What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?

[railroadbill]

Further thought on Tri-ang going down the 2 rail line.  Many years have gone by.  My main layout has Peco  oo track and I can run an assortment of locos of varying ages and sophistication on it from 11 different manufacturers.. plus stock from an additional 2 makers, various kit built locos and stock, etc.  That's all on one track standard.  Opened the field to a lot of competitors but Tri-ang's successor is still going strong!

[Ruffnut Thorston]

10 hours ago, Hroth said:

The real-life Pennybrix:

 

 

Homemaker magazine, April 1968.

 

I wonder if the BettaBuilder claim of  "over 350 pieces" consisted mainly of the rooftiles?

 

I have  just had a thought....

 

This was in the April dated edition of the magazine....

 

BUT a search has turned up another reference, to an on screen article on the Inca Bricks!

 

https://www.huntleyarchives.com/preview.asp?image=1003421&itemw=4&itemf=0002&itemstep=1&itemx=1

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
More added

[Ruffnut Thorston]

This article on the World of Railways pages may be of interest...it covers the fall of Meccano, to the take over by Lines Bros., Tri-ang. 
 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/reviews/the-history-of-Hornby-tri-ang-Hornby-era/

 

There is a mention of the Dublo trade Mark not yet being used by the current Hornby company...

 

This article was written a fair bit before the first new Hornby Dublo models were issued as part of the Centenary ranges in 2020.   To be published in 2015. 
 

 

These illustrations were intended to accompany the article...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These pages may also be of interest...
 

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Tri-ang_Hornby

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/The_end_of_Hornby_Dublo

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
More added...tidying up...

[rockershovel]

Triang made robust, colourful toy trains at an attractive price, with frequent model changes and good advertising. There really isn't much more to say. 

[Il Grifone]

The converter wagon was quite a bargain at 2/6d. The black wagon body needed a bit of work (painting and transfers). Grey would have been a better colour. It still has the open axlebox die-cast underframe, which will fit other wagons of course. (I have one as a 16T mineral wagon.)

 

There was also a converter horse box for passenger trains.

 

Both of these were examples of the better Tri-ang models, though the open wagon has its origins in Trackmaster.

 

The starter set must have been a heavy money loser. It required new mouldings for the wagon underframe and loco body, a new 0-4-0 chassis and a new power unit (compounded by the destruction of the diesel shunter mould for the 0-4-0 diesel). Since neither of these looked anything like a real locomotive, I imagine sales were low.

EDIT

I forgot they even made a new 45° curved rail for the set!

Edited July 4, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

13 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

This article on the World of Railways pages may be of interest...it covers the fall of Meccano, to the take over by Lines Bros., Tri-ang. 
 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/reviews/the-history-of-Hornby-tri-ang-Hornby-era/

 

There is a mention of the Dublo trade Mark not yet being used by the current Hornby company...

 

This article was written a fair bit before the first new Hornby Dublo models were issued as part of the Centenary ranges in 2020.   To be published in 2015. 
 

 

These illustrations were intended to accompany the article...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These pages may also be of interest...
 

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Tri-ang_Hornby

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/The_end_of_Hornby_Dublo

Thank you for that post. An interesting read, including the WOR article. The only bit that I'd quibble with was the wording on Trix entering the market after WW2 when Trix, via Bassett Lowke, was first into the sub-O gauge market in 1935 with their Twin system.

 

Your point about Lines saving Meccano as a business is well made. I do wonder if some of today's dislike of "Hornby" goes back to the belief/resentment that Lines Bros/Triang "killed off" Dublo which became embedded in the collective memory despite Dublo being on its last legs commercially. But it is true that Triang outcompeted Dublo and in that sense did "kill" it.

 

The MRC editorial on the takeover of the Meccano Group by Lines summed matters up rather neatly, I thought.

 

The advert for the Simplex points seems to me to illustrate how Dublo kept shooting itself in the foot as there would appear to be no way to convert a manually operated point to electric operation. Triang cracked that problem years earlier by having separate solenoid motors that could be added to hand operated points, and nailed it with Super 4 as just one solenoid motor X.404 would fit Left, Right and Y points. Also the size of the Hornby solenoid and the lever base on the manual points would make creating a fan of points difficult without quarter straights or the like. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[Ben B]

5 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The starter set must have been a heavy money loser. It required new mouldings for the wagon underframe and loco body, a new 0-4-0 chassis and a new power unit (compounded by the destruction of the diesel shunter mould for the 0-4-0 diesel). Since neither of these looked anything like a real locomotive, I imagine sales were low.

