Should Hornby re-introduce TT ?

[Andy Hayter]

Yes I have built two 3mm layouts, published in 3 mags- see Feb Modeller- four 3mm layouts at Southampton- 

Steve

 

 

I have deliberately waited 24 hours before responding, apart from one agree and one like, no further responses from others to say that they too have 3 mil layouts.

 

Sadly I think my point about there being precious few layouts and articles would seem to have some substance - note precious few and not none. 

 

To get a mainstream manufacturers support I suggest that the level of visibility needs to be at least at the level of OO9 - which only now is getting support from Bachmann and Heljan.

 

This probably means 4 or more quality layouts in the model press every year and 3 mil layouts at each and every major exhibition*, every year - plus many appearances at lesser exhibitions.

 

 

*  Ally Pally, Donny, SEC, Warley, etc..

[The Dorset Wanderer]

I have deliberately waited 24 hours before responding, apart from one agree and one like, no further responses from others to say that they too have 3 mil layouts.

 

Sadly I think my point about there being precious few layouts and articles would seem to have some substance - note precious few and not none. 

 

To get a mainstream manufacturers support I suggest that the level of visibility needs to be at least at the level of OO9 - which only now is getting support from Bachmann and Heljan.

 

This probably means 4 or more quality layouts in the model press every year and 3 mil layouts at each and every major exhibition*, every year - plus many appearances at lesser exhibitions.

 

 

*  Ally Pally, Donny, SEC, Warley, etc..

Few subscribe to this website, most years are at the exhibitions you suggest- however, this is how most of us like it. We don't bicker about gauge etc, just get on and do some modelling- Appreciate modelling- not what size it is or become too opinionated.

Steve

[Dunsignalling]

Be interesting to ask DJMs opinion on this. That £500k figure looks rather high to me, especially if you were careful to design in such a way as to maximise common components.

According to his own post regarding a potential Class 59, development costs £120,000+ for a diesel in 4mm scale, and, from what I've read elsewhere, the equivalent for a large steam loco can be getting on for £200,000.

 

There's no reason to think that reducing the size of the models by 25% would save anything so £500,000 for a whole range may be a bit on the low side.

 

One might instinctively suppose that going the Design Clever/Railroad route would reduce those figures but I suspect that most of the savings from that come at the production stage.

 

In any case, if one wants to create a "wow factor" to lure in the punters, that's not really an option, is it? 

 

John

[PaulRhB]

How is 1:120 (2.5 times smaller) close to 1:76?

I didn't mean in actual scale but in perception to a new starter. If shown a cabinet with OO and TT locos side by side I'm pretty certain when asking about range a new entrant would steer to OO simply because there were more options.

Anyhow N is half the size so how is 1/120 2.5x smaller

If you compare N and OO you hear people saying, "you can get twice as much in the se space", TT certainly fills a niche but it's not that different to OO or N that the mass market will adopt it until there's a decent range so they know they can expand their layout. In the technology field the ones who gamble are known as 'New Adopters' and there are those in models too but you need the clout to take risks with a clear predicted market. I'm doing it in Om with buying wagons before Bemo has released their first loco and the prices are unknown for the bigger locos. They are only doing it because the owner wants it and is taking all the risk, the prices are high because they expect it to be a niche market and volumes are low. Ironically if I could afford it I could probably commission DjM to do the locos and stock at half to third the prices, )and expected ones for new models), but I don't have that sort of cash to hand let alone sit in a stockroom waiting to sell.

The Bachmann 009 only happened after Peco and Heljan dived in and even they were investing knowing there were a lot of easy to build kits that drop onto existing chassis. Unless a manufacturer can find prototypes that fit the German TT chassis that option is quite a lot more restricted. 009 also can be added as a feeder to an existing layout and a fair amount will probably buy just a few bits without even wanting a wider range in the future.

I would also say ignoring the existing Peco and Tillig track and Tillig stock by going 1:100 and 14.2mm gauge would be unlikely for a big company so there's another clash with what's been established by the 3mm society.

Would anyone choose today, (if it didn't exist already), to start OO from scratch?, pretty sure they'd choose HO to make use of the existing track and scenic bits.

