What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?

[Andy Hayter]

AS someone brought up on Triang from age 4, I would say the main factors were:

1.  price to market - making train sets (rather than model railways) affordable to many middle and even working class families.  It wasn't accurate (but was close enough that most sub-10 year olds would not worry - we used bits of bent sticks as a gun). 

2.  It was readily available through a range of sources - toy shops, department stores - and as we have seen iron mongers!

3.  The range quickly expanded to provide not just variety ( foreign models) but also play value - giraffe car, rocket car, mail coach.

 

Once people were hooked on Triang then other - 3 rail  - systems excluded themselves.  

Brand loyalty built on itself - for proof of that look at the questions even today surrounding whether a Bachmann coach can run with Hornby.  

 

Where Hornby perhaps failed and Triang succeed was that Hornby was aimed at modellers - and too late discovered that real railways mostly did not have a rail down the middle of the track - whereas Triang aimed to produce high quality (for the time) toys for the masses.  

 

Lessons for today?  Really understand the market. 

To what extent does the children's toy market still exist??  And how do you fulfil it if it does?

What is the balance between collector and modeller?

Are collectors as critical as modellers - does it matter if the SECR numbering is slightly out?  Or if you do a  later absolutely correct version, does the error become a collectors' item like an upside down plane on a stamp?  

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, Legend said:

modern image eg Class 31/37/Met Cam dmu . AL1/EM2

The AL1 was originally tooled by Dublo around the time of their demise. Production continued under the new owners. Triang were working on an AL2 at the time but it was scrapped in favour of modifying the Dublo AL1

The Triang 37 model wasn't introduced until two years after Dublo ceased production.

 

11 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Triang had a wider range of locos, being the first and only one of the three makers to produce an EMU

Dublo also produced an EMU in 1962.

 

5 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

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).

I still have a Gaiety Pannier body on an R1 chassis converted to 3-rail. 60 years old? and still runs.

[Andy Hayter]

9 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

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, 

 

While I cannot disagree with any of that, I think you are looking at this from a 21 century modellers' view.  Back in the 50s and 60 most purchasers were not modellers let alone high fidelity (to use the phrase of the time) modellers.

 

I really doubt that the absolute scale had a major impact on most purchasers  back then.

 

I am sure someone will enlighten me but I seem to remember that Fleischmann were still selling successfully 1:100 H0 length coaches into this century and I am unsure when Rivarossi abandoned 1:80-ish for its H0 models but it was not in the 60s.  

 

That is perhaps the mark of when high levels of accuracy became important.   

[GoingUnderground]

49 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Dublo also produced an EMU in 1962.

You have been too selective when you quoted me. I chose my words very carefully and what I actually said was that Triang were the first and only to produce an EMU and a DMU. Note the word "AND". The R.156/R.225 EMU appeared in Summer 1957 and R.157/R.158 DMU was launched 9 months later in Spring 1958. 

 

HD had the EMU based on the Midland Region Class 501 in SR livery even though the original only ran on the Euston Watford DC lines and Broad Street Richmond routes. They never produced a DMU. Trix had the Class 124 DMU by 1966 which was their only UK outline DMU.

[GoingUnderground]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

While I cannot disagree with any of that, I think you are looking at this from a 21 century modellers' view.  Back in the 50s and 60 most purchasers were not modellers let alone high fidelity (to use the phrase of the time) modellers.

 

I really doubt that the absolute scale had a major impact on most purchasers  back then.

No I'm not thinking of it in today's terms.

 

The problem was that if you mixed Triang and Trix coaches because the Trix ones were too low they just looked wrong. To quote Tony Matthewman, who was a Trix enthusiast par excellence, on the subject of the 1962 plastic scale length coaches: "The chosen scale was 3.8mm to the foot.....However, such a choice of scale proved to be a disastrous decision as it impeded sales in Britain despite the coaches receiving very favourable comments from the modelling press.". If what you say about absolute scale not having a major impact then wouldn't the Trix coaches have been far more successful?

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

The Trix Western was made to 3.8mm scale which was why it looked smaller.

Ah, the Trix Western. First model I had which died of Mazak Rot. Despite being a different scale to the other companies it looked good with a rake of maroon Trix coaches.

The dodgy scale did have an advantage with the 16t Minerals which were closer to the correct length than the Dublo ones.

