What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?

[GoingUnderground]

On 19/06/2021 at 10:22, Legend said:

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? 

Like you, I constantly browsed my Triang catalogues starting with the 5th edition with that fantastic picture of the Transcontinental Bo-Bo on the cover.

 

Trix catalogues would have been available from Trix retailers, but judging from the experiences shared on here, Trix retailers were thin on the ground.

1959 was mainly greyscale printing, with colour provided by shaded areas in pastel colours. Not really a match for Triang's riot of colour  5th edition.

1962 catalogue was much better, making much more use of full colour illustrations, but still had some greyscale pages.

 

We've had some folks tell us about their experiences of the prices. So here's some actual prices from the Trix April 1962 and Triang September 1962 price lists.

 

Trix EM1 - 104/9 (£5.24)

Triang EM2 - 63/9 (£3.19)

Trix Britannia with Tender - 110/6 (£5.52) 

Triang Britannia & tender without smoke 63/6 (£3.18), With smoke 82/6 (£4.12)

Trix 4-6-0 Class 5 with tender - Trix 104/9 (£5.24)

Triang Princess R.258 (the Maroon one) & tender without smoke 60/5 (£3.02) With smoke 76/1 (£3.80)

 

Cheapest loco

Trix GRW 66xx 0-6-2 side tank loco  64/6 (£3.22)

Triang R.52 0-6-0 Jinty 33/6 (£1.67)

Triang R.355 0-4-0 Nellie 29/6 (£1.48)

Triang R.359 0-4-0 Prinary Series (Nellie in black) 27/6 (£1.37) 

Triang R.255 clockwork 0-6-0 Saddle Tank 28/6 (£1.42) - moreexpensive than the electric R.359 0-4-0!

 

Sets

Trix Pullman set (Britannia & tender , 2 Pullman coaches & small oval of Twin fibre base track) 160/6 (£8.02)

Triang Pullman set  (Britannia & tender with smoke, 3 Pullman coaches & large oval of Super 4 track) 143/6 (£7.67)

 

Trix F32 - F103B 66xx 0-6-2 loco with 2 open wagons, Brake Van and small oval of track 101/9 £5.08)  

Triang RS.25 - R.52 0-6-0 Jinty loco with cable drum wagon, Mineral Wagon, Shel tank wagon, brake van and small oval of Super 4 track. 70/6 (£3.52)

 

Trix F23 - F103G 66xx 0-6-2 loco with 2 suburban carriages and small oval of track 98/3 (£4.91) 

Triang RS.21 - R.50 Princess Victoria & tender without smoke, R.29 Composite, R.28 Brake & small oval of Super 4 track 79/6 (£3.98)

 

Cheapest set

Trix F50 - 0-6-0 goods with 73/3 (£3.66) - CORRECTION: the loco in the F50 set was the E2 accompanied by 3 trucks, a brake van and a small oval of track. This would make it comparable to Triang's RS25 set, see above. 

 

Triang RS.24 - R.355 0-4-0 Nellie with R.10 Open Wagon, R.14 Fish Van and R.16 Brake Van and an oval of Super 4 track 57/6 (£2.87)

But Triang did have 2 cheaper sets in the Primary Series:

Triang RS.42 - R359 0-4-0 Black (same loco as Nellie) with 2 x R.217 Primary Series Open Truck, R218 Closed Van and circle of Super 4  track. 52/6 (£2.62)

Triang RS.41 = R.255 Clockwork 0-6-0 Saddle Tank with 2 x R230 7" Coaches and circle of Super 4 track 19/11 (£0.99)      

Edited June 21, 2021 by GoingUnderground
To correct the information on the Trix F50 set

[Philou]

In the beginning, I was a Trix-man - that's what my father bought on the day of my birth (so the family legend says) and that was in 1950. An 'LNER' blue 0-4-0 loco with the really 'shorty' coaches AND the 'double-declutch' reversing switched transformer - still have them all. Stock was added to by means of an American black 0-4-0 tender loco (probably a switcher) and three verandha coaches (with lights!!!). Freight stock was increased via H/D - couplings innit.

 

I moved from the 3-rail bakelite to the fibre-based rail and electric points. I moved from AC to DC on receiving 'Barnstable' at Chrstmas 1960 - as it was 2-rail, it was simply a case of not using the centre-rail. The 3-rail stock was quickly discarded (but not thrown away) and revelation came when the AL1 'E3001' was introduced by Trix as with the overhead, as 3 locos were able to be run by using an ex-3 rail H/D with centre pick-up and insulated one side (I was already looking ahead to complete 2-rail running), 2-rail and overhead. I had fun!

