Rapido dangles 3mm rolling stock carrot.

[Dunsignalling]

I consider that 1:120 TT of British outline would only attract significant support at launch if one could purchase two complete trains, one passenger, one freight.

 

That is probably beyond the financial reach of current UK market participants in OO or N. I'm also guessing that many potential converts would sit back for a year or so to see if it actually took off before committing themselves.

 

None of the (surviving) continental brands seem to be overflowing with cash to risk on a speculative venture outside their normal remit. Neither could I envisage anyone from outside Europe (even Rapido) being willing to take a punt of that magnitude.

 

Nice thought, but realistically, that's all it was ever going to be.

 

As for RTR TT3; Tri-ang pulled the plug over half a century ago and no serious attempt has been made to revive it at that level since. I think we must accept that 3mm has become a very enjoyable niche for DIY modellers and RTR nostalgists but is unlikely ever to regain anything approaching mainstream commercial status.

 

John

Edited April 3, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Please be careful when you edit quotes.  You quoted Ravenser's post thus.  

to quote Pacific231G :

Put simply - unless it ran in Germany, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Poland, or possibly Russia , it's irrelevant

 

But those are his words not mine. 

Ravenser's actual post was

To quote Pacific231G :

"If European TT had included a decent range of French prototype material I'd have been very tempted to use it but it was only really in Eastern Europe and the German speaking world that it ever took off."

Put simply - unless it ran in Germany, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Poland, or possibly Russia , it's irrelevant. Western European use doesn't count because TT isn't used there , and there is no 1:120 support for Western European prototypes.

 

You've ascribed Ravenser's words to me and that's not what I said or think. 

Apologies, it was a result if software not allowing quotes embedded in quotes... simply put.. the software did it automatically, and I didnt check.

 

i have removed the line reference from my quote.

Sorry for the typo.

 

For me, Bottom line I think new rtr TT is a dead duck, there seems to be a lot of passionate squabbling that seem to  agree its a dead duck, which to me makes continuing in this thread pointless... if its dead its dead, move on.

Edited April 3, 2021 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

7 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

The Mehano 66 hasn't been produced for many years, mainly because the original Mehano went out of business (restructuring in 2008, closed Slovenian factory, some production moved to China) . I doubt many UK modellers even know of its existence. If it had been released in UK liveries and "avaliable" then it might be better known. I don't think it is fair to say it was "Shunned": more that it was only produced for a short period of time and not well-known.

 

Luke

 

Is this one still available?

 

[whart57]

11 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Yes - which is why I wondered whether you could design RTR stock to be easily convertible between 12 and 14.2mm gauge, or available in either (I’m not sure many people particularly use the 13.5mm standard).

 

As I mentioned earlier, it should be possible to design motor bogies with drop-in wheelsets held in place by a keeper plate. It's a design form that has been followed on a number of occasions before. The maker of the 12mm gauge RTR need not even offer that, the cottage industry infrastructure and the 3mm Society would happily provide 14.2mm and 13.5mm gauge wheelsets that were compatible. Not so easy with steam outline of course.

 

The key thing with making something compatible across gauges is the clearances, and here the issue is not as bad as might be thought. The maximum dimension across the outer faces of Triang wheelsets is 16mm, for 14.2mm wheelsets it's 16.3mm. Clearances need to allow for wheel sideplay but there is enough space inside solebars or bogie sideframes to accommodate either.

 

The thing is that it would be madness to start this venture with something like Flying Scotsman. Those huge drivers and outside waggly bits? Major headaches. The most skilled 3mm scale modellers struggle with getting all that outside a 14.2mm gauge set of wheels and then getting that round even generous model railway curves. Don't overlook the fact that the minimum radius a 9F or large Pacific was expected to get round without flattening the track scales out at around 5' in 3mm scale. Who has curves like that?

 

If Rapido are tracking this then my advice would be, forget steam and park the Mk1 idea for a moment. Ask the 3mm Society which of the items Triang produced 60 years ago flies out the door whenever one appears in their Secondhand Sales. That's not Mk1 coaches, there are healthy-ish supplies of Triang and Kitmaster Mk1s (or Mk1-ish) coaches. What would sell well, based on the secondhand experience, is a DMU set, a widely deployed first generation type like the Class 101. If the bogies had a keeper plate design and Rapido worked with the 3mm Society (I believe they already know two of the best engineers in the Society) to ensure there is a straightforward upgrade path to finescale wheelsets then they might meet their target of high sales among existing 3mm scale modellers.

