Should Hornby re-introduce TT ?

[No Decorum]

Many years ago, BR came up with an observation that for every 1 m.p.h. increase in average train speed, there is a 1% increase in passengers. Here's another. For a new scale to take off, it needs to be roughly half the size of the established smallest gauge. If it's bigger (as TT is in relation to H0/00), then the next smaller scale will leave it high and dry as a minority interest.

 

There is an undoubted attraction in starting afresh with a "get it right" attitude. All these ideas of 1:100, true scale track and generous curves are very appealing. Has anyone mentioned a piece of track made with a transition curve?

 

Sadly, I don't think it will work. New modellers (are there any?) will go either for N or 00 because both are well established. Existing modellers won't want to scrap and start again.

 

Although you never know what the future holds. Cheap 3D printing with easy scaling? What would sir like? "An A4? Certainly, sir, and what scale? Sorry, sir, we can't manage full size. Would TT be acceptable?"

 

Isn't it strange that a decision taken in 1938 to deal with a particular space problem still dominates railway modelling today? Even though the reasons for the creation of the 00 scale/gauge are no longer valid. It happens all the time. Take the QWERTY keyboard ... oops, OT.

[Dunsignalling]

 

Isn't it strange that a decision taken in 1938 to deal with a particular space problem still dominates railway modelling today? Even though the reasons for the creation of the 00 scale/gauge are no longer valid.

It still dominates, but the primary reason at the time was to make British outline models with enough space inside to accommodate the motors commonly available at the time.

 

That certainly no longer applies but OO remains valid today because the generous clearances it produces on the outside make it possible to create models of large, outside cylinder, steam locos that can negotiate the under-scale curves that allow us to pursue our hobby in British sized houses with layouts more elaborate than straight-line "shunting planks".

 

Pacifics that can go round 18" curves in OO need 3'6" to 4' in EM and about 6' in P4 because everything has to fit together more tightly. I suspect both would be a good deal more popular if our houses had the capacious basements common in the USA.

 

I actually think the strength of TT lies not in shrinking layouts to fit the house (that's what N is for) but using radii similar to OO to produce layouts of similar size but more convincing appearance.   

 

John

[ParkeNd]

TT makes sense only if a new breed of first timers miraculously appears. That is a breed who look at the space they have in their houses for the layout board and then pick a suitable scale. The evidence from forum questions is that most go to a shop and look at locos in boxes - compare N and OO (and then only if they have even heard of N) and pick OO because the locos are either 4 or 8 times bigger depending if you consider surface area or volume for the same price. So they pick OO.

 

Were they to consider only the space for the layout board and realise that the real choice between N and OO was for identically featured layouts of 7 ft 6 ins X 2 ft 6 ins or 15 ft X 5 ft then the decision might be different - but they don't - if they did the forums would not be awash with pleas for magic layout ideas for OO setups on 8 X 4 boards. i.e how to make 5 ft long trains run in an 8 ft ft long space - or less.

 

However, if this breed who considered layout space first was ever to appear then TT could really be the answer - that 15 ft X 5 ft OO layout would shrink to 10 ft X 3 ft 9 ins which is a whole different ball game in a modern house. The locos would be 7.5 " long so even the Specsavers brigade could see them. But first timers will never think of space first and the 80% of the market OO practitioners with large "investments" of RTR stock are stuck for ever - so TT has missed its chance - it's what OO should have been. And purity of scale has nothing to do with it.

[Forester]

It shouldn't entirely be forgotten that 00 manufacturers are rapidly running out of subjects to make models of.

 

The wishlists are still producing "most-wanted" subjects but the manufacturers are like fish in an ever-diminishing pond, fighting over the remaining morsels, duplicating and then finding the market for these rarities is smaller than they thought, with discounting necessary to clear them, no matter how vocal the demands originally were.

 

They could go on another round of super-super-detail but even there resistance seems to be growing from modellers who prefer their older, more robust and perfectly serviceable stock. How many Hornby and Lima GW Kings must there be out there? How few owners have recently rushed to upgrade? Plenty of super new Hornby 2015 Kings are still unsold.

 

To an extent manufacturers have turned their energy to N gauge, but there they are also rapidly covering the subject range, without hugely increasing the number of N modellers (and N isn't really a "collect-and display" scale, unlike 00).

 

Timing is critical of course - and now is not the right time for a big gamble -

 

- but in, say three years time, with hopefully an improving balance sheet, a healthier economy and an ever diminishing 00 and N wishlist, a company like Hornby with a long record of innovation (Zero One, Live steam, Skaledale, DCC, Railroad....) could well be tempted to produce a new 3mm/TT complete set to test the market.

It would be a risk. But to set the world-wide standards for a whole new modern-house-sized scale could potentially bring massive returns over time.

 

If it didn't work, it would be no more a set-back to them than the brave Live Steam near-miss.

