Toy Trains from outside the USA - Pictures Please!

Thought maybe this would make for a fun thread!
My interests in collecting tend to gravitate to the overlooked, the unusual, and the unfamiliar. This has lead me to a fascination with toy trains produced in countries besides the USA, of which there are many.

This post was largely inspired by my photographing one of my ‘overseas’ pieces the other day, which I have been doing some further research on…


More info to follow in a 2nd post. Would love to see various people’s toy trains from non-USA manufacturers!

-El

8 Likes

What a great looking engine! I’m looking forward to hearing the rest of the story!

2 Likes

test - this is curious - I tried to upload a picture to this thread and all I get is a failure to upload. I uploaded several pictures within the last couple of days without a problem. Is there any chance there is some kind of limit on the number of pictures you can upload within a given period of time or is this something else?

1 Like

I believe there is. Your abilities and allowances increase with your overall forum participation. Taking the tutorial helps to increase your “score” faster

1 Like

Unfortunately these are all trains I sold. But let’s start with my 3"rail" Märklin HO.

Most unusual was my Bekh:



I did everything I could to bring this clockwork basket case back from the rusty grave I found her in but the spring steel was just too brittle to wind.

5 Likes

Most common was my little clockwork Hornby Meccano freight set.

I also had 4 passenger carriages (3 Marjories and 1 Aurelia) and outfitted one with a Lionel latch coupler so they could operate with prewar O.

There were also a pair of Japanese gondolas in my collection.

5 Likes

I’m not sure what is happening. I just tried uploading a test picture and everything was fine.

So, for trains from outside of the USA how about this Indian Modelcraft clockwork set ca. 1956

The cover

…and the contents

7 Likes

Fascinating stuff and wonderful trains! Thanks for posting everyone!

Apologies for the time it’s taken to compose this, but without further ado I shall elaborate about my Paya ‘Santa Fe’!

I purchased this model at the Amherst Railway Society show back in January- it has some serious problems, but for the price I paid, I was more than happy to overlook them.

I spent some time recently doing a little more digging into the history of the model. Most of the information I’m working from is from the TCA Western Division’s article on Paya, this Tinplate Times article, and a fascinating blog post that is cited by the Tinplate Times article.

The ‘Santa Fe’ was the ‘top of the line’ O gauge locomotive offered by Spanish toy company Paya. The model is a reasonably faithful representation of a class of 20 2-10-2 ‘Santa Fe’ steam locomotives that were ordered by the Northern Railway of Spain, and delivered after the formation of RENFE, the Spanish National Railway.


(prototype photo from wikimedia.org)
The Paya O scale model clearly makes a few concessions to its prototype- the whole locomotive seems to ride higher than the prototype, with oversized drivers in fewer numbers than the real thing- the overall length of the locomotive has clearly been shortened as well.
The first point can somewhat be explained by considering the wheels, as far as I can tell, were already existant parts meant to be used by multiple models. As for the 6 drivers versus 10, one need only consider that as Paya produced it, the model can barely tolerate O-72 curves! Considering this, Paya’s choice to shrink the 2-10-2 down to a 2-6-2 makes quite a bit of sense.

One of the things that impressed me most about the Santa Fe, when I first laid eyes on it, was just how large it was! I photographed it alongside a Lionel 646 to help give some sense of ‘scale’ for it. Note that while the 646 and tender are longer overall, the Santa Fe is both taller and wider.


Paya had extensive issues with the quality of their diecast parts, and most suffer from zinc rot. Most of the original Santa Fe locomotives suffer heavily from it, mine included.

Paya’s model debuted somewhere between 1944 and 1948 (sources vary on when exactly they claim the model began production) and carried on in regular production until the 1960s, but was still produced into the 70s on a commissioned basis (presumably very low production numbers).

In the 1980s, the original owners turned over the company to its workers. The new Cooperative Paya company began to offer reissues of classic Paya toys, including the line of O gauge trains. The Santa Fe returned, this time being offered in multiple liveries. The quality of the diecast parts was better in this era, but sometimes the models still suffered zinc pest.

I’m not certain if mine is a product of the original Paya company or the Cooperative Paya company- a significant volume of the reproductions were apparently imported to the US in the late 80s and early 90s, so it would seem more likely for it to be a reissue than not. On the other hand, I made an inquiry to a Paya collector/repairman’s YouTube channel asking about how to differentiate, and based on his descriptions of spotting features, mine would be an original (1940s-1960s).