[luke_stevens]

55 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is this one still available?

 

It is the same model. Lemke are a German distributor / commissioner who don't make anything themselves but place orders with manufactures. They seem to be pretty much the only people commissioning stuff from Mehano. And no, the TT 66 is not in their current range. 

 

Luke

[Revolution Mike]

Personally I’ve long found TT in 1:101 and 1:120 form attractive. To me they have a bit more heft than N (my preferred scale) without needing the space (or potential compromise) of OO but this thread neatly encompasses the problems of TT. 

 

My view is that introducing a new RTR model to existing compromises is relatively unlikely to do much to create much of a new market which is surely part of the aim for both TT modellers and Rapido. Yes you might delight existing TT modellers but is that enough people to make a market? Given how limited the size of the N gauge market can be, is TT anywhere close in numbers?

 

If you can solve the scale/gauge issue using either 1:120 on 12mm track or 1:101 on 14.2mm track then you immediately have a USP compared to any other UK RTR scale/gauge (OK you will need to be careful with minimum radius and/or clearances but that is always something to be aware of with correct scale and gauge but clearly there are solutions used for 1:87 or 1:160!). That seems to me to be more likely to create a new expanding market - it would certainly attract me! Will everyone else agree with me, certainly not!

 

Being slightly provocative perhaps the challenge is to assess whether the incumbent market plus a bit of growth is likely to be a better bet than creating a new larger market - a difficult decision!

Edited April 3, 2021 by red death

[Robert Shrives]

Not provocative but on the  nail.  

 

[PaulRhB]

Is everyone actually reading what they posted? They aren’t looking to start a range currently with this but to see if the existing 3mm society members will provide enough support for two common models they think would be the most viable. 

“We might have made this scale seem like a bit of a joke but we’re serious: if there’s enough demand for a ready-to-run 3mm model to 21st Century standards, then we’ll consider making one.

 

We have to be honest though. The 3mm market is so small that if we were to make something, every 3mm modeller would have to dip their hands in their pockets and buy one. The market's just not big enough to produce something that might only appeal to a fraction of it. So we're looking at vehicles that will find a home on all layouts, such as the Mk 1 coach (see above) or the 16t mineral wagon.”

 

I think this has gone way wide of that point, unsurprisingly  

[woodenhead]

It also has to be remembered this is Rapido not Hornby, they tried to do budget and it wasn't popular so they are sticking with their USP of highly detailed accurate models - that means they wouldn't want to create a TT model that is compromised, it may actually damage their brand.

 

If they are going to do this, the 3mm society is going to have to come up with a product everyone will buy and be something Rapido will be proud to produce.

 

 

[Robert Shrives]

21 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It also has to be remembered this is Rapido not Hornby, they tried to do budget and it wasn't popular so they are sticking with their USP of highly detailed accurate models - that means they wouldn't want to create a TT model that is compromised, it may actually damage their brand.

 

If they are going to do this, the 3mm society is going to have to come up with a product everyone will buy and be something Rapido will be proud to produce.

 

 

The society management committee  is on the case be assured of that.  

[whart57]

44 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

We have to be honest though. The 3mm market is so small that if we were to make something, every 3mm modeller would have to dip their hands in their pockets and buy one. The market's just not big enough to produce something that might only appeal to a fraction of it. So we're looking at vehicles that will find a home on all layouts, such as the Mk 1 coach (see above) or the 16t mineral wagon.”

 

I think this has gone way wide of that point, unsurprisingly  

 

The problem with the Mk1 coach is that it would have to be really really good to supplant the Triang Mk1-ish coaches from most Society members' layouts. And the problem with the 16t mineral wagon is that it would be competing with a range of steel sided mineral wagons done as Parkside kits.

 

That's why I suggested above a better choice would be the Class 101 DMU. That had the longevity and geographical spread of Mk1s and mineral wagons but the demand for the limited number of second hand Triang DMUs (which aren't 101s btw) suggests to me a more vibrant target market. Particularly if bogie design is done with a straightforward upgrade path for those who want to run them on 14.2mm gauge layouts, as suggested earlier.

