[3mm scale wheels for TT:120]

Since TT:120 is a new scale to British outline, it is not realistic to expect whatever you want to be available RTR . That isn't an objection to TT:120 - for decades it was true even in OO that only a core range was covered by RTR. To get a full range of authentic models for your layout you needed to build some things yourself. That is still true in OO9 and Gauge O 

 

There is a huge range of 3D printed loco bodies available from Lincoln Locos. But you need to motorise them. Scratchbuilding 12mm gauge chassis is not uncharted territory -m people have been doing it for over 60 years.

 

But where do you get the wheels?  

 

Well the 3mm Society's 12mm Intermediate Standard here is very close indeed to NEM 310  for 12mm gauge here . For practical purposes 3mm Intermediate Standard wheels can be treated as TT:120 wheels

 

The April edition of Mixed Traffic , the 3mm Society magazine, contains a paragraph on Wheels and Standards from the shop team, most of which is directly relevant:

 

Quote

Just a few notes on wheels and standards... The 3 main standards used in 3mm scale are: Triang, Intermediate (IS), and Fine...SQ [Self Quartering], AG [Alan Gibson] and KM wheels are to Intermediate Standard whilst Stapleton are Fine Standard . Just to complicate matters we now have "universal" wheels in 3 sizes which work with both IS and FS track.... The wheels currently available are listerd in the Society Products advertisement...

 

Yoiu will need to be a member of the 3mm Society to buy these

 

Since 1/120 scale is  smaller than 3mm scale (1/101) , a given diameter wheel will represent a larger prototype diameter in TT:120 than it did in 3mm. You might have to accept fewer spokes than your prototype had.

 

But wheels that can be used for TT:120 models can be sourced 

 

[Kader reduces its losses]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

I think you might be reading too much into the write down.

 

I know nothing about amortisation rules in China and Hong Kong but I can tell you that in Europe there are very different rules in place across different countries.  For example in Germany a long-life asset would have 10% of its investment cost written down each year (1) whereas in the UK the same asset would have 10% of its residual book value written down each year (2).

 

(1)  So with no further investment in the asset, after 10 years it has zero book value.

(2)  So in the first year 10% of the investment value is written down.  The net book value is 90% of the investment as you enter year 2, when 9% is written down leaving 81% book value for year 3 and a write down of 8.1% and so on.  The asset always has book value.

 

So what might be happening in Kader?  Just some thoughts.

1.  You poo-hoo the idea of only writing down when a mould is used.  I however can see that that is a good way to operate (if its allowed under the legal accountancy rules).  How else do you get a good view of the true profitability over time of a single model?  If you write down the value of all moulds each year, then the profitability of Mk2 coaches carries the write down costs of for example the Midland 1F 4-4-0T.  Does that make sense?  Is it right that a successful model should carry the write down costs of (potentially if UK rules are applied) every model ever produced unless totally written off?  

2;  The write down might apply to moulds that have been found to have been damaged.

3.  The write down might be due to moulds for models that have now been superseded by newer versions.

4.  Write down is a useful and legitimate accountancy mechanism to minimise tax liability.  Of course you can only use it once per asset.   

 

In the real Kader world a combination of the above plus more could well be the reason we see the results we do.

 

The problem is that if you spend £500K on tooling up a loco, write off 20% of that as depreciation against the first run and then leave the tooling unused and undepreciated in store , you have a £400K "asset"  that is in fact of no trevenue-earning value sitting on your books. And in the real world £500K of cashflow went out the door to create this tooling, but only £100K has been written into your books via depreciation

 

You never got your development costs back. But an unrecognised loss is being punted down the line to infinity. Eventually the accountants will have to do something about this 

 

But the fact Bachmann have on a number of occasions run something once or twice , and then it's disappeared, suggests something odd about Kader's handling of depreciation of tooling

 

I may have been a little pessimistic about the Jinty - it seems it was run quite a few times between 2004 and 2018, but not since. The Standard 4 tank looks like it's not been seen for well over a decade and it was upgraded to DCC Ready 

 

Class after class looks like this . Just 9 versions of the Super D were ever produced. This was model of the year in 2008. Just 6 versions of the J11 . Just 9 versions of the Deeley 3F. Just 9 versions of the Crab

 

All those useful medium-sized black kettles that Bachmann got such a reputation for making... They don't seem to have made any of them for years

 

Surely running the tooling in the store for well regarded models of numerous general service classes has to be better for cashflow than tooling up a small pre-grouping class of restricted geographic coverage at great expense?  

 

[Who made this kit?]

The fact that we don't know the scale doesn't help. The wire across/behind the buffers suggests Sprat & Winkle , which suggests 4mm to me

 

If this is from the 1950s and 4mm then we must be back in the world of Jamieson, Sayer Chaplin and the like. Gauge O was at a very low ebb in the 1950s

 

In that period, a very real possibility is that it isn't a kit, it's been built by/for one of the big model shops like Hamblings, Bonds, W&H and the like, either in small batches, or built to order as a customer commission. A Scottish prototype might point to a big Glasgow or Edinburgh shop of the day.

 

I'm guessing that Trainman has identified something like a Stewart Reidpath mechanism or early Romford motor to point to a date in the 40s or 50s

[Kader reduces its losses]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

So.. locos

 

modern image modellers.. weve got it all, the only road is duplication.

steam modellers.. the 1960’s generation the good ones have all been done, whats left is risky 0-6-0’s.

Where next ?

 

Units… pricey, lots of toolings.. solve this you solve world hunger… but I feel post privatisation era demand exists, but only up a certain price point… Electrostar, 185, 442,455, PEP has interest.

 

Steam.. pricey a tender engine is still multiple toolings, for a market where the prototypes left are increasingly niche.

 

wagons… only so many before it becomes just another wagon.

coaches… well tbh theres room here.. I didnt think the mk2b would hit the like it has, but theres no getting away from it, its very good. The Bachmann mk2f is good too.

 

so the obvious one is a new mk1. (I dont believe that class 41 powercar will come alone)… Bachmann has 90’s and 47’s also needing a coach, so maybe a mk3 here too ?

 

track ? Literally bedrock of the hobby hasnt had much evolution since the 1990’s.. could this be improved ? 
 

The industrial window is closing, still think a hudswell clarke canal tank is a miss, maybe an rsh ugly too, as well as a crane tank.

 

Pre 1923… this I think is a hunting ground, some here have done quite well… lswr t3, Gordan Highlander, Caley 0-4-4T, but if appropriate pre 1923 coaches came about things like a Prince of Wales, Dreadnought have a place.. the GWR still has gaps with a Saint and a new County 4-6-0.

 

enough for the hobby to feast on for a few years.

