GoingUnderground

Wrenn seemed to have an interesting history, as they reached an agreement in 1964 with Courtaulds, then owners of British Trix that Trix would market Wrenn products in the "home market" meaning the UK, and Courtaulds got a seat on the Wrenn Board in exchange for financing through £15,000 worth of debentures (a type of loan) held by Courtaulds. Co-operation between Trix and Wrenn seems to have been quite deep and Wrenn are supposed to have advised Trix on track design. Lines Bros, not G&R Wrenn, bought the entire Meccano Group lock, stock and barrel for £781,000 in early 1964, and that included the Hornby name, the Binns Road premises and all the stock and tooling it contained and as the new 100% shareholder had total control. In 1965 Wrenn's debenture loans from Courtaulds were repaid and on 1 January 1966 Lines Bros became the majority shareholder in G&R Wrenn, buying 2/3rds of the shares held by the current owners, George and Richard Wrenn. The reason for buying control of Wrenn was probably to take out Wrenn's slot racing system, Wrenn 152, which was a competitor to Lines Bros Minimodels subsidiary's Scalextric. Once G&R Wrenn was inside the Lines Bros empire, George Wrenn is reputed to have asked for the HD tools to be transferred to Wrenn so they they could use them. Lines Bros agreed as it allowed them to control the flow of ex-HD models back on to the market. Selling the Dublo tooling to a buyer outside the Lines Bros group would probably have resulted in them being bought by a competitor, and having "disposed" of Dublo, Lines didn't want to see the Dublo products being put back on sale by a potentially powerful rival. The first Wrenn reissue of a former Dublo loco was the Cardiff Castle in December 1966, which was sold for 5 1/2 Guineas = £5/15/6 = £5.78. Wrenn were also used as the means to dispose of the remains of Triang's TT system under the name of "Wrenn Table Top". Wrenn was clearly the means that Lines Bros chose to liquidate "embarrassing" assets without damaging the Triang name or brand. The Triang Wrenn branding for models made using the Dublo tooling was first used in 1969. So by the end of 1966, Lines Bros were the dominant player in the UK OO gauge model railway market having come from nowhere to overtake and finally acquire Hornby Dublo, gaining a controlling interest in Wrenn, and refusing an offer from Courtaulds in late 1966 to buy the ailing Trix. A remarkable transformation in the 16 years since the first Rovex train set went on sale in Marks & Spencer, and 14+ years since Triang Railways first appeared in the shops.

Take over by Wrenn? They were far to small to take over Hornby Dublo. I think you mean takeover of the Meccano Group by Lines Bros. Or are you referring to when Wrenn first started selling models made with the ex-HD tooling?

VAT was introduced on 1 April 1973, 3 months after we joined the EEC and was a step towards harmonising taxation structures.

And Trix made even greater use of the kit idea than Triang as Trix also had wagon kits. Hornby, on the other hand, never went down that route, and were very reluctant to sell sub-assemblies unless for repairs, believing that Dublo parts should only be used in Dublo models. Strange seeing that Meccano was all about self assembly and some of the very first Hornby O gauge locos had a self-assembly element to them.

Pat Hammond was silent on the Class 20 and its tooling as I recall as it was never brought back to life as a Triang Hornby or Hornby Railways model. Michael Foster covered the problems with it at great length in his book on HD, part of which I quoted earlier. Triang didn't surrender the tooling to Wrenn, as at the time Wrenn acquired the HD tooling both Wrenn and Rovex were subsidiary companies of Lines Bros., and once HD had gone so had a serious rival for Triang Railways. Lines Bros. had no wish to restart Dublo production just to recreate the competition again which is why they rejected an advance in 1966 from Courtaulds, who owned Trix at the time, to buy Trix off them once Trix was successful again through the use of the HD tooling. I know it sounds bizarre but that, apparently, was the deal that Courtaulds wanted. I can't find a reference to when Wrenn acquired the Class 20 tooling, but it didn't appear as a Wrenn model until very late 1977/early 1978, 4 years after first appearing in a Wrenn catalogue. But letting Wrenn have the tooling was one way to manage getting ex-Dublo locos back into the market without undue dilution of Triang Railways sales. And remember, the glory days were over by the mid 1960s as overall sales of model railways were falling. I doubt that Triang would have been interested in the Dublo chassis and motor for the AL1 as they had already featured an AL2 in their catalogue before the Meccano acquisition and I believe that they used the underpinnings of their planned AL2 underneath the HD AL1 body. Also, as others have said, Triang were masters at using existing parts when designing new models to maximise the economies of scale so why introduce new parts and components for a loco that, judging by sales of the EM2, was unlikely to be a big seller and couldn't be used on any other model?

