Hornby announce TT:120

[009 micro modeller]

56 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Have you seen the flanges in N?  But Peco code55 seems to cope, and I'm not aware of any issues.

Peco code 55 is really code 80 though, with the foot of the rail disguised.

[6990WitherslackHall]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I remember reading somewhere that Hornby sells a lot of track.  Many Hornby buyers wouldn't use anything else, probably in the belief that it is the only compatible choice.  These are the buyers that TT is initially aimed at.  Pre-ballasted plastic track would have been a lot tougher but stops the owner moving the layout to the next permanently laid and loosely ballasted level.

All my OO gauge layouts use Hornby track. Except for the flexi-track which is PECO. I have some on the upper running line of my big OO gauge layout.

[Ravenser]

7 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Peco code 55 is really code 80 though, with the foot of the rail disguised.

 

However their TT-120 track will be exactly the same. I've no doubt they are using the same rail for both products

[NCB]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I remember reading somewhere that Hornby sells a lot of track.  Many Hornby buyers wouldn't use anything else, probably in the belief that it is the only compatible choice.  These are the buyers that TT is initially aimed at.  Pre-ballasted plastic track would have been a lot tougher but stops the owner moving the layout to the next permanently laid and loosely ballasted level.

i've some Tillig pre- ballasted track. Fine for those who want  it. Either is OK as a convenient way of trying things.

 

Any idea of the radius of the Hornby points?

[PeterStiles]

3 minutes ago, NCB said:

i've some Tillig pre- ballasted track. Fine for those who want  it. Either is OK as a convenient way of trying things.

 

Any idea of the radius of the Hornby points?

 

Anyrail has updated with a plugin for Hornby tt:120, grab a copy and plan your layouts you your heart's content..

[009 micro modeller]

28 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

However their TT-120 track will be exactly the same. I've no doubt they are using the same rail for both products

In that case the TT stock should be fine as well then.

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Central Line? Sounds like the model shop in Leytonstone. I'm guessing that was a while back because it closed a few years ago after the owner died.

Thanks, That's the one.

I've found it on Google Maps, it was "The Engine Shed", 745 High Road Leytonstone .

Looks like it closed around 2015, now Studio Eleven hair salon.

[Chris116]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Thanks, That's the one.

I've found it on Google Maps, it was "The Engine Shed", 745 High Road Leytonstone .

Looks like it closed around 2015, now Studio Eleven hair salon.

I went there twice. It seems to depend on how well known you were to the staff as to how you were treated. The first time I was ignored and very unimpressed but having chatted with them at an exhibition in the local area I gave them a second chance and paid the shop another visit and they could not have been more friendly and helpful. Not a good way of working as you put off a lot of potential future regular customers!

[5Dublo2]

49 minutes ago, NCB said:

 

Any idea of the radius of the Hornby points?

If I am reading Hornby's TT:120  Brochure/Catalog correctly then the Hornby points are 166mm along the straight, have a 631mm radius and turn through 15 degrees of angle (Which I think is a match for the basic Tillig points)

Interestingly unlike OO where Hornby points are Radius 2, the TT:120 radius of points is significantly larger (as Radius 2 seems to have a 310mm radius)

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by 5Dublo2

[spamcan61]

45 minutes ago, PeterStiles said:

 

Anyrail has updated with a plugin for Hornby tt:120, grab a copy and plan your layouts you your heart's content..

I'm not at home so can't double check, but I think the version I was using on Saturday had two different types of Peco point in the TT section as well.

[Steamport Southport]

10 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I went there twice. It seems to depend on how well known you were to the staff as to how you were treated. The first time I was ignored and very unimpressed but having chatted with them at an exhibition in the local area I gave them a second chance and paid the shop another visit and they could not have been more friendly and helpful. Not a good way of working as you put off a lot of potential future regular customers!

 

Unfortunately something that happens in a lot of model shops and shops in general.

 

Some retailers/assistants really do think they are there to socialise with their mates rather than sell things!