 

As for the tendency to set the world to rights and "correct" history, I thought that was the point of sites like rmweb

[woodenhead]

23 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

The problem with the Mk1 coach is that it would have to be really really good to supplant the Triang Mk1-ish coaches from most Society members' layouts. And the problem with the 16t mineral wagon is that it would be competing with a range of steel sided mineral wagons done as Parkside kits.

 

That's why I suggested above a better choice would be the Class 101 DMU. That had the longevity and geographical spread of Mk1s and mineral wagons but the demand for the limited number of second hand Triang DMUs (which aren't 101s btw) suggests to me a more vibrant target market. Particularly if bogie design is done with a straightforward upgrade path for those who want to run them on 14.2mm gauge layouts, as suggested earlier.

 

As for the tendency to set the world to rights and "correct" history, I thought that was the point of sites like rmweb

'It would have to be quite good'  - do you know the USP of Rapido trains?  They don't do  'quite good'.

 

The problem may be that people would not want their older Triang heritage Mk1ish coaches alongside the Rapido - sort of like how you wouldn't mix Heljan and Dapol O gauge Mk1s they would look odd together.

 

 

[mdvle]

9 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I consider that 1:120 TT of British outline would only attract significant support at launch if one could purchase two complete trains, one passenger, one freight.

 

That is probably beyond the financial reach of current UK market participants in OO or N. I'm also guessing that many potential converts would sit back for a year or so to see if it actually took off before committing themselves.

 

But what if 2 or more manufacturers entered the TT market at the same time with complimentary products?

 

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Is everyone actually reading what they posted? They aren’t looking to start a range currently with this but to see if the existing 3mm society members will provide enough support for two common models they think would be the most viable.

 

At least some of us the answer is yes, but other than bruised egos over the previous newsletter we considered what (at least some of) the 3mm/TT people want from a new RTR option - to bring more people into their part of the hobby to make future RTR items more likely.

 

 

[whart57]

29 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

'It would have to be quite good'  - do you know the USP of Rapido trains?  They don't do  'quite good'.

 

The problem may be that people would not want their older Triang heritage Mk1ish coaches alongside the Rapido - sort of like how you wouldn't mix Heljan and Dapol O gauge Mk1s they would look odd together.

 

 

 

Well I did say "really really good", it's naughty of you to downgrade that to "quite good"

 

My worry about the argument that people might not want to mix the old with the new is that though that will be true for some, it is far from a universal condition. If manufacturers like Rapido were relying on that they would be pitching to a much smaller market.

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, red death said:

Given how limited the size of the N gauge market can be, is TT anywhere close in numbers?

 

Don't follow news about TT, so I could be wrong, but given an apparent lack of any (successful) crowd-funding attempts while several successful ones have happened in N would indicate TT is much smaller than N.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

But what if 2 or more manufacturers entered the TT market at the same time with complimentary products?

 

 

At least some of us the answer is yes, but other than bruised egos over the previous newsletter we considered what (at least some of) the 3mm/TT people want from a new RTR option - to bring more people into their part of the hobby to make future RTR items more likely.

 

 

You wait fifty years and two come along at once.....Nice thought but no, I don't think so. 

 

Rapido are suggesting a couple of cornerstone models to boost an existing scale/gauge that probably has one of the larger fan-bases for a niche of its kind. We can probably take it as read they'd be designed with both 12mm and 14.2 mm gauges in mind. I'd think that feasible, so long as enough people proved willing to put their hands in their pockets, and that's what they are trying to ascertain. Nothing more.

 

Quite how it got extrapolated into discussing a putative range of TT at 1:120 which, in UK terms, has never existed before, is a bit of a mystery. An entirely new scale/gauge combo is not something that can be done half-heartedly. To be credible, it would require a fairly decent range straight out of the starting blocks. I'd say two/three locos, three or four different Mk1 coaches and half a dozen wagons as an absolute minimum. Going on numbers we hear relating to OO, that sounds like £3m to me. Plus track; I don't think Peco's 12mm range follows standard gauge practice, but better represents metre gauge in 3.5mm scale and 3ft in 4mm. 

 

OK, the scale has an established following in the former Soviet bloc, with a much smaller one in Western Europe, and there was a r-t-r Class 66 produced, though its maker went bust; not a good sign. I don't think any of that would influence potential makers of, or customers for a British range, one way or the other.

 

The other thing it would need, is a biggish name behind it to give people confidence that whatever they bought at launch wouldn't be all there's ever likely to be.

