PECO announces its entry into the TT gauge market

[Hobby]

Compromise probably!

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Was their 8.5mm ever powered (and with electrified track)?

Yes.

[DIW]

15 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Slightly off topic, I was very intrigued by the Ferro Train stuff and especially by the fact that it scaled out at the right gauge for Snowdon in 4mm scale (I wouldn’t be hugely bothered by the rack looking slightly wrong, although others have used conventional stock assisted by magnets with a purely cosmetic rack). Some years ago I did look into it in a bit more detail but the cost of buying the equipment was (presumably still is) very high. From memory there was a cheaper self-assembly version, possibly made by another manufacturer?

 

 

The Abt rack track manufactured for Ferro :

 

is manufactured in Japan by Joe Works, and is marked underneath with 'Ferro Suisse':

 

This Abt rack is 9mm gauge.

 

 

For 10.5mm gauge, there is the Straub rack manufactured by Gerard of Austria. Here it is alongside the Ferro rack:

 

I have contributed quite a lot in the past on the subject of model rack railways, so in order to permit this thread's discussion to return to the Peco TT version of 12mm track, I would offer the following threads as 'rack reading'.

Swiss Mountain Railways

Metre-Gauge Rack Points

Unfortunately the pictures are missing, and the threads have been marked as 'Archived', meaning that I can't edit my posts to restore the pictures. @AY Mod, is it possible to re-permit editing on these threads?

 

Dave

 

 

[AY Mod]

21 minutes ago, DIW said:

Unfortunately the pictures are missing, and the threads have been marked as 'Archived', meaning that I can't edit my posts to restore the pictures. @AY Mod, is it possible to re-permit editing on these threads?

 

It may take a few minutes but those should be open again now.

[D9020 Nimbus]

17 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I’ve never been able to understand this - obviously at the time there was a need to use a slightly larger scale than the 1:160 used internationally for similar reasons as in 00 and TT, but I can’t quite see why a marginally larger scale was chosen than the fairly accurate scale/gauge combination originally used by Lone Star for 000.* I think 2mm finescale still uses 1:152 but has there been any finescale (with wider-gauged and finer track) in 1:148?

 

 

ISTR it was so the body kit for the Hymek they produced would fit on an Arnold chassis.

Edited July 12, 2022 by D9020 Nimbus

[Littlethorpe]

I see that Hattons have already sold outof  their initial delivery of flexi-track, RH Point & country station.

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, DIW said:

The Abt rack track manufactured for Ferro :

 

is manufactured in Japan by Joe Works, and is marked underneath with 'Ferro Suisse':

 

This Abt rack is 9mm gauge.

 

 

For 10.5mm gauge, there is the Straub rack manufactured by Gerard of Austria. Here it is alongside the Ferro rack:

 

I have contributed quite a lot in the past on the subject of model rack railways, so in order to permit this thread's discussion to return to the Peco TT version of 12mm track, I would offer the following threads as 'rack reading'.

Swiss Mountain Railways

Metre-Gauge Rack Points

Unfortunately the pictures are missing, and the threads have been marked as 'Archived', meaning that I can't edit my posts to restore the pictures. @AY Mod, is it possible to re-permit editing on these threads?

 

Dave

 

 

Thanks for posting those images Dave. It wasn't apparent from the images on Ferro's own website  that the rack actually was Abt so interesting that at least one manufacturer has tackled the additional complication. I'd be interested to see how the cog mechanism in their locomotives is arranged.  Other manufacturers- such as LGB- claimed that their rack systems were based on Abt while only having  a single row of teeth. Abt systems can of course have just a single toothed bar when gradients are shallow or flat as well as on points where it makes the mechanics simpler. (They can also have three rows when necessary but that does see to be fairly unusual)

I assume the anwer to the unanswered question about how the offset teeth stay in relative alignment on curves was simply that curves on full size rack railway are far shallower than on models and there is enough tolerance in the interface between the rack and the cogs to cover that. Interesting though!   

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pacific231G

[BernardTPM]

2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

ISTR it was so the body kit for the Hymek they produced would fit on an Arnold chassis.

They did several body kits for Arnold chassis for which they were, at that time, importers: LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T, LMS dock tank (same as Minitrix later did R-T-R) and BR Hymek.

[DIW]

37 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks for posting those images Dave. It wasn't apparent from the images on Ferro's own website  that the rack actually was Abt so interesting that at least one manufacturer has tackled the additional complication. I'd be interested to see how the cog mechanism in their locomotives is arranged. 

 

When I've finished uploading my pictures to the rack threads, I'll dig out some kit and take some more pictures to answer these points - I'll do that in the Swiss Mountain Railways thread to avoid c(l)ogging up the Peco TT thread. It will be a few days before I can get all the stuff out though.

I've just checked my Bemo rack on 12mm (H0m) - it is Abt too, although they cheat on the locos. More on the other thread (eventually).

 

Dave

 

[DIW]

5 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

It may take a few minutes but those should be open again now.

