Hornby announce TT:120

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Not for DCC, danger of shorting across the rails.

That's one advantage of DC. when you uncouple, the power is normally off. I soldered up something very similar for my H0m layout from a bit of scrap brass and an old (cheap) screwdriver. The spade part probably needs to be a bit longer than for TT because H0m stock is relatively wider and it was for the "standard" NEM hinged loop type couplers (that I generally loathe) also commonly used for H0e/009. It works well. 

[Hobby]

My H0e/m stock is about the same size as the TT so it works ok.  Hadn't even thought of any DCC issues as I don't run it, but won't lend it out to any DCC layouts!

[NCB]

On 07/02/2023 at 14:32, NCB said:

Here is my version.  More anon.

 

@

This was produced as part of an exercise to get a feel for  the space required for TT-120.  It is now the subject of a thread Majorbrough on the TT Scale forum. 

[Les1952]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

My H0e/m stock is about the same size as the TT so it works ok.  Hadn't even thought of any DCC issues as I don't run it, but won't lend it out to any DCC layouts!

 

The danger is if the flat blade comes into contact with the far rail, which some ham fisted eejit like me is bound to achieve.....

 

I've seen something similar with a piece of old credit/store card used.

 

Les

 

[jonnyuk]

7 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Think you could smooth this a little .

 

If you replace the middle point at the top (which is RH) with a Left Hand point immediately following the point at top right, , you get a straight exit to the bottom road at the top. The lower road of the loop is then longer , clear of the points, and any train taking the lower through road has a much smoother journey . You've cut out two sharp reverse curves , and if done with flexible track the revised alignment can be done with much gentler curves

 

The real railway doesn't like those kind of reverse curves, as they are hard on stock , especially when shunting, and increase the risk of derailment. Hence the prototype's very strong preference for sidings to open out as a fan, with reverse curves eliminated as far as possible. It also sames space - something desirable on the prototype as sidings then have greater capacity

thank you for the advice, was this what you had in mind, certainly flows better.

[Ravenser]

39 minutes ago, jonnyuk said:

thank you for the advice, was this what you had in mind, certainly flows better.

 

 

The middle-top ;point should come off the bottom route on the point to the right, not the top route. It is part of the track linking  (So that middle point should be RH , not left)  .

 

The curv ed route on the middle point becomes the curve that brings the loop back straight..

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

A very negative take. I'm struck by the comment that discussion of the Hornby marketing strategy is more important than the models themselves...

 

The simple fact is that the models now exist, and they will continue to exist. What really matters is what is done with them from here on in . Having seen the way that even the scraps of British outline HO from 35 years ago ( often quite crude), sustain modelling and a society , I'm absolutely certain that TT:120 will be a scale for modelling British subjects from here on in, however Hornby's venture develops. What is up for grabs is what form that modelling takes, not whether it will happen at all.

 

Two or three more comments struck me. One was the remark that yes, the models were nicely finished "but we expect that as standard, don't we?" A sustained attempt was made to find anything and everything that might constitute a fault and to dwell on it as long as practical - anything positive about the actual models was dealt with as briskly as possible. "I'm not here to blow hot air up Hornby's backside".

 

The question of what use the hobby will make of 1:120 scale, and what opportunities it might offer was completely ignored. I would have thought "what possibilities does this scale offer the modeller?" is the first and most fundamental question about any new scale 

 

I question the statement that new entrants to the hobby normally rely on second hand for their stock. Teenagers may do, and people returning to the hobby after many years commonly start with "I've got this stuff from my childhood and I want to do something with it". But in my experience they then start buying new RTR.

 

As for the percentages plucked out of the air , we have the recent RMWeb survey to correct them. That showed 85-90% active in 4mm (depends how you aggregate OO/EM/P4 with OO9) and under 20% active in N, with those active in some form 7mm somewhere in the 12.5-15% range. (That totals to well over 100% - quite a few people model in more than one scale)

 

Put crudely , that means 9 out of 10 modellers in this community work in 4mm . Not even 1 in 5 work in N/2mm Finescale. But "not even 1 in 5" is quite enough to support a large active N gauge scene . Ditto 7mm with maybe 1 in 7 active in the scale.

