Great British Locomotives

[S.A.C Martin]

Happy to help.

 

One thing I will say is that Graeme Kings V2 body shell has to be seen to be believed. Captures the look of a V2 extremely well.

 

I think my previous V2 conversion will probably be sold off to fund a few GK conversions using the latest Bachmann chassis.

 

Interestingly I notice the V2 is on the list of GBL models to come - unlikely if it's copied the Bachmann V2 to be of great help to the modeller.

 

The D11 on the other hand...

[S.A.C Martin]

 

Still working on my A4s. For quite a while my second prototype, using a Hornby chassis, was drawing ahead in the rebuild stakes, but now I've managed to do a lot of work to my first prototype, which uses a Bachmann A4 chassis, and the GBL A4 body shell and 4472 tender.

 

 

Handrails fitted all round, single chimney fitted. Nearly ready for the priming stage - a few things to sort out like adding Archer's rivets, missing access hatches and a few other bits and bobs here and there.

 

 

Otherwise, getting close to a first coat of blue, like prototype 2 with its tender.

 

 

This morning I was feeling quite down about the A4s having found out about the washout plugs, but the more I work with these cheap body shells, the better I feel. It's fun, which is the main thing. Eventually when I've finished these prototypes I'll evaluate which I liked better and make that the standard for my layout.

 

…washout plug etches…seriously thinking about this now!

[Horsetan]

....The D11 on the other hand...

Let's not tempt fate!

[Catkins]

I picked up my 2800 today, and the only thing that I can complain about is the shape of the handrail across the front of the smoke box.

I'm not to fussed about the rest of the faults with it, as it is going to become something completely different anyway.

 

How long before the Schools class 'impression' is released?

[Il Grifone]

Lets look at the standards of the 1960's : bodyshells with the detail moulded on that was separate such as pipes etc / no great regard to dimensional accuracy in many cases / very course wheels that in many cases lacked 'see-through' spokes / bufferbeam height distorted to allow for the coupling/ vehicles that were under scale length / common parts used across several models whether they were anywhere near right for the prototype or not / wheels that were the nearest in size already available / colour schemes that were somewhat fanciful / models distorted to fit an already available chassis......... yes quite good standards really compared to today.

What exactly is still in or only recently removed from the Hornby catalogue that is an actual model from the 1960's - I think if you look you will not find anything that fits that idea as any model that can trace its heritage to back then will actually be an improved version introduced in the seventies or eighties.

You are also wrong about the arrival of competition - it was the arrival of Airfix and Palitoy (Mainline) that spured Hornby into beginning improvements to their range. Lima's first steps in the British market had no effect at all as they made the mistake of making models in HO gauge - it was only after Lima made a fresh start in OO that they had any real effect and then only with diesels and some rolling stock as the steam offerings from Lima were woeful to put it mildly.

You are correct in that the 28xx descended from the old inaccurate 'Hall' (via the 'Saint') and inherited many faults as a result - this I pointed out in my original review. Incidentally the 'Hall' was introduced in 1966 as you say but was never a Triang loco - it was introduced well after the range had become Triang-Hornby.

Regards

 

Not to argue too much with your points - there is certainly a great difference with today's products, but much less so up to about 15 years ago. I'm inclined agree with assessment of Lima but both they and Hornby were forced to upgrade their 'Kings'. (I forgot to mention Mainline!)

 

Tri-ang survivors? to name a few:-

 

B12, Dean Single, CR 123, SR utility van, Mk I and GWR clerestory coaches (the later in strange liveries) and some in the Thomas range. Granted wire handrails etc. and better finish, but the increased price reflects that. (From 7/6 to around £20 for the utility van - twice as much allowing for inflation - '50s this one).

 

The standard chassis/parts and high buffer height are still with us! and as to Tri-ang and Tri-ang Hornby - the same thing IMHO ( "A rose by etc."). In any case the design of the Hall must have started while it was still Tri-ang - it uses the B12 chassis.

 

Dublo and Tri-ang (and even Trix) were competing for the same market and Dublo weren't all that much more expensive (33/6 for a Jinty and 36/- for an R1 for example). I noted at the time the sharp increase in Tri-ang prices after 1964.

