1:100 scale

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

There has been a discussion about re-introducing TT scale, either at 1:120 or 1:100 on another thread, but proposing that Hornby re-release it.

 

The general conclusion is that it would not be viable for a large-scale manufacturer to do it RTR, however if a small group, even potentially a group specially dedicated to restarting the scale could do it, it would be more realistic.

 

I am proposing to start such a group.

 

A number of specifics need to be decided on, decidedly track gauge and scale.

 

While many argue that 1:120 is better as 12mm track is available, I would go for 1:100. There is already small amounts of 14.2mm track available. This also makes it an easier scale for scratchbuilders. Another reason is that people who model Australian or Irish 5'3" gauge can use existing HO scale track, to almost perfectly replicate the 1600mm gauge. 

 

As it would more or less be a new scale, there would be a number of standards that would need to be set.

 

1 - Track. Having loose-radius curves, as well as double-slips, single-slips and 3-way turnouts is a must. It would for obvious reasons be set-track, but with flex-track and looser turnouts available in the long run. Having the equivalent of 4th and 5th radius for the standard sets, with 6th also available, and 7th onwards by using flex-track and a TrackSetta type of device.

 

2 - DCC standards. DCC is becoming much more widespread. Being a new scale, with next to nothing currently available, having all items DCC fitted is logical. This eliminates the need for multiple different types of control, as every loco can run on the system, whereas with O, OO, HO and N, some people have DCC and DC, or just one or the other. This makes it hard for people to do running sessions with others, as the other person may run DC, but your locos may be DC.

 

3 - Couplers. Having scale couplers is a must. Ideally Kadee couplers, for the simple reasons that they are A- more realistic, and B- easier to uncouple, as you can use Electromagnetic uncouplers, delayed-action uncouplers, or just manual uncouplers. The uncouplers are much less bulky, and make layouts more prototypical.

 

4 - Operating gangways. As the curves will be looser than existing HO/OO scale set-track, it would be possible to have magnetic operating gangways and close-coupling. This adds a lot more realism, so is certainly a must for a scale, which while aimed at all generations, is ideally going to be a super-detail scale.

 

 

For obvious reasons, the rolling stock would be an issue. Hence why I have started a poll. I have (with assistance) selected the 5 most popular diesel and steam locomotives, and an arrangement of generic rolling stock. For the poll, you select your 5 favourite out of the 10 possible selections.

 

In terms of rolling stock, I am proposing the following

 

BR Mk1 stock - FK, SO, BSK and BG

BR Mk3 stock - TSO/TS, FO/TF and RUB/TRFB

16t refrigerated van

5 plank open wagon

7 plank open wagon

HAA hopper

16t mineral wagon

20t brake van

 

 

With track, it would be set-track. Have the equivelant of 4th radius available in starter sets, and have add-on track in 4th, 5th and 6th radius. Have standard 15cm length straights and turnouts. In terms of turnouts I suggest - 

Y Turnout

LH/RH standard 

LH/RH 4th-5th radius curved

Double-Slip

Single-Slip

3-Way Turnout

 

Obviously have them all compatible with each other. For points, I would have the diverging route as 5th radius, with the exception of the curved turnouts.

I am currently working on getting scaling done for set-track curves, and I am planning to do a test 3D print of a set of sleepers. The obvious choice of rail would be code 75, as that can work with Code 75 in HO/OO for 5'3 modellers.

 

Please let me know what you think!

 

Peter

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I have started a Facebook page for those of you who use Facebook. It is available at

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1102872819757897/

[njee20]

I commend your enthusiasm and wish you luck.

 

Seems the niches of niches. Part of the reason I can see people wanting to go to 3mm would be the reduction in space required versus OO, of course by forcing very gentle curves you risk undoing that. Just a thought.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I commend your enthusiasm and wish you luck.

 

Seems the niches of niches. Part of the reason I can see people wanting to go to 3mm would be the reduction in space required versus OO, of course by forcing very gentle curves you risk undoing that. Just a thought.

That is a very good point. HO scale 4th radius is equivelant to 497mm in 1:100, which is under 3rd in HO.

