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

[Ravenser]

I think that any new venture in modelling  will need a degree of kit and scratchbuilding in the pioneering stages .

 

A newly launched scale or gauge cannot have the level of trade support and RTR of a long-established scale. So home construction will be needed to fill out the gaps in the earlier stages of its development. That is a restriction, but it isn't an objection to the existence of the scale.

 

On another thread I've reacted to comments that Hornby have only provided CK and BSK Mk1s , and that's not a realistic formation by pointing out that there are methods for building a TSO/SK yourself and it only needs sufficient orders to go into Worsley to get this off the ground. It's not necessary to sit lamenting that "Hornby don't make an SK" and waiting for one to be graciously supplied by Margate  (See any Farish announcement thread)

 

Making things is the normal modelling remedy to a restricted RTR offering. (The alternative is to accept a quite restricted layout and menu of options, which affects realism.)  It's been done fairly readily in 4mm and 3mm over many years. It doesn't seem to be a strong part of N gauge culture in the same way - it seems to be regarded as too difficult to get an acceptable result in N . 2mm finescale is nowhere near as hair-shirt and puritanical in ethos as P4 is in 4mm - but it also seems to be a lot more difficult to deliver in practice than P4. 2mm finescaleis also a lot more detached from N than P4 is from the rest of 4mm modelling

 

Where the frontier is, that making stuff crosses the line into being unduly fiddly I don't know. We do know that making 12mm gauge chassis has been practiced readily enough in 3mm and OOn3 for many years, even for quite small locos. That is a promising start - making 12mm gauge chassis for medium-sized and larger steam engines in TT120 should be proven , with some trade support available. It certainly won't be for all , but it will be an option for some. In N it seems not to be an option at all

 

So the question "how does TT:120 differentiate itself from N" should - if 1/120 scale is to fly as a scale for British outline - include "it is easier to make stuff in 1/120" as part of the answer. It needs to be a more constructional scale than N because it has to be - the RTR range will be smaller - but that should be ok, because hopefully it has the opportunity to be more constructional

 

I take your point about most of the people on the FB groups being new to the hobby and therefore currently RTR only. (Its very interesting to see, given the widespread scepticism about Hornby targetting new entrants to the hobby. They are actually doing what we were told couldn't be possible)  At some point there is going to be an issue where they start hitting limits to what is possible in TT:120, because they need things Hornby isn't going to make in the near future

 

What happens then is a very interesting question. Do they bail out and change scales to N or OO to secure a broader range of options without having to make anything?  Will they simply accept the limitation and find their modelling options capped? Will they drop out of the hobby again because they are blocked and frustrated?  Or is there a possible development path , based on moving beyond RTR and starting to build for yourself to plug the gaps?

 

I accept that most people won't take the final option. But having it there is, I think, critical for the long-term future of British outline 1/120.

 

Perhaps the main argument used against the existance of TT:120 from one direction has been that there is much more available RTR in N - and frankly will be for a couple of decades to come. Therefore the argument is that TT:120 is pointless and won't work , so people should be in N from the beginning rather than changing from TT:120 later.

 

That argument betrays the assumption that TT:120 can only ever be RTR and has no future as a constructional scale. If N gauge is overwhelmingly a "RTR only" scale when it comes to rolling stock, then to carve out a good future for itself TT:120 needs to be a "RTR plus" scale - much as 4mm was during the 20th century .

 

I took the repeated chant of "It's a train set!" in the notorious Chadwick video as an attempt to insist that TT:120 cannot ever be an option for serious railway modelling. Part of that attempt to shut it out of the established mainstream hobby is an attempt to insist it cannot be a constructional scale - you can only ever do in TT:120 what Hornby allow you to do , for as long as they allow you to do it, on the carpet.