 

It's true the change to 2 rail came too late - they should have started in 1938 - Trix had already shown the way with all the rails insulated for their Twin system.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

Hi All, hope you won't mind if this post goes slightly off thread for a moment.

 

Hi Keith,

Pleased to say I'm in total agreement with what you say and these were indeed the major reasons for the failure of the Hornby Dublo part of the organisation.

There was also a big problem (perceived at the time although we would not worry about it nowadays) in that the HD two rail track had a difficult to understand electrical system initially which decimated potential sales of what was otherwise a rather nice looking track for the period. It would be right to also point out that due to its fairly fine scale design that the pointwork would not allow Triang Railways items to run on it, regrettable as it was far superior looking to the crude Triang Series 3 of the day and even the later Super 4. Not till the arrival of System 6 a few years later did the 'other side' offer a finer trackage and of course by then HD had long since been swallowed and had disappeared.

The other two big factors that led to the demise of Meccano Ltd. was that Dinky Toys were produced by old fashioned and expensive methods and most lacked windows whereas the superior Corgi Toys had windows and lower production costs which regrettably Binns Road simply could not compete with.

Another factor often forgotten is that Meccano itself was suffering massive competition from the rapidly growing Lego building system. The arrival of 'Betta Builder' from Airfix (sold through Woolworths) did'nt help either.

All in all I think many would agree a great loss to our hobby - imagine if HD had continued today as a separate range and developed along the lines (pun intended!) that we have seen - perhaps its even possible to think that what we have from Bachmann could so easily have been a 21st century Hornby Dublo.

That thought begs an interesting question - had Hornby Dublo carried on and allowing for what happened to the Triang organisation, then what would today's Hornby Railways now be called I wonder.

Answers on a postcard please !!.

 

Regards to All

 

Meccano suffered from the drawback of all pioneers - Others can learn from your mistakes! Complacence from having a virtual monopoly for so long didn't help. I can remember being envious of the Tri-ang range, as there were several new locomotives every year, whereas Dublo only managed one (coupled with too many diesels and ringfield mania). Lego and slot racing cars (a short lived fad) certainly didn't help.

[S.A.C Martin]

 

More on my build here. Suffice to say, coming along with a lot still to do.

[Horsetan]

I thought Edward started life as a 2P 4-4-0, not a B12 4-6-0?

[WD0-6-0]

I thought Edward started life as a 2P 4-4-0, not a B12 4-6-0?

I thought it was the D49 as Hornbys Edward model is LNER in shape (like the B12) and a 4-4-0 (like the 2P) and the D49 sits quite nicely inbetween, an LNER 4-4-0 suitably modified to look (nothing) like Edward. A quick google later and I'm even more confident that its a modified D49 but could be wrong.

Rhys

Edited April 7, 2014 by WD0-6-0

[edcayton]

Having looked on Wiki, I am now convinced that Edward was based on the D49-presumably the old tender drive version.

 

Ed

[WD0-6-0]

Hi Ivan,

My family run an exhibition Thomas layout so I've taken quite an interest in the models - even scratchbuilding and modifying several things to fill a gap or two.

I had the privelidge to know Wilbert Awdry.

I'm sure I recall that Wilbert based Edward on a Maryport and Carlisle Railway 4-4-0 but am open to correction as my info is buried in my archives.

Hornby have made their Edward by altering the original Triang B12 tools to produce a 4-4-0 that to a child passes as Edward. We use him as is as children accept him. Not worth the effort in making something a bit closer to the book illustrations in this case.

Regards

Why alter the B12 when you have the D49. The only difference between the D49 and Edward model is the D49 has outside cylinders Edward doesn't, Edward has a much taller chimney and of course the most obvious difference the face, there are also some moulded parts that match the D49 not the B12 if the objective was a quick and cheap alteration add them. If its a shortened model I'd say it matches their older B17 more closely than the B12 but again what do that to achieve what basically looks the same (even more so to a child) as the D49 so why alter the B12 to produce something basically the same as the D49 but with 3 small differences?

