Jump to content
 

What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?


Recommended Posts

1. I must have had one of the Crescent foot bridges because I remember it being green and with smoke deflectors.

 

2. Napier in New Zealand was rebuilt after a serious earthquake in 1931 in Art Deco style, very impressive.

 

P1050677.JPG.87802b55a844c43056668dc31e489911.JPG

 

3. Found the Tri-ang steps.  They do have adverts for Tri-ang (Britain's Best Models) and also Frog.  Apart from the plastic kits (which were good in their day) they also made flying models.  I had a Frog Mk5 fighter, which was a mistake buying, because in my youthful naivety I assumed that a small rubber powered model with a metal fuselage and card wings would actually work.  "Rise Off Ground" it certainly didn't.

However, in looking that one up for this post, I was reminded that Frog actually made a reasonably large range of rubber powered and control line kits, both sheet balsa and built up construction.  Not as well known as Keil Kraft.  Remember making a couple of those, SE5A and Bellanca Cruisemaster (there's an obscure aircraft).

There was also a range of diesel engines, came across my old Frog 150 at the bottom of a box and stuck it on e-bay several years ago, surprised at the positive response.  Made in their Merton factory. I'll stop here because it's getting away from Tri-ang vs Hornby  but Lines Bros certainly had a wide selection of model and toy manufacturing under their umbrella.

 

Found this site about Frog...

 

http://www.houseoffrog.co.uk/cat60.htm

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

I've seen references to Hamo, but had no idea of their relationship with Maerklin. I was under the impression that they were a 3rd party company making magnets/parts to convert the motors to DC. and that they only added 2 rail DC with the acquisition of Trix in 1997.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

I've seen references to Hamo, but had no idea of their relationship with Maerklin.......

To clarify, I was not aware of the relationship between Hamo and Maerklin prior to Bernard's comment earlier in this topic.

 

Maerklin played no direct part in the UK outline during the time that Trix, Dublo and Triang were competing (up to 1964) as they had no 2 rail models, and no UK outline models.

 

The Warship, which was nominally an H0 model, might have been testing the water but it didn't arrive until the later part of the 1960s (the Triang Hornby era) by which time Dublo was gone except for the stocks bought by Hattons and the like, and British Trix was really struggling.

Edited by GoingUnderground
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/07/2021 at 16:29, GoingUnderground said:

The product description in that link "Molotow Belton Premium Spray Paints were developed with advice from the world's most famous street artists." makes it sound that they're great for graffiti work with excellent adherence to stone, brick, and concrete, not to mention equipment cabinets, etc.. So that must make them ideal for repainting the Dublo buildings. :jester:

 

Molotow Belton is not a brand that I've ever heard of, but then I'm not familiar with the art world. Daler Rowney and Cumberland Derwent are my limit. 

I've used Molotow, and other "street art" paints on (legitimate) mural projects and been very impressed. They stick like crazy to pretty much anything, with no more preparation than a blast with a pressure washer, and seem to last very well. I recently drove past one of our projects that's now 8 years old, and it's still looking good. The colour choice is excellent, too, and includes shades that don't appear in more "conventional" ranges. Well worth a look. 

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

13 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

As I mentioned earlier in this topic, Hamo was part of Märklin by 1967 when RM reviewed the Warship. Their adverts promoted AC, but did have a little line at the end saying if you're still not convinced then we do them as 2-rail DC Hamo too.

It sounds like Maerklin had seen what had happened to Hornby Dublo and was trying to avoid creating a 2 rail DC system in parallel to its very successful 3 rail AC one by using the Hamo name when competing with Roco, Fleischmann and German Trix in the 2 rail 12V DC market. 

 

I've just looked at the German version of Wikipedia, and on the Maerklin page this is what it has to say about Hamo.

