TRIX OO Scale products?

"mindesign" wrote

That's not an easy question to answer as the Trix range was extremely diverse and varied from totally inaccurate pre-war 3-rail AC powered toys through a stage of scale irregularity (3.8 mm:1 foot) to some moderately competent plastic models with generally poor mechanisms.

You need to be much more specific.

John.

I actually think you may have answered the question - it would appear that Trix is not on par with modern Hornby or Bachmann locos - or Wrenn diecast

Thanks

Steve

"mindesign" wrote

I think that's fair comment in many respects, but Wrenn (in my estimation) is not generally on a par with the latest Hornby super-detailed or Bachmann offerings.

On the other hand I'd sooner have a die-cast Trix EM1 electric than a Wrenn Duchess or a Royal Scot, and I'd sooner have a Wrenn 'Brighton Belle' Pullman than a current Hornby class 47 or 86.

John.

Saw some old Trix Twin at a train show recently. They were extremely crude, with large brush holders sticking out the side. Not a patch on Hornby Dublo, or even that plastic early Triang.

They did make some models which I liked when I was much younger, and would love to see re-introduced to modern standards - particularly their 4-Cor EMUs.

I might argue with that ;-) The standard of the locos that they produced in the 60's, when they went two rail, was very good - certainly their models of the E3000 electric loco and the Western Diesel. The quality was well ahead of Triang/Hornby and the motor bogies were well built with a decent, well made, five pole motor powering them. The only drawback was their 'in between' scale of about 3.8mm:ft.

In the late 50s, they re-vamped their original designs and improved the track, but still retained the three rail and the two loco running. The quality was a bit better than the original pre and post war AC locos, but it was still what you might call representational, rather than in any way near scale accuracy. This re-vamp wasn't all that successful and, IIRC, the company want through a period of being taken over until it reappeared in the 60s with two nrail operation and very good quality models - as mentioned above.

Jim.

They also made a Trans-Pennine dmu or, more correctly, they made the two end coaches - and apart from the 3.8mm to the foot scale they looked superb and ran very well. As they were not designed to couple to anything other than the four intermediate cars, the scale difference wasn't noticeable. Unfortunately Trix never followed it up properly; the intermediate coaches they (eventually) introduced were normal Mark 1's but in dmu green, and not the distinctive coaches they should have been. The "dmu green Mark 1's" never looked either as attractive or accurate as the two power cars. Hope this helps, David C

"David Costigan" wrote

The scale of these was inconsistent and they had a very much over-wide look for their height. The motor bogie was adequate for use with a two-car set, but wouldn't pull a full 6-car train even though, from memory, there were traction tyres on some of the powered axles.

I don't recall Trix doing a 4-Cor EMU.

John.

Trix evolved over time. The AC TTR range in the early sixties(?) was very crude, more like smaller versions of pre-war O scale locos, but the models produced in the late sixties eg Warship, WR tank, EM1, were good for their time - better than Triang. Let's remember how standards in OO models have improved in the last five years to be comparable to those that HO modellers in the USA and Germany have accepted as standard for many years. The current Bachmann standard class 5 and the forty year old Trix model look a lot more similar than say, Minis, of comparable age. The shoes for 2/3-rail operation were always a problem, but many people are still apparently happy to use Maerklin models today.

The Trix Brittania, Western (resurrected by Liliput), 0-6-2t, 5MT A1 A2 and A4 Pacifics were better than Triang Hornby stuff of the same period and cheaper than Wrenn of the same period. I had a couple of Trix Kit built Pullmans which had the advantage of a simple bogie that a 12 year old boy could screw a tension lock coupling onto, and Voila! you have a Hornby Dublo to triang coupling converter coach that otherwise would not be available since Rovex didn't produce one. Went nice with my underscale Deltic, *and it had half insulated wheels so I could illuminate it myself for a lot less than Rovex wanted for their illuminated mark 2s.... Wondered for years why my Tri-ang EE type 3 was bigger than my Hornby Deltic... my friend's Trix Warship was a good runner, but the collection shoes made it more like a 600 series....

happy days, we shall not see them again.

David

I have to say that the Trans Pennine DMU was a nice model. Didn't they do a Peppercorn A2 as well which was quite nice ?

I remember my dad had some of the Trix stuff including the Western.

When you think of the amount of sub OO scale stuff done it is quite astonishing.

All those lovely Bullied coaches and Warship from Fleishmann too.

Regards Phil

Those were HO and looked too small against OO stuff. Fleishmann didn't really know what they were doing - the Warship/Bulleid combination didn't last very long and was restricted to the ex- LSWR main line.They were very nice though.

They also did an unrebuilt Royal Scot and some very nice LMS coaches, a heck of a lot better than contemporary British manufactures, but again they looked to small alongside OO stuff.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

And still in (occasional) production apparantly, either that or Fleischmann are still trying to sell their original production batch.

That was Rivarossi, not Fleschmann. A poor choice of prototype in my opinion as the parallel boiler Scots had all but disappeared by nationalisation (ok I know 46137 lasted into the mid-50s, but that was exceptional) and gave little scope for additional liveries.

What a pity both chose HO-scale. Had they gone for OO we might well have seen them giving Hornby a real kicking.

John.

My mistake. Thanks.

Yes.

Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!

"MartinS" wrote

Hornby have never led, they've always followed others and they were certainly not the first in the field with British OO, a privilege which I believe would belong to the German firm of Bing.

John.

John,

From what I have read, they did lead just after WW2 when toy production re-started, and stuck to the pre-war standards rather than review their products - i.e. better 4mm scale track gauge, or H0 scale.

Jim.

The problem with British HO is that nobody has ever produced any! Every "HO model" produced has been a distorted half HO and half OO model, no wonder British HO has never taken off.

The real chance for British HO was in the 1970's when there was a number of new entries into the British market. Most notable of these were Lima, Mainline and Airfix all of which had extensive model expertise in scales other than 4mm. If all of these had gone to HO then Tri-ang Hornby and Wrenn would have had a huge decision to make.

Instead they choose to listen to the Railway Modeller staff and choose OO, strange really as Peco could have continued almost without change on their main product - track.

In case any one suggests that Mainline & Airfix would have fallen over choosing HO, the answer is that they did anyway. Lima were big enough to last another 30 years, but it wasn't the British market that killed them.

Palitoy's first foray into model railways, pre-Mainline, was HO.

As were Lima's first British models.

We've already mentioned the Rivarossi Royal Scot and the Fleischmann Warship.

No. OO was already too well established.

No. Because that's where the market was,

Palitoy had already tried British HO and got nowhere with it before they introduced the Mainline range.

They would have fallen over a lot quicker. If they had produced HO very few people would have bought it because most of their potential customers were already in OO.