How will TT:120 differentiate itself from N, OO and 3mm scale?

[natterjack]

4 hours ago, Les1952 said:

either r-t-r or as bodyline kits-  I'm not up to building chassis any more, if I ever was.

It will be interesting to see how adaptable the 08 chassis might be.

[Ravenser]

14 hours ago, natterjack said:

It will be interesting to see how adaptable the 08 chassis might be.

 

And how adaptable the 57xx and J94 chassis prove to be, as well. I would have thought the 57xx should open up a range of GW small engines

[luke_stevens]

On 04/03/2023 at 17:06, Ravenser said:

 

And how adaptable the 57xx and J94 chassis prove to be, as well. I would have thought the 57xx should open up a range of GW small engines

 

Back in TT3 days (+50y ago) a "close enough" chassis would be good enough for a kit manufacturer. Nowadays I would think a chassis would have to be correct for a model. If I remember correctly the chassis under a 57XX could also be used for a 8750 and 97XX. And that is pretty much it, save a South Wales tank class. Specific steam loco kits will need specific chassis. It may be different with diesel bogies...

 

Luke

Edited March 6, 2023 by luke_stevens

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Back in TT3 days (+50y ago) a "close enough" chassis would be good enough for a kit manufacturer. Nowadays I would think a chassis would have to be correct for a model. If I remember correctly the chassis under a 57XX could also be used for a 8750 and 97XX. And that is pretty much it, save a South Wales tank class. Specific steam loco kits will need specific chassis. It may be different with diesel bogies...

 

Luke

 

What's the position with 2251 and things like 64xx and 74xx?

 

Rewheeling may be possible if the wheelbase is the same

[Flying Pig]

14 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Back in TT3 days (+50y ago) a "close enough" chassis would be good enough for a kit manufacturer. Nowadays I would think a chassis would have to be correct for a model. If I remember correctly the chassis under a 57XX could also be used for a 8750 and 97XX. And that is pretty much it, save a South Wales tank class. Specific steam loco kits will need specific chassis. It may be different with diesel bogies...

 

Luke

 

I believe the 7'3" + 8'3" wheel spacing was quite widely used outside the GWR - something that has been discussed previously on RMweb in the context of providing rtr chassis for 00.  An 8' + 8'6" 'Midland' chassis would be another widely usable unit.  There are lists of applicable prototypes buried somewhere in the strata of the forums if someone cares to dig.

 

 

[luke_stevens]

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

What's the position with 2251 and things like 64xx and 74xx?

 

Rewheeling may be possible if the wheelbase is the same

The 2251 has the same chassis as a 94XX I believe. The 54XX, 64XX and 74XX have the same chassis but I think the wheel diameter is different on the 74XX.

 

Luke

[luke_stevens]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I believe the 7'3" + 8'3" wheel spacing was quite widely used outside the GWR - something that has been discussed previously on RMweb in the context of providing rtr chassis for 00.  An 8' + 8'6" 'Midland' chassis would be another widely usable unit.  There are lists of applicable prototypes buried somewhere in the strata of the forums if someone cares to dig.

 

 

 

"Not my department"! Quite possibly but I don't know. But then again, wheel diameters, brake hanger, ash pans are all different. I doubt there will be much demand for close-but-no-cigar chassis.

 

Luke

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

 

"Not my department"! Quite possibly but I don't know. But then again, wheel diameters, brake hanger, ash pans are all different. I doubt there will be much demand for close-but-no-cigar chassis.

 

Luke

 

People use them in other scales, previously with kits, now more with 3d printed bodies.  I doubt it will be any different in TT.

[luke_stevens]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

People use them in other scales, previously with kits, now more with 3d printed bodies.  I doubt it will be any different in TT.

 

It used to be popular in 00 back in the 60's but by the time we got to the 80's with the finer scale models from Airfix/GMR and Mainline it went out of fashion. Whilst there are still some resin body-only kits (Golden Arrow) the majority of white metal kits (Wills / South East Finecast) that were body-only have been retooled to scale and have etched chassis. I would think TT120 would go down the same route with white metal / resin body / etched chassis.

 

Luke

[Jeff Smith]

I think it will ultimately be more like a bigger N with a few bodies to fit rtr chassis.  There will never be the same involvement as 4mm with etched chassis, wheels, motors and gearboxes.  I am a builder in P4 and O-16.5 but TT for me will be strictly rtr stock but kit and scratch built scenics.

[luke_stevens]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I think it will ultimately be more like a bigger N with a few bodies to fit rtr chassis.  There will never be the same involvement as 4mm with etched chassis, wheels, motors and gearboxes.  I am a builder in P4 and O-16.5 but TT for me will be strictly rtr stock but kit and scratch built scenics.

