GoingUnderground

Rovex used actual numbers when the loco or rolling stock was intended to represent a particular model: 46201 - Princess Elizabeth; 27000 - EM2 Electra; etc. But when the item drew aspects of its design from a loco but was not intended to be a model of it they used made up numbers, or did not give it a number, presumably so that the model could not be compared unfavourably with the original. One example is the SR EMU where they used S1057 S and S1052 S for the motorised and dummy DMs (occasionally reversed as the body shells are the same moulding). The model was not truly representative of the prototype as it was too short and had too few compartments, probably so that it matched the look of the pre-existing suburban coaches, and the drivers cab window isn't the right size. So they invented the numbers. But they do not seem to be too far from the truth as S 10557 S and S 10552 S were 4-LAV units whose appearance is quite close to that of the Triang model. These units spent their lives on the Victoria-Brighton line, where they would have carried the "V" route indicator. They also survived into the BR Blue era. I know this is speculation on my part, but that is the logic behind my repaint and renumbering of my SR EMU. The Saddle Tank seems to fall into this category of a model not intended to be of a specific prototype but drawing heavily on aspects of its design. In the Hornby Railways era they did use telephone numbers for "Lord Westwood" and for the second red 0-4-0T with the silver dome.

I don't know about anyone else, but as I get older I find that I'm becoming more risk averse. As the years have gone by I'm increasingly aware that my time left on this planet is decreasing, especially after attending the funeral (not Covid related) of a lifelong friend from my schooldays. I don't want to go yet, I've still got too much modelling and living to do. So I'm not going to do something which, given my age, could be a life limiting action, such as go to a show or rock gig or restaurant or theatre only to end up catching Covid. Call this cowardice if you like, but I have no control over what folks do around me, and I don't trust everyone to do the right thing. Younger folks are more likely to be prepared to take risks, as I used to when younger, as their chances of surviving Covid are statistically greater, and their chances of having severe illness are significantly less than folks in my age group and older.

I've been going to supermarkets to shop when we couldn't get supermarket delivery slots, and it's hard enough to remember to keep your distance from other shoppers. There is always the possibility that someone will come up close behind you and you won't realise that they're there. We went to a open air flower show last summer, and despite everything being well spaced out by the organisers, people kept coming up close behind you or jumping in to the social distance gap that you left between you and the person in front of you at the stalls to see the plants for sale. I can't see exhibitions being any different, irespective of restrictions on numbers, one way systems or whatever, possibly/probably worse if the "scrum" round the Bachmann stand is anything to go by. If you like, it is a question of trust, and as the Covidiots and unvaccinated look just like you and me, I treat everyone with equal distrust when I'm outside my home. Vaccination isn't a "magic bullet" as no vaccine is ever 100% effective, but it is the only real weapon we have. The treatment that patients get in hospital is designed to minimise the effects, and damp down the immune system as some of the bad outcomes seem to be due to our immune systems overreacting to the virus The virus is evolving on a world wide scale, following Darwin's "survival of the fittest", (evolution isn't "pants"), so the possibility of a new variant arising against which the vaccines are significantly less effective, or imore dangerous, or more contagious is rather more than a remote possibility. If I was an exhibition organiser I'd be very worried about that happening and losing all the upfront money needed to get a show up and running and draining my club or society of all our funds, or worse. I miss the exhibitions, but I won't be going to Warley this year, and won't be going to any other exhibition in the next 12 months at least, unless and until it become a lot clearer to me that this illness is on the wane and the risks to me personally, and through me to my family, are negligible. Equally I won't be eating out or going to rock gigs or the theatre. for the same reasons.

In Rovex 1, Pat Hammond includes 2 photos of loco bodies never made, one is of a Deltic, the other of the Co-Bo. The dates when these were "made" is unnown. The EM2 shared the design of its bogies with LMS 10000 and 10001. The EM2's bogies could have been used on 10000/1 models unchanged. I wonder if that was ever considered by Rovex? Probably not as by 1963 10000 was laid up and 10001 was kept going until 1966 using parts cannibalised from 10000. Both were scrapped in 1968.

