Tri-ang Railways.

[GoingUnderground]

It helps it's true, but the problem really is that they are all round too small. I can't really speak for the plastic Trix coaches, but the tinplate 'scale length' coaches (still 1:80*) certainly look undersized against a 00 model. The Trix range is very inconsistent with scale, but since the scale is mentioned at various points in their own literature as 1:90, H0 and 00 none of which are accurate there is little hope. In one year book a mile is quoted as 60' 6" in Trix scale. This works out at about 1:87 and is clearly incorrect.

 

* approximately 

 

I think the problem is that all three manufacturers were too slow to keep up with the times. Dublo were late to switch to plastic (perhaps they had seen what happened to Farish and Tri-ang products (and their own coach windows) and avoided the acetate syndrome (Trix didn't - their late sixties plastic products all show signs of warping.) Corgi hit Dinky sales (windows! the 'push and go' mech. didn't lase long) and Tri-ang's wider range (this attracted me) and lower prices hit both Dublo and Trix. Trix tried to revamp their range but made the error of choosing the wrong scale, which finished them off in the long run. Tri-ang's TT was a complete waste of time and money (Sorry - my opinion - I'm talking economics here not criticising the product itself) and then we had slot racing.... This hit the hobby hard and was probably the last nail in Hornby's coffin. Lego* hit Meccano too (I would argue with it's award as toy of the century. That belongs to Meccano IMHO - Incidently was it Meccano to kill Airfix? It's still manufactured in France _ the last imperial French product?)

 

* Encourages laziness - just push it together rather than bolt it properly!

TT was a brave push for an even smaller model. It was as expensive as OO but not a lot smaller. Unfortunately, OOO/N gauge was noticeably smaller than both OO and TT and was probably the final nail in Triang TT's coffin. 

 

I disagree about Lego encouraging laziness, but I agree that it doesn't help foster a knowledge of mechanical and civil engineering principles, unlike Meccano, or come to that, the german TriX (the origins of Trix) version of a Meccano like engineering toy. Miss out appropriate bracing in your Meccano model and it would collapse, something that is easier to avoid in Lego.

 

Triang didn't need to react to the rise of slot racing, they were slot racing - the name Scalextric ring any bells?. They also produced Triang Minic motorways to complement Triang Railways. Minic morphed into a fully blown slot racing system before it's demise.

Edited July 20, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[Il Grifone]

I bought five of the Trix colour light signals with switches a couple of years ago.They are very good models but the colored sleeves can age over time.I replaced the bulbs with red & green LES bulbs but they are getting reasonably difficult to source now,i should imagine that LEDs would now be the way to go.I also have some of the lighted semaphore signals,one of which i bought in the early 1960s from Trix in Gt.Portland St when they were having a closing down sale,i think it was 1/6d.in old money.Lots of goodies,very little money at the time!.

 

                     Ray.

 

Trix bulbs are 75mA whereas most of those one finds today are 50mA. (Not altogether a disadvantage, they run cooler and see below.)

It didn't take many lighted coaches at 150mA a shot plus the best part of an ampere for the locomotive plus the lighted accessories (again 75mA each) to load even a Trix 3A transformer.

Trix favoured wander plugs (their own or available from any radio shop) or neat screw terminals, Dublo 8 BA threaded knurled nuts which could use any wire to hand, but Tri-ang used a plug in brass mini plug that required their own wiring (cunning).

 

I missed out on Trix's sale 1. I didn't know about it. 2. didn't live in London at the time and 3. no cash anyway!   :(

[Fat Controller]

It helps it's true, but the problem really is that they are all round too small. I can't really speak for the plastic Trix coaches, but the tinplate 'scale length' coaches (still 1:80*) certainly look undersized against a 00 model. The Trix range is very inconsistent with scale, but since the scale is mentioned at various points in their own literature as 1:90, H0 and 00 none of which are accurate there is little hope. In one year book a mile is quoted as 60' 6" in Trix scale. This works out at about 1:87 and is clearly incorrect.