So there's the problem, if you adopt the fine scale option you can't buy a bit of continental stuff to run if you like it or adapt where the modern stuff is the same. If you go with the continental scale then you exclude a large number of the established modellers with layouts who might buy one or two bits. I bought some TT German stuff as it ran in the same track as my HOm so there must be others

[Forester]

 TT certainly fills a niche but it's not that different to OO

 

What is fundamentally different is what you can do with it on, say, a 6 x 4 ft baseboard that you can move from room to room, or carry upstairs.

 

It won't appeal to those who are happy to retire to the loft or the garage for their modelling.

It won't appeal to those satisfied with the compromises of 00 or the irritations of N, who form the backbone of the repeated posts here saying "it can't be done".

It appeals to those who want to integrate their models into ordinary family life in the ordinary modern modest-sized house.

 

That (relatively) small reduction in size transforms the options of what can be modelled in a sensible and moveable space. That's the attraction.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I didn't mean in actual scale but in perception to a new starter. If shown a cabinet with OO and TT locos side by side I'm pretty certain when asking about range a new entrant would steer to OO simply because there were more options.

Anyhow N is half the size so how is 1/120 2.5x smaller

If you compare N and OO you hear people saying, "you can get twice as much in the se space", TT certainly fills a niche but it's not that different to OO or N that the mass market will adopt it until there's a decent range so they know they can expand their layout. In the technology field the ones who gamble are known as 'New Adopters' and there are those in models too but you need the clout to take risks with a clear predicted market. I'm doing it in Om with buying wagons before Bemo has released their first loco and the prices are unknown for the bigger locos. They are only doing it because the owner wants it and is taking all the risk, the prices are high because they expect it to be a niche market and volumes are low. Ironically if I could afford it I could probably commission DjM to do the locos and stock at half to third the prices, )and expected ones for new models), but I don't have that sort of cash to hand let alone sit in a stockroom waiting to sell.

The Bachmann 009 only happened after Peco and Heljan dived in and even they were investing knowing there were a lot of easy to build kits that drop onto existing chassis. Unless a manufacturer can find prototypes that fit the German TT chassis that option is quite a lot more restricted. 009 also can be added as a feeder to an existing layout and a fair amount will probably buy just a few bits without even wanting a wider range in the future.

I would also say ignoring the existing Peco and Tillig track and Tillig stock by going 1:100 and 14.2mm gauge would be unlikely for a big company so there's another clash with what's been established by the 3mm society.

Would anyone choose today, (if it didn't exist already), to start OO from scratch?, pretty sure they'd choose HO to make use of the existing track and scenic bits.

So there's the problem, if you adopt the fine scale option you can't buy a bit of continental stuff to run if you like it or adapt where the modern stuff is the same. If you go with the continental scale then you exclude a large number of the established modellers with layouts who might buy one or two bits. I bought some TT German stuff as it ran in the same track as my HOm so there must be others

 

Your maths is a bit "off". N (2mm to the foot) is not two times smaller than OO (4mm to the foot). Strictly speaking, it is 8 times smaller but I have ignored volume because height is not usually much of a restriction when layout building. So on that basis, N is 4 times smaller than OO.

 

By your measurement, TT (not TT3) is much closer to N and I recall that, in my teenage years, my father and I had quite an argument in front of a shop window about a TT trainset. He thought it was N.

 

But even with a 1:120 model only being 33% longer than a 1:160 model, 1.33 cubed gives a volume that is twice that of the N scale model. The difference would obviously be rather less relative to the 1:148 of British N (hence my father's confusion). But even 1.2 cubed is quite an increase in volume and makes the locos and rolling stock have rather more "feel" to them.

[Joseph_Pestell]

While we are on a bit of a TT nostalgia trip (TT3 in this case), I remember that when the Triang Britannia was introduced, it was pointed out that it was 1 million times smaller than the real thing (100 x 100 x 100).

[Legend]

What is fundamentally different is what you can do with it on, say, a 6 x 4 ft baseboard that you can move from room to room, or carry upstairs.

 

It won't appeal to those who are happy to retire to the loft or the garage for their modelling.

