Dublo and Tri-ang 00 and TT comparisons

[Silverfox17]

I have created this post for comparing like for like (or similar) regarding the 2 main competitors in the model railway world that we know.

 

Here are 3 1960's Pullman train set comparisons starting with 1960 and the first issue Britannia (body screw down the chimney) for the Tri-ang 00 followed by Hornby Dublo in 1963 then Tri-ang TT in 1964. The last were two introduced just a year or so before their model world demise.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The Dublo Pullmans are clearly superior to Tri-ang's rather fictional efforts. The two Bk/2nd are supposed to be the same vehicle (they are both 'Car no. 79') and the 1st class vehicle is supposedly a K type car (one of Tri-ang's names is fictional (Jane (and Mary came with Surnames), but they could have used 'Gwen' and stayed with  the 4 letter format). All are deficient in length to go around  sharp corners. Both locomotives are somewhat compromised, but the excessive height of the 'Britannia' jars my eyes instantly. (It must be me.) Fitting wheels of the right size helps dramatically. Mine is getting wheels from a Dublo 4MT, but it's  one of those stalled projects....

I believe the TT Pullmans are supposed to be Mk 1 cars, but I don't think the Western Region actually had any for a 'Castle' to pull.

Against this the Tri-ang product cost rather less than the Dublo one (and what anything similar costs today).

[Silverfox17]

The TT Castle set was probably made to use up shelf stocks, it was only made in 1964 when Tri-ang had practically stopped TT production and only made 302 sets. The Castle was, I understand, had a few surplus so used up. The Pullmans as you say are MetCam Mk1's and as far as I know were only on the ER at the time so basically no Tri-ang loco would be suitable. Britannias did venture on the ECML but not on Pullmans that I know of.  MetCam never made a brake so trains used the older flat sided ones (which looked wrong) or a full brake neither of which Tri-ang made in TT. 

 

I don't know why people say Tri-ang had smaller coaches to go around sharp corners as in the early/mid 60's they brought out the scale length 10" which still went around the curves, and, the track spacing for standard/series 3 was about 3 and 5/8" centres. 

 

Garry

[MikeCW]

I now little about the real thing but what struck me when I looked at Garry's photos of the three sets (very nice collection by the way) were the different renderings of the underframes.  While both the "00" and "TT" Triang sets have basically the same design of  underframe, Hornby Dublo has modelled two types.  I know that, back then, manufacturers sometimes  put different bodies on existing, and incorrect, underframes to reduce the cost of new models, even stretching or shrinking the bodies to fit if need be. (Triang Caledonian coaches on Mk 1 underframes come to mind; or the original short "Margate" Gresleys on a GW (?) underframe.) Does anyone know if the underframes on any of these Pullman cars are nearer correct than others?

 

Mike 

[Il Grifone]

I can't see any other reason (apart from saving raw materials?) for short coaches other than going round sharp curves. It's a world wide phenomenon. Continental coaches are notoriously 1:100 in length (or even shorter in some cases! My Athearn Budd railcars have lost quite a few feet in their transition from 1:1 to 1:87 (Tri-ang's did the same but I have a feeling it didn't actually make it to 1:87! - The scale of the TC range is all over the place.) (Other guilty parties are available.) The Tri-ang Mk Is proved that the excuses were b******t. Back in the day, I even persuaded my Kitmaster coaches to go around Dublo curves, but I did fit them with Dublo wheels.

 

The Tri-ang 00 Pullmans have their standard underframe unit, as fitted to all their 9" coach range. I suspect the TT ones do the same? AFAIK all the later Hornby 57' series shared a common underframe (the Southern ones a body too - it's reasonable for the GW coaches as long as you ignore the profile and the ends), but not much like anything SR. I suspect it's actually an LMS underframe like the carriage ends. I think the LNER version is the best of the bunch, but none of them are exactly like anything real. They suffer from 'one size fits all' syndrome.

