Hornby announce TT:120

[NCB]

 

Looks good doesn't it. I think this dispels the notion that this is simply enlarged N. It is better.

 

Nigel

 

[Barry Ten]

The ECML pacifics I saw on the stand had by far the best rendition of BR green I've seen on Hornby models to date. They looked pretty great I thought.

[Dix120]

On 03/12/2022 at 00:13, Hroth said:

April 1957. Minories is published!

 

 

 

Has anybody tried laying this out with Hornby TT120 track or would it be better with Peco?

[MikeParkin65]

15 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

The ECML pacifics I saw on the stand had by far the best rendition of BR green I've seen on Hornby models to date. They looked pretty great I thought.

Matches that applied to the most recent version of Evening Star I think, also the W1 and the A3. Good that Hornby finally  seem to have cracked it!

[Hobby]

I'm never too worried about colour, in real life they get dirty very quickly and colour varies a great deal depending on lighting conditions. I have a set of photos of a Czech narrow gauge diesel that is actually painted in purple but the photos show it from purple through to pink! As long as it looks ok that is enough for me.

[Steamport Southport]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I'm never too worried about colour, in real life they get dirty very quickly and colour varies a great deal depending on lighting conditions. I have a set of photos of a Czech narrow gauge diesel that is actually painted in purple but the photos show it from purple through to pink! As long as it looks ok that is enough for me.

 

But many of us can spot a wrong liveried locomotive or carriage a mile away. These things had a set standard. If they were painted wrong, then they would be dragged back in for a repaint. 

 

Why not get it right in the first place?

 

 

Jason

[Tim Dubya]

5 hours ago, Dix120 said:

Has anybody tried laying this out with Hornby TT120 track or would it be better with Peco?

 

Is it available to buy at the moment?

[BachelorBoy]

20 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

But many of us can spot a wrong liveried locomotive or carriage a mile away. 

Many people THINK they can. But given the subjective nature of colour perception (especially how smaller patches of the same colour appear dark than large patches) they might not actually be able to.

 

[Hobby]

28 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

But many of us can spot a wrong liveried locomotive or carriage a mile away. These things had a set standard. If they were painted wrong, then they would be dragged back in for a repaint. 

 

Why not get it right in the first place?

 

But what is right? Fine when it leaves the works, but after that the colour changes as it gets dirty, also as i said different lighting conditions can affect what we see, not to mention dirt, even after a wash the colour can change! Also if different coloured undercoats are used by different paint shops the top colour can change.

 

Unlike you I wouldn't know what the exact colour is anyhow, I just look at it and if it looks ok then fine, subtle shades would be lost on me! If you want it perfect then that's fine, that's your choice, but it isn't mine and never will be. My TT layout will be based in the mid/late 60s when cleaning wasn't done very much, as an example whilst the Brits and Jubs were painted green what i saw as a kid certainly wasn't what I see on a pristine model. We all have different priorities, I'd avoid any of my layouts if i were you!

Edited December 6, 2022 by Hobby

[Steamport Southport]

4 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Many people THINK they can. But given the subjective nature of colour perception (especially how smaller patches of the same colour appear dark than large patches) they might not actually be able to.

 

 

The stuff comes out of tins....

 

Someone who has painted a few of the things over the years. And I don't mean models.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

6 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

But what is right? Fine when it leaves the works, but after that the colour changes as it gets dirty, also as i said different lighting conditions can affect what we see, not to mention dirt, even after a wash the colour can change! Also if different coloured undercoats are used by different paint shops the top colour can change.

 

As i said as long as it looks OK then it's ok by me. If you want it perfect then that's fine, that's your choice, but it isn't mine and never will be. My TT layout will be based in the mid/late 60s when cleaning wasn't done very much, as an example whilst the Brits and Jubs were painted green what i saw as a kid certainly wasn't what I see on a pristine model. We all have different priorities.

 

You paint it right in the first place as it would ex Works. Fading and weathering is something you do after.

 

Never can quite understand the idea that people want things that are wrong when it's so easy to get it right from the start.

 

 

Jason

[Porfuera]

5 hours ago, Dix120 said:

Has anybody tried laying this out with Hornby TT120 track or would it be better with Peco?

 

I've been trying out various shunting plank track plans in Anyrail and I've found that the currently available Peco points (medium?) are quite large.

 

If I've got the plan below right I'd say that using the Peco points for the smaller Minories plan above would mean that the points will occupy about half of the five foot board and would severely reduce the length of the sidings. Nice, sweeping curves at the station throat I guess, but at the expense of a longer layout. Longer even than the OO layout.

 

So much for the space-saving properties of TT120! Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking it, I've ordered a Class 08 and a few wagons and I can't wait for them to arrive... I just would've preferred Peco to bring out the smaller-radius points first. But that's just me...