It won't appeal to those satisfied with the compromises of 00 or the irritations of N, who form the backbone of the repeated posts here saying "it can't be done".

It appeals to those who want to integrate their models into ordinary family life in the ordinary modern modest-sized house.

 

That (relatively) small reduction in size transforms the options of what can be modelled in a sensible and moveable space. That's the attraction.

 

I think this is the essential point. Lets face it an oval of OO track is not that interesting  , but you could get a lot more in TT in same space , making it more interesting and attractive . In a modern house space is at a premium. A layout has to be liveable with yet enjoyable at the same time.

[Pacific231G]

I've always rather liked TT as a scale despite the very negative experience of poor running Triang TT-3 as a youngster. It does have a fairly good following in Germany and eastern Europe though it was actually developed by Hal Joyce in the USA who marketed  it under his H.P. Products brand from 1946. The scale was advertised as "All American" so was defined in imperial units as 1/10inch to the foot with a gauge of 15/32 inch (0.1mm less than the current 12mm track gauge which is dead scale for standard gauge) It was the development of very small 12v motors by the US Department of Defense during the war that made it practicable and Joyce used war surplus motors in his quite extensive range of locomotives. At one time TT was more popular in America than 0 scale and several manufacturers supported it but, just as here, N scale rather blew it away. An American prototype TT layout built by George Reffin was exhibited at the MRC Easter show and appeared in magazine and books around 1960.

 

This is my own view and won't be shared by others but N scale has always seemed like looking at a railway from an aeroplane or the next hill and too far away to feel part of. 00 or H0 (which I use now) is a good compromise between size and presence but any kind of main line layout does need more space than most of us have in our homes. TT always seems just big enough to feel present with but small enough to build something more interesting in a small space (Cyril Freezer's original Minories was designed as afolding 5 ft by 8 inch TT-3 layout) and the classic portable-as-a-double-bed 6ft x4ft 00 layout can usually be squeezed onto a 4ft x 2ft board in TT which is fairly portable. 

 

I think that any mass manufacturer would be daft to use anything other than 12mm gauge as it is so well established both for TT in the German speaking world and Eastern Europe and also as the gauge used for H0m. Metre gauge was used by the majority of secondary railways in Europe so it does have a fairiy large following especially for Swiss and German prototypes. It also seems to run a lot better most H0e/009 and Tillig's mechanisms and track for TT and H0m are very good.

 

TT-3 seems to me rather too close in scale to H0 -a lot of people seeing a British H0 layout at a recent show thought it was 3mm/ft. The scale/gauge compromise for 3mm/ft on 12mm gauge is also even more extreme than it is for 00 so, though it wouldn't please the 3mm scale people, there might for once be an opportunity to use the same scale as everyone else. Given that quite a lot of modern motive power is nowadays seen on both sides of the channel from sheds to Eurostars there might also be scope for someone like Hornby to re-introduce TT at 1:120 scale across its international brands. 

 

I do have some European TT stock (mostly Berliner Bahn bought with the inention of canibalising it for metre gauge) but as the scale has never had any real following in France nothing is available for my preferred prototype. If it were I might be tempted.

[rodshaw]

I think this is the essential point. Lets face it an oval of OO track is not that interesting  , but you could get a lot more in TT in same space , making it more interesting and attractive . In a modern house space is at a premium. A layout has to be liveable with yet enjoyable at the same time.

 

TT is a very nice size, but if space is your main problem, why not stick to OO, and ditch the round-and-round idea? Not being constrained by considerations of minimum radius for an oval is very liberating. You can build an end-to-end layout against a wall or on a shelf, or even make a two-or three-piece portable one and stand it on a paste table or similar when in use. Using short locos and goods stock will let you maximise the space even more.

But if TT really grabs you, then why not bite the bullet - dump British outline and go for continental. There’s lots about, including structure kits, and it’s not prohibitively expensive (though not cheap). And it’s a whole new area to research. Why not ditch the continuous run at the same time?

[Pacific231G]

I think this is the essential point. Lets face it an oval of OO track is not that interesting  , but you could get a lot more in TT in same space , making it more interesting and attractive . In a modern house space is at a premium. A layout has to be liveable with yet enjoyable at the same time.

