What made Triang more successful than Hornby Dublo and Trix?

[Il Grifone]

Trix had 3 problems:

1. Price - seriously in some cases

2. Availability

3. Coarse wheel/track standards.

 

Tri-ang would run on Dublo track (with a bit of a bump on pointwork) and the couplings would couple to Dublo with a bit of persuasion. Trix required the replacement of the wheels - not impossible as Dublo spares were available and with a bit of bending could be fitted. However locomotives were a different matter. Trix driving wheels incorporate the drive gear in the flange and therefore can't be turned down. The Trix universal fibre track helped here and then they came up with the 'peel-off'  flanges to convert to Dublo standards.

Places like Hatton's could sell you (or convert yours) Tri-ang locomotives to run on Dublo 3 rail, but the other way round needed the availability of Super 4 track.

Unfortunately The Trix coupling is not quite the same as Dublo's and more seriously Dublo 3 rail chassis are live to the running rails and Trix to the centre rail. Sooner or later they will short circuit (as I found out the hard way).

[BernardTPM]

The LNER Pacifics didn't appear until the very late '60s by which time the combined Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo (mostly under the Tri-ang Wrenn name) made for a much broader range.

[Il Grifone]

IIRC the first Tri-ang Wrenn releases were limited to the 8F, Castle and 4MT at considerably higher prices. I believe they'd unloaded large quantities of stock to Hatton's et al.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Il Grifone

[GoingUnderground]

2 hours ago, Legend said:

 

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

At first sight, you are right. Being first into the sub 7mm market should have helped them establish a presence, but that was as a Bassett Lowke branded product, not as Trix. Being the underdog after WW2, Trix struggled. Stefan Bing made a grave mistake in keeping coarse scale and AC after WW2, especially after Trix in Germany had made the change, pointing the way ahead. They also suffered from almost continual changes of ownership which cannot have helped.

 

Their best chance was probably when they were owned by Courtaulds who had the financial muscle to take on Lines Bros. But it strikes me as a very odd fit even if Courtaulds did produce Lego in the UK. Courtaulds had tired of Trix by 1966 which is why they offered the company to Lines Bros. 

 

The 3.8mm scale was always a burden, and some bad decisions, particularly the one to produce the polystyrene coaches in 3.8mm scale was just too much. If the AL1 had been the first of many locos and rolling stock in 4mm scale instead of a flash in the pan until the Flying Scotsman then they might have stood a chance.

[BernardTPM]

I wonder if they perhaps should have concentrated on N Gauge from about 1967. Again there were relatively few models for a long time and locomotives often compromised by the Continental chassis used, but against that they were reliable and good runners for their day. Instead Graham Farish took the bold leap there in 1970.

[MyRule1]

I must admit I have not read every post in this thread. Looking at the summary by @GoingUnderground there is one factor missing. Although "shopping from home" is seen as a 21st Century movement we need to remember the old catalogue shopping (Littlewoods, Freemans et al) for many families this was a way of affording Christmas presents etc. Triang established themselves in this market with train sets, indeed there were some set specially produced for the catalogues.  Once you had your train set from the catalogue your local toy shop would sell you the other items.

 

 

[Titan]

On 19/06/2021 at 15:12, Philou said:

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

 

I believe that they are a fairly good representation of  the flexible drive from the motors of the real thing to the wheels.  No axle hung motors on AL's until they tried to cut corners on the AL6...

[Philou]

Some of you may also recall that Trix was about to bring out a Freightliner wagon complete with 3 x 20' containers. Unfortunately, it was just before Courtaulds pulled up anchor.

 

I don't know whether it was to have been 4mm or something-in-between scale, but it was THE wagon I wanted that particular year - around 1965/6.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[BernardTPM]

There were the three Mk.2 Pullman cars too in the 1968 (I think) catalogue. Those still haven't been done R-T-R.