"The brand name "Hamo" came from an independent company from Nuremberg which was bought by Märklin in 1963. In 1966, Märklin presented the first two rail DC locomotive models with wheelsets and current collection for DC operation under the name HAMO. The modification of the models was as low as technically possible, which facilitates a conversion into an AC locomotive, but has helped the models to a bad reputation with DC railway operators – in particular, (too) few wheels are often used for current collection. In the mid-1990s, a separate HAMO digital system was introduced among the two rail DC systems, which had more speeds and was therefore even more powerful than the AC digital system (Motorola format). Since the acquisition of Trix in 1997, however, the brand name HAMO is no longer used, the HAMO "DC digital system" (which was also a pulsed alternating current system, but with a different data format and which was standardized as DCC) was no longer further developed and the HAMO components were then sold very cheaply after the decision to stop selling the HAMO range." Translated from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Märklin

 

This reference to the Hamo "DC digital system" also answers my puzzlement over references that I've seen elsewhere to DCC being based on a digital control system developed by Maerklin.

Edited by GoingUnderground
Improved translation
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PatB said:

I've used Molotow, and other "street art" paints on (legitimate) mural projects and been very impressed. They stick like crazy to pretty much anything, with no more preparation than a blast with a pressure washer, and seem to last very well. I recently drove past one of our projects that's now 8 years old, and it's still looking good. The colour choice is excellent, too, and includes shades that don't appear in more "conventional" ranges. Well worth a look. 

They are also low pressure which means that they are more controllable,  not so prone to putting too much paint on the model.

 

         Ray. 

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

We've talked about track, and here is the evolution of the Maerklin track, from the German version of Wikipedia.

 

spacer.png

Left to Right:

M-Track (old) which is virtually indistinguishable from 1938 Dublo 3 rail track to my eyes.

M-Track (1952-56)

M-Track (1956-2000)

K-Track

C-Track

 

Looking at the K-Track it is better looking than the current Hornby track as it doesn't have the two strips either side of each rail holding the end sleeper to the adjoining one to accommodate the rail joiner. If Meccano had produced stud contact 3 rail track like that back in 1960 instead of their 2 rail track then I'm sure that they would have fared much better in their fight for market share with Triang especially if they sold kit to convert existing locos to skate pickup.

 

C-Track looks like a retrograde step, but it is supposed to be better than K-Track for DCC.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The old M track gauge is very slightly narrower than Dublo which gives rise to gauge problems with Wrenn six all coupled flanged wheels.I used this track to match the geometry of my Marklin Turntable.Apart from the track base being slightly higher,it does work.

 

                                   Ray.

20200123_104905.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information. I wasn't thinking of interoperability, only of the appearance, and in that sense Maerklin did have an impact on the UK.

 

The German version of Wikipedia says that the rails are slightly closer together on Maerklin 3 rail track systems and the wheel flanges on the rolling stock are slightly larger than on 2 rail equivalents which fits with your experience of using Maerklin track.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a child in the 50's/60's H/D was regarded as the dearer 'Rolls Royce' product and I had a two rail layout with the R1, Castle, A4, 8F and EMU. All were smooth classy performers, a Triang 'Connie' 0-4-0 was acquired at one stage and it turned out to be a coarse rough runner in comparison. Of course the incompatible couplings didn't help lol.

My friend's Triang 'Princess' seemed to be a crude product and they never seemed to progress beyond the circle of track train set stage.

 

I always wonder how badly HD were affected by their decision to go 2 rail. Did that release a tide of secondhand 3 rail onto the market for those just looking for a cheap trainset for little Johnny? At that time in the 60's HD was assailed on all sides by not only Triang but also the Scaletrix slot car craze so their own second hand products was probably the final straw?

 

 

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

The problem was of course that Meccano introduced 2 rail far too late,not only that,the track was designed by a model railway enthusiast who was well aquainted with 2 rail live frog points etc.It was too complicated for the average dad,dealing with single and double isolating rails etc.He took it home,couldn`t make it work so back to the shop with it and swapped it for a simpler Triang set.Meccano did hurriedly bring out Simplec dead frog points but by that time,the damage was done.Sad really.

 

                         Ray.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Haddocksrock said:

As a child in the 50's/60's H/D was regarded as the dearer 'Rolls Royce' product and I had a two rail layout with the R1, Castle, A4, 8F and EMU. All were smooth classy performers, a Triang 'Connie' 0-4-0 was acquired at one stage and it turned out to be a coarse rough runner in comparison. Of course the incompatible couplings didn't help lol.

