Hornby announce TT:120

[Guest]

I suspect Hornby would have been ridiculed whatever they did. As others have said, if they’d posted a more conservative schedule they’d have been accused of not being committed to the new scale or ridiculed for not having X or Y locomotive. As it is, they seem to have published what they thought was achievable at the time. This led to disappointment from some that the range wasn’t growing fast enough, but still showed what was coming and their commitment. There have been no signs of any let-up in their plans. The recent Train Terminal shows progress with diesel electric models and modern image wagons. I believe a new TT Talk is due, based on comments from Hornby. That will be the first one in the new post-Simon & Montana era and so will be of great interest both in what is said and what isn’t. No doubt this forum will examine everything!

 

Thanks to @Les1952 for reminding us what has been achieved in the last 9 months. 

[Roy L S]

29 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

It is coming up to the first anniversary of Hornby's announcement so perhaps time to look at what has been achieved.

 

Three loco types (A1/A3, A4 and 08- four if you count the A1 and A3 separately), four varieties of coach (2 each Mark 1 and Pullman), and four varieties of wagon, all from new tooling.

Plus a track system from new tooling and nine buildings, all from new tooling.

 

This is in addition to items in OO from new tooling.

 

In that time how many items of new tooling have come from ANY of the other manufacturers even in their main scale?  The nearest comparison should be Graham Farish, which is supposed to be Bachmann UK's main secondary scale.  Perhaps those who are spending their time Hornby bashing would like to compare numbers.  You need to look to the Continent to find more new items- for example in Fleischmann's 90-page new items book.

 

There are well North of 8000 members of the various Facebook TT:120 groups, most of whom are new to the hobby.  Any comparable measureable growth elsewhere?

 

As to scale to gauge- what matters isn't 0.4mm on the gauge but that the scale is consistent with the rest of the world.  Not 1:148 vs 1:160 as in N or 1:76 vs 1:87 as in HO/OO.  This means when I put my A3 Trigo next to a German steamer it looks the right size.  The Continentals appreciate this also- a fair number of A3s and A4s have gone to Continental buyers.  

 

I also model in N.  My A3s from Croft Spa don't look right standing next to the Continental stock on Bregenbach im Schwarzwald- quite apart from the fact that the only UK outline stock I have that will handle the continental Radius 1 curves and less-steep-than-prototype 1 in 25 banks are my Union Mills locos.  The scale to gauge thing is best viewed fron the right end.

 

Not all positive- the Tillig couplers are a nightmare to uncouple by hand and do have a habit of uncoupling themselves bumping in the flangeway of Hornby's points and I'm not 100% happy with the transfer of power between the blade and the stock rail, though in N gauge Fleischmann points if anything slightly worse.  As to flanges- when the stuff is running it will be difficult to see just how big the flanges are.  This video which I've posted before shows my 08 running on Bregstadt with German wagons.  By the way the bumping is on stray bits of ballast that I'd still to remove at that point- stock finds it better than I can see it....  The layout is having its ballast upgraded with finer stuff.

 

Les

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Les

 

I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm for the new scale, but it really is a bit of a stretch to categorise A1 and A3 as "different" models. Hornby have been clever (and due credit to them) by producing an A3 and A4 that utilise what is essentially a common chassis to maximise return on investment. 

 

Comparing progress to Graham Farish/Bachmann N isn't really comparing apples with apples, British N is a well established scale with a number of manufacturers, they aren't therefore under the same "pressure". In terms of slow delivery of new products or re-runs of existing it would have to be said that Bachmann have had their fair share of criticism, and I have been amongst those doing so, they have hardly got off scot free.

 

I have absolutely no desire to run British and Continental/American trains on the same layout in any scale, and I suspect this is true of the majority, so nice as it may be for some like yourself, in most cases arguably that isn't a primary or overriding reason for electing to go with Hornby's TT120 models. 