 

However, I never, ever bought a single item of Tri-ang nor Tri-ang Hornby as to me it looked cheap and unrefined compared to the detail on the Trix locos (AL1, Warship and Western) and the weight of the H/D locos. Their stock just didn't do for me when you could by the Trix CKD coaches and wagons at a reasonable price too (which I still have). Absolute scale wasn't so much of an issue when there wasn't really much else to compare back then. Another negative for me was the use of solid wheels. I suppose if it was cheap, representative of the original and worked out of the box, then it was going to sell.

 

My first real 'new' Hornby purchase was made in 2012 and I have to say that it now looks really, really good.

 

It's only with hindsight (and we've all got 20/20 vision in that department, haven't we?) that I now see things in the old stuff (under scale (Trix), missing detail (H/D)), that is of course no longer acceptable.

 

@GoingUnderground Ah, the EM1 - THE loco from Trix that I really wanted. There was one a few years ago at a swap-meet, but I declined to buy as it was - well, a bit care-worn.

 

Just my musings.

 

Philip

 

PS: Just went to have a look at my E3001 and I was amazed to see that the wheels are detailed with what appear to be bolt-heads. Quite extra-ordinary for a loco that was issued in the early 60s.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Philou
You say verenda and I'll say verandha ........

[cypherman]

Hi all,

One of things I suppose gave Triang the edge was that you could buy them in the toy departments of most department stores in sets. So come the Christmas or birthday present parents did not have to go and find the nearest model shop. But just go to the nearest department store. That and of course cost. Don't forget that in the 50's and early 60's the effects of WWII had not been finally fully shaken off.

[Il Grifone]

There's a Trix F50 set here:

 

https://www.vectis.co.uk/lot/3339-trix-railways_20609

 

It didn't quite make it's estimate and sold in real terms about what it cost new.

 

I always thought the Trix E2 looked a bit undernourished. The real thing was quite beefy cf the Hornby model.

 

IIRC the Ruston-Hornsby diesel cost about the same as the 56xx. I can remember seeing one in a shop window in the Arcade in Bristol* marked as running on Dublo track. I rushed in to enquire but was told they meant plain track and it would require the wheels turned down for point work which should cost, "A few shillings".  Even at that age (11), I knew that was untrue.... I still haven't got one!

 

*There were several Trix dealers in Bristol at the time; one was right in front of my primary school. We bought some Manyways station parts from them, but on our return for more, they said they couldn't supply, as before they had had to break sets. I still don't understand the issue and as my Dad said we didn't ask them to!

 

EDIT

The shunter was sold with the shunter's truck, which reminds me of another Trix failing - the continued use of the dreaded acetate for moulded parts. The body of these trucks is usually (always?) warped, as are signal cabin roofs and the whistle controller. The WELTROL WH loads also suffer.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

47 minutes ago, Philou said:

Ah, the EM1 - THE loco from Trix that I really wanted. There was one a few years ago at a swap-meet, but I declined to buy as it was - well, a bit care-worn.

 

PS: Just went to have a look at my E3001 and I was amazed to see that the wheels are detailed with what appear to be bolt-heads. Quite extra-ordinary for a loco that was issued in the early 60s.

I have a few EM1s and some to restore. Here's 3 in the company of 3 EM2s under the wires.

 

 

The AL1 wasn't designed by Trix but by Ernst Rosza and sold by his company MRC. The tooling was made and held by Liliput in Austria who produced the model for Rosza, with a small amoint of final assembly being done in the UK so that it could lcaom to be British Made. When Rosza joined Trix he took the AL1 with him and when Trix failed he again took it with him into his new company Liliput UK.

 

It was a very good model, much better than Dublo's, even after Triang tried to sort it and put it on sale as a Triang Hornby Loco.

 

The AL1, the Western, the TransPennine set, the plastic scale length coaches and the A2, A3 and A4  show what Ernst Rosza and Michael Catalani could have done if they had had greater financial resources and support from management, and not been hobbled by the compromise 3.8mm scale. If they had then we might have seen Trix as a much more important player in the 1960s, forcing Rovex improve their models well before the entry of Airfix and Palitoy into the UK market.

 

Arguably, Trix laid the seeds for Bachmann as some of the later Trix tooling ended up with Liliput in Austria who were acquired by Bachmann.

Edited June 19, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[D9020 Nimbus]

13 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

Arguably, Trix laid the seeds for Bachmann as some of the later Trix tooling ended up with Liliput in Austria who were acquired by Bachmann.