 

John

 

PS: I was all ready to buy a Heljan 37 in HO some years back, but  it seems to have been delayed. 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Ravenser]

 

So a 1:120 66 has been done , and didn;t set the UK on fire 

 

No, I wasn't ignoring the 66 , merely making the point that there's not a lot else British outline that has significant potential with Central European TT modellers. A TT 66 in the Arnold range seems an entirely sensible move from Hornby - they have a 66 in  the OO range, and access to UK based locos for scanning won't be too difficult. But clearly it won't kickstart British outline 1:120.

 

Furthermore I don't really see that a comprehensive "one-stop shop" range is Rapido's business model. They are pretty unlikely to attempt what Triang attempted in 1957 - a complete range in a new scale

 

As noted, this is an initiative in connection with the 3mm Society

 

Whart57's suggestion of a DMU is interesting. I think his analysis based on what flies out of 3mm Stock Sidings may be misleading - the Triang 104 was one of the shortest-lived and rarest models of the TT3 RTR range, and the DMU segment has seen least trade support in terms of kits.

 

But a 101 would have a good age range , from late 1950s right through to 2000, could be done in lots of colours and would plug a gap.

 

I think that Mk1s might be viable . The Triang models were substantially below scale length and by modern standards fairly basic. Kitmaster is a slightly different story , but availability is quite limited.

 

A BCK wasn't done by either, but examples survived into the 1990s . Triang only did a BSK and a CK,  Kitmaster also did an SK/TSO (same bodyshell - no interior supplied) and an RFO. I think it would be worth a punt on an SK/TSO - only an alternative interior is required to do both types and they were extremely common. I'm sceptical that enough examples of the Kitmaster kit have survived to pose real competition, and I suspect that few modellers will be confident they can paint a 2 tone livery like blood/custard or blue/grey to anything like RTR standards. If the range sold well an FK might just be viable

 

 The other possibility untouched in TT3s early days is a BG (or even a GUV)

 

So a possible MK1 range - BCK, SK, TSO, ?BG, ?GUV ?FK. Done in 3 liveries - blood/custard. maroon, blue/grey. BCK + SK or TSO is a credible 2 coach train

 

A Class 101 or 108 DMU

 

Whart is right about the excellent coverage of the Society's wagon kits catering for 16T minerals. What might well work is a PO mineral. Plenty of them, and they offer scope for lots of colourful liveries - another thing that is difficult to do yourself. Maybe do the less common 5 plank to start with, as this isn't in the Society's kit range an additional body (7 or 8 plank) could be tooled as a follow up if it went well

 

(And yes, I'd put my hand in my pocket for some of these, to support the project, and as material for any future 3mm project. I think a pair of Mk1 coaches would be essential for any future layout project)

Edited April 3, 2021 by Ravenser

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

At least some of us the answer is yes,

 that’s why I said 

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Is everyone actually reading what they posted? 

, as it was obvious some had but it was focusing solely on starting a range of locos in a certain scale in most posts missing the tight parameters they stated. 
I was just trying to alert people to reread their newsletter as it made it quite clear who it was aimed at.  

[Tartaruga]

On 01/04/2021 at 16:55, woodenhead said:

Interesting, but a lack of a loco for said Mark 1s and minerals may be a deterrent to new entrants, i.e. it would satisfy existing modellers but may not bring in new ones to the scale.

 

Bring out a loco, let's say a Hall class steam engine painted crimson, along with a couple of coaches and I think they'd be onto something!

[whart57]

26 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Whart57's suggestion of a DMU is interesting. I think his analysis based on what flies out of 3mm Stock Sidings may be misleading - the Triang 104 was one of the shortest-lived and rarest models of the TT3 RTR range, and the DMU segment has seen least trade support in terms of kits.

 

That may be the reason for the DMU's status as a high demand item. That said, in the years 1962-68 more DMU motor, trailer and centre cars were produced than Castles, Merchant Navies or Britannias. I got this from Rob Hampton's book. Admittedly the bulk of those locos' production was probably in the period 1957-61 for which the figures have been lost. But despite the late appearance of the DMU it was produced in decent numbers when it did appear.