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

 

Hi Les

 

I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm for the new scale, but it really is a bit of a stretch to categorise A1 and A3 as "different" models. Hornby have been clever (and due credit to them) by producing an A3 and A4 that utilise what is essentially a common chassis to maximise return on investment. 

 

Comparing progress to Graham Farish/Bachmann N isn't really comparing apples with apples, British N is a well established scale with a number of manufacturers, they aren't therefore under the same "pressure". In terms of slow delivery of new products or re-runs of existing it would have to be said that Bachmann have had their fair share of criticism, and I have been amongst those doing so, they have hardly got off scot free.

 

I have absolutely no desire to run British and Continental/American trains on the same layout in any scale, and I suspect this is true of the majority, so nice as it may be for some like yourself, in most cases arguably that isn't a primary or overriding reason for electing to go with Hornby's TT120 models. 

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

 

I have seen quite a few other UK modellers do the same as Les. There are some TT scale European wagons due from Arnold, I think, that are seen on the UK network. There are also buildings and other accessories that are a perfect match to TT120.

Clearly many people on this forum won’t agree. Some don’t like the scale, others don’t like anything Hornby do. Some, like me, are enjoying the new scale. 
 

What’s interesting too is how the start of the new scale has led to some just enjoying running anything together and not caring about prototypical behaviour. Some of those people have I think surprised themselves, having been adherents to a specific era/region in the past. It is, after all, a hobby not a religion and the rules are only what we want them to be and what gives us enjoyment. 

 

[Hobby]

I've been running British and overseas models together in narrow gauge for years, but until now it's not been possible in rtr standard gauge in the same scale. Just because someone doesn't want to do that means that they assume others don't either, remember RMWeb is just a small number of the total number of model railway enthusiast so isn't representative.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Hobby

[Roy L S]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I've been running British and overseas models together in narrow gauge for years, but until now it's not been possible in rtr standard gauge in the same scale. Just because someone doesn't want to do that means that they assume others don't either, remember RMWeb is just a small number of the total number of model railway enthusiast so isn't representative.

 

I wasn't using the RM Web demographic as any kind of benchmark, and perhaps I could have worded what I said better on reflection. Amongst those in the model railway club I belong to the overwhelming majority of models owned are of British prototype and this is what gets operated on a layout representing British practice.

 

Of course in the "safety" of the Clubroom in particular anything goes, and I confess to having a couple of continental models myself, so perhaps what I would have been more accurate saying is the majority don't routinely run British and overseas models together on the same layout. For sure, if having consistently scaled models from different countries on the same layout is your "thing" then TT120 becomes the best if not only option in the Ready to Run space.

 

Roy

[The Stationmaster]

On 28/07/2023 at 22:15, Les1952 said:

 

I've just had an invoice for a loco that I ordered way back in March 2018, manufactured by Bachmann.  That long ago I'd forgotten I'd ordered it.

 

Presumably waiting a year or two for a Hornby to appear is more of a disaster to the modelling world than waiting for 5 years for a Bachmann......

 

Les 

 

Who expects to be thoroughly hammered by the Bachmann Mafia on RMWeb for pointing this out.....

If you look at teh Bachmann area of teh forum youll see the extent to which they have been more than thoroughly hammered, and then some, for such long lead times.  That is no doubt why they changed their system of telling the market about new releases and models being manufactured.  And with things changing at Hornby I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see them moving to something far more realistic like that instead of the outmoded 1970s approach that have clung to in recent years.  

 

Hornby's failure to move with the times and recognise the  realities of overseas manufacture - which you, along with others of us, have noted in some of your posts - has been one of their own self-inflicted wounds in recent years.  They now have the  chance to change that approach especially with their TT120 range which os the ideal opportunity to break away from their old approach - and they are doing that.

[adb968008]

I run anything with anything, but in OO/HO i’m not prissy like that.

 

i’m not sure why this is revolutionary thinking in TT, but understand it maybe neccessity. I guess thats maybe because OO to TT converts havent been used to compromise ?

