Why Did Triang Choose the L1?

[johnofwessex]

I had, OK still have, although its knackered a Triang L1

 

But why did they choose the L1?

 

Only 10 in the class and found in a restricted area - even of it was around Margate.

 

Not a bad loco by all accounts but surely a more obvious choice for a small 4-4-0 was the 2P with 138 examples and found across most of the LMS 

[Mark Saunders]

Was it not produce a chassis and see what fits after all the Jinty chassis appeared under several locomotives.

[johnofwessex]

Dimensionally both are very similar

[Steamport Southport]

It was changed into the LMS 2P just before it was discontinued. Used to have one which was replaced by the Mainline version.

 

Bought second hand from Hattons about 1980ish. It was a bit crude for the time and only lasted a couple of years in the range.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=217

 

Chassis wise I think it used the same one as the M7 but reversed.

 

 

 

Jason

[Nearholmer]

It dates back to Hornby producing a 4-4-0 for each of the Big Four in 0 in the late 1920s, County, Hunt, Compound, and L1.

 

 

This was before the Schools were built, so the L1 was the Southern’s top 4-4-0. Hornby went on to make the Schools a bit later.

 

Why all these 4-4-0? Because it is a very good wheel arrangement for tightly-curved tinplate track. They’d made a freelance one, the No.2, before these prototype-based ones, and 4-4-0 based on British locos, but made by German firms had been a staple of tinplate model railways from when they graduated above toy trains c1903.

 

Triang seem to have followed the Hornby lead when looking for an SR tender engine, and IIRC in the 1990s Triang-Hornby, or maybe it was (faux) Hornby by then, went the whole hog and produced the set of four.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Nearholmer

[JohnR]

Was it not because it was a regular class seen at Margate?

[Nearholmer]

Hornby was based in Liverpool in the 1920s.

[JohnR]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Hornby was based in Liverpool in the 1920s.

 

Triang, who chose the L1, were not. 

[sandra]

I think there were 15 locomotives in this class. This was the first Southern locomotive produced by Triang and were probably chosen because they would have been regularly seen at Margate. They also had inside cylinders so were fairly easy to manufacture. The worst part of the model was the tender which seemed to resemble a Midland tender. Was it possibly just the tender from the Triang Midland 3F?

 

The L1 did have one major advance in that it had open spoke wheels, all previous Triang locos had solid wheels with spokes moulded in low relief. What was puzzling was that it was introduced in BR Green livery which the real engines never carried. As far as I’m aware they never produced them in the correct BR lined black livery.

 

For most of their lives they worked on the South Eastern section but they did spread further later. For a period some were based at Eastleigh and worked the line from Southampton to Andover Junction and at the end of their lives many were shedded at Nine Elms where they probably did little work but there is a nice photo of one shunting at Weybridge. 

[phil_sutters]

In the late 1960s I had 3 L1s, but none stayed that way. One became a standard SDJR 2P. One was an earlier Deeley 4-4-0 - No.77 - This one never got finished. One became a Midland 2P No. 509. That one had a less than satisfactory chimney. W&H probably didn't have the correct one with a capuchon. That's where I got most of my boiler fittings, although some came from Hamblings. I still have all three but only photos of two at present.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Hornby was based in Liverpool in the 1920s.

 

I think you might be confusing Hornby, the Meccano owned company that made the 0 gauge tinplate stuff (including an L1) and then Hornby Dublo, with Triang, who produced the 00 L1 under discussion in this thread.  Triang were the company that is now called Hornby, which acquired the rights to the Hornby name when Meccano collapsed, initially as Triang Hornby and then as Hornby as we now know them, so the confusion is understandable, but when the 00 L1 was produced they had no connection whatsoever to the Meccano empire, in fact they were in direct competition with it, and I doubt very much that the 00 L1 was in any way an update of the pre-war 0 gauge tinplate L1. 