 

* approximately 

 

I think the problem is that all three manufacturers were too slow to keep up with the times. Dublo were late to switch to plastic (perhaps they had seen what happened to Farish and Tri-ang products (and their own coach windows) and avoided the acetate syndrome (Trix didn't - their late sixties plastic products all show signs of warping.) Corgi hit Dinky sales (windows! the 'push and go' mech. didn't lase long) and Tri-ang's wider range (this attracted me) and lower prices hit both Dublo and Trix. Trix tried to revamp their range but made the error of choosing the wrong scale, which finished them off in the long run. Tri-ang's TT was a complete waste of time and money (Sorry - my opinion - I'm talking economics here not criticising the product itself) and then we had slot racing.... This hit the hobby hard and was probably the last nail in Hornby's coffin. Lego* hit Meccano too (I would argue with it's award as toy of the century. That belongs to Meccano IMHO - Incidently was it Meccano to kill Airfix? It's still manufactured in France _ the last imperial French product?)

 

* Encourages laziness - just push it together rather than bolt it properly!

The Meccano group launched its own slot-car racing system, called 'Circuit 24' in the mid-1960s, just before they went under. It managed to be a different scale to Scalextric, and used a bizarre drive system, based on an electromagnet. 

[Il Grifone]

TT was a brave push for an even smaller model. It was as expensive as OO but not a lot smaller. Unfortunately, OOO/N gauge was noticeably smaller than both OO and TT and was probably the final nail in Triang TT's coffin. 

 

I disagree about Lego encouraging laziness, but I agree that it doesn't help foster a knowledge of mechanical and civil engineering principles, unlike Meccano, or come to that, the german TriX (the origins of Trix) version of a Meccano like engineering toy. Miss out appropriate bracing in your Meccano model and it would collapse, something that is easier to avoid in Lego.

 

Triang didn't need to react to the rise of slot racing, they were slot racing - the name Scalextric ring any bells?. They also produced Triang Minic motorways to complement Triang Railways. Minic morphed into a fully blown slot racing system before it's demise.

 

Not only Trix, but also Märklin had a version of Meccano and there were others (An American one Gilbert 'Erector'? and I think Mettoy had one in this country). Copies of Lego usually fail because, lacking their precision, they fail to stick together properly. Even the Chinese meccano* items ones in pound shops at least stay together. What has changed is the emphasis from 'design and build your own model' to 'put the bits together to make this one item'.

I had some Tri-X. The shop in front of my school was selling it off at half price. The three rows of holes made it more versatile than Meccano but the lack of plates made it harder to make a realistic model.

 

 

Sorry I was unclear, I intended as hitting sales of trains (there was even talk of the end of the hobby at the time). Of course Tri-ang were at the forefront of the new craze. Meccano arrived late and ineffectively and Trix never made it at all. Only Airfix put up any showing. The arrival of the Playcraft/Jouef trains (mainly rubbish - though some of the French products that filtered through were considerably better) at an even lower price must have finished Dublo and hit Tri-ang too. I have to confess to using Playcraft track for part of my first 2 rail layout (I didn't know any better at the time but it was cheap!).

 

*used in want of a better word - these are copies and to metric dimensions.

 

I was always tempted by the Minic Motorways, but they were expensive and you can't drive road vehicles and trains at the same time. The scale was also rather dubious the cars always seemed to me far too large for 00.

 

EDIT

'Circuit 24' Thanks  I couldn't remember the name (Shows the impact it made!). From France I gather - luckily the name is the same in both languages.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[sagaguy]

The Meccano group launched its own slot-car racing system, called 'Circuit 24' in the mid-1960s, just before they went under. It managed to be a different scale to Scalextric, and used a bizarre drive system, based on an electromagnet. 

It was also 24vdc where the name Circuit 24 came from.It was a French cottage industry,no continuity of supply.The non standard voltage should have put Meccano off.

 

                         Ray.