 

Whats more concerning is standards, the TT scale DB/GBRF 08 at £136 it has more than a dozen accuracy errors… on a brand new tooling in 00 this would be torn apart limb from limb in 2023. Bachmann have made the same mistakes in OO and ive wide berthed it for the same reason, but thats a 20 year old tooling, and in OO i have other options, so i’m not missing out.. which is my point..

TT modellers are a very compromising bunch from what ive seen, and down the road, without competition this could be a slippery slope for acceptable standards and credibility. (Either that or not many who care are buying those particular two, which maybe a more worrying issue considering the volume of modern image being planned.. I see nothing online either in any reviews, youtube etc, whos buying them ? And is following up with a boatload of 66’s a good idea ?

 

i assume i’ll attract more hate for that, but its why it puts me off TT.. its too much compromise, much of it unnecessary and missed opportunity.

 

Done differently, OO modellers could have been looking enviously over the fence from day 1, admittedly in a decade things maybe different, and then I may come cap in hand ready to go, but if its the same GbRF / DB 08 and the same standard goes to the 66, 31, 37 etc.. then I may not. This is a formative time and critiscm should be welcomed not hated.

When I look at Hornbys website, I see plans, but no feedback…

 

any new product should listening to its market… i’m not in the trade but I see interest amongst LNER steam fans, in TT, so is a 66, HST etc a good idea especially if theres no personal reviews anywhere on Youtube for these GBrF 08s etc and trade is already discounting below rrp ?

Edited July 30, 2023 by adb968008

[Guest]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I run anything with anything, but in OO/HO i’m not prissy like that.

 

i’m not sure why this is revolutionary thinking in TT, but understand it maybe neccessity. I guess thats maybe because OO to TT converts havent been used to compromise ?

 

Whats more concerning is standards, the TT scale DB/GBRF 08 at £136 it has more than a dozen accuracy errors… on a brand new tooling in 00 this would be torn apart limb from limb in 2023. Bachmann have made the same mistakes in OO and ive wide berthed it for the same reason, but thats a 20 year old tooling, and in OO i have other options, so i’m not missing out.. which is my point..

TT modellers are a very compromising bunch from what ive seen, and down the road, without competition this could be a slippery slope for acceptable standards and credibility. (Either that or not many who care are buying those particular two, which maybe a more worrying issue considering the volume of modern image being planned.. I see nothing online either in any reviews, youtube etc, whos buying them ? And is following up with a boatload of 66’s a good idea ?

 

i assume i’ll attract more hate for that, but its why it puts me off TT.. its too much compromise, much of it unnecessary and missed opportunity.

 

Done differently, OO modellers could have been looking enviously over the fence from day 1, admittedly in a decade things maybe different, and then I may come cap in hand ready to go, but if its the same GbRF / DB 08 and the same standard goes to the 66, 31, 37 etc.. then I may not. This is a formative time and critiscm should be welcomed not hated.

When I look at Hornbys website, I see plans, but no feedback…

 

any new product should listening to its market… i’m not in the trade but I see interest amongst LNER steam fans, in TT, so is a 66, HST etc a good idea especially if theres no personal reviews anywhere on Youtube for these GBrF 08s etc and trade is already discounting below rrp ?

I imagine that retailers are discounting below list price because they have to in order to compete with Hornby. With everyone getting 10% rewards on their website, whether a club member or not, I presume everyone, Hornby included, still makes some profit at a 10% discount - which just happens to be the general average discount offered by retailers. 

 

As for the detail differences, I’ll take your word for it. I’ve always been happy with old OO models since the 1980s as long as they are good representations of the real thing. I seem to recall that Hornby’s original Mk3s had 7 windows rather than 8 in standard class. They still looked realistic. I’ve always left others to argue about rivets and other discrepancies. 

[Johan DC]

2 hours ago, Roy L S said:

 Amongst those in the model railway club I belong to the overwhelming majority of models owned are of British prototype and this is what gets operated on a layout representing British practice.