EDIT

I forgot they even made a new 45° curved rail for the set!

 

I've always liked the play-set version of the 08, I'm making one around a Playcraft clockwork chassis using a Wrenn body as a fun item for my clockwork layout.  How much butchering did the body undergo to modify it for the start set?  Curious as I know the 08 turned up in the Wrenn catalogue, did they re-engineer the 08 to reintroduce it?

[cypherman]

2 hours ago, Ben B said:

 

I've always liked the play-set version of the 08, I'm making one around a Playcraft clockwork chassis using a Wrenn body as a fun item for my clockwork layout.  How much butchering did the body undergo to modify it for the start set?  Curious as I know the 08 turned up in the Wrenn catalogue, did they re-engineer the 08 to reintroduce it?

Hi,

The Wrenn 08 was a 2 rail version of the old Hornby Dublo one. A far superior model to the Triang one. You might find that the Wrenn body is a little to small to fit a clockwork motor depending on the size of the spring. I believe the Triang one like their 0-6-0 saddle tank were actually made taller than they should be to fit the clockwork spring.

Edited July 4, 2021 by cypherman

[Il Grifone]

Apparently when Wrenn decided to make their version of the 08, they discovered that the mould had been completely bu**ered up and were forced to make a new one at great expense. AFAIK there is no real difference between the two versions, beyond colour. Dublo ones are always green and Wrenn used blue and black as well.

 

The starter version appears to have only been shortened, but I don't have one to check.

 

The Tri-ang flight of fancy starts off 2mm high at the buffers I believe and the body is also higher than it should be.

There was a design of inside frame shunter they could have modelled and made it rather less inaccurate.

 

The Playcraft clockwork chassis has a much weaker spring than Tri-ang's. It only has to fit a modified SNCF 0-4-0T (H0) (and I think a British 0-4-0 diesel?)

 

Previous to the two 0-6-0s, Tri-ang's clockwork locomotive was a modified version of the Trackmaster N2*. I gather there were problems with the die-casting and it was non-reversing. It is a rather more accurate model than the Dublo and Gaiety N2s.

* Fitted with Tri-ang standard insulated wheels (same as the Jinty?). Trackmaster wheels are fine (BRMSB) and non-insulated. The livery was also updated - unicycling lion rather than 'BRITISH RAILWAYS'.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Il Grifone

[rockershovel]

Which 0-6-0 diesel shutter are you thinking of? AFAIK the inside frame types, like the Drewry had short wheelbases and jackshaft drive and low hoods, giving possible problems accommodating the mechanism. The only suitable type I can think of would be the Janus? 

[rockershovel]

I always thought the 2-rail Hornby Dublo locos were superior to Triang, I have a 4MT 2-6-4T which is still going strong  if rather noisy, but the rest of the range - much less so. Triang had a complete railway. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by rockershovel

[BernardTPM]

4 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Which 0-6-0 diesel shutter are you thinking of? AFAIK the inside frame types, like the Drewry had short wheelbases and jackshaft drive and low hoods, giving possible problems accommodating the mechanism. The only suitable type I can think of would be the Janus? 

D0226 & D0227 probably.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

These come to mind...

 

 

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxrailt.htm

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_D3/7

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_diesel_shunters_7059-7068

 

 

Early Tri-ang Catalogue illustration...

 

 

The electric version...

 

 

 

Playcraft Clockwork locomotives...

 

 

Hornby Dublo Starter Set Diesel Shunter, and the original...comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to be only the radiator sides, where the ladders go, that have been deleted to slightly shorten the body...with modifications to the front end steps and buffer beam area...what modifications are underneath though?

 

More photos of the starter set loco here...

 

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/Hornby-dublo-starter-set-diesel-loco-540149212

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
More added

[locomad2]

13 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

 

The starter set must have been a heavy money loser. It required new mouldings for the wagon underframe and loco body, a new 0-4-0 chassis and a new power unit (compounded by the destruction of the diesel shunter mould for the 0-4-0 diesel). Since neither of these looked anything like a real locomotive, I imagine sales were low.

