When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[Il Grifone]

I don't have an 80059 for two reasons:-

 

1. Hen's teeth effect and the resulting ridiculous price. (This also applies to Ludlows and Dorchesters etc. (I don't even have a Denbigh....)

 

2. The transfers are always put on crooked with a large gap between the 8005 and the 9. The result looks awful.

 

I'll probably cheat and renumber one of my collection of 80054s. One is already destined to become one of the block allocated to Tilbury - 80072 or 80079 for instance.

 

I'm trying to convince myself that a Dublo N2 converted to a 4-4-2T will look like a 'Tilbury Tank'. (She wouldn't, but would be nearer than Dublo 6917s are to an LNWR 0-6-2T.)

[rockershovel]

I bought several 2-valve Jawa track racing bikes in the late nineties to early 2000s. They were about £600 at the time, which was pretty much the bottom of the cycle, I made sure I didn't buy anything unusable (and there is plenty of THAT when you are looking at old racing machines). We had a lot of fun with them, maintained them and they are probably worth £1500-2500 each now, depending on condition.. investment? No, but they have held their value.

 

I have pretty much cleared out the last of my old British bike stock of assorted parts, at prices which I frankly regard as absurd, so (over a very long haul) I suppose I have made something on them, but not much. Complete machines typically sell for prices which reflect, but don't recoup restoration cost. There are LOTS of over-valued fakes and bitsas about.

 

One notable failure would have been Harley Davidsons, because the supply has increased. Older Big Twins like the pre-1958 "panheads" were always rare and expensive and have held their value. 70s/80s "shovelheads" are typically selling for prices similar to their cost in the 80s and 90s due to obsolescence and accumulated over-supply, which has depreciated their value. I suspect the later "Evolution" Big Twins are at the bottom of their cycle, being technically better than shovelheads, a bit "wrong" styling-wise and relatively common, but I wouldn't put too much money on it.

 

The WL sidevalves make good money, I wish I'd kept the very original Fred War bike I bought in the late 80s. Sportsters were never particularly valuable, although overpriced in the 60s and 70s due to exchange rates and taxes, but you can have fun with Sportsters at no great cost and probably keep their value (as opposed to cost).

 

So all the elements of cost and value over time are there!

 

In recent years I've bought some On30 for a (repeatedly deferred) retirement project. The Bachman 2-6-0s were just cheap and cheerful, and run well. The BLI 2-8-0 was interesting and not too much money, and it's been a lot of fun, having travelled with me on occasion. The MMI locos are expensive toys but make imposing models, are much admired at club nights and if I do attempt to show a layout, they will be the centrepieces. They were always rare and expensive (a relatively high outlay, anyway) so I dare say they will recover most of the outlay when I'm gone or no longer enjoy them.

 

It's important to have everything properly labelled, the 009 Executor Service points thus up.

[Robert Shrives]

I do wonder about what would have happened, at Warley club I gad a Triang DMU - thanks Dava, on show to the N gauge group - working on our new S&C layout and the comment was "the scale that got away and it was just right, shame it did not last."

 

Makes me think.  A3 Flying Scotsman, in private ownership was just around the corner. Second open coach perhaps,  western style subs. The 9F as seen on here seems likely with its use of existing parts.  I just wonder at the EMU project .  Also to use the dmu bogie a bo - bo diesel the class 26 to complement A3 and  class 31 for Eastern fans.  Pehaps an old fashioned set of railway buildings to run with the modern ones made, maybe more over the fence non railway buildings.

 

Robert  

[Golden Fleece 30]

I do wonder about what would have happened, at Warley club I gad a Triang DMU - thanks Dava, on show to the N gauge group - working on our new S&C layout and the comment was "the scale that got away and it was just right, shame it did not last."

 

Makes me think. A3 Flying Scotsman, in private ownership was just around the corner. Second open coach perhaps, western style subs. The 9F as seen on here seems likely with its use of existing parts. I just wonder at the EMU project . Also to use the dmu bogie a bo - bo diesel the class 26 to complement A3 and class 31 for Eastern fans. Pehaps an old fashioned set of railway buildings to run with the modern ones made, maybe more over the fence non railway buildings.

 

Robert

Totally agree with you Robert (no like, agree buttons etc to use on my phone).

 

With compromises there are so many things Tri-ang could have done without too much cost but we will never know, unless, there is someone out there who worked there and had knowledge. I know there are a couple of brothers who worked on Dublo, drawing office and inspection I think, who still have an input on their site.