I can't talk about the UK side of things, but on the continent, I don't know a single club or individual who hasn't at least has some 'exotics' on the track. Be it TT, HO or G/1, they all have something from another country, just because they like it, have seen it in the flesh in use or in a museum.  And now, in TT, the can add British outline. 

And that makes FS or the Blue duck the most logic choice, bar none. Followed by the 08. 

[Jeff Smith]

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

Yawn... 🙄

Ditto!

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Johan DC said:

I can't talk about the UK side of things, but on the continent, I don't know a single club or individual who hasn't at least has some 'exotics' on the track. Be it TT, HO or G/1, they all have something from another country, just because they like it, have seen it in the flesh in use or in a museum.  And now, in TT, the can add British outline. 

And that makes FS or the Blue duck the most logic choice, bar none. Followed by the 08. 

Of course there’re the diesel electrics and electrics that are used in Europe too. The 66 is the obvious example, but I think classes 20, 37, 56, 58, 86 and 87 have also made it over at various points. Many of the 92s work abroad too.  I have just read that almost 300 British locomotives have been used in Europe. That ignores earlier locomotives like the 77s & Kestrel.

 

So, there’re opportunities to maximise the common scale for continental modellers or for UK modellers to model overseas layouts with some familiar traction. Nothing much needs to change to do so, as many such locomotives saw use in their UK liveries. The 66 and 37 are both in Hornby’s plans. No electrics have been announced yet, other than the Class 800 IEP, but give it time. 

[Ravenser]

7 hours ago, Mike Harvey said:

 

Whilst I accept that some of the N scale standards are coarser than TT:120, I am surprised that you question the consistency of standards in N gauge. I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile. Almost all the continental manufacturers have continued with the coarser NEM profiles, although several are now offering their latest production with NMRA wheel profiles. As to running standards, I am using N powered and non-powered rolling stock from Arnold, Fleischmann, Minitrix, REE, Roco, Kato, Bachmann Farish, Peco, Revolution Trains, Rapido, NME, N Gauge Society, AFAN, Lemke, Artrain, Hobbytrain and several smaller producers.  Running these several times a day on Kato Unitrack (horribly Code 80!)  with 19 turnouts and a minimum curve radius of 282mm, I haven't experienced the bumping and lurching you mention, and I really cannot remember the last time I had a derailment or unintended uncoupling. Shunting uses the Dapol Easishunts (using permanent magnets under the track) and N Gauge Society, Bachmann Farish and Arnold shunting locomotives.

 

I do understand that some people struggle with making N work, as they may well struggle with making TT, 00 gauge or 0 gauge work, but even with my shaky 75 year old hands and dodgy eyesight, I seem to have managed very well with the layout built over the past 12 months. I wonder what I am doing wrong. I really do not expect to have a problem with a TT:120 shunting plank when Hornby produce some modern freight rolling stock.

 

 

Let's expose the slum that are current (non)-"standards" in N gauge: actual wheel and track dimensions in current British N

 

It is quite untrue that "I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile."

 

When I actually measure them , I can't find any consistancy between wheelsets on N gauge models from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. And as I said in the original posting, none of these wheel sets comply with either of the wheel standards printed in the back of the NGS manual , or with the NEM values 

 

The idea that they do  is a comfortable but unfounded delusion. And I'm making a song and dance about it in the hope that once the stone is lifted and the creepy crawlies wriggle out something might actually be done to clean up the mess. Which would result in N gauge being rather better than it currently is..

