Were any of them any good?

[The Johnster]

Just a bit of idle musing, about older RTR models.  I tend to think of them as being universally awful, poor runners, poor or missing detail, dimensional anomalies, noisy, clunky and generally of not much use to us.  'Serious' RTR, where some attention was paid to 'getting it right', originated with Airfix and Mainline in the 70s, and prior to that it was Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby in the worst of their manifestations, which included the odd idea of centre driving wheels being smaller than the outer ones and of everything being 2mm too high off the railhead (apparently something to do with the requirement of the original Rovex Black Princess to manage the bottom tranition to gradients on curves).

 

Certainly the Airfix 31, Prairie, and 14xx were a bombshell when they landed, as was the Mainline J72 and 75xxx.  Still crude by current standards, but a quantum advance on what had gone previously.  The only firm that I can recall producing stuff anywhere near this standard was Liliput Trix, and they only did LNER pacifics in any comparable form.  To the wrong scale.  Many of the Airfix/Mainline generation of models suffered with unreliable mechs, and rolling stock was crude by modern standards, but progress was made.  Mainline were the first RTR company to produce 9' wheelbase instead of generic 10'wb steel minerals, Airfix made LMS and GW coaches with the correct bogies, not generic B1s like Hornby's, and also made a stab at reducing the size of tension-lock couplings to something more recognisable to today's modellers used to NEM profile.  There was also Lima, cheap and cheerful but not horrible so long as you discount their risible attempts at steam locos.  Their couplings were abominable, though.

 

But I can remember RTR before this and there were some models I didn't think were all that bad.  None of the steam outline were much cop IIRC, but there were some less disastrous diesels.  The main drawback was the cast bogies, and there were some that were not worth the bother, like the Hornby Dublo psuedo-Deltic or the Triang Hornby 37 on the wrong bogies.  But, for your comment, here's a list of pre-1970 RTR that may not be worthy of instant dismissal and could possibly have potential for working up, not in any sort of order...

 

.Triang 31. 

.Triang Hymek

.Hornby Dublo Metrovick

.Hornby Dublo 08

.Triang EM1

.Triang/HD E3001

.Triang Hornby 25.

.HD 20. 

.Triang L1

 

Some of these turn up on the Bay of e for low prices, and may be of use to modellers on low budgets.  Now another list, the worst of the worst...

 

.Hornby Dublo A4 and Duchess

.Any 00 HD tinplate.

.Rovex Triang Princess.  In the catalogue up to the late 60s!

.Triang 3MT.  Oversize bodyshell, and those driving wheels!

.HD Deltic

.Triang LOTI and 123.  Brave marketing but let down by boiler skirts, particularly obvious on locos with small boilers and low footplates.  Hasn't stopped Hornby re-releasing LOTI, though, complete with underlength clerestories featuring such delights as no chassis, with separate piece for underframe and those B1 bogies again.

.Triang 3F, same reason.

.Triang Jinty, ditto.

.HD R1, ditto.

.HD 'super detail' coaches.  Too short (except BG) and printed tinplate, I mean, come on, it was the 60s not the 30s...

.Anything from Trix, wrong scale.

.The single most annoying and useless RTR locomotive of all time, utterly pointless, the Triang 08 on Jinty chassis.  Why, why, why???  If Triang wanted to make a 350hp shunting engine with a Jinty chassis, there were prototypes more suitable (they'd have still been well off, but at least the principle would have been observed) and the bodyshell was tall and misshapen.  And it still turns up now and then in train sets!  It is the bane of anyone doing an eBay search for 08s, as you have to wade through pages of these abominations before you get to a current production Hornby or Baccy loco.  I hate it!

 

I was, back in those days, in awe of HD Walcheart's valve gear but less impressed with the stamped metal on the 4MT and 8F.  All HD steam engines were spoiled by the motor in the cab, but it seemed worst on the Castle.  The 8F is a conundrum; I can't in all honesty approve of it with that stamped valve gear, motor-filled cab, overscale handrails and the boiler skirts, but it feels more like it's prototype than any other model I have ever come across, it has the soul of a Stanier 8F somehow.  I think it's the superb black finish and the rivets, especially on the tender, and just the way it moves... 

