GoingUnderground

You mean "Premiata Forneria Marconi", better known in the UK as PFM? A great band.

Any debate about OO cannot be carried out without reference to what was happening in the rest of Europe and in particular in Germany. Trix and Maerklin both launched their 16mm gauge systems in 1935 and both called them 00 not OO as "name" was derived from the fact that the existing gauges, in order of diminishing size were given numbers and were 3, 2, 1, and 0 (zero not the letter "O"). Hence 00 was meant to indicate smaller than 0 gauge. The scale of these German 00 models was slightly elastic but is approximately what we know today as H0. Maerklin and Trix continued to call their 3.5mm:1ft models 00 after WW2. Maerklin started using H0 instead of 00 in their 1950 Katalog and German Trix appeared to do likewise, their 1951/52 German Katalog describes their models as "H0 (00)". This change in nomenclature probably arose as part of the move amongst continental European manufacturers to establish common standards and use H0 for 1:87 scale, presumably to avoid confusion with UK OO which had become 4mm scale on 3.5mm scale track, or American OO which was different again. Back in 1938, Hornby/Meccano wouldn't have called their system H0 or refer to it being H0 as that wasn't in common use until a over a decade later. So I'm not in the least surprised that they called it "Dublo" using the letter O when referring to the number 0 as that was what Maerklin called their system (00) and Dublo had an awful lot in common with Maerklin products of that era. Thus, I'm inclined to go with the view that UK OO was an accident caused by the problems associated with getting motors and running gear to fit in to UK outline body shells made to 3.5mm scale. Whilst the rest of Europe and the USA changed to using the H0 (half Zero) name for 1:87 scale, retaining the OO name in the UK was just a recognition of the fact that we were using a different scale/track gauge combination to Europe and the USA.

Except that the total of the individual items in the breakdown doesn't add up to the total reputational score. It seems to add up to less than the total at least in the ones that I've looked at.

It's not just "generally similar", as today's set track uses exactly the same basic geometry, i.e. track length, curved track radii and arc lengths and the same 3 standard radii for curved track 371, 438 and 505mm as Super 4, and the range of track pieces very closely matches what was available under Super 4. 4th radius was only introduced some years after Super 4 was discontinued, as were the curved points which incidentally use the Super 4 438mm 2nd radius and could have been made in Super 4. I did look at whether it was possible to modify Super 4 to create curved points by mirroring the design of the System 6 ones. Triang Hornby System 6 used exactly the same geometry and track parts as Super 4 and the same design philosophy - clip fit along the entire length of straight and curved tracks and interlocking sleepers. The only change was that the track was code 100 with H0 sleeper spacing and the rail joiner handedness reversed. When Hornby track replaced System 6 it deliberately used the same geometry, but not the same design philosophy, only 2 clip fir slots and no interlocking sleepers, but apart from that it had exactly the same geometry as System 6 and was totally interchangeable with System 6 as regards layout planning. When the Y point finally arrived in the Hormby Railways/Hobbies era it had a non-standard radius at 852mm, too big for 9th radius and too small for 10th radius, and the half curve arc of 11.25 degrees. The Express points use the same non-standard radii and are not a multiple of the standard 168mm long straight and the short straights are the wrong length to allow them to be used to bring up the length of an Express point to a multiple of 168mm. The Y and Express points and the 852mm Half Curve that goes with them are the odd ones out in my view as they don't match the geometry of the rest of the Hornby track and hence UK set track standard. That's why in the catalogues showing the geometry they're shown apart from the main diagram.

