Hornby announce TT:120

[Hroth]

18 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

A couple of photos from the King’s Cross layout. More to come.

 

OH WAIT I forgot I’m an online content creator. “OMG the locomotives caught fire while I was standing there and when I asked Simon Kohler about future releases, he leapt over the display and attempted to strangle me.”

 

Its like looking at a P4 layout, the track looks so wide compared with the stock.....  🤣

 

Actually, it reminds me of the boxtop illustration for the original Triang R0 trainset, with Princess Royals doing everything!

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Hroth
A Thort...

[Matt C]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Del Boy, surely?

 

Yup got me Del boys an Dalys in a twist 😆

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 hours ago, HonestTom said:

A couple of photos from the King’s Cross layout. More to come.

 

OH WAIT I forgot I’m an online content creator. “OMG the locomotives caught fire while I was standing there and when I asked Simon Kohler about future releases, he leapt over the display and attempted to strangle me.”

No, I’m not tempted by the Phase 1 releases: I’m happy to wait for the things that I want are coming later.  No, I’m not tempted, I just want one.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Jeff Smith]

56 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

A couple of photos from the King’s Cross layout. More to come.

 

OH WAIT I forgot I’m an online content creator. “OMG the locomotives caught fire while I was standing there and when I asked Simon Kohler about future releases, he leapt over the display and attempted to strangle me.”

The gauge looks right but the sleeper spacing looks a bit close!  Be nice to see the stock on Peco track.

[TomE]

1 hour ago, Asterix2012 said:

but with more detail

 

Really?

 

 

 

I doubt Hornby will produce anything in TT:120 anywhere near the level of detail we're now seeing in N Gauge. 

 

Tom.  

[HonestTom]

More! The layout was in a glass case, so apologies for the reflections in some shots.

 

[HonestTom]

One last one, because this photo took my last post over the size limit.

[APOLLO]

Long dead frogs.

[adb968008]

Those A3’s have a long seam line running horizontal across the side of the boiler.

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Legend said:

 

2 hours ago, Asterix2012 said:

Is there not also the possibility that some will move from N to TT120 only slightly larger and slightly more space needed but with more detail possibly and a better coupling?

 

Add: and runs better to that. Also - easier to build a kit

 

I wouldn't expect many to move.

 

But those who are in N , just about, because they  haven't the space to do it in 4mm - but somehow N isn't quite doing it for them , for various reasons? They are a definite target.

 

Those who are in 4mm because N doesn't really do it for them - but don't actually have space to do much in OO? They are a definite target too.

 

There's talk of "cannibalising OO sales", as if TT-120 cannot bring anything new to the party , it just moves it around.. 

 

But if you can move people from being "in the hobby", reading magazines and fora  , going to shows , buying bits of stuff - to having a layout at home , that they buy stuff for in quantity and that satisfies them - you get them spending more on actual models , and much more involved in the hobby

 

The market share by scale figures for other countries suggest a considerable unsatisfied demand for smaller scales here. It looks like about 10% of the market that you would expect to find in a smaller scale in other countries , but is in OO here. Those folk might be lost to the hobby if they can;'t build a OO layout, but can't find a small-scale alternative they can live with

 

From Hornby's perspective - they now have a product for people that OO doesn't suit. That's the whole point of this.

 

How many of those folk would have bought bits of Hornby OO  and put it in a cupboard , we don't know. But those lost sales won't worry Hornby if they are getting 3x or 4x the sales from a committed modeller working in TT

 

Hornby are making a serious attempt to bring in new blood to the hobby. They still have a foothold in the younger market through trainsets and their forum. Is TT-120 a product that you move to when you have finally left the OO trainset behind - and realise you don't have space to build a 4mm layout??   

 

Peco' s pitch in RM was a proper layout to a good standards without the desperate compromises - but fitting in a space you can find in a modern home

 

The high-spec direct specialists - SLW, Accurascale, Cavalex,  etc  and Hattons, Rails , are "cannibalising the OO market"  by redirecting the spend of existing modellers from Hornby to themselves. They are not increasing the size of the pot , just moving it around. If you're not in the hobby you won't have heard of them 

 

And we know where chasing ever-higher spec goes : the high price / high spec / low unit volume business model. On the Continent it was called the "museum quality model" .After a while everything's been done,several times, the prices are eyewateringly high, the law of diminishing returns sets in on the spec, unit volumes slump - and then the whole circus runs out of road, sales drop sharply, and companies go bust.