 

I was starting to think the same. What is the market like for N body kits? I believe Langley do some, but is there much else?

 

https://www.langleymodels.co.uk/awd1/index.php?route=product/category&path=208_219 (A larger selection that I'd realised)

 

Luke

[Ravenser]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I think it will ultimately be more like a bigger N with a few bodies to fit rtr chassis.  There will never be the same involvement as 4mm with etched chassis, wheels, motors and gearboxes.  I am a builder in P4 and O-16.5 but TT for me will be strictly rtr stock but kit and scratch built scenics.

 

12mm gauge chassis are a known quantity and have been built for years in 3mm scale. There may be problems with the smaller prototypes in TT , but if small 0-6-0Ts can be done in 3mm , then large ones should be possible in TT:120...

 

That said, if a modern RTR chassis can be rewheeled, that would always be an easier route

 

If the wheelbase and wheel diameter are ok and it will fit into the bodyshell , then in a small scale like this I expect a large majority of people will reckon that's close enough to be workable

 

I think 3D printed bodies could prove to be an important route for locos

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Ravenser

[luke_stevens]

5 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

<snip>

If the wheelbase and wheel diameter are ok and it will fit into the bodyshell ,

<snip>

 

And this will be the difficulty. On another forum (Powering Lincoln Locos) you can see the difficulties I have had getting the chassis of a German Bo-Bo electric into a UK cl 33 diesel. The original model was about 1.5mm over-width, +2.5mm over-hight and 9mm too long! Many years ago Aztec Trains in the US did chassis frames where you could add trucks, motor, etc and get a chassis to accurately fit a model. I could see this working for diesels and some steam loco's. For example the Hornby proposed Black 5 could provide parts for a King Arthur.

 

Luke

[D9020 Nimbus]

22 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

The 2251 has the same chassis as a 94XX I believe. The 54XX, 64XX and 74XX have the same chassis but I think the wheel diameter is different on the 74XX.

 

Luke

The 64xx and 74xx have the same size wheels, although the 74xx (and the last few 64xxs too) have differences in the cab area. 54xx have larger wheels; the 74xx don't have auto gear.

[luke_stevens]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The 64xx and 74xx have the same size wheels, although the 74xx (and the last few 64xxs too) have differences in the cab area. 54xx have larger wheels; the 74xx don't have auto gear.

 

I knew it was something like that. Thanks for the confirmation 👍. 

 

Luke

[NCB]

On 07/03/2023 at 16:27, D9020 Nimbus said:

The 64xx and 74xx have the same size wheels, although the 74xx (and the last few 64xxs too) have differences in the cab area. 54xx have larger wheels; the 74xx don't have auto gear.

Also, Dean Goods and 2251 have same wheelbase but larger wheels.

 

I don't see chasses per se as a problem. A modern fold up etched chassis is easy to assemble and not too hard to draw; I've been producing my own for the last 10 years in 3mm. 

 

 The big problem is wheels. What TT  needs is a range of useful wheels similar to that in 3mm.  That alone would expand TT to be a modeller's scale.

 

Motors and gears are also needed. The small coreless motors now available eg from Tramfabriek are very useful, as in my 3mm Cambrian Sharps

 

 

 

Gearboxes may be more of a problem; the High Leveel one shown here is no longer available.

 

[NCB]

Here's some common wheel sizes, TT120 equivalent, and 3mm SQ wheel close fit where it exists.

 

Prototype       TT120           3MM#

 

4'0"                   10.16mm     

4'6"                    11.43mm      

4'8"                     11.85mm      12mm

5'0"                      12.7mm

5'3"                      13.35mm      13.5mm  

5'6"                       13.97mm      14mm

5'8"                        14.39mm        14mm

6'0"                        15.24mm      15mm;  15mm BFB

6'3"                        15.87mm       15.75mm

6'6"                         16.51mm      16.5mm

6'8"                         16.93mm       17.0mm 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by NCB

[Les1952]

I'm wondering about this concentration on building kits and scratchbuilding..

 

Looking at the various TT:120 forums on Facebook, the combined membership of which (at least the ones I know of) is over 5000 members, the vast majority of active members seem to be newcomers to the hobby.  Indeed the majority of pictures posted show layouts that are little beyond train set ovals with short trains running at unrealistic speeds.  

 

Technically the most common question after "better controllers" and HM7000 appears to be "will Peco track join to Hornby?", followed by "what make of track pins should I use?"    On at least one of these groups having come up with answers to a lot of these questions (repeatedly) I've been called a guru.  This might be flattering but is far from correct.