 

 

 

The thing that you miss is - many of the things that have been "done" have only been producted a couple of times and have not been available for years 

 

Here's an example from Farish , raised in the recent N gauge new announcements thread by Roy LS

Quote

the BR Standard 4MT Tank would be a good choice given that there has only ever been a single production run in two variants (one each of pristine late and early crest) so that's just 2008 models in all

 

As he notes later, these were a very widespread and useful class. But one run cannot possibly have paid for the R&D and tooling costs.

 

And this isn't an isolated instance. So far as I'm aware the Bachmann 4F has had 3 runs, the last of them in 2016. Counting the MR locos, there were 772 of the things with a service life from 1911 to 1966 , seen nationwide. When did we last see the Bachmann Jinty ? There were 422 of the things - a few even made it to Belfast . How many runs did the Bachmann model ever get?

 

When did we last see the O4/ROD? 651 of them were built , with a British service life from 1911 to 1966... The G2 "Super D" ?  Come to that when did Bachmann last do the Standard 4 tank in OO?   Jubilees?

 

All of these are "bread and butter" classes that Bachmann allegedly "own"

 

I can't help feeling there must be something odd about Kader group depreciation policy for tooling to permit this phenomenon. It's as if you get charged depreciation when you use the tool - but if you leave it sitting unused in a store the accountants charge you nowt... I couldn't help wondering if the references to writing down of assets might have some relation to piles of tooling sitting unused in a store

 

At this point in time, another run of say Jinties and Standard 4 tanks in OO looks a better proposition to me than all the R&D cost and tooling expense of tooling up something pre-grouping that never got south of Carlisle or north of Peterborough  

 

At a more general level it is a little disturbing to realise that the Kader group have been making significant losses for a number of years. You would want them to return to the black soon - if both of the two leading brands keep making losses year after year then the future for the hobby doesn't look as bright as we would all like. 

 

Kader, a group owning factories at a time when capacity is apparently tight, with all the benefits of full vertical integration , were assumed to be rather better placed than Hornby , a small company squeezed between the factories and an angry retail trade. On these figures it doesn't seem so certain that they are. Disquieting

[My journey in TT:120 begins]

On 15/04/2024 at 22:59, Flying Pig said:

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.4&lat=53.79543&lon=-1.55675&layers=168&b=1&o=100

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/LNERDiagrams.htm  (look for Leeds 'A')

 

From the concourse to the scissors crossing 340m (~2.8m at1:120); to the River Aire 460m (~3.8m).  Still quite a lot of compression needed, I think.  Some of the pointwork will need to be built or redesigned to use proprietary items. Probably better to design an "inspired by" layout with some of the features of Leeds Central.

 

 

That is quite a formidable tangle of tracks and installations . I counted at least 5 major goods stations at two levels, plus Holbeck MPD with several roundhouses.

 

2.8m equates to just over 9' - that's starting to look manageable

 

So - I'd lose the two bottom bays at Central , taking it down to 4 main platforms  + a bay. I would want to compress the whole thing, so that the longest platform would take a Pacific+ 4 x 61'6 Gresleys + 4 x 64' Mk1s . If an 8 coach formation of Mk1s hung out onto the platform ramp, that's ok.

 

I would retain the loco facilty with turntable shown on the OS  25" plan . Something like this is essential - Pacifics will need to be turned for their next duty

 

I'm not sure how long a train Leeds Central would actually take - I'm guessing at least 10 coaches. But the habit of splitting off Bradford portions at Wakefield Westgate hints that it probably didn't see extremely long trains...

 

In TT:120 you can run a Pacific round R2 = 310mm (a fraction over 12") . At 15" radius , you have something that equates to the 2' minimum radius accepted for decent OO.

 

So I allow 21" width to swing a double track mainline on viaduct round a U curve at the end on about 18"-16" radius , with a single freight line on the inside of the curve at 15" radius, falling so that it goes under the throat of Central on a skew.

 

This then leaves  10'3" for a compressed Central and approaches . I would put it on a slight diagonal across a 2' wide board, replicating the situation at Leeds in reality . The freight line goes into a goods terminal at low level behind the throat of Central - a representational impression of the actual low level freight stations. Scope for J50s as both yard shunter and working trip goods into and out of the goods station up the bank. To get sufficient headroom for the bridge carrying this over the Leeds & Liverpool Canal, the bridges over the Aire and the canal would have to be moved round onto the curve . So you'd be getting to something not too far off scale distance from the concourse to the River Aire (around 12' run)

 

The freight line joins the mainline through a ladder junction /crossover just before you enter the fiddle yard . That need only be about 5' long , so this side of the layout need be no longer than 7'6" to 8'. Plenty of space to take a door opening into the room

 

For the hell of it (and to avoid the U curve swinging round at just 4' width) you add a short straight bit, and I'd have a double track junction in the far corner, to pull off a second double track mainline turning through 90 degrees (representing the LMS/LYR)   and heading into a back section of the fiddle yard 

 

Split highlevel/lowlevel layouts are a bit of a fashion these days. Operationally Central functions as a very grand Minories with Pacifics and 8 coach trains: the Pacifics go to the loco yard to turn for their next duty, and there is also the possibility of splitting off a 3/4 coach "Bradford portion"  (I know this actually happened at Wakefield - but it might be a Harrogate portion or something) . I think the Queen of Scots Pullman reversed at Leeds - so a Pullman comes in by one route, a new engine backs  on and takes it out down the other route... The LMS presence means that the imminent Stanier Period3 stock is totally in place. A Black 5 would be ideal, we don't have one - Stanier Pacifics never reached Leeds Central but a Duchess on 7 bogies (57') and a 50' BG would look quite sensible in this setting. Parcells trains casn be accomodated.

 

You'd need to do some cut and shut work to get other types of Mk1 in the short term (I think 2 x BSK to 1 x SK + 1 x BG was a recognised cut and shut exercise on Triang Mk1s?)

 

The low level freight depot gives you a shunting /ftreight operation for J50 and in future J94, and unlike mode split level layouts it's actually connected tro the main layout.

 

So - Leeds Central in a 12' x 6' shed??  With mainline trains haul;ed by Pacifics displayed on a viaduct for train watching?

[Improving something awful (TT120) - 5ft by 2.5ft]

On 06/04/2024 at 09:50, moawkwrd said:

 

Hi Phil,

 

Thank you - this is super helpful

 

I took the station/sidings layout straight from the Peco plan book but I see what you're saying about the bay platform being... too much. That's an easy fix I think - something like this instead?

 

 

Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout.

 

In place of the bottom left siding - I could add a staggered platform there possibly instead. That'd make use of the footbridge I have from the first attempt.

 

I do have some hardboard left over - I think that would be sturdy enough with some reinforcement below and cork above to add a bit of extra width... I could fit a few extra inches at least but then I might be able to fit in 3rd radius instead if I do that. Hmm, will think on that.

