Jump to content
 

What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?


Recommended Posts

On 22/06/2021 at 18:44, Il Grifone said:

IIRC the first Tri-ang Wrenn releases were limited to the 8F, Castle and 4MT at considerably higher prices. I believe they'd unloaded large quantities of stock to Hatton's et al.

The Triang Wrenn locos and rolling stock all had Triang's TensionLock couplings, with the option of replacing them with HD type ones. The offloaded stock would have been 3 rail items, which never appeared in any post amalgamation catalogue and any remaining Dublo 2 rail with HD couplings that was proving hard to shift.

 

Looking back, it is surprising that the Class 20 wasn't remotored and rebogied by Triang in the same way that the AL1 was given that it had a plastic body. But perhaps they felt that its reputation for being a poor runner would count against it, or that spreading sales over a larger number of locos wasn't economic especially when they must have been contemplating the 37 and Hymek.

Edited by GoingUnderground
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

 

Looking back, it is surprising that the Class 20 wasn't remotored and rebogied by Triang in the same way that the AL1 was given that it had a plastic body. But perhaps they felt that its reputation for being a poor runner would count against it, or that spreading sales over a larger number of locos wasn't economic especially when they must have been contemplating the 37 and Hymek.

 

I wonder if the 20 wasn't re-done because it would need a fairly bespoke chassis (tall, thin) and matching motor, that couldn't be easily used elsewhere.  Something Triang, and later Triang-Hornby did very well was maximise how much use they got out of a chassis, even if it meant compromises in dimensions for the loco bodies on top. How many locomotives (steam and diesel) ran on the 0-4-0 "Polly" chassis, or the 6-coupled?  Pannier, Jinty, 3f, 08 shunter... The Hymek, 25, and 29 all shared the basic bo-bo chassis I think, the 37 and 47 the co-co version. Lovely a body moulding as the Dublo 20 was, I wonder if it wasn't re-launched because it couldn't be made to fit the Triang business model of squeezing every last penny from the tooling...

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

8 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

I wonder if the 20 wasn't re-done because it would need a fairly bespoke chassis (tall, thin) and matching motor, that couldn't be easily used elsewhere.  Something Triang, and later Triang-Hornby did very well was maximise how much use they got out of a chassis, even if it meant compromises in dimensions for the loco bodies on top. How many locomotives (steam and diesel) ran on the 0-4-0 "Polly" chassis, or the 6-coupled?  Pannier, Jinty, 3f, 08 shunter... The Hymek, 25, and 29 all shared the basic bo-bo chassis I think, the 37 and 47 the co-co version. Lovely a body moulding as the Dublo 20 was, I wonder if it wasn't re-launched because it couldn't be made to fit the Triang business model of squeezing every last penny from the tooling...

Lima had to use a non-standard chassis for their 20 and the current Railroad 20 continues to use an updated version as the standard Limby motor bogie won't fit

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all.

When Triang/Hornby brought out the Hymek I was surprised that they did not use the chassis from that with the class 20 body. After all they were know for making one chassis fit a multitude of engines. I mean the B12 chassis went on to fit under at least 5 other engines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ben B said:

 

I wonder if the 20 wasn't re-done because it would need a fairly bespoke chassis (tall, thin) and matching motor, that couldn't be easily used elsewhere.  Something Triang, and later Triang-Hornby did very well was maximise how much use they got out of a chassis, even if it meant compromises in dimensions for the loco bodies on top. How many locomotives (steam and diesel) ran on the 0-4-0 "Polly" chassis, or the 6-coupled?  Pannier, Jinty, 3f, 08 shunter... The Hymek, 25, and 29 all shared the basic bo-bo chassis I think, the 37 and 47 the co-co version. Lovely a body moulding as the Dublo 20 was, I wonder if it wasn't re-launched because it couldn't be made to fit the Triang business model of squeezing every last penny from the tooling...

You may be right about the Class 20, but the Transcontinental Switcher R.155 had a similarly shaped body and they managed to get the standard Transcontinental bogie in  to that. Perhaps the 20 was just too slim.

 

The position as I believe it to be up to 1970 was:

 

The 0-4-0 from 1959 was used with only 2 body shells, the R.252/254 Steeple Cab, and R.355/B/R/Y, R.359, 0-4-0T Industrial/stretched Urie C14.

