Tri-ang Railways.

[sandwich station]

Is that why you think Triang bought out Hornby, because it was a better name?

[Legend]

I think the one you talk of with multi outlets would be the Hornby one made from the mid 70's onwards.

The horrible disk type thing that Hornby have as a turntable did start out with only 7 outlet tracks and first appeared in the 1977 catalogue. Later versions had outlet tracks all round. I sought out the second version R408U i.e. The one with Super 4 track and converter tracks to allow code 100 /system 6 to be joined on. I think this is the best one, and takes me back to these lovely catalogue pictures from the early 70s

Edited July 16, 2017 by Legend

[Robin Brasher]

Do you still class them at Triang now over 40 years later?

Yes. Hornby are still making the Tri-ang R044 black point motor passing contact switch that dates from 1955. If Hornby-Dublo had continued and changed their name to Hornby I think that they would still be making their SD6 goods wagons, that are better than most of the Hornby wagons, and their electrically operated signals. It takes more than a name change to change the identity of a product.

[Golden Fleece 30]

The name Hornby was synonymous with quality, mostly metal construction as opposed to the cheap end plastic.  A Dublo loco felt right, a Tri-ang one was just as it is plastic and lightweight.  Tri-ang survived due to being cheaper but no where as good.  I like their XO4 motors and a few locos but only because they were different to Dublo's range.  Carriages and wagons are not seen on my layout.  Most coaches are actually Exley as they are even better than Dublo but wagons are Dublo or Bachmann/Mainline.

 

Garry

[locomad]

The name Hornby was synonymous with quality, mostly metal construction as opposed to the cheap end plastic.  A Dublo loco felt right, a Tri-ang one was just as it is plastic and lightweight.  Tri-ang survived due to being cheaper but no where as good.  I like their XO4 motors and a few locos but only because they were different to Dublo's range.  Carriages and wagons are not seen on my layout.  Most coaches are actually Exley as they are even better than Dublo but wagons are Dublo or Bachmann/Mainline.

 

Garry

I'am going to slightly disagree here, certainly Hornby dublo steam locomotives were good but the 2 rail diesels are very disappointing, the class 08 burns out, the Bo-Bo has pick up problems, the co-bo the same, deltic is ok but sheds tyres. EMU is ok but Bit like BR they rushed into modernization and had the failures.

 

Triang diesels on the other hand perform well, the bogie for the Pullman is excellent despite the noise, emu is about equal, my old class 37 perform s well.

 

Triang steam locomotives perform well especially the excellent X04 motor, easy to maintain they don't lose the magnetism, add extra weight they certainly match Hornby dublo.

 

Were they really come into there own is when you put a white metal body on them, like the wills kits, and some K's ones, the 0-6-0 chassis with weight can out perform a similar R1, similar with the 4-6-2 plus you don't have the massive motor in the footplate.

 

Go though 1960's mags and compare the price, I think they were for money better value

[kevinlms]

Thats correct but to all intents and purposes the company is still Tri-ang to me. They bought the name from Hornby Dublo during the 1964 takeover to use the name so will always be Tri-ang to me.

 

Garry

I can see your sentiments, but doesn't it create confusion, when talking to others?

[Golden Fleece 30]

I did say I liked the XO4 motor and a few locos, but, Dublo in my opinion were better.

 

The 3-rail Bo-Bo had no issues, the 2-rail got sorted late in life. I don't like tyres so a Deltic, EMU and Co-Bo have been fitted with homemade steel wheels and work fine as can be seen on my YouTube clips.

 

If you put a whitemetal body on the Dublo chassis they work as good.

 

One reason Tri-ang locos initially seemed better is because they had the sintered iron wheels as opposed to Dublo's 2-rail and later 3-rail locos nickel plated ones. When Tri-ang (as Hornby) changed to nickel their performance went down. Even Dublo's nickel wheeled locos do not pull as well as the original mazak ones.

 

As soon as Tri-ang diesels got nickel plated wheels they used tyres.

 

At least Dublo did not put tyres on a steam loco like the Jinty etc.

 

I have a Britannia body fitted to a Dublo chassis which outperforms my standard Tri-ang one easily.

 

Don't forget that Dublo's valve gear resembled a proper one from day one in 1938, it took Tri-ang (as Hornby) a long time and even then the Duchess and B17 etc was no where as neat although better than their 50's, 60's and 70's Princess, Hall, Britannia, 2-6-2 tank etc round slide bars and no expansion/union/droplinks used.