 

Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

 

I quite like the idea of double track on the side coming down to a single line on the left. I would see the justification for this as the station being the junction of two minor lines - the siding bottom left is  the stump of a former goods only line, now abandoned. The single line heads off into a tunnel - scenicly I'd develop this with a rock face runnung from the left side of the portal along the left edge of the board, and the stub siding ending in front of a bricked up tunnel mouth in it . This would work quite nicely

 

Operationally I would see this siding as a place where the bulk of a through freight could be dumped, along with the brake van , out fo the way of through traffic, while the J50 shunted the yard  

 

I would also "go with the flow" and set this as somewhere on an imaginary portion of the ex GN lines in West Yorkshire - classic territory for a J50. These were straggling steeply graded lines through the hills  that formed the second or third string route to various towns in the West Riding, and were getting run down and marginal by the 50s. (which is why Leeds- Bradford Interchange is the only bit of this network that survives..).  Queensbury lines

 

These included several routes from Wakefield to Bradford Exchange - and the interesting point is that commonly ECML trains to the West Riding divided at Wakefield Westgate, with a 3-4 coach portion going along these lines to Bradford Exchange. Post war a B1 or 2-6-4T seems to have been the usual motive power, but a Bradford portion is probably the most plausible excuse for a Gresley Pacific and 3-4 coaches, which could be Pullmans. Diversion of the expresses by a back route could explain a few things away...

 

I also think the bay platform could actually be used.. The idea of a shuttle service over the double track section which terminates in the bay  would allow some local services. True there are no DMUs or branch passenger stock available RTR in TT120 but the world of 3D printing may help you:   LNER Sentinel railcars  (most of his stuff is not available for 1/120 scale , but these are). I'm not swure how smooth the finish will be and Shapeways have their detractors, but it could well be worth a punt. It ought to be possible to source a 12mm gauge motor bogie from Halling to power it.

 

When no-one much is looking a timeslip could see the Bradford Executive diverted this way formed of an HST... and the Waterloo -Exeter routre was/is a mix of single and double so maybe a 50 might appear too...

 

Best of luck!

 

 

[My journey in TT:120 begins]

On 14/04/2024 at 10:27, gc4946 said:

Hornby's recent announcement of a J50 tank loco means their steam and transition era stock, current and planned, is biased towards the ex-Great Northern section of LNER and Eastern Region.

With their planned Black 5, the best geographic combination for all their stock side by side - A3, A4, J94, classes 08, 31 and 37, and their LMS, LNER, BR Mk1 and Pullman carriages, would be on the approaches to Leeds from Settle & Carlisle line, Bradford, Huddersfield and Wakefield. 

Either Holbeck area or former Leeds Central station could fit the bill.

 

 

 

Leeds Central was a notoriously cramped major terminus - no doubt one reason why Beeching closed it. It would be quite interesting to see how big a mildly compressed version designed to take an A3/A4 plus 8 Mk1s  would be in TT:120 - a J50 would be perfectly reasonable as station pilot. Once the 37 is released it should not be beyond a moderately ingenious modeller to stretch the chassis and fit it under a Deltic body from Lincoln Locos.

 

This is one prototype location that might well be do-able as early as the start of next year. Certainly if you wanted to tackle an ECML location in TT:120 it looks like one of the best candidates

[Hornby TT Easter announcement 2024]

Apologies for a delayed reply , but some of the issues are worth teasing out

 

On 07/04/2024 at 21:08, Roy L S said:

There are so many points made in the above that I agree with, but a few I do not: -

 

"There are a lot of people in the hobby who have "bounced off" N. Over the years I've seen a lot of comments of the form " Haven't got a lot of space or a layout,  started off in OO, tried N but it wasn't for me/found it too fiddly/couldn't get on with it so here I am, back in OO . Now how do I do something in the limited space I've got?"

 

I think there will inevitably be some, but I would challenge there being "a lot" and certainly not enough to in itself warrant an entirely new scale being developed.
"

"

 

 

Being in 4mm/OO for many years, I'm well aware of a large group of people who are "in 4mm" but do not have a layout, have never had a model railway of their own since the trainset stage, and have no obvious prospect of building a model railway of their own in the foreseeable future because they don't have space to do so in 4mm at home 

 

The classic solution to this conundrum is to get involved with an exhibition layout group - often a club group - as an operator/stock provider. The exhibition layout provides an opportunity to run your stock. This is a major motivation for people joining model railway clubs. Otherwise you end up buying stock, or less commonly making it, for a "oneday, maybe" layout dream, going to shows and accumulating a pile of boxes at home , in hope. I suspect quite a few of the posters in RTR threads, including some of the heavy posters , fall into this category. It might be very salutary to check "where's the layout?"

 

At a personal level 15-20 years ago I spent some time heavily involved with an abortive club layout project, and nearly everyone involved seemed to fit the profile I've described. Indeed in the last analysis the reason the project failed was there was almost no practical layout building experience in the group. 15  years down the line a number of the individuals concerned , to the best of my knowledge, have still not built a layout of their own

 

It's this sort of situation that is leading some people in N to argue that N is a scale for modellers , but 4mm is a scale of collectors, not modellers. These people are involuntary collectors . There are a lot of them about - it could easily amount to a fifth or sixth of all those nominally in 4mm.

 

You see quite a few layout idea posts from people  like this, seeking an idea that might actually fit in the space they actually have. Since I've been dabbling in N , I've noticed that the "where I am and how I got here " bit at the start normally includes a reference to having tried N, concluded it was not for them , anjd having gone back to 4mm.  It's logical they would try N, but the existance of this relatively large number of people "blocked in 4mm" signals that for a lot of people N gauge really isn't the solution to their problem. If it was , these folk wouldn't be stuck in 4mm going nowhere. They'd be  modelling in N. But they aren't...

 

This is what I'm describing as people who "bounced off N"

 

I see this group as the big target market for TT:120 among those already in the hobby. Committed N gauge modellers are people for whom N gauge works, and I don't see them switching. We all tend to filter out what doesn't relate to our own interests - being in N you wouldn't necessarily register this group within 4mm very clearly.

 

The other group are those outside the hobby because they don't have room for OO. Again N gauge already exists , but that has not brought them in. Simon Kohler said that perople kept telling him they didn't have space for a layout - as the Hornby stand is only at large shows, N gauge would certainly be on display in the hall - but these -people hadn't bitten.   A competent salesman with no smasll scale product to offer would certainly probe whether an N gauge range might tempt them - afterall Hornby International is heavily . Bachmann may well have found something similar , given their venture into OO9. If youre a Bachmann salesman , yur immediate counter to "I haven't got room for OO" is to sell Farish. The OO9 range suggests that for many that wasn't the soluition. "The scale you like - in a version with tight curves that fir your spasce" seems to be thew OO9 pitch

 

This is why "the space saving is bigger with N" isn't a real argument. What these people want is a larger scale, but just small enough  to make it fit in the space they have ...