The reason for the spare bogie may be that the bogie on the car in the left of your top picture is from the SR EMU Driving Motor R.156, and is identifiable as such by the triangular shoe beam. so you might want to replace it with the bogie in your hand. The SR EMU bogie shouldn't be in Australia as the SR EMU was never officially sold there. It was made and sold in New Zealand as after it was discontinued in the UK the tools were sent to New Zealand so that they had an EMU in their range to compensate them for Australia getting the Sydney Suburban cars, according to Pat Hammond. The Sydney Suburban set was never officially sold in New Zealand. The photo below is of a repaint and renumber than did to a smashed up SR EMU that I acquired as part of a job lot on Ebay a few years ago. It shows the powered motor bogie, with the triangular shoe beam between the two axle boxes. The dummy bogie is the same pattern but moulded in polystyrene. No other model in the Triang range used this particular motor bogie or the matching dummy bogie. And here's the full 4 car set. Each of the coaches had some sort of damage, ranging from cosmetic to missing couplings to severe with parts of the body missing and the cab smashed and previously badly repaired with what looked like some sort of latex glue. How the SR motor bogie turned up in Australia underneath a Sydney Suburban DM is anyone's guess, unless it was supplied from New Zealand post 1964 to replace a broken bogie chassis on a sydney Suburban. Apart from the cast frame/chassis, everything else is common to both models' motor bogies and if the armature had failed etc the NZ bogie could have been used as a donor to rebuild the Sydney motor bogie.

Which begs the question "In that case, are the piers wedge shaped in cross-section to compensate?" I don't know the answer and it's not something that I'd previously thought about even though I'd seen the straight sides to each arch, as I've only seen one picture of the viaduct from the outside (convex) North east face towards Davos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landwasser_Viaduct#/media/File:Landwasserviadukt,_aerial_photography_from_northeast_2.jpg This does suggest that the piers are wedge shaped as they look wider than when seen from the inside of the curve, and the arches still look to be semicircular, joining the piers at the same level as on the inside face which implies the same diameter for the outside face of the arc as for the inside face. Also the views from this drone flyover video also suggests that the piers are wedge shaped. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=landwasser+viaduct&&view=detail&mid=586D448AF1EA5509175F586D448AF1EA5509175F&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dlandwasser%2Bviaduct%26%26FORM%3DVDVVXX Marshall doesn't give any details, simply showing the viaduct "as if straightened out" in his book.

That same "separate floor" to which the bogie is attached on the R.158 DMU DTS/C is exactly the same as used on the R.225 EMU Dummy DM, but, the bogie differs at least on the later EMUs as the EMU bogie has a 3rd rail shoe beam. I have used one from the DMU for an EMU. The same design of floor insert was used on the Sydney Suburbans for the unpowered "motor" bogie on the dummy DM R.452, but also on the Trailer car. But I don't believe that the parts are interchangeable between the SR EMU/BR DMU and the Sydney Suburbans as the shape is different on the Suburbans.

Triang were not alone in limiting the variations to what could be achieved with using a different coloured plastic or changing the livery as that cost very little. Trix, for example, sold the EM1 in both Black and Green liveries, F105B and F105G, and did the same with the 66xx 0-6-2. The Western loco was available in Maroon, Sand, and Green. The Trix PO wagons were another good example of using one tool to produce a range of models by varying the colour of the plastic and the markings. I don't know enough about Dublo to comment on how they dealt with the question of similar models that varied in the details.

Would it? They did use inserts and did so as far back as the 1950s. That is how the clockwork versions of the Saddle Tank R.151 and the Diesel Shunter R.154 got the hole in the bodywork for the key. Inserts were also used to create the openings for the buffers on the Dock Shunter, R.253 as the Transcontinental Yard Switcher version R.353 didn't have the holes as it didn't have buffers. It is possible that the Sydney Suburbans themselves were made using inserts as the Trailer car R.451has the same interior mounting bracket for the O/H TK changeover switch as the Driving Motor car R.450, but that is totally superfluous feature for the Trailer car. Also the position of the brass inserts for the roof retaining screws are the same on the Driving and Trailer cars. However these shared features could have come about from using the same engineering drawing for the two bodies and modifying a copy of the drawing to create the drawing for the other bodyshell. But 2 tools for what must have been seen as as a low volume product would have been an extravagance. I have no evidence to support the one tool with inserts or the two tools theories. But the fact that the Trailer car has the same light clusters at onee end of the car as the Driving Motor cab end and these light clusters did not exist on the actual trailer cars as they were always in a M-T-T-M formation does suggest that the two body shells have more in common than one might think.

