Jump to content
 

What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

That would be extremely un Triang!

Would it?

 

They did use inserts and did so as far back as the 1950s. That is how the clockwork versions of the Saddle Tank R.151 and the Diesel Shunter R.154 got the hole in the bodywork for the key. Inserts were also used to create the openings for the buffers on the Dock Shunter, R.253 as the Transcontinental Yard Switcher version R.353 didn't have the holes as it didn't have buffers.

 

It is possible that the Sydney Suburbans themselves were made using inserts as the Trailer car R.451has the same interior mounting bracket for the O/H TK changeover switch as the Driving Motor car R.450, but that is totally superfluous feature for the Trailer car. Also the position of the brass inserts for the roof retaining screws are the same on the Driving and Trailer cars. However these shared features could have come about from using the same engineering drawing for the two bodies and modifying a copy of the drawing to create the drawing for the other bodyshell. But 2 tools for what must have been seen as as a low volume product would have been an extravagance. I have no evidence to support the one tool with inserts or the two tools theories. But the fact that the Trailer car has the same light clusters at onee end of the car as the Driving Motor cab end and these light clusters did not exist on the actual trailer cars as they were always in a M-T-T-M formation does suggest that the two body shells have more in common than one might think. 

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

Well maybe you are right perhaps I was being unfair, I suppose it is not unheard of for Triang to do,  although I would not be surprised if the number of times they didn't include inserts for different variations somewhat outnumbered the times they did!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Triang were not alone in limiting the variations to what could be achieved with using a different coloured plastic or changing the livery as that cost very little.

 

Trix, for example, sold the EM1 in both Black and Green liveries, F105B and F105G, and did the same with the 66xx 0-6-2. The Western loco was available in Maroon, Sand, and  Green. The Trix PO wagons were another good example of using one tool to produce a range of models by varying the colour of the plastic and the markings.

 

I don't know enough about Dublo to comment on how they dealt with the question of similar models that varied in the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Inserts were used, I believe, for the two cars of the Tri-ang Railways BR. DMU. The Guards accommodation is only required in the Driving Brake Motor Coach...

 

 

 

Now that makes a bit of sense - the DTS (or should it be DTC?)  has space for the motor, but the bogie is attached to a separate floor which clips in place.  I have removed this and clipped it in place on a DMBS to make it a dummy motor coach for running two units in multiple.  I have also taken the DMBS underframe detail and clipped it on to the DTS to make a DMS so that the three car unit has two motor coaches as it should.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

Triang were not alone in limiting the variations to what could be achieved with using a different coloured plastic or changing the livery as that cost very little.

 

Trix, for example, sold the EM1 in both Black and Green liveries, F105B and F105G, and did the same with the 66xx 0-6-2. The Western loco was available in Maroon, Sand, and  Green. The Trix PO wagons were another good example of using one tool to produce a range of models by varying the colour of the plastic and the markings.

 

I don't know enough about Dublo to comment on how they dealt with the question of similar models that varied in the details.

 

I believe it was someone forgetting to fit inserts that resulted in the rare 'Atholl' variation with bumps instead of recesses below the nameplate. Whether their release was a failing in Quality Control or a "no-one will notice!" decision is debatable.

 

AFAIK there were very few Dublo models with variations. The first green R1s have 31337 on the smokebox door and 31340 on the bunker for example. In any case the number is incorrect, as the leading sand box was below the running plate on 31340.

I won't go into the incorrect tenders on the Duchesses and Cities....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Titan said:

 

Now that makes a bit of sense - the DTS (or should it be DTC?)  has space for the motor, but the bogie is attached to a separate floor which clips in place.  I have removed this and clipped it in place on a DMBS to make it a dummy motor coach for running two units in multiple.  I have also taken the DMBS underframe detail and clipped it on to the DTS to make a DMS so that the three car unit has two motor coaches as it should.

That same "separate floor" to which the bogie is attached on the R.158 DMU DTS/C is exactly the same as used on the R.225 EMU Dummy DM, but, the bogie differs at least on the later EMUs as the EMU bogie has a 3rd rail shoe beam.  I have used one from the DMU for an EMU. The same design of floor insert was used on the Sydney Suburbans for the unpowered "motor" bogie on the dummy DM R.452, but also on the Trailer car. But I don't believe that the parts are interchangeable between the SR EMU/BR DMU and the Sydney Suburbans as the shape is different on the Suburbans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The very early EMU models had the then standard BR1 type of bogie for all the unpowered bogies. The newer bogie with shoe beam was a later development.