 

At the end of the day it is each individuals choice but I do have the Tri-ang EMU, Blue Pullman, DMU all 3-railed.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The Dublo R1 was only a couple of shillings more than Tri-ang's 3F and better detailed. Tri-ang's coarse wheels and awful valvegear spoil their locomotive chassis and don't start me on their couplings and inability to scale 3' 5½" correctly. To this day they haven't understood how M. Walschaert's valvegear is supposed to work

 

Dublo's coaches cost more, but were far more realistic - their windows haven't been bettered even today, but the wagons were much the same price as Tri-ang's. Their SD6 van is still available and the moulding is excellent. (I am aware that they have failings....).

 

At the time, it was "Who cares about diesels?" I think that Dublo's failure was due to several factors:- too late conversion to 2 Rail, limited releases of new locomotives (we had to wait 3 years for the 'Castle' - well worth the wait* but... and the redesign of the 'Duchess' was not needed - a completely new model would have been better), too many diesels (IMHO) etc. We began to lose our faith....

 

* Compare this with the Tri-ang-Hornby 'Hall' - a dreadful thing and to this day I have not purchased one It's true their 'King Arthur' was even worse.

 

The only Dublo 4-6-2 to be overburdened with motor in the cab is their 'West Country'. Mine runs and pulls so well I can overlook this, but why they went to the expense of a new chassis and motor I don't know. The A4 chassis would have done and saved them a lot of money at a critical time.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Golden Fleece 30]

I can see your sentiments, but doesn't it create confusion, when talking to others?

No not really as I will say "Hornby which a long time ago changed its name from Tri-ang".

 

I will say that at the moment I have been developing my TT railway and that is basically all Tri-ang as no other manufacturer made British outline stock. Three companies, GEM - BEC - K's, made some kits but not complete locos. I am really happy with it all and as with most Margate 00 stock does run well after all these years. In 00 I have nothing against Tri-ang locos as such,I just prefer Dublo.

 

There is the issue with all Tri-ang's buffer heights though being a couple of mm too high which made them look odd, especially the wagons that looked top heavy.

 

Garry

Edited July 17, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[Il Grifone]

Is that why you think Triang bought out Hornby, because it was a better name?

 

They did it because they could.

I doubt that the Lines brothers thought Hornby was a better name. I understand they lost the use of their own name though financial troubles of their own.

[GoingUnderground]

Do you still class them at Triang now over 40 years later?

And for me, they will always be Triang.

 

Modern Hornby locos are the direct descendants of Triang. The Triang name was "lost" when the Lines Bros group failed, and the Triang name was sold with a different part of the Lines Bros group. The Triang in Triang Hornby was dropped, leaving just the Hornby part that survives to this day.

 

The Triang Hornby name was a marketing device and dates from the "merger" of the Dublo range into the Triang one in 1964 when Lines Bros bought Hornby's owners, Meccano. It fooled no one, only 1 Dublo loco, (the Class 81 body shell, but with a Triang motor bogie), and the Dublo station joined the Triang Hornby range. The Dublo 2 rail steam locos and their plastic injection moulded rolling stock did eventually reappear, but in the separate Triang Wrenn range, which became Wrenn after Lines Bros failed in 1971. They finally disappeared when the original Wrenn company closed in the late 1990s.

 

Many Triang enthusiasts, like me, always felt, and I still do feel, it was wrong calling our trains Hornby, a name that we connect with what we see, rightly or wrongly, as an inferior product. We chose the Triang range in preference to the Hornby Dublo one when they were both competitors for our cash in the 1950s and early 1960s. I think we'd have been happier if Triang Hornby had reverted to its original name "Rovex" when it lost the right to use the Triang name.

Edited July 17, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[Il Grifone]

I'm not so sure about "inferior product". Each system has its merits and demerits (a bit like The Great Western and lesser Railways).

 

I have an idea the name 'Rovex' was lost too? However, as there is no doubt about this being an inferior product*, they probably wanted to drop it as had been done progressively throughout the 'Tri-ang' period. Taking advantage of the Hornby name was probably seen as a 'good idea'.