[ThePurplePrimer]

I don't know enough about the 'average' model railway buyer to know how they think and if they would change their scale.

 

But I do get the feeling that quite a few people either dabble in more than one scale or have moved up or down a scale as moods or needs dictate and in effect have to start again

 

Also if something new comes along that really appeals sometimes people can change entire collections to something new

 

Vinyl > CD > MP3

[richierich]

Its an interesting proposal.

 

I have a foot in both 4mm and 2mm British outline. As many say houses are getting smaller and smaller, so the decisions made pre-war do need revisiting for the 21st century.

 

4mm is satisfying in terms of the detail and realism possible. I know often think of the models tooled in the last ten years been detailed to a standard more possible of what 7mm offered. But building a layout needs plenty of space, scenic section really needs at least ten feet or more. So operationally frustrating. Possibly a reason we see so many depot based layouts today.

 

2mm is satisfying in terms of being able to represent a real location or operational situation. However, despite the advances in the quality of the tooling, there is still frustrations. Farish diesels are still suffering from split gears on wheel sets, over width models (Dapol Class 56 being an example). Plus cannot detail a 2mm diesel to the extent of a 4mm diesel. Another issue is as you get older, you dexterity might well make 2mm hard to handle. Yet the layout in the space potentially available would be more operationally satisfying.

 

So 3mm offers a solution to the drawbacks of both gauges???

 

Whether any manufacturer would serious commit to 3mm RTR is a good question.

 

Personally if I had the space to build the layout I wanted, it would be 4mm all the way, (although then a choice of OO Finescale or EM . . . .). But like everything in life its sadly a compromise.

 

Ideally we just need bigger houses, but cannot see that happening (or more importantly being affordable), or the land to be able to build a decent outbuilding . . . 

[TEAMYAKIMA]

It shouldn't entirely be forgotten that 00 manufacturers are rapidly running out of subjects to make models of.

 

 

I think this is why Hornby DID look into re-introducing TT  ..... and having considered matters decided NOT to.

 

I think the reason was that they could not find a consensus amongst modellers , that is to say that the people they consulted couldn't agree 1/100 or 1/120  , 12mm or 14.2mm and without a clear consensus the market appeared to be split 3 ways and so Hornby gave it a wide berth.

[Benjamin Brady]

I have often operated a friends 3mm layout at a show and I always find it satisfying, I myself model in 4mm and 7mm, I like 4mm but like many people you can soon use space up in 4mm. I have been tempted now again to dabble in 2mm but still find it too small where 3mm is really the perfect gauge. I agree with some of the comment though hat are started on here and if it was to be reintroduces (cue the flying pigs)it should be done to true scale. I would happily model in 3mm if it was reintroduce. 

 

Benjamin 

[Rivercider]

The potential appeal of TT might not just be to people who are completely new to the hobby,

how about the modeller returning to the hobby after a 10/15/20 year break? And there a quite a few.

 

In the 1970s I built up a collection of OO which then got boxed up and put in the loft for 30 years.

In 2007 I took redundancy and picked up a part time job, in the additional spare time started visiting exhibitions again.

When I decided to start a new layout the old track was rusted and apart from a small handful of the locos and wagons

not much was reusable. I was virtually looking at a blank canvas.

 

When starting again I seriously think that if there was basic range of RTR TT available I may well have gone down that route,

and taken an OO plan and expanded it into the extra space available. A limited range of RTR locos and stock would not compare unfavourably with what I was used to working with from past experience.

 

cheers

[lazythread]

I bought a Triang TT tank wagon out of curiosity a while ago and was very pleasantly surprised at how right it looks.

 

I'd be very tempted............

[Focalplane]

I know that this thread refers to Hornby and therefore RTR, but there is an additional positive for the future of the lesser frequented scales and that is 3D printing.  My friend Alan Buttler is offering 3D printed figures of real people scanned and then printed in a range of scaled options, including 3mm, 1:100.  Alan is just beginning his business and the horizon is huge for those who want to specialize in what many think of as unorthodox scales from days long ago.  BTW, I have no financial interest in Alan's venture, modelu3d.co.uk.

[Forester]

I think this is why Hornby DID look into re-introducing TT  ..... and having considered matters decided NOT to.

 

I think the reason was that they could not find a consensus amongst modellers , that is to say that the people they consulted couldn't agree 1/100 or 1/120  , 12mm or 14.2mm and without a clear consensus the market appeared to be split 3 ways and so Hornby gave it a wide berth.

 

I would encourage you to read Simon Kohler's detailed account of his attempt to introduce Hornby "new-TT" in "Table Service" in the Hornby "Simon Says" blog.

 

He was and is a firm believer that a new-TT scale is "inevitable" one day. He realised long ago that OO was running out of subjects to model and is to some extent running out of track.