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

  The 8F is a conundrum; I can't in all honesty approve of it with that stamped valve gear, motor-filled cab, overscale handrails and the boiler skirts, but it feels more like it's prototype than any other model I have ever come across, it has the soul of a Stanier 8F somehow.  I think it's the superb black finish and the rivets, especially on the tender, and just the way it moves... 

 

 

 

So, is it prototypical, or unprototypical?

 

[jjb1970]

A lot of older models were pretty good. They lacked the detail and features we take for granted, incorporated far more compromises and could be rather basic but Airfix and Mainline did some excellent models which can still be operated alongside new alternatives without being embarrassed. The Mainline Mk.1 restaurant was a great model for its day and the Warship soldiered on for decades and after being given a new mechanism by Bachmann remained a good model. The GWR Autocoach was nicely done and although the 14xx looks basic today it is still a good option for those on a budget.

In the 80's Lima did some excellent models in terms of basic shape. The Class 47 is still an excellent, if basic, representation of a Class 47 and captured the look of the type extremely well. The 73 was another one they did extremely well. 

Such models provide a low cost alternative for those who find new RTR too expensive or for those looking for modelling projects to detail up and improve.

[Nearholmer]

For their time, many of the HD models were truly excellent, and I honestly think they still stand up very well, not necessarily in photo-dimensional accuracy terms, but in terms of conveying “railwayness”, in a way that modern models often don’t. Added to which, they ran well, and were robust at all levels. 
 

Thinking back to the mid-70s, it was the Wrenn/HD models that I wanted (and couldn’t afford), so they were clearly ‘best’ in my mind, and although the more hi-fi things that were released just after that were ‘better’ in some ways, they weren’t truly marvellous, because they weren’t very smooth runners. It took a long while to get to hi-fi and smooth running in one box.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Any 00 HD tinplate

 

There's a recent thread featuring Hornby Dublo tinplate Mk1s and they looked pretty good to me.  In fact, a quick search for HD carriages shows quite a variety of well-proportioned and convincing models.

 

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Rovex Triang Princess.  In the catalogue up to the late 60s!

 

Actually around well into the 70s. 

 

[jjb1970]

An aspect of models that tends to be overlooked is how well they can withstand being used on a layout. Some models give people anxiety just getting them out of the box, some don't need much to distort conn rods and valve gear enough to cause problems. Superfine detail is great until it starts falling off as a model trundles round a layout. For operability there's something to be said for simpler but robust models.

[MarkSG]

The Mainline J72 was the first loco I ever bought with my own money. It was, at the time, a huge advance on the motley collection of Triang and Hornby locos that I'd acquired as gifts up to that point.

 

I've still got it, although it's a non-runner now - the bushes on the motors had a reputation for wearing out, and on about the third time I needed to replace one I lost a spring as well. But that was about the same time that I left home and my model collection had to be packed away into storage boxes at mum and dad's house, so by the time I eventually repossessed them all I'd  moved on. Maybe one day I will get it running again, just for nostalgia, although I'm not sure now where I'd get the spares from.

 

I do still have one item of rolling stock from that era which is still in use on the layout today, though. That's a Mainline 14t tank wagon in Royal Daylight livery. Even now, that's still a lovely model, despite being a bit generic, and it was still in Bachmann's catalogue until only a few years ago. 

[The Johnster]

22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Any 00 HD tinplate

 

There's a recent thread featuring Hornby Dublo tinplate Mk1s and they looked pretty good to me.  In fact, a quick search for HD carriages shows quite a variety of well-proportioned and convincing models.

 

They are not even scale length, something Triang achieved in the early 60s.  A coach of reasonably correct height and width that is a full 10% under correct length can hardly be said to be well proportioned!  And the relief of a coach side, the disruption of the smoothness by door hinges, handles, sliding window ventilators, &c is important to the overall effect; even the Rovex shorties, which were unapologetic toys, had that. Where they did score was on the flushness of the windows and the liveries, which were superb; Triang’s scale length coaches wer hopeless in those respects, and in fact Triang and their successors with Hornby branding have only relatively recently got to grips with them. 
 