 

Dublo Pullmans do have different underframes, but I haven't checked how accurate they are are*. The bodies are approximate so I suspect also the chassis. Bogies come in two variations a pseudo Mk I and a Gresley. Early ones are equalised, but since the sideframes are riveted in place some tend to stick and derail - either free it up or glue rigid (ensuring it's all square).

 

* I've got one for which I built a floor, but still have to make the underfloor hardware. Thanks to Wrenn (?) there seems to be a surplus of bodies. Look for yellow upper sides, rather than cream. Wrenn cars also come in a greater variety of names/numbers than Dublo, which are only 'Aries' and 'Car nos. 74 and 79'

[BernardTPM]

Some Mk.1 Pullman Parlour Seconds were used on the W.R. Blue Pullman standby set (the 'Wells Fargo'), but mixed with older Pullmans.

The Hornby Dublo Kitchen First is a model of a one-off (Aries) to the same outline as the post-War Golden Arrow cars, hence the rectangular toilet windows. Correctly it has a trussed underframe as these Pullmans reverted to conventional wood framed body (steel outer skin) on steel underframe construction whereas the other 1928 'Queen of Scots' type (as HD modelled for the Parlour and Brake Thirds) were all-steel integral bodied without truss rods. Trussing has subsequently been added to the those used in the VSOE/Belmond set.

The Tri-ang Pullmans seem to be shortened versions of the Southern Electric cars with the slight angling in above waist level and the oval end windows. No loco hauled versions in real life though.

Edited September 29, 2020 by BernardTPM

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Yes, as far as I can see, all of the Tri-ang  TT Gauge coaches use the same underframe units.

[Silverfox17]

Yes, Tri-ang used the same underframe for all their BR TT coaches and a very similar design for the 00 which in both scales were clip in mouldings, mainly to save costs as in those days were kids worried?  I guess as the Dublo one was their only main line plastic coach which had a separate floor they took the opportunity to do something different. 

 

I have no interest in what is underneath so I accept what is made, after all compromises were plentiful with models in those days. 

 

Here is a Met Cam Pullman which is one of the TT versions, Eagle, where you cannot see any truss rods, yet the flat sided one like Dublo has them. 

 

Dublo were the more adventurous in doing somethings like different like having two different underframes, dont forget they did a far better looking valve gear too which all probably helped their demise cost wise. 

 

We should just be grateful we got them in those days as I very much doubt without them people would not have been scratchbuilding and you can add the Tri-ang bogies were wrong too. Pullmans usually, I did say usually, had Gresley style (as per Dublo) or  Commonwealth fitted. 

 

Garry 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Silverfox17

[Robin Brasher]

All the sets came with a tube or a bottle of oil.  The Tri-ang sets had more track as they included straight rails.

 

I think the Hornby Dublo set was more sophisticated than the Tri-ang sets.  The rebuilt West Country locomotive had sprung bogies and pony trucks.  It ran very well and could pull a heavy load but later Tri-ang locomotives had magnadhesion which increased the haulage capacity on steel track and Tri-ang later fitted smoke units.

 

Tri-ang made Transcontinental coaches from the outset which were about the same length as the Kitmaster Mk1 coaches so the firm did not make short British coaches to run on sharp curves.  Perhaps they made short coaches so you could get more coaches in a station.  Tri-ang also made some Pullman car attendants and Golden Arrow stickers for their Pullmans

[Robin Brasher]

My last post went into outer space and has now been restored.  Thank you for the pictures of the prototype Metro Camel Pullmans on which the TT Pullmans were based.  I like the Tri-ang TT gauge trains and one of the members of our club did build a scenic model of Dawlish Warren using Tri-ang TT gauge trains.