 

Whether 1/120 is big enough to make the difference is another matter. The models have approximately twice the volume of N and I think it does make a significant diiference

 

Quote

The argument that there is more RTR available in N is simply not the knockdown argument that some folk think, if your starting point is "N gauge is too small a scale to satisfy me".

 

Respectfully I disagree. We have already witnessed comments to the effect that people will not engage with TT120 as a viable modelling scale until there is sufficient a range of models. I do not want to get into the issue of how quickly Hornby can (or will) add products to the range, but it is clear that the lack of range in TT120 now (and for what may be a considerable time to come)  is preventing some from entering the scale. Such a range does exist in N, it is substantial, supported by many manufacturers and absolutely will attract many potential TT120 modellers for whom that is an issue, not least because of the quality of what is being produced, which is comparable and in many cases better. Also, at 2.065mm/ft (I am talking British here as TT120 already is a thing on the continent and elsewhere) is actually less than 1/5 smaller as a scale than TT120 - noticeably smaller of course, but significantly smaller? For a small minority possibly yes, for most probably not and for a layout in terms of square footage it takes up a lot less space for a comparable Tt120 layout. So, there absolutely will now and for a long time to come be a significant number who if looking for a minimum/smaller space British layout will choose N over TT120 based on available range alone. 

 

The elephant in the room is that N gauge has been around for over half a century,  and its stretching things a bit to say that it still has a lot of unexplored potential . If people aren't in N now - then , allowing for a little slippage at the margin, they won't switch to N.  TT:120's pitch is to those who don't have space for OO but have already rejected N  , both those already inb the hobby and blocked, and those not in the hobby. If N was the answer for them, they'd already be in N. They are not 

 

Andy York's survey last year produced some interesting figures. Estimating the total share of 4mm is difficult since you could vote for mulitple options, and there is obviously overlap within the 4mm categories.But a figure of 75-80% of the hobby in 4mm at some level could be defended. If 1 in 5  of them are "blocked in 4mm" , you'd be talking about 15% of the hobby. That doesn't feel incredible to me. Persuade 1/3 of them that they can have a model railway if they move to TT:120 and you immediately have 5% of the hobby. A lot less than in N, but surely a significant number (I think Andy's survey found over 20% would consider TT:120?)

 

 

As a practical issue - when Cyrl Freezer drew 60 Plans for Small Locations he used 15" radius in OO pretty freely . That's no longer acceptable . Most OO RTR now requires R2 (just under 18") and 2' is the accepted norm in OO . TT:120 works with a minimum radius of 310mm - a shade over 12" , but equating to 20" in 4mm. At R3 and R4 in TT you have something as generous as the "scale" minimum of 2' in OO , but in the same real-world footprint as CJF's compressed postwar plans 

 

I also think some of those citing the limited availability of RTR in TT:120 are not in fact interested in adopting TT:120 . I could come up with a list of reasons why I wouldn't model in P4 or 7mm. But that's irrelevant:  as a committed OO modeller who might consider EM at a push I'm never going to model in P4 (and 7mm doesn't suit) . Both are niche scales - they don't actually need my buy-i9n.

 

Similarly TT:120 is a niche scale. If it achieves 10% market share I'll be astonished -and it doesn't need to to survive. It's entirely possible to have 60% of the hobby fiercely rejecting the whole idea, and 10% actively working in it , and that may be where we are heading

 

Quote

...some, and likely a very significant proportion of existing modellers won't engage with the new scale at all. 

 

Will TT120 succeed and become established as a British modelling scale? At this point it is too soon to say for sure. What is abundantly clear is that Hornby have belief that it will and have a strategy to add products to the range for the next few years so they are giving it every chance. Personally I believe it will probably carve itself a place a place too, because the size will inevitably suit some as an alternative to OO or N and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. However I can't see it threatening those established scales in terms of volume. If we could "fast forward" five years, I think that there is much more chance that we would see TT120 continuing to be modelled in Britain than not and with manufacturer's support.

 

Roy

 

My minimum position is that the "reasonable worst case scenario" (as in hire JCBs to dig mass graves) for TT:120 would have Hornby cease production in early 2026 having released all of Phase 2 , the J50, 37, J94, 57xx Castle and some other bits. There is too much momentum for it to stop short of that, even under the blackest scenarios. And track and a 66 would remain available

 

There would then be 3.5 years of volume production of a sizeable range of models. That's just too much stuff out there, and too many  people drawn in, for this to vanish without trace . Its inevitable such a supply will mean people modelling British outline in 1/120 scale for the foreseeable future. As 3mm reminds us - this doesn't have to be exclusively RTR 

 

That's the worst case scenario, not the most likely one. I think personally that this has done well enough commercially that some kind of TT:120 RTR will stay in production as long as Hornby Hobbies are around to make  it - the "Hornby's Z gauge" scenario if you like

 

The nature of TT:120s future is very much up for grabs. That it could simply vanish completely as a modelling scale is no longer possible, thouigh it is still possible it could be only marginally a commercial scale   

 

[Hornby 2024 range announcements]

1 hour ago, BrakeCoach said:

Do the TXS decoders work with other DCC controllers? Or are the sounds proprietary?

 

The sounds are no doubt proprietary in the sense that Hornby own them. 

 

But any DCC decoder - sound or otherwise - has to comply with the DCC standards for protocols. So all Hornby decoders - like all Lenz or Zimo decoders work with all DCC controllers.

 

They'd be radically restricting their market if you could only run their DCC Sound locos using a Hornby DCC system 

[Hornby TT Easter announcement 2024]

On 06/04/2024 at 00:29, TT100 Diesels said:

 

I have heard feedback from the 3mm society stand folk at York (when I saw them on the Sat and post show) who were saying that a large proportion of the people enquiring about 3mm were people who were initially swayed by TT120. But when they saw the 3mm models on display on the stand together with the 'Coniston Lakebank' and 'Bluish' 3mm scale exhibition layouts at York, thought the TT120 was a bit small and preferred the heft of the 3mm scale models.

 

It's an interesting take on things and its only feedback from one show, so not a massive sample in the grand scheme of things, but interesting nevertheless.

 

While I myself am a 3mm modeller, I have no axe to grind against TT120 or Hornby. In fact I am very impressed with what I have seen so far and remain tempted into possibly getting some stock in the future. But that said, I do also think that 3mm is the better size (but accept that is purely my personal opinion only).

 

I am sure TT120 will continue to grow, and for most people it remains the obvious choice over 3mm for the simple fact that new rtr does not exist in 3mm.

 

Cheers

 

TT100 Diesels

 

This raises some interesting issues - particularly that "presence" or "heft" does matter, and that it's one of the things that make a significant difference to people. There is no doubt that 4mm/HO have traditionally represented a sweet spot, where presence , detail and ease of construction are good, but space demands are a lot more modest than 7mm.