Obviously I would give the option of 2nd and 3rd, however there would be models sold for 4th radius and over, and models sold for 2nd/3rd radius and over. Things such as the 08/09 and the J94 would be designed for 2nd and 3rd, whilst the larger stuff (A3 and Mk3 coaches etc) would be for 4th+.

 

Very good point, and thanks for bringing it up!

 

Peter

[Gordon H]

If you want to have 'working' gangways you will need to include transition curves in your track range.

It is the immediate change from straight to curve with conventional set-track that normally rules this out.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

If you want to have 'working' gangways you will need to include transition curves in your track range.

It is the immediate change from straight to curve with conventional set-track that normally rules this out.

That is very true Gordon.

I am currently doing a couple of experiments with straight track, and I will test curved track soon.

[fallen]

Peter,

 

First let me say that I welcome this idea and your initiative to get something going. 3mm was seen as the ideal scale when it was introduced, and it still is.

 

I think you need to think very carefully about who you are aiming this at. There are two main drivers here, and they can easily be in conflict.

 

One is the desire to have a smaller version of 4mm modelling, which is very attractive as it allows similar running quality and modelling of detail in a smaller space. The smaller space aspect being very interesting for anyone living in a modern (European) house which is nowadays quite resticted in space.

 

The other is the desire to have a more realistic scale/gauge combination than offered by OO scale or the original Triang TT. This would mean 14.2mm gauge or similar for 3mm scale.

 

The conflict comes when you translate the 14.2 mm gauge into finescale standards, as this results in large radius curves which take away the advantage of the small size.

 

In particular, are you aiming this initiative at finescale modellers or a wider market? Fine scale modelling is not something usually associated with train sets, which you mention in your description, nor set track. A train set with half metre radius curves is not something that you can put on the average table top.

 

Is there a possibility of an interrmediate standard of track but using 14.2 mm gauge instead of 12mm?

 

There is another but related point. You have listed a number of main line locos which are themselves relatively large and suggest they will pull long trains. Again, for people living in modern houses, something smaller would be more attractive, at least to start off with. You mention the J94, what about the LMS Jinty of fond Triang memory, or a GW 0-6-0? I suspect Triang brought out the Jinty as their first TT loco for very good reasons. This would allow for small trains without being unrealistic, and so smaller layouts.

 

Incidentally, I would not assume everyone has DCC, as many do not, and if you only produce DCC locos you are forcing people to buy into an expensive DCC system as well as the new scale.

 

Hope this helps. I very much hope you make this fly!

 

Frank

[Gordon A]

I suggest that producing a wide range of set track curves is a waste of investment, flexi track lets people work to whatever radii they wish.

Possible limiting to two different radii if you were looking to sell starter sets including track.

 

Gordon A

[Forester]

Two points:

 

First, what an unrepresentative set of locos you have chosen for the poll. J94? Nothing Southern or Western?

 

Secondly. A project like this needs to start with a selling point. What can be done with it?

 

Start with a convenient board size, say 6x4, and choose the gauge and curve radius so you can fit a decent layout on it. That after all is the one advantage around-3mm has over 4mm.

[Talltim]

1:100 or 1:101.6?

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

1:100 or 1:101.6?

1:100

 

This is simply as it is a far more logical scale.

[28XX]

Wot no GWR engines?

 

Let the wish listing commence!

[Forester]

Success can't be had by picking scales and locos out of thin air. There has to be a marketing plan.

 

Ask what advantages does 3mm have over N and OO? Clearly it is the ability to put a decent size scale onto a manageable single-piece board.

 

So start with the manageable board. 6x4 to get through doorways? Then choose the gauge and minimum curve radius to put a decent layout on the board.

The track is everything. The choice between 1/100, TT, 3MM 14.2 etc then begins to emerge, along with the major problems that come with each one.

 

Starting the project with a poll of random locos (and not even the top sellers in N, OO, O) and a random scale 1:100, shows little insight into the problems of 3mm, which many people have wrestled with for decades.

