Hornby announce TT:120

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, Johan DC said:

About the J94. I think it's a very logical choice of Hornby, it's the class 66 of the steam era, a lot are preserved and in more than one European country. In fact, the only steam engine you can see running on a regular basis in Flanders is a J94. Maybe thé reason that Heljan choose it as well? 

 

Absolutely. It's good we're getting it early, because again it's a something that will sit in so many liveries and in so many train sets.  And crossing over through Arnold is win win.

 

I'm more disappointed that Heljan had to back out of the first wave of TT:120.  I'd like to see a proper alternative take on the scale, but I don't think until the Hornby range s more extensive (and that's down to Hornby's production pipeline) we're going to see the more "premium" approach hinted at by Heljan being enacted by them or another party.  This is not to denigrate the approach we've see so far by Hornby.  What we are getting is well detailed and finished locos and carriages, but with more moulded detail than we're used to in the main range in 00 but appropriately so.  What we saw of the Heljan 31 CAD pointed towards 00 detailing shrunk and done the same way in TT:120, and a matching price point but we literally don't know yet if that market exists in TT:120.  The Hornby 08 looks gorgeous, and looks more finessed in many ways than the rather lovely Farish (don't mention the con-rods...)  one in N probably because of the choice of more moulded detail rather than the separately fitted and slightly overscale bits that "we" have all been demanding.

[Les1952]

4 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Absolutely. It's good we're getting it early, because again it's a something that will sit in so many liveries and in so many train sets.  And crossing over through Arnold is win win.

 

I'm more disappointed that Heljan had to back out of the first wave of TT:120.  I'd like to see a proper alternative take on the scale, but I don't think until the Hornby range s more extensive (and that's down to Hornby's production pipeline) we're going to see the more "premium" approach hinted at by Heljan being enacted by them or another party.  This is not to denigrate the approach we've see so far by Hornby.  What we are getting is well detailed and finished locos and carriages, but with more moulded detail than we're used to in the main range in 00 but appropriately so.  What we saw of the Heljan 31 CAD pointed towards 00 detailing shrunk and done the same way in TT:120, and a matching price point but we literally don't know yet if that market exists in TT:120.  The Hornby 08 looks gorgeous, and looks more finessed in many ways than the rather lovely Farish (don't mention the con-rods...)  one in N probably because of the choice of more moulded detail rather than the separately fitted and slightly overscale bits that "we" have all been demanding.

 

And there could lie the real reason for Heljan's withdrawal.  Prad of Hornby explained very well that you can't shrink CAD down from OO to TT as you quickly end up with material thicknesses that don't work.  You have to start again from scratch.  Heljan could well have begun shrinking CAD and discovered that it wasn't going to work, Hornby's entry giving them a convenient excuse for exit with the blame elsewhere.

 

No evidence, just another conspiracy theory to add to the mix and a bit of a gut feeling.  As it is with 100% of my Heljan locos having had bits drop off in front of punters at shows I'm not really going to miss them.  Hopefully no more "Hey Mister, is that engine supposed to leave its buffer beam on the track?"  - NO PLACE Heljan 05 at Manchester Bus Museum.

 

Les

 

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

To highlight how "close" TT is to N, can be the only answer. Deliberate misinformation.

 

Wouldn't quite go that far, but it does expose some biases (mostly not having looked at UK N gauge in at least 30 years for starters it would appear).  But then a proper side by side evaluations of those three models is really singing the praises of TT:120.

 

"Look at me, just a little bit bigger than N but so much more accurate and I just look like a smaller version of the 00 model, so don't compromise too much on size if you want to go smaller!"

 

The size argument is completely bogus of course.  I started in N gauge not because it was smaller, but because it wasn't 00 and presented different challenges.  My brother had an extensive 00 layout, and I wanted something different.  I can't really justify buying into TT:120 when most of my existing stuff (N and 00) is still in storage... or have I just talked myself into it...? Clean slate... or I could just get the loft floored and get everything out of storage... and there would be room for some TT as well... I'm hiding the credit card before itchy fingers start clicking buy and repurposing the dining room table...

[Haymarket47]

52 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

But reasoned lacking evidence to the contrary ;)

 

Regardless, the choices revealed by Hornby were sufficient to shut down that path for Heljan, at least for now.

Yes, it was disappointing to hear that they had pulled out all the same.

[Ravenser]

41 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Absolutely. It's good we're getting it early, because again it's a something that will sit in so many liveries and in so many train sets.  And crossing over through Arnold is win win.