 

150E846D-6344-4CEF-85C5-361100F462F6.jpeg.dce67d0e96264491e50745b805f73985.jpeg

 

Apart from having no lighting fitted, the destination “blind”, and the running number there was no real difference in the body mouldings for both driving cars.


The clip in floor bogie mounting plate is also used on the TC series Double Ended Diesel and electric locos. This makes fitting a second motor bogie a lot easier than most Tri-ang locos.

 

2ABBF864-FC4E-418C-8F2D-2EF724B3C53C.jpeg.863f36848f5ac40f6b8795ee602be378.jpeg

 

In the case of the DED, a version was also released without a motor fitted, to enable typical multiple locomotive use.

 

The unpowered Single Ended Diesel loco and ‘B’ unit had a special flat metal chassis, with both bogies riveted on, and a special metal bracket to take the two body securing screws.


417F6A8E-B128-4589-881A-F4C4998BA36C.jpeg.b305a4c237fb3e3401be621372ab4dc5.jpeg

 

To motorise either of the unpowered models, the whole chassis needs swapping with that for the motorised loco.

 

 

Edited by Ruffnut Thorston
Photos added
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A line up of sydney suburbans here, these have been slightly modified and details highlighted with paint, Given by the prices these are from around 1966 as one is still pre decimal. If I could find some more at $12.25 new I would snap them up.

IMG20210701020546.jpg

IMG20210701020640.jpg

IMG20210701020635.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest to probably nobody but me is the different sized and type of boxes and subtle colour differences in Tuscan red.IMG20210701020748.jpg.3674390fd244a21d1533d91ef5e6da3b.jpgIMG20210701020919.jpg.02b0502cefb985fcee23795f536e4d19.jpg

IMG20210701021248.jpg

Edited by TT3
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

All motor cars have the horrible serrated wheels but I noticed 2 different motor bogies, probably a contemporary replacement as one unit was in a EMU motor coach box.

 

Of note is the awful tatty one missing the pantograph was bought by me in about 1986 for the sum of $12 from a guy in school. For some reason a spare trailing bogie was in the box.

IMG20210701021116.jpg

IMG20210701021434.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most useful to make them run is the OLE, these sets were all mint, boxed and unused until two teenagers decided to build a triang exhibition layout in 1987 so gleefully unwrapped and assembled everything. Fortunately it all went back in the box after and has been there ever since though some is still unopened.

IMG20210701021940.jpg

IMG20210701022737.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something interesting and unusual is the is the Maroon Baltic tank from about 1961. I rather like the Baltic as it seems a decently proportioned loco and probably the best of the Transcontinental efforts.

IMG20210701031558.jpg

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the prototype 3' 6" gauge and everything seems scaled up or is just me and lack of knowledge from the other side of the planet?

 I've always fancied having one, but there is nothing to go with her AFAIK.

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

The prototype is  3'6" from NZ but apart from that I don't know much at all.  Although being 4mm on 16.5mm the gauge difference is about the same as for standard gauge. A lot better than the 4mm approx VR B and Hornby S class that should be on 5'3".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TT3 said:

All motor cars have the horrible serrated wheels but I noticed 2 different motor bogies, probably a contemporary replacement as one unit was in a EMU motor coach box.

 

Of note is the awful tatty one missing the pantograph was bought by me in about 1986 for the sum of $12 from a guy in school. For some reason a spare trailing bogie was in the box.

IMG20210701021116.jpg

IMG20210701021434.jpg

The reason for the spare bogie may be that the bogie on the car in the left of your top picture is from the SR EMU Driving Motor R.156, and is identifiable as such by the triangular shoe beam. so you might want to replace it with the bogie in your hand.

 

The SR EMU bogie shouldn't be in Australia as the SR EMU was never officially sold there. It was made and sold in New Zealand as after it was discontinued in the UK the tools were sent to New Zealand so that they had an EMU in their range to compensate them for Australia getting the Sydney Suburban cars, according to Pat Hammond. The Sydney Suburban set was never officially sold in New Zealand. 

