Triang Super 4 track Why?

[Forum-1211528]

/media/tinymce_upload/a6dce6c21fd17e4fa222e89b1bd421d1.jpgWhy did Triang make a track system that was incompatable with anything its abit like Bachmann ezee track it wont join onto standard Super 6 track that Hornby make today! This problem started with the Bakelite track then Super 3 then came Super 4 its wont connect with Super 6 without the converter rail as even Hornby Dublo MECHANO track made in the sixties will join onto Hornby Super 6 so why make an incompatable track when they purchased the Mechano range in 1966 it would have been easier if Rovex had carried on making the former Mechano track and Discontinued Super 4 as yes it is convertble with Modern track but you need those converter rails which are a pain so maybe keep your Super 4 but things have moved on as Triang will run fine on Hornby Super 6 track!

[Fozzy Bear]

I am sure they had their reasons. Send an email to Triang and ask them personally.

[trainlover23]

 The answer is simple progress. As moulding techniques became easier track profiles became finer as did the quality of the models.  

[LCDR]

The reason for Triang Super 4 was to maintain compatability with the Series 3 track, which was developed from the Triang Standard track.

Triang Standard Track had a solid grey plastic base, and first appeared in 1952.  It was developed from the original Rovex track which was similar but did not have fishplates / rail joiners to connect the rails.  Each rail was held on moulded chairs, but was prevented from sliding out by a lug in the fishplate that fitted into a hole moulded in the base.  Fishplates were spot welded to the rail.  The inner radius curves were 13.5 inches radius, a large radius was introduced in 1954, 17.125 inch radius.  The rails were plated drawn steel and the fishplates in spring steel, also plated. Rails were considerably larger in cross section  than 'Code 100' we are familiar with today.

 

To save production cost a new type of track appeared in 1958. This did away with the solid ballast base of the Standard track, the rails being attached to a moulding representing sleepers in black plastic. The 'ballast' was represented by foam plastic, purchased seperately. The geometry was still the same and the rails were also the same profile so that the new track (Series 3) could be used with the older track. The track pieces were considerably cheaper. However both Standard Track and Series 3 sleepers were widely spaced and looked unrealistic.

 

Hornby Dublo three rail track had been available since 1938, and was on a printed pressed steel base, holding Code 100 size rails. However Hornby Dublo inner radius curves were 15 inch radius and outer radius 17.25 inches. This gave a more realistic spacing if double track.  In 1959 Hornby Dublo introduced two rail operation and produced plastic sleepered track to go with it. They continued with a similar geometry and finer profile rails.  The sleepers were moulded in scale proportions. Rails were now nickel silver. The new Hornby Dublo rails looked much better than the 3 rail tinplate track and also much better than Triang Series 3 introduced the year earlier.  Hornby Dublo two rail track was manufactured until 1964. It was still being sold years afterwards by ships like Hattons.

 

At that time Hornby and Triang were bitter rivals. 

 

To counter competition from Hornby Dublo, and also from Graham Farish who had introduced Formoway track, and in particular to further improve the appearance of the track Triang introduced Super 4 track in 1962.  The inner radius was increased to 14.625 inches, just slightly less than Hornby Dublo, and the points were made to the large radius.  This reduced the gap between double track by nearly 1 inch.  However to maintain compatability with the older track, the same large rail profile was retained in plated steel. Super 4 now had sleepers at scale size and at scale spacing.

 

Five years after Triang took over Hornby Dublo a new track system was developed. This used a smaller rail profile, Code 100 similar to Hornby Dublo, but retaining the Super 4 geometry. To enable Super 4 to be joined to Series 6, as the new system was designated, adaptor rails originally developed for jointing Triang to Hornby Dublo, known as R476 Converter Track, were introduced. System 6 track appeared in 1970, and with only slight alterations is still used today.  The method of connecting the sleeper moulding has changed, and the rails are now nickel silver whereas in 1970 the track had plated steel rails. 

[LCDR]

The Seventh Edition Triang catalogue with Series 3 track.

 

 

/media/tinymce_upload/5f5fa820b24d332e871d569c92408f6a.jpg

The eighth edition catalogue a year later with Super 4 track.

 

/media/tinymce_upload/9fcd39b12deb498ebc60e2f91d6fc209.jpg 

[SteveM6]

What is the point in criticising Hornby for a decision taken 50 years ago? 