 

The 6 coupled was used on the R.52 Jinty, R.151 Saddle Tank, R.152 Diesel Shunter, and R.251 Deeley 3F.

 

The basic design of the 4 wheel bogie was used on R.156 EMU; R.157 DMU; and R.753 AL1 each had its own model specific side frame. In the Transcontinental range almost all the non-steam locos used the same bogie and side frames which shared many components with the UK versions. The Transcontinental locos were the single ended R.55 and R.155 Switcher, the double ended Bo-Bos R.159 and R.257, the R.353 Yard Switcher and in the UK range R.253 Dock Shunter. The same basic design and core components were also used on the R.450 Sydney Suburban but that had its own unique bogie frame/chassis.

 

The "6" wheeled bogie was used on R.351 EM2 with its own chassis/frame whilst the version made for R.357 the A1A/Class 31 was also used unchanged on R.751 the Class 37.

 

There was a true 4 wheeled version of the "6" wheel bogie that was used on the Budd Diesel Railcar and R.758 Hymek which shared several of the "6" wheeled bogie's components.

 

All the above may have been used on later "Hornby Railways" models, but my knowledge expires around 1970.

Edited by GoingUnderground
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

The Triang Wrenn locos and rolling stock all had Triang's TensionLock couplings, with the option of replacing them with HD type ones. The offloaded stock would have been 3 rail items, which never appeared in any post amalgamation catalogue and any remaining Dublo 2 rail with HD couplings that was proving hard to shift.

 

Looking back, it is surprising that the Class 20 wasn't remotored and rebogied by Triang in the same way that the AL1 was given that it had a plastic body. But perhaps they felt that its reputation for being a poor runner would count against it, or that spreading sales over a larger number of locos wasn't economic especially when they must have been contemplating the 37 and Hymek.

The fault on the Dublo class 20 was lack of electrical continuity, the loco would stall on diamonds, otherwise it would pull anything,   I think this fact of the design fault came from the Pat Hammond books, Wrenn  put the 20 back into production after a long hibernation with a few changes to the model, the bogie sideframes were changed from metal to  plastic, there may be other changes too. Perhaps Triang had surrendered exclusive  access of  the class 20 tooling to Wrenn?

I wonder about the quality of Dublo towards the end, a school friend received a Christmas present of a Dublo AL1electric, the loco was returned to the shop as a non-runner with a failed motor within a month,   the  dealer exchanged for the model for  another in stock,  the replacement also failed with the same fault, by now the dealer had none in stock, so  the replacement was  a new Triang Britannia instead.  Would any owners of the Dublo AL1 care to comment on the reliability of the AL1 Dublo motor, and, did Triang select their own bogie due to warranty  issues with the Dublo bogie?

Edited by Pandora
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

It is also a myth that Purchase Tax rates were lower than VAT. When it was introduced in 1973 the VAT rate was only 10%, and in 1974 was reduced to 8% but with the introduction of a "luxury items" rate of 25% (the luxury rate was abolished in 1979). So the prices of items where the Purchase Tax was 35% may have fallen (it depends on the retailers profit margin), in 1973 as you'll see if you do the maths. The rate of VAT in the UK has varied and now stands at 20% because it was a less obvious way to raise the tax take as it left untouched Income Tax and National Insurance rates which would have changed what folks received in their bank accounts, or took home in their wage packets.

 

 

However as I understand it 'Purchase Tax' was not charged on 2nd hand items or kits or services. That meant that even though it may have been higher - less people were paying it than now pay VAT.

 

Also, as well as giving rise to the Triang 'CKD' range (which could be sold as a 'Kit') the old system had the effect of making people more likely to repair items rather than chuck them away when they break (which is bad for the environment in both dealing with the waste and also increases the demands for raw materials to make new products).

 

VAT may be a nice earner for the Government and 'easy' for businesses - but its not good for the planet and hardly counts as a 'success'

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pandora said:

I do not recall Dublo being sold in any outlets other than high street toyshops, I think I can recall Triang being sold in a wider retail arena ,including mail order catalogues, Woolworths, my local  bicycle shop sold Triang railways as a sideline, the local newsagent sold Corgi and Matchbox cars, but not Dinky cars.

