Hornby announce TT:120

[PeterStiles]

10 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Delayed action couplings are spelt 'K-A-D-E-E'.....

Not for the "N" and "TT" NEM pocket it isn't. You can glue/screw Microtrains on or you can push some Dapol Easi-Shunts(*) into the pocket; but Kaydees are too bigs.

 

(*) cough...

[Les1952]

15 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Its been mentioned before, but Anyrail 6 now has both Peco and Hornby TT:120 track libraries. The free to download evaluation edition can be used to try out quite large (up to 50 track sections) layout ideas.

 

 

I don't use any computer track planning software.  Years of teaching Information Technology has shown me that using a computer doesn't help you to do things you couldn't do to a decent standard without using one.  If you can design a decent track plan that works and not use a computer you stand a fighting chance of getting a good working track plan using software.

 

Computer packages do however allow you to make the same total bog up faster and a lot neater.

 

Les

[Les1952]

11 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Delayed action couplings are spelt 'K-A-D-E-E'..... 😉🤣🤣🤣

 

Got my 'Issue 1' mag today despite no membership pack yet. Yes, "Free" has a LOT to do with it in my case. I note the use of (I assume) a Railroad/ex-Lima 37 as a mock-up photo. I do hope that isn't what they plan for their TT:120 version!! 😱

 

There is quite a bit in the mag about how the OO Class 66 is in the Railroad category but the new TT one is being designed from a clean sheet.  They would need UK TT120 to be very good top notch for it to stand any chance at all of selling in Europe.

 

OO photos are described as placeholders and stated not to be a true representation of what the actual model will look like.

 

Les

 

[Hroth]

14 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

I don't use any computer track planning software.  Years of teaching Information Technology has shown me that using a computer doesn't help you to do things you couldn't do to a decent standard without using one.  If you can design a decent track plan that works and not use a computer you stand a fighting chance of getting a good working track plan using software.

 

Computer packages do however allow you to make the same total bog up faster and a lot neater.

 

Les

 

I see Anyrail as a previsualisation aid, especially when dealing with flexitrack. With products like Hornby set track, it's more a case of what you see is what you get. Also, you get a feel of what will fit in the area you have to play with!

 

It's horses for courses, everyone has a way to solve the same problem!

 

 

[Johan DC]

I wonder, seeing there is a 57xx in the works, and they don't seem to deviate from their OO catalogus, will we see one in that scale too? 

[Legend]

16 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Its been mentioned before, but Anyrail 6 now has both Peco and Hornby TT:120 track libraries. The free to download evaluation edition can be used to try out quite large (up to 50 track sections) layout ideas.

 

 

Thanks Hroth.  I think you have to subscribe to get the TT:120 templates. I might do that but these days I use my iPad much more and I think you need to have Windows to download Anyrail .  Anyway, I'm afraid I'm old-fashioned enough to want a book!

[JohnR]

24 minutes ago, Legend said:

 

Thanks Hroth.  I think you have to subscribe to get the TT:120 templates. I might do that but these days I use my iPad much more and I think you need to have Windows to download Anyrail .  Anyway, I'm afraid I'm old-fashioned enough to want a book!

 

Fairly certain that all libraries are available - the only restriction is 50 track pieces. 

[leonk]

2 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

Fairly certain that all libraries are available - the only restriction is 50 track pieces. 

 

Can confirm, I’ve been playing with the free one and Hornby TT:120 is there.

[Legend]

Generally impressed with the magazine. Quite informative. Like others I latched onto the fact that its specifically mentioned that the OO 66 is Railroad range (although in a curious marketing anomaly it's shown in main range in OO) while the TT one is being designed from ground up and will be more detailed. Hopefully that means all of the variants will be tooled for. I think it's less expensive than the 50, so you do wonder if theres a miscommunication somewhere.

 

The only bit that slightly niggles is that there is a degree of misrepresentation going on. For instance, the inside cover shows a Pullman train and what looks like a D16 in LNER black. These must be OO models shown. Shouldn't that be pointed out? Same with what looks like a Railroad 37(not exactly detailed - why would you show that?) and I'm not sure the renders of Evening Star and Tintagel Castle aren't 00 renders with coupling grafted on. A touch too much photoshopping I think. 