In 1958 MRC ran a series of five articles "A Large Quart in a Small Pint Pot" by Mike Bryant giving really good blow by blow instructions for building a 4ft x 2ft layout in TT-3. This managed, without looking crowded, to include an oval with a return loop and a high level terminus occupying a 3ft by 9inch board. I wish I'd know about it when I was a youngster as I had TT-3 at the time and might well have built it and it did inspire a later 4x2 009 layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've always rather liked TT as a scale despite the very negative experience of poor running Triang TT-3 as a youngster. It does have a fairly good following in Germany and eastern Europe though it was actually developed by Hal Joyce in the USA who marketed  it under his H.P. Products brand from 1946. The scale was advertised as "All American" so was defined in imperial units as 1/10inch to the foot with a gauge of 15/32 inch (0.1mm less than the current 12mm track gauge which is dead scale for standard gauge) It was the development of very small 12v motors by the US Department of Defense during the war that made it practicable and Joyce used war surplus motors in his quite extensive range of locomotives. At one time TT was more popular in America than 0 scale and several manufacturers supported it but, just as here, N scale rather blew it away. An American prototype TT layout built by George Reffin was exhibited at the MRC Easter show and appeared in magazine and books around 1960.

 

This is my own view and won't be shared by others but N scale has always seemed like looking at a railway from an aeroplane or the next hill and too far away to feel part of. 00 or H0 (which I use now) is a good compromise between size and presence but any kind of main line layout does need more space than most of us have in our homes. TT always seems just big enough to feel present with but small enough to build something more interesting in a small space (Cyril Freezer's original Minories was designed as afolding 5 ft by 8 inch TT-3 layout) and the classic portable-as-a-double-bed 6ft x4ft 00 layout can usually be squeezed onto a 4ft x 2ft board in TT which is fairly portable. 

 

I think that any mass manufacturer would be daft to use anything other than 12mm gauge as it is so well established both for TT in the German speaking world and Eastern Europe and also as the gauge used for H0m. Metre gauge was used by the majority of secondary railways in Europe so it does have a fairiy large following especially for Swiss and German prototypes. It also seems to run a lot better most H0e/009 and Tillig's mechanisms and track for TT and H0m are very good.

 

TT-3 seems to me rather too close in scale to H0 -a lot of people seeing a British H0 layout at a recent show thought it was 3mm/ft. The scale/gauge compromise for 3mm/ft on 12mm gauge is also even more extreme than it is for 00 so, though it wouldn't please the 3mm scale people, there might for once be an opportunity to use the same scale as everyone else. Given that quite a lot of modern motive power is nowadays seen on both sides of the channel from sheds to Eurostars there might also be scope for someone like Hornby to re-introduce TT at 1:120 scale across its international brands. 

 

I do have some European TT stock (mostly Berliner Bahn bought with the inention of canibalising it for metre gauge) but as the scale has never had any real following in France nothing is available for my preferred prototype. If it were I might be tempted.

 

I will have to rack my brains a bit on this. But I do recall someone in France producing a few locos for 1:120. It was while I was in the "trade" so about 20 years ago.

 

Is a Warship as much of a clone of a DB100 as people think? If so, that could be an easy option for UK prototype.

[PaulRhB]

Your maths is a bit "off".

Yep but it confuses the heck out of people when you talk volume From experience of my TT and HOm people always ask if it's OO never N, hence the perception bit.

TT sits in the middle and to me is a better scale than OO simply because it has a bit more weight to run small locos well yet allows landscape modelling in a average space. But hey ho I just doubt it will make up the numbers to justify one of the big boys choosing to do rtr

[Forester]

TT is a very nice size, but if space is your main problem, why not stick to OO, and ditch the round-and-round idea?

But if TT really grabs you, then why not bite the bullet - dump British outline and go for continental.

These are just more of the compromises of 00 we have been talking about.

 

I don't want compromise. I want it all.

 

Around-TT scale permits that. How can anyone say that is not an attractive proposition?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am with those who think that there is probably not the volume to justify a manufacturer going for it. Remember Fleischmann with its go at British HO.