Rhys

Edited April 8, 2014 by WD0-6-0

[69843]

I think that these pictures will paint a thousand words:

Edward is the old D49, with no outside valve gear or cylinders, taller chimney moved and new dome, no safety valves and a Fowler tender drive tender.

[melmerby]

 

Dublo and Tri-ang (and even Trix) were competing for the same market and Dublo weren't all that much more expensive (33/6 for a Jinty and 36/- for an R1 for example). I noted at the time the sharp increase in Tri-ang prices after 1964.

 

But wasn't the R1 a belated attempt to get into the Triang Market, using a plastic bodyshell?

IIRC the HD version of the E3001/2 electric loco was more expensive than the Triang one (using virtually the same bodyshell but a different chassis)

 

What about comparing the costs of a die-cast HD Duchess and a plastic Triang Princess? (I don't have the figures)

 

Keith

[Il Grifone]

The B12 was retooled as I described to improve it and add separate handrails.

The Dean Single and Caledonian 123 were both given new updated and improved chassis.

SR utility van improved with new bogies.

Mk.1 coaches extensively re-tooled to remove moulded lines from sides and too fit flush glazing.

Clerestory coaches given better though still incorrect bogies.

All of the above vastly improved in standard of finish.

The Hall was not under development when the range was Triang - the development time in those days was not that long.

You have compared the cost of Triang and Hornby Dublo locomotives on an uneven field - the jinty was a main range loco whilst the R1 was developed by HD specifically as (in their terms) a 'cheap' starter locomotive to try and compete. Why not compare the Triang Britannia with an HD Castle or West Country to give a more even comparison and then you can see the truth of the fact that the two ranges were in different parts of the market as pointed out by another poster.

Trix was hardly any competition as its range was crude and underscale.

Hornby Dublo was never the holder of a monopoly as there was the Trix range mentioned plus Graham Farish and several smaller manufacturers such as Kirdon, Hamblings and the various kit suppliers.

The Thomas range can hardly be counted as its not part of the mainstream and it was a deliberate decision to use older one piece items often modified (for instance the basis of James is the old LMS 3F much altered and Edward is a cleverly altered B12) to provide the required strength for child use.

Incidentally Edward was produced by altering the old Triang B12 moulding not the newer improved tooling which rather proves a point regarding that suggested example  does it not.

 

AFAIK (I don't have a later one to compare) the B12 moulding is still basically the same. The chassis is certainly  hardly changed (wheels and cheapo Chinese motor excepted). I was not aware that the R1 was specifically a 'starter loco. It was the basic tank engine, replacing the venerable N2 in the 2 rail range The 2 rail N2 arrived later on. I would agree that a Dublo 'Castle' was about 30-40% more than a Tri-ang 'Britannia', but to say they are not aimed at the same market would be like saying a genuine 'Barbie' and the pound shop copy are not both toys.

 

Trix were always considerably more expensive than Dublo - their 'Scotsman' was about £10 compared to about £4 for a Dublo express engine. The later Trix products were considerably better, but still more expensive than Dublo. The different scale is irrelevant, but their choice of 1:80 was a serious commercial mistake IMHO.

 

I didn't intend that Dublo held a monopoly but Meccano Ltd in general. Meccano had a few competitors (Märklin and Trix (the name comes from Tri-X from the 3 rows of holes in their strips - you could say they're German and don't count*), but Hornby trains and Dinky Toys were the name for these to the extent of having passed into the English language like 'Hoover'. In any case I doubt that Farish etc. caused much distress in the Binns Road Boardroom (or Margate either).

 

I believe the later bogies fitted to the old Triang coaches date back to the Tri-ang era (or at least Tri-ang/Hornby) when the pinpoint axles were introduced and removing a few moulded lines hardly counts as extensive retooling. The incorrectly sized windows of the MK Is remained and, while I would agree about the improved finish, the price has doubled in real terms to pay for it. I gather that it was intended to fit flush windows at the start but the idea was abandoned. Likewise the clerestories and utility van received little modification

 

I would also contend that the 'Hall was first planned in the Tri-ang era. To appear in the 1966 catalogue for release later that year, it had to be projected in 1965, the year that Tri-ang became Tri-ang/Hornby.