[GoingUnderground]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Where Hornby perhaps failed and Triang succeed was that Hornby was aimed at modellers - and too late discovered that real railways mostly did not have a rail down the middle of the track - whereas Triang aimed to produce high quality (for the time) toys for the masses.

I know that the generally accepted wisdom is that Hornby were aiming for modellers, but that is not borne out by their advertising. Hornby may have been aiming for greater realism at least for the locomotives, but its parent company was at heart a toy company, same as Triang. Arguably the adult modeller market was very small in the 1950s hayday of Dublo. it was Airfix and Palitoy Mainline who spotted that the 1940s and 1950s kids had grown up and those still in the hobby had turned into adult modellers who were looking for more accuracy. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

I know that the generally accepted wisdom is that Hornby were aiming for modellers, but that is not borne out by their advertising. Hornby may have been aiming for greater realism at least for the locomotives, but its parent company was at heart a toy company, same as Triang. Arguably the adult modeller market was very small in the 1950s hayday of Dublo. it was Airfix and Palitoy Mainline who spotted that the 1940s and 1950s kids had grown up and those still in the hobby had turned into adult modellers who were looking for more accuracy. 

Agree about the Hornby Dublo advertising. Still true for certain retailers who use it today!

 

If only Airfix and Palitoy Mainline had used better mechanisms!

[PatB]

I suspect that Triang's success was primarily based on price, and producing a wider range. The corollary is that a major factor in Trix's lesser reach was also price. IIRC a Trix Pacific was roughly double the price of its Dublo equivalent, which was, itself, very expensive in comparison with a Triang Princess. 

 

Trix probably also suffered from its lack of interoperability with anything else. Regardless of any merits of its bodies, and the both-sides insulation, a Trix AC loco wouldn't have been much use to the "serious" modeller using the de facto standard 12V DC, so that's another little bit of market gone. 

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, PatB said:

I suspect that Triang's success was primarily based on price, and producing a wider range. The corollary is that a major factor in Trix's lesser reach was also price. IIRC a Trix Pacific was roughly double the price of its Dublo equivalent, which was, itself, very expensive in comparison with a Triang Princess. 

 

Trix probably also suffered from its lack of interoperability with anything else. Regardless of any merits of its bodies, and the both-sides insulation, a Trix AC loco wouldn't have been much use to the "serious" modeller using the de facto standard 12V DC, so that's another little bit of market gone. 

Restricting yourself in some from general appeal, is a way to business oblivion, even if technically your product is better. VHS vs. Beta, anyone?

 

Having a modest range and being more expensive is double trouble and eventually it contributed to Trix's demise. Hornby Dublo were in trouble because of their production problems, which probably meant they couldn't reduce prices.

 

Peco of course competed quite well because they concentrated on making track as their prime range. They also did wagons and some scenic items. But they have NEVER (until recently) gone into making locomotives. Don't know why they stopped after getting 1 loco made for them - the N gauge Jubilee. Presumably the market wasn't really there.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

No I'm not thinking of it in today's terms.

 

The problem was that if you mixed Triang and Trix coaches because the Trix ones were too low they just looked wrong. To quote Tony Matthewman, who was a Trix enthusiast par excellence, on the subject of the 1962 plastic scale length coaches: "The chosen scale was 3.8mm to the foot.....However, such a choice of scale proved to be a disastrous decision as it impeded sales in Britain despite the coaches receiving very favourable comments from the modelling press.". If what you say about absolute scale not having a major impact then wouldn't the Trix coaches have been far more successful?

I had a number of Trix Mk 1 coaches, which I fitted with bigger wheels and a Meccano washer between the bogie and the body. That brought the roofs up to roughly the same height as Tri-ang. I didn't worry about the width and the shorter length was an advantage if you were tight on space.

 

They were, of course, the most free-running of any RTR coach, before or since.

[2mmMark]

I think a lot of Triang's success could be down to their annual catalogue. As I remember the early issues had busy looking layouts that, even if you only had Nelly, Polly or Connie and a handful of wagons, it was something you could aspire to.  Very striking visually inside too.  Then to commission Terence Cuneo to paint a new front cover picture each year, that was a masterstroke.  Each catalogue showed the new products and their release schedule for the year, which created a sense of anticipation.

 

The addition of Minic motorway offered a matching road system that integrated well and the company were prepared to innovate, such as the announced but never released motorised 1:72 BEA Trident.