 

I think the majority of scratchbuilding and fine quality kit building will remain in the scales where it is now- 4mm and 3mm scales.   That would mean 1:120 scale will tend to mostly use r-t-r stock which may be weathered and renumbered.  The impetus for scratchbuilding and kitbuilding I believe will be on the scenic side- though an awful lot seem happy with ready to plant.

 

Personally, I'm moving up a scale from N gauge.  I spent about two hours yesterday struggling to persuade an N-gauge Hobbytrain coupling spring to go back into the ridiculously small enclosure it came from so I could sell the loco as a runner rather than as spare parts, so I'm not regretting moving upwards.  I have mild dyspraxia which helps explain why OO gauge loco chassis I built in my younger days never ran well enough to satisfy me.  I also now have repetitive strain injury and have arthritis developing- I often need a wrist splint.  Those like NCB who "don't see chassis as a problem"  I can only admire.  But these gents are a minority in any scale, and becoming more so.

 

Les

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Les1952
removed a repetition

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

Looking at the various TT:120 forums on Facebook, the combined membership of which (at least the ones I know of) is over 5000 members, the vast majority of active members seem to be newcomers to the hobby.  Indeed the majority of pictures posted show layouts that are little beyond train set ovals with short trains running at unrealistic speeds.  

 

Technically the most common question after "better controllers" and HM7000 appears to be "will Peco track join to Hornby?", followed by "what make of track pins should I use?"    On at least one of these groups having come up with answers to a lot of these questions (repeatedly) I've been called a guru.  This might be flattering but is far from correct.

 

I think the majority of scratchbuilding and fine quality kit building will remain in the scales where it is now- 4mm and 3mm scales.   That would mean 1:120 scale will tend to mostly use r-t-r stock which may be weathered and renumbered.  The impetus for scratchbuilding and kitbuilding I believe will be on the scenic side- though an awful lot seem happy with ready to plant.

 

I'd agree with the FB comments, but it also has to be said that everyone has to start somewhere and judging by the types of layouts seen at local shows (as opposed to specialist and large ones such as Warley) the vast majority of railway modellers are happy just playing trains on ovals! In fact even some well known large layouts with super scenery actually follow the same principle!

 

I'd agree, that based on the types of questions being asked, a large percentage are newcomers, I've ended up with the same moniker! Unfortunately that highlights the major downside of FB compared to a properly organised forum, the question gets asked again and again simply because it's difficult to go back through the history to find out something. Hornby's forum has the same issue, I did suggest that they try breaking the TT section into sub sections but was told that it wasn't possible - more likely no-one wants to do it - and we have the same issues as FB, lots of duplicate questions.

 

I'm not so sure about the final paragraph, it rather depends on how things progress, strangely, over on the mainland of Europe TT is mainly an RTR scale for stock but a kit builders scale for buildings, but that also applies to N and H0, I've just not seen the same amount of "RTR" buildings as I have in the UK. I wonder if it's just a British thing?

[NCB]

My feeling is that the broader a scale is the better it is for everyone.    

[luke_stevens]

Part of the issue of kit-building is that there aren't many/ any kits out there. Beyond the Lincoln Loco's resin bodies and a few Worsley Works etched kits there isn't anything. When kits start to be available then things may change, but it is too early.

 

Luke

 

https://lincoln-loco.co.uk/

 

http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/TT-120/TT-120_Scale_Index.htm

[luke_stevens]

One other thing on Facebook groups:

 

I'm on several FB groups but I'm not posting there as most people aren't established modellers so they are unlikely to be able to answer questions / respond to inquiries. I'm more likely to be posting here on RMweb where modellers will respond with some kind of relevance :) It's not a criticism of the FB groups but at the moment they are self-regulating to the more basic end of the hobbies knowledge spectrum.

 

Luke

Edited March 13, 2023 by luke_stevens

[NCB]

1 hour ago, luke_stevens said:

Part of the issue of kit-building is that there aren't many/ any kits out there. Beyond the Lincoln Loco's resin bodies and a few Worsley Works etched kits there isn't anything. When kits start to be available then things may change, but it is too early.

 

Luke

 

https://lincoln-loco.co.uk/

 

http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/TT-120/TT-120_Scale_Index.htm

Worsley has some useful chasses

http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/3mm/3mm_Loco_Bits.htm

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by NCB

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Some interesting thoughts.  Perhaps worth remembering this thread was started - and the question posed - last June,  following the initial Peco launch and several months before Hornby made their announcement.

 

I’ve been back and read the contributions I made on page 1, and it’s hardly news to say Hornby’s “go big or go home” approach has since changed the game.  I stopped trying to keep up with the debate about Hornby a long time ago, and I don’t want to bring it in here (please), so I hope I can avoid controversy by simply stating that it looks to me as if Hornby’s aim is to offer a similar range to their OO lines rather than a radically different one, but with the space saving that comes with TT and using a business model designed to appeal to new entrants as much as (or more than) it does to established modellers.