 

I've said before that if TT:120 gets to be half the size of N (= 9% active in the scale) in the medium term it will be doing very, very well indeed. This is a niche scale

 

Given that, it really doesn't matter if 2/3rds or 3/4s of the hobby has zero interest in the scale.  Frankly we should expect that. 

 

To put it quite starkly, it is entirely possible for more than half the hobby to be strongly negative about 1:120 scale and hostile to its existence - but for 1:120 scale still to attract the support of 1 in 11 or 1 in 10 of the hobby and to become a very active modelling scale....

 

(I'm not sure that kind of polarisation in the hobby would be good. But it is entirely possible for the numbers to pan out that way. TT:120 does not need the support of a majority of the hobby. It only needs a modest sliver of the hobby on board for it to become viable)

 

 

 

 

[natterjack]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

A very negative take

The whole presentation was one of seeking axes to grind and I for one found the approach simply  luddite. I did note a few dissenters in the comments among the increasngly boorish  'me too' TT120 deniers.

[Ron Ron Ron]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

A very negative take. I'm struck by the comment that discussion of the Hornby marketing strategy is more important than the models themselves......

 

Well, he did say he'd discuss the 2 aspects, the models and set, followed by the marketing aspects.

From what he found, as far as the actual product was concerned, justified a negative review IMHO.

Quality control and some design aspects do appear to be quite poor, even if the models are nicely finished.

 

These problems are echoed here on RMweb, in the adjacent thread covering this set.

Whether it's due to early production issues, or sloppy design and QC is another matter.

Charlie has spent his own money on this set and I think is justifiably less than enamoured with the quality of the product.

 

 

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

.....Two or three more comments struck me. One was the remark that yes, the models were nicely finished "but we expect that as standard, don't we?" ......

 

I can't find any fault with that comment.

Of course we should expect that standard, at the very least.

 

 

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

........A sustained attempt was made to find anything and everything that might constitute a fault and to dwell on it as long as practical - anything positive about the actual models was dealt with as briskly as possible. "I'm not here to blow hot air up Hornby's backside".......

 

I don't think he went out of his way to discover the glaring issues with this set.

He may have spent a little more time with his positive remarks about the finish of the models, but I agree with his position that the positive aspects should be taken as read in this day and age.

Hence the "...blow hot air..." comment.

There's no need to overplay how good the models look or are finished. That should be expected.

 

 

As for the 2nd part of the review, it appeared more of a question about this whole venture and Charlie read out two of the many messages he'd received from other modellers.

He was entitled to give his own perspective...at the present moment in time....and appeared to be quite open minded about how this will all evolve and turn out.

The percentages thing was a bit naff though.

 

 

.

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 minutes ago, natterjack said:

The whole presentation was one of seeking axes to grind and I for one found the approach simply  luddite. I did note a few dissenters in the comments among the increasngly boorish  'me too' TT120 deniers.

 

Not at all.

Shoddy QC and poor design errors are just that.

That's what he found, having spent his own money on the TT120 set.

Being disappointed with what you get for your hard earned, doesn't amount to "seeking axes to grind".

 

Rather than luddite, he was doing what many others have doing, in questioning the rational for the whole venture and raised some points that have been echoed by a number of observers.

His opinion appears to err towards being sceptical of the whole enterprise, particularly the closed sales model, but he also appeared to be open to where it goes in future.

That's a perfectly respectable stance and he's perfectly entitled to give his opinion.

 

 

 

.

[natterjack]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

His opinion appears to err towards being sceptical of the whole enterprise

Then what is the point of echoing that on a forum looking at the future development of an emergent UK model railway scale? He and many others  seem to be stuck on the notion that this is entirely in the hands of Hornby- it is not. He also seemed happy to take the Heljan line as gospel which I certainly do not and actually find  rather disingenuous since they have the whole of the EU available as a red tape free market place.

[Ravenser]

48 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Well, he did say he'd discuss the 2 aspects, the models and set, followed by the marketing aspects.

From what he found, as far as the actual product was concerned, justified a negative review IMHO.

Quality control and some design aspects do appear to be quite poor, even if the models are nicely finished.