If VAT removed the anomalies over kits and fully made up items, and the tax base was increased was that such a bad thing? I don't think so, especially if it allowed the government to reduce income tax rates and raise income tax thresholds, or spend more on health and social security. The throwaway society started because it was cheaper for businesses to make throw away items than to make them in a repairable form - fewer parts & quicker assembly. The second and probably far more important driver to that change was rising labour costs. Together they made it cheaper to replace with new than repair old. If VAT played any part it was purely incidental as it would have been added at the same rate to the respective costs. Your case against VAT for ruining the planet doesn't exist if you look at the reality of the changes in society and legislation happening at the same time. But if you want to argue about taxation theory and policy please go and start a new thread in Wheeltappers. It has nothing to do with the success of Triang or the demise of Dublo and Trix as it applied equally to all three of them.

You may be right about the Class 20, but the Transcontinental Switcher R.155 had a similarly shaped body and they managed to get the standard Transcontinental bogie in to that. Perhaps the 20 was just too slim. The position as I believe it to be up to 1970 was: The 0-4-0 from 1959 was used with only 2 body shells, the R.252/254 Steeple Cab, and R.355/B/R/Y, R.359, 0-4-0T Industrial/stretched Urie C14. The 6 coupled was used on the R.52 Jinty, R.151 Saddle Tank, R.152 Diesel Shunter, and R.251 Deeley 3F. The basic design of the 4 wheel bogie was used on R.156 EMU; R.157 DMU; and R.753 AL1 each had its own model specific side frame. In the Transcontinental range almost all the non-steam locos used the same bogie and side frames which shared many components with the UK versions. The Transcontinental locos were the single ended R.55 and R.155 Switcher, the double ended Bo-Bos R.159 and R.257, the R.353 Yard Switcher and in the UK range R.253 Dock Shunter. The same basic design and core components were also used on the R.450 Sydney Suburban but that had its own unique bogie frame/chassis. The "6" wheeled bogie was used on R.351 EM2 with its own chassis/frame whilst the version made for R.357 the A1A/Class 31 was also used unchanged on R.751 the Class 37. There was a true 4 wheeled version of the "6" wheel bogie that was used on the Budd Diesel Railcar and R.758 Hymek which shared several of the "6" wheeled bogie's components. All the above may have been used on later "Hornby Railways" models, but my knowledge expires around 1970.

The Triang Wrenn locos and rolling stock all had Triang's TensionLock couplings, with the option of replacing them with HD type ones. The offloaded stock would have been 3 rail items, which never appeared in any post amalgamation catalogue and any remaining Dublo 2 rail with HD couplings that was proving hard to shift. Looking back, it is surprising that the Class 20 wasn't remotored and rebogied by Triang in the same way that the AL1 was given that it had a plastic body. But perhaps they felt that its reputation for being a poor runner would count against it, or that spreading sales over a larger number of locos wasn't economic especially when they must have been contemplating the 37 and Hymek.

I'm sure that it was a factor in both the toy market, being a bit cheaper to make translating to a lower selling price, and fitting into the available layout space more easily than a Pacific. Big locos look good in a boxed set on a retailer's shelf, but somewhat out of place on a branch line or smaller main line layout.