 

* German didn't count to the extent of Trix items being marked 'foreign' on the parts made in Germany (eg the Scotsman Chassis - shared with the Trix Express 01)

 

Probably the current name of Hornby, in the event of Meccano Ltd.'s survival, would still be Tri-ang, as it is unlikely that Lines Bros. would have failed in that situation (Rovex and Minic are alternatives).

[Il Grifone]

But wasn't the R1 a belated attempt to get into the Triang Market, using a plastic bodyshell?

IIRC the HD version of the E3001/2 electric loco was more expensive than the Triang one (using virtually the same bodyshell but a different chassis)

 

What about comparing the costs of a die-cast HD Duchess and a plastic Triang Princess? (I don't have the figures)

 

Keith

 

The main cost of the R1 was the tooling which AFAIK differs little whether for mazak or plastic. Certainly the chassis shows cost cutting measures - the existing ½" motor and wheels and coupling rods from the N2. For the E3001/2 the difference lies in the chassis being pure Triang and undoubtedly more economical than the Dublo one (I'll try and find the Tri-ang price but Tri-ang's practice of separate (and easily lost) price lists in their catalogues means that they are not all that easy to come by.

 

1960s prices for the Dublo City £4/1/6 (Castle £4/8/6 and E3002 £3/15/-) and for  the Tri-ang green Princess £3/1/6 and Britannia £3/3/-.

 

As I said previously about £3 for the Tri-ang and £4 for the Dublo (I won't comment on the quality of the Princess model which seems to have been copied from the pre-war Trix Twin version rather than the prototype.)

[melmerby]

Well

 

My E3002 cost me 67/6d when I bought it (the price was pencilled on the box)

(I got £100 for it when I sold it about 8 years ago even though it was well worn.-

It did still have it's box and guarantee slip and oiling instructions with it.)

 

Keith

Edited April 8, 2014 by melmerby

[S.A.C Martin]

Has anyone actually had a go at modding one of the 28xx yet? I'm curious to see what, if anything, it could be used for. Saw one this afternoon in Canary Wharf and it didn't float my boat to be honest. Not a GWR man anyway but the taper of that boiler and the length of the firebox was a definite put off.

[Catkins]

Has anyone actually had a go at modding one of the 28xx yet? I'm curious to see what, if anything, it could be used for. Saw one this afternoon in Canary Wharf and it didn't float my boat to be honest. Not a GWR man anyway but the taper of that boiler and the length of the firebox was a definite put off.

I'm waiting until the Schools comes out, and then I'm going to look at putting the Schools cab on the 2800, once done it will be painted a nice Post Office Red, with a home made tender, and hopefully I will plan a way to motorise it.

 

What adhesive do you use when you stick all your bits back together?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Catkins

[Il Grifone]

The B12 was extensively modified and from 1996 was fitted with separate wire handrails - it was also the first ex Margate model to be made in China.

The R1 was developed by Hornby Dublo for a specific reason as stated.

The quote below is from the authorative work on HD by Michael Foster - The Hornby Companion Series Vol.3. :

(quote) The Hornby Dublo works were stuck with the dilemma of maintaining the quality achieved, particularly in the preceding few years whilst introducing a relatively cheap model in 2-rail to try and win back the increasing sales of the Triang Company with the junior enthusiast. As a model the R1 was an exceptionally good and popular choice' (unquote).

Hornby Dublo was NEVER aimed at the same market as Triang. The latter was aimed squarely at the toy market whereas HD was aimed at the 'serious' model railway enthusiast.

 

Once again you do not compare like for like when mentioning Trix. The Trix range was by and large a much cruder and underscale range. you say the scale was irrelevant and then say that to use 1 : 80 was a serious commercial mistake. It was a serious commercial mistake because modellers of the day didn't like the scale difference and didn't buy the models - that's hardly irrelevant I'd say.

As for the Trix 'Flying Scotsman' - this can hardly be considered a part of the traditional Trix range as it was a premium model made to a far higher standard, was made to proper 4mm scale and more importantly was originated after the British Trix arm had passed to other ownership and was no longer anything to do with Trix on the continent. The model suffered and ultimately became a commercial failure due to its, as you correctly say, very high cost plus other factors such as production restrictions that made it a very hard to come by item. The combination of these factors led to the failure of Thernglade Ltd., the parent company. The unfortunate side effect of this was that what would have been a superb Class 47 never made it to the market.