 

He wrote a detailed Five Year Plan for the new scale, which he put to the Hornby Board, but "the timing was wrong" as Hornby was entering the China Supplier Crisis and the CEO had other things to worry about. It was rejected as "too radical" without being properly considered. It had nothing to do with "consensus among modellers" over scale or gauge. Any new entry into the field will have to take a best guess at what will sell and stick with it.

 

His Plan was based on "Euro TT" 1:120 rather than Triang TT but used track "based on Triang's" 12mm. I'm not sure he would recommend the same today, when manufacturing techniques have improved so much and modellers are more demanding. Perhaps someone should ask him?!

 

But his overall Plan, with the release of a range of complete sets: steam, diesel, passenger, freight  to get established, is as good today as it was then and anyone seriously thinking of pursuing the manufacture of a new UK-TT range would do well to study his ideas.

[Hobby]

Personally I cannot see success in trying to introduce a new scale no matter what the advantage in doing the math etc

 

TT is hardly a new scale, unless we've moved back in time to the 50s! (Perhaps "re-introduce"?!)

 

I just can't see anyone doing RTR British TT3 though, though I'm impressed that there have been well over 260 posts speculating about it... 

 

If only Triang had used the proper scale/gauge combination in the first place perhaps things may have been different, though, as I've found 1:120 scale an excellent scale to model in. Detail is as good as HO/OO and it's far less fiddly than N or Z. You can fit an awful lot in a small space as well.Perhaps if Triang had chosen different prototypes they could have used 1:120 scale and if it could have held on for a few years the small motors appeared as N scale proved in the early 60s...

 

Lots of "what ifs"!

 

I feel that it would be a retrograde step to re introduce TT3 unless you used 14mm (or thereabouts) gauge and that would make Jeff right in that it would be a new scale/gauge combination for RTR... They could certainly use 1:120 scale but there'd be no market to begin with and even if they managed to get people to buy them it'd still be very limited...

 

Perhaps a test could be to introduce British locos that served abroad, that diesel mentioned earlier, class 87s and several steamers made it abroad... 8F anyone?

[Tim Dubya]

No.

 

But I do consider 3mm scale to be a viable option for Hornby to pursue. Only if it is to scale with a 14.2mm track gauge from the outset and not the c**k up that OO is in the 4mm world.

 

I am a OO modeller so "live" with the compromise, for an easy life.

[MGR Hooper!]

I know that this thread refers to Hornby and therefore RTR, but there is an additional positive for the future of the lesser frequented scales and that is 3D printing.  My friend Alan Buttler is offering 3D printed figures of real people scanned and then printed in a range of scaled options, including 3mm, 1:100.  Alan is just beginning his business and the horizon is huge for those who want to specialize in what many think of as unorthodox scales from days long ago.  BTW, I have no financial interest in Alan's venture, modelu3d.co.uk.

Alas...If he is doing 1:100 scale that will be my issue solved! That's all I needed.

[AndyID]

No.

 

But I do consider 3mm scale to be a viable option for Hornby to pursue. Only if it is to scale with a 14.2mm track gauge from the outset and not the c**k up that OO is in the 4mm world.

 

I am a OO modeller so "live" with the compromise, for an easy life.

 

If it's intended to be a ready-to-run (RTR) system, and the gauge is 14.2 mm, a lot of things like splashers, cylinders, axle-boxes etc will have to be spaced out quite a bit to accommodate the over-scale wheel treads (H0 suffers from this problem - 00 does not.)

 

Unless it's going to be a scaled down version of P4, in order to preserve the scale proportions of the running gear, the gauge would have to be something closer to 13.8 mm.

[Hobby]

But I do consider 3mm scale to be a viable option for Hornby to pursue. Only if it is to scale with a 14.2mm track gauge from the outset and not the c**k up that OO is in the 4mm world.

 

 

How do you work out that it's "viable"? I can't see the sales myself, not to justify the investment, which would also have to include a whole track system (unlike 1:120 which has Peco 12mm track) especially as it's a new scale/gauge combo for RTR unlike 1:120 (Remember that all those modelling TT3 would have to change gauges if they wanted to continue). I can see some sales in 1:120 both for Continental and UK based modellers, though, but probably not enough to justify the (smaller) investment.

 

However I don't see either as having sufficient base sales to justify anyone doing it, British OO and N are far too entrenched to risk an awful lot of money on it, if anything the trend at the moment seems to be smaller if T is anything to go by... 

[Littlethorpe]

I'm a former OO modeller who switched to N due to space constraints. I like N gauge but it's very fiddly & my eyesight struggles with it at times.

 

I think that if model railways had not previously been in existence & were introduced today then 1:100 scale would be the obvious choice.

 

If a new scale between OO & N was introduced then I would be very tempted but it would need to be accurate in terms of scale & gauge and I think that DCC should be on board as standard. A new scale might be of benefit to kit manufacturers etc.