 

I'm more disappointed that Heljan had to back out of the first wave of TT:120.  I'd like to see a proper alternative take on the scale, but I don't think until the Hornby range s more extensive (and that's down to Hornby's production pipeline) we're going to see the more "premium" approach hinted at by Heljan being enacted by them or another party.  This is not to denigrate the approach we've see so far by Hornby.  What we are getting is well detailed and finished locos and carriages, but with more moulded detail than we're used to in the main range in 00 but appropriately so.  What we saw of the Heljan 31 CAD pointed towards 00 detailing shrunk and done the same way in TT:120, and a matching price point but we literally don't know yet if that market exists in TT:120.  The Hornby 08 looks gorgeous, and looks more finessed in many ways than the rather lovely Farish (don't mention the con-rods...)  one in N probably because of the choice of more moulded detail rather than the separately fitted and slightly overscale bits that "we" have all been demanding.

 

I think Heljan got unlucky.

 

Nobody expected the sheer scale of Hornby's programme. I'd been saying for several months I thought we were missing the Key Player in all of this : what had been announced didn't quite make sense unless there was someone else out there going to make a small range, and Hornby were an obvious candidate given their presence in Continental TT

 

But I was really taken aback by the sheer scale of what they announced. I was expecting something modest like Hornby-Arnold's entry : 2-3 locos, maybe 2 pairs of coaches, a few wagons. Not the huge programme we got..

 

If Heljan were assuming a similar modest programme , strongly  weighted towards steam given Hornby's "reputation", then the 31 may have looked a fairly safe option, unlikely to be done by Hornby. An announcement featuring Classes 08, 31, 37, 47, 50, 66, HST and Azuma, plus Mk2 E/F and Mk3 was way way beyond reasonable expectations. Hornby are popularly supposed only to be interested in big green kettles with names, and to have no real interest in D+E. The J94 and 08 might also have seemed things that Hornby wouldn't bother with 

 

ALD a small outfit , are promising a Class 25 in TT as either RTR or nRTR (not sure which). Once I tabulate the Hornby list it leaps out and hits you they are doing pretty well all the major Co-Co diesels , but no Bo-Bo apart from the HST....

 

Everything HJ talked about in TT was already in the Hornby OO range. That may have been unwise. No Rats, McRats, no Cromptons, or hydraulics, no Peaks, no 56, 58 . They already do many of those in OO  but they didn't go for any of them. They could have done a Jinty or a Buckjumper or even a 4F . They didn't. They would still have been in the game if they had.

 

And no rolling stock. HJ don't do rolling stock.... (Rapido and AS do make rolling stock in OO)

[Porfuera]

1 hour ago, ThaneofFife said:

Yes but surely people looking at getting into the hobby ( and i dont think we'rextalking trlephones here) shouldnt be insulated from criticisms of tt120 when its constructive.....

 

I also have to say that I don't think it was constructive criticism - at best I think it was nit-picking and at worst it seemed designed to put people off buying. Just compare it to other much more positive reviews such as Sam's Trains (much more factually informative as has already been said) and many others.

 

New entrants wouldn't have anything else to compare it to and consequently probably wouldn't notice any of these 'faults' and would be very satisfied with what they've bought, as have very many more seasoned modellers.

 

Some people seem to have taken Hornby's launch of TT:120 as an affront to themselves and to 00 scale modelling in general. I assume that one reason for this is that they think that the investment should have been put into developing new 00 models and to improving existing ones - at least one poster to this thread has said that in the past. I don't know whether 'Charlie' is one of these people but it certainly seemed so to me, especially when he started his diatribe in the last third or so of the video when he went on about Hornby's sales to shops and about their direct selling of TT:120, which added absolutely nothing to the review of the Easterner set and just seemed to be there to reinforce the earlier negativity.

[Dix120]

As I said in a previous post "Haters gotta hate".

We should just keep calm, refute the haters and keep supporting TT-120.

 

As for me, my Easterner Train set arrived Thursday. Once again DHL tried to charge duty on the train set. I was able to get on that early and get that fixed.

 

I like my second set just as much as the first.

 

As an experiment I decided to install sound in the model. I used a SoundTraxx Next18 Steam decoder and an ESU sugar cube speaker. The sounds are US steam of course, but the install was easy and the sound good. My next effort, until the Hornby Bluetooth decoders arrive, is to install a SoundTraxx TSU-1100 UK Steam wired decoder with a wire to Next18 adapter. I had to order the adapters so it will be a week or two before I can continue.

There is a lot of space in the tender so I am wondering if I can cobble up a small keep alive to fit.

 

I have just ordered some track (radius 4 and turnouts) so I can run a double track display at shows. And some buildings, and a pair of coaches, oh and another locomotive.

 

Obviously I like my Hornby TT-120 and hope it is successful.

[Roy L S]

11 hours ago, Johan DC said:

I had the same feeling, and the opposit with Sam's Trains' video.

