Train set prices Railway Modeller 1959 November

[luckymucklebackit]

To put this in perspective,i started work at New Year,1959 on £2/10/0 a  for a 5 1/2 day week.It wasn`t until mid 1973 that i reached the dizzying heights of £22 for a 5 day week when i changed my job.

 

                            Ray.

 

£2/10/0, you were lucky:-)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

[Ian Kirk]

Must have missed this thread up until now. 

Price comparisons for those of us who could mostly only afford the Triang option. I seem to have kept the catalogues from my last few years of my big Triang Train set. (before I caught the "scale" bug and wrecked most of them for the motors). I wish I still had them all.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[JohnR]

Interesting that R.53 the Green Princess loco is the equivalent of £59.81 - but you had to buy the tender separately (for £7.90).

 

The cheapest train set was £65.91.

[Nearholmer]

Steering clear of the oft-repeated price equivalence controversy, the thing that impresses me about that list, and which it is easy to overlook, is how very far Triang had come in terms of product range in such a short time.

[brianusa]

One of the most annoying aspects of the catalogue was the extra price that had to be paid for a tender for the loco.  If the model had a tender then it should have been included in the purchase price and not 8/6d extra!

 

Brian.

[GoingUnderground]

One of the most annoying aspects of the catalogue was the extra price that had to be paid for a tender for the loco. If the model had a tender then it should have been included in the purchase price and not 8/6d extra!

 

Brian.

True, but it did mean that the price of the loco was reduced. Clever price point marketing, or sharp practice?

 

Triang weren't the only maker of things to do that. In the 1950s and 60s lots of things that ought to have been part of the price was extra. For instance heaters were not standard equipment in many lower priced cars in that era. Push bikes were sold without a bell or horn even though you had to have one to use it on the roads legally.

[Nearholmer]

Having great faith in statistics (yes, I know!), I've been ferreting-around looking for figures to add to the debate about disposable incomes, and have been looking at the ONS Family Expenditure Survey, which has been going since 1957.

 

The ONS datasets are a tough old browse, but this graph from an FT summary of the most recent data actually is simple enough to tell an understandable story.

 

It backs my gut-feel that people didn't have as much money to spend on fripperies like toy train sets (Leisure Goods & Services) in 1957 as they do now, but what surprised me is the reason ........ feeding a family was comparatively very expensive then

 

Of course, this chart only shows % splits, it doesn't show how expenditure has increased in size over the same span. Average household spending, adjusted for inflation, was £381/week in 1957, and £554/week in 2017.

 

In 1957, each household spent less than 10% of £381, so less than £38.10/week on "fripperies", whereas in 2017 we seem to have spent about 18% of £554, or £99.72/week on the same (all adjusted for inflation).

 

And, which part of the population spends the highest proportion of its income on "fripperies"? Those aged 65 to 74, it would appear. Even in absolute terms these folk, who must nearly all be pensioners, spend only a smidge less than those 50 to 64, many of whom must be working. No wonder firms pursue "the grey pound", even when selling toy trains!

Edited January 3, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Golden Fleece 30]

One of the most annoying aspects of the catalogue was the extra price that had to be paid for a tender for the loco. If the model had a tender then it should have been included in the purchase price and not 8/6d extra!

 

Brian.

Not just Tri-ang Brian, Hornby Dublo also did this with the BR Duchess of Montrose and A4 Silver King. The good thing was my first electric train set was second hand and had Silver King but no tender so I imagine my father was grateful to be able to get just a tender and not buy a complete loco and tender combination.

 

Tri-ang possibly thought, and rightly so in my opinion, if something fell off the table maybe only the loco or tender would be damaged and needed to get replaced.

 

Garry

Edited January 3, 2019 by Golden Fleece 30

[brianusa]

By this time, I was sadly out of my first incarnation with trains but the natural progression to girls and cars was taking place so I can relate to Kevin's graph.  Before I came here, my final weekly wage was sufficient for my life style for the time.  My first US salary tripled the last UK one so few years later it was soon back to trains after the usual expenditures of marriage, life and living and where it has remained so ever since.

 

Brian.

[sagaguy]

Not just Tri-ang Brian, Hornby Dublo also did this with the BR Duchess of Montrose and A4 Silver King. The good thing was my first electric train set was second hand and had Silver King but no tender so I imagine my father was grateful to be able to get just a tender and not buy a complete loco and tender combination.