[Nearholmer]

The brief mention of TT in the foregoing prompts me to mention a stand at last weeks TCS show, where one member was displaying a vast array of "kits and bits", made be all sorts of suppliers in response to Triang introducing TT. I hadn't remembered there being anything like so much available. And, yes, it was all a great diversion of money, time, and effort in the end.

 

In retrospect, there was clearly a "toy train bubble" in this country in the early-1960s.

 

K

[Il Grifone]

It was also 24vdc where the name Circuit 24 came from.It was a French cottage industry,no continuity of supply.The non standard voltage should have put Meccano off.

 

                         Ray.

 

I think they were desperate by the time....

[Golden Fleece 30]

I was always tempted by the Minic Motorways, but they were expensive and you can't drive road vehicles and trains at the same time. The scale was also rather dubious the cars always seemed to me far too large for 00.

 

I only used the hand throttles if racing, usually when along side the railway I used a spare controller to let them run continuously.  Plus, the hand throttles I think only went forwards (as races do) but all Minic vehicles could go backwards into garages etc or off the car transporter.  A small nylon peg fitted in the rear to guide it.

 

Wrenn also had a slot car system which I think was an AC version Formula 152.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The brief mention of TT in the foregoing prompts me to mention a stand at last weeks TCS show, where one member was displaying a vast array of "kits and bits", made be all sorts of suppliers in response to Triang introducing TT. I hadn't remembered there being anything like so much available. And, yes, it was all a great diversion of money, time, and effort in the end.

 

In retrospect, there was clearly a "toy train bubble" in this country in the early-1960s.

 

K

 

There was a sort of TT mania at the time ( Meccano Ltd. avoided/missed out on it) and it seemed everything was for the 'new' scale. It annoyed me at the time - all that diversion of effort which should have been put into new 00 models. After around ten years it all fizzled out as quickly as it appeared. N gauge may or may not have had something to do with it. Some of the early N gauge was so bad that even Lone Star's Treblo-lectric was superior. (A Wrenn-Lima 4MT anyone?).

 

There was definitely a bubble but more in the late fifties. By around 1962 things were beginning to go downhill rapidly. Dublo was struggling (a rubbish Deltic (will pull a house down but overkill), a Co-Bo (I like them but it seems I'm in the minority), an overpriced EMU, over engineered starter sets (bu**ering up their rather nice diesel shunter was real desperation) and a short (yet again!) AL1 were not going to set the world alight! Trix likewise (an least their starter locomotive was an E2 though a rather undernourished specimen) were feeling the cold, Apart from the E2 there was only the Trans-Pennine DMU IIRC (this would have sold extremely well in 00 I think). By the time they did switch it was too late. Compare this to Tri-ang's inspired output:- an L1 (OK a bit before but...), a B12, a Dean single, Rocket....  (and lots more!)

Edited July 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Golden Fleece 30]

The brief mention of TT in the foregoing prompts me to mention a stand at last weeks TCS show, where one member was displaying a vast array of "kits and bits", made be all sorts of suppliers in response to Triang introducing TT. I hadn't remembered there being anything like so much available. And, yes, it was all a great diversion of money, time, and effort in the end.

 

In retrospect, there was clearly a "toy train bubble" in this country in the early-1960s.

 

K

In Tri-ang's day, TT wise, there was BEC (ESANEL) which were very good castings and models, Gem were not bad, K's were not very good.  Those were the 3 main kit suppliers of the time for TT.  Most bodies fitted onto a Tri-ang Jinty or Britannia chassis, some like the Gem 14xx had it's own chassis.  The BEC 2P (as here) were to use a K's TT tender drive, mine here is on a chassis I have just had etched and built.  There were far more kits of different locos kit wise than Tri-ang made which was 8 BR and 2 French locos.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

There was a sort of TT mania at the time ( Meccano Ltd.  avoided/missed out on it) and it seemed everything was for the 'new' scale. It annoyed me at the time - all that diversion of effort which should have been put into new 00 models. After around ten years it all fizzled out as quickly as it appeared. N gauge may or may not have had something to do with it. Some of the early N gauge was so bad that even Lone Star's Treblo-lectric was superior. (A Wrenn-Lima 4MT anyone?).