My friend's Triang 'Princess' seemed to be a crude product and they never seemed to progress beyond the circle of track train set stage.

 

I always wonder how badly HD were affected by their decision to go 2 rail. Did that release a tide of secondhand 3 rail onto the market for those just looking for a cheap trainset for little Johnny? At that time in the 60's HD was assailed on all sides by not only Triang but also the Scaletrix slot car craze so their own second hand products was probably the final straw?

 

 

Hi all,

Perhaps H/D should have gone the stud route for 3 rails like Marklin. It made the track look much more realistic whilst it should have been relatively easy to adapt the H/D pick ups. Plus they could have sold conversion kits for older engines already out there. This may have given them some breathing space.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Haddocksrock said:

As a child in the 50's/60's H/D was regarded as the dearer 'Rolls Royce' product and I had a two rail layout with the R1, Castle, A4, 8F and EMU. All were smooth classy performers, a Triang 'Connie' 0-4-0 was acquired at one stage and it turned out to be a coarse rough runner in comparison. Of course the incompatible couplings didn't help lol.

My friend's Triang 'Princess' seemed to be a crude product and they never seemed to progress beyond the circle of track train set stage.

 

I always wonder how badly HD were affected by their decision to go 2 rail. Did that release a tide of secondhand 3 rail onto the market for those just looking for a cheap trainset for little Johnny? At that time in the 60's HD was assailed on all sides by not only Triang but also the Scaletrix slot car craze so their own second hand products was probably the final straw?

Compared to Trix, Dublo probably was a "Rolls Royce" product when it launched in 1938. But, in my opinion, they took too far long to exploit plastics which were the coming material, expand their range of locos, and modernise their 3 rail track to something that looked more realistic. 

 

But as a kid in the 1950s and 60s myself, I never saw Dublo as a Rolls Royce product. The locos were OK, but the Triang ones looked "crisper" to me. The Dublo track and tinplate coaches and wagons always looked awful when compared to Triang's, and the yellow/cream of the buildings looked wrong. Money was still tight in the 1950s and early 60s, and price mattered even to middle class families, something that Dublo never seemed to fully appreciate..

 

Introducing the 2 rail system must have put the brakes on sales of 3 rail to newcomers to the hobby as many, if not most, potential buyers going in to the toy shop to buy Dublo and being asked if they wanted 2 or 3 rail must have thought "Why buy 3 rail when 2 rail is the latest thing?" If Dublo had gone stud contact and the new stud track was backwards compatible with the old, and skate contact conversion kits sold for pre-existing locos, that wouldn't have happened and would have kept existing Dublo 3 rail owners tied to Dublo. Did some 2 rail Dublo owners dump the 2 rail track and go for the easier to use and more robust Triang track?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

Introducing the 2 rail system must have put the brakes on sales of 3 rail to newcomers to the hobby as many, if not most, potential buyers going in to the toy shop to buy Dublo and being asked if they wanted 2 or 3 rail must have thought "Why buy 3 rail when 2 rail is the latest thing?" If Dublo had gone stud contact and the new stud track was backwards compatible with the old, and skate contact conversion kits sold for pre-existing locos, that wouldn't have happened and would have kept existing Dublo 3 rail owners tied to Dublo. Did some 2 rail Dublo owners dump the 2 rail track and go for the easier to use and more robust Triang track?

At the end,Meccano had huge stocks of 3 rail track clogging up the stores.Despite The Southgate Hobbyshop and Hattons and others buying large amounts and selling it quite cheaply,vast amounts were left leading to the remainder being dumped in landfill and some say in the river mersey as well.The same held true of the SD sleeping cars which is why you can buy them new and cheaply today.3 rail rerailers were another item.There was quite a variety of locomotives as well but Triang couldn`t release as it would have impacted their own sales.Even today,new 3 rail track turns up now and again on the internet over 60 years since it was last manufactured.The problem with 2 railing 3 rail locos isthat you really need a lathe to bore out the wheels for the plastic bushes and then insulate the valve gear etc from the chassis.3 rail to 2 rail is easy,just not the other way round.