The worst ever for window flushness had to be the Lima attempts, though.  Lima were a curate’s egg, good in parts; plastic injection detail they were superb at, steam locos below the running plates not so much
 

Nearholmer makes a good point about the ‘railwayness’ of HD, which I think is connected to what I was alluding to in my comments about the 8F, but a model that is as badly off the correct size as those coaches were has to be on my naughty list. 
 

He also makes a good point about hi-fi and smooth running in the same box.  The problem, IMHO, was rooted in those awful pancake motors and plastic gears, all too often visible and drawing attention to themselves in motion, and we all know how reliable they were; the old open frame motors and worm/cog drives were much better but had become too expensive to produce.  Diesel mechs had progressed from this in new toolings by the 90s, but steam had to wait for the move to China, which seemed to coincide with the use of can motors mounted level and separated from the driving wheels by an idler reduction gear driven by a worm on the motor shaft, robust and smooth-running.  
 

But the models I was referring to pre-date the Airfix/Mainline/Lima generation, by which time scale dimensions and proportions had been more or less got to grips with.  Some of those older models have not been replicated since their demise, and I wonder if anyone wanting an R1, L1, or an EM1 would be considering working up from the old Triang or HD models as starting points.  The old Triang Weltrol and small breakdown crane probably still cut the mustard as well!
 

 

 

[31A]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Hornby Dublo A4 and Duchess

 

I'm a bit surprised you put these in a "worst" category.  I know many people have used the die cast bodies to make scale models that stand up well even with today's models; the Duchess in particular, and it also had fully working (albeit slightly chunky) Walschaerts valve gear, which is something we rarely see even on today's 'fine scale' models.  By which I mean, the radius rod and valve rod moved, as they did on the Standard 4 Tank and the 8F.

I also like the HD 'SD' coaches, shortness notwithstanding, and think the combination of detailed plastic ends, roof and underframe with tin printed sides gave a better representation of smooth sided coaches than the Triang ones with their over thick window recesses.  In the past modellers sometimes added wire door handles and grab handles which almost puts them on a par with modern etched sides.

[The Johnster]

22 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I'm a bit surprised you put these in a "worst" category.  I know many people have used the die cast bodies to make scale models that stand up well even with today's models; the Duchess in particular, and it also had fully working (albeit slightly chunky) Walschaerts valve gear, which is something we rarely see even on today's 'fine scale' models.  By which I mean, the radius rod and valve rod moved, as they did on the Standard 4 Tank and the 8F.

I also like the HD 'SD' coaches, shortness notwithstanding, and think the combination of detailed plastic ends, roof and underframe with tin printed sides gave a better representation of smooth sided coaches than the Triang ones with their over thick window recesses.  In the past modellers sometimes added wire door handles and grab handles which almost puts them on a par with modern etched sides.

How can you make a scale model out of something so disproportionately short?  I agree about the motion, though, it was awesome for 1938, and ran like a sewing machine!  They were every bit as out of proportion as the Rovex Princess, which TTBOMK was the first RTR loco with cab detail!

 

This is all taking me back to the tribal Triang vs HD playground arguments of my childhood.  My main objection to HD then was that it was incompatible with my Triang layout and I couldn’t use it, both ranges had their positives and negatives, but I’d have sold my granny for a HD Cardiff Castle!