Thanks Andy. I've re-loaded them now.

 

Dave

[luke_stevens]

Still waiting for my Peco track... Hopefully tomorrow :) 

 

Now with ruler from start! I've tided up the wood-work and am using 5mm foamcore for the scenic base.

 

Gomshall Signal Box has now arrived and ready for working on. I thought I'd post a picture before I broke the steps off which I'm sure I will...

 

[MikeOxon]

As an experiment,` I tried 3D printing a model engine in TT 120 scale from a design I made originally for 4 mm scale.  It came out remarkably well, except that I needed to make a few parts a little thicker, to maintain reasonable strength. Rivet detail was retained, .You can see the result in the current (August) Railway Modeller p.588.  I must admit that the size difference from the 4mm model was more apparent than I had imagined.  I wonder whether 14.12mm gauge track with 3mm scale models might have been a better bet - only time will tell.  The main point, commercially, seems to be that TT120 is already established in other countries so it could lead to international harmonisation..

 

Mike

[F-UnitMad]

1 minute ago, MikeOxon said:

  I must admit that the size difference from the 4mm model was more apparent than I had imagined.  I wonder whether 14.12mm gauge track with 3mm scale models might have been a better bet - only time will tell. 

I must admit that's a nagging doubt I've had at the back of my mind, especially from the direction of 'not much bigger than N', so while there's a gap between availability of track & any locos or rolling stock, how is enthusiasm sustained?

If the proposed price of the HJ 31 is anything to go by, TT1:120 isn't going to distinguish itself from N or OO by value for money (to drift into another Thread in the TT Section).

[NCB]

41 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

As an experiment,` I tried 3D printing a model engine in TT 120 scale from a design I made originally for 4 mm scale.  It came out remarkably well, except that I needed to make a few parts a little thicker, to maintain reasonable strength. Rivet detail was retained, .You can see the result in the current (August) Railway Modeller p.588.  I must admit that the size difference from the 4mm model was more apparent than I had imagined.  I wonder whether 14.12mm gauge track with 3mm scale models might have been a better bet - only time will tell.  The main point, commercially, seems to be that TT120 is already established in other countries so it could lead to international harmonisation..

 

Mike

... and 14.2mm track with 3mm Soc fine scale wheels is kno wn to work in 3mm. Big question is whether they will use fine enough wheels with 12mm track to work in 2.5mm. i've big doubts about NEM/Morop wheels being fine enough for British

prototypes.

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

Let's face it, this is really another case of Peco aiming a product at potentially bigger overseas markets and trying to make a case for including a domestic (UK) market!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

As an experiment,` I tried 3D printing a model engine in TT 120 scale from a design I made originally for 4 mm scale.  It came out remarkably well, except that I needed to make a few parts a little thicker, to maintain reasonable strength. Rivet detail was retained, .You can see the result in the current (August) Railway Modeller p.588.  I must admit that the size difference from the 4mm model was more apparent than I had imagined.  I wonder whether 14.12mm gauge track with 3mm scale models might have been a better bet - only time will tell.  The main point, commercially, seems to be that TT120 is already established in other countries so it could lead to international harmonisation..

 

Mike

Could I ask what locomotive you’ve re-scaled? (I’m not an RM reader, sorry - though I can ask my Dad to keep his for me to see when we can next visit).  Thanks.

 

As for the international harmonisation, it has been suggested 1:120 was indeed the only commercially viable option.  That aside, I know I wouldn’t have been attracted by Peco’s announcement if it was for another UK only scale - for someone like me harmonisation is a very big plus.

 

10 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I must admit that's a nagging doubt I've had at the back of my mind, especially from the direction of 'not much bigger than N', so while there's a gap between availability of track & any locos or rolling stock, how is enthusiasm sustained?

If the proposed price of the HJ 31 is anything to go by, TT1:120 isn't going to distinguish itself from N or OO by value for money (to drift into another Thread in the TT Section).

I’ve added some thoughts below, and as @F-UnitMad notes the questions of size comparison and how TT:120 can be distinctive have threads in the 2.5mm Scale - TT:120 Forum.  As for value for money, for some the correct gauge might add to the value?

 

9 hours ago, NCB said:

... and 14.2mm track with 3mm Soc fine scale wheels is kno wn to work in 3mm. Big question is whether they will use fine enough wheels with 12mm track to work in 2.5mm. i've big doubts about NEM/Morop wheels being fine enough for British

prototypes.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Let's face it, this is really another case of Peco aiming a product at potentially bigger overseas markets and trying to make a case for including a domestic (UK) market!

To help with track planning specifically, I drew up this table of linear comparisons, which I’ve posted on the 2.5mm Scale - TT:120 Forum:

 

 

The first thing that jumped out at me was the size difference between HO and OO, which is bigger than I’d appreciated.  Once that is established however, it becomes apparent that there are two quite distinctive ranges: 3mm Scale sits comfortably between OO and UK N 1:148, while TT:120 sits comfortably between HO and Continental or US N 1:160.