 

Garry

[whart57]

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Triang was primarily a toy maker. The company didn't only produce trains, it also produced the Chad Valley range of dolls houses and I believe they were also the makers of Sindy dolls, sometimes known as the British Barbie. And Scalextric racing cars. Some say it was Triang's decision to push Scalextric that killed TT, which may well be the case if you consider Triang's sales chain. Triang supplied to High Street toy shops, not model railway specialists. These toy shops, like all retailers, had limited shelf space and limited capital for stock. When Triang reps rolled up the shop keeper would point to his shelves and ask where he was supposed to put all these new ranges. And why are you giving me trains in red boxes and trains in yellow boxes?

 

It was also a time when model railways was losing appeal. Hornby collapsed and was broken up with the Dublo trains going to Triang and Triang attempted some pretty iffy gimmicks like train mounted rocket launchers and exploding boxcars. The only way commercially produced TT would have survived would have been if Triang's TT division had been bundled up and sold as a unit, rather like Hornby Dublo living on as Wrenn. But that would have required more enthusiasm from the model railway specialist retailers, which was unlikely to be forthcoming. After all, if you read the model railway press of the early 1960s there is an undercurrent of sniffiness and disdain for Triang, and a belief that Triang was just toys and not serious railway modelling.

[whart57]

Another snippet about Triang that was related to me when the 3mm Society went to discuss a possible revival of TT with Hornby. Margate was a silly place to have a toy factory. If you sell toys then you sell most at Christmas - hardly an earth-shattering observation. But if parents and grandparents go shopping for toys at Christmas then they start doing that in November. Which means shops want their deliveries in mid October so they can get it on the shelves as soon as Halloween and Guy Fawkes are cleared away. Which means your factory has to be in full production from July to September. And what time of year is it hardest to recruit casual workers in a seaside resort? I was told that back in the 60s and 70s Triang actually lost workers in July as people opted for spending some weeks out in the open selling ice creams or stacking deckchairs rather than in a warehouse packing boxes or minding machines.

Edited August 30, 2017 by whart57

[Enterprisingwestern]

Another snippet about Triang that was related to me when the 3mm Society went to discuss a possible revival of TT with Hornby. Margate was a silly place to have a toy factory. If you sell toys then you sell most at Christmas - hardly an earth-shattering observation. But if parents and grandparents go shopping for toys at Christmas then they start doing that in November. Which means shops want their deliveries in mid October so they can get it on the shelves as soon as Halloween and Guy Fawkes are cleared away. Which means your factory has to be in full production from July to September. And what time of year is it hardest to recruit casual workers in a seaside resort? I was told that back in the 60s and 70s Triang actually lost workers in July as people opted for spending some weeks out in the open selling ice creams or stacking deckchairs rather than in a warehouse packing boxes or minding machines.

 

Some things never change, we now have the Chinese New Year syndrome!

 

Mike.

[Pacific231G]

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Triang was primarily a toy maker. ................. The only way commercially produced TT would have survived would have been if Triang's TT division had been bundled up and sold as a unit, rather like Hornby Dublo living on as Wrenn. But that would have required more enthusiasm from the model railway specialist retailers, which was unlikely to be forthcoming. After all, if you read the model railway press of the early 1960s there is an undercurrent of sniffiness and disdain for Triang, and a belief that Triang was just toys and not serious railway modelling.

I had Tri-ang TT-3 in the sixties and I'm afraid that it did seem to me closer to toy than model, not least because of poor running (compared with my previous HD) and those gross couplers. My dissatisfaction with it led my youthful creativity to focus more on my Meccano set instead.  It's a shame because TT, whether 3mm/ft or 2.5mm/ft, always seemed an attractive scale, just large enough to not feel distanced from the models which is how N scale has always felt to me (I did build a small N gauge layout once but didn't take to it) but sufficiently smaller to do a lot more than H0 or 00 in the same space.

I think it was probably the arrival of N scale that really killed off TT as a commercial scale as for years what was available was generally not very well made  (compared with its Western European counterparts) E. German models

 

One perhaps unexpected bonus from the commercialisation of TT was the huge boost it gave to narrow gauge modelling particularly of 3 ft and metre gauge prototypes. That seems to have waned in recent years with 009/H0e, using more readily available N gauge mechs. becoming far more popular despite the fact that it represents a gauge far less used outside Austro-Hungary than 2ft/60cm or 3ft/metre gauge.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Pacific231G

[whart57]

And yet Hornby Dublo was still selling printed tinplate in the 1960s. If I recall too the range of locos was strangely light on the common beasts - the 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s. In fact it's a strange anomaly that despite nearly half of British steam locos in the 20th century being 0-6-0 tender engines there was only Triang's somewhat iffy 3F representing the type as a commercial RTR job until the 1980s. Triang's L1 was the only 4-4-0 too.