 

I could not confirm that it was chosen as a prototype often seen at Margate, but that has always been my impression.  The only other Southern engine they had at that time was the S class saddle tank, a one off, but also one that would have been familiar in the Margate area.  They also had a 2-car Southern emu, not particularly accurate but seemingly based on the -SUB series, and Stanier 8", later 9" mk1, coaches in malachite green for the L1 to haul.  By the time Winston Churchill, an Eastern Section Battle of Britain locomotive, entered the fray, they were producing the scale length mk1s in malachite, the first scale length 64' RTR coaches in the UK.

 

A 4-4-0 was not a bad idea when they introduced it, a smallish locomotive that could justifiably haul express trains and was more comfortable on tight curves than a pacific.  I would regard it as the first 'serious' RTR 00 4-4-0, preceded by the Trix Twin 'Pitchley', but that was a very crude and toy-like effort not based AFAIK on any particular prototype (though there were elements of Midland Compound to it).

 

Triang had their origins in Rovex, and that company produced the Black Princess trainset originally under it's own brand name but later under Triang's, with the first stamped tension lock couplings (Rovex's originals were hook and loop).  A Princess has been a continual feature of their catalogue from the start, a sort of tradition.  The original Rovex Black Princess in it's 'altered for Triang' form lasted a very long time in the catalogue, and was looking very dated in it's final years.  Like the Hornby Dublo A4 and Duchess, it was shortened radically from it's scale length to be able to go around 13" radius curves.  A scale length loco would have had no chance of doing this!

[Nearholmer]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I think you might be confusing Hornby, the Meccano

No, I wasn’t confusing anything with anything. 
 

I was pointing out that the L1 was first chosen by a firm in Liverpool, and I’m convinced that Triang had an eye to that lead when looking for a southern loco, as much as producing a “local engine”.

 

Richard Lines was very well switched-on to what earlier firms had made in 0 gauge. “Nellie” for instance is a zoomed-down version of Bassett Lowke’s very popular 112 tank, in turn inspired by the LSWR C14/S14 locos. RL was  much into model railway heritage and in his later years gave lots of help to researchers like Pat Hammond and took a great interest in the TCS.

 

The L1 is a good animal as a toy/model in any scale, because it is fairly plain, no outside cylinders, no smoke deflectors, great potential to share components with other models etc., and as a 4-4-0 is will squiggle round tight curves, especially with no cylinders to get in the way of the bogie.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Nearholmer

[JohnR]

Except there seems to be nothing to suggest that Triang were inspired by other models in that way. Nellie, for example was inspired by the C14, not the earlier model.

 

Richard Lines took as his inspiration the original locomotives. 

[The Johnster]

Fair enough.  Assuming that Triang wanted to make a loco to pull their green coaches and an inside cylinder 4-4-0 is, as Nearholmer said, a ’good animal’, then the L1 is probably easier to tool for than a T9, and certainly than a D, and has more room inside for the motor than an L; we are running out of suitable BR liveried inside cylindered Southern 4-4-0s now!  And it was ‘local’, though that argument only applies to the saddle tank in addition, and a company in Liverpool chose an R1 as it’s basic 0-6-0, while Triang had gone for the LMS 3F, both phenomenally popular and successful choices btw.

There is actually no reason to suggest that the L1 is a ‘local’ choice any more than there is to suggest it was inspired by the 0 gauge Hornby, and I respectfully suggest that we’ll only go around in circles arguing about it, so I’n not going to make an issue of it!

Edited January 22, 2023 by The Johnster

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

To quote from Pat Hammond's The Story of Rovex, Volume 1.

 

"When it first appeared, the L1 was criticised as being an unimaginative choice for a model but Rovex were trying to produce a Southern tender loco without the expense of pistons and valve gear. The L1 was simple and cheap".

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

Nellie, for example was inspired by the C14, not the earlier model.

As Johnster points out, we actually have no certainty what the thought process was, and Mr Lines is sadly no longer around to ask.

[2750Papyrus]

Many years ago, I picked up a rebuilt LNER Claud Hamilton at a toyfair.  Quite a decent attempt using a cut-down B12 body on the L1 chassis.  It was a steady performer but is now relegated to a cupboard by the modern Hornby model.

[JohnR]

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

As Johnster points out, we actually have no certainty what the thought process was, and Mr Lines is sadly no longer around to ask.