 

 

 

I think a one line summary of that review video would be "I do not come to praise Caesar but to bury him"

 

Something that strikes me on further reflection is how little information was provided. I don't think we were told the gauge is 12mm . We weren't told that the Hornby track is code 80 . Given how much time was devoted to the track, that is surprising. We were told that the Peco track is better - we weren't shown any. We weren't told Peco is Code 55 , or told it can in fact be connected to Hornby.  I don't think we were explicitly told that the scale is 1:120 (1/10" to the foot or 2.54mm) . There was little meaningful comparison between the 3 different scales (OO, TT, N) - how long is a Mk1 in each? how long is an A4? what footprint for a layout?

 

Given how much emphasis was given to Hornby making a profit by selling this , it's odd that I can't recall him mentioning the price of the set, or comparing it with the price of equivalent OO models . The comments are full of comments about "overpriced, rip -off, very poor value" - but the prices are actually slightly less than N , and maybe 2/3rds of equivalent locos in OO. It's rather difficult to make meaningful comment about prices without mentioning any actual prices....

 

He could have done a meaningful comparison between the 3 models of an A4 in different scales - he had them there. Instead a good deal of time was devoted to displaying pictures of Pacifics running backwards on preserved railways (and looking pretty ungainly doing it), reading out a Heljan press statement , selected prior emails from people who had not seen any actual product, a rant about Hornby's 2023 OO announcement and the appearance of Caley 123 in it. Matters which have little or no relevance to the merits of the models in hand (Very few people model preserved railways )

 

Sam's Trains is not my cup of tea. But Sam's effort on this was far more informative and objective,and he subjected the models to more extensive running tests. Sam found the detail items bag, held it up so you could see it in close up and told you what is in it. This video simply  dangled a small item in the middle distance at a random point in the video and muttered "oh there's a detail bag". And so it went on..

 

Given the play made about "limited availability" it was noticeable that no mention was made of the existing set released, or all the other items announced in this scale by Hornby . Only by inference from the Heljan press release would you have gathered that Hornby were producing more in TT120 than just this set. That is fairly basic information about the new scale - strikingly  omitted, I'd say because someone was grinding a large axe

 

If you are going to rant about the selection of a CK and BSK, then I think you really need to admit that a Mk1  SK and a BG are promised later  and that LMS Stanier stock , in 1st, 3rd and Brake 3rd are imminent

 

Quote

These problems are echoed here on RMweb, in the adjacent thread covering this set.

Whether it's due to early production issues, or sloppy design and QC is another matter.

Charlie has spent his own money on this set and I think is justifiably less than enamoured with the quality of the product.

 

I can't find any fault with that comment.

Of course we should expect that standard, at the very least.

 

I don't think he went out of his way to discover the glaring issues with this set.

He may have spent a little more time with his positive remarks about the finish of the models, but I agree with his position that the positive aspects should be taken as read in this day and age.

Hence the "...blow hot air..." comment.

There's no need to overplay how good the models look or are finished. That should be expected.

 

 

I don't believe reviewing should be a spectator bloodsport. A review needs to consider the merits of the product as well as any issues. Otherwise they are giving a seriously misleading impression of it

 

I also wondered why he bought the set, given he is clearly fully committed to 4mm. Spending £200 to make an attack video is curious, and I did have a wry smile at the repeated insistance "there is no second-hand" when his own set is clearly going to be on ebay in short order

 

The Hornby set controller appears to be based on PWM . Hence the noise . It's not a scale specific controller - it's in their OO sets. In reality the audience for Chadwick Model Railway will not be using trainset controllers to run their railways, so the loco should have been tested on a normal controller such as the audience would use themselves. Other reviewers did so and the issue disappeared

 

Fine to say "the Hornby set controller is not a great piece of kit, and you will want to use something else. This part of the set is not great value - you may want to consider just buying the locos and coaches as seperate items , available shortly - and buying Peco track instead ". But giving the impression the loco itself runs like a bag of nails is misleading ...

 

The main "QC issue" - the bit of tape - was laboured at great length (though the very simple fix was moved briskly through)

 

In general this video was near a hatchet job on the whole project as could be managed whilst staying factual.

