauge train set, which did get into "club catalogues" (that's how my youngest bro got one), but the game was over by then.

 

Long, rambling way of saying that yet another factor in HD demise was possibly not exploiting new sales channels, a bit like firms that have died recently by failing to move on-line quickly enough.

 

Oh, and HD was a bit confusing. All that 3 or 2-rail business, and what was compatible with what. Triang? Simple. IIRC, you could even join the old grey track to the new sleepered track, if you pushed hard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your input.

 

Obviously the main focus has been on Triang Vs HD. But Trix did have some effect on Triang despite being the laggard. 

 

Series 3 track was introduced in response to Trix's fibre base track as it was cheaper to make than Standard track. Also Triang's choice of UK outline loco for their new catenary system was constrained by Trix launching the EM1 in 1959. Hence Triang went for the EM2, a remarkably good model even today.

 

The comments made about the availability of spares iand availability of local service agents are interesting. Hornby had a good reputation for repairing locos going back to their O gauge days. But in my experience Triang kit was pretty much bullet-proof. The only Triang spares that I bought back in the 1960s were new pantographs for my EM2 and Steeple Cab. But my P5 controller overheated and had to go be repaired.

Edited by GoingUnderground
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

From around 1971 (this date always escapes me) System 6 track was introduced, which was in effect a code 100 version of Super 4, but with basically HO scale sleepers.

According to Pat Hammond in The Story of Rovex Vol 2 samples were sent to retailers in Dec 1969 and it went on sale in Feb 1970.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Butler Henderson said:

According to Pat Hammond in The Story of Rovex Vol 2 samples were sent to retailers in Dec 1969 and it went on sale in Feb 1970.

System 6 first appeared in the 16th edition 1970 catalogue. But had some singular omissions - the two diamond crossings and the Y point. The diamond crossings didn't appear in the catalogue until 1972, and when the Y point finally appeared the geometry was different to the Super 4 version.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

System 6 first appeared in the 16th edition 1970 catalogue. But had some singular omissions - the two diamond crossings and the Y point. The diamond crossings didn't appear in the catalogue until 1972, and when the Y point finally appeared the geometry was different to the Super 4 version.

The only points released by Triang-Hornby were the R612 R613 LH and RH in 1970 . The diamonds as you say arrived in 1972 by which time the Triang name had vanished. According to Pat Hammonds book they were intended in early 1970  to be introduced subject to tooling costs being established but were postponed in April.  In Jan 1971 it has been decided that the design needed to be updated based on experience with the points.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As a Tri-ang Hornby  boy  I never knew Trix existed  until I came across it in Argyle models  ,Glasgow . From memory they had a display case that had Flying Scotsman, A4s and the Trans Pennine dmu in it . But they were expensive . I’m a bit young for HD but got exposure to Wrenn models because they appeared in the Tri-ang Hornby catalogue . I never knew about models like Trix std 5 , AL1 or EM1 until much later and by then I think they were collectors items . Trix just didn’t have a presence in the shops I went into except Argyle Models . 
 

My Tri-ang items actually came from an Ironmonger , Hughes , in Neilston Road Paisley  who sold Tri-ang Railways as well as all his other stuff .  He shut down in 1974 and I remember , as it was close to my Birthday ,my mum took me down to look at his remaining stock he was selling off cheap.  That’s where I got a Black B12 train set with 4 wagons and system 6 track . I remember I could have got 2 Coronations Red and Blue and a Battle of Britain for the same price , but I really wanted the track as well as the B12 . 

Edited by Legend
  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

The only points released by Triang-Hornby were the R612 R613 LH and RH in 1970 . The diamonds as you say arrived in 1972 by which time the Triang name had vanished. According to Pat Hammonds book they were intended in early 1970  to be introduced subject to tooling costs being established but were postponed in April.  In Jan 1971 it has been decided that the design needed to be updated based on experience with the points.

And it was continuing problems with the points that was the downfall of System 6. They started buying in Roco-made points to buy time whilst they sorted out the problems with the System 6 points. Roco offered to make the rest of the track. Margate were upset with the design that Roco offered as there was no locking together of the track pieces/sleeper ends which had been unique since the earliest Rovex track, and only 2 Clip fit slots in the ordinary straights and curves. But the decision had been taken and there was no going back.

 

The new track was not publicised in catalogue in the same way that Series 3 or Super 4 or System 6 had been. The only clue to the change was the name "Hornby Track" being used instead of "System 6" and the illustrations in the catalogue were of the new track with the sleepers set back from the ends of the rails and the offset fillets between the two end sleepers to make room for the rail joiner as there was no longer space for it between the base and the rail.