 

The photo below is of a repaint and renumber than did to a smashed up SR EMU that I acquired as part of a job lot on Ebay a few years ago. It shows the powered motor bogie, with the triangular shoe beam between the two axle boxes. The dummy bogie is the same pattern but moulded in polystyrene. No other model in the Triang range used this particular motor bogie or the matching dummy bogie.

 

IMG_0037.JPG.2a4c6212a1d83471166fd888c1450a85.JPG

 

And here's the full 4 car set. Each of the coaches had some sort of damage, ranging from cosmetic to missing couplings to severe with parts of the body missing and the cab smashed and previously badly repaired with what looked like some sort of latex glue.

 

IMG_0034.JPG.307bb45b6e9b0866f3c7d26b8c33bba2.JPG

 

How the SR motor bogie turned up in Australia underneath a Sydney Suburban DM is anyone's guess, unless it was supplied from New Zealand post 1964 to replace a broken bogie chassis on a sydney Suburban. Apart from the cast frame/chassis, everything else is common to both models' motor bogies and if the armature had failed etc the NZ bogie could have been used as a donor to rebuild the Sydney motor bogie.

Edited by GoingUnderground
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TT3 said:

Something interesting and unusual is the is the Maroon Baltic tank from about 1961. I rather like the Baltic as it seems a decently proportioned loco and probably the best of the Transcontinental efforts.

IMG20210701031558.jpg

 

I have one of the Moldex versions which were not moulded in maroon plastic but painted.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TT3 said:

The prototype is  3'6" from NZ but apart from that I don't know much at all.  Although being 4mm on 16.5mm the gauge difference is about the same as for standard gauge. A lot better than the 4mm approx VR B and Hornby S class that should be on 5'3".


I do love the Baltic Tanks...

 

The Wab Tank locos were a tank version of the Ab 4-6-2 tender locomotives.

They are big locos.;)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZR_WAB_class

 

 

This is one of my favourite videos...

 

 

This one I think shews the size of the loco well...

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

How the SR motor bogie turned up in Australia underneath a Sydney Suburban DM is anyone's guess, unless it was supplied from New Zealand post 1964 to replace a broken bogie chassis on a sydney Suburban. Apart from the cast frame/chassis, everything else is common to both models' motor bogies and if the armature had failed etc the NZ bogie could have been used as a donor to rebuild the Sydney motor bogie.

That as we say is a mystery, the spare frame is a plastic one but no doubt a previous owner was planning a swap or improvement.

 

The cars are in exceptional condition and the painted solebars and details really lift the models appearance. I actually copied that trick with Triang TT coaches and what a difference,

IMG20210701115125.jpg.0c7c6e878d7f501e5ee6f8d361c13c72.jpg

 

IMG20210701115143.jpg.13a905322522f1dab02e6163555844fe.jpg

I could always swap it for the motor in my old tatty one that would be improved with a bit of paint as that panto-less one is only fit to become a dummy as the motor was stuffed.

 

The maroon baltic has been in the hands of a modeller as it is full of lead inside and the black bits re-painted Will need another coat too.

 

Just for comparison a back one.

 

IMG20210701111404.jpg.67fdf5f4b4a12e6707571a084ea29957.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

 

OMG!  Just shows how American the prototype Deltic styling was!  I often wondered if the reason for the transcontinental range was to provide modern diesel power for your railway, despite there being hardly any diesels in the UK at the time to model due to BR being slow to modernise.  I can't help thinking that if Triang had based their double ended diesel on the Deltic prototype, and say using the EM2 bogies, then it would have provided a far more accurate model of a Deltic than Dublo managed a few years later!

 

They would also have had more success at exporting the model than EE did with the real thing...

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

It was so much slow to modernise as the country being broke following WWII. There were hopes of British diesel exports, but EMD had got there first!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Motive_Diesel#1940-1960

 

Britain had more important things to manufacture in 1941.

Yet in the US, by the time the FT model was replaced in 1945, 555 cab units and 541 booster units had been produced.

 

So EMD had an incredible lead and one impossible to catch up from, given the expertise learnt.

  • Agree 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...