 

Tri-ang possibly thought, and rightly so in my opinion, if something fell off the table maybe only the loco or tender would be damaged and needed to get replaced.

 

Garry

 

It may well have been due to the way purchase tax was levied in those far off days.Selling the items seperately may well have reduced the P.Tax as possibly selling the two as a complete unit would have incurred a higher level of tax as a luxury item.One anomaly of the whole thing was the fact that until VAT was introduced,there was no tax on tools!.

 

                          Ray.

Edited January 3, 2019 by sagaguy

[raymw]

1964, my first week's pay was £2:17/6 , I bought an old Vespa scooter for £11.00, petrol was 3/6 per gallon, it took 0.75 gal per week, and everything was wonderful. Bought a car a year later, but sold the scooter for £7:10/- three days before, so  I had to cycle again to work, that was less than wonderful. ( I won a competition in Motor magazine - the prize was ten gallons of petrol. I wondered how they would deliver it. They sent a cheque for 42/- )

[Il Grifone]

Having great faith in statistics (yes, I know!), I've been ferreting-around looking for figures to add to the debate about disposable incomes, and have been looking at the ONS Family Expenditure Survey, which has been going since 1957.

 

The ONS datasets are a tough old browse, but this graph from an FT summary of the most recent data actually is simple enough to tell an understandable story.

 

It backs my gut-feel that people didn't have as much money to spend on fripperies like toy train sets (Leisure Goods & Services) in 1957 as they do now, but what surprised me is the reason ........ feeding a family was comparatively very expensive then

 

Of course, this chart only shows % splits, it doesn't show how expenditure has increased in size over the same span. Average household spending, adjusted for inflation, was £381/week in 1957, and £554/week in 2017.

 

In 1957, each household spent less than 10% of £381, so less than £38.10/week on "fripperies", whereas in 2017 we seem to have spent about 18% of £554, or £99.72/week on the same (all adjusted for inflation).

 

And, which part of the population spends the highest proportion of its income on "fripperies"? Those aged 65 to 74, it would appear. Even in absolute terms these folk, who must nearly all be pensioners, spend only a smidge less than those 50 to 64, many of whom must be working. No wonder firms pursue "the grey pound", even when selling toy trains!

 

One needs to know how these figures are calculated (official figures are prone to 'fiddling'*). For instance this does seem to take account of the well above inflation rise in house prices. The fall in food prices is probably due. in part at least, to the rise of supermarkets . I remember seeing  a photo from the late fifties. Turkey was advertised at 2/6d a pound. It was around £2.50 a kilo this Xmas (and has increased quite sharply over the last few years).

 

*Three kinds of lies:- Lies, damned lies and statistics!  (See also below.)

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukconsumerpriceinflationbasketofgoodsandservices/2017

[Il Grifone]

Steering clear of the oft-repeated price equivalence controversy, the thing that impresses me about that list, and which it is easy to overlook, is how very far Triang had come in terms of product range in such a short time.

 

This always annoyed me at the time The Tri-ang range always had several new locomotives each year, whereas Dublo could only manage one and in the sixties those were diesels which were of no interest at all to me.

A decent pannier tank would have been just the thing. The Gaiety one left a lot to be desired (even to my young eyes) and the Farish 94xx was too modern. (I had been seduced by the pre-war GWR branch line fad by the time this appeared.) Their poor representation of the GWR safety valve casing put me off anyway. (This must have been why I attempted to motorise a Kitmaster prairie rather than buy the Farish 81xx. Not having piston rods and the awful Tri-ang style crossheads didn't impress either.)

[Nearholmer]

Grifone

 

The basis of all the figures in traceable, in mind-boggling detail, if you spend long enough in the websites of the ONS and National Archives ...... I gave up after a bit, not having a lifetime to spare, but one thing I did look at was housing costs. You can see on the graph how they now consume a much greater proportion of a much bigger ‘cake’ now than they did in 1957, and one figure I do remember from my delve is that average weekly spend on a mortgage in 2017 is £134, of which £66 was interest.

 

I didn’t check figures for rents, which have ‘shot up’, or the proportion of tenants, mortgage-payers, and non-mortgaged owners, which has also shifted, the ‘non-mortgaged owners’ often being pensioners, which goes some way to explaining the ‘fun spree’ among some 65-74 year olds.