[Golden Fleece 30]

And yet Hornby Dublo was still selling printed tinplate in the 1960s. If I recall too the range of locos was strangely light on the common beasts - the 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s. In fact it's a strange anomaly that despite nearly half of British steam locos in the 20th century being 0-6-0 tender engines there was only Triang's somewhat iffy 3F representing the type as a commercial RTR job until the 1980s. Triang's L1 was the only 4-4-0 too.

Dublo's coaches, except for the Pullmans, were tinplate to the very end of production. Their coaches apart from being short for the tight curves were only bettered by Exley. Even today with modern technology Dublo's S/D tin coaches are a better looking model.

 

Because the 0-6-0's RTR at the time were limited that is maybe why K's and Will's brought so many kits out to fit both Tri-ang and Dublo chassis's.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

Dublo's coaches, except for the Pullmans, were tinplate to the very end of production. Their coaches apart from being short for the tight curves were only bettered by Exley. Even today with modern technology Dublo's S/D tin coaches are a better looking model.

 

Because the 0-6-0's RTR at the time were limited that is maybe why K's and Will's brought so many kits out to fit both Tri-ang and Dublo chassis's.

 

Garry

I was looking at some revlews in an old MRC a few days ago and they were slating HD for still using tinplate when Tri-ang and others had moved to injecttion moulded plastic but I agree that they somehow looked better not least because the windows were almost flush.

 

I did build a K's body kit of an 060PT (a condensing tank AFAIR) for my TT-3  Jinty but it was a bit wonky (glued rather than low temperature soldered). I think the extra weight did improve its running slightly. .

Some years ago I looked at some of the odd items of  Tri-ang TT-3 stuff I still had with a view to using it for H0m but one look at the steam roller wheel profiles compared with Tillig and even Zeuke/Berlinerbahn soon put paid to that idea. Instead I bought some wagon chassis from the 3mm Society which were spot on for a local French metre gauge railway 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Pacific231G

[whart57]

It wasn't just the coaches that were tinplate though. I have some vans I inherited from somewhere that are printed tinplate, and they look far too flat.

 

Regarding common wheel arrangements, there were no 0-6-0 tender engines in the Thomas the Tank engine books until well on in the series either. I wonder if that is linked to the absence in the Triang and HD ranges.

[locomad]

Dublo's coaches, except for the Pullmans, were tinplate to the very end of production. Their coaches apart from being short for the tight curves were only bettered by Exley. Even today with modern technology Dublo's S/D tin coaches are a better looking model.

I notice this when I show non modellers my layout and anyone over 60 seem to state or mention that the bright red Hornby Dublo coaches are the ones they remember on the real railway as they look closely to the BR(MR) red MK1 they can remember from there childhood.

 

Is the gloss colour and tinplate side as well as the flush window, it just can't be recreated in plastic.

 

Look at any good colour photo of coaches in 1960's and compare, short length does not show up if all the model coaches are the same.

 

Even the slightly rusted, dulled, mucky, HD coaches which I pick up cheap, look like dirty weathered coaches of that period

[whart57]

Not if you lived south of the Thames  

[Robert Shrives]

wow, that poked the nest , great reading !! IIRC one of the other reasons was the cost of building the models was not much less than OO - labour cost being the same , a repeat of the china build story now with 00 and N... proving the world is round and nothing new etc...  

The seasonal labour flow elsewhere, in the TLC of Wales a factory can get labour in months before as it pay for crimbo and gets labour in the spring as it pays for the summer hols, I guess tourist work might help a few move away as well. A payback for company to employee loyality- works both ways !! 

 

Aware of Tri-ang`s other ranges under the Lines Brothers ownership but it was odd or perhaps it was cheaper that the wagon range was quite comprehensive, I could not while "pie in the blue sky dreaming" come up with another wagon to add, things like a horse box and fruit D show quite an imagination.  I can see a second dmu would not happen but the bogie could have been basis for the EMU as Golden fleece has shown was an easy mod - one vehicle as a driver brake and add existing subs could have led to a 4EPB easily. Yes the step back to allow after market kits was a master stroke and made up the range, as it happens these kits looked the part even if not fully right - the compromises of the day must make some of today`s hobbyists wince given how we are spolit for chocie in 4mm with the class 37 body options from Bachmann..  