 

To have a good long term future in Britain , TT:120 needs to avoid being caged like that

 

(PS. On the other hand , one way that TT:120 will differ from all the other scales is that there cannot be a finescale breakaway involving a different incompatible gauge as we have seen in 7mm, 4mm, 3mm, and 2mm. At some point someone is going to pop up in MRJ attempting P120 . But they will be doing it using the same 12mm gauge as everyone else. Finescale will just mean a different wheel/track standard for the same gauge. Your trains will still run on my track. But they might not like my points)

Edited March 13, 2023 by Ravenser

[britishcolumbian]

5 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

attempting P120

It's been done on an experimental basis (points were built and wheels were turned). It's perfectly feasible.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Where the frontier is, that making stuff crosses the line into being unduly fiddly I don't know.

 

I’d suggest it’s a personal thing - no common right answer.  This is partly because we’ll all draw the line between what we’re willing to make and what we’d rather just buy in different places, but also because we’ll have different views on where “a bit fiddly” becomes “unduly fiddly.”

 

In my case, I’ve learned I’m OK with some fiddly work for H0e, but felt it was going to become too big a proportion of my modelling in N-Scale.  As both use the same track gauge (9mm) it was worth pushing the boundary to see where my line was.

 

So far with TT I’ve had no problems, but that’s not to say others wouldn’t find it a bit too small.  Hope that’s OK, Keith.

[luke_stevens]

51 minutes ago, NCB said:

Worsley has some useful chasses

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

 

 

But we will need to get the scaled down. I contacted Worsley about getting an EMU scaled down which they are perfectly happy to do.

 

They said it might take a while, That was last July... Happy to wait :)

 

The other issue with just reducing 3mm etches is that none of the ancillary components like wheel bearings, motor & gear box combos will fit any longer. Unlike coaches I would think chassis would be a redesign. Ideally we'd have a manufacturer do a resin body with etched chassis.

 

Luke

[NCB]

30 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I think that any new venture in modelling  will need a degree of kit and scratchbuilding in the pioneering stages .

 

A newly launched scale or gauge cannot have the level of trade support and RTR of a long-established scale. So home construction will be needed to fill out the gaps in the earlier stages of its development. That is a restriction, but it isn't an objection to the existence of the scale.

 

On another thread I've reacted to comments that Hornby have only provided CK and BSK Mk1s , and that's not a realistic formation by pointing out that there are methods for building a TSO/SK yourself and it only needs sufficient orders to go into Worsley to get this off the ground. It's not necessary to sit lamenting that "Hornby don't make an SK" and waiting for one to be graciously supplied by Margate  (See any Farish announcement thread)

 

Making things is the normal modelling remedy to a restricted RTR offering. (The alternative is to accept a quite restricted layout and menu of options, which affects realism.)  It's been done fairly readily in 4mm and 3mm over many years. It doesn't seem to be a strong part of N gauge culture in the same way - it seems to be regarded as too difficult to get an acceptable result in N . 2mm finescale is nowhere near as hair-shirt and puritanical in ethos as P4 is in 4mm - but it also seems to be a lot more difficult to deliver in practice than P4. 2mm finescaleis also a lot more detached from N than P4 is from the rest of 4mm modelling

 

Where the frontier is, that making stuff crosses the line into being unduly fiddly I don't know. We do know that making 12mm gauge chassis has been practiced readily enough in 3mm and OOn3 for many years, even for quite small locos. That is a promising start - making 12mm gauge chassis for medium-sized and larger steam engines in TT120 should be proven , with some trade support available. It certainly won't be for all , but it will be an option for some. In N it seems not to be an option at all

 

So the question "how does TT:120 differentiate itself from N" should - if 1/120 scale is to fly as a scale for British outline - include "it is easier to make stuff in 1/120" as part of the answer. It needs to be a more constructional scale than N because it has to be - the RTR range will be smaller - but that should be ok, because hopefully it has the opportunity to be more constructional

 

I take your point about most of the people on the FB groups being new to the hobby and therefore currently RTR only. (Its very interesting to see, given the widespread scepticism about Hornby targetting new entrants to the hobby. They are actually doing what we were told couldn't be possible)  At some point there is going to be an issue where they start hitting limits to what is possible in TT:120, because they need things Hornby isn't going to make in the near future

 

What happens then is a very interesting question. Do they bail out and change scales to N or OO to secure a broader range of options without having to make anything?  Will they simply accept the limitation and find their modelling options capped? Will they drop out of the hobby again because they are blocked and frustrated?  Or is there a possible development path , based on moving beyond RTR and starting to build for yourself to plug the gaps?