 

Also, there must be a time-lag in mortgage costs, though, because a current average will reflect all the mortgages (all in the sample, anyway) currently in play, some of which will be as much as 20 or 30 years old, reflecting house prices as they were then. One would expect, depending on interest rates, that the proportion of expenditure on housing would continue to rise, and a small jump in interest rates would effectively wipe-out liesure spending for a great many people.

 

It’s a fascinating, if potentially time-stealing, topic!

 

Kevin

Edited January 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[NCB]

As a Hornby Dublo owner in 1959, I looked with envy at the Triang offerings. Despite Dublo's quality Triang had some attractive stuff. The L1 caught my eye, and the 3F. However, I was locked into Dublo and there was no way I could change. So the Dublo grew very slowly, as pocket money was in very short supply. I did acquire the Triang girder bridge and sloping piers.

 

Hornby really was very badly run. Market Research was non-existant. It took them a while to realise that if they produced models with different numbers or liveries they would sell more.

[Il Grifone]

Kevin

 

As I said, you can prove anything with statistics!    I'm still trying to find the items in the 'basket' used to calculate the price index. I know they change it around every so often, which invalidates the reference IMHO.  I gather the current one includes a £30 bottle of champagne, something we all buy frequently....

 

One reason for the 'grey' spending boom is Equity Release.  You can 'takeout/pay off' a mortgage with this and then add the payments to the debt and lumber the kids with it....

 

£134 a week is rather less than a typical rent which locally falls in the range £750-£1000, though probably this figure is reduced by housing benefit (not necessarily as not everyone qualifies). Crudely the national average income (£27000) is made up of the rich 10%* earning half of the total and everyone else earning the rest - typically averaging £15000 or so (just above the poverty level - 60% of the median income of £22000. Housing takes rather a larger chunk than 20% out of this level. Of course averaged out across all incomes it probably works out to the lower level.

 

* Official figure. It's usually claimed that the top 1% own half the nation's wealth and the next 10% half of what's left. (Not income but the two are closely linked.)

 

David

[Il Grifone]

As a Hornby Dublo owner in 1959, I looked with envy at the Triang offerings. Despite Dublo's quality Triang had some attractive stuff. The L1 caught my eye, and the 3F. However, I was locked into Dublo and there was no way I could change. So the Dublo grew very slowly, as pocket money was in very short supply. I did acquire the Triang girder bridge and sloping piers.

 

Hornby really was very badly run. Market Research was non-existant. It took them a while to realise that if they produced models with different numbers or liveries they would sell more.

 

 At the time I wanted the L1 and later the B12. It took me until about ten-fifteen years ago to get them (and convert them to 3 rail!). Both go like the proverbial scalded cat! (a quick calculation based on an estimated armature speed under load of 12,000 rpm gives 140 mph in 4mm scale!).

[Nearholmer]

There’s no “ basket”, that’s what’s used to calculate CPI or RPI (or both, I can’t remember). Expenditure survey requires respondents to make a detailed account of their expenditure, the components of which are then allocated to headings - the spreadsheets are seriously detailed!

 

It could, of course, be misleading if the sample-sizes were too small, or unrepresentative, but they seem to take great pains to make sure that neither is true. And, the respondents might tell enormous porkies, I suppose.

 

I think the figures that are to be treated with great caution are those for ‘inflation’ (CPI/RPI), which do rely on ‘baskets’ and use varied ways of treating housing costs.

 

And, yes, of course averages, especially means, disguise a lot of important facts. Unless one is either blind or very cosseted, it’s obvious that a very great many people are, at best, ‘bumping along’, while a small proportion are exceedingly comfortable.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[brianusa]

Going back to train set prices, the Decimal change must have been a great influence in prices.  Was gone by that time but every trip back home revealed steady increases in price as I made a point of buying trains to bring back.  Basically normal or modest increases to begin with but latterly noticeable increase in the way Pound notes disappeared from my holiday budget. 

 

Brian.

[GRASinBothell]

Decimalisation was highly inflationary, and not just for model trains. I don't believe a single price ever got rounded down...

I was at University in London at the time, and my tube fare from my digs in Chiswick to South Kensington was 1/3d. Fares were generally multiples of 3d, and London transport announced a few months ahead that fares ending in 3d would be rounded down, while those ending in 6d or 9d would round up. But before we got to the big day they had a little fare adjustment, and, you guessed it, my 1/3 fare was increased to 1/6, so that a few weeks later it rounded up, for an overall increase of 60%. And this was a nationalized industry that the government controlled...