'Hornby bashing' sinks to a new low.

[Forum-1211528]

What is the point in criticising Hornby for a decision taken 50 years ago? 

'Hornby bashing' sinks to a new low.

I am not critacising Hornby as it is today this was a desision made by Exin lines Brothers hence Triang as Hornby then was Mechano Limited in Liverpool who made a track system fully compatable with todays Hornby Super six track of today and yes Super 4 will conect to todays Hornby track but you need the convertor rails!

[walkingthedog]

Modern Peco code 75 and 100 also need a converter rail of sorts, special rail joiners. As detail and accuracy improves over the years these things will keep happening. It's not a problem to anybody really. Just needs a little adaptation. 

[The son of Triangman]

A virtue of Super 4 no one has mentioned is that Tri-ang also wanted a closer to scale track system that would fit other makes of the period and the previous systems, Super 4 had correct sleeper spacing and fitted the bill nicely, it was cheaper than the H/D 2 rail system as well and the self isolating super 4 points were liked by modellers as opposed to the non insulating H/D 2 rail ones Super 4 was eventually replaced by System 6 which is still made today. Sadly the sleeper spacing of System 6 is incorrect.

[The son of Triangman]

Today Super 4 is seeing a return as you can run new models alongside old ones on it, ballasted up with it's correct sleeper spacing it can be made to look decent.

[81F]

 My first layout was laid in Super 4 which had been bought as a second hand job lot in 1976 sadly the points began to give up and when I wanted a more scale appearence I changed to PECO as I could not get any more Super 4. Having said that we often Holidayed in Branscombe Devon which was only a two (I think) mile walk over the hill to PECOs factory and modelrama in Beer so there were other influences!

[Jjeffs]

Why did Triang make a track system that was incompatable with anything its abit like Bachmann ezee track it wont join onto standard Super 6 track that Hornby make today!

What a complete waste of web space. 50 years too late. Move on! Get a life!

[trainlover23]

What is the point in criticising Hornby for a decision taken 50 years ago? 

'Hornby bashing' sinks to a new low.

I am not critacising Hornby as it is today this was a desision made by Exin lines Brothers hence Triang as Hornby then was Mechano Limited in Liverpool who made a track system fully compatable with todays Hornby Super six track of today and yes Super 4 will conect to todays Hornby track but you need the convertor rails!

Meccano Limited. The Hornby Dublo track is/was not compatable with Tri-angs System 6 the geometry was totally different

 

[LCDR]

 Much of this discussion has been prompted by a misunderstanding of history.

 

Triang and Hornby were competitors between 1952 and 1964. Their track systems were NEVER intended to be compatible. Super 4 was Tri-ang's answer to Hornby Dublo's two rail track system in that competition. It had to remain compatable with their earlier systems so the heavy rail profile was retained.  There was no intention to change their specification, in fact why should they as Super 4 was a good track system for its day.

 

Triang won the competition between the competing brands, because Hornby Dublo were too expensive and following a damaging strike at the Liverpool factory Meccano sold Hornby Dublo  to them in 1965. It was therefore in Tri-ang's interest to keep their own Super 4 system going and stop production of Hornby Dublo 2 rail because all the tooling for it was at Binns Road. Triang however capitalised on the purchase by adopting the name Hornby, in the format "Tri-ang Hornby", bcause the name "Hornby" had been synonymous with OO gauge model railways in the perception of the public. A good PR move! To avoid alienating existing Hornby Dublo users however some adaptor pieces were made including a converter track, a Horse box van and an open wagon with Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo couplings on opposite ends.

 

With further development of the model railway market five years later the time was right to further upgrade the track system. The Super 4 geometry was retained  but rails reduced in profile to Code 100 which matched Peco, Formoway and other track systems. In a move (in my opinion mistakenly)  to improve the appearance the track was converted to HO scale much as Peco had done for some years with their Streamline. HO and OO uses the same 16.5 mm gauge, but HO at 3.5mm to one foot scale provides that the sleepers are smaller and closer together.  Super 4 and Formoway had used 4mm scale sleepers.  Like all such matters in model railways these result in a compromise that doesn't suit everybody.