 

HD’s ‘super detail’ wagon range were pretty good for the time, though, and I reckon some of the body toolings would pass muster even now; I’m thinking of the Mk1 horsebox and the 5-planker hyfit in particular.  I think the latter still exists in the Dapol range acquired from Wrenn, but the chassis tooling lets it down and needs replacing with something with separate handbrake levers.  Dap also preserve the steel-bodied hyfit, but the sides are too high, which is perhaps why they sell it with a coal load…

Edited September 13, 2023 by The Johnster

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Just a bit of idle musing, about older RTR models.  I tend to think of them as being universally awful, poor runners, poor or missing detail, dimensional anomalies, noisy, clunky and generally of not much use to us.  'Serious' RTR, where some attention was paid to 'getting it right', originated with Airfix and Mainline in the 70s, and prior to that it was Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby in the worst of their manifestations, which included the odd idea of centre driving wheels being smaller than the outer ones and of everything being 2mm too high off the railhead (apparently something to do with the requirement of the original Rovex Black Princess to manage the bottom tranition to gradients on curves).

 

Certainly the Airfix 31, Prairie, and 14xx were a bombshell when they landed, as was the Mainline J72 and 75xxx.  Still crude by current standards, but a quantum advance on what had gone previously.  The only firm that I can recall producing stuff anywhere near this standard was Liliput Trix, and they only did LNER pacifics in any comparable form.  To the wrong scale.  Many of the Airfix/Mainline generation of models suffered with unreliable mechs, and rolling stock was crude by modern standards, but progress was made.  Mainline were the first RTR company to produce 9' wheelbase instead of generic 10'wb steel minerals, Airfix made LMS and GW coaches with the correct bogies, not generic B1s like Hornby's, and also made a stab at reducing the size of tension-lock couplings to something more recognisable to today's modellers used to NEM profile.  There was also Lima, cheap and cheerful but not horrible so long as you discount their risible attempts at steam locos.  Their couplings were abominable, though.

 

But I can remember RTR before this and there were some models I didn't think were all that bad.  None of the steam outline were much cop IIRC, but there were some less disastrous diesels.  The main drawback was the cast bogies, and there were some that were not worth the bother, like the Hornby Dublo psuedo-Deltic or the Triang Hornby 37 on the wrong bogies.  But, for your comment, here's a list of pre-1970 RTR that may not be worthy of instant dismissal and could possibly have potential for working up, not in any sort of order...

 

.Triang 31. 

.Triang Hymek

.Hornby Dublo Metrovick

.Hornby Dublo 08

.Triang EM1

.Triang/HD E3001

.Triang Hornby 25.

.HD 20. 

.Triang L1

 

Some of these turn up on the Bay of e for low prices, and may be of use to modellers on low budgets.  Now another list, the worst of the worst...

 

.Hornby Dublo A4 and Duchess

.Any 00 HD tinplate.

.Rovex Triang Princess.  In the catalogue up to the late 60s!

.Triang 3MT.  Oversize bodyshell, and those driving wheels!

.HD Deltic

.Triang LOTI and 123.  Brave marketing but let down by boiler skirts, particularly obvious on locos with small boilers and low footplates.  Hasn't stopped Hornby re-releasing LOTI, though, complete with underlength clerestories featuring such delights as no chassis, with separate piece for underframe and those B1 bogies again.

.Triang 3F, same reason.

.Triang Jinty, ditto.

.HD R1, ditto.

.HD 'super detail' coaches.  Too short (except BG) and printed tinplate, I mean, come on, it was the 60s not the 30s...

.Anything from Trix, wrong scale.

.The single most annoying and useless RTR locomotive of all time, utterly pointless, the Triang 08 on Jinty chassis.  Why, why, why???  If Triang wanted to make a 350hp shunting engine with a Jinty chassis, there were prototypes more suitable (they'd have still been well off, but at least the principle would have been observed) and the bodyshell was tall and misshapen.  And it still turns up now and then in train sets!  It is the bane of anyone doing an eBay search for 08s, as you have to wade through pages of these abominations before you get to a current production Hornby or Baccy loco.  I hate it!

 

I was, back in those days, in awe of HD Walcheart's valve gear but less impressed with the stamped metal on the 4MT and 8F.  All HD steam engines were spoiled by the motor in the cab, but it seemed worst on the Castle.  The 8F is a conundrum; I can't in all honesty approve of it with that stamped valve gear, motor-filled cab, overscale handrails and the boiler skirts, but it feels more like it's prototype than any other model I have ever come across, it has the soul of a Stanier 8F somehow.  I think it's the superb black finish and the rivets, especially on the tender, and just the way it moves... 