 

About the J94. I think it's a very logical choice of Hornby, it's the class 66 of the steam era, a lot are preserved and in more than one European country. In fact, the only steam engine you can see running on a regular basis in Flanders is a J94. Maybe thé reason that Heljan choose it as well? 

 

I wouldn't call the J94 the Class 66 of the steam era, that would be something more like a Stanier Black 5.

[Roy L S]

I have never watched one of Charlie's videos before but in the light of comments made on this thread I thought I would take a look.

 

I was expecting him to absolutely savage the TT120 "Easterner" set but I couldn't see that he did. The issues identified and showed to his viewers were all evidenced and for the most part hard to dispute. He made the point that the track is trainset quality which is fine for a trainset (I have to agree - definitely more down to a price than up to a standard) he was though, I thought, pretty complimentary about the loco and coaches but identified a few niggles (as have people posting on here). 

 

Moving to the "strategy" for TT120 I did feel it became something more of a "rant" and the balance of the first part of the video was absolutely lost. I also felt his observations concerning relative size (N/TT120/OO) wasn't a true representation at all. As some may have seen from the picture I put up, I plonked my entire Easterner train in my N Gauge layout and there is absolutely no question that even if not half way between OO and N (why does it need to be?) it is still significantly larger than N. This has both advantages and disadvantages and as I have said before TT120 isn't the answer to the space issue, but certainly it is sufficiently different in size for there to be some logic to producing it.

 

Overall it actually felt to me like his issue was more to do with TT120 diverting investment and Hornby's focus from the OO range and on top of that an opposition to the direct sales model. He wasn't therefore really looking to find any positives or offer encouragement as far as TT120 is concerned. I would therefore just look on it as a somewhat extreme opinion and one that is unlikely to garner much support in the wider modelling community.

 

Roy

[Les1952]

23 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

I wouldn't call the J94 the Class 66 of the steam era, that would be something more like a Stanier Black 5.

 

The class 08 of the steam era more like, but there isn't really a contender as pre-1948 locos stayed mostly on their own patch with some through workings. 

Pre-1923 even more so with notable exceptions.  The GCR Jersey Lilies working through to Plymouth in two successive summers is the greatest territorial exception I can think of- and wonder if the GWR stopped allowing it when they realised that Atlantics climbing the Devon banks unaided was doing nothing for the argument that they needed 4-6-0s.....

 

Les

 

[Roy L S]

1 minute ago, Les1952 said:

 

The class 08 of the steam era more like, but there isn't really a contender as pre-1948 locos stayed mostly on their own patch with some through workings. 

Pre-1923 even more so with notable exceptions.  The GCR Jersey Lilies working through to Plymouth in two successive summers is the greatest territorial exception I can think of- and wonder if the GWR stopped allowing it when they realised that Atlantics climbing the Devon banks unaided was doing nothing for the argument that they needed 4-6-0s.....

 

Les

 

A fair point Les, but I was thinking more of the BR era when Black Fives could be found almost anywhere (with the possible exception of the South Coast and West Country)..

[Les1952]

The one niggle identified both by "Charlie" and by Sam is the lack of sprung buffers on the A4.

 

I now have a pair of very expensive Continental locos (sound fitted) running on Bregstadt as the layout is becoming.

 

One is the Arnold Class 58 2-10-0, the sound fitted one being £391, and the other is a Roco Class 38 4-6-0, a mere snip at around £350 if you can find one (I was lucky).  Neither of these have sprung buffers.  Nor do my locos from Piko or Tillig have sprung buffers.  Sprung buffers are not a feature of TT:120.

 

I'm now going to upset a lot of people by saying IMHO sprung buffers in OO are a waste of time- when do they get depressed other than to say "look, it even has sprung buffers"?  If you are using them to shunt with three links, why aren't they fitted to all of the stock as well?  However, this is probably the only time I'm going to air my opinion and it isn't a grievance, and not something I would pan a model for having.

 

Just a thought

Les

 

[Hobby]

I agree, Les, for the vast majority of modellers sprung buffers are a waste of time and money, they are a gimmick along the lines of "Oh, look, my loco has sprung buffers!". And they add to the cost of the loco...

[Les1952]

7 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

A fair point Les, but I was thinking more of the BR era when Black Fives could be found almost anywhere (with the possible exception of the South Coast and West Country)..

 

The comparison between Black 5 and Class 66 is a good one- I was thinking of it more from the J94 end.  I then undid my own argument by banging on about Jersey Lilies....

 

Shunters didn't go off their own patches with the notable exceptions of the 57xx at Folkestone and the pair of 16xx at Dornoch.  Even the LMS trying to foist Tilbury tanks on any shed unlucky enough to need a passenger tank mostly resulted in those sheds gaining new oversized metal buffer stops....

 

Les

[Stefen1988]

53 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

The one niggle identified both by "Charlie" and by Sam is the lack of sprung buffers on the A4.