[NCB]

Marketing. Triang, by their background, had some understanding of the market potential of model railways in the 1950s, what customers were out there, what sort of products would sell, what the prices needed to be. Hornby was stuck in a 1930s mentality where model trains were superior toys purchased by well-to-do families. My brother was bought the HD around 1950; it was scarce and the only local source was the local electrician's shop. I took it over a few years later but at the prices charged my parents were strongly resistant to buying more stuff for it. In contrast my friend down the road had Triang, which was reasonably attractive, affordable, offered products I envied, and was available in local toy shops. I bought a Triang bridge and elevated piers rather than the HD one, and other bits and pieces.

 

HD added products slowly and failed to realise their potential. They were slow to produce different versions of the same model, so ended up with stocks of unsold castings. Once they moved off the familiar ground of 3-rail they came unstuck. They were a classic example of a British company which failed to adapt to a post-war world.

 

HD might have been better sticking with 3-rail. It was part of their identity, robust track, easy to use on which trains ran well; they could have made the third rail less obvious. They could have put more resources into expanding the types of locomotives, and improved plastic rolling stock, and more scenic accessories like stations. The system was crying out for development, but in the right direction.

 

HD had clear advantages over Triang. The locomotives had presence, valve gear was much better. I treated myself to a 3-rail 2-6-4T recently (I'd always wanted one) and was impressed by how nice a model it was. The system had possibilities but Hornby didn't have a clue.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, NCB said:

Marketing. Triang, by their background, had some understanding of the market potential of model railways in the 1950s, what customers were out there, what sort of products would sell, what the prices needed to be. Hornby was stuck in a 1930s mentality where model trains were superior toys purchased by well-to-do families. My brother was bought the HD around 1950; it was scarce and the only local source was the local electrician's shop. I took it over a few years later but at the prices charged my parents were strongly resistant to buying more stuff for it. In contrast my friend down the road had Triang, which was reasonably attractive, affordable, offered products I envied, and was available in local toy shops. I bought a Triang bridge and elevated piers rather than the HD one, and other bits and pieces.

 

HD added products slowly and failed to realise their potential. They were slow to produce different versions of the same model, so ended up with stocks of unsold castings. Once they moved off the familiar ground of 3-rail they came unstuck. They were a classic example of a British company which failed to adapt to a post-war world.

 

HD might have been better sticking with 3-rail. It was part of their identity, robust track, easy to use on which trains ran well; they could have made the third rail less obvious. They could have put more resources into expanding the types of locomotives, and improved plastic rolling stock, and more scenic accessories like stations. The system was crying out for development, but in the right direction.

 

HD had clear advantages over Triang. The locomotives had presence, valve gear was much better. I treated myself to a 3-rail 2-6-4T recently (I'd always wanted one) and was impressed by how nice a model it was. The system had possibilities but Hornby didn't have a clue.

Surely Hornby Dublo's biggest draw back WAS the 3 rail? OK perhaps it worked slightly better (more reliable pick up), but it looked like no railway.

 

You seem to be forgetting that price is a major issue to many potential customers.

 

Some of the later diesels were just dreadful looking, the Deltic and Co-Bo had large stocks left on their demise, I wonder why that could be?

[GoingUnderground]

8 hours ago, NCB said:

Marketing. Triang, by their background, had some understanding of the market potential of model railways in the 1950s, what customers were out there, what sort of products would sell, what the prices needed to be. Hornby was stuck in a 1930s mentality where model trains were superior toys purchased by well-to-do families. My brother was bought the HD around 1950; it was scarce and the only local source was the local electrician's shop. I took it over a few years later but at the prices charged my parents were strongly resistant to buying more stuff for it. In contrast my friend down the road had Triang, which was reasonably attractive, affordable, offered products I envied, and was available in local toy shops. I bought a Triang bridge and elevated piers rather than the HD one, and other bits and pieces.

 

HD added products slowly and failed to realise their potential. They were slow to produce different versions of the same model, so ended up with stocks of unsold castings. Once they moved off the familiar ground of 3-rail they came unstuck. They were a classic example of a British company which failed to adapt to a post-war world.