Tri-ang's TT did not really last a full 10 years as after about 8 they stopped manufacturing and the following couple of years the price lists would start to say "Not available".  The last price list was considerably reduced if I remember correctly.

 

Regarding the Wrenn/Lima tank, that was a joke, even children knew it was nothing like lol.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The various other manufacturers kept going for a bit, but without Tri-ang's drive (first signs of their own impending failure?) they soon gave up. IIRC* BEC kept going longest. Peco's couplings are still allegedly available.

 

*It was a long time ago and my brief flirtation with TT had faded for a GWR branch line terminus in 00. (Change of house, change of layout.)

 

The Lima 4MT has its origins in a Swedish tank engine of rather strange lines (to our eyes at least). It isn't a bad model of this.  Here post #930

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98009-a-few-of-dave-fs-european-railway-photos-updated-26th-may-2017/page-38

Edited July 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[St Enodoc]

It helps it's true, but the problem really is that they are all round too small. I can't really speak for the plastic Trix coaches, but the tinplate 'scale length' coaches (still 1:80*) certainly look undersized against a 00 model. The Trix range is very inconsistent with scale, but since the scale is mentioned at various points in their own literature as 1:90, H0 and 00 none of which are accurate there is little hope. In one year book a mile is quoted as 60' 6" in Trix scale. This works out at about 1:87 and is clearly incorrect.

 

* approximately

David, I was referring to the plastic coaches that were around in the 1970s. Yes, they were too short (although in some ways that was an advantage) and sightly too narrow, but by bringing the height up they looked fine when coupled behind a 4 mm scale loco.

[Il Grifone]

Hi

 

The earlier metal coaches are the same size as the plastic ones AFAIK. They were certainly sold with the Trix Britannia.  Coupled as a set they are acceptable behind a 00 loco, as long as there isn't a 00 coach to give the game away. Dublo wheels give them a little extra height (about 1mm) which helps. This latter dodge can't be used with the plastic coaches as they already have larger wheels and a washer has to be fitted.

 

When I can find my Trix Pullman I can measure them up and compare. Something I could never understand is that the Trix buffer spacing is to 00 or even slightly over dimensions. Rivarossi, who use the same scale*, set theirs at the H0 spacing   

* 'scale' as in an elastic sense. They repeated Trix's error in the eighties with their otherwise excellent 'Royal Scot.'  

 

Trix here means British Trix. Trix Express uses the H0 spacing.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[St Enodoc]

Hi

 

The earlier metal coaches are the same size as the plastic ones AFAIK. They were certainly sold with the Trix Britannia.  Coupled as a set they are acceptable behind a 00 loco, as long as there isn't a 00 coach to give the game away. Dublo wheels give them a little extra height (about 1mm) which helps. This latter dodge can't be used with the plastic coaches as they already have larger wheels and a washer has to be fitted.

 

When I can find my Trix Pullman I can measure them up and compare. Something I could never understand is that the Trix buffer spacing is to 00 or even slightly over dimensions. Rivarossi, who use the same scale*, set theirs at the H0 spacing   

* 'scale' as in an elastic sense. They repeated Trix's error in the eighties with their otherwise excellent 'Royal Scot.'  

 

Trix here means British Trix. Trix Express uses the H0 spacing.

David, mine were plastic Mk 1s not Pullmans. I never saw the earlier tinplate ones.

 

The original wheels on mine were 12 mm diameter. Fitting 14 mm wheels and the washer added about 2 mm to the overall height. I agree that they had to remain together without any other types in the set. I used the original wheels in some Airfix mineral wagon kits (I was a poor student at the time!).

 

To bring this back on topic (just), the Commonwealth bogies were reversible. One end had a mounting for the supplied Trix coupler (similar to but not the same as the Peco/HD type) and the other for Tri-ang tension-locks. A self-tapping screw secured either type.