 

The issue being raised at the moment here though is whether TT:120 is too small compared to OO to be attractive.  Using the figures above (I hope my maths is correct!) TT:120 is 37% smaller than OO, and UK N 1:148 is 51% smaller than OO in one dimension.  Multiplied up to three dimensions however, TT:120 is 25% of the volume of OO and UK N is 13.5%.  So while TT:120 is undeniably smaller than OO, it’s still almost twice the size of UK N.  I was looking at some UK and Continental N yesterday.  The UK N looked very small to me, and the Continental N much smaller than the Continental TT I’ve bought.  The N does seem to me to lack ‘presence’ while the TT works for me.  
 

If I compare UK N with TT:120: UK N starts off 81% the size of TT:120 in one dimension, but by the time I’ve gone 3-D it’s only 53% of the size, so TT:120 is almost twice as big.  What works for each of us will be a combination of many factors, but I hope this helps, Keith.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Hobby]

10 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

I wonder whether 14.12mm gauge track with 3mm scale models might have been a better bet - only time will tell.  The main point, commercially, seems to be that TT120 is already established in other countries so it could lead to international harmonisation..

 

That's the worse thing they could do, very small market and sales. They've done the only logical thing once they decided to move into TT scale track which was to make the track for 1:120 scale where most of their initial sales will be and try to encourage the scale to take off in the UK. Which is probably the same view as Jeff (below) but with a less cynical hat on!

 

9 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Let's face it, this is really another case of Peco aiming a product at potentially bigger overseas markets and trying to make a case for including a domestic (UK) market!

 

[Allegheny1600]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

That aside, I know I wouldn’t have been attracted by Peco’s announcement if it was for another UK only scale - for someone like me harmonisation is a very big plus.

Absolutely!

Had Peco announced a continuation of a UK only scale, I would have laughed at them and ignored it all.

Instead of which, I am following keenly and drawing up plans for what I want to do in this scale and although I might buy a Heljan class 31, I won’t depend on them.

[Allegheny1600]

On 02/07/2022 at 20:56, Golden Fleece 30 said:

Here are two TT Brits made by the same company 40+ years apart, the standard Tri-ang at 1:100 and "their" Corgi one at 1:120.  

 

I know a lot of water has gone under the bridge but Hornby owns Corgi and Hornby was originally Tri-ang ( the pedantic may say Rovex).

I find it amusing that the old Tri-ang model appears to be venerated by some on here whereas the possibility of a more accurate model as represented by the lower model albeit with a working rather than dummy chassis is ridiculed.

Tell me, what is so good about the ridiculous narrow gauge appearance of the old model, the stupidly small driving wheels, the apparently stretched body, the massive gap between loco and tender?

The Corgi appears to be a reasonable model, the Tri-ang looks like a poor toy - it might work as in run around a circle of track but it looks diabolical.

[andythenorth]

31 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I find it amusing that the old Tri-ang model appears to be venerated by some on here whereas the possibility of a more accurate model as represented by the lower model albeit with a working rather than dummy chassis is ridiculed.

 

Not sure I've seen either venerating or ridicule in any TT:120 threads here, but eh, I have a small brain and I might have missed it 😛

 

There's plenty of whataboutism and huffing and puffing about why it's all being done wrong, but then again, it's a foamer site, goes with the territory 😉

[F-UnitMad]

9 minutes ago, andythenorth said:

Not sure I've seen either venerating or ridicule in any TT:120 threads here,

Agree with that, neither have I. The photos were a very interesting comparison. I doubt that even those who would've preferred Peco to do 'proper' 3mm track would be advocating a return to Triang model standards.

 

For what it's worth the main attraction for me of TT120 is the chance to use 'foreign' chemical tankers on a UK layout without scale issues, replicating a prototypical operation I saw myself on the railway near where I used to live in the 1980/90s, and doing it in a reasonable space. If suitable rolling stock doesn't become available, it'll just become another idea in my "It'll never happen" list, like a Dutch NS layout in HO, or a proper Forest of Dean branch line in O Scale.

[MikeOxon]

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Could I ask what locomotive you’ve re-scaled?

I took my existing 3D-modelled GWR Armstrong Goods and re-printed it at 1:120 scale.  The only changes were to the thickness of the boiler cladding and the thickness of the outside frames.

 

 

[PMP]

13 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Let's face it, this is really another case of Peco aiming a product at potentially bigger overseas markets and trying to make a case for including a domestic (UK) market!

Except for the fact that one major manufacturer in addition to Heljan has actually got products to an early EP stage you mean?

 

 

[luke_stevens]

Just now, PMP said:

Except for the fact that one major manufacturer in addition to Heljan has actually got products to an early EP stage you mean?

 

 

 

That we know of! There may be stuff in manufacturing that we don't yet know about.

 

Luke

[JohnR]

4 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

 

That we know of! There may be stuff in manufacturing that we don't yet know about.

 

Luke

 

Think there must be - PECO would surely have wanted to make this move knowing there was nothing comign out.