 

However it is increasingly becoming the case that things have shifted and 4mm is no longer such a convenient size. There are two issues - the chronic housing shortage which is squeezing the space available at home (amongst other issues you won't be building a permanent layout if youre on a shorthold tenancy), and the fact that railway vehicles have steadily grown over the last 75 years. 23m vehicles are much longer than 57' ones, 66s are much longer than 20s and 25s or an 0-6-0 goods , and not merely have wagons grown well beyond the classic 17'6" underframe we've reached a point where almost all wagons on the network are bogie vehicles, taking 8" to 12" length in 4mm. 

 

It's good to see that the emergence of TT:120 is producing a small but significant flow of  new members for the 3mm Society. I know the Society has identified that it has a demographic issue, and this should help to address it. But it is easy not to see the wood for the trees here. The simple fact is that 60 years after Triang pulled the plug on TT3 in the face of a devastating collapse in the modest sales of the range, 3mm scale is very much still with us.

 

That's why I'm very much one of those saying that TT:120 is here to stay. And I think the hobby should come to terms with that fact, and try and make the most of it. There have been concerns expressed recently about negativity in the hobby, and it's deeply depressing that within 72 hours of a significant new product announcement , discussion is back to scenarios for the collapse of the initiative and whether the scale will disappear completely.

 

It won't. This has gone far too far, far too fast, to disappear completely now. I enter one big caveat - what kind of future British outline modelling in TT:120 has is very much up for grabs. But a future it will have. By early next year there will be 8 British prototype locos available in TT:120. There will be at least 5 different suites of coaches , and a decent range of wagons. This is more than TT3 managed.  The Phase 2 items have been open for pre-orders for 18 months, so presumably the first production runs \are largely sold already and further runs will certainly follow. Behind that Hornby are already heavily committed to Castle, 37, J94, 57xx, 31, 47, and probably a 9F and more rolling stock. TT:120 has been selling as fast as they make it - when people stopped counting batch sizes last year production of Gresley Pacifics  was apparently heading towards 10,000 and presumably it's comfortably into 5 figures now. It's full steam ahead for the next 12-18 months at least, even on the most pessimistic scenarios

 

Even if you believe that TT:120 will follow TT3 with a parabolic sales curve falling away steeply 3-4 years in, there is going to be just too much stuff out there , and too many people actively involved, for this scale to disappear from British modelling. Even the scraps of British outline HO from the 1970s (which were total commercial failures) have provoked a Society, and a bunch of folk doggedly convinced this is the answer. The long term prospects for TT:120 are much better than for 3mm after 1964. Triang removed the only source of readymade 12mm mechanisms and 12mm gauge track. That garotted the scale - those are the two things that are most difficult to make. In contrast, this time 12mm track will always remain available because of the Continental market, 12mm mechanisms will be available, there will be an ecosystem of 1/120 items,and once a model 66 exists in TT, then someone will keep making one

 

Anyone who thinks that TT:120 can be headed off at the pass, that it can be clubbed out of existance by posting online, or that if we all stick together and refuse to recognise it, TT:120 will go away and we can all go back to the happy land of 2022,  is deluding themselves. (I have in mind the notorious Chadwick video with its chanted refrain "it's a trainset!"  : surely an attempt to suggest that TT:120 has no place in railway modelling and should be opposed) . The only sane response is to say "Well, it's here . I don't know whether I'd have done it, or how far it will be a commercial success for Hornby. But it exists, and Hornby's money isn't my problem, so let's see what we can make of it"

 

If you haven't got room to do it in 4mm - and a lot of people haven't, what do you do?  It is not  obvious that N gauge is the only possible modelling scale smaller than 4mm.   It is very noticeable that for a lot of people who don't really have space for 4mm,  N gauge is not a workable solution. There are a lot of people in the hobby who have "bounced off" N. Over the years I've seen a lot of comments of the form " Haven't got a lot of space or a layout,  started off in OO, tried N but it wasn't for me/found it too fiddly/couldn't get on with it so here I am, back in OO . Now how do I do something in the limited space I've got?"

 

There could be an opening for a scale larger than N but smaller than OO. If you are in N long term then clearly N works for you and you don't see the issue. There are those who like the presence and detail and ease of construction in 4mm - but haven't got the space. 3mm is bedeviled by scale gauge issues: do you go 14.2mm then have to handbuild all the track and chassis to exacting standards? Or do you go 12mm and have a seriously underscale track gauge? Hornby have said, in effect, the gauge has to be 12mm , since that is already a commercial gauge, and there's a Continental market for the track.  Then it makes sense to go to 1/120 scale , because that is the  scale used commercially on the Continent for 12mm gauge RTR  .

 

Those then are the intermediate options : 3mm scale /14.2mm gauge, 3mm/12mm gauge, TT:120 . Take your pick. Different people will make different choices in differing circumstances

 

The argument that there is more RTR available in N is simply not the knockdown argument that some folk think, if your starting point is "N gauge is too small a scale to satisfy me".

 

Put another way 7mm modelling has flourished and grown in the last 35 years, even though no conventional RTR was available until about 10 years ago. If someone likes the heft of 7mm, it's not an effective argument to say that there is more RTR in OO and you can build a layout in less space, so you should stick to 4mm.

 

OO9 has only had RTR support quite recently . But for half a century it got by ok without it, based on kits and the availability of 9mm track and mechanisms. The lack of RTR was not a knockdown argument against OO9. Some of the hobby actually like making things.

 

Even this is to concede too much to the naysayers. It's entirely possible given what we've seen so far, that demand for TT:120 will be fully sufficient to sustain production of commercial RTR indefinitely. S gauge is a commercial scale in the US. The range of RTR is much smaller than for HO, of course, but folk who like the scale or perhaps want to be different, work in it.  Marklin's Z gauge is never going to displace N , but it's been around since 1972 and there are no threads with eager posters speculating about how soon Marklin will drop it

 

All of those scenarios are on the table for TT:120 in Britain. What is not possible is a scenario where 1:120 is not an available option for British outline modelling, (even if the cynic in me mutters that MRJ will only publish its first article on "P120" about 9 months after Hornby announce a suspension of production...)  

 

"As I was going down the stair

I met a man who wasn't there.

I saw him there again today -

I wish, I wish he'd go  away"

 

(AA Milne, I think - someone may be able to confirm)      

[Hornby announce TT:120]

4 hours ago, Legend said:

Just picked up the Hornby TT120 Catalogue which was bundled with Mays Hornby Magazine .  When you see the range together it does look quite impressive . Future releases are listed but no more talk of Phase 3 and 4 

 

If you look at those future models where liveries are listed then it’s 9F , Castle, Class 31 and Class 37 . The 31 is marked Eras 6 ,7 and 9 , the last being EWS the Class 37 being Eras 6 and 9 (EWS) . Only 2 class 37s out of a myriad of possible schemes . I’d be very disappointed if there wasn’t a large logo one in there . If you want to achieve a return from tooling Hornby , why only 2 models ……daft ! Also the fact that the 31 is listed suggests it’s gone up the pecking order - I wonder why that would have been? 
 