 

Mark

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by 2mmMark

[Nearholmer]

8 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Back in the 50s and 60 most purchasers were not modellers let alone high fidelity (to use the phrase of the time) modellers.

Speaking for my c10yo self, I certainly didn’t have the knowledge or inclination to pick at details in the way that many buyers nowadays do, but I already “had an eye” for what did and didn’t look right, and other railway-inclined boys did too - much playground conversation was devoted to such things.

 

We had qualms about three-rail, thought the wheels and valve gear on HD locos looked far finer/better than Triang, disliked the Triang M7 when it came out, because the yawning chasm under the cab looked wrong etc etc. In 0 gauge, it was blindingly obvious that the few Bassett Lowke locos that I’d seen were far superior to the Hornby  we had to play with. And, one quickly got to find out from friends which locos ran most reliably (HD 3-rail, HD 2-rail ‘Barnstaple’, and Triang Transcontinental Diesels).

 

Once I got hold of a big box of secondhand Railway Modellers, when I was still c10yo, the idea that a layout could look realistic really started to come into play too.

 

In short, don’t entirely write-off “discernment” as a factor among boys. If there had been any discretionary spending power in our household (three growing sons, a house that was being modernised from 1920s condition, and my father’s modest salary while he re-trained to become a teacher, meant that there definitely wasn’t a penny spare!) I would have been pestering for HD two-rail, then the Wrenn successors, which to me were “proper models”.

 

 

[sandwich station]

One thing that put me off Dublo was the motor sticking out the cab, awful things.

[Il Grifone]

9 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

omis

 

Are collectors as critical as modellers - does it matter if the SECR numbering is slightly out?  Or if you do a  later absolutely correct version, does the error become a collectors' item like an upside down plane on a stamp?  

 

Yes!  though the value would depend on the relevant production numbers. The true collector would have to have both versions!

 

Rivarossi changed scale to 1:87 at about the time of their merger with Lima in the nineties. This followed improvements to selected models from both manufactures (with a huge increase in price) during the eighties. As most of my Italian models are Rivarossi 1:80, I find this quite irritating as the difference in scale is quite noticeable. That they are now 'collectable' and thus suffer from collector's prices is also irritating. Luckily I have enough for my needs. (Yes I know you can never have enough trains....) (I have just bought a tender for my Rivarossi NYC 'Hudson'. It cost me more than the locomotive (eBay bargain!) and is not even Rivarossi (Mantua I think but it it has no maker's mark).  Rivarossi tender bodies are still available, but the price is definitely not 'Grifone friendly')

As an aside, the Jouef model of a type E open wagon is the same size as Rivarossi's, despite Jouef being a 1:87 manufacturer. 

Waffling on (again!), so I'll shut up....

[locomad2]

Value for money, generally you got more for your money than the others, yes might argue that HD was better quality locomotives pulled more but you had to pay a lot more. Also as you mixed other stuff like Airfix, Kitmaster, Wills, peco, with Traing you got a decent layout for less money spent. 

 

The big cost then was locomotives £5 for a HD WC was about the average wage for most working men think average is about £500 per week in today  then less disposal income then

[GeoS]

My dad bought my first train set, Triang, no doubt price / value influenced this.  For my part though, although Dublo metal bodies looked good I had never seen a three rail railway in real life and I never understood why anyone would want one.  I progressed with Triang very happily and ended up with 8x4 TT gauge layout, which I came to regard as the ideal scale.

In my second phase of railway modelling, in retirement, I now realise that 009 is the real deal!

[GoingUnderground]

5 hours ago, PatB said:

I suspect that Triang's success was primarily based on price, and producing a wider range. The corollary is that a major factor in Trix's lesser reach was also price. IIRC a Trix Pacific was roughly double the price of its Dublo equivalent, which was, itself, very expensive in comparison with a Triang Princess. 

 

Trix probably also suffered from its lack of interoperability with anything else. Regardless of any merits of its bodies, and the both-sides insulation, a Trix AC loco wouldn't have been much use to the "serious" modeller using the de facto standard 12V DC, so that's another little bit of market gone. 

Being AC needn't have been such a handicap for Trix. One only has to look at Maerklin who still use AC in their non-digital H0 locos to this very day. AC only died in the UK. Using their 3.8mm scale also needn't have been an issue as they did have a 3 year head start on Hornby's Dublo system.