 

I think they need to watch that information video for selling things called Open All Hours. 🤑

 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

22 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

I'm not at home so can't double check, but I think the version I was using on Saturday had two different types of Peco point in the TT section as well.

AIUI, one type is intended for metre gauge modelling in 3.5mm scale.

 

Same gauge, different sleeper sizes and spacing.

 

John

Edited October 18, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Hroth]

4 hours ago, Jezzarick said:

What I would like to see, as other commenters have pointed out, is snap track to put together and take layouts apart much easier than sodding individual fishplates.

 

"snap track" still has fishplates to maintain electrical continuity, so there's no escape.

 

[009 micro modeller]

45 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

AIUI, one type is intended for metre gauge modelling in 3.5mm scale.

 

Same gauge, different sleeper sizes and spacing.

 

John

Yes - H0m (also used for 00n3).

 

It’s the same for Peco in other gauges (N and 009/H0e, 00 and 016.5/0e, 0 and SM32 etc., though as far as I know they have Z but nothing for Nm). The odd bit about 12mm gauge is that I think previously they have only sold the version intended for narrow gauge modelling, as the market for H0m track currently is probably larger than that for TT, which contrasts with the situation in other gauges.

[RichardT]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Have you seen the flanges in N?

You keep doing this Ravenser. Have you not seen any RTR N gauge since 1999? Have you also not seen Wayne Kinney’s code 40 Finetrax?  Current N rtr runs fine on that.  Hopefully Wayne may do something similar for TT once he gets an idea of Hornby’s wheel standards.

 

I can’t work out why you seem to have this idée fixé about bashing N.

 

RichardT

Edited October 18, 2022 by RichardT
Finetrax

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, RichardT said:

You keep doing this Ravenser. Have you not seen any RTR N gauge since 1999? I can’t work out why you seem to have this idée fixé about bashing N.

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

[Ravenser]

37 minutes ago, RichardT said:

You keep doing this Ravenser. Have you not seen any RTR N gauge since 1999? Have you also not seen Wayne Kinney’s code 40 Finetrax?  Current N rtr runs fine on that.  Hopefully Wayne may do something similar for TT once he gets an idea of Hornby’s wheel standards.

 

I can’t work out why you seem to have this idée fixé about bashing N.

 

RichardT

 

I am simply questioning the suggestion made that Hornby TT  might not run on Peco code55.

 

N gauge RTR does run on Peco code 55 - and the same rail is being used for TT-120; I have a shrewd suspicion most pre-2000 N gauge will actually run on Peco code55 , as Peco are pretty cautious about backwards compatibility. That implies code 55 rail can cope with some fairly deep flange profiles

 

Arnold TT and Tillig will clearly run fine on the new Peco 12mm track - so why are doubts being expressed that the new Hornby stock will be compatible with Peco code 55 track??

 

Proportionally , N gauge flanges are deeper than those in 4mm. That's the effect of a smaller scale. A RTR wheel profile won't be scaled down pro-rata. No doubt the TT-120 flanges look proportionally deeper than current 4mm RTR in a photo. . The idea that the flanges on  Hornby wheels  will be physically much deeper than all current N RTR,  (and than all current TT, including the stuff Hornby themselves make)  to the point that they won't run on code 55 rail seems very odd

 

There are enough doubts about whether this scale will find enough support fast enough to make the Hornby project commercially viable , without conjuring up speculative suggestions that wheels won't fit track properly. I was simply pointing out that everything we know logically suggests they will.  If code 55  works in N (it does) , why wouldn't it work in TT-120?

Edited October 18, 2022 by Ravenser

[APOLLO]

27 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Corr, LOOK at the flanges on that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

Arnold TT and Tillig will clearly run fine on the new Peco 12mm track - so why are doubts being expressed that the new Hornby stock will be compatible with Peco code 55 track??

My money is on the likelihood that Peco got wind of Hornby's intentions, perhaps even via a NDA and assumed (or were informed) that Hornby would be using the Arnold wheel profile.  After all Hornby would be happy to make immediate sales of Arnold items to go on Peco's TT rail.