 

There is no clear winner in the scale debate. It depends on the compromises people find acceptable or unacceptable. Random selection is always going to fail.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I have edited the voting list a bit to include a modern-image loco, and 1 each of LMS, LNER, GWR and SR

 

Anyone with suggestions please let me know!

[ThePurplePrimer]

I understand all the compromises in place for certain brands in certain scales but isn't this a chance to break the mould when designing your locos.

 

Why not build them to go round radius that are actually sensible for that model and simply have a nice stylish R1 R2 R3 or R4 for clearly and proudly on the front of the box.

 

This would enable purchasers and retailers at a glance to know if a loco was suitable for your layout and would avoid unfortunate compromises.

 

Now this of course wouldnt stop you having the odd larger loco in a 'RailRoad' range that was deliberately compromised tomrun on an unrealistically tight curves - I mean every kid ( of all ages might want ) The Flying Scotsman just put that in the RR2 ( for eg ) range - moulded detail less detail more robust and cheaper.

 

NB Scalextric do a range of cars like that - strong and less detailed

 

Just thinking aloud

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I understand all the compromises in place for certain brands in certain scales but isn't this a chance to break the mould when designing your locos.

 

Why not build them to go round radius that are actually sensible for that model and simply have a nice stylish R1 R2 R3 or R4 for clearly and proudly on the front of the box.

 

This would enable purchasers and retailers at a glance to know if a loco was suitable for your layout and would avoid unfortunate compromises.

 

Now this of course wouldnt stop you having the odd larger loco in a 'RailRoad' range that was deliberately compromised tomrun on an unrealistically tight curves - I mean every kid ( of all ages might want ) The Flying Scotsman just put that in the RR2 ( for eg ) range - moulded detail less detail more robust and cheaper.

 

NB Scalextric do a range of cars like that - strong and less detailed

 

Just thinking aloud

You have made a couple of great points there which I had not thought of.

Now I think about it, probably having 4 curve radius available would be a good idea. These would range from 30-60cm, in roughly 10cm incriments. For obvious reasons, R1 would be for smaller 0-6-0 etc locos, while R2 is getting closer to shallow curves, and R3 and R4 are for people who just want to run realistic trains. 

 

In regards to rolling stock, I would have 1 set with R1 curves, it would be an 08/09 and 5 goods wagons. The other sets would be available in R2-R3, with R4 available seperately. This way people have the option to have sharp unrealistic curves, but with the compromise that they can't run as much. This is no different to other scales.

 

As for having the RailRoad range style of thing, what I would look at doing is having 3D printed bodies, with little/no seperately applied parts, and a standard chassis unit. 

 

Thanks for the suggestions!

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Peter,

 

First let me say that I welcome this idea and your initiative to get something going. 3mm was seen as the ideal scale when it was introduced, and it still is.

 

I think you need to think very carefully about who you are aiming this at. There are two main drivers here, and they can easily be in conflict.

 

One is the desire to have a smaller version of 4mm modelling, which is very attractive as it allows similar running quality and modelling of detail in a smaller space. The smaller space aspect being very interesting for anyone living in a modern (European) house which is nowadays quite resticted in space.

 

The other is the desire to have a more realistic scale/gauge combination than offered by OO scale or the original Triang TT. This would mean 14.2mm gauge or similar for 3mm scale.

 

The conflict comes when you translate the 14.2 mm gauge into finescale standards, as this results in large radius curves which take away the advantage of the small size.

 

In particular, are you aiming this initiative at finescale modellers or a wider market? Fine scale modelling is not something usually associated with train sets, which you mention in your description, nor set track. A train set with half metre radius curves is not something that you can put on the average table top.

 

Is there a possibility of an interrmediate standard of track but using 14.2 mm gauge instead of 12mm?

 

There is another but related point. You have listed a number of main line locos which are themselves relatively large and suggest they will pull long trains. Again, for people living in modern houses, something smaller would be more attractive, at least to start off with. You mention the J94, what about the LMS Jinty of fond Triang memory, or a GW 0-6-0? I suspect Triang brought out the Jinty as their first TT loco for very good reasons. This would allow for small trains without being unrealistic, and so smaller layouts.