 

We've seen this play out in Continental HO over the last 15 -20 years . So have Hornby.  They have realised that chasing ever higher spec in a saturated market is to go round in ever-decreasing circles till the plughole swallows you

 

Legend and Dunsignalling point out the issue:

 

Quote

However there is a limit to the number of times you can retool an A4,A3,Duchess,Princess or 9F . And there are diminishing returns each time . The 9F is a case in point . I would quite like one but at £250 you think twice . Is it significantly better than my Bachmann 9F or even Railroad ones .so I’ll bet each retool sells less and less . I’d imagine Bachmann are finding the same with their 37/47 , great models but are they £200 better than existing ones which are already very good .
 

 

Quote

The new (OO) Hornby 9F is brilliant, and decent value for what it offers IMHO. However, when working on a layout I'd be hard-pressed to spot any improvement over my three old Bachmann ones. In this case Hornby is offering me "better" vs "good enough", but I don't "need" better (or more). If I didn't have loads of other stuff clamouring for my cash, I'd have a Tyne Dock one for the display cabinet, but I do, so I won't. Sorry Hornby. If it's any consolation, I won't be buying any more in blue boxes, either! 

 

Super detailing is all very well, many love to spend time admiring it at close quarters, but I'd be more likely to buy a Railroad Plus Crosti for the differences that I'll notice when it's running. In fact, when Hornby get round to doing it in the "de-Crostied" form that is more appropriate for my period (to either standard), I'll definitely be in.   

 

I find myself in the same position with Bachmann 158s

 

But a 9F in TT-120 done to the level  of Railroad Plus detail in 4mm??  In TT-120 you might be able to build a home layout that can take it sensibly   (Consett ore trains were shortish)

Edited October 15, 2022 by Ravenser
my inability to use multiquote tool

[franciswilliamwebb]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Are "Corporate Hornby" and its backers, psychologically capable of being content with that or will they soon be clamouring for a new "silver bullet" (not the China Clay sort 😉)? 

 

Funny you should mention Silver Bullets.  I wish, but seeing the rest of the debut freight range I'm expecting a Polo Mint Tanker real soon 😉

[Bregeath]

20 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

A really nice post, thank you @Bregeath for sharing your thoughts and some of the story with us.

 

As a long time follower of the site I’m sure you’ll be familiar with the 7mm area of RMweb and the 3mm Forum - there’s also a TT:120 Forum that’s been set up for sharing modelling ideas and projects (as opposed to trade discussions, which belong here).  My guess is you’ve a lot of experience that could be of value across the board - a finescale eye and an encouraging voice are always welcome.  Keep writing, Keith.

 

Why thank you Keith, that's very kind.

 

I am gathering my thoughts over this very expansive thread and will respond with something I hope will be appropriate after the initial 'cascade' we are experiencing!

 

Best, B.

[Ravenser]

17 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

One last one, because this photo took my last post over the size limit.

 

18 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

More! The layout was in a glass case, so apologies for the reflections in some shots.

 

 

1 hour ago, HonestTom said:

A couple of photos from the King’s Cross layout. More to come.

 

OH WAIT I forgot I’m an online content creator. “OMG the locomotives caught fire while I was standing there and when I asked Simon Kohler about future releases, he leapt over the display and attempted to strangle me.”

 

Well, that's informative.

 

MissPrism is right to question the oversized washout plugs on the A4

 

And they really shouldn't have done a GW mink in LNER livery. Tool up an LNER van or get the livery right - there was something called the Common User Agreement

 

Otherwise it's looking pretty good. I'm with those saying how broad the track looks - the tight sleeper spacing (not very British) accentuates it. (N's no better in that respect)

 

I do like the coaches 

[HonestTom]

18 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Those A3’s have a long seam line running horizontal across the side of the boiler.

Yeah, I think the layout was filled out with prototypes - one of them also has no buffers. Also, one of the Pullmans had a livery far closer to the maligned too-dark scheme.