 

HD might have been better sticking with 3-rail. It was part of their identity, robust track, easy to use on which trains ran well; they could have made the third rail less obvious. They could have put more resources into expanding the types of locomotives, and improved plastic rolling stock, and more scenic accessories like stations. The system was crying out for development, but in the right direction.

 

HD had clear advantages over Triang. The locomotives had presence, valve gear was much better. I treated myself to a 3-rail 2-6-4T recently (I'd always wanted one) and was impressed by how nice a model it was. The system had possibilities but Hornby didn't have a clue.

What you say about bad management by Roland Hornby and his top management team is undoubtedly true.

 

But some of what you say isn't. Hornby did produce models with different running numbers as early as 1959 as many of the 3 rail locos had different running numbers to the 2 rail versions. The reason why Hornby had so much unsold stock at the Lines Bros takeover was quite simple - overproduction of product against falling sales. Roland Hornby believed that the brand's declining sales were temporary and wanted to have plenty of stock on hand for when demand picked up again, but it never did as the fall was permanent due to a loss of market share.

 

The big Dublo steam locos did have presence and their valve gear was more realistic, but probably more expensive to produce. Triang and Trix locos had presence too, especially the Trix AL1, and the Triang Britannia and EM2. And small locos without valve gear can have presence too. One only has to think of Nellie/Polly/Connie and their SteepleCab parent, the L1, Jinty, and even the Dock Shunter/Yard Switcher. The Dublo Class 20 was also a good model, leaving aside the pickup problems of the 2 rail version.

 

But once you get away from large steam locos the Deltic and Class 20, their choice of models was strange. The EMU is a fair representation of the Class 501 which at best could only have limited appeal as it only ran on 2 routes in the London area. The Co-Bo was "famous" for the "Condor" overnight freight service, but again it was hardly thick on the ground and was a particularly bland looking loco with minimal trackside appeal. The choice of the AL1 was in my view bizarre, an OHLE loco when you don't have a catenary system, especially when there were so many diesel locos crying out to be modelled? If it was an attempt to get Triang owners to buy it then they should have made provision for fitting Triang couplings.

 

Hornby had started moving towards plastic mouldings for bodies, the R1, Class 20, AL1 and super detail goods wagons were showing their direction of travel and they should have switched to plastic bodies for the coaches as well, as tinplate always, in my opinion, looks like tinplate. Whilst the Class 20 looked good, the diecast Deltic was dimensionally challenged and their AL1 also had problems especially when it was up against the Trix AL1.

 

Hornby Dublo's only advantage over Triang was their range of big steam outline locos but they had their own drawback - cost, and a model railway, even a toy one, needs more than just good big steam outline locos especially when your target market is kids with limited pocket money and their potentially financially challenged parents.

[GoingUnderground]

Or, perhaps al alternative summary might be that Dublo, Trix and Triang each had advantages over the other two, but that Triang had the advantage where it really counted - cost.

[Il Grifone]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Surely Hornby Dublo's biggest draw back WAS the 3 rail? OK perhaps it worked slightly better (more reliable pick up), but it looked like no railway.

 

You seem to be forgetting that price is a major issue to many potential customers.

 

Some of the later diesels were just dreadful looking, the Deltic and Co-Bo had large stocks left on their demise, I wonder why that could be?

 

At 3/3d a length (say 10/- a yard) Dublo track was very expensive. Against this, any toy fair (if we ever have such things again?) will show how robust and long lasting it is.

 

As regards rolling stock, there was little difference in cost for wagons between the three makes, Dublo and Trix coaches about 50% more. Trix coaches gave you lights - at a cost (the lighting unit cost 7/6d by itself! The current draw required the Trix 3  Amp transformer (150mA per coach). Don't use one of these today! the Dublo SD6 coaches still provide the best representation of Mk I flush glazing IMHO. If only they had made them scale length!