 

However I might suggest that one reason for DMUs not appearing in kit form is that they are quite hard to do using the kit technologies. Typically passenger vehicle kits are a pair of etched brass sides, etched brass ends and some castings for the gubbings. Roofs are often left to the builder to figure out for themselves. This works because most British coaches have flat or flattish ends. DMUs on the other hand have very distinctive driving ends, with complicated shapes and rounded corners. And anything less that 95% perfect screams at the viewer. In the past the Society has produced cast white metal ends but white metal is thick, so not good for things with windows in. 3D printing is changing things and the earliest diesels such as the experimental 4w railbuses are attracting attention along with "Flying Bananas". Navigating the Shapeways web site and then undertaking the significant amount of prep work to get an acceptable finish, before sourcing a motor bogie and fabricating a mount is a considerable amount of work and more than many want to undertake.

Edited April 3, 2021 by whart57

[D9020 Nimbus]

22 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Wasn't Triang essentially the only large manufacturer for UK TT the first time round? Because if your only TT products are a smaller selection from your 00 range, reproduced at the smaller size, then it does seem that eventually the additional tooling costs to do both scales would not be viable any more. As you suggest a TT-only producer would avoid this.

I was thinking that they'd be concerned about taking sales from themselves which they would otherwise have got for OO models. As it happens very few of the powered TT models were duplicates of things in the OO gauge — just the Jinty and Britannia I think. The Brush type 2 was the earlier version; the DMU was a 104 not a Metro-Cammell; there was a Merchant Navy rather than a BoB; there was a Castle and a GWR Large Prairie which were not done until more recent times in OO.

 

At the time Triang dropped TT there was very little ready-to-run 'N' gauge of UK outline.

Edited April 3, 2021 by D9020 Nimbus

[NCB]

4 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Don't follow news about TT, so I could be wrong, but given an apparent lack of any (successful) crowd-funding attempts while several successful ones have happened in N would indicate TT is much smaller than N.

 

There have been successful crowd-funded projects within the 3mm Society. One example was the fine scale chairs, and fine scale track bases in 14.2mm and 13.5mm gauges.

 

Quite a lot of kit projects were done by an individual or individuals doing the planning and then asking for enough orders to make the project viable; the Malcolm Mitchell kits in 3mm were an example and very nice they were too. Here's a Manor:

and a Metro:

 

The Society recently reached agreement with Martin Finney on producing some of his kits in the scale. They are produced on a batch basis so as soon as orders reach a certain number another batch is produced.

Edited April 3, 2021 by NCB

[NCB]

5 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

The problem with the Mk1 coach is that it would have to be really really good to supplant the Triang Mk1-ish coaches from most Society members' layouts. And the problem with the 16t mineral wagon is that it would be competing with a range of steel sided mineral wagons done as Parkside kits.

 

That's why I suggested above a better choice would be the Class 101 DMU. That had the longevity and geographical spread of Mk1s and mineral wagons but the demand for the limited number of second hand Triang DMUs (which aren't 101s btw) suggests to me a more vibrant target market. Particularly if bogie design is done with a straightforward upgrade path for those who want to run them on 14.2mm gauge layouts, as suggested earlier.

 

As for the tendency to set the world to rights and "correct" history, I thought that was the point of sites like rmweb

 

Think you're wrong about the Mk. 1 coach. At the moment the only RTR coaches are old Triang, which are of variable quality and very crude by modern standards. A top quality Mk.1 would enable modellers to upgrade their stock in a moment and I think would sell in droves; people would buy rakes of them.

 

The problem with the class 101 is that it wouldn't sell anything like as many, and can only be used on its own. Coaches can be used with a wide range of locomotives.

[NCB]

On 02/04/2021 at 17:34, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Wasn't Triang essentially the only large manufacturer for UK TT the first time round? Because if your only TT products are a smaller selection from your 00 range, reproduced at the smaller size, then it does seem that eventually the additional tooling costs to do both scales would not be viable any more. As you suggest a TT-only producer would avoid this.

 

Triang's problem was that virtually all selling was done through model shops; mail order was almost unknown. And the shops weren't keen on selling 2 ranges when they could sell just one.

 

The market today is totally different. People have ready access to anything made.

[Grovenor]

I don't see "A Mk1 coach" being of much use, they run in trains, and not trains of 6 identical coaches. A state of the art coach will show up any others its coupled to, so a range of at least 3 varieties is needed from the outset with more promised if you are going to get buy in from everyone. Do all 3 mm Society members model the BR period anyway?