 

 

Good morning,

 

The Trix (later Lilliput) models of LNER Pacifics were to 4mm scale (it's the likes of the die-cast Standard Five, Britannia and the plastic Mk. 1 carriages which were to a smaller scale). In fact, the Trix/Lilliput A4 body became the basis for the Bachmann A4 later on.

 

Although to 4mm scale, the Trix LNER Pacifics weren't particularly good, mechanically (a friend and I visited Trix's base in Wrexham many times, trying to get a good-running A3). An A4 I had, crabbed and wobbled in an alarming way, and, though the A2 had prodigious haulage power, its German chassis had nothing like an A2's motion. As for banjo domes on a BR A3 and the A2, and corridor tenders behind FLYING SCOTSMAN in BR days and behind A H PEPPERCORN, well! 

 

That said, the Trix/Lilliput/Bachmann A4 bodies weren't bad at all. Good enough, in fact..........

 

 

To be used as a basis for my 60034 on Little Bytham (South Eastern Finecast frames and tender, painted by Ian Rathbone). 

 

 

And, good enough for the late Roy Jackson to make 60027 for use on Retford. 

 

As for the Hornby Dublo 8F (not all of which had Ringfield motors filling the cab - earlier ones had standard motors, as did the Castles), the late David Jenkinson stripped one down completely, made EM frames for it for use on his (abandoned) 'Little Long Drag', detailed and repainted it to transform it into a very-accurate model.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Tony Wright
tautology

[The White Rabbit]

Of my collection, a Lima class 33 and a 31 stand out. The 33 probably dates from the 70s (I bought it second hand) and is virtually bullet proof. It not only survived a three foot fall onto concrete, it did so without any discernible damage! It would pull me across the room if I put on free rolling skates and from a few feet away looks fine. If I ever have a garden railway, it's going to be ideal. 

 

The 31 is younger but still an 'old' model. Mechanically it's excellent. I compare it to my Hornby 31 (now a victim of Mazak rot and Hornby refuse to help, so it's in the scrapyard, pah) and in terms of detail it's definitely not as good but not so much so that it's the ugly sister. I've operated it at exhibitions in the distant past and it ran faultlessly. Despite the wheels getting so mucky my co-operator (who had a wheel cleaning kit) thought I had put traction tyres on it! 

 

I also have an early Bachmann J72, again, nice model. The only sign of age is the LNER lettering and tank lining is coming off on one side. 

[Mike Buckner]

5 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The Mainline Mk.1 restaurant was a great model

 

I agree - still have one, and it's a favourite. Some will say the window pillars are too deep/thick, and I understand the objection, but somehow to me it looks "right",  this feature of prototype Mk1 coaches standing out at platform level, and being 'too inconspicuous' on 'accurate' models - to my eye, at any rate.

 

They are let down by the plastic wheels. Can anyone suggest a method of substituting metal wheels in this coach?

[Poor Old Bruce]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Mainline were the first RTR company to produce 9' wheelbase instead of generic 10'wb steel minerals,

 

Really!!! I thought that was Bachmann around 1998.

[Steamport Southport]

Personally I wouldn't bother with anything pre 1975 unless it was in perfect condition and collectable. I have no nostalgia for them or connection to them. Thankfully most of the old relics had gone by the time I was buying models.

 

Post 1975? Yep. Mainline, Airfix and the better models from Lima and Hornby still have a place IMHO. Many still scrub up well.

 

Two of the worst models post 1975 was the short lived Hornby Sir Dinadan and the Ivatt 2MT. Hornby's catalogue picture of Sir Dinadan was in the dark so I think they knew it was a bit rubbish!

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=37

 

I would have also said the J83, but the main problem with that was it used the old chassis. Replaced by the J52 pretty quickly. They put in on a newer chassis a few years back which improved things significantly and is fine for a Railroad standard model.