Edited by GoingUnderground
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Hammonds book has a slightly different take on the matter, in that initially Roco approached Hornby; Roco were making track for many of the American companies and had reduced costs by automating production. Hornby did not initially take the offer up and studied Rocos points with a view of copying their style however costs were prohibitive. The Roco offer was then taken up, but only on the basis Roco tooled up track to Hornbys specification and which was intended to be on a temporary basis until appropriate machinery was installed at Margate; that never happened.  Hornby were unhappy with the Roco made track as it did not have the positive lock system of the Margate made track. Seems that the Roco track  was not seen as a new system, just a short term development  and it clearly was dimensionally and catalogue numbered the same. Of course those Roco tooling today are used by Bachmann.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a mere youngster of 65 I have no recollection of the 1950s. As a young lad I remember Tri-ang being cheaper and having a greater variety of locos with new ones coming along all the time. I recall that , while the Dublo models seemed higher quality, the Triang locos were actually more reliable and looked pretty good toy

young eyes. My two favourite locos from that time were my Cardiff Castle and my Triang 3F. 
The last Trix locos and rolling stock were very good although they were noticeably smaller than Triang so looked wrong together. This wasn’t helped by the Triang rolling stock being too high. The Trix Western was a great model (except for the bogies) and I am still looking forward to the Trix Brush type 4 arriving in the shops. I had a rake of a Trix mk1s to go with the Western and I thought these were better than the Triang mk1s. The Trix trans penine unit looked great but ours had a nasty habit of the motor stopping suddenly and the lights going very bright at the same time.

 

Triang were just better at making products that appealed to folk and at the best price.

 

The Graham Farish 00 suburban coaches were good but the locos were a bit dodgy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

And it was continuing problems with the points that was the downfall of System 6. They started buying in Roco-made points to buy time whilst they sorted out the problems with the System 6 points. Roco offered to make the rest of the track. Margate were upset with the design that Roco offered as there was no locking together of the track pieces/sleeper ends which had been unique since the earliest Rovex track, and only 2 Clip fit slots in the ordinary straights and curves. But the decision had been taken and there was no going back.

 

The new track was not publicised in catalogue in the same way that Series 3 or Super 4 or System 6 had been. The only clue to the change was the name "Hornby Track" being used instead of "System 6" and the illustrations in the catalogue were of the new track with the sleepers set back from the ends of the rails and the offset fillets between the two end sleepers to make room for the rail joiner as there was no longer space for it between the base and the rail.

 

22 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Pat Hammonds book has a slightly different take on the matter, in that initially Roco approached Hornby; Roco were making track for many of the American companies and had reduced costs by automating production. Hornby did not initially take the offer up and studied Rocos points with a view of copying their style however costs were prohibitive. The Roco offer was then taken up, but only on the basis Roco tooled up track to Hornbys specification and which was intended to be on a temporary basis until appropriate machinery was installed at Margate; that never happened.  Hornby were unhappy with the Roco made track as it did not have the positive lock system of the Margate made track. Seems that the Roco track  was not seen as a new system, just a short term development  and it clearly was dimensionally and catalogue numbered the same. Of course those Roco tooling today are used by Bachmann.

The Roco-made track first appeared in 1975 so doesn't appear to have been directly related to the initial problems with the System 6 point design - indeed the Roco-made points directly replicated the 2nd version Margate System 6 points, the only difference being the change from half-sleeper to full-sleeper ends. It is notable that the changeover took place at the same point that Margate was struggling to keep up with orders and the range was reduced to try and maintain supplies, which suggests that the agreement to outsource track production was part of that process. The isolating track and converter track continued to be made at Margate and were retooled with straight end sleepers. At some point in the late 80s/early 90s some sets included R605 double curves clearly made at Margate using the original tools modified with straight sleeper ends - I remember buying my then young son a Thomas clockwork set and being surprised to see this.

The main benefit of the Roco-designed track was that the sleeper base was moulded directly on to the rails making it much more rigid than the Margate track. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chris M said:

Being a mere youngster of 65 I have no recollection of the 1950s. As a young lad I remember Tri-ang being cheaper and having a greater variety of locos with new ones coming along all the time. I recall that , while the Dublo models seemed higher quality, the Triang locos were actually more reliable and looked pretty good toy

young eyes. My two favourite locos from that time were my Cardiff Castle and my Triang 3F. 
The last Trix locos and rolling stock were very good although they were noticeably smaller than Triang so looked wrong together. This wasn’t helped by the Triang rolling stock being too high. The Trix Western was a great model (except for the bogies) and I am still looking forward to the Trix Brush type 4 arriving in the shops. I had a rake of a Trix mk1s to go with the Western and I thought these were better than the Triang mk1s. The Trix trans penine unit looked great but ours had a nasty habit of the motor stopping suddenly and the lights going very bright at the same time.

 

Triang were just better at making products that appealed to folk and at the best price.

 

The Graham Farish 00 suburban coaches were good but the locos were a bit dodgy.

The Trix Western was made to 3.8mm scale which was why it looked smaller. The Transpennine was also made at 3.8mm scale as it needed to use the 3.8mm coaches. The coaches were made at 3.8mm as it was hoped to offer them to Trix Express in Germany, but that never happened leaving Trix with a range that was underscale for OO and Triang and HD owners wouldn't buy them because they would have looked wrong when run with Triang or HD locos.

 

There were only 4 Trix locos made to true OO gauge 4mm scale. These were the AL1/Class 81 which was not originally a Trix model; and the last 3 locos released, namely the A3 "Flying Scotsman; the A2 and the A4, 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...