 

I always think of them as Tri-ang too and never know what to call them to avoid confusion. For example, to me a 'Hornby Compound, County, Shire/Hunt/D49, 'Schools' or 'Princess' always conjures up an image of an 0 gauge tinplate locomotive.  I try to specify Hornby 0 gauge, Dublo and Tri-ang for older products and leave just Hornby for the later stuff. Some of the long lived products will always be Tri-ang however. (The utility van, horse box and cattle truck for example.)

 

* I won't go into its faults. AFAIK its only plus feature was price.

[Legend]

interesting . I suppose it depends what period you modelled through as to what you call it . I just caught the tail end of the Triang period  so to me I describe them as  Triang, Triang Hornby and Hornby Railways . Hornby Railways being distinct from Hornby Dublo which I would use to describe the Binns Road system up to 1964. Its been Hornby Railways since 1973, and latterly just Hornby , so I think for the majority of people  when they think Hornby they immediately think of their trainsets and locos in red boxes.  Hornby Dublo was certainly a great system, but Triang also had its charm.

[kevinlms]

No not really as I will say "Hornby which a long time ago changed its name from Tri-ang".

 

I will say that at the moment I have been developing my TT railway and that is basically all Tri-ang as no other manufacturer made British outline stock. Three companies, GEM - BEC - K's, made some kits but not complete locos. I am really happy with it all and as with most Margate 00 stock does run well after all these years. In 00 I have nothing against Tri-ang locos as such,I just prefer Dublo.

 

There is the issue with all Tri-ang's buffer heights though being a couple of mm too high which made them look odd, especially the wagons that looked top heavy.

 

Garry

The question is, what would have happened to the Hornby name if Tri-ang hadn't bought them out? The company was totally broke by then.

[Golden Fleece 30]

If Hornby Dublo had never been taken over, the name Hornby would not be in use on the ex Tri-ang system so who knows what they would have been called now?  As has been stated Tri-ang used the Dublo E3001 body but used their own chassis, what has not been mentioned is that Hornby Dublo were looking at a possible tender drive 9F so Tri-ang's may well have been developed from that too.

 

We all have our own thoughts on what we class as the better system and it is not for us to say the other was no good, as we all know both systems worked well we just have preferences of our own.

 

Here two Trix A3's (I preferred their bodies to the Tri-ang ones) on Dublo/Wrenn chassis,  my Tri-ang Britannia on a Dublo chassis, a Tri-ang 2MT on a Dublo chassis and a Margate Black 5 on a Dublo chassis.  So you see I do have a few Tri-ang items in use lol.

 

Garry

[GoingUnderground]

I'm not so sure about "inferior product". Each system has its merits and demerits (a bit like The Great Western and lesser Railways).

 

I have an idea the name 'Rovex' was lost too? However, as there is no doubt about this being an inferior product*, they probably wanted to drop it as had been done progressively throughout the 'Tri-ang' period. Taking advantage of the Hornby name was probably seen as a 'good idea'.

 

I always think of them as Tri-ang too and never know what to call them to avoid confusion. For example, to me a 'Hornby Compound, County, Shire/Hunt/D49, 'Schools' or 'Princess' always conjures up an image of an 0 gauge tinplate locomotive. I try to specify Hornby 0 gauge, Dublo and Tri-ang for older products and leave just Hornby for the later stuff. Some of the long lived products will always be Tri-ang however. (The utility van, horse box and cattle truck for example.)

 

* I won't go into its faults. AFAIK its only plus feature was price.

We will have to agree to disagree over which was better, Triang or Dublo.

 

The Rovex name wasn't dead. Far from it. The logo on the back of the 1972 and 1972 Triang Hornby catalogues is Rovex Triang. If anything it seemed to be making a comeback. The boxes on my Triang Hornby models have the manufacturer's name Rovex Scale Models Limited on them. In fact the Rovex company was both solvent and profitable, which is why it survived, and was bought as a going concern fron the Lines Bros receiver in 1972 by another toy company, Dunbee Combex Marx, (DCM).

 

Rovex became Rovex Models & Hobbies, only changing its name to Hornby Hobbies in 1976, and the Rovex name was still used until 1979, with thanks to Pat Hammond's Story of Rovex, Vol 3 for that information. The 1978 Hornby Railways catalogue still refers to the manufacturer as Rovex Limited, Westwood, Margate, Kent.