 

But if we could find suitable mechanisms, it would these days be easy enough to get loco bodies 3D printed to 1:120 scale. Other rolling stock not that difficult to put together from etches and castings but some common items such as Mk1 coaches might be worth printing as well.

[Jeff Smith]

In many ways fantasising about a manufacturer developing a new range of TT, in whatever scale or gauge, is a bit like hoping for RTR EM or P4. Although there is much more trade support, and of course it is an established scale, it will never happen even though, I would hazard a guess, there are more EM modellers out there than 3mm.....

 

Lets assume a couple of locos (early 60's steam diesel era), a few wagons, and a couple of Mk1 coaches were suddenly to be available tomorrow in current OO quality at OO pricing. Anyone seriously thinking of building a layout would be faced with scratch building most, if not all, of the scenic items as well as living with the (probable) scale/gauge compromise and (again probably) incorrect looking track. Yes, there probably would be some early adopters and sales to existing TT modellers but this probably would not be sustained unless 'the trade' started supporting with complementary items......

[Joseph_Pestell]

In many ways fantasising about a manufacturer developing a new range of TT, in whatever scale or gauge, is a bit like hoping for RTR EM or P4. Although there is much more trade support, and of course it is an established scale, it will never happen even though, I would hazard a guess, there are more EM modellers out there than 3mm.....

 

Lets assume a couple of locos (early 60's steam diesel era), a few wagons, and a couple of Mk1 coaches were suddenly to be available tomorrow in current OO quality at OO pricing. Anyone seriously thinking of building a layout would be faced with scratch building most, if not all, of the scenic items as well as living with the (probable) scale/gauge compromise and (again probably) incorrect looking track. Yes, there probably would be some early adopters and sales to existing TT modellers but this probably would not be sustained unless 'the trade' started supporting with complementary items......

I think that is right if talking TT3 (1:101.2) although there is more available scenically out there than you might think, because 1:100 is an architectural scale as well as the possibility of resizing Scalescenes type printed kits.

 

But "proper" TT (1:120) does not have a scale/gauge compromise (12 x 120 = 1440) and there are plenty of scenic bits such as tunnels and retaining walls available from the likes of Auhagen.

 

And unlike EM (for which I agree there are almost certainly more practitioners in the UK), there is already ready-to-lay track available.

[ThePurplePrimer]

So seeing as we are playing a bit of 'what if' is it ok if I join in ?

 

Before I start I should say that TT as a scale appeals to me.

 

Ok - lots of really good points have been made here about picking the right subject and providing a 'big enough' range. It would be a nightmare choosing the right era, the right liveries even the right railway company possibly. Also you need to try and ensure a decent level of interest (purchase) right away.

 

So why is TT good - takes up less space in the average modern home, especially if you are living in a modern house and have a young family. Its bigger than N so is a bit more suitable for little hands ( aka future enthusiasts )

 

So we need something with wide appeal, a limited amount of items from day one to have a decent 'set' with reasonable knowledge that every new release you make might sell well - at least be wanted by the customer base. Something that Railroad levels of details would suit well.

 

The answer seems obvious - Thomas and Friends

 

If only Hornby had the rights for Thomas ...

 

OH ! - that's right - they do.

 

Once your range of TTE is sorted out then you can bring some scale models as the owner of the layout gets older

[Dunsignalling]

These are just more of the compromises of 00 we have been talking about.

 

I don't want compromise. I want it all.

 

Around-TT scale permits that. How can anyone say that is not an attractive proposition?

I don't think anyone disputes that it's an attractive proposition, I've always quite fancied it myself.

 

The real questions are

 

(1) Would enough people put their money where their mouths are to make it an attractive business proposition.

 

Answer - Nobody knows but most of the "in favour" posts on here (except those by your good self) sound pretty lukewarm.

 

(2) Would it be sensible (or even deliverable) if Hornby took it on.

 

Answer - No

 

(1) They don't have spare cash to gamble on a speculative venture and their borrowings are plenty big enough already.  

 

(2) They still have some way to go in sorting out their core business and any foray into TT would be a distraction. 

 

(3) You may not care about what happens to OO, but most of us do.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

So seeing as we are playing a bit of 'what if' is it ok if I join in ?