 

Trix's problem was that Hornby were out-competing them in the late 1930s and again after WW2. It was the success of HD and the ease of use of 12V DC that put Trix out on a limb in the UK. When Triang came along and produced their 12V DC models in 2 rail OO gauge that pushed Trix even further out of line. Trix also had a reputation for zinc pest/rot. 

 

Taken together, Trix's "odd-one-out" scale, AC, very coarse wheels, unrealistic looking locos, unrealistic looking track, zinc pest issues, and price it's not surprising that they couldn't compete against Dublo and Triang in the first half of the 1950s. They fixed each one, but that was against a background of changing ownership and financial constraints, and took too long. By the time they had fixed everything they were irrelevant and lacking the financial resources to keep fighting they simply faded away. That was a pity as they had shown that they were capable of better things given the chance.

[GoingUnderground]

As a child what I saw most of the time was track with a centre rail, and a 4th rail, because I grew up in one of the London suburbs where the Underground was our local railway. To be honest, neither Triang's Standard nor Series 3 track looked like it, but they looked more like it than the Dublo 3 rail. I agree with Ruffnut that Super 4  ticked the majority of the boxes for most people, realistic and robust. I have only 1 piece of HD 2 rail track, and it does looks good, but with its thin base and near Code 100 rail it seems very flimsy when compared to Super 4 or Dublo 3 rail or even Peco Code 100 Streamline track.

 

[Legend]

It is odd . As I said I was a Tri-ang kid , but I was aware of the old Hornby Dublo models , although as I’m really post 1965  it’s really Triang- Hornby and Triang-Wrenn , then later Wrenn  that I’m familiar with . Other then my encounters with Trix in Argyle models I never came across them 

 

I had forgotten they had the A2 and Western too . Really quite a desirable range of models that I should have been aware of .  But even now I’ve continued my prejudices . I have Michael Fosters excellent history of Hornby Dublo and Pat Hammonds great trilogy on Tri-ang through to later Hornby , but I’ve never felt the desire to learn about Trix . 
 

I think there’s a few points coming out . There was brand loyalty and the system approach . Browsing the catalogue constantly I knew the Tri-ang Hornby system by heart . Very familiar with it , anything outside it was viewed with suspicion! 
 

And that brings us to the catalogue . As I said constantly perused throughout the year . Tri-ang Hornby of the 60s were great catalogues . Remember that big layout showing the amalgamation of H-D and Tri-ang . I studied that for hours .They were colourful and exciting . I believe H-D ones or the “Book of Trains” were held in similar high esteem , but I’ve never seen a Trix catalogue . We’re they generally available? 

[Il Grifone]

The difference is that Märklin's reverser works every time, whereas the Trix one is very temperamental (in my experience). The problem readily is that you don't know in which direction the train will go. (Conversion to DC with rectifiers is the way to go IMHO). I think that the zinc pest problem had been solved by the  '50s (possibly* they still had stocks of pre-war driving wheels?). It only really resurfaced when production shifted to the Far East (by which time there was no excuse!*).

Scale wasn't really an issue with the early Trix items (0-4-0s and the silly short coaches). (Trix themselves were never sure what scale they were using. In their own literature they talk of H0, 00, and in between. The 1956 year book states (p.65) approximately 1:86 - 1 mile is equal to 61' 6". AFAIK there were only three of these (1954/55/56 IIRC) at 2/6d each., containing articles on Trix and real railways and a catalogue of Trix Twin.)

 

* Really there was never any excuse. I've seen an article dated 1928 on the problem. (Likewise, a 1911 article on the dangers of asbestos and one from the 19th century predicting global warming if we did not cut coal consumption.)

 

HD 2 rail track is flimsy. The problem is a polystyrene base rather than the polythene used by Peco and others. The sleepers are slightly underscale for 00 (I use them for 1:80) and too close together. It's quite adequate for a model railway where the track is laid once, but not for a toy railway that gets laid on the floor and trodden on. The surviving track is very prone to broken rail fixings - I've a pile of discarded sleepers.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

The cause of the zinc pest problem was identified and solved back in the late 1920s with the introduction of Zamak alloys (Mazak in the UK). But avoiding pest depends in reality on the quality of the metal used at the time of casting, and reusing old castings in the melt with new metal can introduce the impurities, primarily lead, that cause pest. Stringent quality control when purifying the zinc and when producing the alloy, and again at the casting stage is the only way to avoid pest.