[locomad]

 

To bring this back on topic (just), the Commonwealth bogies were reversible. One end had a mounting for the supplied Trix coupler (similar to but not the same as the Peco/HD type) and the other for Tri-ang tension-locks. A self-tapping screw secured either type.

I read somewhere that they added grafite to the plastic to make the bogie self lubricating, then certainty run very well, on my home made test bed will roll on a 1:100 slope.

 

Other coaches I came across using same type duel coupling was the kitmaster range, strangely enough I find these looking the largest of the "OO" coaches, perhaps not 1:76, when put against trix 1:80, the Trix do look smaller, less so compared to HD. Triang with the higher buffer height look the most odd out

[Nearholmer]

Golden Fleece

 

It was the wagon kits, station and lineside kits, as much as the loco kits that I'd forgotten. There were plenty of 'em.

 

The bubble, whether it dates to the late fifties or the early sixties, and I chose the latter because I think that is when the number of products available "maxed out", is all the more surprising given how poor the running qualities of many of the locos was, especially when paired with a typical rheostat controller. My recollection is that HD was controllable, but Triang barely so.

 

Kevin

Edited July 20, 2017 by Nearholmer

[GoingUnderground]

The various other manufacturers kept going for a bit, but without Tri-ang's drive (first signs of their own impending failure?) they soon gave up. IIRC* BEC kept going longest. Peco's couplings are still allegedly available.

 

*It was a long time ago and my brief flirtation with TT had faded for a GWR branch line terminus in 00. (Change of house, change of layout.)

 

The Lima 4MT has its origins in a Swedish tank engine of rather strange lines (to our eyes at least). It isn't a bad model of this. Here post #930

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98009-a-few-of-dave-fs-european-railway-photos-updated-26th-may-2017/page-38

Rovex made Triang TT, and Rovex was profitable, contributing according to some sources up to 1/3rd of Lines Bros profits. But even a profitable company cannot keep an unprofitable part of its business going infefinitely.

 

What brought Lines Bros down was its attempts to keep its overseas subsidiaries afloat by subsidising them, and in the process made them competitors with products exported from their UK businesses, the inroads being made by US toy mamufacturers into the UK toy market in the late 1960s, and the recession in the toy market in the same period. (Source: Pat Hammond's Story of Rovex Vol 2.) DCM paid £2.26m for Rovex, plus a further £0.74m for the factories at Margate and Canterbury in 1972. Compare that to the £0.80m share offer that Lines Bros to acquire the entire Meccano group including all its worldwide premises in 1964. Imflation was high in the 60s but not that high.

[GoingUnderground]

Golden Fleece

 

It was the wagon kits, station and lineside kits, as much as the loco kits that I'd forgotten. There were plenty of 'em.

 

The bubble, whether it dates to the late fifties or the early sixties, and I chose the latter because I think that is when the number of products available "maxed out", is all the more surprising given how poor the running qualities of many of the locos was, especially when paired with a typical rheostat controller. My recollection is that HD was controllable, but Triang barely so.

 

Kevin

I don't recognise your statement that Triang OO locos were barely controllable. They seem very controllable to me using either Triang's own P4 or P5 or H&M Duette controllers even today, and I mean today as I still have mine in use, and yes I do check regularly the condition of the insulation.

 

You're not confusing Triang with Trix, whose AC models didm't always reverse direction when required, are you? Trix DC powered models don't have that problem..

Edited July 20, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[Il Grifone]

The 'bubble' certainly maxed in the early sixties, but burst once Dublo was out of the way.

 

The Trix Pullman is a Mk I and shares the dimensions and components of the other coaches. It doesn't matter as I can't locate it at present (it lacks bogies and now I've acquired a pair for it, it's gone walkabout...). (SWMBO would say too I have many trains, but that is obviously nonsense  )

 

The running qualities of most vintage stock are limited by their rather low tech 3 pole motors. They can be controlled by a rheostat controller (as long as the resistance suits the motor - H & M controllers can be matched, but as they merely add a fixed resistor in series it's not optimum), but for best results a variable transformer (with pulse power preferably variable) or a feedback controller is necessary. I don't think a Dublo controller has a high enough resistance for a Tri-ang motor. I know my Trix 6664 always started with a jerk. Not having pulse power doesn't help either.