To be specific, Triang Standard and Series 3 track used 30 degree curves, 12 to a circle. Triang Super 4 used 22 1/2 degree curves, 16 to a circle, but the range included "double curves" which were 45 degrees, 8 to a circle and were available in 1st, (438mm) 2nd (505mm) and latterly in 3rd (572mm) radius. The 1st radius (371mm) double curves were used in many of the Triang train sets to keep the price down. Modern UK set track geometry can trace its origins directly back to Triang's Super 4 track which was introduced in 1962, almost 60 years ago. If you're thinking of using Series 3 or Super 4 my advice would be to use Super 4 for the reasons that Ruffnut's already given. Also Series 3 points use the 1st radius whereas the Super 4 uses 2nd radius for the diverging route. And Series 3 point motors are handed, X.156 for for the R.292 Left hand points, X.157 for the R.293 Right hand points. Standard Track used the X.97 point motor for motorising both the Left R.101, and Right R.202 manually operated points, which were also available with the point motor ready fitted as R.201 Left, and R.202 Right points. The black RT.44 passing contacts lever frame section to work them was sold separately. As has been said, the Super 4 point motor, X.404, fitted the Left R.490, Right R.491 and Y R.437 Super 4 points and was sold separately for many years under the X.404 catalogue number, with RT.44 continuing to be sold separately. RT.44, (renumbered as R.44 when TT was discontinued) is still sold today as Hornby Hobbies's R.044. But seeing as you needed both an X.404 and an RT.44 and leads to motorise a point they were eventually sold together in a blister pack as R.663 Points Remote Control Pack. If you're intending to use Super 4 with motorised points you're much more likely to find X.404's for sale on ebay and the like than R.663, and you can buy R.044s new, or find RT.44/R.44s for sale as well.

I always thought that Multiple Unit referred to how the formation worked, not the positioning of the motors along the formation. If the first Eurostars aren't multiple units then what are they? The coaches and the Driving Motor "loco" are semi-permanently coupled and cannot be uncoupled in service, and when 2 Eurostar units are connected together the formation can be driven from either cab. Your definition would rule out the entire French TGV fleet from being Multiple Units. If your definition requires the motors to be distributed along the formation then that also rules out MUs like the London Transport/Underground Metropolitan line A60 Stock and most DMUs such as the Class 115 from being Multiple Units as like Eurostar they only had a "loco" in the form of the Driving Motor at each end of each 4 car set with the two middle cars being unpowered Trailer cars. In the case of the A60s the cars in each 4 car set were semi-permanently coupled together and could only be uncoupled for maintenance/servicing.

On the subject of "horror" there is the Ruth Rendell, writing as Barbara Vine, book "King Solomon's Carpet" about the Underground which, if I remember the plot correctly is about someone seeking revenge on the system for provoking the death of a young woman on her first journey on the Tube due to a panic attack/claustrophobia. Apologies if I've just spoiled the plot for anyone reading it.

and

Tim & Siddy do make an excellent presentation team, and I am really enjoying the series. Whilst there is probably plenty of material for a second series, I would imagine that the problem would be finding sufficient "new" material to interest non-railway buffs who may well outnumber the rail enthusiast viewers. Take the non-enthusiasts away and the viewer numbers may not make for a viable programme. Much as I love the Underground, and have done since I was 9, there is a limit on the number of abandoned stations and tunnels that you can look at before you start thinking "Oh no, not another abandoned tunnel/disused station". So my thoughts would tend to turn towards including parts of the Underground in the open air, which is over 50% of the system. That could cover former coal and freight workings on the Met and District, including the coal trains to Chiltern Court as well as the former goods and coal yards, and the Widened Lines to Smithfield and Moorgate. The different architectural styles over the years and to a certain extent between the lines. There is the lesser-known fact that most of the Tube stations were built in such a way that additional storeys could be added later. There is also the abandoned routes and projects: West Ruislip-Denham; Northern Heights; Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle; Fleet/Jubilee Charing Cross station; Epping-Ongar, The St Mary's Curve link to the East London line. Re-routeing of the Metropolitan's Watford Branch to Watford Junction which now seems to have been quietly forgotten about; The link between the Metropolitan and the LSWR & District west of Hammersmith. South Acton-Acton Town Northern Line beyond Morden; The District's services from Ealing Broadway to Southend. The Metropolitan beyond Amersham, and the Brill branch, and possibly the intention to go beyond Chesham to Berkhampstead to connect with the LNWR. The "hidden" parts still in daily use not accessible to the public such as the Depots might also be worth a mention, and the "hidden" turnback sidings in the central area. There could even be a bit of history showing how parts of the network were built in the green fields of Middlesex and the housing followed. I tend to forget myself that it wasn't just the Metropolitan that created NW London's suburbia but the Northern and the Piccadilly lines also have a history of building in open countryside.