 

I now have a pair of very expensive Continental locos (sound fitted) running on Bregstadt as the layout is becoming.

 

One is the Arnold Class 58 2-10-0, the sound fitted one being £391, and the other is a Roco Class 38 4-6-0, a mere snip at around £350 if you can find one (I was lucky).  Neither of these have sprung buffers.  Nor do my locos from Piko or Tillig have sprung buffers.  Sprung buffers are not a feature of TT:120.

 

I'm now going to upset a lot of people by saying IMHO sprung buffers in OO are a waste of time- when do they get depressed other than to say "look, it even has sprung buffers"?  If you are using them to shunt with three links, why aren't they fitted to all of the stock as well?  However, this is probably the only time I'm going to air my opinion and it isn't a grievance, and not something I would pan a model for having.

 

Just a thought

Les

 

 

Spring Buffers are mostly uncommon on german Loco Models. The only german company I know using Sprung Buffers is Brawa for their H0 Models. I'm also don't get why they should be important features on models.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Haymarket47 said:

I could be wrong.but I’m sure Hornby have had this project in the pipeline for a number of years. With this in mind I think it’s unlikely that they  attempted to gazump Heljan in this regard - despite their recent efforts 🤦‍♂️Duplication is a much discussed topic but recent examples include Bachmann 55s and also Class 37’s compared to Accurascale. Punters make the choice at the end of the day. Maybe Heljan could have done an Accurascale and produced a cracking model at a reasonable price and given Hornby some competition? Just a thought…

Hornby have undoubtedly had this product, or the development of it, underway for a number of years.  But that doesn't necessarily inform the price point at which they have finally chosen to sell it because that is basically a commercial decision made relatively shortly before bringing the product to market.

 

Yes they obviously have to cover the production and despatch costs etc and look for a bottom line contribution but they also need to take account of their direct selling model (which implies a bigger margin for them) and the consumer also gets the advantage, for now, of certain special offers in respect of price.  So we are looking at introductory promotional pricing to establish the brand and build the market.  In contrast with their more detailed 00 range (and to a lesser extent Railroad) where they are charging what they believe the market will bear - a very different way of pricing compared with introductory pricing of a new range.

 

So currently Hornby TT120 is very keenly priced - for marketing reasons and that might (or might not) change in the future as their build the brand and develop their market.  But I doubt we'll see TT120 ptrices which reflect the difference in manufacturing costs  compared with their 00 for along while.

[6990WitherslackHall]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

I'm now going to upset a lot of people by saying IMHO sprung buffers in OO are a waste of time- when do they get depressed other than to say "look, it even has sprung buffers"?  If you are using them to shunt with three links, why aren't they fitted to all of the stock as well?

I've got a few items of rolling stock that are fitted with sprung buffers. I don't think it detracts from the overall look of the loco/wagon.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

But I doubt we'll see TT120 prices which reflect the difference in manufacturing costs  compared with their 00 for along while.

 

I do wonder if there's all that much difference in manufacturing costs, perhaps a little, like N, but not a substantial amount?

[Hobby]

54 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

I've got a few items of rolling stock that are fitted with sprung buffers. I don't think it detracts from the overall look of the loco/wagon.

 

I can't see there being any visible difference at all, until they are pushed together, but I don't know of any of the well known commercial couplers that allow that?

[Alan Oliver]

Would have been nice to see the mk1 coach handrails and roof pipe work done with wire rather than moulded. If it can be done in N why not on TT120. I know this is a basic train set but would like to see more detail in future releases.

[Jeff Smith]

There is a balance, even in 4mm modelling, that added detail like handrails can be oversize.  A lot may depend on chosen viewing distance.......

[Johan DC]

The J94 vs 66 argument was more from an non-UK view. But then I have no idea if Black 5's were used in mainland Europe. 

[Hobby]

I don't think they were,  but 8fs were and used widely in the UK. SK said that an 8f would be a possible in the future when I asked him.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Alan Oliver said:

Would have been nice to see the mk1 coach handrails and roof pipe work done with wire rather than moulded. If it can be done in N why not on TT120. I know this is a basic train set but would like to see more detail in future releases.

 

As Jeff said it's a balance, personally I wouldn't want them, too easily damaged. They'd also add to the overall cost. The moulded ones on my Easterner set look good enough, even close up. I suspect we are getting into rivet counting areas now and I don't see most TT120 modellers so far as being that type, they are willing to accept compromises to get stuff at a reasonable cost as long as it looks OK. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Hobby
Spelling

[frobisher]

3 hours ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

I've got a few items of rolling stock that are fitted with sprung buffers. I don't think it detracts from the overall look of the loco/wagon.

 

I think Les' point was that it doesn't actually improve the look of the loco/wagon either.