 

I should also note that the layout wasn’t running, so I can’t comment on performance. There were quite a few people taking an interest, including at least three families and a group of Chinese tourists.

[PhilJ W]

I hear that Heljan are not going to continue with TT120.

[Ravenser]

24 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Those A3’s have a long seam line running horizontal across the side of the boiler.

 

Prototype photos suggest that's the boiler handrail, in the correct place

 

The A4s have them too, but they stop short.v I think you'll find its a steam pipe. Kettles had them . A quick look at photos suggest it's entirely correct for an A4 

[HonestTom]

31 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Long dead frogs.

Someone should bury them.

 

8 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

And they really shouldn't have done a GW mink in LNER livery. Tool up an LNER van or get the livery right - there was something called the Common User Agreement

 

 

Yeah, I find that a little bizarre. It’s very much a case of “it costs just as much to get it wrong as to get it right.”

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Add: and runs better to that. Also - easier to build a kit

 

I wouldn't expect many to move.

 

But those who are in N , just about, because they  haven't the space to do it in 4mm - but somehow N isn't quite doing it for them , for various reasons? They are a definite target.

 

Those who are in 4mm because N doesn't really do it for them - but don't actually have space to do much in OO? They are a definite target too.

 

There's talk of "cannibalising OO sales", as if TT-120 cannot bring anything new to the party , it just moves it around.. 

 

But if you can move people from being "in the hobby", reading magazines and fora  , going to shows , buying bits of stuff - to having a layout at home , that they buy stuff for in quantity and that satisfies them - you get them spending more on actual models , and much more involved in the hobby

 

The market share by scale figures for other countries suggest a considerable unsatisfied demand for smaller scales here. It looks like about 10% of the market that you would expect to find in a smaller scale in other countries , but is in OO here. Those folk might be lost to the hobby if they can;'t build a OO layout, but can't find a small-scale alternative they can live with

 

From Hornby's perspective - they now have a product for people that OO doesn't suit. That's the whole point of this.

 

How many of those folk would have bought bits of Hornby OO  and put it in a cupboard , we don't know. But those lost sales won't worry Hornby if they are getting 3x or 4x the sales from a committed modeller working in TT

 

Hornby are making a serious attempt to bring in new blood to the hobby. They still have a foothold in the younger market through trainsets and their forum. Is TT-120 a product that you move to when you have finally left the OO trainset behind - and realise you don't have space to build a 4mm layout??   

 

Peco' s pitch in RM was a proper layout to a good standards without the desperate compromises - but fitting in a space you can find in a modern home

 

The high-spec direct specialists - SLW, Accurascale, Cavalex,  etc  and Hattons, Rails , are "cannibalising the OO market"  by redirecting the spend of existing modellers from Hornby to themselves. They are not increasing the size of the pot , just moving it around. If you're not in the hobby you won't have heard of them 

 

And we know where chasing ever-higher spec goes : the high price / high spec / low unit volume business model. On the Continent it was called the "museum quality model" .After a while everything's been done,several times, the prices are eyewateringly high, the law of diminishing returns sets in on the spec, unit volumes slump - and then the whole circus runs out of road, sales drop sharply, and companies go bust.

 

We've seen this play out in Continental HO over the last 15 -20 years . So have Hornby.  They have realised that chasing ever higher spec in a saturated market is to go round in ever-decreasing circles till the plughole swallows you

 

Legend and Dunsignalling point out the issue:

 

 

 

But a 9F in TT-120 done to the level  of Railroad Plus detail in 4mm??  In TT-120 you might be able to build a home layout that can take it sensibly   (Consett ore trains were shortish)

 

That covers an awful lot of the bases, and arguably makes a better case for TT:120 than SK did in his interview. 

 

I think Hornby's dilemma was/is that they are struggling to maintain their market share (and maybe sales by value too) in OO. That market, whilst not "saturated" in the full sense of the word, is not increasing fast enough to accommodate their growing rivals without taking volume off Hornby. 

 

Hornby needed to plan against a time when their share of the OO market is no longer enough to sustain their model railway business but, for structural reasons, they are unable to reverse that process. 

 

Now, were they to diversify into O or N, they'd just be swapping one set of competitors for new ones with more experience in, and knowledge of, the market in those scales.