 

I  have to ask what he was trying to achieve? My immediate reaction was that he wants to discourage anyone from having anything to do with TT:120, and this is primarily based on his hostility to Hornby and their commercial policy. This seems to be a video basically designed to squash TT:120, and give Hornby a good kicking.

 

I don't see that gets you anywhere now. The thing exists, and will continue existing. Attempts to stamp  out TT:120 before it takes hold are now futile. The stuff is selling reasonably well, and most of the hands-on comments are fairly positive. Quite a lot of the stuff is being bought by people not already active in the hobby - despite the loud scepticism that this won't happen. Despite the negativity, people already in the hobby are having a dabble . In the medium term , people will see the stuff and make their own minds up

 

And it only needs a modest sliver of the hobby to have a go for this to have long-term viability

 

It's happened, it  won't go away, you can't squash it - the only sensible thing to do now is see what benefits we can find in it

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I can't find any fault with that comment.

Of course we should expect that standard, at the very least.

 

I think the issue there is that the expectation of what a trainset should be without actually referring to what trainsets have been;  Both TT sets so far have been a step change for what Hornby have been doing at the "cheaper end".  This is a good thing.  But of course they are starting with a fresh slate in TT:120, so easier to embrace.

 

Probably the biggest issue he did identify is that the supplied third radius track isn't particularly well made and doesn't sit flat without assistance, and combined with issues with the supplied MK1s is not a good thing.

[frobisher]

Just now, Ravenser said:

There was little meaningful comparison between the 3 different scales (OO, TT, N) - how long is a Mk1 in each? how long is an A4? what footprint for a layout?

 

Also the A4 used for comparison in N gauge was a Minitrix one, plus their MK1, both of which have their own scaling issues.

[Ravenser]

10 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

I think the issue there is that the expectation of what a trainset should be without actually referring to what trainsets have been;  Both TT sets so far have been a step change for what Hornby have been doing at the "cheaper end".  This is a good thing.  But of course they are starting with a fresh slate in TT:120, so easier to embrace.

 

Probably the biggest issue he did identify is that the supplied third radius track isn't particularly well made and doesn't sit flat without assistance, and combined with issues with the supplied MK1s is not a good thing.

 

 

Given the claims that the track's been made by the factory responsible for Tillig track, and is simply Tillig with a different logo stamped on the bottom, it was a bit surprising. I even wondered if he had somehow included the bit of 6th radius included to return the siding to straight

 

But Chadwick Model Railway's audience probably wouldn't use Hornby setrack in OO , and most of them would go straight for Peco track as a reflex action. (So would I if working in the scale)

 

As an argument for "TT:120 is rubbish - don't touch this scale" I found it somewhat less than compelling

Edited February 11, 2023 by Ravenser

[Ron Ron Ron]

14 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

......He could have done a meaningful comparison between the 3 models of an A4 in different scales......

 

11 minutes ago, frobisher said:

Also the A4 used for comparison in N gauge was a Minitrix one.......

 

Showing the 3 A4's side by side was quite clearly for the purpose of comparing the relative sizes of each model.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the relative merits of the individual examples being used to demonstrate the size differences.

The question being asked, was whether the slight difference in size, above N, was a worthwhile reason to introduce this scale?

It was a genuine question that was left open. People will have differing views on the answer.

Clearly, quite a lot of people think so

 

He noted that some people had expected the TT120 models to be much closer to halfway between 00 and N.

I will admit it surprised me too, although I'm not particularly interested in either N or TT120 myself.

 

.

[frobisher]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Given the claims that the track's been made by the factory responsible for Tillig track, and is simply Tillig with a different logo stamped on the bottom, it was a bit surprising. I even wondered if he had somehow included the bit of 6th radius included to return the siding to straight

 

It clearly isn't though when you put them side by side.  That all comes down to a Kohlerism unfortunately.  

[frobisher]

51 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Showing the 3 A4's side by side was quite clearly for the purpose of comparing the relative sizes of each model.

 

The Minitrix A4 is somewhat porky though (not their worst), and their MK1 somewhat malnourished, and neither of those are from the same era of modelling as the 00 models shown.

[Porfuera]

35 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I even wondered if he had somehow included the bit of 6th radius included to return the siding to straight

 

Well I've just given his circle of track experiment a try with my R3 track from my Scotsman set and the overlap didn't happen for me.