 

I'm not sure about the exact dimensions of Kitmaster coaches, apart from them being 2mm short - noticeable as it's right at the ends and the space between door and end is insufficient. To match, the bogie centres are 2mm too close. I tend to keep rakes of the same make of one type of vehicle, as there are always slight differences. A Lima Mk I next to a Tri-ang one will show what I mean.

 

Rovex made Triang TT, and Rovex was profitable, contributing according to some sources up to 1/3rd of Lines Bros profits. But even a profitable company cannot keep an unprofitable part of its business going infefinitely.

What brought Lines Bros down was its attempts to keep its overseas subsidiaries afloat by subsidising them, and in the process made them competitors with products exported from their UK businesses, the inroads being made by US toy mamufacturers into the UK toy market in the late 1960s, and the recession in the toy market in the same period. (Source: Pat Hammond's Story of Rovex Vol 2.) DCM paid £2.26m for Rovex, plus a further £0.74m for the factories at Margate and Canterbury in 1972. Compare that to the £0.80m share offer that Lines Bros to acquire the entire Meccano group including all its worldwide premises in 1964. Imflation was high in the 60s but not that high.

 

 

They did acquire Meccano Ltd for about a third of its value. Inflation took off in the seventies fuelled by the OPEC oil crisis This caused the three day week not any mismanagement by our government (for once). For example a gallon of petrol was around 5/- in the mid sixties (not counting the free glass if you bought four - we should still have some somewhere!) and had risen to 35p (7/-) by the time of the oil crisis. My mortgage went up from £34 to £40 per month about then. From 1972 - 76 prices about doubled. After that I lost touch as we moved to Italy.

 

Any further comment will break our political taboo, so I'll sign off.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Nearholmer]

No, I'm not confusing the two, I'm remembering things from the perspective of the boy on his knees on the living room floor, and, slightly later, playing on the great fold-down baseboard above the bed.

 

Attempting to shunt with with triang locos was frustrating; running them slowly was a bit touch and go; battingvround they were alright.

 

Probably an experienced enthusiast could get better out of them, but they were meant for grubby boys, like me.

 

Kevin

[john new]

Coming into this late but have owned HD since 1955 (age 3), also later had some Tri-ang from the grey base era onwards including a long gone clockwork saddle tank.

 

At the age I was then they ran acceptably OK including fairly slowly using the HD A3 controller which I used for both makes. Duchess of Atholl (HD) would exceed the A4s at max speed and if run flat out would fall off on the corners (Still does!). Tri-ang with their small black pulse controller was also OK. I ended up running my Classic train-set layout with Gaugemaster control gear as I considered the old A3 possibly dodgy on the insulation front and the HD stuff ran OK into the 1990s when I mothballed the layout.

 

The new stuff is Ok but seems very temperamental AND NOT ROBUST, for example with naff clip in motors and plastic worms and gears that split. The Mainline stuff failed regularly, result my OO 2-rail has been mothballed for years now. However, I am sure when next I dig out my old Tri-ang X04 motored Jinty, and old 101 DMU they will still run adequately as I don't remember ever watching real trains crawl at the alleged scale (and often boringly slow) speed of some modern layouts. What people forget is the effect of scale & distance viewed. Watch a plane flying far overhead, it looks to be going no faster than a car but the reality is it is doing '00s of mph. Same watching an engine shunt in a real scenario, the sidings are not shortened and you are a distance away. It looks faster than it is so run faster on the layout to make it look real. The converse applies to top speed, often viewed from close up by the fence or on a platform, seems faster than it really is - again to mimic that on a layout go faster.

 

Even the criticism of the shorty coaches only really becomes evident to the eye if you mix them with a modern fully scale length item. One of the failings of some P4 layouts in that respect is they have corrected the width but not the length; outcome the proportions don't match and look wrong whereas the same shortened lengths would have looked better with OO and decent sleeper spacing. Even HD 3-rail track got one thing better than many modern scale layouts - the colour distinction between sleepers and ballast. Even if the colour is similar real track has the sleepers distinguishable from the ballast!

