What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, Titan said:

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!

It would hve been difficult to put the R159 on R351 bogies as the former came into the range in 1958 and the latter 1960...

[cypherman]

Hi all,

This is in my opinion one of the biggest reasons why Triang came out on top. They could produce these engines and many more a lot cheaper with at least some semblance of accuracy far cheaper than the competition. Sorry some of these engines from my collection have been repainted and modified by me, and are not exactly in original condition, But you get my meaning. They are all Triang engines. Plus the many others they made. Many more engine types than the competition had or could produce. They could build more cheaply using injection moulding and get better detail results and sell cheaper. One other consideration was also the cost of their rolling stock which again was cheaper than the tinplate HD made and that of Trix. They could out build and out price the competition.

Edited July 3, 2021 by cypherman

[Il Grifone]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

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.

 

We should have bought them then, but EMD were not allowed to even tender!  They've got their own back now! Seeing the success of 10000 and 10001, this should have been the standard design. (Don't get me started of the f*** up of British Railways standard designs!)

 

I must get a Baltic tank and a class 66....

[cypherman]

Hi Il Grifone,

It is getting a Baltic tank that has not warped out of all semblance of straight that's the problem. I have a Baltic chassis just waiting for a decent body. Same as I have a Triang German prairie chassis. This is the red chassis and wheels and not the Standard 2mt or French chassis which are just plain black as pictured below. just waiting for a body I can afford to buy. If one ever turns up. I had the complete engine and now cannot find the body. Must admit it has been about 40 years since I did last see it. That's 3 house moves ago.....

Edited July 1, 2021 by cypherman

[Titan]

5 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

It would hve been difficult to put the R159 on R351 bogies as the former came into the range in 1958 and the latter 1960...

 

Oh well I was not quite up on my Triang timeline, I think the EM2 was the first to use that motor bogie, with the 31 coming later?  Mind you, even a Bo-Bo Deltic would probably been just as accurate as Dublos attempt, despite not having the right number of wheels.

 

Wonder what a Traing transcontinental would look like photoshopped into Electric blue Deltic Livery? 

[Titan]

8 hours 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!

 

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

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.

 

Whilst that may be true, English Electric gave it a damn good shot!  I expect EE  exported mainly to Commonwealth countries.  I wonder how many main line locos they did export, must have been hundreds!

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

Oh well I was not quite up on my Triang timeline, I think the EM2 was the first to use that motor bogie, with the 31 coming later?

Yes, though the 00 EM2 bogie was based on the TT Brush bogie which I believe came out first.

[andyman7]

On 28/06/2021 at 02:39, kevinlms said:

You could say the same thing for many Tri-ang models (and most other manufacturers), as to whether they were a 'model' or a 'generic representation'. After all, the Princess was way short of it's scale length.

 

 

On 28/06/2021 at 15:58, GoingUnderground said:

That would be true if they had been intended as scale models, but they weren't, they were intended as toys, and most of the TC range dates back to the mid/late 1950s when accuracy was less important than price. The same goes for the Princess, it was a toy made for Marks & Spencer, and was never intended to be a realistic scale model.  

 

 

Despite it's shortcomings the Princess definitely deserves a bit of a free pass as it was tooled in 1950 and simply to have the right number of wheels and a nodding acquaintance with the outline of the real loco was step forward in an era when 'toy train' normally meant an 0-4-0 tinplate generic with 'Royal Scot' or 'Flying Scotsman' on the side 

 

On 29/06/2021 at 20:49, GoingUnderground said:

[Triang] 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.

 

 

On 29/06/2021 at 22:37, 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...

 

Yes, the mould lines of the inserts are quite visible on the two vehicles of the DMU - and the fact that the effort was made to represent each vehicle was a hint of the effort that went into making them 'models', even back in 1957. If you discount the Trix Transpennine, it wasn't until 1981 that another suburban British outline DMU was modelled 'ready-to-run' in the form of the Lima class 117. Despite featuring Lima's legendary crisp mouldings even they did not tool separate Guards and non-Guards driving ends, unlike Triang. 

[Andy Kirkham]

Is the Triang saddle tank (numbered 1685 in the above photo) based on any real prototype?

[Joseph_Pestell]

23 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Is the Triang saddle tank (numbered 1685 in the above photo) based on any real prototype?

 

Usually attributed to the L&Y.

[BernardTPM]

No, usually attributed to the one-off SECR Class S.