First: The Simple Bit All makes of DCC loco decoder, and also DCC accessory decoders for operating point motors and the like, that comply with the NMRA standards should work with all DCC controllers that comply with the NMRA standards. If a loco comes as DCC Fitted, meaning the manufacturer has made it with a decoder installed, then that too should work with any DCC controller. Second: The Slightly Harder Bit However, there are several different standard interfaces used for connecting up a loco decoder to the loco which are used by most of the manufacturers. If a loco has an interface it will be called DCC Ready (meaning Ready for you to install a decoder of your choice with the appropriate interface.) What makes manufacturers use different interfaces across their models is the physical size of the model and hence the space inside, and the extra features such as lights on a model or sound. When buying a loco decoder you need to make sure that it has the same interface as the loco into which you want to fit it. Most loco decoders are available in versions for the different interfaces, and there are some adaptors in case the interface on your decoder doesn't match the interface in the loco. Generally it is better to avoid having to use an adapter as there may not be space for it. Also most decoders are available in versions with just trailing leads so that you can fit a decoder to a loco without an interface. Third: The Other Slightly Harder Bit In addition to coming with different interfaces or even with just trailing wires, loco decoders also come in different physical sizes which tends to be an indication of the maximum current handling. So when buying a loco decoder you also need to make sure that the one that you choose can also handle the maximum current draw of the motor in your loco. There are no standards for decoder size or current handling. Fourthly: Accessory Decoders Accessory decoders also have maximum current handling limits per output. So if you do decide to use accessory decoders to operate your points, make sure that the decoder can handle the current that your point motor is likely to draw. This is particularly relevant for traditional solenoid motors. Some point motors are motor drive stall type, and not all accessory decoders can handle motor drive stall types. You can also use servo motors to operate points, and if you decide to use servos you will need an accessory decoder specifically designed for servos. Lastly: The Tricky Bit - Connecting anything else. There are no official standards for how to connect additional throttles, occupancy detectors, boosters and the like to controllers. Instead there are various proprietorial standards, some of which are followed by several manufacturers, such as Digitrax's Loconet also used by Uhlenbrock and Digikeijs amongst others, and Lenz's Xpressnet also used by Hornby and Roco amongst others, whilst some are unique to specific manufacturers such as ESU's ECoSLink which is only used by ESU on their own equipment and on equipment that they make for Bachmann and Piko. Also just because different controllers and add-on units use the same socket never assume that means you can connect them together. There are no standards on what each type of socket can be used for. Always check that the sockets on items that you want to connect together are using the same standard before you try connecting them. Apologies for the length of this note. I hope it hasn't been too confusing.

Maerklin bought Trix in 1997 and their H0 ranges have been converging ever since. Prior to 1997 Maerklin sold 2 rail versions of their locos under the HAMO brand but dropped that when they bought Trix. Trix have been for years now the 2 rail H0 versions of Maerklin 3 rail H0 models. Thus the specialisation is 2 rail for Trix, and 3 rail for Maerklin, as opposed to the type of model. There is also the Trix N gauge range which has continued under Maerklin's ownership. An integral part of the Maerklin 3 rail setup is that the wheelsets are not insulated as that is used for occupancy detection on analogue and digital systems using their s88 system. If you're using 2 rail track then the wheelsets on your loco must be insulated or you'd get a short. I don't know if Maerklin use insulated wheelsets on their models and bridge them using pickups. I doubt that the loco is 10 years old as the Maerklin product databank says that set 29841 was only available from 2015-2018, making it up to 6 years old. That puts it, as I understand matters, potentially into the period when Maerklin added DCC to their mfx decoders, and phased out the D&H Selectrix/DCC decoders in Trix models. The fact that the decoder identifies itself as Trix either says that it is a Trix model or that someone has converted it from 3 to 2 rail and added an ex-Trix decoder, which is possible if it thinks it's from a BB12000. Have you taken the body off the loco and looked at the PCB? Are any components marked as D&H?