 

Meccano appointed authorised retailers in each area who were allowed to stock their items. This gave each shop a guaranteed territory and worked well during the post war rationing period but once the consumer boom took off in the late 50s it hampered their competitiveness with other brands.

 

4 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

Lima got the bogie wheelbase wrong on their Deltic too, but at least the length was right. Dublo's looks too high to me, as well as being too short or is this an optical illusion?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

The Lima Deltic was originally going to be a continuation of the HO range.

 

The bogies remained HO, but the body was tooled to the new (to Lima) 4mm-1 foot OO scale.

 

As the Class 50 used the same type of bogies as the Class 55 Deltics, the Lima model 50s also have HO bogies...

 

 

They did tool the correct sized bogie for the Class 37 which in real life also used the same type as the Deltic and the 50. Replacing the bogies on a Lima Class 50 with a set from a 37 was an improvement hack used to improve the look of the former.

 

2 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

The Triang Wrenn locos and rolling stock all had Triang's TensionLock couplings, with the option of replacing them with HD type ones. The offloaded stock would have been 3 rail items, which never appeared in any post amalgamation catalogue and any remaining Dublo 2 rail with HD couplings that was proving hard to shift.

 

 

There was plenty of offloaded 2 rail stock too, and not just to Hattons, but the deals that Triang did were conditional on avoiding stock dumping. Hattons were able to offer some 'new' 2 rail H-D items well into the 80s by which time a number of items were being sold at 'collectors' prices (e.g. new old stock Mk1 WR Restaurant Cars).

 

28 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Would any owners of the Dublo AL1 care to comment on the reliability of the AL1 Dublo motor, and, did Triang select their own bogie due to warranty  issues with the Dublo bogie?

Mine works fine but it is a shelf queen and doesn't get used to any extent. But I bet that chap wishes he'd just held on to both non-working AL1s, by the late 70s he could have exchanged them for a few dozen Britannias, regardless of their mechanical state!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

@Joseph_Pestell

 

That is the first time that I have heard of a T suffix being used.

The actual locos carried 3F markings.

 

The only T that I was previously aware of was as part of MT, for Mixed Traffic.

Such as the B.R. Standard 3MT 2-6-2 Tank loco, R.59.

 

The term '3F' as far as the LMS were concerned, was a power classification (or group) and the LMS had lots of  different types of '3F's' from all it's constituent companies. Also many were not 0-6-0 or 0-6-0T's.

A look here will reveal loads, then you can go look at the constituent sites to find even more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotives_of_the_London,_Midland_and_Scottish_Railway

 

The term 'MT' for Mixed Traffic was a BR addition to the system and made a lot of sense.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

The Lima Deltic was originally going to be a continuation of the HO range.

 

The bogies remained HO, but the body was tooled to the new (to Lima) 4mm-1 foot OO scale.

 

I have a question about that.

 

Did Lima make the bogie chassis i.e. wheelbase specifically for the Deltic, or was it a standard item from it's continental range?

Obviously, the side frames were new, but was the motor assembly made using existing parts already in their range?

After all Tri-ang/Tri-ang Hornby/Hornby Railways did that for years, cobbling together models made up from parts already in the bins, with new bodies, so why not Lima?

 

It was good work of the UK Lima agent, to get Lima to drop it's HO British range and change to 4mm scale. Certainly a decision that must have paid off handsomely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

True the VAT rate was initially 10%, but has crept upwards to allow the top rate of income tax to be reduced. This peaked to around 90%. Now I won't comment on whether that is a good idea or not....

 

There was a cartoon (in Hi-Fi News IIRC) with an annoyed dealer glowering at the queue outside the local 'spiv' flogging amplifiers (luxury rate) as 'space heaters' (low/zero rated). (Not an unfair description for a 50W + 50W Class A valve amplifier!)

 

I'm not sure if the Deltic bogie was a standard H0 component, but their DSB MZ diesel uses something of similar design.

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

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

@Joseph_Pestell

 

 

 

@Pandora
 

One of the problems with the HD “Deltic” was that it was designed before the design of the production Deltics had been finalised.

 

There are a few features on the model, including what was meant to be a sort of destination blind for train names, etc., that were dropped from the full size locos.

