Allegheny1600 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 If it's intended to be a ready-to-run (RTR) system, and the gauge is 14.2 mm, a lot of things like splashers, cylinders, axle-boxes etc will have to be spaced out quite a bit to accommodate the over-scale wheel treads (H0 suffers from this problem - 00 does not.) Unless it's going to be a scaled down version of P4, in order to preserve the scale proportions of the running gear, the gauge would have to be something closer to 13.8 mm. Isn't there already an answer to this - 13.5mm gauge? Kind of like, the 3mm scale version of "EM"! IF any new manufacturer were to go down the 1/100th scale route, surely this would be the gauge to adopt? Such a proposition seems quite frankly, ridiculous to me - when there is a nicely established gauge of track already in production in many countries - 12mm gauge, which suits the continental 1/120th scale very well. Why keep trying to re-invent the wheel? If anyone were to try and re-introduce TT into this country, my bet would be Hornby-Arnold. They are well known for producing 'N' gauge models (and have dipped their toe in the water with British N) and they also produce a small range of 1/120th scale models too. These are European (mainly German) prototypes but who knows? I might suggest they would be extremely unlikely to adopt the scratch-builders scale of 1/100 and give us top heavy models because they would definitely use 12mm gauge track! Cheers, John E. PS what's this 'problem' with H0 scale models, please? I've never come across this before! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I object to the assertion that 00 is a c**k up. But, it is! 4mm scale models on 3.5mm scale track - a ridiculous situation giving all 00 scale models the 'narrow gauge' look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 So, Hornby / Triang TT gets a no vote from me as it's not "scale enough", if you see what I mean. By "TT" the OP didn't intend the re-introduction of Triang-TT in this thread, but Continental TT, 1:120 scale on 12mm (i.e. scale) track That's also what SK would have given us at Hornby if the Board had listened to him several years ago. But we're really using "TT" here as shorthand for "around 2.5 to 3mm scale" to hear from experienced 3mm modellers as well as old-Triang and Continental TT users. This is because the big decision is whether to go for either 3mm, based on the halfway point between N and OO (and use a very-very-near-scale track of 13.5 to 14.2mm, whatever can be made to work) -- or to base it on 12mm track which is a 2.54mm scale (and make tiny compromises on areas of the loco if necessary to make them run round corners). Take it as read that a re-introduction would be all brand-new and as close to scale, including track, as it is possible to get but still run reliably round modern-home-layout-friendly radius curves. Compromise is inevitable, but modern manufacturing technique could reduce it to all but invisibility. We won't know exactly until a modern manufacturer tries it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Perhaps compromise would be a better 'c' word to use...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 But, it is! 4mm scale models on 3.5mm scale track - a ridiculous situation giving all 00 scale models the 'narrow gauge' look. The situation is no more ridiculous than H0 where the vehicles superstructures are obviously too puny compared with the running gear. It's particularly evident on H0 steam locomotives, but diesels and rolling stock have the same problem. It's a case of "picking your poison". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The situation is no more ridiculous than H0 where the vehicles superstructures are obviously too puny compared with the running gear. It's particularly evident on H0 steam locomotives, but diesels and rolling stock have the same problem. It's a case of "picking your poison". I'm sorry but which H0 scale models are you referring to, please?Cheers, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm sorry but which H0 scale models are you referring to, please? Cheers, John All of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 All of them Oh! Interesting! Perhaps we could discuss this in a new topic, please? Best regards, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Phil Parker Posted January 26, 2016 Administrators Share Posted January 26, 2016 OO is reaching the end of its natural life in terms of what further can be done with it.. > Really? There an awful lot of prototypes that haven't been made available yet. Just ask Scottish or industrial modellers. Even if every prototype were made and available at all times, there's a lot of modelling left to do, or has everyone made everything? There is a call to see a more accurate scale around TT level brought to the market and tested by a mainstream manufacturer. It is accepted there will be small compromises. What those essential compromises need to be are really unknown until metal is cut and a prototype built to modern mass production standards and tested. These standards are light years away from a man bashing old 3mm kits with a file and soldering track together. > I suspect that the man with a soldering iron and modern etched kits (you don't think 3mm scale kitbuilding stopped in the 60s with horrible whitemetal lumps do you?) could work to far tighter standards if required. We see finescale 4 & 7mm models that surpas the work of the RTR boys because they have to consider ease of assembly and the man at the bench doesn't. 3mm Society members probably won't be interested whatever