[Andy Kirkham]

21 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

No, usually attributed to the one-off SECR Class S.

As the number is the same, that is pretty convincing.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

The Tri-ang Railways saddle tank was actually numbered 748.

 

As @cypherman said in his posting, some of the photos shew repainted examples, and the Saddle Tank is one of those. 
 

Earlier clockwork and electric locos had the early BR emblem.

 

Later the locos carried the BR late Crest.

 

From 1959, the Primary Series models included a black and green clockwork version. No number, just a TR logo on the tank sides.

All versions do have the number 748 moulded into the smoke box number plate though.

 

 

 

[Il Grifone]

The EM2 bogie is actually unique to the EM2. (The other bogies have different sideframes though the actual works are the same.) My model of 10000/1* runs on a pair (or at least will when I put all the bits together!)

* I've still to decide which one. I have etched numbers for either.

 

The saddle tank is very approximate and modelled excessively high to give space for the spring. I don't know where the number 748 came from (made up?) There is a thread about it here somewhere.

 

The Double-ended diesel is rather short compared to a Deltic (and has lost a couple of wheelsets. The Kitmaster/Dapol kit is really the way to go. I seem to have lost one of the body bits of mine. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

In Rovex 1, Pat Hammond includes 2 photos of loco bodies never made, one is of a Deltic, the other of the Co-Bo. The dates when these were "made" is unnown.

 

The EM2 shared the design of its bogies with LMS 10000 and 10001.

 

  

 

 

The EM2's bogies could have been used on 10000/1 models unchanged. I wonder if that was ever considered by Rovex? Probably not as by 1963 10000 was laid up and 10001 was kept going until 1966 using parts cannibalised from 10000. Both were scrapped in 1968. 

[BernardTPM]

I've got the body of an old Kirdon 10000. EM2 bogies are the obvious way to motorise it. Might see if I can pick up a set when I can afford it.

[Il Grifone]

The EM2 bogies aren't very common. I did manage to find a pair, however it did take quite a while.  It might need a Class 37 bogie to provide spares.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Il Grifone
Deleted duff information

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Watch out...

 

None of those motor bogies are the EM2 type.

 

They are all, including the  spare frame, of the A1A (31) and 37 type.

 

Misleading listings, with murky photos, so you have to look hard to see the reality! 
 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
Typo

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Here is a picture of the real SECR 0-6-0 saddle tank with the correct 1685 number. The Triang dimensions were out quiet a bit with the height of the saddle tank and cab. It is much taller on the model than real life. The reason for that was so they could fit the spring for the clockwork version. Plus the footplate bore no true comparison to the real engine. Mine has been heavily modified to look something like the real one. I do not know where Triang got the 748 number from. But it was not this engine. There was only one of this class made and this it. The engine I believe was scrapped in 1951.

Edited July 3, 2021 by cypherman

[PatB]

Was an element in Triang's success also that they (or the parent, Lines) were, at the time, a huge company with many product lines?

 

Meccano Ltd, as far as I'm aware, had Meccano, Dublo, Dinky and the last, limping remnants of their 0 gauge range. Nothing much else springs to mind, although I daresay Meccano experts are aware of other ventures. Triang/Lines, OTOH, had trains (with far more accessories, like OHLE, lineside kits and scenic materials), 3 flavours of slot-car (Scalextric, Minic and, IIRC, Magicar, aimed at younger children), prams, tricycles, diecast cars (was it Spot-On?), probably a Lego clone (everyone seemed to be trying that in the 60s) and no doubt any number of things I can't remember.

 

Such diversification would have been useful in weathering downturns in the toy train market, especially that caused by the slot-car explosion in the early 60s, as a significant amount of lost sales in Triang Railways would simply have moved across to Scalextric, keeping the company's overall sales roughly constant.

[kevinlms]

21 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The EM2 bogie is actually unique to the EM2. (The other bogies have different sideframes though the actual works are the same.) My model of 10000/1* runs on a pair (or at least will when I put all the bits together!)

* I've still to decide which one. I have etched numbers for either.

 

The saddle tank is very approximate and modelled excessively high to give space for the spring. I don't know where the number 748 came from (made up?) There is a thread about it here somewhere.

 

The Double-ended diesel is rather short compared to a Deltic (and has lost a couple of wheelsets. The Kitmaster/Dapol kit is really the way to go. I seem to have lost one of the body bits of mine. 