 

I will be interested to see the first HSTs and actual model shots of the 37 and 47 when they come along. But still very interested in TT:120

Edited November 9, 2022 by Legend

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

They have been done - not sure whether they’ve been done on RTR stock as built though.

Indeed, I have Kadees on my 00 stock which is fine if a bit finicky uncoupling sometimes, with all the resources of the entire industry I find it odd that a reliable delayed industry wide coupler hasn’t yet been designed, the laziness of “that’ll do for them” attitude I think.

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, Les1952 said:

OO photos are described as placeholders and stated not to be a true representation of what the actual model will look like.

Yes I noted that. The point I was making was that for the 37 in particular, I sincerely hope the (eventual) TT120 version bears no resemblance at all to the Railroad OO one used as said place marker.

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Legend said:

Generally impressed with the magazine. Quite informative. Like others I latched onto the fact that its specifically mentioned that the OO 66 is Railroad range (although in a curious marketing anomaly it's shown in main range in OO) while the TT one is being designed from ground up and will be more detailed. Hopefully that means all of the variants will be tooled for. I think it's less expensive than the 50, so you do wonder if theres a miscommunication somewhere.

 

The only bit that slightly niggles is that there is a degree of misrepresentation going on. For instance, the inside cover shows a Pullman train and what looks like a D16 in LNER black. These must be OO models shown. Shouldn't that be pointed out? Same with what looks like a Railroad 37(not exactly detailed - why would you show that?) and I'm not sure the renders of Evening Star and Tintagel Castle aren't 00 renders with coupling grafted on. A touch too much photoshopping I think. 

 

I will be interested to see the first HSTs and actual model shots of the 37 and 47 when they come along. But still very interested in TT:120

 

The Castle looks legit.

 

It's not the newer 00 version as it's too basic and isn't the old Airfix version either.

 

 

Jason

[whart57]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Indeed, I have Kadees on my 00 stock which is fine if a bit finicky uncoupling sometimes, with all the resources of the entire industry I find it odd that a reliable delayed industry wide coupler hasn’t yet been designed, the laziness of “that’ll do for them” attitude I think.

 

Is there such a thing? People do get Alex Jacksons, B&Bs and DG couplings working reliably but only through constant maintenance and adjustment. A heavy shunt or a derailment is all it needs to knock them out. Hardly suitable for the RTR market aimed at the young and inexperienced.

[Nile]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The Castle looks legit.

 

It's not the newer 00 version as it's too basic and isn't the old Airfix version either.

 

 

Jason

 

If you are referring to the photo on P.32 then compare the flanges on the driving wheels with those on the A1 on P.11, far too fine for (RTR) TT.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Nile
clarification

[Ravenser]

4 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Is there such a thing? People do get Alex Jacksons, B&Bs and DG couplings working reliably but only through constant maintenance and adjustment. A heavy shunt or a derailment is all it needs to knock them out. Hardly suitable for the RTR market aimed at the young and inexperienced.

 

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Indeed, I have Kadees on my 00 stock which is fine if a bit finicky uncoupling sometimes, with all the resources of the entire industry I find it odd that a reliable delayed industry wide coupler hasn’t yet been designed, the laziness of “that’ll do for them” attitude I think.

 

5 hours ago, PeterStiles said:

Not for the "N" and "TT" NEM pocket it isn't. You can glue/screw Microtrains on or you can push some Dapol Easi-Shunts(*) into the pocket; but Kaydees are too bigs.

 

(*) cough...

 

 

I use Kadees on Blacklade in OO, Sprat and Winkle couplers on the Boxfile (also OO). The new N gauge project is using Dapol Easi-Shunts on the stock.