Not really, as Bachmann already had a substantial range by then. But the ex-Trix A4 Pacific has been made by Bachmann in the past (in modified form) and the grain wagons have been available in the past too — surprising that no up-to-date version of these has yet been made.

[GoingUnderground]

3 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Not really, as Bachmann already had a substantial range by then. But the ex-Trix A4 Pacific has been made by Bachmann in the past (in modified form) and the grain wagons have been available in the past too — surprising that no up-to-date version of these has yet been made.

Thank you, I keep forgetting that Kader owned the Palitoy tooling. and acquied Liliput later.

[andyman7]

5 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

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! 

In terms of classifying Triang AND Hornby 2 rail track systems it's useful to think of Hornby Dublo 2 rail track being the missing '5th' type, as it entered the Triang history in 1965 after Super 4 and was useable with Triang models. Indeed the finer wheel standards introduced by Triang in 1963 were to allow compatibiity with HD and 'universal' track systems.

[andyman7]

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

I have a few EM1s and some to restore. Here's 3 in the company of 3 EM2s under the wires.

 

 

The AL1 wasn't designed by Trix but by Ernst Rosza and sold by his company MRC. The tooling was made and held by Liliput in Austria who produced the model for Rosza, with a small amoint of final assembly being done in the UK so that it could lcaom to be British Made. When Rosza joined Trix he took the AL1 with him and when Trix failed he again took it with him into his new company Liliput UK.

 

It was a very good model, much better than Dublo's, even after Triang tried to sort it and put it on sale as a Triang Hornby Loco.

 

The AL1, the Western, the TransPennine set, the plastic scale length coaches and the A2, A3 and A4  show what Ernst Rosza and Michael Catalani could have done if they had had greater financial resources and support from management, and not been hobbled by the compromise 3.8mm scale. If they had then we might have seen Trix as a much more important player in the 1960s, forcing Rovex improve their models well before the entry of Airfix and Palitoy into the UK market.

 

Arguably, Trix laid the seeds for Bachmann as some of the later Trix tooling ended up with Liliput in Austria who were acquired by Bachmann.

I do wonder what their Brush Type 4 (announced in the 1968 catalogue but never made) would have been like had it been produced. 4mm scale, flush glazed, lights and a decent mechanism would have been a gamechanger.

[Il Grifone]

Basically Tri-ang adopted the Dublo wheel standards (AFAIK the only thing Hornby to stay in the  range) and it became the UK standard until around 2000 when they switched to BRMSB standards* with their new (excellent and bargain priced - then - the price has escalated since!) scale wheels.

 

* Similar to and compatible with NMRA, but not the same.

[Butler Henderson]

23 hours ago, andyman7 said:

 

The Roco-made track first appeared in 1975 so doesn't appear to have been directly related to the initial problems with the System 6 point design - indeed the Roco-made points directly replicated the 2nd version Margate System 6 points

Not quite - the switch rails on the Margate made points were jointed to the closure rail while the Roco made points had a single cast combination for them. Chinese made points have reverted to the separate rails with a joint albeit with visually clumsy rivets.

[andyman7]

11 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Not quite - the switch rails on the Margate made points were jointed to the closure rail while the Roco made points had a single cast combination for them. Chinese made points have reverted to the separate rails with a joint albeit with visually clumsy rivets.

I'll need to check my collection of points but there are two types of Margate made pre-1975 points, the latter of which has the single diecast rails pivoted at the frog. 

[BernardTPM]

Yes, the change to single piece cast blades was made well before 1975. Pretty much a reversion to the Super 4 pattern that preceeded it.

Edited June 19, 2021 by BernardTPM

[GoingUnderground]

18 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

One of things I suppose gave Triang the edge was that you could buy them in the toy departments of most department stores in sets. So come the Christmas or birthday present parents did not have to go and find the nearest model shop. But just go to the nearest department store. That and of course cost. Don't forget that in the 50's and early 60's the effects of WWII had not been finally fully shaken off.

You didn't need to go that far as department stores were only in the larger suburban centres and cities. The nearest ones to us were about 5 miles away, and I can't remember if the nearest one to us had  a toy department. Some of them saw toys as a seasonal line and expanded the space available in the run up to Christmas and shrank it in time for the New Year sales.