Makes you wonder if they would have done better modelling the Harris sets in VR Blue, and then moulding them in red as a "generic" 3rd rail EMU for Canada. The side windows at the cab end are not the same, and one wonders whether inserts in the mould might have been arranged so that it could have been more accurate. Incidentally, the photo of the Sydney Red Rattlers that I posted earlier is of the 1957-60 ComEng cars, identifiable by the "S" target plate and the twin single doors to the cars, and these were the vehicles modelled by Triang. As the formation has two single deck trailers it must have been taken before 1964 when the single deckers were replaced with Tulloch double deck trailers and the ComEng "Sputnik" trailers lost their power operated doors to make them compatible with the older Leeds Forge cars. The Triang models look pretty good to me, but then I never saw them for real.

The double ended diesel was sold in the UK, and it was on the cover of the 5th edition 1959 UK catalogue. It sold well in the UK despite very few folks in the UK ever seeing one in the metal, probably down to the appeal of the Blue & Yellow livery. The Sydney Suburbans' success was limited and I don't think that anyone would deny that. It's not too surprising given the lukewarm reception of the catenary system, which wasn't helped by the lack of suitable locos and MU stock, both in UK and Australian outline, to run beneath it. The Steeple Cab loco body had an even shorter 5 year lifespan ('59-64) than the Sydney Suburbans' 7 years (61-68). Your point about the choice of OHLE EMU is well made. The pictures that I've seen of the "Harris" units would make for a very attractive model. (Photo from Railroadpictures.de) But it may be as simple as Moldex, or possibly Rovex in Margate, felt that Victoria already had a model in the double-ended diesel, and the Sydney Suburbans were chosen to increase interest in Triang Railways in NSW. (Photo by John Howe on Pinterest)

The history of "monetising" bridges goes way way back before the start of the railways. And monetising them is a way to raise funds for their maintenance, not the evil that some seem to think. In the UK, one only has to think of "old" London Bridge which from its opening in 1209 had houses on it as a way to raise funds for its upkeep. The houses lasted until 1761 when the final houses on the bridge were demolished. In Italy the Ponte Vecchio in Florence dates back to 1345, there were earlier bridges on the site, and is said to have had buildings on it from the start. It is unclear, at least from my sources, as to whether the earlier bridges also had shops on them. I doubt that the shopkeepers occupy the premises for free.

That would be true if they had been intended as scale models, but they weren't, they were intended as toys, and most of the TC range dates back to the mid/late 1950s when accuracy was less important than price. The same goes for the Princess, it was a toy made for Marks & Spencer, and was never intended to be a realistic scale model. The TC series locos and rolling stock were not intended to be specific models as that would have made them country and "road" specific. The models would have been based on actual prototypes, and in the case of the double-ended diesel they appear to have used the B-60 as their source. So not it's not surprising that it bore a strong resemblance to that loco. The Steeple Cab, which used to switch between the BR and TC ranges in the catalogue, and the SR EMU have even more dubious parentages and it is not possible to precisely identify their prototypes. The TC Pacific was based on a Canadian loco, but stretched to use the Princess's running gear to save the cost of producing a new chassis and driving wheels for what would probably be a relatively low volume product. The TC exception was the Sidney Suburbans, R.450/1/2 where, according to Hammond, in 1959 Rovex did obtain official drawings and worked from those to design the tooling as they wanted an Australian model to promote the recently launched catenary system in Australia, but using the existing 4 wheel motor bogie. Arguably the idea backfired on them as the Sydney Suburbans were unique to Sydney and the attempt to relivery them in blue to pass them off as Victoria's OHLE "Harris Cars" EMUs R.550/1/2 failed.

I bow to your local knowledge.

By the end of the 1960s 2 rail DC with Triang couplings dominated the UK RTR market. A solitary loco to approximately H0 scale with incompatible couplings, even if it was 2 rail DC would seem to be an odd way to try to break into the UK market. It is also would seem to be an unusual choice for a first loco as British Trix had a Warship in their range from 1960 in their odd 3.8mm scale. From your description, the Maerklin Warship sounds equally dimensionally challenged, too short for OO, too wide for H0. In this video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihchxLkjrwg it has the 3rd rail skate, and the cab front end and roofline looks to be all wrong, almost as if Maerklin had taken their DB V200 model and repainted it green. But it may just be the viewing angle, If it was 3rd rail DC then it would be doomed to failure as 3 rail was no longer offered, other than on the rump of the Dublo 3 rail stock offloaded to Hattons and the like after production of Dublo 3 rail ended, whilst 3 rail AC ended to all intents and purposes in the UK when Trix changed to DC in the mid-1950s.