 

So, where to go? They have actually taken a perfectly logical course, but when the decision was taken, the prospects will have looked a lot brighter than they do right now. 

 

Even so, TT:120 should balance at least some of the actual/anticipated decline in their OO market share.

 

The critical questions are whether this new market gets big enough, fast enough, both to achieve more than slowing an overall decline, and satisfy the money men they will have had to convince before embarking on this. 

 

If it doesn't, Hornby will have to turn to other parts of the group for salvation of the whole. That would give us a completely new bunch of stuff over which to agonise...😇 

 

John

Edited October 15, 2022 by Dunsignalling
Clarity

[Ravenser]

40 minutes ago, TomE said:

 

Really?

 

 

 

I doubt Hornby will produce anything in TT:120 anywhere near the level of detail we're now seeing in N Gauge. 

 

Tom.  

 

I'm sorry , but I'm now going to be rather brutal

 

I've been dabbling a little in N recently. In a specialist media source I saw an article about making approximations of steam classes not available RTR out of various bits. The results can be called representational . To my eyes , they had the right number of wheels and the right number on the cab sheet and there the good news stopped.

 

One looked a bit more like a GE Humpty Dumpty than the northern class it was intended to represent (It wasn't close to either - Trix did a better job than that in the 50s)  The standard of paint finish looked grim, The mechanisms were Poole era Farish for the most part

 

I don't wish to dump on someone else's hobby, and I'm in favour of making stuff. But to me, brought up on Iain Rice's writing and the aspirations of the 4mm finescale movement, that sort of crudity is intolerable

 

The item appeared in the last 12-18 months,. This is also N gauge in 2022....

 

Someone else was talking about one of the advantages on N being that you could put together a train of second-hand Poole-era Mk1s for £40-£60 quid . I've seen those things in trays on stands at shows - and I wouln't buy them . The TT-120 BSK looks pretty good

 

Those sort of things are one of the main reasons N gauge has always put me off. They are still  a part of contemporary N. 

 

For my own part, I'm trying to pick and choose the better modern RTR for my side project. It's code 55 , not code 80 for starters . And if one of those wagons turns up in Revolution's shop after they are realeased I'll probably have one

 

But citing the very best specialist N models as indicative of the average standard in contemporary N is misleading. The very worst models you'll see in TT-120 are that A4 and the private owner wagon . Because TT-120 is starting with a clean sheet, it doesn't carry all that old coarse stuff as a legacy.

 

And though I'm sure Revolution get their dimensions very right , shape proportion and dimensions are as critical as detail. Shooting down 4mm CAD that gets shape dimensions and proportions pretty well spot on is a good start.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Main reason the new boys can deliver what they are is that they don't have antiquated mid-20th century corporate structures to support. 

 

That's why new Hornby (and Bachmann) stuff has to be more expensive than items from the more recent start-ups, without offering (in most cases) any advantage in quality.

 

Until Hornby address that, I fear the business is only going one way, the only debate being as to how far and how fast. 

 

Instead, they appear to have admitted to themselves that they can't beat the competition and need to go somewhere there isn't any.   

 

John

Cost/bureaucracy really only makes sense related to scale - just because a company has a larger structure doesn't necessarily make it less efficient while having fewer people equally doesn't necessarily make it more efficient.  the important thins is what the people are doing and how well they are doing it.

 

Hornby Group and company combined had 214 people at most recent financial year end, an increase of 18 on the previous year with 17 of those going into operations, sales, marketing and distribution.  Bachmann Europe had 61 people at most recent year end, an increase of one on the previous year but what they do can't be compared with Hornby because they are classified ina different way in the accounts.   Peco is a larger employer than Bachmann and had 125 people at their last declared accounts while Dapol had 26.  An interesting comparison might be that Hattons had over 50 while Kernow had 27 (Rails do not give a figure in their submitted accounts).