 

Edit: Just to get it back on thread - I don't really like the look of the Hornby points so I won't be buying those and I haven't tried planning with Hornby.

 

Edit: the board size below is 150cm by 30cm (or 1500mm by 300mm, which is approx. 5 feet by 1 foot)

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Porfuera
remove blank space (I hope!)

[BachelorBoy]

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The stuff comes out of tins....

 

Someone who has painted a few of the things over the years. And I don't mean models.

 

 

Unfortunately, "accurate" colours are often not "realistic" because of the scaling effects. 

 

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Dix120 said:

Has anybody tried laying this (Minories) out with Hornby TT120 track or would it be better with Peco?

I would definitely say Peco medium radius. The Hornby points have a much smaller radius , 631mm compared with Peco's 923mm, and If you use points with too small a radius with the Minories throat you lose all the advantages of stock flowing smoothly through the pointwork. It just lurches through and you might as well just use an ordinary straight facing and trailing crossover instead. 

The point of Cyril Freezer's subtle arrangement of the two crossovers is that though every path through it involves a reverse curve, five of the six possible paths have at least a points length of straight track between the two reverse curves. Only one path (inbound to the upper platform) involves an immediate reverse curve. 

 

I've done a lot of experiments with the Minories throat in H0 (where, with mainline coaches, the apparent buffer locking problem is slightly worse than in 00) and found that it doesn't really work with two foot nominal radius points (Peco small) as you get apparent buffer locking on every path, in fact, on the most critical path, you get the left hand buffer facing the right hand buffer on the next coach and as for corridor connections... However,  apart from that one path,  the Minories throat will work without apparent buffer locking with three foot nominal radius points (i.e. Peco medium but the same with SMP 3ft radius)

Peco's TT medium radius points have a nominal radius of three feet (36.3 inches 923mm) which is equivalent to about four foot radius in H0/00. That should allow the Minories throat to work without apparent buffer locking through all six paths (I'd be interested to see how a pair of close coupled main line coaches with corridor conenctions would fare going over a straight crossover made up from two of those points) The Hornby points have a radius of 631mm which is a lot better than 00/H0 setrack but nothing like as good as Peco's 923mm. I also think the 15 degree divergence angle (the points are curved all the way through) would give a less smooth path. For the same reason I wouldn't use Peco's proposed small radius TT points with passenger stock. 

 

The original Minories plan for TT was on a pair of baseboards each 30 inches (760mm) long and the throat is four points lengths long. Peco's medium radius TT points are 180mm long so four of them would  occupy 720mm leaving 30mm (about 1 1/4 inches) clear at each end (On a portable layout I  don't think it's a good idea to butt either end of a turnout right up to a board end so you do need some wriggle room ) 

Were I to build it, I think I'd make the two boards a bit longer. The original Minories was 2000mm (6ft 6ins) long for 00 but Freezer's subsequent versions were generally eight feet long so about six feet in TT (TT-3 or TT:120) .

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

I've been trying out various shunting plank track plans in Anyrail and I've found that the currently available Peco points (medium?) are quite large.

 

If I've got the plan below right I'd say that using the Peco points for the smaller Minories plan above would mean that the points will occupy about half of the five foot board and would severely reduce the length of the sidings. Nice, sweeping curves at the station throat I guess, but at the expense of a longer layout. Longer even than the OO layout.

 

So much for the space-saving properties of TT120! Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking it, I've ordered a Class 08 and a few wagons and I can't wait for them to arrive... I just would've preferred Peco to bring out the smaller-radius points first. But that's just me...

 

Edit: the board size below is 150cm by 30cm (or 1500mm by 300mm, which is approx. 5 feet by 1 foot)

 

 

Peco's medium radius points are 180mm long compared with Hornby's 166mm. Over the four points length of the Minories throat that would give you just 56mm (2 inches) more length in the platforms*. For passenger stock I'd go for the less lurchy throat anyday. Also, remember Cyril's advice in the original article "Should additional length by available at any time, the platforms can easily be extended with a short section of baseboard carrying three parallel tracks: even a foot would be a valuable addition."

 

*The former office desk I'm sitting at is exactly table five feet long and, before it got taken over by my screen, keyboard and printer I used to keep my H0 layout on the back of it for a bit of gentle wagon bashing whenever I got writer's block. That layout (without its fiddle yard)  is exactly 62 inches long- the extra two inches was never a problem. 

BTW I originally planned to use small radius points for that layout as they're shorter but, apart from two siding points, I went for medium radius instead and it looked far better with no loss of operational potential. I actually now regret not using medium radius throughout (though not enough to lift the ballast and relay the two points in question)

Edited December 6, 2022 by Pacific231G

[melmerby]

Peco's medium radius TT points are slightly more radius (922.6mm) compared to their medium radius 00/H0 points (914mm) which IMHO is ludicrous.