 

In the 1950s and '60s there were toy shops on very many local High Streets and they far outnumbered department stores. Lines Bros and Triang had a presence in most if not all of the toy shops, and some cycle shops, because their range included babies prams, kids tricycles, (I had one), pedal cars, scooters, all bulky items, not to mention Sindy and Pedigree dolls and dolls prams, Minic and Spot On push along cars, followed by Minic Motorways, Frog plastic kits, Scalextrix, even small croquet sets in wooden chests, just like shrunken versions of the full sized ones made by Jacques at the time. Their scope really was across the whole of the toy spectrum. So the additional space needed for Triang Railways was minimal, even the sets as the protective packaging around the models was no where near as bulky as it is today.

[Il Grifone]

We kids played properly with toys not stupid video games (training them for WWIII?)*.

 

I made a visit to Toys-r-Us looking for a Meccano set (proper toy!) no joy! (2 or 3 only and not the one I was looking for) Scanning the shelves - a wall of Lego, loads of Barbie and similar, and a couple of Hornby train sets on a high shelf. Their demise was well deserved IMHO, but they were the last real toy shop.

 

* I won't go any further here to avoid the slippery slop into politics!

[GoingUnderground]

It was Toys R Us that killed off many toy shops, just as the supermarkets killed off so many small grocers and greengrocers. And increasing rents and rates and the change to online gaming and the reduction in sales of physical toys that pushed the imagination probably did for most of the rest, and took many model shops with them as well.

[Il Grifone]

My boyhood local toy shop stocked Tri-ang and Meccano products, including Hornby Dublo, plus Mastermodels, Britain's and others. I was a regular customer! There were several others in easy range of course.

[cypherman]

2 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

We kids played properly with toys not stupid video games (training them for WWIII?)*.

 

I made a visit to Toys-r-Us looking for a Meccano set (proper toy!) no joy! (2 or 3 only and not the one I was looking for) Scanning the shelves - a wall of Lego, loads of Barbie and similar, and a couple of Hornby train sets on a high shelf. Their demise was well deserved IMHO, but they were the last real toy shop.

 

* I won't go any further here to avoid the slippery slop into politics!

There is still Smyths toy shops in the UK. They are appear to be just as big as Toys r Us were.

[Il Grifone]

2 hours ago, cypherman said:

There is still Smyths toy shops in the UK. They are appear to be just as big as Toys r Us were.

 

I'd forgotten them but IIRC they were/are even worse than Toys-r-Us (which would explain why I'd forgotten them).

[cypherman]

Hi Il Grifone,

I really cannot say what they are like. I have never been in one. I just know they exist. A bit like millionaires, I know they exist but have never met one....lol

[Il Grifone]

I've only been on a couple of visits - there's one in Lakeside in Thurrock . That was quite enough. There's also a Hamleys. Being met by American style greeters ensured I only went once!

Edited June 22, 2021 by Il Grifone

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 19/06/2021 at 12:45, GoingUnderground said:

 

 

Cheapest loco

Trix GRW 66xx 0-6-2 side tank loco  64/6 (£3.22)

 

 

Cheapest set

Trix F50 - 0-6-0 goods with 73/3 (£3.66) - This isn't shown in the catalogue, only the price list. As it was Trix's only 0-6-0 loco it must have been the Ruston Hornsby shunter which was only available with Trix coarse scale wheels and was probably accompanied by up to 3 trucks, a brake van and an oval of track.

 

 

 

You seem to have left out the Trix E2.

[GoingUnderground]

58 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

You seem to have left out the Trix E2.

For the very good reason that it's not included in the copy of the April 1962 price list in my possession! You can't leave out what's not there. Matthewman says that initially the E2 was only available in the F50 set (I've amended my previous post on the price comparison), and it was not sold as a solo loco until the Spring of 1962. That decision to release it as a solo loco must have been taken after the April 1962 price list was printed.

 

I was not trying to list everything, only seeking to make suitable comparisons between the range. I didn't include the Warship either as Triang hadn't released the Class 31 yet which was still being shown as Autumn in the Triang September '62 price list.

 

The 1960 catalogue which I have that came with the April 1962 price list shows the following locos:

Warship

EM1

Britannia

0-6-2 Class 66xx

4-6-0 Class 5 

Ruston Hornsby Diesel Shunter

 

There doesn't seem to have been a 1962 catalogue.

 

The locos listed in the official Trix April 1962 price list that I have are:

0-6-2 side tank in Black and Green liveries

4-6-2 Britannia

4-6-0 Class V in Black and  Green liveries

EM1 in Black and Green liveries

Warship Class Diesel

Edited June 21, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[GoingUnderground]

Thank you everyone for your contributions.