If it runs on 2 rail then it is very unlikely to be a Maerklin brand loco, unless someone has gone to great lengths to convert it to 2 rail and add a decoder. What you've got is most likely to be the Trix branded version Trix 22761. Here is a rather long link to the repevant page on the Trix website. https://www.trix.de/de/produkte/details/article/22761/2063/?tx_torrpdb_pi1[backlink]=2063&tx_torrpdb_pi1 =1&tx_torrpdb_pi1[perpage]=10&tx_torrpdb_pi1[era]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[newonly]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[available_only]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[gaugechoice]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[groupchoice]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[subgroupchoice]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[feature]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[catalog]=0&tx_torrpdb_pi1[searchstring]=&tx_torrpdb_pi1[search_artnum]=22761&tx_torrpdb_pi1[searchres]=1 which is the Trix version of the BR185 loco, not the Maerklin version. It has a multiprotocol decoder which supports Selectrix and DCC and something called Trix System which may or may not be mfx by another name according to the product description. Here is a link to the manual https://static.maerklin.de/damcontent/0d/f4/0df4a3049872b1da1f1448cc0c147b101434535657.pdf According to the exploded diagram in the spare parts list, the decoder is soldered directly to the PCB which itself is soldered to direct to the terminals on the motor. I think the decoder will have been made by Doehler & Haas, who developed the Selectrix digital protocol. There is a spare PCB on ebay at the moment and what looks like the decoder has D&H stamped on it. I don't know if D&H make sound decoders, or a sound module that can piggyback of one of their normal decoders via a SUSI interface.

There were 3 stations visited, Holborn, Aldwych, and Holloway Road, all on the Piccadilly line. As built, Holborn had 4 platforms, 2 for the main Piccadilly line, and 2 for the Aldwych branch. For those who aren't familar with that part of the Underground, the Aldwych branch runs approximately North/South below Kingsway. At Holborn both the plarforms for the Aldwych branch were at the same level as the main Piccadilly East/Northbound track, the South/Westbound track runs below the Aldwych branch tunnels. The eastern platform was the dead end, and the track serving the western platform connected to the Piccadilly main East/Northbound track. There was a crossover just south of Holborn between the two running lines of the Aldwych branch. Aldwych was also built with 2 platforms. The western platform at Holborn and the eastern platform at Aldwych were taken out of use in 1914, and the track lifted in 1917. There were originally no Central line platforms at Holborn as the Central station was "British Museum" a bit further west along High Holborn. In the early 1930s the Central line platforms were added, and Museum station closed. The "very old track" without the "suicide pit" would have been at both Holborn and Aldwych. As the track was still in situ and live at the time the programme was made, the buffer stop in the overrun tunnel at Aldwych would probably have been on what was the easternmost tunnel at Aldwych where the track was lifted back in 1917, or Tim & Siddy would not have been able to walk down to the buffer stop.. The Piccadilly line '73 stock is now the 2nd oldest on the Underground, the oldest is the Bakerloo's '72 stock. So I would imagine that the 3 car set has been retrieved so that is avaialble for use or possibly to be scavenged for spares as it was unique to the Piccadilly line. The '72 stock was the same design as the '67 Stock used on the Victoria line but without the ATO. From the description of the rebuilding of Holborn in the programme, the new passageways would cut right through the branch tunnel. So the track would have to be lifted, and the trailing junction with the piccadilly main line removed as there would be no reason to leave in situ.

On the first day that it opened? I probably should have made that clearer.

Dunlop developed something along those lines in the 1970s called "Speedaway" Wikipedia has details. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/moving_walkway (Plasting a link not working). There have been several other designs of variable speed travelator, the most successful one being from Thyssen Krupp using interlocking "combs". Wikipedia also has information about curved escalators Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/escalator But what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that on the first escalators on the Underground you got on and off at the side, not at the ends. And when the first one was installed on the Underground, UERL is said to have employed a man with a wooden leg, known as "Bumper Harris", to travel on it all day to show passengers how easy it was to use.

Having seen diagrams illustrating the principles of an escalator, I don't think that the engineering for a curved one would be particularly complicated. I suspect the hardest part is the mechanics for when the treads invert at the end of their travel for the return trip to the "start". Also the 2 handrails would have to travel at different speeds to stay in step with the treads, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. It wouldn't surprise me if the reason why they are rarely seen is that spares for wearing parts will be an issue especially if the curvature is unique. The installation could be more difficult which would make them more costly. Also there may be safety/trip issues over the depth of the treads, narrower on the inside/wider on the outside, especially if they are wide enough to take 2 people side by side. Most folks find when they use a spiral staircase that it is easier to go up on the inside, and come down on the outside where the treads are wider. Have we got any engineers who could comment?

Being a displaced Londoner who's been doing "missionary work in the sticks" for the last 30+ years, I can vouch for at least some of us feeling very proprietorial and protective towards our "home town" and its transport system. It got us to school and work reliably for decades, and for the most part did it in the style set by Lord Ashfield & Frank Pick, with a little help from Harry Beck, of course. Must get round to renewing my Friends of the LT Museum membership.