 

Incidentally, I would not assume everyone has DCC, as many do not, and if you only produce DCC locos you are forcing people to buy into an expensive DCC system as well as the new scale.

 

Hope this helps. I very much hope you make this fly!

 

Frank

Hi Frank

 

Thanks for your kind words, and ideas.

 

As to the DCC idea, I am proposing that all items be built with DCC, and sets come with a DCC controller. I am looking into a way to be able to do reliable DCC at a cheap cost. 

The reason for DCC only, is to eradicate all sorts of issues when it comes to other things. As this new scale (which will either be called P for Prototypical, or H for Hundred) is new, with new standards, having DCC only is the way to go. This means that there are no issues when it comes to some people running DCC and some running DC. It also means that for people who want to have larger layouts, they don't need to go and spend extra money on a DCC controller or chips - the locos come pre DCC fitted, and the sets come with DCC controllers. 

 

This merely means, that it's easier for people. Say for example Person A has 3 DC locomotives, and is a member of Club B. Club B only runs DCC, so Person A can't run any of his items. Person A then meets with Person B, and they organise a running session at Person B's layout. The running session day arrives, and Person A arrives, only to find Person B only runs DCC. Therefore Person A can't run his own rolling stock. Now lets say Percon C comes for a running session at Person A's layout. Person C runs only DCC, and Person A runs only DC. As such, Person C can't run his stuff on Person A's layout and vice versa.

 

Having everything DCC as standard eliminates this issue, as everything is DCC, rather than some things being DC and others being DCC.

 

 

Whilst this is mainly aimed at people currently in the hobby who want something a little easier to build (hence 1:100), I am also trying to aim it at new members to the hobby. While I have been modelling for the last 8 years, more than half my life, I still find scratchbuilding to 1:87 or 1:76 incredibly difficult and time consuming. Not because of the construction, but because of having to do tons of calculations to get the correct size. With 1:100, that eradicates that issue, and means it's a simple matter of making the components.

As I said in my previous post, I would do something along the lines of the RailRoad range - items with a 3D printed body, and little to no seperately applied parts. This way they are robust, and will be able to be handled by young children safely.

 

 

Hope this explains my reasoning a bit better!

 

Peter

 

 

EDIT - As for track, I am currently working on a set of standards for track. I have scratchbuilt a short section of 14.2mm track using matchsticks, spare Code 75 rail, superglue, and a ruler for a trackbase. I am spacing sleepers at 4mm between each sleeper, as having measured the distance on real railways, 40cm is the average distance. Sleepers are 24/25mm wide and are made by cutting a matchstick in half.

 

I will be making a jig for this, and undoubtedly be making curved track to test out the set-track idea.

[Jeff Smith]

Peter, I am not a DCC expert having only just adopted it (Digitrax Zephyr) but some, maybe, all RTR DCC equipped locos have dual decoders that run on DC. The Zephyr can run one DC loco but it would not be good to run for extended periods - it buzzes a lot.....

[MGR Hooper!]

Hi Peter,

 

Sorry for the late response. But thanks for taking on many of my views and suggestions. I'll be happy to help as much as I can. Sent you a PM too. I shall also try and reply to some posts here.

[MGR Hooper!]

Incidentally, I would not assume everyone has DCC, as many do not, and if you only produce DCC locos you are forcing people to buy into an expensive DCC system as well as the new scale.

 

Hope this helps. I very much hope you make this fly!

 

Frank

You will see that Peter has mentioned having started sets with simple DCC control. Those who want better and more sophisticated controllers can buy those already available.

[Gordon H]

Now I think about it, probably having 4 curve radius available would be a good idea. These would range from 30-60cm, in roughly 10cm incriments.

 

Being 10cm apart won't look very realistic on a double track main line, an equivalent track spacing of over 30ft!

Your proposed 'DCC controller with each set' will need to be fairly comprehensive in its functionality right from the start if it is to be worth retaining as a system expands.

[MGR Hooper!]

Wot no GWR engines?

 

Let the wish listing commence!