 

So it is wrong to criticise the Lines Bros for introducing Super 4.  It was a bold attempt to improve the appearance of the track, without making it too expensive and retaining backwards compatability with earlier systems in their range. 

 

My personal view is that System 6 was a backward step, by adopting HO scale for the sleepers. The rail profile should have been changed, yes, but I think the Super 4 sleepers looked better and were correct for OO scale. But I expect most people will disagree.

[Buz]

Because in those days compatibility between brands came down to what compatibility

There was no need and the idea was to keep customer loyalty and one brand was incompatible with the next.

Remember you had Trix Twin, Triang and Hornby Dublo (Meccano) all available at the same time at one time

Each had it's own system of doing things and brand loyal fans.

Brand compatibility being a sales point is a very modern Hobby demand the BRMA have been trying to get it for years and The NRMA in the US has had better luck at it because of customer numbers,

regards John

[LCDR]

 It is also a very good reason why there is very little point in wanting carbon copies of model railways that went out of production 50 or more years ago.  Things have moved on, although some may argue not always for the better, they HAVE moved on.  Today there is much better compatability between makes, and also a great deal more effort goes in to getting things looking right. 

There are still opportunities for improvement. But as these are regularly featured on the forum I shan't repeat them.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

System 6 was going to be Series 5....

 

But it was changed before introduction.

 

Hornby Dublo 2-rail track is fragile, especially if compared to Super 4, and the HD points were live frog, making wiring complicated.

 

HD had later to introduce "Simplec" Points, that were basically the same principle as Tri-ang Super 4....

[Yelrow]

Things may have moved on, but in my view, my Hornby Dublo locos, run as well today, as they did when i bought them in 1970. I would be extremely surprised if todays locos were still going in 46 years time. john

[VESPA]

Why is this thread always at the top. It is totally nonsensical to me as all Triang track in earlier modes was not compatable with many other makes and neither were the goal post couplings. The coupling system we have now adopted is a bit finer but Hornby still insist on keeping goal posts on quite a few items. A bit like having Magnetos on cars!!!!

[LCDR]

 Never had a car with magneto, but plenty of motorbikes.  A nice pre-unit Matchless 650, -- brumm, brumm!!  Those were the days!!

[LCDR]

 No, new manufacture was discontinued in 1970. It does still turn up second-hand. Thing to beware of is corrosion especially of fishplates.

[The son of Triangman]

Yes old steel track even System 6 is prone to corrosion unless it has nickel silver rail. As has been said Super 4 had correct sleeper spacing whereas System 6 is HO scale in it's sleeper spacing and incorrect. Peco track is also incorrect sleeper spacing wise.

OO gauge is a compromise as the track gauge is 16.5mm but should be 18.83mm to be scale correct.  I would recommend Super 4 for those wanying to run new models alongside old models who's flanges don't like today's code 100 track.

[LCDR]

 As I said before, it is NO longer manufactured, but can only be bought second hand. However if you are not worried about appearance there is also the option of Series 3 track which had very widely spaced sleepers in black plastic. This was manufactured in very large quantities between 1958 and 1965 and turns up at Toyfairs regularly. This will happily accept your older Triang trains.

This below is an example of the Triang track types, Standard in the left, Series 3 in the middle and Super 4 in the right.

 

Things to beware of when buying second hand.

 

Standard track - rust, broken fishplates and plastic shrinkage. The plastic used in this track apart from some manufactured towards the end shrinks very badly and distorts the gauge as well as preventing the pieces joining correctly. The rail to rail  locking tongues also get broken off very easily.

 

Series 3 - rust, broken fishplates, and damage to the delicate plastic base especially at the ends, where the securing lug often breaks off, point levers are often missing.

 

Super 4 - rust, broken fishplates and damage to the half sleeper at each end which clips to the next piece.

 

/media/tinymce_upload/f27960e1c33727969eac89c7d915d187.JPG

[Wobblinwheel]

You Brits...should'a just made HO scale trains to run on your HO scale track.. just gotta be "different"... like sitting on the wrong side of the car, driving down the WRONG side of the road! Just ridiculous...

[LCDR]

 Same reason as we speak English. Same reason we just voted out of the EU. We think we are better than everyone else! 

 

Funny that the Japanese ALSO drive on the left, must be something about living on an island.