 

Well off to fold up chassis for a Queenmary in 3mm

Robert 

[detheridge]

One perhaps unexpected bonus from the commercialisation of TT was the huge boost it gave to narrow gauge modelling particularly of 3 ft and metre gauge prototypes. That seems to have waned in recent years with 009/H0e, using more readily available N gauge mechs. becoming far more popular despite the fact that it represents a gauge far less used outside Austro-Hungary than 2ft/60cm or 3ft/metre gauge.

00n3 may seem to have waned due to the rise of 009, but there is a thriving community of folks modelling IOM and Irish lines. With modern 'standards' (if that's the correct term - fine scale wheels and track) the results are excellent.

 

Paradoxically, over on ng-rm modellers of all persuasions wax lyrically about the early 00n3 layouts that inspired them. The best known is Derek Naylor's Aire Valley Railway, started in 1957 and using Triang TT standards, even using Triang bogies and underframes (just like009 legends like Ted Polet are using N gauge proprietary underframes and running gear now). What 00n3 and 5.5mm scale (on 12mm gauge) offer is far more substance in the power plants that can put some N gauge mechs to shame if using Triang TT based technology. Vintage stuff like K's TT motor bogies (that powered Gem's 5.5mm scale locos) are incredibly reliable and powerful, particulatly with a large lump of whitemetal on top. Even standard Triang mechs will perform very well in 00n3 and 5.5mm scale with modern feedback controllers.

Okay, they may look coarse scale, but they can be simple to service and long lived and reliable. There's nothing more embarrassing than a loco that looks astounding with all mod cons to gnat's whisker accuracy that either runs like a pig or gives up the ghost completely. For me, I'd rather sacrifice scale accuracy for something that works as and when you want it to and will continue to do so for decades to come - as HD 3 rail fans know only too well.

 

Best wishes,

David.

[Robert Shrives]

FWIW I understand the Aire Valley layout is still populated with Tri-ang based power.

 

Robert

[whart57]

Now here's a NG idea. 12mm gauge is equivalent to 15" in 10mm scale (it's even closer in 1:32) and a Triang Jinty wheelbase is about right for those Heywood 0-6-0Ts. The width of the wheels is probably not that far out when you are thinking of Gauge 1 either. Could make a nice little freelance estate railway

[Pacific231G]

00n3 may seem to have waned due to the rise of 009, but there is a thriving community of folks modelling IOM and Irish lines. With modern 'standards' (if that's the correct term - fine scale wheels and track) the results are excellent.

 

Paradoxically, over on ng-rm modellers of all persuasions wax lyrically about the early 00n3 layouts that inspired them. The best known is Derek Naylor's Aire Valley Railway, started in 1957 and using Triang TT standards, even using Triang bogies and underframes (just like009 legends like Ted Polet are using N gauge proprietary underframes and running gear now). What 00n3 and 5.5mm scale (on 12mm gauge) offer is far more substance in the power plants that can put some N gauge mechs to shame if using Triang TT based technology. Vintage stuff like K's TT motor bogies (that powered Gem's 5.5mm scale locos) are incredibly reliable and powerful, particulatly with a large lump of whitemetal on top. Even standard Triang mechs will perform very well in 00n3 and 5.5mm scale with modern feedback controllers.

Okay, they may look coarse scale, but they can be simple to service and long lived and reliable. There's nothing more embarrassing than a loco that looks astounding with all mod cons to gnat's whisker accuracy that either runs like a pig or gives up the ghost completely. For me, I'd rather sacrifice scale accuracy for something that works as and when you want it to and will continue to do so for decades to come - as HD 3 rail fans know only too well.

 

Best wishes,

David.

Even with my less than perfect track laying I've experienced far better running with H0m than I ever did with 009/H0e and I think that may have something to do with the locos being less top heavy. 

I think my favourite OOn3 layout was probably David Lloyd's Augher Valley and I loved the idea of the complete railway winding its way up a valley with movements such as "railcar half working" but the one that most inspired me was the Rev. P.H.Heath's original Llanfair wihch must have been one of the first to use Tri-ang mechs for NG. It was a very simple layout- just a loop and a siding in the terminus with a single track fiddle yard but seemed to capture the atmosphere of a Welsh NG railway perfectly. He later extended it to a second terminus but with too many proprietary buildings that seemed less convincing than the Llanfair end.  

 

I did notice at the Trainsmania exhibtion in Lille at the end of April that, apart from the Belgian SNCV modellers, very few NG models were in H0m. 0e and H0e dominated the NG sections even when they were supposed to be representing metre gauge prototypes though I think there were a couple of Nm layouts. Metre gauge was brillianty represented by the Gravett's Pempoul in 1:50 scale of course but it did seem odd, given metre gauge's dominance of European narrow gauge railways that relatively few NG modellers are now using it apart I guess from those modelling Switzerland. . 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Pacific231G

[detheridge]

FWIW I understand the Aire Valley layout is still populated with Tri-ang based power.