 

I accept that most people won't take the final option. But having it there is, I think, critical for the long-term future of British outline 1/120.

 

Perhaps the main argument used against the existance of TT:120 from one direction has been that there is much more available RTR in N - and frankly will be for a couple of decades to come. Therefore the argument is that TT:120 is pointless and won't work , so people should be in N from the beginning rather than changing from TT:120 later.

 

That argument betrays the assumption that TT:120 can only ever be RTR and has no future as a constructional scale. If N gauge is overwhelmingly a "RTR only" scale when it comes to rolling stock, then to carve out a good future for itself TT:120 needs to be a "RTR plus" scale - much as 4mm was during the 20th century .

 

I took the repeated chant of "It's a train set!" in the notorious Chadwick video as an attempt to insist that TT:120 cannot ever be an option for serious railway modelling. Part of that attempt to shut it out of the established mainstream hobby is an attempt to insist it cannot be a constructional scale - you can only ever do in TT:120 what Hornby allow you to do , for as long as they allow you to do it, on the carpet.

 

To have a good long term future in Britain , TT:120 needs to avoid being caged like that

 

(PS. On the other hand , one way that TT:120 will differ from all the other scales is that there cannot be a finescale breakaway involving a different incompatible gauge as we have seen in 7mm, 4mm, 3mm, and 2mm. At some point someone is going to pop up in MRJ attempting P120 . But they will be doing it using the same 12mm gauge as everyone else. Finescale will just mean a different wheel/track standard for the same gauge. Your trains will still run on my track. But they might not like my points)

Spot on. TT can do the same sort of construcgtional modelling as 3mm. N can't. 

[NCB]

18 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

 

But we will need to get the scaled down. I contacted Worsley about getting an EMU scaled down which they are perfectly happy to do.

 

They said it might take a while, That was last July... Happy to wait :)

 

The other issue with just reducing 3mm etches is that none of the ancillary components like wheel bearings, motor & gear box combos will fit any longer. Unlike coaches I would think chassis would be a redesign. Ideally we'd have a manufacturer do a resin body with etched chassis.

 

Luke

Allen is used to redesign eg holes for bearings. Reduce a 14.2mm chassis to  TT and the same motor/gearbox should work as in the 12mm version. 

[britishcolumbian]

50 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

The other issue with just reducing 3mm etches is that none of the ancillary components like wheel bearings, motor & gear box combos will fit any longer. Unlike coaches I would think chassis would be a redesign. Ideally we'd have a manufacturer do a resin body with etched chassis.

For EMUs at least, I think we should have less trouble adapting Contintal products to British models. "eeeeventually" I want to build an AC railcar using the Lincoln Locos body, I'm fairly sure I'll be able to use the chassis from a BTTB/Tillig LVT to power it with little difficulty. Should be similarly straightforward to fit a chassis to say a Class 101, provided a chassis with suitable bogie (wheelbase) can be found, since the MUs and railcars are full-width we shouldn't encounter the issues we've found adapting Continental chassis to British bodies.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

For EMUs at least, I think we should have less trouble adapting Contintal products to British models. "eeeeventually" I want to build an AC railcar using the Lincoln Locos body, I'm fairly sure I'll be able to use the chassis from a BTTB/Tillig LVT to power it with little difficulty. Should be similarly straightforward to fit a chassis to say a Class 101, provided a chassis with suitable bogie (wheelbase) can be found, since the MUs and railcars are full-width we shouldn't encounter the issues we've found adapting Continental chassis to British bodies.