I used to use Aldwych back in the late 1970s as part of my daily commute. It was a remnant of a proposed tube line, The Great Northern and Strand, which would have run from Finsbury Park to Strand/Aldwych. In the event, this was merged with the Brompton & Piccadilly Circus to form what is now the Piccadilly line. It is a pity that the Aldwych branch never reached Waterloo, another lost opportunity to link North & South London better. A good programme, I'm looking forward to the remainder of the series.

Thank you, that is the first time that I've seen one working. Quite realistic, and an early use of "memory wire" in the hobby. The mechanism fitted quite unobtrusively below rail level with Standard track. That would not have been possible with Super 4 without raising the rails up to the same level as they were with the Standard track which would have looked a bit strange, and is probably why such a neat and well designed idea was not used with Super 4 track. Thank you also for pointing out that I'd forgotten to mention the TT badge. I'm afraid my knowledge of TT is limited to the one and only time that OO/H0 and TT appeared in the same catalogue.

2 up, as there were 2 separate badges. The first one R.282 was red plastic, not sure if it was acetate or polystyrene, in the same colours and shape as the well-known Tri-ang OO/H0 logo. At one stage, there was one of these buttonhole badges in each train set. You can see this badge top left in the image that I posted earlier today. The later one, RT.286 was enamelled metal with a pale yellow background with the word Tri-ang picked out in red. The colours matched those of the TT system in being the reverse of those used for the OO/H0 system. It did not mention OO, H0 or TT.

I think that unlikely. Dynamis, like the ESU ECoS and CabControl, and the old ESU Navigator, are at the "more sensitive" end of the spectrum. The NCE PowerCab, the OP's new system, seems to be more tolerant of transient shorts than Dynamis judging by past posts here on RMWeb.

I love the way that the Class 31 on the sleeve has the same headcode as R.357 "4C01". And who said "Sound" only came in with DCC?

I think this a good starting point for listing the various RT items RT.40 Battery Connector - Originally R.40 RT.42 Speed Control Unit - Originally R.42 RT.44 Lever Frame Section - Black - Passing Contacts - Use with solenoid point motors - Originally R.44 RT.46 Lever Frame Section - Yellow - On/On - Use with Colour Light Signals RT.47 Lever Frame Section - Green - Off/On - Use with Isolating tracks RT.48 Lever Frame Section - Red - Off/Hold for On - Use with Level Crossings and Diesel Horn RT.49 Diesel Horn - Cancelled RT.144 Base for 6 Lever Frame Sections RT.207 Packet of Track Pins RT.208 Triang Railways - The First 10 Years RT.265 Set of 4 Station Lamps RT.266 Set of 2 Station Lamps RT.267 Fog Signal RT.268 Bell Signal Set RT.286 Tri-ang Railways Lapel Badge (the metal pin one) RT.288 Tool Kit RT.297 Power-Clean Brush RT.298 Home Maintenance Set RT.395 Railway Sounds Record - Anyone got one? RT.405 Colour Light Signal Set RT.412 Quadruple Push Button Control for Electrically Operated Points RT.520 Seuthe Smoke Unit RT.521 Capsule of Smoke Oil I've probably missed some, so please feel free to point out my omissions.