 

Both the Tri-ang 00 gauge Pullmans and the Hornby Dublo Pullmans seemed like the last word when they came out.  The Hornby Dublo Pullmans appeared a bit later and were expensive.  As a Southern enthusiast the West Country locomotive and the Pullmans revived my interest in the hobby.  It took me a year to save up for the Barnstaple locomotive but Hattons were deeply discounting the Hornby Dublo Pullmans and I eventually acquired a rake of six together with a Wrenn Pullman and six more rebuilt Bulleid Pacifics.  One problem with the Hornby Pullmans is that they only had three names whereas the Tri-ang Pullmans had about five names so you could have a rake of Pullmans with different names.

 

The picture shows my collection of Hornby Dublo and Wrenn Pullmans and Bulleid Pacifics.

[Silverfox17]

Not all Tri-ang sets had oil in as some I have do not have the cutout for it but the majority did. As Robin mentions tubes of oil were included in the Dublo sets and in mine it is about half full/empty. 

 

Tri-ang made 2 sets of train names as not long after the Britannia set came out the produced "The South Wales Pullman" which had a headboard for later Britannias, mine is the first issue without slots in the smokebox, and 6 headboards. It was strange the coaches from day 1 had provision for the boards but the Brit did not.  The Golden Arrow headboard was for the B of B and self adhesive coach labels. 

 

The Tri-ang ones were Mary, Jane, Ruth, Anne and Car 79.  Dublo was Aries, Car 74 and Car 79.

 

Garry 

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

Tri-ang also made some Pullman car attendants and Golden Arrow stickers for their Pullmans

 

1 hour ago, Silverfox17 said:

Tri-ang made 2 sets of train names as not long after the Britannia set came out the produced "The South Wales Pullman" which had a headboard for later Britannias, mine is the first issue without slots in the smokebox, and 6 headboards. It was strange the coaches from day 1 had provision for the boards but the Brit did not.  The Golden Arrow headboard was for the B of B and self adhesive coach labels. 

 

The Tri-ang 'South Wales Pullman" boards were on metal strips that fitted slots added into the coach roofs, but Pullmans made before the introduction of the set did not have the slots (as per coach here). The slots remained on that generation of Pullman models to the end, even though the sets of boards disappeared after a few years.

[Silverfox17]

Here we have the 2 Castle sets for comparison.  Tri-ang only made a TT Castle (Windsor Castle) which came in 3 different sets, an early one with Type A track and maroon coaches then later with Type B track and maroon coaches followed by the brown and cream coaches seen here replacing the maroon ones.  Tintagel Castle was used in the Pullman set.  Hornby Dublo made a Castle set in 3-rail using the 1/2" motored Bristol Castle then later in 2-rail with Cardiff Castle which had the Ringfield motor. The Dublo set came with a headboard and ready fixed coach boards for "The Red Dragon".

 

I am only putting direct comparisons on that I have and not going to use photos from elsewhere as that is too easy to do.  I like these to be seen side by side.

 

Garry

[Silverfox17]

These are the 0-6-0 sets.  Tri-ang made the Jinty in both 00 and TT and here is an early TT one with 4 goods wagons then later it was sold with just 3 wagons, and note no oil Robin.  It's 00 counterpart here had  3 wagons and an unopened bottle of oil.  This set was November 1959 according to the date stamp.   Hornby Dublo never made a Jinty but did do an 0-6-0 which was the SR R1.  This loco was 2-rail only (the only Dublo loco that was not designed to be both 2 and 3 rail) and came in two colours, Black and Green, in four different sets.  A black one with maroon suburban coaches, a green with green suburban coaches and then both in a freight set.

 

The closest 3-rail was the 0-6-2 (Dublo never called it an N2) which when produced by Wrenn used the 0-6-0 chassis.

 

I am not using anything with the Tri-ang Hornby name for these.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

They may not have called it an N2*, but numbering it 9596 and then 69567 and 69550 rather clinches it. Perhaps they were ashamed of how approximative it is. (The cab is wrong and the chassis is to H0 scale for a start!) Wrenn did a green one as 9522, the only N2 to appear in LNER post-war green. Unfortunately the real 9522 had condensing gear.