 

Gordon

[Nearholmer]

I remember everyone moaning endlessly about decimalisation causing inflation but, if you look at the figures, any affect it had was very short-lived, in that inflation fell almost back to previous levels through the latter part of 1971 and into 1972, only really getting into its stride after the 1973 oil crisis....... it was more likely oil prices that were mucking-up your train budget then, Brian.

[NCB]

My memories of the early 70s was that it was Anthony Barber's (Chancellor under Heath) mad go-for-growth policy which kicked off inflation, big time.  Up until late 1970 I'd be working in fixed-term software development jobs, but then ended up in permament post at Aberystwyth uni, on a lecturer-equivalent wage, which at the time was quite decent. I had in mind buying a house, but spent too long dwelling on it. Within a couple of years they had shot through the roof, and beyond my means.Then there was post 3-day week inflation. Finally ended up buying in 1981. The idea around today that our generation had it lucky is nonsense. It depended a bit on where you lived, but for a lot like me it took quite a few years of hard graft to buy a house (and then had the pain of paying for the mortgage!). Spent very, very little on modelling in those years (didn't have the space in my accomodation anyway). After 1981 gradually got back into it, and after a dabble in various scales homed in on 3mm/ft.

[Nearholmer]

Good point...... I'll settle for a combination of 'dash for growth' and oil crisis.

 

And, yes, 25% inflation and 16% interest rates ........ nobody much under 60 can now conceive of it! 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[raymw]

It was about 1971, I got a mortgage for my first house. It cost £5,950, deposit 1k, iirc, but monthly repayments of £45.00 (I actually worked out in detail my living costs, being on £1600 per year - I would have £2.00 a week spare, but realised I had allowed nothing for clothing or beer (but I was never naked down the pub). The house was about 3 years old when bought, 3 bed detached, end plot in cul-de-sac. A year or so later, a similar type of house, but a semi, in the same road, but with a much smaller garden, sold for over £13,000. 18 years later, i sold the house for £59,500 (although we added a two storied extension by then), and mortgage was £90.00 a month, but I was told not to make the monthly payments for a couple of years (because when the rates went up, I paid the higher rate, and when went down I carried on at the higher rate, it sort of confused the building society calculations.) The lender told my new mortgage company I hadn't paid them for two years, and I had to persuade them to check up why that was.

 

House prices are bound to rise, since supply and demand is in force, and you can borrow money, until you die, or beyond. Land is scarce, the rise in population means that much of the UK could be an urban sprawl. However, with the demise of local shops and office type jobs disappearing, then there could be a new source of housing development property.

 

edit to mention - maybe in 1975, holiday in Wales, terraced cottages in what was a slate quarry area (quarry closed for some years) for sale at £800.00 each, or three for £2000. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by raymw

[Il Grifone]

My first house bought in 1972 in West London cost £4,500, but modernisation required by the lender took it to nearer £5,500. The mortgage repayment (20 year term) was £34 per month, which went up to £40 a couple of years later. We sold it when we moved to Italy. (For too little I'm sure, but we were in a hurry to move!). Part of the modernisation was financed on credit card (unthinkable today), but the rates were then in line with inflation at much the same as today's. IIRC the A.P.R. was around 30% (1¾% per month). Not unreasonable with inflation at 25%, but extortionate with inflation at around 2-3%.

 

I remember decimalisation! The abolition of the ten bob note removed the pyschological inhibition on breaking into paper money and a lot of prices seemed to change on the basis of 1d = 1p. The blip was only temporary but significant. My thoughts at the time ran along the lines of we should have adopted a sterling dollar 100d = $1. This would have resulted in parity with the U.S. dollar Following Mr. Wilson's infamous "pound in your pocket" devaluation the exchange was fixed at £1 = 2.4$. This of course was BS and rightly derided, but it is noticeable that the similar Brexit driven devaluation has passed without comment. It even has been said the prophesied disaster has not occured (we haven't left yet!)  and good because the pound was "overvalued".  More BS, I consider being 15-20% poorer a disaster.... (It's just as well half my pension is in euros, though HMRC will help themselves to a bigger part of it.)  And at that point I'll shut up to avoid getting into politics!