Sorry about that. Peter just used a simple list I posted in another thread. Whilst I know quite a bit about British steam, obviously a startup cannot satisfy everyone. Most of the world outside know steam locos like the Flying Scotsman, Mallard and Britannia due to their fame. I personally am an SR/GWR fan, but didn't list any because the others are well known.

 

However I am sure suggestions are welcome. As you can see a GWR Castle has been added.

 

Thanks to your post I can make another suggestion for Peter. But this does involve us re-voting. Peter can list as many well know models as he can. And maybe in the end 3 steam locos and 3 diesels can be chosen. The top 3 maybe?

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Being 10cm apart won't look very realistic on a double track main line, an equivalent track spacing of over 30ft!

Your proposed 'DCC controller with each set' will need to be fairly comprehensive in its functionality right from the start if it is to be worth retaining as a system expands.

I agree about the 10cm apart thing. I was merely using it as an example. For reasons which you have stated above, the distance will be far less than 10cm.

As for the DCC controller, I am thinking something similar to the NCE Powercab, as it has a lot of functionality, however is also cheap. Obviously it would be made using a different controller, but it would be similar in terms of functionality.

 

Sorry about that. Peter just used a simple list I posted in another thread. Whilst I know quite a bit about British steam, obviously a startup cannot satisfy everyone. Most of the world outside know steam locos like the Flying Scotsman, Mallard and Britannia due to their fame. I personally am an SR/GWR fan, but didn't list any because the others are well known.

 

However I am sure suggestions are welcome. As you can see a GWR Castle has been added.

 

Thanks to your post I can make another suggestion for Peter. But this does involve us re-voting. Peter can list as many well know models as he can. And maybe in the end 3 steam locos and 3 diesels can be chosen. The top 3 maybe?

Very good suggestion.

 

I am going now and I will be editing the poll. 

Anyone who has already voted, you will probably need to delete your vote and revote.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I have edited the poll to include 24 locomotives, ranging from LMS Jinty and LBSCR A1 Terrier to the LNER P2, and the BR Class 91.

You may delete your vote and revote.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Success can't be had by picking scales and locos out of thin air. There has to be a marketing plan.

 

Ask what advantages does 3mm have over N and OO? Clearly it is the ability to put a decent size scale onto a manageable single-piece board.

 

So start with the manageable board. 6x4 to get through doorways? Then choose the gauge and minimum curve radius to put a decent layout on the board.

The track is everything. The choice between 1/100, TT, 3MM 14.2 etc then begins to emerge, along with the major problems that come with each one.

 

Starting the project with a poll of random locos (and not even the top sellers in N, OO, O) and a random scale 1:100, shows little insight into the problems of 3mm, which many people have wrestled with for decades.

 

There is no clear winner in the scale debate. It depends on the compromises people find acceptable or unacceptable. Random selection is always going to fail.

A couple of things here. Yes, the main advantage is it can get more into a smaller space when compared to OO. When compared to N it is that it is less fiddly and can have more detail.

 

As was stated above, the poll was of locomotives suggested to me.

 

1:100 can, in no way, shape or form, be described as a "random scale"

It is by far the most logical scale, with the possible exceptions of O (1:48) and S (1:64). Having it at 1:100 also enables people who model 5'3 (Irish and Australian) to use standard HO scale track, rather than having to scratchbuild a completely random gauge.

 

For 1:100, there are a couple of easy things to get straight.

1 - Standard Gauge comes out at approximately 14.2mm gauge.

2 - Sleepers come out at 24mm length, 1.5mm height and 2.5mm width

3 - 5'3" Broad Gauge comes out at 16mm, which is close enough to 16.5mm, which is HO/OO scale track.

4 - For people who enjoy scratchbuilding it is a far more logical scale. 

5 - It can fit more into a space than OO, while being nowhere near as fiddly as N

 

 

If you look, I have edited the poll to include what I have seen as being the most popular models available. The thing about starting out this scale at 1:100, is that we don't want to have compromises, such as OO being oversized for the tracks, HO not being available for British items, and N being fiddly and comparatively less-detailed.