 

If that’s OK, Les’ comment above makes a lot of sense: r-t-r stock and rtp buildings will feature in the “mainstream” here too. 

 

5 hours ago, Les1952 said:

I'm wondering about this concentration on building kits and scratchbuilding..

 

Looking at the various TT:120 forums on Facebook, the combined membership of which (at least the ones I know of) is over 5000 members, the vast majority of active members seem to be newcomers to the hobby.  Indeed the majority of pictures posted show layouts that are little beyond train set ovals with short trains running at unrealistic speeds.  

 

Technically the most common question after "better controllers" and HM7000 appears to be "will Peco track join to Hornby?", followed by "what make of track pins should I use?"    On at least one of these groups having come up with answers to a lot of these questions (repeatedly) I've been called a guru.  This might be flattering but is far from correct.

 

I think the majority of scratchbuilding and fine quality kit building will remain in the scales where it is now- 4mm and 3mm scales.   That would mean 1:120 scale will tend to mostly use r-t-r stock which may be weathered and renumbered.  The impetus for scratchbuilding and kitbuilding I believe will be on the scenic side- though an awful lot seem happy with ready to plant.

 

Personally, I'm moving up a scale from N gauge.  I spent about two hours yesterday struggling to persuade an N-gauge Hobbytrain coupling spring to go back into the ridiculously small enclosure it came from so I could sell the loco as a runner rather than as spare parts, so I'm not regretting moving upwards.  I have mild dyspraxia which helps explain why OO gauge loco chassis I built in my younger days never ran well enough to satisfy me.  I also now have repetitive strain injury and have arthritis developing- I often need a wrist splint.  Those like NCB who "don't see chassis as a problem"  I can only admire.  But these gents are a minority in any scale, and becoming more so.

 

Les

 

 

I think that is a measured reflection on how the TT:120 land lies at the moment.

 

The only bad news I have for Les is that use of N-Scale Micro-Trains Couplers seems to be common amongst North American TT modellers in 1/10” scale too - you may not have escaped very far (and I say that as someone else who tried a return to N-Scale last year and found the couplings and detailing too small now, so I’m with you on that one).

 

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

I'm not so sure about the final paragraph, it rather depends on how things progress, strangely, over on the mainland of Europe TT is mainly an RTR scale for stock but a kit builders scale for buildings, but that also applies to N and H0, I've just not seen the same amount of "RTR" buildings as I have in the UK. I wonder if it's just a British thing?

 

I also agree with Hobby on this point too: I think we’re seeing the same patterns emerge in TT as in the other main scales.  European modellers have long had access to a wide range of mainstream plastic kit brands, led perhaps by Faller and including Vollmer, Kibri and Auhagen (who already treat TT as a main scale), and going on to include Piko, Pola (now focusing on G), Busch, Noch etc.  I don’t think we’ve ever had quite such a choice here in the UK?

 

The kind of card kits we have from Superquick and Metcalfe (and have had from Prototype Models, Bilteezi and others) seem to be more uniquely British in their widespread use.  Tooling costs mean they may not appear in TT:120 for a while, especially as laser cut kits are already available (Peco and others), as well as Hornby’s rtp (ready to plant).  For those who specialise in card, print your own kits only need rescaling to be available, but may have more appeal to established modellers? (Just a guess, and there will be exceptions).  To me this suggests the market is there for rtp as Hobby and Les note.

 

So how would I answer the question now: “How will TT:120 differentiate itself from N, OO and 3mm scale?”  I think my answer would be that, although still very new, TT:120 could one day end up simply differentiated from N and OO on the grounds of size, and compared to 3mm on the grounds of wider commercial r-t-r support.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

 

[britishcolumbian]

3 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

The only bad news I have for Les is that use of N-Scale Micro-Trains Couplers seems to be common amongst North American TT modellers in 1/10” scale too - you may not have escaped very far (and I say that as someone else who tried a return to N-Scale last year and found the couplings and detailing too small now, so I’m with you on that one).

NorAm TT use either Micro-Trains N scale or Kadee HOn3 couplers - or both, since they do mate up just fine. I prefer the MT because they're close to scale size for 1:120.

 

On a different note though: I see people saying "TT:120 is this" and "TT:120 is that" and "it can't be this because there's no that available"... it seems to me people are already forgetting that it hasn't even been a year yet since the news broke... it'll take time. And I think British TT will eventually end up like on the Continent, or any scale with RTR support anywhere: there will be the niche for those who want to do RTR/RTP as much as possible, and those who want to do RPM/location-specific/scratchbuilding everything, etc... just give it all a bit of time.