is produced. Mass production just doesn't interest them. > Lots will. A few years ago they were voting in a poll for a RTR 3mm diesel. Plenty of interest there. The 3mm Society is a very broad church with members interested in old RTR, modern kitbuilding and even foreign trains. Everyone else interested, frankly, will follow the first major producer to take the plunge and work around whatever small compromises needed to make it work. OO and TriangTT were not small compromises but no-one is proposing anything like this. But if it is found that 3mm does need 13.8 or even 13.5mm track I really don't think that would be rejected by any but a tiny die-hard few, who would probably not buy mass-produced anyway. I personally think it could be done to so close to 14.2 as to be barely measurable, but no-one knows what modern processes can produce until it is tried. > Barely measureable? Based on what information? If it helps, I found that all 0-6-0 steam locos in 14.2 had to be compensated if you wanted them to stay on the track with scale flanges and we've not seen that in RTR form yet. Like P4, gauge widening on curves is required, not a lot but some. As other have said, outside valve gear won't have much space to operate in the confined width available unless its breathtakingly thin or you move the cylinder centres out a bit like some of the EM and P4 people do. Modern manufacturing is good but it's not magic. Physics still wins in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 A recent parallel here could be Bachmann USA's introduction of RTR On30. On30 was an established kit and scratch builders' scale/gauge combination with plenty of existing 16.5mm track and (HO) mechanisms, and all the US O scale structures and scenery available. Bachmann's On30 rolling stock is exquisite and available for far less than list prices. It had all the elements of success but recently I have seen it suggested that Bachmann is backing off somewhat. No other RTR manufacturer jumped on the bandwagon and Bachmann UK did not seem to want to adapt any US outline models/mechanisms to more British looking O-16.5 - my personal belief is that some would sell quite well, especially from Baldwin. The US market is considerably bigger for RTR On30 than a British market would be for RTR TT and there is not the same trade support so all in all I think that the financial risk would be far too high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Oh! Interesting! Perhaps we could discuss this in a new topic, please? Best regards, John E. Good idea. Go for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 There is a call to see a more accurate scale around TT level brought to the market and tested by a mainstream manufacturer Is there? Please state your sources (apart from speculation on here from a very small number of modellers, many who don't even model in TT)... Oh, and what TT are we talking of, i doubt current British TT3 modellers would be impressed if the new British outline were the proper TT scale of 1:120, or are you talking of a completely new version of TT? 1:110 perhaps... I can't see OO scale being on it's way out as some may be suggesting, much as I dislike the scale/gauge compromise it's ideal for kids and people starting out in model railways and whilst I'd like to see a resurgence in 1:120 scale I can't see the demand being there in the UK where OO and N have a stranglehold and I can't see any sign of it changing, if anything it seems to be getting stronger... Perhaps some narrow gauge stuff in 009 may make slight inroads, but why would someone want to change scales to a scale which will have far less choice than the two dominant ones?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium richierich Posted January 27, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2016 Personally I feel the scale shouldn't have the same compromise with regard to the track as OO. If the same decision had been made today, considering how rivet counting some are regarding the rolling stock, to accept a track gauge at 2.33mm narrow than standard, I expect would be thrown out. If there is a continental standard for TT, that should be followed. Indeed maybe there is an argument for British HO, so the models are scale to the track gauge? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Personally I feel the scale shouldn't have the same compromise with regard to the track as OO. If the same decision had been made today, considering how rivet counting some are regarding the rolling stock, to accept a track gauge at 2.33mm narrow than standard, I expect would be thrown out. If there is a continental standard for TT, that should be followed. Indeed maybe there is an argument for British HO, so the models are scale to the track gauge? Unfortunately, if you scale the gauge to the model scale, you'll have to make a compromise on the position of the wheels and the associated running gear. For example, because H0 standard gauge track is scaled at 1:87, the trucks (bogies) on H0 models in the US are actually too wide for 1:87 scale. Unless you adopt a very hi-fi standard like P4, there either has to be a compromise in the gauge (like 00) or a compromise in the running gear of the equipment that runs on the track (like H0) There is nothing wrong with either 00 or H0. They just solve the problem of making ready-to-run model railways practical in different ways. A TT system would have to make a compromise of some sort. It would be a case of deciding which compromise was considered more acceptable. Personally I would prefer the reduced gauge approach because it preserves the