 

I assembled the 12 piece circle of R3 track on the wood floor of my lounge, pushing all the 11 track joints firmly together as he said he'd done and when I looked back at the two unjoined pieces at the ends of the loop they they were touching although they were not perfectly aligned - the two ends were maybe half a track width out of alignment. For me that is acceptable given there are 12 bits of mass-produced plastic and metal held together with slightly wobbly connectors, none of which is precision engineered.

 

So I tried overlapping the ends of the circle by about 75mm (3 inches) and I found that when you do that it is no longer a circle - measuring across two different diameters at 90 degrees to each other gave a difference of about 1cm or so. I noticed in the video that he had a steel tape measure next to him but he didn't bother to demonstrate that his loop of track with the ends overlapped was still a perfect circle.

 

As a final test I took the circle of track with the ends 75mm overlapped and I went around it and I pushed all the joints together again and I found that the overlap pretty much disappeared by the time I'd finished - there was maybe 10mm of overlap remaining. Again, given the slightly wobbly nature of the connectors I think that's acceptable.

 

I'm not saying the track is perfect - far from it since the inside rail of my circle of track seems to 'float' 1 or 2 mm off the floor in places (as I think he showed in the video) plus looking down on the track joints from above they don't look like they form a smooth transition from one track piece to the next (although maybe this is an optical illusion caused by the inner rail not being completely flat on the floor). However for me the track is not as bad as he made out in the video.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

Showing the 3 A4's side by side was quite clearly for the purpose of comparing the relative sizes of each model.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the relative merits of the individual examples being used to demonstrate the size differences.

The question being asked, was whether the slight difference in size, above N, was a worthwhile reason to introduce this scale?

It was a genuine question that was left open. People will have differing views on the answer.

Clearly, quite a lot of people think so

 

He noted that some people had expected the TT120 models to be much closer to halfway between 00 and N.

I will admit it surprised me too, although I'm not particularly interested in either N or TT120 myself.

 

.

 

"How does this stack up against the existing options , OO and N?" is a pretty fundamental question. A very crude size comparison barely touches that.

 

Sam's Trains measured up and concluded that the rods in the valve gear were 0.1mm overscale, and the pins 0.2mm overscale. To my eye the valve gear in TT:120 looks a lot lot better than in N where it is jarringly overscale. But the pins are still a bit over the top in TT120

 

It would havev been an easy comparision to do. "How does the valve gear stack up in these 3 scales - here's N close up, here's TT:120 close up , here's OO. " How do the wheel standards compare? How much is scale compromised in N ? How much in TT:120?"

 

Again - how do the three couplings in the 3 different scales compare? Which couples best? What about uncoupling? Which is smallest and neatest? How about close coupling? (The Arnold coupler in N  is poor enough that most suggest it militates against shunting successfully. The tension lock in OO is a pig to uncouple, ugly and obtrusive. Come to that the N gauge coupler is pretty chunky. The Tillig -type looks like the best of the three, albeit against pretty weak competitors)

 

One key issue is going to be whether the extra size of TT is enough to render constructional work comfortable . There is a widespread prejudice that making , modifying, detailing or repainting rolling stock is not entirely practical in N. Can TT:120 overcome that issue?

[Haymarket47]

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Well, he did say he'd discuss the 2 aspects, the models and set, followed by the marketing aspects.

From what he found, as far as the actual product was concerned, justified a negative review IMHO.

Quality control and some design aspects do appear to be quite poor, even if the models are nicely finished.

 

These problems are echoed here on RMweb, in the adjacent thread covering this set.

Whether it's due to early production issues, or sloppy design and QC is another matter.

Charlie has spent his own money on this set and I think is justifiably less than enamoured with the quality of the product.

 

 

 

I can't find any fault with that comment.

Of course we should expect that standard, at the very least.

 

 

 

I don't think he went out of his way to discover the glaring issues with this set.

He may have spent a little more time with his positive remarks about the finish of the models, but I agree with his position that the positive aspects should be taken as read in this day and age.

Hence the "...blow hot air..." comment.

There's no need to overplay how good the models look or are finished. That should be expected.