So were these 2 locos 2 or 3 rail, and were they AC or DC? and what couplings were fitted?

The double ended diesel, was based on the Victorian State Railways B-60, which itself was a double ended version of the GM1 class which was based on the EMD F-Unit locos. The B-60 had a Co-Co wheel arrangement whilst the Triang model was Bo-Bo using the standard Transcontinental 4 wheel motor and unpowered 4 wheel bogies. I don't know how accurate the rest of it was, but I think the Bo-Bo wheel arrangement means it is best described as inspired by the B-60 as opposed to being a model of the B-60. Richard Lines in the Axiom videos describes the Transcontinental range as "generic" as opposed to country specific, IIRC.

The only model that Triang made of an Australian prototype was of the Sydney Suburbans. The rest of the Transcontinental range was always "generic" designs which were just about "close enough" to what could be seen in Canada, Australia and S Africa to pass muster. Hornby Dublo wasn't that different to Triang in exporting UK outline models to the former countries of the Empire, or slightly "localised" versions of the UK outline models. To their credit Hornby did have the ACHO range of mainly French outline stock.

I was working on the basis that if Maerklin had been in the UK it would have been with UK outline toys/models as there would have been little interest in German, French or Italian outline toys/models. British Trix used German Trix underpinings on several of their locos, and Maerklin could have done the same. We might even have ended up with H0 gauge instead of OO.

If Maerklin had been in the UK in the 1950s and their reputation for quality and reliable toys/models here had been great enough then that may well have counterbalanced Triang's advantage on price. Triang made very little headway against Maerklin in the Netherlands, but that may have been down to them trying to sell UK outline OO gauge models.

Your recent posts bringing Maerklin into our discussion raises another aspect about the relationship between Meccano/Hornby, Triang and Trix - Where was Maerklin in all this? Despite the rivalry, economic and military, between the UK and Germany before WW1, many toys were imported into the UK from Germany, one only has to think of Bing. But the anti-German feeling created in the UK by WW1 meant that German made toys were largely unacceptable in the UK. Frank Hornby, the inventor of Meccano, stepped into this gap as far as O gauge trains are concerned. There is speculation as to how far Hornby drew on the designs of Bing and Maerklin or even bought in their products and sold them under the Hornby label. But Hornby and Maerklin do seem to have had some sort of understanding that they wouldn't tread on each other's toes. Hornby made O gauge tinplate models between the wars in the liveries of French railway companies, but never of German ones other than some coaches in the "Mitropa" livery. And despite their strong presence in continental Europe, Maerklin seem to have had very little interest in the UK market up to the start of WW2. After the end of WW2 Maerklin sought to build back their presence in their pre-WW2 markets, and again largely ignored the UK. So Meccano/Hornby seemed to have little to fear from a company that could have presented a very strong challenge to the Hornby brand in the UK in the 1950s if it had wanted to. So did this feeling of safety from competition by Maerklin give Hornby a false sense of security, and they didn't take the challenge presented by Lines Bros and Triang Railways seriously until it was too late? Hornby had largely "seen off" the challenge of Trix in the OO gauge market, leveraging the reputation of their O gauge tinplate system and going with DC to launch the Dublo range in 1938. Did this make them "rest on their laurels" and feel that there was no need to innovate and develop the technical aspects of the Hornby system and the materials used to make it? Richard Lines gives the impression in the Axiom videos that Hornby personnel who Lines met at trade fairs in the 1950s always regarded the Hornby system as superior and Triang as an upstart in the toy train market who wouldn't succeed in damaging Hornby. The absence of Maerklin certainly benefited Triang in the UK as it meant that a potential major competitor was absent, and their excursions into the continental European markets were largely limited to the Netherlands in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

There's probably 2 reasons why Maerklin have stuck with uninsulated wheelsets: 1. Cost and simplicity - Why add cost and complexity when you don't need to. If both running rails are electrically connected, as they were when the Maerklin track base was metal, and have been despite the K and C track using a plastic track base, then there's no point in having insulated wheelsets. 2. Track occupancy in analogue running. Track occupancy may sound odd, but if you isolate a section of one running rail then you can use the live wheelsets to complete a circuit between the opposite running rail and the isolated section. I believe this is how Maerklin's s88 feedback/occupancy detection works and is how ESU's ECoSDetector Standard works (it was designed as a replacement for s88 feedback modules which can be unreliable when they are daisy chained) and why it is cheaper than the ECoSDetector, it doesn't need any fancy electronics to detect current draw as it simply detects the completed circuit through the uninsulated wheelsets. THis works even when the loco is stationary and also on coaches and wagons with uninsulated wheelsets without any modification. The use of uninsulated/live wheelsets is now such a long-standing part of the Maerklin 3 rail system, and is so useful for occupancy detection even in this digital era that there is little point in changing when 2 rail versions of Maerklin locos, with insulated wheelsets, are available under the Trix brand, the Trix name being owned by Maerklin since 1997. The Trix Twin system (insulated wheelsets and the running rails insulated from each other with a 3rd centre rail) seems to have been unique, or at least I've never heard or read of another model railway system using it,