 

I doubt whether any of this will happen but you never know.

[SwissRailPassion]

How do you work out that it's "viable"? I can't see the sales myself, not to justify the investment, which would also have to include a whole track system (unlike 1:120 which has Peco 12mm track) especially as it's a new scale/gauge combo for RTR unlike 1:120 (Remember that all those modelling TT3 would have to change gauges if they wanted to continue). I can see some sales in 1:120 both for Continental and UK based modellers, though, but probably not enough to justify the (smaller) investment.

 

However I don't see either as having sufficient base sales to justify anyone doing it, British OO and N are far too entrenched to risk an awful lot of money on it, if anything the trend at the moment seems to be smaller if T is anything to go by...

 

I agree about 1: 120 but I think a market can be created. There is latent demand. A few years ago there were hardly any coffee shops but now they are everywhere and demand still grows. If an attractive RTR range was available I'm sure people would collect models and want to get the next one. Start with the Flying Scotsman and all will be well.

[Dunsignalling]

No.

 

But I do consider 3mm scale to be a viable option for Hornby to pursue. Only if it is to scale with a 14.2mm track gauge from the outset and not the c**k up that OO is in the 4mm world.

 

I am a OO modeller so "live" with the compromise, for an easy life.

The problem with that is that, at 14.2mm gauge the clearances for valve gear etc. would be as tight as they are with P4.

 

That means minimum curves (if you want to run large steam locos) of at least 4'6" radius so the wonderful new space-saving scale would take up more room than OO. 

 

John

[Hobby]

They could use those static models as a base for any RTR locos!

 

Seriously, though, I just can't see the demand for either scale being sufficient, plenty of people have said that it is but all the comments have been pure "hearsay", nothing concrete... i suspect any Manufacturer would steer well clear at the moment and Hornby, who are in the process of getting themselves out of a deep hole are hardly likely to take on a new scale/gauge combo on the speculation of a few modellers most of whom don't even model in the scale, are they!!

 

(BTW the suggestion of using 14mm gauge would make the O-14 guys jump for joy!!)

[Forester]

But I do consider 3mm scale to be a viable option for Hornby to pursue. Only if it is to scale with a 14.2mm track gauge from the outset and not the c**k up that OO is in the 4mm world.

 

 

Suppose the next Engine Shed features a small 3mm scale test loco running around some track (loud cheering).  Suppose on inspection the gauge turned out to be not 14.2mm but 13.999999mm. Would the result be a mass protest and walk-away?

 

Suppose it turned out to be a 1:120 loco on a scale 12mm track. Would all the 3mm fans instantly turn their backs on the project?

 

I do think so many of these objections are spurious.

 

OO is reaching the end of its natural life in terms of what further can be done with it..

 

There is a call to see a more accurate scale around TT level brought to the market and tested by a mainstream manufacturer. It is accepted there will be small compromises. What those essential compromises need to be are really unknown until metal is cut and a prototype built to modern mass production standards and tested. These standards are light years away from a man bashing old 3mm kits with a file and soldering track together.

 

3mm Society members probably won't be interested whatever is produced.  Mass production just doesn't interest them.

 

Everyone else interested, frankly, will follow the first major producer to take the plunge and work around whatever small compromises needed to make it work. OO and TriangTT were not small compromises but no-one is proposing anything like this. But if it is found that 3mm does need 13.8 or even 13.5mm track I really don't think that would be rejected by any but a tiny die-hard few, who would probably not buy mass-produced anyway. I personally think it could be done to so close to 14.2 as to be barely measurable, but no-one knows what modern processes can produce until it is tried.

 

And if 1:120 with 12mm track is chosen as the way to go instead, then that's what we'll have.

The first manufacturer will set the standard (and that's where the future profits are to be made). The rest will follow.

 

After all, we live with OO. What could be worse than that?

[Tim Dubya]

I see guys -  I didn't realise the potential problems that "true scale" 3mm models would create. (P4 type tolerances etc).

 

I'm all for compromises (as I am with OO) but I would like to see 3mm in production as near to true scale as possible and backed by main stream manufactures in the UK.   I think it would be the best scale for me personally and would allow many of us (without enough room for a decent 4mm layout) to have a better sized layout in our smaller houses / spare rooms etc.

 

I have considered going to 2mm but with these sausage fingers it would be far too fiddly, so 3mm RTR, yes please!

 

So, Hornby / Triang TT  gets a no vote from me as it's not "scale enough", if you see what I mean.

 

Good luck all the same.

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I would encourage you to read Simon Kohler's detailed account of his attempt to introduce Hornby "new-TT" in "Table Service" in the Hornby "Simon Says" blog

 

Could someone please post a link to this article ... I've tried twice to search for it and failed.

 

Thanks

[28XX]

I object to the assertion that 00 is a c**k up.