 

                                 Ray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Compared to Trix, Dublo probably was a "Rolls Royce" product when it launched in 1938. But, in my opinion, they took too far long to exploit plastics which were the coming material, expand their range of locos, and modernise their 3 rail track to something that looked more realistic. 

 

But as a kid in the 1950s and 60s myself, I never saw Dublo as a Rolls Royce product. The locos were OK, but the Triang ones looked "crisper" to me. The Dublo track and tinplate coaches and wagons always looked awful when compared to Triang's, and the yellow/cream of the buildings looked wrong. Money was still tight in the 1950s and early 60s, and price mattered even to middle class families, something that Dublo never seemed to fully appreciate..

 

Introducing the 2 rail system must have put the brakes on sales of 3 rail to newcomers to the hobby as many, if not most, potential buyers going in to the toy shop to buy Dublo and being asked if they wanted 2 or 3 rail must have thought "Why buy 3 rail when 2 rail is the latest thing?" If Dublo had gone stud contact and the new stud track was backwards compatible with the old, and skate contact conversion kits sold for pre-existing locos, that wouldn't have happened and would have kept existing Dublo 3 rail owners tied to Dublo. Did some 2 rail Dublo owners dump the 2 rail track and go for the easier to use and more robust Triang track?

Always some will want to keep the old 3 rail going for whatever reason, just the same way at an earlier time some thought clockwork O Gauge, was the best as you had to work out suitable loads and how many winds of the key of each loco.

 

Fact is once 2 rail took control, 3 rail was dead. It was unfortunate for Hornby that their wiring methods for 2 rail, made it seem harder than it was, so contributed to their own demise.

 

I don't like dead frog points, but it's easy to see why Tri-ang made them, much easier for beginners, especially when the younger ones ran their trains at such a speed, that they didn't notice the momentary hesitation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sagaguy said:

At the end,Meccano had huge stocks of 3 rail track clogging up the stores.Despite The Southgate Hobbyshop and Hattons and others buying large amounts and selling it quite cheaply,vast amounts were left leading to the remainder being dumped in landfill and some say in the river mersey as well.The same held true of the SD sleeping cars which is why you can buy them new and cheaply today.3 rail rerailers were another item.There was quite a variety of locomotives as well but Triang couldn`t release as it would have impacted their own sales.Even today,new 3 rail track turns up now and again on the internet over 60 years since it was last manufactured.The problem with 2 railing 3 rail locos isthat you really need a lathe to bore out the wheels for the plastic bushes and then insulate the valve gear etc from the chassis.3 rail to 2 rail is easy,just not the other way round.

 

                                 Ray.


Not the River Mersey….

 

At the time some of the South End dock basins were being filled in…

 

It is said that some Hornby stock was dumped into one of these basins.

 

Trix buried some, mostly old AC type, stock in a large hole on the Industrial Estate in Wrexham where they were based at the time.

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

20 hours ago, sagaguy said:

The old M track gauge is very slightly narrower than Dublo which gives rise to gauge problems with Wrenn six all coupled flanged wheels.I used this track to match the geometry of my Marklin Turntable.Apart from the track base being slightly higher,it does work.

 

                                   Ray.

20200123_104905.jpg

 

The track gauge is probably 16.5mm to the rail centres (a Continental habit to which Germans are signatories) so the actual gauge is 16mm*. This is tight enough to cause problems with Dublo wheels (especially as they do tend to vary somewhat from the nominal 14.2 mm B2B**).

 

*   I must dig some out and measure it up - this depends on finding where I stashed the track and the vernier at the same time.

 

** Actually 560 thou. Meccano Ltd. seemed to be unaware of the metric system.

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

  • RMweb Premium

Really interesting debate .  I think the cost of maintaining two sytems three rail and two rail would really have been too much . By moving directly to two rail you would disadvantage and really alienate those that had built up a large three rail connection . I wonder , therefore , if the smarter move may have been to go for a stud contact system like Marklin .  Marklin  did after all have competition from 2 Rail Fleischmann and seemed to survive .