Meccano were patrician, believing that they knew best, and giving one dealer a monopoly might have been fine when there was no serious competition. But that broke down when faced with a competitor who recognised the need to get product into as many outlets as possible and who already had access to more outlets than Meccano. Prices were set by the manufacturer through clauses in sale agreements that penalised the buyer if they resold the item at less than the selling price stipulated by the manufacturer. This was seen as anti-competitive and holding prices artificially high, and the practice, known as resale price maintenance was made illegal in the UK in 1964. Have you seen just how much the UK Government collects through VAT? Scrap that and you'd have to shut the NHS, or reintroduce another form of sales tax like the Purchase Tax we had before VAT, or increase the income tax collected by 2/3rds, or triple the amount collected through corporation tax to make up the shortfall. Contrary to urban myth, VAT is a very easy tax for businesses to administer in this era of computerised accounting records and electronic data transfer. It wasn't that hard back in the 1970s when I had to prepare several VAT returns myself. It only gets messy because of the exempted items. Scrapping VAT is very easy to say and do, but businesses would have to contend with the cost of implementing whatever came after it, unless you really would prefer jacking up the income tax take by increasing the rates and dropping the thresholds. It is also a myth that Purchase Tax rates were lower than VAT. When it was introduced in 1973 the VAT rate was only 10%, and in 1974 was reduced to 8% but with the introduction of a "luxury items" rate of 25% (the luxury rate was abolished in 1979). So the prices of items where the Purchase Tax was 35% may have fallen (it depends on the retailers profit margin), in 1973 as you'll see if you do the maths. The rate of VAT in the UK has varied and now stands at 20% because it was a less obvious way to raise the tax take as it left untouched Income Tax and National Insurance rates which would have changed what folks received in their bank accounts, or took home in their wage packets. But let's not get bogged down in taxation, it's too political, just like unnecessary references to Brexit.

No problems, I make plenty of mistakes myself by not fully checking my facts. I only know of the existence of the different types of Maerklin track through having an ESU ECoS and reading the various posts from Maerklin owners. I had to look up the history myself. Like many in the UK, I only realised how important Maerklin and 3 rail is in Continental Europe when I first went to model shops in Switzerland about 15 years ago and saw how many models were labelled 3 rail or AC. If I had a vote on Maerklin track, I'd go for K track as for me the C track shows too much of its "toy train" origins, and the M track looks too much like tinplate. But M still looks much better than Dublo's solid centre rail version. Trix showed another way to do 3 rail with their fibre track as the much slimmer blackened centre rail reduced its prominence significantly.

The Warship has 2 U shaped lumps of metal inside it for added ballast and adhesion. It was created at about the same time as the EM1 and shares many components, notably the pickups, wheels, bogie chassis, gearbox and motor. I've done a "cut'n'shut" to a Warship chassis to create a new chassis and running gear for use with an EM1 body.