EDIT

I forgot they even made a new 45° curved rail for the set!

 

 

I wonder if it was somewhere in the "bible's " its mentioned it was designed to be cheap to make and sell cheap. The wagon chassis was planned to be standard throughout the range, the chassis for the 0-4-0 is not like any other, its tacky, cheap and poor quality. Quite often I discover them in car boots with sellers unsure of their origins it looks cheap and often confused with a playcraft. It came out too late for mass sales hence the rarely seen, however such examples don't fetch silly prices.

 

The dinky dicast push-a-long came out 10 years later has a better looking body then the plastic, fitted with a 1980's 0-4-0 Hornby chassis makes a better loco

[kevinlms]

On 04/07/2021 at 06:36, Ruffnut Thorston said:

 

 

 

I just find this scene to be ruined by the 3 rail track.

 

Shows a nice view of a modernised MPD, apart from the track.

[GoingUnderground]

One area that no one has raised so far is the range of infrastructure, such as station buildings, bridges, level crossings, footbridges, signal boxes and signals etc offered by Trix, Dublo and Triang. Would that have affected how the three competing systems were viewed?

 

Apart from the bright yellow canopies on the 1st generation of Triang's station buildings, I always felt that the dark red of the buildings and the grey of the platforms was more representative of the station buildings that I saw than the all-over yellowy cream of the Hornby equivalents. I know that the cream colour was supposed to represent concrete, and the buildings were all intended to be in the style of the 1930s and later, but most concrete that I've seen ranges from light to medium grey, darker if it is wet., and platforms were grey stone slabs or asphalt ranging from light grey to near black, depending on the age of the asphalt. Pebbledash is often yellowish cream in colour but has a textured surface. So I could never quite relate to the Hornby station buildings, signal box, loco shed and goods depot, they just looked "wrong" to me, as did their O gauge predecessors for the same reason, whereas Triang's looked acceptable.

 

The Hornby terminal station building with its canopy did catch my eye, but the colour always put me off. I thought it looked a lot better when Triang started making it in their "red brick" colour after their takeover of Meccano, and I should have bought it then, but the number that I would have needed for my layout made it just too expensive for me at the time, and I improvised with materials already to hand.

 

Triang's original girder bridge always looked the part, as did the single brick arch bridge, the viaduct (still in the current Hornby range and still with its Triang catalogue number R.180), and the river bridge when they appeared on the scene in the early 1960s. The gravity unloading bridge for use with the hopper, grain and ore wagons was something I fancied, but never got round to buying. The Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge was a remarkable item to produce for what was still at the time a toy train system. The colour of the towers and end supports looked to me more like concrete with their more subdued colour, and the attention to details such as having the hoops and clips in the top of the arches to allow the Mk2 catenary wires to be used across the bridge was wonderful. I had one of the Series 3 "Yard of Track" pieces of track and with its fibre base you couldn't clip fit the catenary masts to it. But I was able to use that yard of track on the bridge on the loft layout that I shared with my brother. The illustration of the bridge on the Hornby website today still shows it with the catenary hoops, which makes it the only piece of the Triang Phase 2 catenary system still in production. 

 

The electrically operated double track level crossing always appealed to me, I think it was a pity that they didn't make a Super 4 version, and the planned Super 4 Minic Motorways version never went ahead.

 

I have seldom seen the Trix Manyways station buildings, but from the Trix catalogues that I have they looked to be better than the Hornby equivalent. They also had the conveyor system.

 

Both Dublo and Trix had electrically operated signals whereas Triang only had hand operated semaphores until they introduced the colour light signal RT.405.

 

Trix and Triang both had catenary systems from 1959, to go with their "Electric" locos introduced at the same time. The Trix one had pieces to turn two single track masts into a double track portal, something that only came later to the Triang system. The only Dublo Electric loco came very late to the party, and Meccano never made a catenary system for it. Some of the Meccano publicity pictures for their AL1 show it on Dublo 2 rail track underneath Triang catenary, but those may have been taken post acquisition.

 

Obviously it was possible to mix and match these lineside features with whatever make of locos and track you had, but the visual impact of the accessories and the breadth of the range as shown in the catalogues must have helped generate a better impression for the Triang system over its rivals.

