What locomotives and rolling stock should be produced first?

[andythenorth]

Yair, so 'money where mouth is'  etc etc 🤑

 

This arrived. No track yet.

 

Haven't really had it out to look, but the size can be filed under 'appealing'. 

 

Surprising amount of depth on the chassis / bogie detail. I was expecting something cruder, even at that high price. 👏

 

Supplied by 3smr.co.uk

Edited July 28, 2022 by andythenorth

[Hobby]

That started life in the Zeuke/BTTB days, though probably nothing left of the original these days! Have a look at the 1979 catalogue in this link, page 8!! ;)

 

https://www.ttnut.com/viewtopic.php?t=3667&p=49893

[britishcolumbian]

21 hours ago, andythenorth said:

I was expecting something cruder, even at that high price.

Why? It's Roco - their TT stuff is as good as their HO stuff.

[RJS1977]

On 17/06/2022 at 01:30, Ravenser said:

I'm a little puzzled by the enthusiasm for Mk1 suburbans, except as Triang nostagia

 

In reality they came late (1954) and by 1970 they were restricted to KX suburban services. They don't really sell very well in OO

 

What is needed is Mk1 corridor coaches , in brake and full flavours, with first and second class accommodation

 

I would go for BCK + SK/TSO (which are the same bodyshell. That's entirely credible as a portion off the ACE or a Paddington holiday relief onto a seaside branch And BCK alone gives a minimum branch option. You can also run them very happily with an A4 or A3

 

But if Hornby were to be involved (not at all certain, given their shaky finances) you might get BSK + CK

 

Rapido floated the idea of a 3mm Mk1 , so they might bite.

 

Beyond that , Worsley Works offer a wide range of Mk1 etched sides in 3mm, with a declared readiness to reduce stuff to TT-120 (their nomeclature on their site) . Once you have a Mk1 donor vehicle, the world's your oyster with a range of Mk1 etched sides. That range includes 63'6" Mk1 non-gangwayed sides

 

Given that the SReg did use 63'6" non-gangwayed stock on some branchlines, including ones in the South West, that would be an option for the TT-120 Minories. A compromise, but a modest one, and a degree of compromise may be needed in the early years of the scale.

 

Mk1 suburbans do not suit the GE , and I'd imagine late 50s/1960s East Anglia and Lincolnshire would be popular subjects with a class 31. Heljan have chosen some locos based in Sheffield . Skegness holiday trains and anglers excursions from Sheffield into lincolnshire would suit corridor Mk1s, not non-gangway

 

Birmingham -Norwich was a long-standing 31 stamping ground. Mk1 yes, but not suburbans 

 

Mk1 suburbans though formed the basis of several multiple units, including Class 304. Therefore they could be of interest to modellers who want to use them as a basis for conberting into MUs.

[RJS1977]

On 23/07/2022 at 16:15, Hobby said:

 

Corrected it for you... ;)

 

I think the point is that TT can mean different things to different people.

 

If the terms TT3 and TT120 are used consistently, and the term TT itself largely dropped, it saves a lot of (potentiall expensive) confusion!

[Jeff Smith]

Perhaps an excuse for a Nene Valley Railway type layout.......

[Ravenser]

49 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I think the point is that TT can mean different things to different people.

 

If the terms TT3 and TT120 are used consistently, and the term TT itself largely dropped, it saves a lot of (potentiall expensive) confusion!

In practice "3mm scale" is the usual term these days . A quick look through the current issue of Mixed Trffic , the 3mm Society's  magazine shows that TT is used only twice - once in the heading of a sheet covering "Triang TT3 Spares Service", and once at the start of a layout article 

Quote

Sabins End is a TT terminus layout. I describe it as TT gauge as memories of TT layouts in Railway Modeller and my cousin's TT layout where what got me involved in 3mm modelling in the first place

 

The fact that someone obviously feels they need to justify calling a layout "TT" speaks volumes - this is no longer a normal term for 3mm scale. In any case in a number of places there is reference to Irish 15.75mm gauge models in 3mm scale and 14.2mm gauge , neither of which are exactly "TT " or "TT3"

 

I'm sure that we can all get along fine by referring to 3mm scale and TT-120. Nothing much is gained by trying to resurrect the term TT3 which is almost obsolete amongst 3mm scale modellers