 

Sorry rant now over.

Edited July 20, 2017 by john new

[Il Grifone]

I think it's in part that the Tri-ang mechanism has too low a gear ratio. Since the Tri-ang motor has off load speed of around 18,000 r.p.m. compared to Dublo's 12,000 and both have an 18:1 ratio* it follows that Dublo's leisurely maximum of around a scale 100 mph becomes a bat out of hell 150 in Tri-ang's case (borne out in practice in my experience). At the bottom of the range it does lead to jack rabbit starts and skittish slow speed running. As I've said a decent controller will keep them in order, but a resistance controller has its work cut out.

 

Trix AC motors are a law unto themselves. They run very smoothly, but reversing is less than reliable. Apart from never knowing in which direction she will choose to start (or if at all, seeing the sequence reverser has two neutral positions) any interruption in the supply to the locomotive will trigger the reverser. The other AC enthusiast Märklin triggers its reversers with an overvoltage pulse and is rather more reliable. They use a latching relay to select one of two counter wound field coils rather than reversing the coil with a rather temperamental device which has a quantity of moving parts and a rotating contact strip with rubbing contacts. If all is in order it works but it takes very little to cause problems. My 'Scotsman' works OK though the uncoupling device in the tender doesn't want to know. All my others have a bridge rectifier fitted and are now DC locomotives.... (the Scotsman chassis states "FOREIGN" which fools nobody. The chassis looks like it belongs to a German 01 Pacific because it does!

 

EDIT

 

It's my experience that Dublo Duchesses run faster than their A4s too. I can see no reason for this as the mechanism is identical apart from the dimensions of the block. My fastest is one with a horseshoe magnet. When I got her she had Romford 26mm drivers  and could achieve Tri-ang type speeds (on the straight anyway, she'd fly off the curves). Fitting proper Dublo wheels curbed her a bit. Perhaps it's just copying reality. Who knows what a Streamlined Duchess could have achieved in the right conditions....

 

Ducks for cover....

Edited July 21, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Legend]

No, I'm not confusing the two, I'm remembering things from the perspective of the boy on his knees on the living room floor, and, slightly later, playing on the great fold-down baseboard above the bed.

Attempting to shunt with with triang locos was frustrating; running them slowly was a bit touch and go; battingvround they were alright.

Probably an experienced enthusiast could get better out of them, but they were meant for grubby boys, like me.

Kevin

I always got frustrated trying to shunt with small Triang locos. At that time as shunters I'd have had the Diesel Shunter(can't really call it an 08) and Jinty. It was only in the 1974 Renfrewshire MRC exhibition in Paisley I watched them shunt the yard at their model Elderslie with a black 9f. Not at all prototypical but I was well impressed with the slow speed shunting of the 9f . Coincidentally there was one in the window of the Variety Stores in Paisley , which was duly acquired by my mother for my Christmas that year. Even then I had an eye for cost, and thought it very expensive at £9.95. But it was only at that point I was able really to shunt properly. Of course the 9f was used for everything from shunting to expresses. The joys of being 12. Still got it and she still runs well. Sentimental value. Edited July 20, 2017 by Legend

[St Enodoc]

I think it's in part that the Tri-ang mechanism has too low a gear ratio. Since the Tri-ang motor has off load speed of around 18,000 r.p.m. compared to Dublo's 12,000 and both have an 18:1 ratio* it follows that Dublo's leisurely maximum of around a scale 100 mph becomes a bat out of hell 150 in Tri-ang's case (borne out in practice in my experience). At the bottom of the range it does lead to jack rabbit starts and skittish slow speed running. As I've said a decent controller will keep them in order, but a resistance controller has its work cut out.

My original Tri-ang layout was controlled by an H&M Safety Minor with variable transfromer. I don't think I ever had better DC control over the succeeding 60 years.