 

 

As for the 2nd part of the review, it appeared more of a question about this whole venture and Charlie read out two of the many messages he'd received from other modellers.

He was entitled to give his own perspective...at the present moment in time....and appeared to be quite open minded about how this will all evolve and turn out.

The percentages thing was a bit naff though.

 

 

.

 

Charlie has 350 plus patreons. Given that the lowest tier is £2 a shot he’s coining in way more than the cost of a TT120 set. For me the original poster here is spot on. I was very surprised by this video and the inconsistencies within. He pointed out that it was a train set then criticises the quality of the coaches. The price of this set could not justify 3 expensive coaches. As for his commentary on the market share that was just fantasy stuff.

[Roy L S]

Sorry @Ravenser but as an N modeller of many years myself, your proclamation that: -

 

There is a widespread prejudice that making , modifying, detailing or repainting rolling stock is not entirely practical in N.

 

...is completely wide of the mark. There are plenty modelling in N who do all of these things and your sweeping generalisation does you and your apparent "cause" (which almost seems to be to promote TT120 on behalf of Hornby regardless of other people's valid challenges) no favours.

 

Here is the Shapeways purchased 3D printed EM1 in N I have just completed, it involved significant chassis modifications and some care in painting and finishing but if far from perfect was actually "entirely practical" - I do not consider myself to be anything more than an average modeller and I know plenty with varying levels of modelling experience in N who will have a go.

 

 

N couplings (yes the Arnold type) have the big benefit of making it possible to lift vehicles directly out of a train without the contortions associated with either the OO hook and bar type or the Tillig abominations you refer to, which in my view are absolutely no way the "best of the three" - they are the single worst thing about my TT120 "Eastener" set. Indeed, for the TT120 shunting layout I plan once I have the 08, I will be taking advantage of the NEM pockets on loco and wagons, removing the Tillig monstrosities and be using Dapol "Easi-Shunts". instead.

 

I think that trotting out numbers and percentages to try and make a case for TT120 is equally irrelevant at this point. In terms of market penetration so far maybe 2000 sets have been sold and it is very clear a fair number of those to existing modellers of other scales like me who are curious, and at about £165 after club discount (and no postage) willing to take a "punt" (almost rude not to in fact). TT120's ability to gain adequate market share to support itself as a scale in this country is simply unknown at this point, and it would seem Hornby don't really have a firm handle, as from the interview with Simon K in Railway Modeller the decision to proceed was based more on internal experience than external market research. What we do know is that there are hopes to attract new people to the scale rather than simply targeting existing modellers and use different channels for promotion but it is early days.

 

Personally I think TT120 will carve a niche and in time maybe more support will come on board, but it is notable that on learning of Hornby's involvement Heljan didn't see an opportunity of sufficient size, and when you drill down PECO will find a market internationally for the limited track range they have so far released whether Hornby succeed with the UK range or not - very canny.

 

I simply see TT120 as another choice, it doesn't in itself represent a radical solution that solves any perceived "problems" other scales may have and most certainly not the issue of getting a decent model railway in a small space. In its own right from what I have now seen and handled I must say that the A4 especially is a lovely model and hopefully if what follows is equally good (and reading accounts on here) QC tightened up, TT120 will sell itself as said choice or even in addition to other scales modelled.

 

Roy

 

 

[natterjack]

4 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

Heljan didn't see an opportunity of sufficient size,

Sorry, but that is nonesense. If Heljan had identified a market then it was and remains up to them to provide the product. Apologists for the company should recocgnise the fact we now have Hornby TT120 available to purchase with other emergent suppliers coming along (a new name to me has just announced a new Iberian loco!).  Heljan offerings appear to have been no more than a fishing expedition.

[frobisher]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

He could have done a meaningful comparison between the 3 models of an A4 in different scales - he had them there. Instead a good deal of time was devoted to displaying pictures of Pacifics running backwards on preserved railways (and looking pretty ungainly doing it)

 

Ironically, none of the A4's shown in the comparison have front couplings or mounts for them, which is a common failing with Hornby (cf MK4 DVT, MK3 DVT, HST (buffer fitted)); but if he'd managed to secure a Dapol N A4 that has a front coupling...