Other models are listed Britannia , Black5 ,J94 and 57xx in steam and 47,60,67,73 and Hitachi 800 in D&E . To me this is disappointing as it looks like the 47 is in with the rest as a footnote . When can we expect to see that 2028, 2030? I do still think it would have made much more sense having the 37 and 47 instead of the 50 . Oh well !  
 

A few track plans listed . 

 

 

 

Aftewr this week's announcements , I think we can have a stab at explaining what might be driving this.

 

The fact that a J50 can leap-frog both the J94 and 57xx which were listed in the initial programme, and which Simon Kohler signalled were going out for tooling quotes last Jan-Feb, to the extent that you can pre-order the J50  but the J94 and 57xx aren't even with TT-numbers and liveries yet , show just how drastically existing CAD and having done all the research and development work in OO shortens the process.

 

Apply that insight and a number of choices start to make sense. I think the 66 will be the first model  released for which Hornby didn't have existing CAD in OO. It will also, clearly, be the last of the Phase 1/2 models to come to market. (The KFA and 21Tonners  may be partial exceptions - but possibly the KFA is as much an Arnold project and may have started earlier. The 21 tonners seem also to be at the end of Phase 2 , and I can;t help wondering if there was an aborted project to replace Hornby;s aging 4mm tooling for 21T minerals)

 

The choice of the 50 over the 47 or 37 for Phase 2 then becomes obvious: they had the CAD, so it could be brought to market much faster. TT:120 is clearly a big commitment for the development team at Hornby, and there;s only so much work they can do at once. With developing 66, J94,57xx, 37,  and 47 from scratch they may well be heavily committed.

 

But they have CAD for the 31. It would make sense to do only one out of 37 and 47 now, and move the other back behind the 31. And then a Brush 2 plugs the gap between J50 and A3. Introduced 1957, mixed traffic, definitely an ER secondary route loco - and also used on the WR in the 70s and 80s . It helps build a more coherent range

 

Dropping the VEA makes sense if developing models from a clean sheet of paper is causing a development bottleneck. In their rebuilt form they weren't that long-lived (15 years or so?) and there weren;t that many of them , compared to the basic Vanwides or the great fleet of BR Vanfits /VVVs. And Hornby don't have CAD for it. When invest the effort in this if you are struggling to find development capacity for a 47?

 

This also hints why we've not heard more about Collett coaches and Gresley teaks. Hornby have no CAD for Collett corridor stock. And they can't simply shrink the 4mm Gresleys. They've announced a BTK and CK. They did a BCK in OO , and I don't think they did a CK. They may also want to change the tumblehome profile, which was criticised in OO. (Although Dapol's N gauge Gresley coaches look rather slab-sided to me)   . A Mk1 SK  or TSO would be a much quicker easier win - they've done one in OO , so they have the CAD already. They know what their design choices will be

 

And similarly - they have CAD for a Castle and a 9Fi n OO , so those can be brought to market faster . The research has all been done, the design choices have already been made and the issues behind them understood .... ~(It's not just "having the files" . Its all the work that was needed to get you to the point where you could develop them) 

 

This implies we might see Black 5s in TT:120 faster than we think. They have almost finished developing a new Black 5 in OO - a TT120 version could well follow not far behind 

[Hornby announce TT:120]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

I did mention the J50 as most likely. Only because it was a recent model so they probably had the CADs ready to go. But a type that was pretty limited in it's use, mostly around London and Yorkshire.

 

 

Jason

 

Not quite so limited - they were the Group Standard shunting engine and trip loco.

 

The LNER Encyclopedia states:

 

Quote

By 1935, the J50s were allocated to Ardsley, Bradford, Copley Hill, Immingham, Frodingham, Stratford, Woodford, and Eastfield. The last two batches were spread thinly amongst Norwich, Cambridge, Stratford, Doncaster, Copley Hill, Sheffield, Hitchin, Hornsey, Annesley, and Colwick.

All of the J50s survived to Nationalisation (1948), when the allocations were to Ardsley, Bradford, Copley Hill, Doncaster, Colwich, Frodingham, Stratford, Woodford, Annesley, Sheffield, St. Margaret's, and Eastfield. Most were still allocated in the West Riding, with lesser numbers further afield.

In 1952, thirty J50s were allocated to Hornsey to work transfer trips to the Southern Region. 

 

They will certainly do for an inglenook or any kind of shunting /freight yard layout

 

I believe the LNER represented about 1/3rd of the network, although I'm finding it very difficult to find route mileage figures~*  . As the J50s were reasonably spread around the LNER they ought to have some potential

 

* (The Oxford Companion to British Railway history quotes peak route mileage for the network at 20,267 route miles in 1926. Somewhere in my head I recall seeing figures of approx 8000 route miles for the LMS, approx 6,500  route miles for the LNER , 3,500 for the GWR , and 2,000 for the Southern. Someone may be able to validate or correct those figures; but the point is that the LNER's route mileage was approximately as great as that of the GW and Southern combined if not greater, and given that it served a lot of heavily industrialised areas and major conurbations , its total traffic is unlikely to have been less than the combined total of the two southern companies)

 

[Hornby announce TT:120]

3 hours ago, Taigatrommel said:

I'm already interested in what tomorrow will bring. Work means I'll be late to the foam party, so I'll throw my predictions in now and see how good a guess they were tomorrow lunchtime.

 

Like lots of people are saying already, I think we'll see what the first small steam loco release will be. My guess is a Jinty.

 

Further mk1 varieties make sense. The lowest hanging fruit are SKs or SOs, then BGs and RBs.  The first two are already announced, the last is in the 00 range.  Both the latter will sit nicely with the mk2Fs.

 

As the VEA is planned, a vanwide could slot in nicely. I'm not very clued up on wagons, but my hazy memory suggests that the chassis could be useful for other types. Lowfit and 16t mineral wagons?

 

Rather than being a prediction, the one thing that could push me into taking up British TT is a DMU. 101 is the most obvious, but for me any of 101/108/116/117/118 would be all the carrot I need. A 150/2 would do it too!

 

Really though, all I'm expecting is some more detailed information on the phase 3/4 models laid out in the initial brochure.

 

I think the first - maybe the main - item of business will be the announcement of liveries, reference numbers and prices for the Phase 3/4 stuff that's already been anounced - 37, 47, Castle, 57xx , and J94. The phase 1/2 models went up on the website for order very quickly, but nothing outside those models has been added to the shop since, so far as I'm aware (The green 08 which I think was a later addition is an additional livery on a phase 1 model).