 

There should come a  point when we have British TT chassis to use under new bodies, and don't have to rely on larger Continental mechanisms. That will get us away from any difficulty shoe-horning bits into smaller bodies

 

Thus a Deltic could use the mechanism out of a TT Class 37 or 50 -  both of which Hornby are doing. English Electric used the same bogies on all three classes

 

Once we have a reasonable 8'6" wheelbase 4 wheel bogie available  a lot of things open up - all the DMUs and a lot of Bo-Bo classes. I think the innards of an HST power car might be an option - isn't that an 8'6" bogie?

 

I think you'll find DMUs are built to the same loading gauge as locos TBH ...

Edited March 13, 2023 by Ravenser

[luke_stevens]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Once we have a reasonable 8'6" wheelbase 4 wheel bogie available  a lot of things open up - all the DMUs and a lot of Bo-Bo classes. I think the innards of an HST power car might be an option - isn't that an 8'6" bogie?

 

 

I'm already looking forward to ripping an HST apart!

 

Luke

[luke_stevens]

2 hours ago, NCB said:

Allen is used to redesign eg holes for bearings. Reduce a 14.2mm chassis to  TT and the same motor/gearbox should work as in the 12mm version. 

 

Holes etc don't worry me but to lose around 2mm on a chassis width is going to cause issues with thing like gear thickness and motor dimensions.

 

Luke

[Les1952]

I'm looking forward to a pair of Dapol easi-shunt magnets arriving.  I thought I had some in stock left over from Croft Spa but I haven't.  I've already tried fitting Easi-shunt couplings into the nem pockets on Tillig wagons and my Piko Class 290 and had no trouble with them on Hornby Radius 2 curves either pulling or propelling.

 

The next step is to try the auto uncoupling.  For fixed rakes I'm going to stick with the Tillig couplers supplied on (most of) my stock but I want to shunt without the hand in the sky appearing on the front of the layout- the side seen by the punters.  Backstage a home made uncoupler stick is fine for these.

 

I agree with the description of Continental modelling having much more emphasis on kitbuilding the scenery.  Having done two Continental layouts in N and gone much further than most on both occasions I've been happy to stick with the pattern.  My brass kits inhabit the OO shunting plank NO PLACE, though hardly any punters spot that they aren't r-t-r.  This latter isn't because I don't talk to punters.  The complaint I get is that I talk to too many!

 

I see TT:120 in the UK leaning more to the Continental pattern with kitbuilding for buildings- more so as people discover the laser-cut and 3D printed ranges from Igra and DMToys on the Continent and as West Hill Wagon Works and LCut Creative amongst others get their ranges expanded.   The main thing is how many will have the patience to wait anther 9-10 months for Hornby to get a tank engine off the blocks or a few years for Peco to get its wagon range up to speed.

 

When we have the Class 37 and the small tank there should be the opportunity for bodyline kits to be 3D printed, starting a pathway for those newcomers to move towards more complex building.  Until then we are still in the realms of speculation as to what proportion will follow that path.  Some will, but I think most who want to engineer will already be happy elsewhere.

 

Les 

Building up the courage to weather a £400 Roco loco......

[Les1952]

51 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Holes etc don't worry me but to lose around 2mm on a chassis width is going to cause issues with thing like gear thickness and motor dimensions.

 

Luke

 

Narrowing a chassis from another scale probably defeats the object of TT:120 being a correct scale:gauge ratio- if you are reducing a 3mm chassis to 2.5mm isn't the wheelbase now also going to be 18% out?

 

Just a thought

Les

 

Hornby's designers said quite categorically that reducing CAD from one scale to another doesn't work- clearances fail and bits become so thin they can't be made.  That also seems to be why locos chassis can be converted from OO to EM or P4 but not the other way round....   Wouldn't upscaling from N and finding chassis blocks there that are the right length be more profitable?

 

L

[flubrush]

4 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 At some point someone is going to pop up in MRJ attempting P120 . But they will be doing it using the same 12mm gauge as everyone else. Finescale will just mean a different wheel/track standard for the same gauge. Your trains will still run on my track. But they might not like my points)

 

Another possibility might be FS120 where 2mm Association track and wheel standards are applied,  pushing the 2mm 9.42mm gauge out to 12mm and everything else opened out proportionally.  The same process was applied to create FS160 where the 2mm standards were squeezed in to 9mm gauge to provide a more realistic track for European and US N scale to 160:1 scale.