 

 

Jason

 

[Mark Saunders]

15 minutes ago, Mike Buckner said:

 

I agree - still have one, and it's a favourite. Some will say the window pillars are too deep/thick, and I understand the objection, but somehow to me it looks "right",  this feature of prototype Mk1 coaches standing out at platform level, and being 'too inconspicuous' on 'accurate' models - 

When it was released it was a major leap forward and I bought two of them and eagerly awaited more only for Palitoy to for bust and the range died! Still not done anything with my pair.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It's largely wagons where the 'old stuff' from Triang and Hornby-Dublo still has something to offer. Triang managed the Weltrol and LNER bogie brick wagon, and H-D the Blue Spot fish van, this last looking better than the current Hornby product. Worked up on the running gear side and with bogie pivot concealment as required, these are still useful. The Weltrol can be carved up to produce other of the LMS/LNER shared design heavy wagons of the 1930s, much easier than trying to fabricate the framing.

 

The H-D 8F , captures the character so well. Now the bodies are cheap, proper traction can be obtained from the current Hornby mechanism by giving it a full metal jacket. 

 

46 minutes ago, Mike Buckner said:

Mainline Mk.1 restaurant are let down by the plastic wheels. Can anyone suggest a method of substituting metal wheels in this coach?

Probably simplest to attach new bogies, mine got the sole pair of Trix Commonwealths I had retained, fitted with 14mm pinpoint axle replacement wheels.

 

But it's the Airfix GMR product that stands out for me from the 1970s, an N2 that still looks like an N2, and the useful wagon selection.

 

After that the Replica B1 was the next stand out, before the general transition to manufacture in China.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
Somehow posted it before I had finished blathering

[Steamport Southport]

7 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

But it's the Airfix GMR product that stands out for me from the 1970s, an N2 that still looks like an N2, and the useful wagon selection.

 

After that the Replica B1 was the next stand out, before the general transition to manufacture in China.

 

 

 

 

Didn't come out until 1982 and was first released in a Mainline box as was the Dean Goods. Still got mine.

 

http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/LocomotivesA.htm

 

 

I managed to get the very rare LMS 2P in a Mainline box, most of them were sold box less, then issued in Dapol boxes. They came into stock just as Mainline was pulled by the owners General Mills.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning,

 

The Trix (later Lilliput) models of LNER Pacifics were to 4mm scale (it's the likes of the die-cast Standard Five, Britannia and the plastic Mk. 1 carriages which were to a smaller scale). In fact, the Trix/Lilliput A4 body became the basis for the Bachmann A4 later on.

 

Although to 4mm scale, the Trix LNER Pacifics weren't particularly good, mechanically (a friend and I visited Trix's base in Wrexham many times, trying to get a good-running A3). An A4 I had, crabbed and wobbled in an alarming way, and, though the A2 had prodigious haulage power, its German chassis had nothing like an A2's motion. As for banjo domes on a BR A3 and the A2, and corridor tenders behind FLYING SCOTSMAN in BR days and behind A H PEPPERCORN, well! 

 

That said, the Trix/Lilliput/Bachmann A4 bodies weren't bad at all. Good enough, in fact..........

 

 

To be used as a basis for my 60034 on Little Bytham (South Eastern Finecast frames and tender, painted by Ian Rathbone). 

 

 

And, good enough for the late Roy Jackson to make 60027 for use on Retford. 

 

As for the Hornby Dublo 8F (not all of which had Ringfield motors filling the cab - earlier ones had standard motors, as did the Castles), the late David Jenkinson stripped one down completely, made EM frames for it for use on his (abandoned) 'Little Long Drag', detailed and repainted it to transform it into a very-accurate model.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

You’re right; those two A4s look brilliant!

 

43 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

It's largely wagons where the 'old stuff' from Triang and Hornby-Dublo still has something to offer. Triang managed the Weltrol and LNER bogie brick wagon, and H-D the Blue Spot fish van, this last looking better than the current Hornby product.