 

Meccano Ltd. seemed unaware that their target market loathed diesels (or was it just my group?) The 'Deltic' and Co-Bo will pull a house down, but at around 15/- a coach that was rather irrelevant, leaving aside the space problem. There was a reason "60 plans for Small Layouts" sold well.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

An aside, what was the problem with the 2 rail Bo-Bo? I assume they kept the two traction tyres on one axle arrangement of the three rail version? and the high level bogie pivots?

 

Everyone else solved the problem by having a traction tyre on each axle of the power bogie and picking up from the other wheels; the other bogie providing the return path.

 

 

[PatB]

9 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

The Dublo SD6 coaches still provide the best representation of Mk I flush glazing IMHO. If only they had made they scale length!

But they did. It's not Meccano Ltd's fault that BR insisted on building their replicas with too many doors and window bays. 

[BernardTPM]

The BG and the Mk.1 suburbans were 'right length' but to me they still looked odd as the solebar didn't tuck in under the body.

[Ben B]

This has been a very interesting thread to read through!

 

I'm a child of the 80's, so I suppose my whole thing as a train-mad child was the "Hornby vs Airfix/Mainline/Lima" wars.  I only had two lima models (a Deltic and a Yeoman stone wagon) which both ran very well, and I loved the Deltic.  I had a single Airfix Mk.2 which was a very robust model.  I had two Bachmann wagons, which seemed more detailed but more fragile.  But nearly everything else was Hornby, or hand-me-down Triang.  My nearest model shop stocked lots of ranges, but I almost always went for Hornby.  The nearest Toys'r'Us had a seeming wall-full of Hornby when I was a kid.  The small toyshop in town only stocked Hornby trains in their railway section, as did Argos with just Hornby train sets.  Hornby seemed just that bit more ubiquitous.  Hell, before my local toyshop closed down at Christmas just gone (a real shame that, it was a very well-loved and busy shop, but the landlord evicted them with about a weeks notice as I guess he thought it urgently should become another fast-food outlet or betting shop... it's still standing empty six months later however), the only model railways they stocked were Hornby, and they seemed to sell.

 

I wonder if colour psychology plays a part?  When I did graphic design at school, we learned about how combinations of reds and yellows create a sense of hunger when viewed (hence why the likes of Macdonalds, Burger King, KFC etc use combinations and shades of them).  If you're in a shop, as a child, would your eyes be drawn towards the slightly flat sky-blue of Airfix boxes, or the reds with yellow writing of Hornby, with a subconscious feeling of hunger and anticipation?  I know I always gravitated to the Hornby shelves with my pocket money.  Even today, when arguably it's the more mature adult rather than the child being targeted for sales, most companies -Dapol, Bachmann etc- use dark blues with bits of white or silver, but Hornby keep with the reds and yellows.

 

I will say though, even as a child I could appreciate the difference between Hornby Dublo and my inherited Triang sets, via the vast, beautiful Dublo layout my Grandfather's-brother had in his house.  He gave me a conflat/insulated container off his layout as a present, of course it could never run on mine because of the coupling differences, but I still have it.  The sheer weight of the models, the presence as they raced around the layout, the robustness of it all, sticks in my mind.  When he passed away I was only about 5 or 6, I've never found out what happened to his layout or collection.  I hope it didn't just go to the tip, but I can't imagine in 1989 there'd have been quite the interest in Dublo for it to be snapped up by collectors...

[Tofufi]

I'd say that one of the reasons Tri-ang won is the sheer play value of the range.

 

Not just railways for serious people, but some of the other items:

 

Battlespace was introduced about 5 years before Dublo ended - the range eventually including rocket firing wagons, turbo fan car, plane launching car, exploding wagon, satellite launcher, helicopter launcher...

 

 

Not to mention other 'normal' wagons such as the giraffe car and mail coach. 

 

 How well battlespace etc actually sold I don't know

 

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Tofufi

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Tofufi said:

I'd say that one of the reasons Tri-ang won is the sheer play value of the range.