[rodshaw]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

In practice "3mm scale" is the usual term these days . A quick look through the current issue of Mixed Trffic , the 3mm Society's  magazine shows that TT is used only twice - once in the heading of a sheet covering "Triang TT3 Spares Service", and once at the start of a layout article 

 

The fact that someone obviously feels they need to justify calling a layout "TT" speaks volumes - this is no longer a normal term for 3mm scale. In any case in a number of places there is reference to Irish 15.75mm gauge models in 3mm scale and 14.2mm gauge , neither of which are exactly "TT " or "TT3"

 

I'm sure that we can all get along fine by referring to 3mm scale and TT-120. Nothing much is gained by trying to resurrect the term TT3 which is almost obsolete amongst 3mm scale modellers

Seems to me we can equally get along fine by calling it whatever we like. 3mm scale, TT3 or for that matter 1:100 or even 1:101.6 - take your pick.

Just as it's equally pretty obvious that 2.5mm and 1:120 refer to the same thing. I may even continue to call it Continental TT.

[andythenorth]

16 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

Why? It's Roco - their TT stuff is as good as their HO stuff.

Yup, I guess I had lowered expectations due to smaller size, but the Roco TT chassis detail is equivalent to good midrange OO/HO, i.e. 3 levels of depth on the loco bogies, brake blocks inline with wheels etc.  

 

No brake rigging, but I don’t mind that, I sometimes think it’s unseen detail that adds to the price. 😉

[britishcolumbian]

4 hours ago, andythenorth said:

I had lowered expectations due to smaller size

British N at 1:148, Japanese N at 1:150, rest-of-world N at 1:160 are all, effectively, the same size in terms of how good detail and running can be... 1:120 is the next step bigger, and so big enough to be better. With TT you can expect quality more or less equivalent to HO/OO of the equivalent price range.

[mdvle]

On 29/07/2022 at 13:00, RJS1977 said:

 

I think the point is that TT can mean different things to different people.

 

If the terms TT3 and TT120 are used consistently, and the term TT itself largely dropped, it saves a lot of (potentiall expensive) confusion!

 

Peco's new line of track and building kits are labelled as TT:120 (not TT120) so it would appear that is the chosen name for the UK stuff - though I can see it becoming inconsistent as others enter the market.

 

But I doubt anyone will convince the modellers and companies in the EU to rename TT to something less confusing to the UK market so any product from the EU will likely be labelled simply TT.

 

 

[britishcolumbian]

52 minutes ago, mdvle said:

But I doubt anyone will convince the modellers and companies in the EU to rename TT to something less confusing to the UK market so any product from the EU will likely be labelled simply TT.

 

Yeah this... "TT" has been used to refer to 1:120 scale for 70+ years now, no reason anyone would change it now. I will continue using "TT" for 1:120 myself like I've always done - TT3 or - even better - "3mm scale" are sufficiently differentiated.

[andythenorth]

I’ve been using TT:120 because it saves wear and tear on the anorak contingent, who will otherwise repeatedly tell us either

 

• ”British TT is 3mm” (as they missed a memo)
• ”TT is ambiguous, please be specific” (fair enough really)

Appropriate care and maintenance of the anorak brigade is important to the hobby 😉

[britishcolumbian]

6 hours ago, andythenorth said:

Appropriate care and maintenance of the anorak brigade is important to the hobby

 

Yes but *which* anoraks? I'm sure if say Tillig started labelling their products as TT:120 the Continental ones would start whinging about why they have to change it, why let the Brits do everything their way... 😛

[rodshaw]

I really don't see that it matters what term anyone uses as long as it's clear which scale they are referring to. Two terms will now be ambiguous for British outline modellers - TT and British TT. Oh dear!

In fact it will be interesting to see how many different variations the manufacturers of British TT120 actually use on their packaging.

[andythenorth]

Curious if there's a design of 4 wheel ferryvan to UK gauge which would pass for prototypes ("close enough") from multiple different European countries.

 

I don't have the David Ratcliffe ferry wagon book here right now… 😏

Good references on Paul's site though

https://zenfolio.page.link/Lz6zo

https://zenfolio.page.link/6xh5W

 

Obviously these vehicles ran over multiple country’s systems, but I suspect a range of livery options is more attractive even if some lack fidelity to reality.