 

Before I start I should say that TT as a scale appeals to me.

 

Ok - lots of really good points have been made here about picking the right subject and providing a 'big enough' range. It would be a nightmare choosing the right era, the right liveries even the right railway company possibly. Also you need to try and ensure a decent level of interest (purchase) right away.

 

So why is TT good - takes up less space in the average modern home, especially if you are living in a modern house and have a young family. Its bigger than N so is a bit more suitable for little hands ( aka future enthusiasts )

 

So we need something with wide appeal, a limited amount of items from day one to have a decent 'set' with reasonable knowledge that every new release you make might sell well - at least be wanted by the customer base. Something that Railroad levels of details would suit well.

 

The answer seems obvious - Thomas and Friends

 

If only Hornby had the rights for Thomas ...

 

OH ! - that's right - they do.

 

Once your range of TTE is sorted out then you can bring some scale models as the owner of the layout gets older

You may have a point there.

 

Make the Thomas the Tank range available ONLY in TT - that might do the trick!

 

However, the vast majority of youngsters pack in model railways in their mid-to-late teens. OO and N are sufficiently well established to withstand these losses but, even with the Awdry effect, TT might struggle to get big enough quickly enough to do so and would have to cannibalise (Hornby) OO sales in order to do so. 

 

Many have another dabble once they have kids of their own and some return to the hobby more seriously in their forties or later. It's that "some" who spend the serious money and the main thing has to be just to plant the seed. Too much can happen in the meantime to worry about what scale those who do return might adopt thirty years down the road.

 

John

[Jeff Smith]

And unlike EM (for which I agree there are almost certainly more practitioners in the UK), there is already ready-to-lay track available.

Joseph - I presume you are referring to PECO HOm and maybe others?

[Revolution Ben]

Hello all,

 

My view is that if you were launching TT you would be unlikely to appeal to those of us too committed to another scale - either OO or N - in the first instance.

 

It would also make sense to minimise exposure by producing items that could sell in other markets.

 

You would be sensible to use components (axles, wheels, bogie innards) already available.

 

From this thread I have learned that other markets are, primarily, Eastern Europe and what was East Germany.

 

So I would ask:  What could I manufacture that *could* also offer me back up sales elsewhere?  The answer would be locos such as Class 66, 86, 87 and possibly 37, 56, 58; goods wagons that come through the Channel tunnel to the UK such as silver bullets, car transporters, intermodals, ferryvans and as a "glamour" model perhaps a Eurostar. 

 

And I think you would be best advised to use the correct scale standards already offered in Continental TT - such harmonisation would in itself be an attractive selling point to those of us tired of British scale/gauges being usually wrong!

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Dunsignalling]

 

So we need something with wide appeal, a limited amount of items from day one to have a decent 'set' with reasonable knowledge that every new release you make might sell well - at least be wanted by the customer base. Something that Railroad levels of details would suit well.

 

 

Nobody (beginner or otherwise) who isn't seriously short of room is going to look twice at a new scale with a limited choice of models when they compare it with what can be had in OO.

 

Even those who are space starved will (for the same reason) choose N unless they consider their vision and/or manual dexterity inadequate for them to be confident with it.

 

'Railroad' levels of detail would deter as many as it would attract IMHO.

 

There are some existing modellers who might quite like TT but almost everybody I've ever met who has actually changed scale, moved upwards!

 

R-t-r 'S' Scale anyone?

 

John

[PaulRhB]

I'd agree with much above and particularly Ben's comment about the 66 as a possible starting point. It would though rely on a shop deciding to promote it as there's little reason for the likes of Tillig to advertise here and even those if us who know about it mostly but from Germany as there are no current official UK stockists I know of since International models changed hands. I have alerted a couple of retailers about the HSB stuff in HOm but the trade terms were a bit too tight to make it worth the effort as there are some very good German dealers who will post to the UK just as quick and can justify stocking a large range. What's more several have English websites so it really is simple and excellent customer service.

[PaulRhB]

Just for info here's the Tillig track range, starting with integral roadbed setrack through to their very good range of finescale track, though the points can be a bit delicate.

http://www.tillig.com/Gleissysteme.html