 

 

 

[Porfuera]

57 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Peco's medium radius TT points are slightly more radius (922.6mm) compared to their medium radius 00/H0 points (914mm) which IMHO is ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

Agreed, especially if you're trying to design a little shunting plank for the Class 08 as I'm trying to do.

 

According to Antics website, the Peco small radius points SL-U1291 and 1292 will be: length 135mm/5.3in, nominal curve radius 466mm/18.3in, diverging angle 11.25 degrees. Not holding my breath, though.

 

I hope this isn't going too far off-thread - but as I mentioned above, I really don't like the huge plastic frog in the Hornby points...

 

Plus the Peco points are Unifrog and AIUI no isolating rail joiners are required, which is nice. The Hornby points require TT8035 DCC Track Turnout Clip if you want both diverging tracks live.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Porfuera

[VIA185]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

But many of us can spot a wrong liveried locomotive or carriage a mile away. These things had a set standard. If they were painted wrong, then they would be dragged back in for a repaint. 

 

Why not get it right in the first place?

 

 

Jason

But it all depends on your perception of 'wrong'. 

[Flying Pig]

Ok, that's Hornby, Minories and TT:120 all together.  I think we have achieved peak RMweb.

 

I'm surprised that Hornby in particular have chosen such large radius points. They're quite unlike the ones in the various UK sectional track ranges in 00 and N in not matching one of the standard radii, which means that many traditional track plans will not convert to TT:120.  That may be inconvenient for some users.

 

Clearly Hornby's trains will run round tighter curves as their layout demonstrates.  Also Peco seem happy that a point at 18" radius will work with NEM wheels and flangeways*.  So what gives? 

 

*There's a very big gap between Peco small andmedium radii - will we see an intermediate inserted into the range due course?

 

[Moxy]

2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I'm surprised that Hornby in particular have chosen such large radius points. They're quite unlike the ones in the various UK sectional track ranges in 00 and N in not matching one of the standard radii, which means that many traditional track plans will not convert to TT:120.  That may be inconvenient for some users.

 

 

I think Hornby have chosen to match the geometry of the existing European track range made by Tillig.  It makes sense if you are looking to sell into the European market that your track matches what is already available.

[Pacific231G]

21 hours ago, melmerby said:

Peco's medium radius TT points are slightly more radius (922.6mm) compared to their medium radius 00/H0 points (914mm) which IMHO is ludicrous.

 

 

 

There is a view that the larger the scale the more compression you can get away with. (four coach express trains look less unconvincing more convincing in 0 than in 00 or H0 etc.)  When TT-3 arrived in the 1950s there were a lot of comments to the effect that you shouldn't just scale down a 00 plan  to 75% but rather use some of the scale gain to ease things out.

In any case, didn't someone (possibly Martin) find that all the 00/H0 streamline points actually had rather smaller minimum radii than their nominal (possibly average)  value? The large radius was more like four than five feet and ISTR that for the medium was more like 30 inches than three feet. It seemed to have something to do with their use of transition curves. Streamline's geometry was designed a very long time ago and Peco now claim that their medium radius TT points are a close match to a prototype B6 so a direct comparison based on radii alone may not be entirely valid. I think I have a scale drawing for a B6  somewhere so might try scaling up a top photo of a TT point and compare them.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

2 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Unfortunately, "accurate" colours are often not "realistic" because of the scaling effects. 

 

Scale colour and peoples ability to remember and identify colours has been discussed at length in other threads and magazine articles.  Photography both film and digital introduces variables and so is not reliable.  Experiments with peoples memory of colour tends to demonstrate that even short term most people cannot remember a particular colour when subsequently asked to pick it out from a selection of similar colours.  I am generally satisfied with whatever I think is appropriate but had most problem settling on Metropolitan and subsequently LT reds, which apparently changed over the years anyway!

[frobisher]

36 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I'm surprised that Hornby in particular have chosen such large radius points. They're quite unlike the ones in the various UK sectional track ranges in 00 and N in not matching one of the standard radii, which means that many traditional track plans will not convert to TT:120.  That may be inconvenient for some users.

 

Because they match the "default" geometry in TT that Tillig produces.  The small radius Tillig points aren't that much shorter and weren't adjustable the same way Hornby revised their point to work around the standard unit track lengths.

[Baldwin30762]

I wonder if tilling track would be better all round?

 

 

[Grovenor]

You would save a significant length in the Minories pointwork if you get away from Setrack track spacing and go for a scale 6ft way. Surely a major advantage of a corrct track gauge is that used with a scale 6ft you get a proper representation of typical UK double track.

You just need to be prepared to do a bit of modification to the points forming crossovers.

 

IMHO all that celebrating the correct track gauge is wasted if you then go and use a much overscale 6ft.