 

How do you measure efficiency (or putting in another way  maybe using that somewhat misleading current buzzword 'productivity'?).  If you measure it by turnover per employee Bachmann lead the pack, followed by Hornby, trailed by quite a distance by Peco.  In fact in terms of turnover per employee Hattons are much closer to Hornby than Peco are.  Perhaps a message might be that it's better to get someone else to make what you offer as your brands than it is to make it yourself?  Of course you might also ask which of these three makes the largest contribution to GDP in terms of actually making something out of basic materials as opposed to selling something made elsewhere - and then the answer would clearly be Peco

 

If we look at bottom line profit per employee the picture changes a bit with Hornby in the lead followed by Bachmann with Peco trailing well behind (there are some special reason for part of that because of pension costs).   Now just to float what amounts, for various reasons, to a rather misleading comparison - on the basis of their submitted accounts Accurascale's profit per employee is ten times higher than Hornby's.

 

So put simply there are different ways of measuring the effectiveness of a company's personnel but on £s per head employed Hornby aren't doing at all badly.

 

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

You should try narrow gauge, they get even more confused! "That's N" then they look at my description and frown, then the lightbulb lights up and they figure out what it is... But I have to say TTe (TT scale 1:120 using Z 6.5mm gauge track) really confuses them as there's not much Z around so it's outside their knowledge zone, especially as I've used 1:120 scale as well!! :)

009 (‘NO it’s NOT N gauge’) is confusing enough for some people when I exhibit my 009 micro layouts. Then they move along a bit and see my 1:12 scale layout, which features T gauge representing ‘scale 0 gauge’ (a model of a model)…

[Delta_Who]

Just been to Kings Cross myself. Strange seeing TT in person, it didnt look too far off OO. Was nice to see Pullmans in the correct umber. Layout behind glass and non running.

[adb968008]

40 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Prototype photos suggest that's the boiler handrail, in the correct place

 

The A4s have them too, but they stop short.v I think you'll find its a steam pipe. Kettles had them . A quick look at photos suggest it's entirely correct for an A4 

Anyone else think this is a handrail, extending to the dome, then over the boiler ?

(Extract from HonestToms picture 1 page back).

 

it looks like a separate piece to me.

 

i can can see a faint line in the same place in the one behind it too.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by adb968008

[Dunsignalling]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Anyone else think this is a handrail, extending to the dome, then over the boiler ?

(Extract from HonestToms picture 1 page back).

 

it looks like a separate piece to me.

 

i can can see a faint line in the same place in the one behind it too.

 

I agree, a separate panel (or the witness marks from a mould insert) indicating a provision for producing locos with streamlined domes, perhaps?

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Cost/bureaucracy really only makes sense related to scale - just because a company has a larger structure doesn't necessarily make it less efficient while having fewer people equally doesn't necessarily make it more efficient.  the important thins is what the people are doing and how well they are doing it.

 

Hornby Group and company combined had 214 people at most recent financial year end, an increase of 18 on the previous year with 17 of those going into operations, sales, marketing and distribution.  Bachmann Europe had 61 people at most recent year end, an increase of one on the previous year but what they do can't be compared with Hornby because they are classified ina different way in the accounts.   Peco is a larger employer than Bachmann and had 125 people at their last declared accounts while Dapol had 26.  An interesting comparison might be that Hattons had over 50 while Kernow had 27 (Rails do not give a figure in their submitted accounts).

 

How do you measure efficiency (or putting in another way  maybe using that somewhat misleading current buzzword 'productivity'?).  If you measure it by turnover per employee Bachmann lead the pack, followed by Hornby, trailed by quite a distance by Peco.  In fact in terms of turnover per employee Hattons are much closer to Hornby than Peco are.  Perhaps a message might be that it's better to get someone else to make what you offer as your brands than it is to make it yourself?  Of course you might also ask which of these three makes the largest contribution to GDP in terms of actually making something out of basic materials as opposed to selling something made elsewhere - and then the answer would clearly be Peco

 

If we look at bottom line profit per employee the picture changes a bit with Hornby in the lead followed by Bachmann with Peco trailing well behind (there are some special reason for part of that because of pension costs).   Now just to float what amounts, for various reasons, to a rather misleading comparison - on the basis of their submitted accounts Accurascale's profit per employee is ten times higher than Hornby's.

 

So put simply there are different ways of measuring the effectiveness of a company's personnel but on £s per head employed Hornby aren't doing at all badly.

 

Agreed, Mike, but Hatton's, for whom developing new models is a small part of the total business, or Peco, who also run a major tourist attraction alongside their factory, make any kind of direct comparison with Hornby rather tricky. 

 

John