 

If Lines Bros had ever felt that the Hornby name, which was owned after the takeover of Meccano by Rovex, was no longer a marketing asset, I'm sure they would have dropped it without hesitation. It wouldn't surprise me if that may have happened eventually anyway. But we are where we are, my favourite trains saddled with the name of a disliked competitor.

 

I do have some Dublo 2 rail models, and also some Trix ones. But Triang, for me, will always be the best of that era, despite their shortcomings.

 

I also have some "real" Hornby models, the post-war tinplate clockwork O gauge, and, yes, I do hanker after the pre-war O gauge Hornby electric range, but my pockets aren't deep enough for those.

Edited July 17, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[GoingUnderground]

The X800 mechanism in the 9F bears more of a similarity to a Fleischmann motor than it does to a Dublo ringfield.

 

To quote Pat Hammond again, it is "...almost an exact replica of a motor used in Fleischmann models as early as 1962. The Hormby-Dublo motor had been a unit that was cumbersome and expensive to make, while the Fleischmann motor was more suited to tender-driven locomotives.". He adds that Triang used models of the "Big Boy" by Maerklin and Rivarossi in the design of the 9F.

[Golden Fleece 30]

The X800 mechanism in the 9F bears more of a similarity to a Fleischmann motor than it does to a Dublo ringfield.

 

I never said it was the same as the Ringfield already in production but that Dublo was looking at a different version.  Maybe they were looking at a copy of the Fleishmann one themselves and after the takeover Tri-ang decided to copy/modify it for theirs.  I doubt we will never know for definate.

 

Garry

[GoingUnderground]

Is that why you think Triang bought out Hornby, because it was a better name?

In the early 1960s the Meccano group was in a very weak state financially. Hornby Dublo had falling sales which were split between 2 and 3 rail products. Meccano and Bayko were losing sales to Lego, and Dinky Toys had the same falling sales problem with the success of Corgi and Matchbox in the toy car market. The whole Meccano group was collapsing.

 

The purchase by Lines Bros was probably an opportunity to cherrypick the good bits, acquire some very well known brands, and to stop Dublo being sold to a rival who might have the financial muscle to reinvigorate the Dublo range to the detriment of Rovex. Merging the failing, unprofitable Dublo range with the successful, profitable Triang Rovex range was the last thing they wanted to do. But the Hornby brand has been synonymous with toy trains since Frank Hornby started producing O gauge trains in the 1920s. Lines Bros bought yhe entire Meccano group in February 1964 at a knockdown price of £781,000, about 1/3rd of the stock market valuation of Meccano prior to their offer. It was not until May 1965 that they "merged" Dublo with Rovex.

 

Michael Foster's "Hornby Dublo Trains", Pat Hammond's 3 volume "Story of Rovex", Tony Matthewman's "Trix Model Railways", and Maurice Gunter's "From Binns Road to Basildon" about G&R Wrenn, all excellent books, give a very useful insight into the ups and downs of the main R-T-R OO gauge manufacturers and their products from the introduction of OO/H0 by Trix in the early 1930s through to the mid 1990s.

 

Possibly the best way to describe their commercial battles is the struggle to make their products as realistic as possible for the lowest possible price. As the market has shrunk, and the trainset as a desirable toy has fallen, realism has become increadingly important. Gettimg this balance right is what has allowed some to survive, just, whilst others failed.

Edited July 17, 2017 by GoingUnderground

[locomad]

We will have to agree to disagree over which was better, Triang or Dublo.

But we are where we are, my favourite trains saddled with the name of a disliked competitor.

 

Agree it seems to me those who lived in this era are either Hornby or triang, brand loyalty then was especially strong, biggest problem in mixing was the coupling problem.

 

Myself, and I use both systems, is I prefer the peco coupling. Perhaps it is my opinion but there was a "class" difference, those from more wealthy families could afford the more expensive dublo, those who had limited surplus cash went for the perhaps better value "triang".

 

Course both camps had access to other methods to build up stock, kitmaster coaches very popular and properly built could be regarded as better than both triang and dublo. Then there was airfix, for 1 dublo wagon you could build almost 4 of these, some like the Esso tank and mineral wagon looked a lot better.

 

Iam not going to forget Trix, on there own there plastic 1:80 coaches look brilliant and very free running, but I remember at the time the odd scale of 1:80 put us off.