[philsandy]

On 16/10/2022 at 17:40, Tim Dubya said:

Just wandering around the web and found out that C&L do rail in code 55 (and 40), so it shouldn't be too difficult to get rolling your own (subject to finding suitable sleeps and timbering of course).

 

I have been looking into this, ie. making my own trackwork.

It appears C&L do not supply chairs for Code 55. The 3mm Society supply chairs for Code 60 bullhead and 2.5mm wide plywood sleepers. Also 12mm track bases for Code 60 bullhead.

[Dunsignalling]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

My money is on the likelihood that Peco got wind of Hornby's intentions, perhaps even via a NDA and assumed (or were informed) that Hornby would be using the Arnold wheel profile.  After all Hornby would be happy to make immediate sales of Arnold items to go on Peco's TT rail.

All continental TT:120 uses the same wheel profile so far as I can make out. It's proven to work, and there would be no sensible reason for any impending UK range to adopt anything different.  

 

If Peco did anticipate such an entry, after whittling down the possible candidates, Bachmann busy with OO9, Dapol busy with three scales, all the new entrants fully committed to developing their presence in OO and/or N, with no logical reason to dilute that effort.

 

That would only have left Heljan and Hornby in the frame. My guess is that Peco would have considered a limited entry by either of them to be sufficient to get their own products established, when added to probable continental demand for the track.

 

SK's widely known historical yen for TT would edge it in Hornby's favour, so there'd be no need for definite advance knowledge. The track would also suit TT3 had Hornby jumped that way. The buildings are all 3D-printed so could have been re-scaled without difficulty.

 

The only thing that might have surprised Peco, possibly almost as much as it has us, is the extent of Hornby's initial commitment.

 

John

Edited October 18, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[philsandy]

6 minutes ago, Tim Dubya said:

 

Yes unfortunately, at the moment 🤞   I would be soldering construction wise, the problem would be finding suitable sleepers in copper clad.

 

 

 

The 3mm Society do 2.5mm x 1mm thick copper clad strips.

[Andrew Young]

26 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

All continental TT:120 uses the same wheel profile so far as I can make out. It's proven to work, and there would be no sensible reason for any impending UK range to adopt anything different.  

 

If Peco did anticipate such an entry, after whittling down the possible candidates, Bachmann busy with OO9, Dapol busy with three scales, all the new entrants fully committed to developing their presence in OO and/or N, with no logical reason to dilute that effort.

 

That would only have left Heljan and Hornby in the frame. My guess is that Peco would have considered a limited entry by either of them to be sufficient to get their own products established, when added to probable continental demand for the track.

 

SK's widely known historical yen for TT would edge it in Hornby's favour, so there'd be no need for definite advance knowledge. The track would also suit TT3 had Hornby jumped that way. The buildings are all 3D-printed so could have been re-scaled without difficulty.

 

The only thing that might have surprised Peco, possibly almost as much as it has us, is the extent of Hornby's initial commitment.

 

John

John,

 

Have to admit to being surprised by both Peco and Hornby’s reawakening of TT. With the timing of both announcements being so close to each other, both would’ve been developing these ranges at the same time and the cynic in me questions whether they knew what the other was planning or not. Whatever happened, we should be thankful that both chose the same scale for TT!

 

Andrew

[DonnyRailMan]

Today joined TT120 Club going to order the Scotsmen and Eastern set definitely am.

[DaveArkley]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Young said:

John,

 

Have to admit to being surprised by both Peco and Hornby’s reawakening of TT. With the timing of both announcements being so close to each other, both would’ve been developing these ranges at the same time and the cynic in me questions whether they knew what the other was planning or not. Whatever happened, we should be thankful that both chose the same scale for TT!

 

Andrew

Why do you have to be cynical to think there was some co-operation, makes common sense for the two (and possibly others) to collaborate to open up a new revenue stream