 

All three are nominally delayed action couplers. With all three getting delayed action in practice is challenging. I think the Kadees are a little better at it than the Dapol Easi-shunts, and the Boxfile is a wholly unsuitable environment for it 

 

The Easi-Shunts are about 30-40% more expensive than Kadees - and Kadees aren't cheap. Sprat and Winkle couplings are cheapest. But they are also a lot of fiddly  work to make up, and they are effectively irreversible. I'm pushing it to fit 3 wagons in an evening. Anything that plugs into an NEM socket is quick and easy, and can be readily reversed

 

All 3 types need fitting and adjusting, but the two knuckle couplers are fairly robust once properly fitted. 

 

The Easi-Shunts should be a readily available alternative to the "standard" TT coupler, if required. They are effectively a home-grown NEM Kadee in N

[britishcolumbian]

1 minute ago, Nile said:

far too fine for TT.

In what sense? Even Proto:120 is technically doable (I've seen it done as a proof of concept).

[britishcolumbian]

6 hours ago, PeterStiles said:

Kaydees are too bigs.

 

Indeed.

 

A fair number of people use Kadee H0n3 couplers for NorAm outline models, but those are still a bit big for 1:120; I use the MicroTrains (N scale) couplers because they're pretty close to scale for TT. They do mate just fine with the H0n3 Kadees so compatibility is not an issue.

[Nile]

8 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said:

In what sense?

 

All the Hornby TT stuff seen so far has much larger flanges, relatively speaking. The flange may be the same size as OO, but as the model is smaller it looks larger.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Nile

[PeterStiles]

36 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

The Easi-Shunts should be a readily available alternative to the "standard" TT coupler, if required. They are effectively a home-grown NEM Kadee in N

Ya, I've used the Easi-Shunts on my N IngleNook. They definitely couple well and will uncouple when rolled over  appropriate magnet.

 

However, I've never managed to make the delayed action uncoupling work when you have to push the wagon over a small-radius point... But they do work very well and i'm now a fair dab-hand at sticking nem pockets (or is it sockets) onto old wagons.

[Ravenser]

3 minutes ago, PeterStiles said:

Ya, I've used the Easi-Shunts on my N IngleNook. They definitely couple well and will uncouple when rolled over  appropriate magnet.

 

However, I've never managed to make the delayed action uncoupling work when you have to push the wagon over a small-radius point... But they do work very well and i'm now a fair dab-hand at sticking nem pockets (or is it sockets) onto old wagons.

 

 

Delayed action on curves is a known limitation- the same applies to Kadees. The heads are liable to recouple as their positions shift

 

I'm having relatively limited success with delayed action on straights with Dapol. Pwerhaps I haven't yet got the knack

[PeterStiles]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Pwerhaps I haven't yet got the knack

don't stress over it. I gave up stressing over it when I realised I'd also always have to tap my shunter when it ran over deadfrog points. Life's too short. Especially if the layout is for *your own fun*...

[AY Mod]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

The Castle looks legit.

 

It's not the newer 00 version as it's too basic and isn't the old Airfix version either.

 

Compare the pic with...

 

https://www.ttgemporium.co.uk/product-page/brand-new-hornby-r3454-gwr-castle-drysllwyn-castle-no-5076-oo-gauge

[Mike Harvey]

The only 100% successful magnetic pre- uncoupling I have ahieved in N  was using Fleischmann Profis with a 1mm magnet in the mobile latch at the top of the coupler. Magnets on the track centre line repelled the latches on both wagons upwards and to the side, which allowed me to propel 10 bogie grain wagons without recoupling happening. That was about 14 years ago and I am building a new grain yard now so might revive that system again.

[meatloaf]

The club magazine arrived today and it mentions what the next train sets are going to be. An HST set and a british pullman set. They say the pullman set will be an A4 William Whitelaw and 3 lit pullmans. Seems an odd choice to use the same A4 as they are in the first set.

 

Also mentions that DCC sound fitted sets will also soon be coming.

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Yes I noted that. The point I was making was that for the 37 in particular, I sincerely hope the (eventual) TT120 version bears no resemblance at all to the Railroad OO one used as said place marker.

Nor does the text on page 26 talking about the Britannia and annotated as #14 the picture actually shows a DMU.

 

I have not seen mention of a DMU in the press bumf but the mag as above shows the old TT DMU, I really hope Hornby release a DMU in the new range.