 

Price and availability was issues then, in 1969 I earned 15/- per day, took a whole week just to buy say a wrenn west country, there was no internet, no or little toy fairs, no car boots, people I knew then did not sell locos or stock, if you were lucky enough to have a permanent layout you could just about afford to put a few locos on it, I don't remember vast boxes full of stock unused in attics. Yes there was more local model shops but most of the time we just window shopped

[RJS1977]

 

Iam not going to forget Trix, on there own there plastic 1:80 coaches look brilliant and very free running, but I remember at the time the odd scale of 1:80 put us off.

 

 

 

I may have one of those somewhere - I can remember assembling it as a boy and being disappointed when I realised it was under scale!

[andyman7]

In the early 1960s the Meccano group was in a very weak state financially. Hornby Dublo had falling sales which were split between 2 and 3 rail products. Meccano and Bayko were losing sales to Lego, and Dinky Toys had the same falling sales problem with the success of Corgi and Matchbox in the toy car market. The whole Meccano group was collapsing.

 

The purchase by Lines Bros was probably an opportunity to cherrypick the good bits, acquire some very well known brands, and to stop Dublo being sold to a rival who might have the financial muscle to reinvigorate the Dublo range to the detriment of Rovex. Merging the failing, unprofitable Dublo range with the successful, profitable Triang Rovex range was the last thing they wanted to do. But the Hornby brand has been synonymous with toy trains since Frank Hornby started producing O gauge trains in the 1920s. Lines Bros bought yhe entire Meccano group in February 1964 at a knockdown price of £781,000, about 1/3rd of the stock market valuation of Meccano prior to their offer. It was not until May 1965 that they "merged" Dublo with Rovex.

 

Michael Foster's "Hornby Dublo Trains", Pat Hammond's 3 volume "Story of Rovex", Tony Matthewman's "Trix Model Railways", and Maurice Gunter's "From Binns Road to Basildon" about G&R Wrenn, all excellent books, give a very useful insight into the ups and downs of the main R-T-R OO gauge manufacturers and their products from the introduction of OO/H0 by Trix in the early 1930s through to the mid 1990s.

 

Possibly the best way to describe their commercial battles is the struggle to make their products as realistic as possible for the lowest possible price. As the market has shrunk, and the trainset as a desirable toy has fallen, realism has become increadingly important. Gettimg this balance right is what has allowed some to survive, just, whilst others failed.

This is the sad fact that Dublo enthusiasts need to recognise - the Dublo product misinterpreted the market by assuming that the build quality would support a premium price. All the while that Triang made very toy-like items they could sustain this - but once Triang were making items like the Britannia, the Battle-of-Britain, the scale length Mk1 coaches etc, Dublo was finished. Sure the Triang models didn't have the weight and substance of Dublo, but when they were so much cheaper and looked so much better, who cared?

 

Meccano Ltd itself is an example par excellence of a pioneer company that lasted until its product range was superceded by more fleet-foot competitors - Lego; Corgi Toys; Triang - all examples of original market dominance becoming complacency. Indeed from the 1960s, Meccano was a poisoned chalice - it never really contributed to Triang profits due to the outdated plant and tooling, and investment in Dinky and Meccano sets came too late and was chasing a diminishing market. When the Triang group was broken off Meccano went to Airfix Ltd and within a decade it sank the Airfix group. 

 

Don't get me wrong - I love the products of these eras, but as case studies in the differing fortunes of different brands it is fascinating to see Meccano take the textbook wrong turns at every stage. I would go so far as to say that if an accident of corporate history hadn't gifted the Hornby name to Rovex Ltd, it would now (like Dinky Toys) be effectively just a heritage brand name.

[sagaguy]

I may have one of those somewhere - I can remember assembling it as a boy and being disappointed when I realised it was under scale!

Trix coaches look far better in a rake,the small discrepency doesn`t really show.These are Trix coaches i`ve refinished.

 

 

                       

                       

 

 

 

                                    Ray.

[St Enodoc]

Trix coaches look far better in a rake,the small discrepency doesn`t really show.These are Trix coaches i`ve refinished.

 

 

                        20170411_114648.jpg

                        20170528_094433.jpg

 

 

 

                                    Ray.

Put 14 mm wheels in them and a Meccano washer between the bogies and body. That makes a huge difference.

[sagaguy]

They are fitted with modern Hornby R8096 coach wheels.

 

                         Ray.