 

Therefore this should be the point at which the next tranche of models become available to pre-order. The 31 is further off - it might or might not feature here

 

Presumably there will also be new liveries announced for existing models - with the HST out and Class 50 imminent (not to mention 37 and 47 to follow), blue/grey Mk1 CK/BSK seem logical. If you're selling a Castle, you need coaches to support it. That might point to chocolate/cream Mk1s

 

A Mk1 SK/TSO was promised in the initial brochure. This might be the point where it is confirmed as heading for tooling. With a Stanier 50' BG due for release very soon , a Mk1 BG is not urgent - they could easily announce a run of the Stanier BG in rail blue.

If the Castle is to be available to order, then will they press the button on the Collett CK/BSK they promised in the original launch? (Did Hornby's Collett coaches sell that well in OO? , although those were not corridor stock)

 

On the wagon front, there will presumably be new liveries for the early oil tanker and the TTA, and the wooden open/mineral ,and it seems a good moment for the van - which is a GW van - to get a release in correct liveries /numbers. The container flat already released on the Continent (KFA I think?) would logically get a British version. 

 

They might announce 2-4 more of the wagons trailed in the original announcement are now going forward for tooling (Pick your likely candidates).

 

And to add a bit of splash, I assume one new locomotive will be confirmed as going forward for tooling. If you believe in the Secret Jinty/Terrier then this would be the moment to spring the surprise. Personally I would expect the new loco to be confirmation that the 9F is going forward into tooling

 

So there will be quite a lot to announce, but most of it is likely to be things we already know about from Phases 3/4 being turned into actual products in the shop that you can order

[TT120: HST]

Bearing reamers for 9mm and 16.5mm gauge are available from DCC Concepts . Does anyone know of a source for an equivalent 12mm gauge device? Something might be available in germany

[Hornby TTAs]

The base can be greately improved if the visible edge is pared away with a craft knife to thin it down

[Hornby TTAs]

Some very nice work there

 

Some of my own efforts in that line are here:

 

 

From memory, I drilled out the V hanger for the brake lever, cut away some small surplus bits , and thinned down the bits  that are below the hazchem marking . I think there is a drawing somewhere in Tourett's book that might shed light on the underframes They were also fitted with brass Oleo buffers 

 

[Booklet on Building a Locomotive Chassis in 12mm gauge from the 3mm Society]

The 3mm Society has recently distributed to its members a heavily illustrated 24 page booklet on building an 0-6-0 chassis to 12mm. This has been puit together by John Sutton, the long-standing editor of the Society's magazine - and also a very accomplished modeller of many years experience , working in 12mm gauge , who has built a lot of locos.

 

Although the step by step guide assumes the use of etched sideframes which are not yet available for TT120, scratchbuilding your own sideframes is a well known process and only adds one step, and a number of the photos in fact show scratchbuilt chassis. Otherwise a 12mm gauge chassis is a 12mm gauge chassis.... If you can fit the mechanism in a small 3mm scale tank engine , you can fit it in a medium-sized TT120 tank engine.

 

Therefore this booklet is a valuable resource for anyone interested in TT120 who is bold enough to consider building their own chassis, perhaps to fit under a Lincoln Locos body. Building a 12mm gauge chassis is not a wild leap into the dark - it can be done, it has been done regularly for many years and there is a substantial body of knowledge, components, techniques and support for doing it. It is worth mentioning that wheels for the 3mm Society's 12mm Intermediate standard appear to be fully compatible with NEM TT standards , albeit with a somewhat shallower flange than Hornby are using

 

I suspect that the booklet will be made available to anyone joining the 3mm Society 

 

 

[Frasers Group (nee Sports Direct) raises stake in Hornby to 9%]

2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I really wish you would spend some time fact-checking yourself so that we don't have to waste time doing so.

 

Obviously you know nothing about the toplights.

 

Nothing is currently showing on the Dapol shop under OO coaches Dapol OO coaches which is why I made the comment.

 

They have the tooling, but apparently no current stock (And again, the Toplights are hardly a "budget" product. One suite of tooling doesn't really allow you to make a budget play in OO coaches)

[Frasers Group (nee Sports Direct) raises stake in Hornby to 9%]

2 minutes ago, McC said:

 

and £39 more gets you a OO one with high detail, built in stay alive and comprehensive lighting suite and built in speaker. 

 

accurascale make serious efforts to ensure pricing is very solid value for money and significantly less than the competition like for like. 

 

The Hornby OO 66 - with all its limitations - is currently £96. It hardly compares with a full fat model like the Hattons/Accurascale 66  and I wouldn't buy one, but for those whose main focus is low price , it shows an edge.

 

I was responding to a post which argued that Hornby has nothing much for the budget modeller and which was touting forty year old secondhand locos off ebay at an alleged £30 a pop as blow away competition . Accurascale are most certainly not competing with that

[Frasers Group (nee Sports Direct) raises stake in Hornby to 9%]

18 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Rubbish. They've produced some excellent OO products over the last couple of years.

 

 

Please spell it correctly.

 

The bulk of Dapol's range is in either N gauge or O . I'm not questioning the quality of Dapol's OO models, merely pointing out that 4mm isn#'t their major focus. They currently have no OO coaches at all (it has been suggested that the ex Mainline/Airfix moulds may be life expired) and a large part of their OO wagon offering is ex Hornby Dublo/Wrenn mouldings. Their OO loco range is modest, and it certainly isn't aimed at  the budget market. The 68 and 21 are not competing with 40 year old second hand off ebay

 

If Dapol had a "budget/entry" range in 4mm, it lay in the old Airfix/Mainline coaches, and the ex Wrenn wagons. The first seem to be no more, the second are being knocked out at £12.45. That they seem to have let the OO coaches go completely suggests they may not be so interested in 4mm or budget 4mm

 

On the other hand they are most emphatically targeting the "affordable" sector in N . N gauge 66s at a hundred quid and Class 33s for £80m have been a staple of the Dapol stand at large shows over the last few years, (Farish locos seem around £150)   and they've been selling bogie wagons in bundles or singly at prices equating to £17-£20 a vehicle off the stand - bogie Farish wagons seem to go for about £40-£45 

 

Dapol are a very different animal in the N gauge market from the 4mm market. In 4mm they are a niche or bit player brand.

 

There does seem to be an "affordable" market, and what Dapol have done in N with relatively modern tooling (10-20 year old) suggests an alternative strategy to chasing the top end in spec and pricing. But its not really their game in 4mm

[Frasers Group (nee Sports Direct) raises stake in Hornby to 9%]

On 06/03/2024 at 09:00, Sjcm said:

Do Hornby even cater for that market anymore?  Not so much the toy train market but the entry level young adult market or those older returning to the hobby not looking to spend thousands. All I see at the low end is Beatles tat and generic 0-4-0 toy shunters or you can pay 80 quid for a jinty😂 The railroad plus range seem reasonable, but  it's all diesels and if you wanted  say a BR era medium sized steam loco and 3 mk 1's , it would cost you the best part of 350 pounds. There is no entry level train set  unless you want the mallard at 250 pounds which I suppose is decent value.