 

Do you feel the same, or were these neutral as far as the choice of system was concerned as many of them could be used with any of the 3 systems?

[sncf231e]

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

One area that no one has raised so far is the range of infrastructure, such as station buildings, bridges, level crossings, footbridges, signal boxes and signals etc offered by Trix, Dublo and Triang. Would that have affected how the three competing systems were viewed?

I never had any Triang buildings; I prefer the Hornby Dublo largely above the Trix ones. HD and Trix can be compared by looking into my e-book on railway accessories http://sncf231e.nl/tin-stuff-from-fred/, Among others paragraph 3.2.3 and 3.2.5.

Regards

Fred

[rockershovel]

16 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

D0226 & D0227 probably.

Those would have looked "right" with the Triang 0-6-0 chassis, but clashed with the Triang philosophy of making "recognisable interpretations" of common or well-known designs, at "the right price". The 08 was THE diesel shunter, so an 08 it was. They judged that the buyers wouldn't worry about the lack of outside frames, and they were right. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by rockershovel

[ikks]

On 03/07/2021 at 22:56, cypherman said:

My god thats a blast from the past. i had that life boat as a child.

Me too........  I killed it in the bath!!!!.

Mike

[railroadbill]

Re buildings,  I had Hornby Dublo 3 rail but also Tri-ang buildings  (station set with main building, waiting room, platforms and fencing.  Must have been a present.  Didn't cause a rift in the space-time continuum  having the 2 makes together...

The tri-ang one looked like a typical classic country  station, sort of place you might go to on holiday, while the Hornby one had a modernist look, bit art deco, could have been somewhere in a large city, perhaps on the outskirts,  first stop of the semi-fast after leaving the terminus.  (Or you could have it as a terminus, of course).  So I actually preferred the tri-ang one. Still have the waiting room sitting on one of the current layout platforms...one day it'll be replaced...

[Ruffnut Thorston]

The Tri-ang Railways waiting room...

 

A while ago, I took this photo of one on the under construction Ffrwd Locks station...

 

It is next to the modified Ratio “Castle Cary” based station building.

 

 

Series 1 brown buildings on Series 3 track layouts set out in the garden...

 

 

 

 

The buildings were based on wooden models made around 1952...

 

The first issues were in Cellulose Acetate plastic. Bright Red with Blue Grey Roofs, and yellow canopies. The platform sections did not have any means of locking together, no lugs, etc.

The thin yellow canopy mouldings warped badly, and were the first parts to be made from Polystyrene Plastic.

 

For around one year, 1956, the buildings were made from similar colour polystyrene plastic. Again, the first polystyrene plastic platforms made at this time had no lugs, etc. These red polystyrene buildings are probably the least common, and can be confused with the earlier CA plastic buildings...only the totally straight, warp free appearance, if noticeable in a photo, can give them away...

 

Later, around 1957, the colour of the buildings changed to brown buildings, with grey roofs, still with yellow canopies. The platform sections now had lugs, locking them together. The waiting room in the photo above is of this period, the most common colour.

 

The last production of the first series buildings, around 1961-1962, were made from a darker brown polystyrene plastic.

 

The more modern style, Series 2 buildings and platform sections were introduced in 1962, with, and to suit, Super 4 Track. These had a brown/ maroon brick colour, and cream canopies. Originally the canopy supports were also cream, but these soon changed to green, which was the same colour used for the Series one Island Platform Canopy set...

Later, a smaller steps unit was introduced, together with small square platform sections to fit under the ticket office, and enable some other arrangements of platform sections. 

 

Hornby Railways, in the 1970s, changed the Series 2 brick colour to a bright red...

 

The later Series 3a, printed brick finish buildings, and later still Series 3b stone finish buildings have been made in different printed finish (3c?) for the Thomas range, and are currently available non printed, with self adhesive labels in both brick and stone finishes, (3d?) together with adverts for fictional products. ( no licensing problems?)

 

The Series 3 buildings retain the Series 2 platforms, with the addition of a block pattern to the previously smooth side walls. A new fencing system was also added for the Series 3 buildings, including a new steps unit.

 

One interesting thing that I found out, is that the width of a Series 2 straight platform section, fitted with the original Series 2 steps section, is identical to the width of a Series 1 platform section. This allows the use of a Series 1 booking office, complete with canopies, on Series 2 platforms. Also, the Series 2 Ticket Office will fit on Series 1 platform sections, complete with the Series 1 station approach steps.