Märklin is how it is spelt in German, with a diaeresis (the two dots) over the "a". If you do not have easy access to accented letters, and spelling it as "Marklin" without the diaeresis is incorrect, then inserting an "e" after the a is the usual way to ensure the correct pronunciation of the word as the Mär part should be pronounced as in "mare", not as in "mar", or so I am told. But I am happy to be corrected. This is similar to the way that "ss" is written in German, using the Greek letter "Beta" which doesn't exist in the English alphabet. So we have to use "ss" as in "Weissbier".

You may be right, bit I think it is more likely to be the other way round - Maerklin was such a major player that to make models for 2 rail only would have severely limited sales. Also, in my experience Roco make 2 versions of their models, one for 2 rail, and one for 3 rail each with its own unique catalogue number. Brawa do likewise, but given the price differential between their 2 and 3 rail locos I suspect that 3 rail analogue running is achieved by a factory fit digital decoder that will run on AC, but this is speculation on my part as I have no 3 rail Brawa locos. The only maker that I know who lets users convert locos between 2 and 3 rail is ESU, and I think they do that with switches activated by the fitting or removal of the 3rd "rail" pickup skate. I had Meccano, and Hornby O gauge tinplate, and my cousins had Dublo 3 rail, but I had Triang and never had any interest in Dublo 3 rail. So I'm not sure that your "natural progression" theory works beyond the mid/late 1950s, especially given the electrical complications in the first generation of Dublo 2 rail points - hardly suitable for kids. Arguably, Triang, Dublo and Trix didn't look at the past. They "modelled" what was around at the time. The "cycling lion" was replaced by the "ferret & dartboard" and the black or green by Electric or Rail Blue when BR made the changes. Triang had a brief look back with the Lord of the Isles, Caley Single, Rocket, and the N. American style 2-6-0 Davy Crockett. Triang only started to look back towards the end of the '60s with the introduction of "Big 4" liveries on their existing models. There's a good reason for that, it is Meccano. I can't find the reference, but I read that Maerklin sold Meccano in Germany under their own name. I'm not sure whether it was imported from the UK or made under licence by Maerklin. Meccano/Hornby and Maerklin seem to have enjoyed a close relationship going back to the 1920s when Hornby seem to have been "inspired" by Maerklin designs for electrical equipment (both Maerklin and Hornby used mains power with very similar looking controllers), etc.. for their O gauge trains, and then for their 3 rail Dublo track in 1938, as discussed earlier. Given the intense dislike in the UK for Germany after WW1, this relationship seems never to have been made public. EDIT/UPDATE: In 1914, at the outbreak of WW1, the German government confiscates Meccano's German subsidiary Meccano GmbH, which is subsequently sold to Maerklin et Cie, who continue to produce Meccano-style construction outfits under their own name. (Source: "The Products of Binns Road - A general survey" by Peter Randall. There was a metal construction system very similar to Meccano in Germany, called Tri-X, or if you prefer Trix, and that's where the Trix name came from, as like Meccano, Trix moved into toy trains. The Trix construction system had a triangular pattern to the holes in the metal strips and sheets, as opposed to the square pattern used by Meeccano, and was sold in the UK by Trix. But it is far less well known than Meccano in the UK.

And your statement "can be reclaimed by a commercial buyer if sold on" is wrong. All VAT on purchases can be reclaimed if you are not an exempt business. You don't need to be an accountant to do a VAT return or keep a businesses books. There is little red tape in VAT returns, and dodgy dealings are not confined to VAT fiddles. The biggest fiddle is paying in cash to a sole trader so that none of the transaction goes "through the books" or if its does for an amount less than what was paid. If you want to debate the merits or otherwise of VAT, please do it in a new topic in Wheeltappers as it has nothing to do with what made Triang more successful than its rivals.