Alongside my Santa Fe came a sleeper car. Like the locomotive, it suffers from zinc rot, and also has warped plastic vestibule parts.

A few details of note- my Santa Fe, like most, was set up with an operating headlight and smoke unit that could be switched on or off via a pair of switches on the top of the boiler, just in front of the cab. The earliest examples of the Santa Fe did not have these switches. Note that the sleeper car also has a switch to turn its interior lighting on and off. Also note that the trains use a “one way” coupler system, so equipment must all be facing the same direction to be coupled together.

I have entertained purchasing parts to repair my Santa Fe- reproduction parts are available from Spain, but the cost would be significant to rehabilitate my locomotive. I have estimated the parts cost to be somewhere in the $200-300 range, depending if I tried to salvage certain castings that are less severely deteriorated or not.

Not cheap… but perhaps not too far off from what a nice, complete model is worth. One day, perhaps?

-Ellie

6 Likes

Becky, I have a rather cheaply constructed O gauge clockwork loco of different design with the same embossing on the cab side as your Bekh. I have been confused about who could have produced it for a while, as I couldn’t find pictures of it on the web. I have the engine, tender, and two boxcars. The boxcars feature a ‘globe’ logo that looks a lot like the Distler logo, so I had been pondering if they had anything to do with it.

-El

1 Like

Very interesting story of you Paya engine Ellie. I never would have guessed it was Spanish. European in ancestry certainly, but Spanish was a bit of a surprise.
Too bad about the zincpest. Now call me crazy but I was looking at the side-by-side comparison of the Paya “Santa Fe” and the Lionel 646 and was wondering if maybe, just maybe, there would be a possibility of installing a Lionel motor assembly in the Paya boiler shell? The Paya shell looks fairly intact and complete.

Wayne, while it might be possible to fit another motor into the body, I would prefer to keep it original- most of the body is of tinplate construction, but it does have significant diecast components too. While the wheels are the most expensive part to replace, I think it would be worthwhile to replace them, rather than to loose the original motor (which appears to be in excellent shape, aside from the bad wheels).

It’s not a bad idea, just not what I personally have in mind for my engine.

-El

You know Ellie, one of the things I find hard to understand is why anyone, American manufacturers included, would make the wheels (drivers and pilot and trailing) out of cast zinc. It’s probably the worst metal you could use due to lack of basic durability to say nothing of the AC voltage erosion and subsequent sparking. During WW2 an American model train outfit (I forget who) tried making track out of zinc as it wasn’t a rationed metal and it turned out to be a bust for the aforementioned reasons.
Oh well, as they say “Hindsight’s 20/20!”

Actually, a lot of trains had Zamak wheels in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Lionel prolonged the life of their zamak wheels by giving them treads made out of either Steel or Nickel, which could better handle the wear. American Flyer steam engines had diecast wheels up until the late 50s or the 60s when they moved to plastic.

I’m not a Zamak expert, but I do know that there are a varety of different Zamak alloys, with some variation in their qualities. I imagine that over time, the available alloys improved. Zinc pest seems to most commonly come from lead impurities, presumably over time US manufacturers got better at making sure their zinc was more pure.

Paya used Zamak because it was inexpensive, but clearly did not use the best quality zinc. I believe the reproduction parts made today are of much better quality metal than the originals ever were.

-El

1 Like

Dorfan has got to be the number one example of a cautionary tale concerning zinc rot. But I certainly understand companies like Paya using new technologies to produce the best product they could. After all there are plenty of Lionel wheels and frames crumbling away or swelling so bad they don’t work anymore.

Here’s a seller that often has some unusual parts in stock: Train Parts – Classic Tin Toy Co.

1 Like

A green clockwork locomotive oo gauge

4 Likes

Northbrit, what make is your clockwork OO locomotive?

-El

Double Heading. Green clockwork locomotive with ‘Zephyrus’ (formally ‘Percy’ from Thomas the Tank range

4 Likes

Purchased from the UK in 2016. According to the seller, it was manufactured by Seki Electric Works in Japan. It was sold by Burgess & Colbourne in Leamington Spa in 1931. The box says “Stronlite, Foreign” and “NO.4620 LMS”. The Freelance Saddle Tank Locomotive is said to be a copy of the Leeds Company (LMC). A search on the internet reveals that Seki products are collected by many people.





5 Likes

Did they make a 4-6-0??? More specifically THAT 4-6-0?