 

I’d forgotten the Triang bogie brick, and another possible good one, the Murgatroyd chlorine bogie tanker.  HD’s GW Mica scrubs up pretty good as well.  I’d say the Fruit D, but it is a bit wide; still available from Dapol’s ex-Wrenn collection!   Had one for a very long time, now replaced with a Parkside. 
 

43 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The H-D 8F , captures the character so well. Now the bodies are cheap, proper traction can be obtained from the current Hornby mechanism by giving it a full metal jacket. 

Ok, you’ve both convinced me, the 8F comes out of the naughty list in into the good stuff. 
 

[Torper]

I loved the old HD "super detailed" tinplate coaches and, for that matter, still do.  When they were produced they were just so much better than anything else at that time; sure, they were a bit short, but the livery was excellent, they really looked as though they were made of metal (many RTR coaches still look a bit as though they're made of plastic) and they had flush windows that remain unmatched in the world of 4mm RTR.  The interiors were pretty good too.  In fact, I liked tham so much that I recenyy super-super detailed three of them which had gone a bit rusty in places - drilled holes for handrails and door handles, stripped the old paint off in the ultrasonic bath, rubbed down the rust, applied primer, then crimson and cream livery, lining and new handrails and door handles.  And they look very good - possibly the only rake of HD super detail coaches running in P4!  As to length, run them together and you won't notice.  A bit like  00 track - model it well and you won't really notice that it's underscale.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

...another possible good one, the Murgatroyd chlorine bogie tanker...

Never owned one and don't have a drawing. Can anyone with that combination to hand confirm its accuracy or otherwise? ( The Triang bogie brick body is a proper scale item, and the diamond frame bogie castings weren't far off.)

[The Johnster]

This topic’s generated a lot more interest than I expected, which is gratifying!  I really meant pre-1970s pre-Airfix/Mainline RTR, which I consider is generally dismissed by ‘serious’ modellers, often for very good reasons.  If you look at from the pov of someone short of cash, or with a collection of old stuff they want to work up to ‘layout model standard, my feeling is that anything with a dimensionally accurate bodyshell is not a hopeless case, but a consideration on older RTR steam toolings is the one-piece bodyshell, which requires a lot of awkward butchery to get rid of the boiler skirts and the unwanted blobbymouldy parts of the splashers.  
 

This is one of the reasons the HD 8F is, as has been pointed out by better modellers than me, such a good basis for a workup; there are no splashers!  Sadly, the equally splasher-challenged Triang Britannia and Winston Churchill have too many other issues to escape the ‘useless rubbish’ category (though the Bullied chassis with a plastic kit Kitmaster/Airfix sitting on top was pretty effective if you could get the Triang crosshead to sit in the kit slidebars, lubricated with pencil graphite, a tip that I think I got from ‘Airfix Magazine’, good for all sorts of modelling technique suggestions). 
 

I wonder when anyone will out a positive word in for my favourite, the Triang pseudo-08!  Useless pile of cra…!

[Steamport Southport]

The Spamcan wasn't that bad IMHO. It certainly captured the look.

 

Hornby revamped it in the 1980s as Spitfire and shows that with a "better" paint job some of them looked fine. Picture borrowed from Hattons.

 

 

 

Obviously the newer version puts it firmly in it's place and even that is seen as dated now.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

31 minutes ago, Torper said:

As to length, run them together and you won't notice.  A bit like  00 track - model it well and you won't really notice that it's underscale.

 You will, or rather I would, notice as soon as they encountered any other coaches on the layout that were the correct length.  Worked as you describe and running through open countryside with no other passenger trains about, I agree they’d look ok.

 

As to track gauge, I notice the discrepancy all day and every day but live with it because I lack the modelling ability to do anything about it…  In broadside on viewing it is a little less apparent, but I know it’s there!

[KeithMacdonald]

I still have a Triang Hymek and a Triang/HD E3001

 

On my layout, they are in a special static "Heritage Railway Museum", tucked at the back. On a barely-visible length of Triang steel track. They can't got anywhere on the rest of the Peco steamline track, because the Triang wheel flanges are so big they bump along the Peco track. 😄