 

The plain green livery, and lack of names on the first batch, also stemmed from this.

 

Being too short was a common failing of RTR models at that time.

 

Surely anyone who makes a model based on a definite maybe, is asking for trouble?

 

It is impossible to accurately (to whatever level) depict a prototype, if no one knows what it looks like yet! I wonder why they obviously spent so much money too early.

Yes, it's nice to be first with a new model, but really what was the risk of a competitor also making a model of the Deltic?

I've always had the impression that Hornby Dublo were looking for a 'killer' model of the 'latest and greatest' prototype to keep their name going, but sadly for them, the Deltic model wasn't it.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real Deltic wasn't BR's saviour either!

The whole modernisation programme  smelt of political agenda though it's cost was much the same as today's subsidies.

 

The original transport plan was all transport nationalised using locally produced fuel (coal) for the railways which were to handle long distance traffic. Once road transport was privatised and allowed to compete rather than cooperate this plan was doomed to failure. The precipitous rush to dieselise, rather than the planned long term electrification was also ill-advised.

 

I doubt that Tri-ang's management would have retooled models just to change the motor, though they did insist on adding the useless smoke effect* which added around a pound to the model's cost.

 

*IMHO - the effect is rubbish and I always disconnect it.

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

HD should probably have done the class 24 instead of the Co-Bo. Unfortunately the class 47 was introduced too late for them, and the other express DE types were both 1Co-Co1s which may have been regarded as too difficult to make at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I have a question about that.

 

Did Lima make the bogie chassis i.e. wheelbase specifically for the Deltic, or was it a standard item from it's continental range?

Obviously, the side frames were new, but was the motor assembly made using existing parts already in their range?

After all Tri-ang/Tri-ang Hornby/Hornby Railways did that for years, cobbling together models made up from parts already in the bins, with new bodies, so why not Lima?

 

It was good work of the UK Lima agent, to get Lima to drop it's HO British range and change to 4mm scale. Certainly a decision that must have paid off handsomely.

I'm not sure about the Deltic bogie, but I've looked at a couple of King tender drives, which are, essentially, a 6 wheeled motor bogie. I was surprised to find that the outer wheelsets (the driven ones) had crank throws moulded in, and so were clearly common with something else, as, obviously, a tender drive wouldn't need them. Unless someone was planning to release a Sturrock steam tender, anyway. 

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

2 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

HD should probably have done the class 24 instead of the Co-Bo. Unfortunately the class 47 was introduced too late for them, and the other express DE types were both 1Co-Co1s which may have been regarded as too difficult to make at the time.

Well, too difficult to make go round 14" radius curves anyway. Although a Mainline Peak from 20 years later will just about do it, albeit not happily. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PatB said:

I'm not sure about the Deltic bogie, but I've looked at a couple of King tender drives, which are, essentially, a 6 wheeled motor bogie. I was surprised to find that the outer wheelsets (the driven ones) had crank throws moulded in, and so were clearly common with something else, as, obviously, a tender drive wouldn't need them. Unless someone was planning to release a Sturrock steam tender, anyway. 

 

An economy measure to use wheels of a size they already had I think. The original H0 4F has tender wheels with cranks.

Likewise the Co-Bo conveniently used the Deltic power bogie. Dublo models only had to go around 15" radius curves, not 13½" like Trix and Tri-ang. Could this be why there was only a limited range of Tri-ang Wrenn?

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

 

Meccano appointed authorised retailers in each area who were allowed to stock their items. This gave each shop a guaranteed territory and worked well during the post war rationing period but once the consumer boom took off in the late 50s it hampered their competitiveness with other brands.

 

 

 

 

They did tool the correct sized bogie for the Class 37 which in real life also used the same type as the Deltic and the 50. Replacing the bogies on a Lima Class 50 with a set from a 37 was an improvement hack used to improve the look of the former.

 

 

There was plenty of offloaded 2 rail stock too, and not just to Hattons, but the deals that Triang did were conditional on avoiding stock dumping. Hattons were able to offer some 'new' 2 rail H-D items well into the 80s by which time a number of items were being sold at 'collectors' prices (e.g. new old stock Mk1 WR Restaurant Cars).