 

https://www.fs160.eu/fiNeweb/standards/HANDB.php

 

Jim.

[Jeff Smith]

27 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

The main thing is how many will have the patience to wait anther 9-10 months for Hornby to get a tank engine off the blocks or a few years for Peco to get its wagon range up to speed.

There are three options:-

1. Carry on modelling in whatever scale/gauge you currently model in (a layout is never actually finished), or,

2. Run your new Hornby as you get it on your Continental TT layout, or,

3. Start planning (and constructing) your new layout with existing track and rtp or kit buildings.

[natterjack]

6 minutes ago, flubrush said:

Another possibility might be FS120 where 2mm Association track and wheel standards are applied, 

I asked abut this this on the 2mm forum with a view to using 2mm society wheel rims for TT120- general expert consensus seemed to be a no go but I am looking into it a bit further with 2mm and N Gauge tyre sets ordered  from 'the loco works' (I'll be interested in seeing any actual difference between the sets; the photo illustrations certainly looked very similar).

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

 

Narrowing a chassis from another scale probably defeats the object of TT:120 being a correct scale:gauge ratio- if you are reducing a 3mm chassis to 2.5mm isn't the wheelbase now also going to be 18% out?

 

Just a thought

Les

 

Hornby's designers said quite categorically that reducing CAD from one scale to another doesn't work- clearances fail and bits become so thin they can't be made.  That also seems to be why locos chassis can be converted from OO to EM or P4 but not the other way round....   Wouldn't upscaling from N and finding chassis blocks there that are the right length be more profitable?

 

L

 

 

I think this would be a case of taking a 3mm CAD for a 14.2mm gauge etched chassis and shrinking the CAD pro rata to a smaller scale, then sending off a new sheet to the etchers. So the whole thing is adjusted , including the wheelbase. You need to enlarge the axle hol;es on the CAD to take 3mm scale bearings and axles

 

14.2 mm at 3mm scale = 4'8.5" gauge .So shrink it from 1/101.3 down to 1/120 in CAD and you get a 12mm gauge chassis at scale wheelbase

 

Shooting up/down CAD from one scale to another is not uncommon with etched brass kits, and the adjustment here is 5/6ths of size , so not going to make a huge difference to tabs, material thickness etc

 

the point is that we know chassis that narrow (12mm gauge) are not an issue .Gearboxes, motors ,axles and wheels for larger sizes, bearings are all familiar stuff

Edited March 13, 2023 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Holes etc don't worry me but to lose around 2mm on a chassis width is going to cause issues with thing like gear thickness and motor dimensions.

 

Luke

 

 

Normally 3mm chassis are 12 mm gauge anyway. That's the majority option. So it's completely proven and known territory , with 60 years experience behind it

 

Worsley Works offer fold up chassis in both 12mm and 14.2mm gauge. They would simply take the finescale 14.2mm version of the CAD and shrink it down to generate a 12mm gauge chassis at 1/120 scale

[luke_stevens]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

 

Narrowing a chassis from another scale probably defeats the object of TT:120 being a correct scale:gauge ratio- if you are reducing a 3mm chassis to 2.5mm isn't the wheelbase now also going to be 18% out?

 

Just a thought

Les

 

Hornby's designers said quite categorically that reducing CAD from one scale to another doesn't work- clearances fail and bits become so thin they can't be made.  That also seems to be why locos chassis can be converted from OO to EM or P4 but not the other way round....   Wouldn't upscaling from N and finding chassis blocks there that are the right length be more profitable?

 

L

 

Hi Les,

 

Yes, that is part of my point. A 3mm chassis for say a GWR King is going to be dimensionally significantly different from a chassis for a GWR King to TT120 2.54mm. A 3mm Chassis at 12mm is going to be of no use, beyond proving a chassis can be built to a 12mm gauge, unless it happens to already match a TT120 prototype.