I think your somewhat mistaken. K track wasn't Maerklin's first stud contact track. It wasn't even their second. it was their third iteration of a stud contact 3 "rail" track system Here is a short history of Maerklin track, courtesty of Marklinstop.com https://marklinstop.com/2018/01/marklins-00ho-track-system-1935-present/ Maerklin track between 1935 and 1947 was virtually the same as Dublo 3 trail track of 1938. It is generally thought that Hornby based their design on the Maerklin one. They revised the design in 1947 so that the sleepers were closer together, but the overall look was the same, with a solid centre rail. That design lasted until 1958. In 1953 Maerklin took a 3 rail track design by French firm Vollon et Brun. This had a metal track bed with plastic sleepers embedded in it, but Maerklin replaced the solid centre rail with stud contacts. This new track system, known as "Model-gleiss" looked very good but being stud contact the old spoon type contacts used by Maerklin (and Dublo) needed to be replaced with the pickup skate. The track was expensive to produce and sales were poor, and it was discontinued in 1957. In 1956 Maerklin introduced their M series track. M Series had stud contact. It was not initially known as M Track, that name only came later to distinguish it from K track, see below, and "M". stood for "Metall" as the track bed was metal with the studs projecting up through holes in the centre of each sleeper. It seems to be derived from track made for use with clockwork locos in 1953. So at this point in 1956, Maerklin had 3 different types of track, one was solid centre rail, and two different type of stud contact, Model-gleiss and M Track. As noted above Model-gleiss was dropped in 1957 and the solid centre rail type in 1958. Leaving stud contact M Track as their sole track type. K ( for Kunstsoff or Plastic ) track was introduced in 1969. It was similar to the Model-gleiss system from 1953 but without the metal roadbed. It looked very good, but was somewhat delicate if used as loose lay. C Track came in 1988. It was based on a track design for a "toy train", and got its name as when the pieces are connected together there is a "Click" sound. It is said to be best for digital operation. Here is a picture, courtesy of Wikimedia, showing the most recent 3 types of Maerklin track, with Left, K; Centre C; and Right M tracks. So Maerklin's change to stud contact started in 1953, not 1969, and became final in 1958 when the solid rail type was dropped. Did Hornby look at stud contact, or were they too wedded to what they knew to try something different, or too busy trying to work out how to defend their market share against Triang? Incidentally, there is no real difference between continuous centre rail and stud contact, it's just the mechanics that differ.

I didn't think that you were knocking. We have tried in this topic to avoid knocking, that benefits no one, but be objective and honest about each system's strengths and weaknesses. We've tended to concentrate on Trix, surprisingly, as an opportunity lost. So I was grateful for your input from the Dublo point of view.

Maerklin is a 3 conductor system same as Dublo, they call it in German "drei Leiter" or "3L". If you look at Maerklin track in its various incarnations since they changed from rail to studs, the studs are much less visually intrusive than the continuous silver-coloured centre rail Dublo used. That is probably just one of the reasons why they thrived in the face of 2 rail offerings from German Trix from the early 1950s through to the 1990s and from other continental European manufacturers.

I do not have first hand experience, so I can only quote what Michael Foster said about it in his book on Hornby Dublo: "In 3-rail, even with rubber tyred traction on one pair of main drivers, the locomotove was very successful and sold in its thousands, bur come the 2-rail version No. D8017 in February 1959, Meccano had t oadmit the only failure in their range. In May 1960 the Secretary of teh Hornby Railway Company wrote i nthe Meccano Magazine that it was absolutely essential to see that the rails and the wheels of the 2-rail locomotives were in a thoroughly clean condition and stressed that the instruction book should be read to the letter. He went on that it was particularly necessary that no oil found its way to the rubber tyres that were fitted to one pair of the driving wheels on the motor bogie as the tyres stretch in service and uneven running might result if sufficient attention was not given to this point. Also that any irregularity in the running surface caused by the tyres in this condition could affect the necessary contact between the rails and the wheels. The whole problem was the current collection." He goes on to give more details with which I won't bore you all.

Or, perhaps al alternative summary might be that Dublo, Trix and Triang each had advantages over the other two, but that Triang had the advantage where it really counted - cost.