 

Mine works fine but it is a shelf queen and doesn't get used to any extent. But I bet that chap wishes he'd just held on to both non-working AL1s, by the late 70s he could have exchanged them for a few dozen Britannias, regardless of their mechanical state!

He did regret not keeping  the Dublo AL1,  and wished he had waited for a factory  repair, he did like the model, it was a good performer, powerful and made the right impression on the layout.  His Britannia gave sterling service hauling long freight trains for several hours a day during school holidays, we would leave the house for bike rides leaving the heavily loaded Britannia circuiting the layout, it would still be circuiting several hours later. In our boyish imagination, the Brit was hauling an unfitted  freight train, Crewe to Carlisle via Shap,  We were not aware that the Dublo loco returned as a Triang product, (with Triang motor bogies) the Railway Modeller did not mention the connection, if we had known there may have been a purchase!.

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

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, PatB said:

I'm not sure about the Deltic bogie, but I've looked at a couple of King tender drives, which are, essentially, a 6 wheeled motor bogie. I was surprised to find that the outer wheelsets (the driven ones) had crank throws moulded in, and so were clearly common with something else, as, obviously, a tender drive wouldn't need them. Unless someone was planning to release a Sturrock steam tender, anyway. 

This loco looks remarkably like it has bogies (couplings are Lima's 'Dunny Seats') that would fit the the Deltic and others.

 

http://mmiwakoh.de/Eigene Webs/Ersatzteilblaetter/ET8058.pdf

 

I've had a look around the above site and cannot see where the spoked wheels with cranks came from. I assume it's from the US 6 wheeled steam switchers?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

However as I understand it 'Purchase Tax' was not charged on 2nd hand items or kits or services. That meant that even though it may have been higher - less people were paying it than now pay VAT.

 

Also, as well as giving rise to the Triang 'CKD' range (which could be sold as a 'Kit') the old system had the effect of making people more likely to repair items rather than chuck them away when they break (which is bad for the environment in both dealing with the waste and also increases the demands for raw materials to make new products).

 

VAT may be a nice earner for the Government and 'easy' for businesses - but its not good for the planet and hardly counts as a 'success'

If VAT removed the anomalies over kits and fully made up items, and the tax base was increased was that such a bad thing? I don't think so, especially if it allowed the government to reduce income tax rates and raise income tax thresholds, or spend more on health and social security.

 

The throwaway society started because it was cheaper for businesses to make throw away items than to make them in a repairable form - fewer parts & quicker assembly. The second and probably far more important driver to that change was rising labour costs. Together they made it cheaper to replace with new than repair old. If VAT played any part it was purely incidental as it would have been added at the same rate to the respective costs. Your case against VAT for ruining the planet doesn't exist if you look at the reality of the changes in society and legislation happening at the same time.

 

But if you want to argue about taxation theory and policy please go and start a new thread in Wheeltappers. It has nothing to do with the success of Triang or the demise of Dublo and Trix as it applied equally to all three of them.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

The real Deltic wasn't BR's saviour either!

 

Well no it wasn't. But it did point towards the future in that a diesel loco with sufficient reserve of power, could run a fast service.

The Class 40's & Peaks, were so heavy that while they did speed up services, there was little margin to make up anything much in the way of lost time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Also, as well as giving rise to the Triang 'CKD' range (which could be sold as a 'Kit') the old system had the effect of making people more likely to repair items rather than chuck them away when they break (which is bad for the environment in both dealing with the waste and also increases the demands for raw materials to make new products).

 

The CKD idea was based around the theory that models could be cheaper, if some of the factory assembly was reduced.

Fact is extra care in packing is required and then there is warranty issues, where often potential builders lose parts and claimed that they were missing on opening the box.

Potentially bad for packers, if management were to come round and tell them 'too many complaints' - not worth the trouble.

 

The idea came from the US, where many 'kits' were shake together ones, with very few parts to put together. It was because in the US, there were taxes on 'toys', but not on 'kits', so such kits were a lot cheaper. AIUI this didn't apply in the UK, there was no difference in tax. It certainly had nothing to do with VAT.