overall proportions of the equipment, but I'm sure many people would disagree with me (some violently perhaps ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted January 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2016 The title of this thread does, perhaps, create some false hope as Hornby have already considered doing so and ruled it out. As others have implied within longer posts, the crux of the problem for anyone introducing r-t-r models in a new scale is choice. How many people would commit to what would be (at least initially) a very limited range of TT products rather than the vast selection available in the established scales? People like me, having a bit of a dabble, just wouldn't be enough to get it off the ground. It's all very well having a vague desire for an accurate scale/gauge combination but why not do something about it from what is already out there? Across the country (and the world), a few hundred modellers make P4/S4 work well and many more use EM standards. Given the tiny market (compared to OO), a surprising number of drop-in wheel conversion kits for OO r-t-r locos are available. It's no longer (solely) the province of those with well equipped workshops and the same thing is happening in 2mm Finescale. Even ruling out items that can't be converted easily, there is still far more to choose from than any manufacturer launching a new scale could conceivably get to market in its first five years. If somebody successfully got r-t-r EM to market, maybe I'd believe New TT could be a goer. However, the fact is that the vast majority of people who rumble on about the scale/gauge discrepancy of OO simply aren't willing to do anything about it. If they were really offended by it, why would they continue to buy the stuff? John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Phil Parker Posted January 27, 2016 Administrators Share Posted January 27, 2016 Personally I feel the scale shouldn't have the same compromise with regard to the track as OO. If the same decision had been made today, considering how rivet counting some are regarding the rolling stock, to accept a track gauge at 2.33mm narrow than standard, I expect would be thrown out. Thrown out by who? There would be huffing and puffing the the Internet but if it's a choice between a less than perfect model and no model then a lot of people will accept the compromise. 12mm track would give the builder 1mm extra to play with on each side assuming we don't want valve gear or bogie sticking out the side of our models. That 1mm has to take up the thicker than scale wheels and valve gear parts. It's not a lot. If you want ultimate finescale then you'll need to accept scale curves, which as has been said elsewhere, means 3mm will actually need MORE space than OO. At launch, the TT train set needs to be an oval smaller than the same thing in OO if you want to sell the sort of numbers to make it viable. Weirdos like me happy with a pretty straight shunting plank aren't enough of a market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Personally I feel the scale shouldn't have the same compromise with regard to the track as OO. If the same decision had been made today, considering how rivet counting some are regarding the rolling stock, to accept a track gauge at 2.33mm narrow than standard, I expect would be thrown out. If there is a continental standard for TT, that should be followed. Indeed maybe there is an argument for British HO, so the models are scale to the track gauge? There's always an argument for British outline HO, which tends to founder against the rock that is the sheer quantity of high quality British OO. No one is going to want to introduce models that are of high visual quality that match the track gauge as the size disparity will be too obvious. Whilst the level of fidelity is not up to modern standards, to compare the visual effect (using two locos that are cheaply available on ebay), just place a Lima HO Class 33 against a Lima OO Class 33. It just doesn't work! As for TT, the situation is different. Manufacturers would essentially be starting with a blank sheet as mass-market TT to British outline ceased production in the mid-60s. There's no point in carrying on with that coarse scale/mismatched gauge paradigm; it would be better to take advantage of current continental mechanisms and track rather than advocating (as some do) a completely new wider gauged track standard, which would eliminate the "space saving" advantages of 12mm TT. But I don't really see ANY major manufacturer biting the British outline TT bullet in these parlous times! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Accuracy is for the 500 or so people who care .The rest play trains and enjoy themselves and pretend . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Is there? Please state your sources (apart from speculation on here from a very small number of modellers, many who don't even model in TT)... Oh, and what TT are we talking of, i doubt current British TT3 modellers would be impressed if the new British outline were the proper TT scale of 1:120, or are you talking of a completely new version of TT? 1:110 perhaps... > Barely measureable? Based on what information? If it helps, I found that all 0-6-0 steam locos in 14.2 had to be compensated if you wanted them to stay on the track with scale flanges and we've not seen that in RTR form yet. Like P4, gauge widening on curves is required, not a lot but some. As other have said, outside valve gear won't have much space to operate in the confined width available unless its breathtakingly thin or you move the cylinder centres out a bit like some of the EM and P4 people do. Modern manufacturing is good but it's not magic. Physics still wins in the end. May I encourage posters to actually read the posts they are replying to - even if they don't wish to spend time reading the whole thread to understand the context in which the posts have been made. Some people have strong views and fixed positions on this subject but please would they post these views under their own name and not in reply to posts which don't actually put forward the views being criticised (if you read the whole post and previous discussion). Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I take your point, Forester, but many posters had indicated that there is a "demand" or "call" for such models, indicating that research had been done and the statistics were there and it just needed the Manufacturer to go ahead and make money... I questioned it earlier (if you check back) and since that post there have been more saying the same thing culminating in yours (hence my quote), if you didn't intend it to be read that way then so be it, but that's the way I read it! BTW I still await these statistics that prove there is a demand!! Interesting comment about British HO, like TT3 there's another "missed trick" by the manufacturers of the time, back at the start of the 60s there were small motors emerging which would have allowed the main manufacturers of the time (Triang and Hornby) to switch to the correct scale/gauge combo, especially as that the time their ranges were relatively small... However the opportunity passed and that was that... I'd agree with Hroth that it would be like starting anew and 1:120 would be the logical solution if they did as there is a ready made track system so it would just be stock to produce... Strange but I've never noticed the "wider bogies" on HO stuff, they seem to blend in, but I do notice the narrow gauge on OO scale locos! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted January 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2016 As to why a correct scale/gauge combo is useful - simple it is a useful marketing tool as well as satisfying those interested in greater Rtr accuracy. Much easier to sort in a new market (TT) than a well developed existing market (hence comparisons to RTR EM etc don't really hold up). Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Phil Parker Posted January 27, 2016 Administrators Share Posted January 27, 2016 May I encourage posters to actually read the posts they are replying to - even if they don't wish to spend time reading the whole thread to understand the context in which the posts have been made. Some people have strong views and fixed positions on this subject but please would they post these views under their own name and not in reply to posts which don't actually put forward the views being criticised (if you read the whole post and previous discussion). Thank you. Well my name really IS Phil Parker so I'm not quite sure why I'm being criticised for not replying under it. I've also built a number of 3mm scale 14.2mm gauge models (Flockburgh layout website) so have a bit of an idea what I'm talking about when discussing the issue making a 14.2 gauge loco work in the real world. I've also been a member of the 3mm Society for many years, hence I know it's a broad church unlike your suggestion "Mass production just doesn't interest them" Contrary to your post, I've been reading the thread and it seems to be falling into groups who want perfection and people who are pragmatic and want something to work. I'm in the later camp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted January 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2016 Strange but I've never noticed the "wider bogies" on HO stuff, they seem to blend in, but I do notice the narrow gauge on OO scale locos! That's because the American and European prototypes offered in commercial HO are built to larger loading gauges than UK stock. To put it simply, the real thing looks top heavy but the effect is minimised by over-wide bogies on models. UK prototypes are more uniform in width over their full height but under-width running gear on OO models exaggerates it. It is the difference between the widths of the various parts of the model that draw the eye, rather than the discrepancy between the scale and actual widths of the running gear. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I take your point, Forester, but many posters had indicated that there is a "demand" or "call" for such models, indicating that research had been done and the statistics were there and it just needed the Manufacturer to go ahead and make money... I questioned it earlier (if you check back) and since that post there have been more saying the same thing culminating in yours (hence my quote), if you didn't intend it to be read that way then so be it, but that's the way I read it! BTW I still await these statistics that prove there is a demand!! Simon Kohler believed there was a demand for it, to the extent of preparing an in-depth five year plan and presenting it to the Hornby Board, putting his own reputation and position on the line. That's evidence enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Contrary to your post, I've been reading the thread and it seems to be falling into groups who want perfection and people who are pragmatic and want something to work. I'm in the later camp. Then. hopefully, reading my post again will convince you that we are in the same, pragmatic, camp Phil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.