 

Hornby were talking more about the difficulties of reducing the 3 dimensional tooling for an injection moulded body. If starting with flat etched sheets then a set of CADs to a reduced scale  will give a good start but will be effected by available metal thicknesses, etc, requiring redrawing of slots, spaces and bends to get to fit to TT120.

 

P4 4mm loco chassis can be built to 00 but so much of 00 is incorrect that it is easier to not start there. And most modellers who are working at P4 dimensions aren't going to be building in 00. I doubt that there will be many R-T-R N gauge chassis that are going to be much use to TT120 modellers.

 

Luke

[Les1952]

2 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

There are three options:-

1. Carry on modelling in whatever scale/gauge you currently model in (a layout is never actually finished), or,

2. Run your new Hornby as you get it on your Continental TT layout, or,

3. Start planning (and constructing) your new layout with existing track and rtp or kit buildings.

 

I think I fall under all three

1.  NO PLACE (OO) has a firm booking for September 2025 so there is still development there and Bregenbach im Schwarzwald (N) has bookings to November 2025 now, so the upgrade due to take place before it goes to the NRM in York in May will have a shelf life of at least 2 years.

2.  Bregstadt is my new Continental TT layout- and as suitable Hornby and Peco stock arrive it will be run in on that, and given occasional spins to keep it from siezing up.

3.  Based on what I'm learning with Bregstadt I'm now planning Broken Scar, also TT:120, for construction in about 2 years time at my present rate of building.  The aim is that Broken Scar will eventually replace NO PLACE on the exhibition circuit.

 

Les

[NCB]

18 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Holes etc don't worry me but to lose around 2mm on a chassis width is going to cause issues with thing like gear thickness and motor dimensions.

 

Luke

Width shouId be OK as it's the same as 3mm on 12mm track;  length/height might be an issue. 

[natterjack]

3 hours ago, NCB said:

Width shouId be OK as it's the same as 3mm on 12mm track;  length/height might be an issue. 

Is there a rather important issue with availability of 3mm scale gearboxes? Those on 3SMR are listed as 'Very limited stock will be unobtainable for the foreseeable future as gears no longer produced'.

[luke_stevens]

26 minutes ago, natterjack said:

Is there a rather important issue with availability of 3mm scale gearboxes? Those on 3SMR are listed as 'Very limited stock will be unobtainable for the foreseeable future as gears no longer produced'.

 

Yes, I noticed that. The statement seem to be that there are difficulties getting the gears. I assume they were a byproduct of some other industry; X04's were derived from WW2 aircraft requirements, Cannon motors were from film camera's, etc.

 

Luke

[NCB]

On 14/03/2023 at 16:23, natterjack said:

Is there a rather important issue with availability of 3mm scale gearboxes? Those on 3SMR are listed as 'Very limited stock will be unobtainable for the foreseeable future as gears no longer produced'.

I've bought gears from here

https://shop.kkpmo.com/product_info.php?info=p614_gearwheel-pinion-m0-4---

 

A 3mm Society member has produced 12mm gauge chasses using N20 motors with integral gearbox.

[natterjack]

1 hour ago, NCB said:

I've bought gears from here

Interesting. As mentioned elsewhere, I have recently been able to purchase Tillig tower bogies and separate axle gears for use in a TT120  'motorising' project- in this case probably using Romford 10.5mm disc wheels to achieve scale appearance while avoiding pizza cutter interference with the bodywork (testing  is promising)

[Les1952]

I've now remembered where I had posted that I was waiting for Dapol magnets to try out the Easi-shunts.

 

 

Tried out on the shortest wheelbase stock I've got.  Uncoupling and recoupling is much more reliable than using the same couplings in N gauge.  Given that N is a poor scale when it comes to reliable shunting first impressions are encouraging.  The bump at the far right of the screen is a blob of solder on the track (since removed).

 

The layout is now packed away so I can get NO PLACE ready for South Notts show in 2 weeks time, followed by Bregenbach at Syston Club's show then at the National Railway Museum in May.   After that I have a month or so on this layout and some time for further experiments.  I might even have some UK outline wagons by then....

 

Les