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

3 hours ago, Pandora said:

The fault on the Dublo class 20 was lack of electrical continuity, the loco would stall on diamonds, otherwise it would pull anything,   I think this fact of the design fault came from the Pat Hammond books, Wrenn  put the 20 back into production after a long hibernation with a few changes to the model, the bogie sideframes were changed from metal to  plastic, there may be other changes too. Perhaps Triang had surrendered exclusive  access of  the class 20 tooling to Wrenn?

I wonder about the quality of Dublo towards the end, a school friend received a Christmas present of a Dublo AL1electric, the loco was returned to the shop as a non-runner with a failed motor within a month,   the  dealer exchanged for the model for  another in stock,  the replacement also failed with the same fault, by now the dealer had none in stock, so  the replacement was  a new Triang Britannia instead.  Would any owners of the Dublo AL1 care to comment on the reliability of the AL1 Dublo motor, and, did Triang select their own bogie due to warranty  issues with the Dublo bogie?

Pat Hammond was silent on the Class 20 and its tooling as I recall as it was never brought back to life as a Triang Hornby or Hornby Railways model. Michael Foster covered the problems with it at great length in his book on HD, part of which I quoted earlier.

 

Triang didn't surrender the tooling to Wrenn, as at the time Wrenn acquired the HD tooling both Wrenn and Rovex were subsidiary companies of Lines Bros., and once HD had gone so had a serious rival for Triang Railways. Lines Bros. had no wish to restart Dublo production just to recreate the competition again which is why they rejected an advance in 1966 from Courtaulds, who owned Trix at the time, to buy Trix off them once Trix was successful again through the use of the HD tooling. I know it sounds bizarre but that, apparently, was the deal that Courtaulds wanted.

 

I can't find a reference to when Wrenn acquired the Class 20 tooling, but it didn't appear as a Wrenn model until very late 1977/early 1978, 4 years after first appearing in a Wrenn catalogue. But letting Wrenn have the tooling was one way to manage getting ex-Dublo locos back into the market without undue dilution of Triang Railways sales. And remember, the glory days were over by the mid 1960s as overall sales of model railways were falling.

 

I doubt that Triang would have been interested in the Dublo chassis and motor for the AL1 as they had already featured an AL2 in their catalogue before the Meccano acquisition and I believe that they used the underpinnings of their planned AL2  underneath the HD AL1 body. Also, as others have said, Triang were masters at using existing parts when designing new models to maximise the economies of scale so why introduce new parts and components for a loco that, judging by sales of the EM2, was unlikely to be a big seller and couldn't be used on any other model?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The CKD idea was based around the theory that models could be cheaper, if some of the factory assembly was reduced.

Fact is extra care in packing is required and then there is warranty issues, where often potential builders lose parts and claimed that they were missing on opening the box.

Potentially bad for packers, if management were to come round and tell them 'too many complaints' - not worth the trouble.

 

The idea came from the US, where many 'kits' were shake together ones, with very few parts to put together. It was because in the US, there were taxes on 'toys', but not on 'kits', so such kits were a lot cheaper. AIUI this didn't apply in the UK, there was no difference in tax. It certainly had nothing to do with VAT.

And Trix made even greater use of the kit idea than Triang as Trix also had wagon kits.

 

Hornby, on the other hand, never went down that route, and were very reluctant to sell sub-assemblies unless for repairs, believing that Dublo parts should only be used in Dublo models. Strange seeing that Meccano was all about self assembly and some of the very first Hornby O gauge locos had a self-assembly element to them.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

I doubt that Triang would have been interested in the Dublo chassis and motor for the AL1 as they had already featured an AL2 in their catalogue before the Meccano acquisition and I believe that they used the underpinnings of their planned AL2  underneath the HD AL1 body. Also, as others have said, Triang were masters at using existing parts when designing new models to maximise the economies of scale so why introduce new parts and components for a loco that, judging by sales of the EM2, was unlikely to be a big seller and couldn't be used on any other model?

The Triang reissue of the E3001 (AL1) essentially has AL2 bogies so the tooling must have been far enough advanced when the H-D range was acquired to make the mating of the H-D body to the Triang mechanicals a viable option. The R753 E3001 and the slightly later R864/R871 Coronation locos are really the only genuine 'Triang-Hornby' models as they feature parts originating from both ranges.

  • Agree 3
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...