In addition it looks nothing like the real thing for the GWR, LMS and SR variants, none of which survived into BR livery. I suppose, apart from the numbers and the weird blob that passes for a safety valve casing on the GWR version, they would have all looked the same. The SR goods brake probably disappeared for the same reason. They dramatically reduced the range of wagons post-nationalisation.

 

*I wondered at the time why they made no mention of N2 tanks.

 

 

[Robin Brasher]

Hornby Dublo made the 0-6-2T so they could put it in all the pre-grouping liveries with the GWR version representing a 

GWR 0-6-2T.  I think all the GWR 0-6-0Ts were saddle tanks so they would not look like a Jinty or an R1.  Hornby Dublo also made a clockwork version of the 0-6-2T and the model did not have a coal load so that you could access the clockwork controls.  Tri-ang also made an N2 0-6-2T and I think that was clockwork as well

[Robin Brasher]

3 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

These are the 0-6-0 sets.  Tri-ang made the Jinty in both 00 and TT and here is an early TT one with 4 goods wagons then later it was sold with just 3 wagons, and note no oil Robin.  It's 00 counterpart here had  3 wagons and an unopened bottle of oil.  This set was November 1959 according to the date stamp.   Hornby Dublo never made a Jinty but did do an 0-6-0 which was the SR R1.  This loco was 2-rail only (the only Dublo loco that was not designed to be both 2 and 3 rail) and came in two colours, Black and Green, in four different sets.  A black one with maroon suburban coaches, a green with green suburban coaches and then both in a freight set.

 

The closest 3-rail was the 0-6-2 (Dublo never called it an N2) which when produced by Wrenn used the 0-6-0 chassis.

 

I am not using anything with the Tri-ang Hornby name for these.

 

Garry

 

3 hours ago, Silverfox17 said:

The closest 3-rail was the 0-6-2 (Dublo never called it an N2) which when produced by Wrenn used the 0-6-0 chassis.

 

Page 21 of the 1959 Hornby Book of Trains says 'there is the familiar Hornby-Dublo 0-6-2 Tank, which in its general type represents the well known N2 class of the former L.N.E.R. and carries the appropriate number 69567.'

[Silverfox17]

12 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

 

Page 21 of the 1959 Hornby Book of Trains says 'there is the familiar Hornby-Dublo 0-6-2 Tank, which in its general type represents the well known N2 class of the former L.N.E.R. and carries the appropriate number 69567.'

Yes Robin but it says "represents" it never ever mentions an N2 in any Hornby Dublo literature.  If you watch the History of Dublo video ex employees also say it was never called an N2 they always referred it as an 0-6-2 tank.  We all know it looks like one, and, has a number of one but Dublo never called it that.  

[Ruffnut Thorston]

 

Post converted to a new thread...

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Sarahagain
Post converted to a new thread...

[Ben B]

Out of interest, were the boxes for both manufacturers made at the same mill/factory?  It just seems remarkable how similar the Dublo and Triang packaging is.  Whilst I get it might be a case of follow the leader/impersonation, it just seems remarkable that even the style of the internal trays (down to the shade of yellow) is nearly identical.

[Silverfox17]

59 minutes ago, Sarahagain said:

We have a first issue, from 1960, Britannia loco, with plate frames, solid wheels, and the body fixing screw in the chimney, and it does have the slots for the South Wales Pullman headboard.

There must have been a very short timescale on the first issue Britannia regarding the smokebox front as mine has all the same details as you Sarah but no headboard slots. 

 

Garry 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Silverfox17

[DCB]

On 28/09/2020 at 21:54, Il Grifone said:

. Both locomotives are somewhat compromised, but the excessive height of the 'Britannia' jars my eyes instantly. (It must be me.) Fitting wheels of the right size helps dramatically. Mine is getting wheels from a Dublo 4MT, but it's  one of those stalled projects....