 

If I may sum up, it would seem that Triang won out due to:

1. Lower Prices. Parents held the purse strings there was less free cash in household budgets back then. Once that first set was bought brand loyalty tended to kick in. Triang locos were generally significantly cheaper than comparable locos from Dublo and Trix, and their production of 0-4-0 locos gave them an additional advantage.

 

2. Number of outlets/availability. This probably affected Trix most as Hornby was part of the Meccano Group whose products included Dinky Toys, Meccano  itself, and Bayko building sets, so would have been well represented in toy shops in the period up to the end of the 1960s. But Trix only had the Trix construction sets, very similar to Meccano, but these were never so well known as Meccano itself. Hence Trix's access to toy shops and similar outlets would probably have been much more restricted, and as most folks first port of call would have been their local toy shop that in many cases meant Dublo or Triang, not Trix.

 

3. Range. HD had a better range of large locos than Triang, but Triang won out with the way that they used their 0-6-0 chassis to launch new locos without the cost of tooling up for a new chassis for each one, and did a similar trick with their 0-4-0 chassis. Trix produced some excellent locos, notably the AL1/Class 81 and A2, A3 and A4 locos in true OO gauge, and the Western and Trans Pennine units and their range of polystyrene coaches in their 3.8mm scale, and probably would have given Triang a real run for their money in the 1960s were it not for people steering clear of them because of their unique scaling, neither OO nor H0. Hornby Dublo took too long to introduce additional new smaller locos in the mid-1950s, and with too few lower priced locos were easily undercut by Triang.

 

4. Track. None of the 1950s track was particularly convincing, but Triang's 2 rail looked better than Dublo 3 rail or Trix's Twin track. Dublo stayed with 3 rail tinplate track too long and should have seen that 2 rail or 3 rail stud contact in a plastic base was the way forward. Trix also stayed with their bakelite track for too long, and their Twin system track's ability to have 2 locos under independent control, 3 if you also had catenary, wasn't enough to compensate for the look of their track. Triang Super 4 was probably the best all-round track system in the 1960s in terms of appearance, robustness and ease of use when put against Dublo 2 rail or Trix's fibre based Twin track.

 

Again, thank you all for your contributions.

[Legend]

8 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

Thank you everyone for your contributions.

 

If I may sum up, it would seem that Triang won out due to:

1. Lower Prices. Parents held the purse strings there was less free cash in household budgets back then. Once that first set was bought brand loyalty tended to kick in. Triang locos were generally significantly cheaper than comparable locos from Dublo and Trix, and their production of 0-4-0 locos gave them an additional advantage.

 

2. Number of outlets/availability. This probably affected Trix most as Hornby was part of the Meccano Group whose products included Dinky Toys, Meccano  itself, and Bayko building sets, so would have been well represented in toy shops in the period up to the end of the 1960s. But Trix only had the Trix construction sets, very similar to Meccano, but these were never so well known as Meccano itself. Hence Trix's access to toy shops and similar outlets would probably have been much more restricted, and as most folks first port of call would have been their local toy shop that in many cases meant Dublo or Triang, not Trix.

 

3. Range. HD had a better range of large locos than Triang, but Triang won out with the way that they used their 0-6-0 chassis to launch new locos without the cost of tooling up for a new chassis for each one, and did a similar trick with their 0-4-0 chassis. Trix produced some excellent locos, notably the AL1/Class 81 and A2, A3 and A4 locos in true OO gauge, and the Western and Trans Pennine units and their range of polystyrene coaches in their 3.8mm scale, and probably would have given Triang a real run for their money in the 1960s were it not for people steering clear of them because of their unique scaling, neither OO nor H0. Hornby Dublo took too long to introduce additional new smaller locos in the mid-1950s, and with too few lower priced locos were easily undercut by Triang.

 

4. Track. None of the 1950s track was particularly convincing, but Triang's 2 rail looked better than Dublo 3 rail or Trix's Twin track. Dublo stayed with 3 rail tinplate track too long and should have seen that 2 rail or 3 rail stud contact in a plastic base was the way forward. Trix also stayed with their bakelite track for too long, and their Twin system track's ability to have 2 locos under independent control, 3 if you also had catenary, wasn't enough to compensate for the look of their track. Triang Super 4 was probably the best all-round track system in the 1960s in terms of appearance, robustness and ease of use when put against Dublo 2 rail or Trix's fibre based Twin track.

 

Again, thank you all for your contributions.

 

Pretty fair summary . Thanks for the thread . Quite informative about Trix for me . Never realised they had such a range .  You've got to think they should have done better than they did .

Edited June 22, 2021 by Legend