 

Not just railways for serious people, but some of the other items:

 

Battlespace was introduced about 5 years before Dublo ended - the range eventually including rocket firing wagons, turbo fan car, plane launching car, exploding wagon, satellite launcher, helicopter launcher...

 

 

Not to mention other 'normal' wagons such as the giraffe car and mail coach. 

 

 How well battlespace etc actually sold I don't know

 

 

No, none of those items interested me!

[Andy Hayter]

12 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Surely Hornby Dublo's biggest draw back WAS the 3 rail? OK perhaps it worked slightly better (more reliable pick up), but it looked like no railway.

 

 

 

 

I too criticised that point, but on reflection perhaps it is not that simple.

 

Maerklin was also a 3 rail system (and to all intents and purposes still is although they use studs now rather than a hard rail) and yet they have not only survived, but still hold about 2/3rds of the DACH market.  (DACH - D Germany; A Austria; CH Switzerland).

[GoingUnderground]

6 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

An aside, what was the problem with the 2 rail Bo-Bo? I assume they kept the two traction tyres on one axle arrangement of the three rail version? and the high level bogie pivots?

 

Everyone else solved the problem by having a traction tyre on each axle of the power bogie and picking up from the other wheels; the other bogie providing the return path.

 

 

I do not have first hand experience, so I can only quote what Michael Foster said about it in his book on Hornby Dublo:

 

"In 3-rail, even with rubber tyred traction on one pair of main drivers, the locomotove was very successful and sold in its thousands, bur come the 2-rail version No. D8017 in February 1959, Meccano had t oadmit the only failure in their range. In May 1960 the Secretary of teh Hornby Railway Company wrote i nthe Meccano Magazine that it was absolutely essential to see that the rails and the wheels of the 2-rail locomotives were in a thoroughly clean condition and stressed that the instruction book should be read to the letter. He went on that it was particularly necessary that no oil found its way to the rubber tyres that were fitted to one pair of the driving wheels on the motor bogie as the tyres stretch in service and uneven running might result if sufficient attention was not given to this point. Also that any irregularity in the running surface caused by the tyres in this condition could affect the necessary contact between the rails and the wheels. The whole problem was the current collection." He goes on to give more details with which I won't bore you all.  

[GoingUnderground]

3 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

I too criticised that point, but on reflection perhaps it is not that simple.

 

Maerklin was also a 3 rail system (and to all intents and purposes still is although they use studs now rather than a hard rail) and yet they have not only survived, but still hold about 2/3rds of the DACH market.  (DACH - D Germany; A Austria; CH Switzerland).

Maerklin is a 3 conductor system same as Dublo, they call it in German "drei Leiter" or "3L". If you look at Maerklin track in its various incarnations since they changed from rail to studs, the studs are much less visually intrusive than the continuous silver-coloured centre rail Dublo used. That is probably just one of the reasons why they thrived in the face of 2 rail offerings from German Trix from the early 1950s through to the 1990s and from other continental European manufacturers.

[Mike_Walker]

Here's a glimpse of Network Rail's little publicised experimental stud-contact electrification on the Chiltern Line through High Wycombe.

 

 

Not a lot of people know that...  🤣 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Mike_Walker

[andyman7]

7 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Or, perhaps al alternative summary might be that Dublo, Trix and Triang each had advantages over the other two, but that Triang had the advantage where it really counted - cost.

I think that low cost and good distribution was what positioned Triang in the fifties as the credible threat; but the killer blow was when the models started outstripping Dublo. Britannia was a sensation in 1959, maybe not having quite the weight of an HD loco but absolutely no doubt that it was a model of the real thing. The EM2; the Battle-of-Britain; the A1A; scale length Mk1 coaches - these were the killer blows because no longer was Triang 'cheap' - visually it was as good as or even better than pricier rivals. In 1963 if you wanted a scale Mk1 coach your choice was Kitmaster or Triang, there was nothing you could do with the HD one that would make up for the missing (scale) six feet in length.