 

4MT wheels are 22mm 5ft 6" , same as Duchess and A4 but with a big crank throw,  Castle is better at 24mm. There was an article circa 1966 called  Trinby or is it Hoang locomotives about fitting H/D wheels to Triang locos and the Brit was one of those featured.  I lowered the body on mine keeping the Triang Wheels with turned down flanges. Incidentally  2010 Hornby Castle tyres fit the 1965 Brit wheels.

[Il Grifone]

11 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

Hornby Dublo made the 0-6-2T so they could put it in all the pre-grouping liveries with the GWR version representing a 

GWR 0-6-2T.  I think all the GWR 0-6-0Ts were saddle tanks so they would not look like a Jinty or an R1.  Hornby Dublo also made a clockwork version of the 0-6-2T and the model did not have a coal load so that you could access the clockwork controls.  Tri-ang also made an N2 0-6-2T and I think that was clockwork as well

 

The GWR did have some 0-6-0T side tanks, but I think most had been scrapped by WW II. The saddle/pannier tank was to enable easy access to the inside motion, I believe. It raised the centre of gravity, but maintenance must have been considered more important. The side tank issue didn't worry Meccano in their 0 gauge range - all four companies got an 0-4-0T. I suspect the 0-6-2T just gave more room for the bulky magnet and/or mainspring. The levers for the control of the clockwork version came through the cab rear windows, so a coal load wasn't really an issue. Seeing the awful job they made when they did fit one, it was probably just as well. An insert with some real coal on top has a much more realistic appearance.

Tri-ang's 0-6-2T was bought in from Pyramid Toys 'Trackmaster'. This had fine scale (as in BRMSB) non-insulated wheels, so these had to be replaced with theirs and also the couplings. The Trackmaster locomotive is non-reversing (unlike Dublo, but these never reappeared after the war). AFAIK so is Tri-ang's version This was also an N2 (no. 69561) but also not described as such AFAIK. The two Trackmaster wagons (van and open) had a long life in the Tri-ang empire.

There was also a Gaiety model fitted with their delicate mechanism. The body of this is a close copy of the Dublo version, but again does not mention N2s. Coincidently (?) she has the BR number 46917, the same as the Dublo version (LMS 4917).  Mine suffers from 'rice pudding syndrome'. The Pyramid casting is nearer scale than Dublo's, but Tri-ang had problems manufacturing it and soon replaced it with their saddle tank and diesel shunter (my candidate for worst ever R-T-R model). Kirdon also produced an N2 but I believe it used the Tri-ang body. The two bodies I  own am caring for both have the keyhole crudely filled in. One day I might get around to a chassis....

[Il Grifone]

4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

4MT wheels are 22mm 5ft 6" , same as Duchess and A4 but with a big crank throw,  Castle is better at 24mm. There was an article circa 1966 called  Trinby or is it Hoang locomotives about fitting H/D wheels to Triang locos and the Brit was one of those featured.  I lowered the body on mine keeping the Triang Wheels with turned down flanges. Incidentally  2010 Hornby Castle tyres fit the 1965 Brit wheels.

 

I missed that article, but I have a Tri-ang Princess chassis, intended for my Britannia, to which it was my  intention to fit 4MT wheels (they are a tad small for a Brit, but there is plenty of excess height to lose.) The 4MT wheel is rather good - the right size and correctly bevelled. Pity about the flanges.... OK it was 1938! (It must be even earlier, as design of the system would have taken a considerable time.) Later manufacturers do not have this excuse!

[Silverfox17]

I don't want to be rude etc but I set this thread going for a comparison of the major 2 competitors of the 50's to mid 60's, ie before Tri-ang Hornby.  It was to show LIKE FOR LIKE and not to about individual items and certainly not about things not made by either company or wrong size wheels etc. There are plenty of threads for those things or start another. For instance Tri-ang only made a 00 saddle tank (clockwork and electric) so there is nothing to compare it with so it is irrelevant, that is unless Dublo and TT had one I have never heard of. 

 

Garry