 

Robert

Correct up to a point Robert. The layout, according to Paul Towers some years ago, is now owned by 'an idiot' (Paul's words) in the North West who wanted to convert it to 009 or even standard gauge.

 

The surviving locos and stock are in the loving care of the 009 Society's heritage collection. Loco No.1 (the dark green 2-4-0) is a straight conversion of a Triang Jinty. The others use such goodies as brass curtain rail for chassis, hardwood chassis spacers secured with No.0 wood screws, and 'Dinky' curlers for valve gear bits. Bodies can be Oxo tins and domes and chimneys were turned up from the old round pins of early 3 pin mains plugs.

 

There's an article by Derek Naylor on building 00n3 locos in the January 64 issue of RM, available here: https://archive.org/details/RailwayModeller1964January. (p.11).

Absorbing stuff!

 

Best wishes,

David.

Edited September 1, 2017 by detheridge

[detheridge]

Even with my less than perfect track laying I've experienced far better running with H0m than I ever did with 009/H0e and I think that may have something to do with the locos being less top heavy. 

I think my favourite OOn3 layout was probably David Lloyd's Augher Valley and I loved the idea of the complete railway winding its way up a valley with movements such as "railcar half working" but the one that most inspired me was the Rev. P.H.Heath's original Llanfair wihch must have been one of the first to use Tri-ang mechs for NG. It was a very simple layout- just a loop and a siding in the terminus with a single track fiddle yard but seemed to capture the atmosphere of a Welsh NG railway perfectly. He later extended it to a second terminus but with too many proprietary buildings that seemed less convincing than the Llanfair end.  

 

 

Peter Heath's Llanfair Valley suddenly appeared again in RM April 1984 (with two taster pics in November 83), which was expanded out of all recognition from its humble origins.

It included a fully blown dock and ship, a ruined castle and some ingenious conversions of Bilteezi card buildings.

The stock included Triang based kitbashes, two conversions of Gem 5.5mm locos and a wide variety of stock.

Edited September 1, 2017 by detheridge

[detheridge]

Here are some examples of 'non fine scale' 00n3 modelling from my collection, and all based on early TT mechs.

 

On the left, half a pug/half a J94 body on a Triang TT Continental Pacific chassis (acquired at a MRE in Shrewsbury at least 10 years ago); a Pugbash on what looks to be the equivalent of a motorising kit for the Kitmaster/Airfix original. It's not a Perfecta as the chassis is brass, and powered by a Romford TT Terrier. Lastly a Gem 5.5mm Dolgoch, cut down to something like 4mm scale.

 

Regarding the first loco, this was part of a large collection all based on Triang TT chassis, including a Wills P class as an 0-6-0, two Hornby 1101 bodies as 0-6-2s, and much more. I'm still trying to work out how to get the bodies off the chassis with some of them!

 

David.

[detheridge]

 

I think my favourite OOn3 layout was probably David Lloyd's Augher Valley and I loved the idea of the complete railway winding its way up a valley with movements such as "railcar half working" . 

 

You can see it here: https://archive.org/details/RailwayModellerApril1964 on page 86.

 

Going back a few posts, there's also the article on converting a TT class 31 to twin bogie drive using springs and extra bits on p.92 'Eight wheel drive for a Triang A1A-A1A'.

 

David.

[Golden Fleece 30]

It wasn't just the coaches that were tinplate though. I have some vans I inherited from somewhere that are printed tinplate, and they look far too flat.

 

Regarding common wheel arrangements, there were no 0-6-0 tender engines in the Thomas the Tank engine books until well on in the series either. I wonder if that is linked to the absence in the Triang and HD ranges.

When I mentioned about the tin coaches it was in relation to the end of Dublo as stated in a post.  Until the late 50's all Dublo wagons were tinprinted then they were gradually changed to plastic versions (Brakes, coal, mineral etc) with some wagons dropped from the catalogues like the brick wagon and other new items not produced in tin plate.  The only tinprinted wagon to the end was the 4 wheel petrol/oil tanker.  At the end there were still cast mazak bodied wagons like the weltrol and bolsters.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

FWIW I understand the Aire Valley layout is still populated with Tri-ang based power.

 

Robert

 I don't anything about Aire Valley but the Keighley TT model Aireworth is I think Tri-ang based stock.

 

Garry