 

On the subject of the Series 1 steps. These were supplied to dealers in trade boxes, and sold loose.

However, I have found out that the steps unit is exactly the right size to fit in a standard Tri-ang Railways box, used for some wagons, etc. I seem to recall it was an AC coded box... I am away from the reference just now.

So, possibly there was originally a plan to supply the steps in solo boxes?

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Ruffnut Thorston
More photos added...

[BernardTPM]

The curved platforms with geometry to match the new Super 4 was a clever move.

 

[Il Grifone]

I intended the D3/7 LMS design with jackshaft drive (Tri-ang could have been excused ignoring this). Granted the 08 design was more common, but there were three times as many of these as there were Princesses.

I saw one of the four sold to the FS awaiting scrapping at Savona many years ago (around 1980 IIRC). 

 

The various accessories could obviously be used with other systems. I had a collection of Trix 'Manyways' for my Hornby Dublo and some Trix signals. The colour lights were/are excellent (an early use of fibre optics), but the semaphores suffered from an impulse drive that, like the locomotive reversers, gave no feedback of the setting. AFAIK they were the only one  with arms about the right size. HD are too small and Tri-ang (and Crescent - the other common supplier) too big.

 

Hornby's fascination with yellow and orange (later green) was strange. Trix buildings were grey (like real concrete. I had a pre-war island platform but, not realising what it was, it must have got thrown out. 

 

The plug-in chimney for the first series Tri-ang buildings was rather a mistake. Apart from being extremely ugly (IMHO), it was easily lost. Most surviving buildings lack this part. (I have at least one each of the buildings, but only one chimney.) Replicas are available (see below - usual disclaimer), but cost more than the buildings (obviously I'm not talking MIB and exaggerating a little).

 

I always wanted the Trix elevator conveyor. Its price back then ensured I never had one and its price today ensures that will continue....

 

http://model-supplies.co.uk/oddments.htm

Edited July 6, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

21 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

The curved platforms with geometry to match the new Super 4 was a clever move.

 

I agree. So often station platform lengths on layouts were curtailed because of the lack of curved platform units. The matching curved canopies was also a good idea, and these 3 new canopies' colour of pale cream looked good. There was also the subway unit, and later the 2nd storey building with the clocktower to go on two of the normal station buildings.

 

I could never get to like the double track canopy unit R.74 as, to me, it looks unfinished as it only covers half the platform, and somewhat exposed at the ends. What it needed, and still needs as it is still in the current range as R.334 (a reused number first used on the DMU centre unit), was/is some sort of side canopy accessory that matches the straight canopies, currently R.514, and a curtain end screen, both of which could be bought separately and added to cover over the unsheltered part of the platform, or the exposed end.  Sales may have been low and slow, but if they had introduced them when the double track canopy was first introduced back in the Triang Hornby days I' m sure that the tooling would have more than paid for itself by now, and might even have encouraged sales of the double track canopy itself by giving it a more "complete" look.

 

Dublo did have the half width platform, useful if space was at a premium. There was never a Triang equivalent. But to look right it would have needed its own canopy and possibly handed subway units which would all have added to the cost. As has been said about the introduction of alternative or period liveries on locos, once there are alternate livery for the loco, you need the matching rolling stock, and what started out as a relatively cheap way to expand the range and appeal of the system suddenly becomes more expensive if new tooling has to be produced for the matching "accessories".

[Il Grifone]

Trix also had a half width platform in their 'Manyways' range. A real platform should have a minimum width of 12' 6", so really these units are incorrect, but we are talking toy trains here.

The Airfix platform (from the kit) is a tad under this width (about scale 12' 3" IIRC)  Mine will get a strip or two of white 40 thou. plastic strip,  which will solve this problem and the white line in one go. This kit must have hit sales of the big three's platforms hard at only 2/- for a foot of platform.

 

In 1939, Trix announced some shop fronts, which would have made a magnificent station approach, but the war ensured they never appeared. I keep meaning to make some replicas.... (I really would need a couple of annexes....)

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=trix+manyways

 

The link also leads to the Manyways station I set up on the living room table, taking advantage of SWMBO's absence!