What you say about bad management by Roland Hornby and his top management team is undoubtedly true. But some of what you say isn't. Hornby did produce models with different running numbers as early as 1959 as many of the 3 rail locos had different running numbers to the 2 rail versions. The reason why Hornby had so much unsold stock at the Lines Bros takeover was quite simple - overproduction of product against falling sales. Roland Hornby believed that the brand's declining sales were temporary and wanted to have plenty of stock on hand for when demand picked up again, but it never did as the fall was permanent due to a loss of market share. The big Dublo steam locos did have presence and their valve gear was more realistic, but probably more expensive to produce. Triang and Trix locos had presence too, especially the Trix AL1, and the Triang Britannia and EM2. And small locos without valve gear can have presence too. One only has to think of Nellie/Polly/Connie and their SteepleCab parent, the L1, Jinty, and even the Dock Shunter/Yard Switcher. The Dublo Class 20 was also a good model, leaving aside the pickup problems of the 2 rail version. But once you get away from large steam locos the Deltic and Class 20, their choice of models was strange. The EMU is a fair representation of the Class 501 which at best could only have limited appeal as it only ran on 2 routes in the London area. The Co-Bo was "famous" for the "Condor" overnight freight service, but again it was hardly thick on the ground and was a particularly bland looking loco with minimal trackside appeal. The choice of the AL1 was in my view bizarre, an OHLE loco when you don't have a catenary system, especially when there were so many diesel locos crying out to be modelled? If it was an attempt to get Triang owners to buy it then they should have made provision for fitting Triang couplings. Hornby had started moving towards plastic mouldings for bodies, the R1, Class 20, AL1 and super detail goods wagons were showing their direction of travel and they should have switched to plastic bodies for the coaches as well, as tinplate always, in my opinion, looks like tinplate. Whilst the Class 20 looked good, the diecast Deltic was dimensionally challenged and their AL1 also had problems especially when it was up against the Trix AL1. Hornby Dublo's only advantage over Triang was their range of big steam outline locos but they had their own drawback - cost, and a model railway, even a toy one, needs more than just good big steam outline locos especially when your target market is kids with limited pocket money and their potentially financially challenged parents.

Well, there is a report in the papers today 22 June 2021, that a new company called Midnight Trains is looking to run a network of sleeper services to/from Paris https://www.midnight-trains.com/en/story. with the first route opening in 2024 and presumably the rest on their map will follow in due course one of which will be to/from Edinburgh. Now there's a thought, a link from one part of the EU (Scotland, assuming the Scots get their referendum and vote "Yes" to Leave and rejoin the EU) to another, France, running through England. Will the trains be sealed so that no one can gain access to England via the "back door"?

The warning bells make enough noise though. and I suspect it is the fact that most of the time the tracks are unoccupied that makes folks treat the "traffic free" areas with just trams as a pedestrian area.

At first sight, you are right. Being first into the sub 7mm market should have helped them establish a presence, but that was as a Bassett Lowke branded product, not as Trix. Being the underdog after WW2, Trix struggled. Stefan Bing made a grave mistake in keeping coarse scale and AC after WW2, especially after Trix in Germany had made the change, pointing the way ahead. They also suffered from almost continual changes of ownership which cannot have helped. Their best chance was probably when they were owned by Courtaulds who had the financial muscle to take on Lines Bros. But it strikes me as a very odd fit even if Courtaulds did produce Lego in the UK. Courtaulds had tired of Trix by 1966 which is why they offered the company to Lines Bros. The 3.8mm scale was always a burden, and some bad decisions, particularly the one to produce the polystyrene coaches in 3.8mm scale was just too much. If the AL1 had been the first of many locos and rolling stock in 4mm scale instead of a flash in the pan until the Flying Scotsman then they might have stood a chance.