 

But I think it really does come down to cost . HD may well have been a Rolls Royce but it was at Rolls Royce prices . As others have said Tri-ang was much more affordable as a train set for Wee Jimmy .  Simpler 2 rail system too .  And Tri-ang had a good range and were a bit more innovative .

Edited by Legend
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sagaguy said:

 omis

 

The problem with 2 railing 3 rail locos is that you really need a lathe to bore out the wheels for the plastic bushes and then insulate the valve gear etc from the chassis. 3 rail to 2 rail is easy, just not the other way round.

 

                                 Ray.

 

The best way to convert 3 rail Dublo to 2 rail is to replace the wheels with Dublo originals. There are still plenty about! Dublo 2 rail wheels are nickel plated which improves contact at the cost of a slight loss of grip

Insulating the LHS rather than the right removes the necessity to reverse the magnet. The Dublo pickup will not fit earlier 3 rail models*, but this is not a great loss as they are rather rubbish - in this case Tri-ang win hands down

Dublo also insulated the crank pins obviating the requirement to insulate cylinders and valve gear. It may be necessary to insulate the couplings however, if double heading is envisaged.

 

* Around 1954 (with the introduction of the 4MT 2-6-4T), the diameter of the splined axle stub (to fit the wheels and set B2B) was increased and early locomotives will either need a bush or replacement of all the driving wheels and axles.

 

Wrenngalore (usual disclaimer) on eBay have stocks of axle bushes but not the crank pin bushes.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400055873006?hash=item5d25302dee:g:tQIAAOSwjytaYLgM 

 

A fruitless hunt for bushes produced these ridiculous prices!   :scratchhead:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313&_nkw=Dublo+bushes&_sacat=0

 

4MT wheels can be obtained much more cheaply - a complete chassis could probably be acquired for this price (maybe 'rolling' but the bits will be available from the chassis being converted. It's true these would give you an all-flanged chassis, but 2 are 3 rail and the centre axle should have larger balance weights.

 

Rim insulated (or plastic centred) scale wheels are another option.

 

Dublo was not vastly more expensive than Tri-ang (about 30% - even less so with the smoke gimmick), but probably enough to tip the balance especially with Tri-ang's wider range*. Had they gone 2 rail (or stud contact) earlier and copied Trix's idea of universal pointwork possibly things would have been different. As it was, the slot-car craze killed them. Tri-ang had Scalextric  so were on the winning side in any case.

 

Märklin and Fleischmann on the other hand did have Rolls-Royce prices.  :o

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

Maerklin did more than just survive, they've thrived despite competition in the last 80+ years from Trix, Fleischmann, Roco, Jouef, Rivarossi, Brawa, Liliput, Piko, Electrotren, Lima, Tillig, etc, and still hold around 50% of the market in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. They are still a significant player in most of continental Europe, and have a following in the US. They did hit a rocky patch financially in the late 2000s and did for a while enter administration, but have since reorganised and recovered.

 

As I said before, I don't want to knock the Dublo or British Trix systems. They gave a great deal of pleasure to many kids, and I always enjoy watching them at shows (remember them?).

 

All 3 systems had their strengths and weaknesses. Triang's strengths seemed to lie in the areas that mattered most - price, range, being 2 rail, and widely available in many High Streets, whilst their weaknesses were in areas that at the time mattered least - accuracy of the models and adherence to scale.

 

Again, thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion.

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

Meccano bought "Circuit 24" in from the French manufacturer Etienne Jouet from mid-1962 onwards with a view to acquiring the rights to manufacture it in the UK, which some reports suggest would have happened in 1964. It must have been a good system as "Circuit 24" is said to be as synonymous with slot cars in France as Scalextrix is in the UK.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I have a vague recollection of a Wrenn slotcar system, Formular 182 or something other.....Correction, found it Formula 152 at 1:52 scale, from 1960-66.

  • Agree 4
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...