NCB
-
Posts
1,447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by NCB
-
-
Majorbrough Plan D
Traversers offer alot of storage in a moderate area, here 185cm x 200cm.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, natterjack said:
Excellent but could you give more source details for the bogie? I'm not getting much joy from a Google search.
I'm guessing the nickel silver is around 8thou?
0.4mm n/s. I'm afraid the bogie was discontinued some time ago, pity as it had the correct wheels and wheelbase.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, J-Lewis said:
Looks nice. Brass building is a bit out of my comfort zone.
Nickel silver, much easier.
-
Here's my Worsley Works SW1200
Darumya bogie. Needs chassis.
-
9
-
1
-
1
-
-
This traverser could be just right for these plans; takes 3 coach trains easily.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/383357054818?hash=item5941dc6f62:g:LWsAAOSwWkdeEwGZ
-
16 hours ago, gc4946 said:
There's no brake cylinder on this ex-GWR box van, so strictly speaking it's unfitted.
The screws hold the kinematic couplings in place.
Think XP and bauxite implies fitted.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, gc4946 said:
Both my BR liveried vans arrived today.
TT6006 described online as https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-vent-van-era-4-tt6006 is actually E 145685
TT6007 described online as https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-vent-van-era-4-tt6007 is actually E 145841
They're GWR 12T ventilated vans with planked ends, each containing twin louvres.
https://www.hattons.co.uk/directory/vehicledetails?id=3144651
BR built many more to this similar design but with corrugated ends
https://quornwagonandwagon.co.uk/b763305/
Bodywork looks ok . Can't see a brake cylinder; an XP wagon should have one.
-
19 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:
Unfortunately the tracks don't quite join up in this version — on the curved branch of the rightmost point.
Common set track problem. I assume people will use a bit of flex track.
-
B&B couplings are my favourites. Looking for a clean way of using them with NEM pockets. Wondering if there are adapters around which could help with this. Ideas?
-
East Bay C
A more distinctive and compact version.
-
Irresistable!
-
3
-
-
On 02/04/2023 at 13:58, Porfuera said:
I don't know whether you drew the goods shed to scale on your plan but I looked up the size online recently (because I have one sitting on my table and I wanted to know the size for my own planning!) and it is:
Length 100mm; Width 110mm - looking at the picture of it online the 100mm is the length of the track going through (as you have it, I think).
The station is apparently: Length 115mm; Width 47mm; Canopy projects 17mm
Assuming you have 50mm squares then the building sizes look right on your plan and to my eye the building sizes look OK and it looks like a nice plan.
Neil.
Oops; I used 145mm for the station not 115mm
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, luke_stevens said:
Probably says more about 3mm practice :)
Luke
... or continental v British
-
17 hours ago, luke_stevens said:
For TT120 it should be 18.4 to 18.6. https://www.morop.org/images/NEM_register/NEM_E/nem314_en_2006.pdf
I wonder if they can be got to the correct length? They should also be on a 1.5mm axle.
Luke
18.4 seems a bit long compared to 3mm practice.
-
4 hours ago, luke_stevens said:
What are the axle lengths like? I'd assume a 3mmgauge axle would be longer than a TT120 axle?
Luke
20.05mm for pin-point. p
-
1
-
-
Thinking of tweaking B, looked for Tillig #6 Y point; couldn't find one. Surprised. Am I missing something?
-
Just bought a Lincoln Locos GWR 56XX.
-
6
-
-
On 12/03/2023 at 16:28, NCB said:
Here's some common wheel sizes, TT120 equivalent, and 3mm SQ wheel close fit where it exists.
Prototype TT120 3MM#
4'0" 10.16mm
4'6" 11.43mm
4'8" 11.85mm 12mm
5'0" 12.7mm
5'3" 13.35mm 13.5mm
5'6" 13.97mm 14mm
5'8" 14.39mm 14mm
6'0" 15.24mm 15mm; 15mm BFB
6'3" 15.87mm 15.75mm
6'6" 16.51mm 16.5mm
6'8" 16.93mm 17.0mm
3mm Intermediate wheels should be ok on TT track. I wondered about 3mm Fine so regauged a 14.2 GW van to 12 mm Fine. One wheelset was slightly over-gauge and bumped slightly on the crossing nose, but once corrected sailed through fine. Could be useful.
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 06/04/2023 at 15:58, Jeff Smith said:
My GWR BLT is in P4 so I think it would scale ok except I would have to use two points in place of the 3 way! A long time since I built it but I think the other two points are B6!
Suggest giving it a go. Would be interesting.
-
On 02/04/2023 at 14:42, Jeff Smith said:
If my math is correct TT:120 is approximately 5/8th of 4mm so take any OO plan and reduce to 5/8ths. This would allow my very simple GWR BLT at 9ft without f/y to be accommodated in the same length with f/y. The current 9ft layout comprises two 3ft boards with the station and another with just a single approach line to give some spaciousness, although I have cheated a bit by using a three-way point at the throat..... In TT this would be a neat little layout at only 12" wide......or at 2' wide could be nicely expansive!
Problem is that things don't scale. Peco/Hornby points are much more generous than CJF say used in his 00 plans. .
-
1
-
-
East Bay Plan B
Cut down version of A. 120 cm by 40 cm. Traverser FY maybe 65 cm. Handles 2-coach trains, loses bay and siding. Think it shows length needed for 2-coacxh loop with loco release either end. Feeling plan itself can be improved.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:
The Peco goods shed is perhaps a bit too large for the station building. I think it would be feasible to use two kits and make a longer building.
Think it would look ok; the GS is smaller than most and looks it.
-
35 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:
Hi @NCB.
For a GW branch line, the Peco Station building and Goods Shed kits are an easy choice (it’s why I bought them 😀). Are they the ones in your plan? Personally, I think the Signal Box is a bit larger than some - Ashburton, for example, didn’t have one at all - but being based on a Severn Valley prototype is another justifiable choice already available: @Jeff Smith’s thread shows one built up.
Osbourn’s Models Arch Laser kits may be another option, but they’re a company I’ve never bought from so can’t comment further.
The original Railway Modeller launch articles included a couple of branch line track plans using Peco track - although my understanding is the Peco small points have come out larger than envisaged at that stage, which affects one of the plans.
None of the above will be news to anyone familiar with this Forum of course.
What I would suggest however would be this - if you have the space, take a plan for a OO branch line and build it in TT in the same space (the fiddle yard could be smaller to save some space).
Another alternative would be to take a prototype plan and see how much room it needs in TT:120.
East Bay plan A above is quite conventional - one idea would be to see how it looks if you try and introduce some gentle curves, or even just angle the whole thing so it doesn’t run parallel to the baseboard edges.
Other than that my main observation would be that the coal siding is probably a bit short for a steam era branch, and a bit to tight in the goods yard for easy road access (the old rule of thumb is to leave enough access room for a horse and cart to turn round). Just a thought.
Hope that’s OK, Keith.
Yep, all except the engine shed are based on the Peco kits. The plan is conventional; plenty of options for people to try. If they have the space. I did wonder about placing the coal yard down the bottom.
-
54 minutes ago, Rivercider said:
I hope TT is successful in the UK. But if a stock becomes available to make a branch line terminus
feasible then I would not expect many 'new' track plans to emerge. Rather some of the favourite
existing 4mm track plans would work better and look more realistic when allowed to 'breathe'
in the relatively greater space available,
cheers
CJF said that. But space is a real issue for many people.
-
1
-
Welcome to TT:120
in 2.5mm Scale - TT:120
Posted
Hornby coal wagons;