Thank you everyone for your contributions. If I may sum up, it would seem that Triang won out due to: 1. Lower Prices. Parents held the purse strings there was less free cash in household budgets back then. Once that first set was bought brand loyalty tended to kick in. Triang locos were generally significantly cheaper than comparable locos from Dublo and Trix, and their production of 0-4-0 locos gave them an additional advantage. 2. Number of outlets/availability. This probably affected Trix most as Hornby was part of the Meccano Group whose products included Dinky Toys, Meccano itself, and Bayko building sets, so would have been well represented in toy shops in the period up to the end of the 1960s. But Trix only had the Trix construction sets, very similar to Meccano, but these were never so well known as Meccano itself. Hence Trix's access to toy shops and similar outlets would probably have been much more restricted, and as most folks first port of call would have been their local toy shop that in many cases meant Dublo or Triang, not Trix. 3. Range. HD had a better range of large locos than Triang, but Triang won out with the way that they used their 0-6-0 chassis to launch new locos without the cost of tooling up for a new chassis for each one, and did a similar trick with their 0-4-0 chassis. Trix produced some excellent locos, notably the AL1/Class 81 and A2, A3 and A4 locos in true OO gauge, and the Western and Trans Pennine units and their range of polystyrene coaches in their 3.8mm scale, and probably would have given Triang a real run for their money in the 1960s were it not for people steering clear of them because of their unique scaling, neither OO nor H0. Hornby Dublo took too long to introduce additional new smaller locos in the mid-1950s, and with too few lower priced locos were easily undercut by Triang. 4. Track. None of the 1950s track was particularly convincing, but Triang's 2 rail looked better than Dublo 3 rail or Trix's Twin track. Dublo stayed with 3 rail tinplate track too long and should have seen that 2 rail or 3 rail stud contact in a plastic base was the way forward. Trix also stayed with their bakelite track for too long, and their Twin system track's ability to have 2 locos under independent control, 3 if you also had catenary, wasn't enough to compensate for the look of their track. Triang Super 4 was probably the best all-round track system in the 1960s in terms of appearance, robustness and ease of use when put against Dublo 2 rail or Trix's fibre based Twin track. Again, thank you all for your contributions.

I've never heard a TGV, ICE, Eurostar or Javelin pass by with the "pedal to the metal", but I'm not too surprised that they are relatively quiet. Much if it will be down to the aerodynamics. Most EMUs and diesel locos have the aerodynamics of a house brick and will inevitably create more air noise than their speed would suggest. Diesel locos are noisy beasts, but electric motors make very little noise as their derive their power from magnetism, not igniting a highly pressurised hydrocarbon fuel air mixture. Ever heard of a noisy magnet? Neither have I. Remember, back in the days of the trolleybus they used to be called "the silent death" because folks couldn't hear them coming over the ambient streeet noise and walked out in front of them without looking. I suppose we'll be back to those scenarios one day soon as fully electric cars become more commmon. As I've said before on this thread, I used to live within 20 metres of the 6 track part of the WCML in London, and the predominant sound from the line was .......... silence, interspersed with the very short burst of noise from the Inter City services and outer suburban services going past. The Class 501 and Bakerloo '38 stock, and when they were replaced the Silverlink Class 313s could be heard but they were hardly intrusive. The adjoining main road was far worse for noise generation as the roar of passing traffic was virtually continuous from 7 in the morning to 8 at night. Most of the time you forgot that the line was so close.

Your knowledge of the area will be far more up to date than mine as it is some years since I was last in that area by car or train, but as I remember it, solid suburbia only really starts at Moor Park. There are built up areas around Rickmansworth (extending to Croxley and Watford) and down towards Denham, and towards Chorleywood, but from Chorleywood to Little Chalfont there are open fields. Little Chalfont does seem to flow into the area around Amersham station. Amersham Old Town is down in the valley below the Met station/Metroland area. But outside of the areas that I've mentioned there isn't the same horizon to horizon housing as you get in the rest of Metroland south of Moor Park.

For the very good reason that it's not included in the copy of the April 1962 price list in my possession! You can't leave out what's not there. Matthewman says that initially the E2 was only available in the F50 set (I've amended my previous post on the price comparison), and it was not sold as a solo loco until the Spring of 1962. That decision to release it as a solo loco must have been taken after the April 1962 price list was printed. I was not trying to list everything, only seeking to make suitable comparisons between the range. I didn't include the Warship either as Triang hadn't released the Class 31 yet which was still being shown as Autumn in the Triang September '62 price list. The 1960 catalogue which I have that came with the April 1962 price list shows the following locos: Warship EM1 Britannia 0-6-2 Class 66xx 4-6-0 Class 5 Ruston Hornsby Diesel Shunter There doesn't seem to have been a 1962 catalogue. The locos listed in the official Trix April 1962 price list that I have are: 0-6-2 side tank in Black and Green liveries 4-6-2 Britannia 4-6-0 Class V in Black and Green liveries EM1 in Black and Green liveries Warship Class Diesel