 

But we do have people who have spoken to RL, eg Pat Hammond. As I said, at no time has there ever been the suggestion that the inspiration for Triang's choices were Hornby tinplate O gauge models from 30 or more years earlier. 

 

The suggestion that the L1 was chosen because of its use in Kent in the 50s was repeated by Pat, who has made a big study of the history of the company. If there had been any suggestion it was because a competitor had made a crude model in a different scale decades before, he would surely have mentioned it. 

[The Johnster]

43 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

The L1 was simple and cheap".

Which is what commended it to the SECR in the first place of course. 

[Nearholmer]

Except that they were built for SR, not SECR. 

[Nearholmer]

25 minutes ago, JohnR said:

made a crude model

You’ve clearly never seen one. Crude they are not.

 

What I find highly suggestive is that when looking at the same market niches, small southern tender loco, and a universal 0-4-0 tank engine, Triang alighted on the exact same two prototypes that had filled those market niches in former times in 0. It could be a massive coincidence, but it could equally well be a case of being informed by what had worked last time round.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Nearholmer

[RJS1977]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

I think you might be confusing Hornby, the Meccano owned company that made the 0 gauge tinplate stuff (including an L1) and then Hornby Dublo, with Triang, who produced the 00 L1 under discussion in this thread.  Triang were the company that is now called Hornby, which acquired the rights to the Hornby name when Meccano collapsed, initially as Triang Hornby and then as Hornby as we now know them, so the confusion is understandable,

 

Somewhat more complex than that, even.

 

Triang didn't just buy the rights to the Hornby name, they also bought the Hornby Dublo tooling, though most of it was sold on to G&R Wrenn in fairly short order.  However I believe some HD items did make it into the combined range for a while, though fitted with Triang mechanisms rather than HD.

 

In 1972, Triang itself got into financial difficulties, and the railway range (and Scalextric) was sold to Dunbee-Combex-Marx. This was the point at which Triang-Hornby became Hornby as DCM had no agreement to use the Triang name. Of course Hornby has had  numerous more changes of ownership and management since then. 

[BernardTPM]

The only Hornby Dublo loco to get a Tri-ang mechanism was the AL1, which got the chassis for the never released Tri-ang AL2. The Co-Bo and Rebuilt West Country both appeared in the main 1966 catalogue but were existing stock with HD couplings. By 1968 a wider range of ex-HD locos and wagons were listed under the Triang/Wrenn banner.

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Somewhat more complex than that, even.

 

Triang didn't just buy the rights to the Hornby name, they also bought the Hornby Dublo tooling, though most of it was sold on to G&R Wrenn in fairly short order.  However I believe some HD items did make it into the combined range for a while, though fitted with Triang mechanisms rather than HD.

 

 

Technically, it wasn't sold to Wrenn. 18 months after acquiring Hornby, Triang also took over G&R Wrenn, and the new subsidiary were given the old Hornby tools. As a result of the difficulties that Lines Brothers got into, G&R Wrenn bought themselves out of receivership, taking the tools with them. 

[The Johnster]

On 22/01/2023 at 14:13, Nearholmer said:

Except that they were built for SR, not SECR. 

 

Er, oops, yes, so they were, my bad!  Maunsell's tenure at Ashford and the L class that these were developed from led me away from the path of righteousness...  Also, I have some sort of memory of seeing a photo of one in a wartime grey livery which I associated with WW1 for some reason.

 

They seem to have been good, practical, no-nonsense little horses, hauling the heaviest trains on the Folkestone and Dover routes for some time until Schools, King Arthurs, and eventually Bullieds took over.  The Golden Arrow was a pretty lumpy thing to try to drag around at any sort of speed, but these engines seem to have managed.  They never had the locoporn looks of the Ds, or the cachet of the Schools, but they did their jobs and turned a profit, which is as much as you can ask of any engine, and had reasonably long working lives.

 

They look like an LMS 2P with a proper cab, and the leading dimensions are similar, but BR classified them 3P.  Driving wheels an inch less in diameter, cylinders half an inch more in bore, heating area a little less in comparison with the LMS engine; everything else much the same on both.