The Green Lever Frame Switch first appeared in the OO catalogue as RT.47 in 1960 at the same time as the first isolating tracks for Standard Track R.203 and for Series 3 R.295. Up to then there was no direct use for a simple On/Off switch, unless it had a previous incarnation in the TT system. So it is unlikely that it first appeared as R.47. The colour light signal set was RT.405, not RT.45, There never was an RT.45 and there couldn't be because R.45 was the standard track turntable and there never were R and RT items sharing the same number but for different items at the same time. The Red Lever Frame Switch was known as RT.48, at least in the OO range from its first appearance in the 1957 3rd edition catalogue, with the R.170 and R.171 level crossings with which it was designed to work. It may have been R.48 back in 1956, but neither it not the electrically operated level crossings were in the 1956 2nd edition catalogue, hence the reference to "recent introductions". When the level crossings were dropped in 1962, RT.48 went with them and it never reappeared, at least up to the end of the Triang Hornby period. It would have come back in the mid 1960s if the plans to launch the Minic Motorway double track level crossing with operating barriers RM.908 had come to pass. RM.908 was to use the same base as the RM.905 manually operated crossing which was designed with the necessary mouldings to fit the same mechanism as the R.170/R.171 level crossings and hence would have needed the RT.48 lever frame switch to operate it. A pity, I'd have bought the level crossing if they had launched it. There was another use planned for RT.48 which was with the RT.49 diesel horn also intended for use with the TT system, and it is shown alongside the horn unit in the 1961 catalogue clearly labelled as RT.48. But the diesel horn never appeared. Pat Hammond speculates that there might have been problems with the mechanism. But Tri-ang make kids bikes, I had one myself, and I wonder if the idea was to use a battery powered horn being developed for the kids' bikes like the ones made by Pifco. Richard Lines was almost certainly on the lookout for items from elsewhere in the Lines Bros product and company portfolio that could be pressed into service for the model railway system. But when the horn unit was ready, the sound was too puny and unconvincing, like my Pifco horn, and that was why it was dropped. RT.48 would only have become R.48 when the "RT" was replaced by the usual "R" and then become R.048 if there had been a use for it which I don't believe there has been since R.170 and R.171 were dropped at the end of 1961. All 4 of the Lever Frame switches, 44 - Black Passing Contacts, 46 - Yellow On/On, 47 - Green Off/On, and 48 -Red Off/ Hold for On, are spring loaded. 44, 46 and 47 have a detent/recess at the end away from the terminals to lock the lever in place. I don't have a 48 in front of me to check, but the illustrations show it without the recess so that it can't be locked in the On position. I would imagine that the same tooling was used for them all, but with a pin inserted to create the detent/recess when making the black, yellow or green versions. Several of the "RT" number series started life before the launch of the TT range with the standard "R" prefix. R.40 >>> RT.40 Battery Connector R.42 >>> RT.42 Speed Control Unit R.44 >>> RT.44 Black Lever Frame Switch R.144 >>> RT.144 Lever Frame Mounting Plate The RT.144, mounting plate has always struck me as unnecessary as the lever frames clipped securely together and each one had holes for fixing screws. However the lever frame sections were pigs to separate and frequently one or both of the plastic locating/fixing pins broke off if you tried to pull them apart by hand. Care was, and probably still is, needed, with the help of a blunt knife, to gently prise them apart and gradually split and separate them. In 1957, all the OO gauge accessories that could be used with the new TT system changed from being "R" to RT, see above. IT seems pretty clear that Rovex used a previously unused number in the "R" series for joint accesories but added the T for those suitable for use with TT. for example, both R.405 and R.46 were unused when the colour light signal set was launched, so they used RT.405 and RT.46. R.405 and R.46 remained unused until the TT range was discontinued and Rovex dropped the RT prefix in 1969, and reverted back to the plain "R" for all previous "RT" items still in the catalogue, which they could easily do as they'd left the necessary gaps.

Are you sure you've got that the right way round? As the Triang RT.405 colour light signal was intended for use with both the OO and TT systems, (the "RT" catalogue number was only used for items that were applicable to both systems), Triang were criticised by some in the model press at the time for making it to a compromise scale, too small for OO, too large for TT. The heads look to be comparable in size whilst the Dublo support column is clearly taller. But I have never seen the two side by side for real. Also the Triang one had, to my eyes, a much neater base, which clip fitted to the track, and very cleverly concealed the terminals. the plugs on the end of the supplied wires simply slid horizontally into the holes provided in the base. On the other hand, the Dublo one needed a heavy base for stability with space for fixing screws, and has 3 unprototypical screw terminals projecting from the top. Here they both are, the Triang RT.405 on the left, and the Dublo 5045 on the right. Judge for yourselves which looks better, or does each have its strengths and weaknesses? Side by side, for me the Triang one wins. Trix were unique in offering searchlight colour light signals, but they too had the heavy base which also had to house the bulb and filters. The Triang offering was, IMHO much more presentable than either the Dublo or Trix ones. Dublo did have a distant colour light signal as wel las a two head junction signal, whilst Triang had the double track gantry version. I think Triang missed a trick with the gantry version, they should have made the heads easily reversible so that they could have been used as starting signals at terminus stations. I know that it is possible to turn a signal head round, but it is difficult and risks damaging the gantry, IIRC. I completely agree that the Hornby Railways era R.406 is just gross, but that was probably driven by the availability and price of sub-miniature bulbs.