 

The Transfesa vans might also be commercially viable as the blue livery option is attractive. I don’t know how far east into Europe they ran though.

 

Starting a shortlist of viable wagon prototypes for UK TT, with European potential sales. In no position to do an RTR startup right now, but it’s an interesting possible project for a future point in time.

Edited August 6, 2022 by andythenorth

[HSB]

Instead of Continental ferry wagons why not the BR diagram 1/127 ferry wagons as they would have potential sales across the Channel.

[andythenorth]

21 minutes ago, HSB said:

Instead of Continental ferry wagons why not the BR diagram 1/127 ferry wagons as they would have potential sales across the Channel.

Good suggestion, but caveats would be

 

1) If anyone does this it will probably be Rapido who have the research for the forthcoming OO version. Rapido did ask some questions about possible demand for 3mm RTR stock a while ago, so it’s not completely unfeasible.

 

2) Limited life in actual ferry traffic, possibly fewer sales in existing European TT markets, compared to a more generic looking Hbfs van (speculation).

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, HSB said:

Instead of Continental ferry wagons why not the BR diagram 1/127 ferry wagons as they would have potential sales across the Channel.

It's Continental Ferry chemical tankers I'd be most interested in, and air-brake, 'modern' ferry vans like Cargowaggon, hbfis, etc.

[britishcolumbian]

10 hours ago, andythenorth said:

The Transfesa vans might also be commercially viable as the blue livery option is attractive. I don’t know how far east into Europe they ran though.

Even BTTB back in GDR days made some Ibs type refrigerators in Transfesa colours, so I'm guessing they did probably reach Mitteleuropa.

[natterjack]

Is there any source for wheel base and pivot distances for already available tt120 locomotives and units - that is the actual model dimensions rather than what true scale might suggest?

 

I'm feeling the urge to convert some of my drawings to 3D printed reality if suitable donors can be found.

 

If no such thing exists, perhaps some owners might be willing take out the calipers?

[britishcolumbian]

4 hours ago, natterjack said:

If no such thing exists, perhaps some owners might be willing take out the calipers?

 

So these aren't aerospace-level precise (using an analogue vernier caliper), but hopefully should be good enough. I measured three of my four TT scale locomotives; didn't bother measuring the fourth (SW1200) as it's no longer in production and hard to find. Take the imperial measure as the more accurate.

 

Tillig V100/BR110:

distance between pivots ("truck centres" in NorAm): 2.8"/71.1 mm

bogie wheelbase: 0.75"/19.0 mm

 

Tillig Bombardier TRAXX:

pivots: 3.4"/86.4 mm

bogie wb: 0.89"/22.6 mm

 

Piko Taurus:

pivots: 3.195"/81.2 mm

bogie wb: .975"/24.8 mm

 

Hopefully this will be of some use! It'd be particularly fortuitous if the Piko chassis would work for something British, as the Piko Taurus can be had from online shops such as Elriwa for 90 euro.

[natterjack]

Brilliant britishcolumbia- just the sort of info needed.

[rekoboy]

I am imagining this, or have I read somewhere that firms such as Lincoln Locos produce British (3mm) TT bodyshells for Piko mechanisms?

[britishcolumbian]

4 hours ago, natterjack said:

Brilliant britishcolumbia- just the sort of info needed.

Glad to help!

 

Found a few other measures online, so just sharing these and take no responsibility for accuracy:

 

Kuehn 110/140

pivots: 65.5 mm

bogie wb: 28.8 mm

 

Piko 247

pivots: 90.0 mm

bogie wb: 22.9 mm

 

Roco CD 750

pivots: 74.7

bogie wb: 20.1

 

Tillig 109/142 (DR 211/242)

pivots: ~63 mm

bogie wb: 29.3 mm

 

Tillig 112/143 (DR 212/243)

pivots: 71.5 mm

bogie wb: 26.7 mm

 

Tillig 215/218

pivots: 71.8 mm

bogie wb: 23.1 mm

 

Tillig 228 (DR 118) 4-axle

pivots: ~95 mm

bogie wb: 28.3 mm

 

Tillig 228 6-axle/219/229 (DR 118/119)

pivots: 80.4 mm

bogie wb: 15.0+15.0 mm (C-C)

 

Tillig Nohab

pivots: 79.5 mm

bogie wb: 16.7+16.7 mm