748 could have come from anywhere. Maybe the designers street number/phone number and no one asked, so into production it went!

[GoingUnderground]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

748 could have come from anywhere. Maybe the designers street number/phone number and no one asked, so into production it went!

Rovex used actual numbers when the loco or rolling stock was intended to represent a particular model: 46201 - Princess Elizabeth; 27000 - EM2 Electra; etc.

 

But when the item drew aspects of its design from a loco but was not intended to be a model of it they used made up numbers, or did not give it a number, presumably so that the model could not be compared unfavourably with the original.

 

One example is the SR EMU where they used S1057 S and S1052 S for the motorised and dummy DMs (occasionally reversed as the body shells are the same moulding). The model was not truly representative of the prototype as it was too short and had too few compartments, probably so that it matched the look of the pre-existing suburban coaches, and the drivers cab window isn't the right size. So they invented the numbers. But they do not seem to be too far from the truth as S 10557 S and S 10552 S were 4-LAV units whose appearance is quite close to that of the Triang model. These units spent their lives on the Victoria-Brighton line, where they would have carried the "V" route indicator. They also survived into the BR Blue era. I know this is speculation on my part, but that is the logic behind my repaint and renumbering of my SR EMU.

 

The Saddle Tank seems to fall into this category of a model not intended to be of a specific prototype but drawing heavily on aspects of its design. 

 

In the Hornby Railways era they did use telephone numbers for "Lord Westwood" and for the second red 0-4-0T with the silver dome. 

[BernardTPM]

8 hours ago, PatB said:

Triang/Lines, OTOH, had trains (with far more accessories, like OHLE, lineside kits and scenic materials), 3 flavours of slot-car (Scalextric, Minic and, IIRC, Magicar, aimed at younger children), prams, tricycles, diecast cars (was it Spot-On?), probably a Lego clone (everyone seemed to be trying that in the 60s) and no doubt any number of things I can't remember.

Yes, die-casts were Spot-On (1:42 scale) though discontinued in favour of Dinky after the take-over. The Minic name was used for various series, the electric cars being Minic Motorways (buses and lorries in 4mm scale, though the cars were larger) but there were Minic clockwork vehicles too, originally tinplate, later plastic. FROG model aircraft (both flying and plastic kits, later expanded to non-aircraft models too), Arkitex and Pennybrix building systems, the former in 1:76 and 1:42 scales to suit Tri-ang Railways and Spot-On cars, the latter more a child orientated Lego/Betta Bilda rival. Real Estate/Model Land building kits and the 4mm scale MINIX cars were from the outset intended as model railway accessories. Pedigree covered prams, cuddly toys and Sindy dolls while the Tri-ang brand was also used for tricycles and similar push or pull-alongs. There was the Big Big Train too.

 

Meccano Limited did make other products too beyond the well-known big 3 (Meccano, Dinky and Hornby/Hornby Dublo) including clockwork toys (cars, boats), Kemex chemistry sets, Meccano Brik and Konkrete building sets, etc. and very late (1959) on took over the Bayko range. The latter they set about retooling which must have been quite a drain on resources, especially given they were heavily investing in the new 2-rail HD system too.

Edited July 3, 2021 by BernardTPM

[GoingUnderground]

We all tend to think of the 2 rail system as a heavy draw financially on the Meccano group, and it probably was. But the actual development expenditure was restricted to the new track as the rolling stock only needed insulated wheelsets, and coaches and wagons with insulated wheelsets ran just as well on 2 rail as 3 rail. The true drain probably came in the form of additional working capital in stocking up with 2 rail locos and the new 2 rail track.

 

I've found this topic very interesting, so again thank you all for your views. But I still believe that  Meccano handled the change to 2 rail very badly, and if they'd gone down the 3 rail stud contact route in the mid/late 1950s like Maerklin and not bothered with 2 rail, and took the competition from Lines Bros' Triang Railways more seriously, then Hornby Dublo would have lasted a lot longer than it did. 

[cypherman]

Hi Goingunderground.

One of the problems with going the stud contact route was that Marklin were the only company that tried with any seriousness to do that in Europe. Every one else was going down the 2 rail route. Hence if you wanted to try and sell trains in Europe the 2 rail route was going to be the most financially viable. I know that the USA did go with the 3rd rail studded track for quite sometime. But even that has in the main eventually changed to 2 rail.