 

It's always dangerous to watch eBay for trends as it can change month to month but at the moment, mid sized nothing special 40+ year old locos are going for 30+ pounds on ebay, obviously to be used and the prices are rising fast so the demand is there. If you don't care about super detailed DCC stuff,  a budget of 350 pounds gets you 5 locos, a job lot of wagons, coaches and track on ebay, while the other guy has his train and 3 coaches for a year for the same money if he's not after DCC (May have to lose a couple of coaches if he is). Personally I think Hornby rely on the collectors and purist modellers. Those that just want a train set moved on a long time ago I think.

 

Nobody other than Hornby caters for that sector. The fact that Railroad keeps running and running , the fact that all those Lima models that "everyone" groaned loadly when they brought back 20 years ago - "why do they bother??🙄" - keep selling and have done for 20 years tells a story.

 

And the whole TT120 venture is aimed squarely at that market. £130 gets you a DCC ready Class 66. £250 gets you the Scotsman set with a loco, 3 coaches, track and a controller Scotsman set

 

Bachmann seem to be maximising revenue in the face of restricted capacity at Kadar factories (whether because they can't pay the going rate for more production slots given that British RTR prices are below the world norm, or because capacity is tight anyway, we don't know ) . Rapido and Accurascale are certainly not targetting the budget sector . Dapol are not very interested in 4mm (they certainly target the budget sector in N)

 

Hornby are the only serious player in this sector.

 

Buying bits of second hand stuff off ebay is an option, but you are buying a series of pigs in a poke : some of the stuff might not work or be a bit battered round the edges...

[Bachmann Class 30/31]

At one level, the commercial success or otherwise of this model is not really our problem as modellers. (At another level, it is not in our interests to see manufacturers weakened/fail, and  the commercial success of all significant RTR manufacturers is a positive for the hobby)

 

So one way to view this is "what new resources  do we have, what new opportunities does this open up for us?" . What have we as modellers got this Saturday that we didn't have last Saturday?

 

Since last Saturday we already had a state of the art Brush 2 in OO imminently available for those who don't want to buy the current Hornby model, or require varients not done by Hornby , I'm struggling to see anything.

 

Which of these two new models will "win out" is a different question. It will probably take a couple of years after release before we can say that a model has or hasn't been commercially successful , and even then it's  not clear cut. I'm sure there will be people still ready to argue that Hattons' 66 was a commercial success as a project

 

Someone said that Accurascale announced their model just on 2 years ago. In which case they've had 2 years to mop up demand for a new Brush 2 and lock it in by means of pre-orders. Why people would cancel those pre-orders  in order to buy this instead isn't obvious. I'm not clear why it is preferable for Brush 2s to get the Bachmann Treatment as opposed to the Accurascale Treatment (or vice versa, though AS have been out in the market  with this for a long time now)

 

The only thing that has been mentioned so far is DCC auto-uncoupling. Yes I could find a use for that - but I'm a Kadee user, and I presume this is a mechanised  tensionlock.

 

Otherwise - I was already struggling to find a reason to spend £170 on an AS Brush 2 , even though the layout uses two Class 31s  (which I already have...). I find it an even bigger struggle to find a reason to buy this instead. I'm open to more Type 2s, but that involves making use of the moderate pile of stuff/bits/old locos I've already got 

 

We can come back in summer 2026 to discuss whether this was the right commercial decision for Bachmann. In the meantime the questions seem to be what extra does this bring to the table for modellers, and is this model noticably better than the Accurascale one?

[Hornby LMS Composites]

Dapol LMS CK rework

 

My own rework of the Dapol CK. Sadly  all the pictures have been lost , so here are some from file

[Hornby TT:120 21 ton mineral wagons]

51 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

5.5cm is about right for the prototype's 21'6" over headstocks, so not including couplings.

Since it's an imperial scale 1/10" to the foot, this should be  2.15" long over headstocks

[Hornby TT:120 21 ton mineral wagons]

1 hour ago, Porfuera said:

I thought I'd kick off a thread on these wagons, seeing as they may be the next TT:120 wagons to arrive - assuming the HAAs don't overtake them and beat them to it.

 

I know everyone and his dog would have preferred Hornby to have produced the 16 ton minerals instead of these, but it is what it is. I'm sure someone will produce 16T minerals at some point - maybe Peco if not Hornby themselves... Roll on April - maybe they will be announced then?

 

I for one am looking forward to these arriving - more stock can only be a good thing, right? And for me these (reasonably) modern-image wagons are even better. And I guess the chassis can be used under 3D printed bodies of other wagons and they would be cheaper than using the chassis from the TTAs.

 

These appear to be the pre-production prototypes (photo from Key Model World):

 

 

I'm not an expert (on anything) but the online shop seems to be a bit confused over the Eras and identities for these wagons. They are listed and pictured as:

 

TT6015 21T Mineral Wagon, B314633 - Era 5 (bauxite livery is pictured)

 

TT6016 21T Mineral wagon, P200781 - Era 4 (grey livery is pictured)

 

TT6017 21T Mineral Wagon, B316500 - Era 6 (Glenhafod livery is pictured)

 

It seems to me that the Glenhafod wagon should be the Era 4 wagon rather than the grey livery that is pictured in the shop. I guess that the 'P' prefix on P200781 indicates Private Owner and since the colliery was closed by the National Coal Board on November 28th 1958 then this would make these Glenhafod wagons Era 4/5.

 

And seeing that the running number of the grey wagon in the photo above is B316500 then it seems that pictures on the shop entries for TT6016 and TT6017 have been swapped around.

 

However, IIRC someone (sorry I can't remember who you were) has already pointed out that both the grey and the bauxite wagons have TOPS codes (MDO and MDV respectively) so should those both be Era 7? Does anyone out there have a definitive answer to this?

 

To finish off, here is a picture of the undersides of the wagons (also from Key Model World):

 

 

 

Has anyone noticed that the bauxite wagon has top doors , like an MEO, 24.5T - but the other two do not? So two bodies have been tooled up

 

The PO version really ought to be pre-nationalisation and therefore a GW dia N32 "Felix Pole" mineral , built for hire-purchase to persuade S Wales colliery owners to modernise. It does not carry a P -series number. Dia N32 is the basis for the old OO 21T minerals from Hornby and Airfix in the 1970ps

 

The grey version carries a number BR do not seem to have used, according to Rowland's appendices: no numbers between B314999 and B 333000 were issued . It could be an N32 numbered as P200781, or it could be a welded wagon from the 1951 build to dia 1/107, B201000-B202499

 

The bauxite wagon should by the number be to dia 1/119 , with top flaps , lot 3439, Derby 1962