 

My first Trix loco, the EM1 was bought at the end of the 1960s. The loco was only launched in 1959. I wasn't aware of zinc pest at the time, but the motor bogie which I believe is only used by the EM1 and later the Warship, soon started showing signs of pest. and I've seen several EM1s with wheels suffering from pest. It now has a whitemetal replacement bogie/"gearbox" from the TTRCA. The body is still fine, with no signs of pest.

[Mike_Walker]

Slightly off topic, but I've always been curious why we jumped from Super 4 to Series 6. What happened to 5?

[Il Grifone]

I didn't realise that problems had reappeared with Trix in the sixties, but this would be about the time I started going 'scale' and anything not 'Great Western' or at least pre-nationalisation came under the heading of 'not interested'. The rather poor performance of my Trix 56xx (63/- worth of disappointment) didn't encourage me to add any more Trix locomotives to the stud.

 

I have seen it surmised that '5' was reserved for Dublo track, but I think it is merely a surmise.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Pat Hammond does cover the missing Series 5 track.

 

System 6 was Series 5...the R. Numbers were actually issued, and were to start with a 5, in the same way as most System 6 starts with a 6.

 

There were rumours it seems, of a new Tri-ang Hornby track system.

 

To try and scotch the rumours, which may have led to a fall off of track sales while people waited to see the new system, Tri-ang  Hornby issued adverts with tag lines like “5 reasons to use Tri-ang Hornby Super 4 track.” Hoping that the use of the 5 would suggest that this was the new 5th track system..l

 

This was about the same time that the Third Radius Super 4 curved track was released.

 

Interestingly, the Third Radius R. Numbers begin with a 6. R.646 Double Curves. R.642 Curves.

Most Super 4 track R. Numbers begin with a 4.

 

 

 

(From one of my posts on another Forum...)
 

Rovex, Tri-ang Railways and Tri-ang Hornby Track Systems.

 

ROVEX Non-Universal Track. Silver base. Can only be connected one way around, to make a circuit.

 

Tri-ang Railways "Universal" Track. Silver Base. Based on ROVEX design, but can be connected either way around, so not limited to circuits. (Later made with a Grey Base.)

 

Tri-ang Railways "Standard" Track. Grey Base. Based on ROVEX design, but can be connected either way around, so not limited to circuits. (The same as "Universal" but re-named on the introduction of Series 3 Track)

 

Tri-ang Railways Series 3 Track. No Base. Black sleepers to the same spacing, etc. as "Standard" Track. No "Tongues" as with the earlier Track Systems. Instead a small “catch” or “lug” on each end sleeper serves to “lock” the sections together.

 

Tri-ang Railways Super 4 Track. No Base. Brown sleepers to a more “scale” spacing. A new Geometry from the earlier Track Systems, with a shallower “Turnout” on the points,  and a larger 1st Radius Curve. Small notches in each end “half sleeper” are intended to “lock” the track sections together (and it works pretty well too!).

All Tri-ang Track Systems to date are compatible. The ROVEX track could be joined to Tri-ang Universal with the Converter Tracks made at the time!

 

Tri-ang Hornby….Uses Super 4 Track. A Converter track was made to connect Hornby Dublo 2-Rail track to Super 4 Track.

 

Tri-ang Hornby Series 5 Track. This system was not actually released as such. The 3rd Radius Super 4 Curves were marketed with the number “5” to make it seem that this was the rumoured NEW track system. The R. numbers for Series 5 would have been R.5XX…. and made with Code 100 size rails.

 

 

Tri-ang Hornby System 6 Track. Made with Code 100 size rails. Black Sleepers. Originally the notches and Half-Sleeper arrangement from Super 4 was used with System 6 Track as well.

The Converter track was re-tooled (With System 6 type sleepers at the code 100 end) to connect System 6 track to Super 4 Track.

Later track was made by ROCO in Austria.  (etc.) This is when things started to go downhill, as the “Clip Fit” slots were not now in between every sleeper, as they were from Series 3 Track. The half sleeper went as well…and the track looked a lot like most other Code 100 Set Track!

The Converter track was re-tooled again, with the new type System 6 type sleepers at the code 100 end to connect New System 6 track to Super 4 Track.

 

Now made in China…..and not System 6 anymore, Just Hornby Track! 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
Typo..added track systems list