Your comments re the Mk.1 coaches indicate you do not understand the technicalities of plastic injection tooling - the removal of the lines along the side of the coaches involved considerable work just as it did with the Hornby Class 47 - this work involves quite some risk of damage to expensive tools.

The planning of the 'Hall' begun after the range became Triang Hornby as the model was produced in a hurry to try to arrest the decline in model railway sales. I failed in that aim.

As to the current name I do agree that a revival of Rovex or better still Minic is good and perhaps on reflection more likely that Wren.

The failure of the Lines Bros. organisation was due more to matters connected with problems in other countries rather than GB so its more than likely that failure would still have happened without the takeover of Meccano Ltd. These matters are well documented.

 

Fair enough, but I still fail to see how it can be said HD was aimed at the serious model railway enthusiast (they certainly made use of their products, but then Tri-ang's were used too), when the patent for the Peco coupling specifically divided its use between Peco for the scale market and Dublo for the toy market.

 

As regards Trix*, I intended the old Trix Twin 'Scotsman', not the later Trix 'Flying Scotsman' (perhaps I wasn't clear enough on this, but that's why I referred to 'Scotsman' and German 01 chassis), but the latter is another example of a reasonable '60s model (as is their A4 (which lives on in the Bachmann A4, though the tooling has been reworked (or replaced?). I intended the scale as irrelevant to our discussion, in that back then mixing makes was much harder than today due to incompatibilities in electrical systems and wheel and coupling standards. The latter were only really sorted out in the '70s, when (Tri-ang) Hornby** adopted Dublo's wheel standards and the awful (IMHO) tension lock coupling became universal.

 

* Trix history is complicated! ** Another name/ownership change is involved here to confuse the issue

 

The work involved on the tools does not alter the relatively minor result - a moulded line covered by lining does not detract from the end product nearly as much as over deep and wrongly positioned windows, not to mention the high ride height. In any case, modifications to the tooling do not really alter the longevity of a product. (How many variations of the Tri-ang 'Princess' are there for example?)

 

I suppose it is just possible to decide to make a model in May and have the artwork ready for the printing deadline for the catalogue issue in January, but it would be very tight. I would agree with its failure to arrest the decline in sales - it was frankly rubbish.

[Nimbus]

IIRC the HD version of the E3001/2 electric loco was more expensive than the Triang one (using virtually the same bodyshell but a different chassis)

 

I don't think the Tri-ang one got past the pattern model stage before the Meccano takeover. Then the HD body tool was modified and put into production at Margate. I do actually have a HD factory spare body, which I'd hoped to find a chassis for one day...

 

The Nim.

[S.A.C Martin]

I'm waiting until the Schools comes out, and then I'm going to look at putting the Schools cab on the 2800, once done it will be painted a nice Post Office Red, with a home made tender, and hopefully I will plan a way to motorise it.

 

What adhesive do you use when you stick all your bits back together?

 

I tend to use Loctite super glue and poly cement, dependent on the quality of the plastic. Also use green putty from Gameworkshops and Humbrol filler in combination to make the best bond and finish possible.

 

Looking forward to posting an update of my first of the GBL A4s in blue this weekend. 

[S.A.C Martin]

 

Last update on the A4s for a bit. Tender now in blue. No more pictures until I've finished it I think. Getting there.

[knobhead]

Has anyone actually had a go at modding one of the 28xx yet? I'm curious to see what, if anything, it could be used for. Saw one this afternoon in Canary Wharf and it didn't float my boat to be honest. Not a GWR man anyway but the taper of that boiler and the length of the firebox was a definite put off.

 

I've started a thread here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84486-what-to-do-with-the-gbl-28xx/

[Nimbus]

CIMG8247_1.jpg

 

Have you got an A3 breeding programme running as a sideline?

 

The Nim.

[irishmail]

Does anyone have any idea when any of the Diesel models will be released. 

Thanks