 

The technical name for the bumping and lurching at pointwork is "drop-in" . It is the result of the gap at the crossing being larger than can be spanned by the wheel tread - which therefore drops into the gap. It is a well-known issue to anyone familiar with wheel and track standards. And since Peco code 55 points date from the late 80s (so I'm advised by a well-known modeller in  N) they are engineered to take the very coarse N gauge wheels of the 1980s with a big gap at the crossing. Consequently "drop-in"  occurs with all modern N gauge wheels , and especially the much finer profile used by the likes of Revolution. I am certainly seeing this with all stock as it runs across all Peco code 55 pointwork. It is not the result of some "personal negative force-field" of mine : it comes from a fundamental incompatability in the wheel/track interface

 

This sort of thing will do nothing for electrical contact to the wheels of a short-wheelbase loco crossing a point

 

(The ghastly MOROP/NEM bodge traditionally used on the Continent to get round "drop-in" is to make the flanges so deep that the wheelset "grounds" at the point , and runs through the crossing supported on the tips of its flanges, instead of on the wheel tread. Hence the notorious "pizza cutter" flanges on Continental RTR in HO and N)

 

And while we are about it - West Hill Wagon Works sell "Back to Back Gauges for N/OO9" which come with no stated value on the packet. When I measure them, they appear to give a back to back setting of 7.85mm, which is way outside even the current NMRA back to back , that nobody attains on any British N gauge RTR. At that extreme value you will certainly render the check rails on all pointwork completely ineffective , which won't help reliable running either. (That was a couple of quid down the drain at DEMU Showcase...)

 

I'm afraid the "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Move along now, nothing to see here"  attitude has not served N well , in allowing this mess to come into being while everyone assures each other "It's all fine, fine, fine"

 

Since Hornby are sticking to the established NEM standards for 12mm gauge, and so are Peco, TT:120 comes with a consistant coherent wheel/track package so that the components of the wheel/track interface actually work properly together. That is a distinct advantage.

 

At the  moment I can't do anything myself to try and sort out the issue in N , because I haven't even been able to identify a source of a back to back gauge that complies with any known standard....  (DCC Concepts advertise their N gauge B2B gauge as setting at 7.65mm. That is again outside the latest NMRA value of 7.54mm , never mind the NEM value or the "old" standard of 7.2mm)

 

I can't even set the rolling stock wheels at a correct or sensible back to back value...

 

It is a complete mess

[Roy L S]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Let's expose the slum that are current (non)-"standards" in N gauge: actual wheel and track dimensions in current British N

 

It is quite untrue that "I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile."

 

When I actually measure them , I can't find any consistancy between wheelsets on N gauge models from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. And as I said in the original posting, none of these wheel sets comply with either of the wheel standards printed in the back of the NGS manual , or with the NEM values 

 

The idea that they do  is a comfortable but unfounded delusion. And I'm making a song and dance about it in the hope that once the stone is lifted and the creepy crawlies wriggle out something might actually be done to clean up the mess. Which would result in N gauge being rather better than it currently is..

 

The technical name for the bumping and lurching at pointwork is "drop-in" . It is the result of the gap at the crossing being larger than can be spanned by the wheel tread - which therefore drops into the gap. It is a well-known issue to anyone familiar with wheel and track standards. And since Peco code 55 points date from the late 80s (so I'm advised by a well-known modeller in  N) they are engineered to take the very coarse N gauge wheels of the 1980s with a big gap at the crossing. Consequently "drop-in"  occurs with all modern N gauge wheels , and especially the much finer profile used by the likes of Revolution. I am certainly seeing this with all stock as it runs across all Peco code 55 pointwork. It is not the result of some "personal negative force-field" of mine : it comes from a fundamental incompatability in the wheel/track interface

 

This sort of thing will do nothing for electrical contact to the wheels of a short-wheelbase loco crossing a point

 

(The ghastly MOROP/NEM bodge traditionally used on the Continent to get round "drop-in" is to make the flanges so deep that the wheelset "grounds" at the point , and runs through the crossing supported on the tips of its flanges, instead of on the wheel tread. Hence the notorious "pizza cutter" flanges on Continental RTR in HO and N)

 

And while we are about it - West Hill Wagon Works sell "Back to Back Gauges for N/OO9" which come with no stated value on the packet. When I measure them, they appear to give a back to back setting of 7.85mm, which is way outside even the current NMRA back to back , that nobody attains on any British N gauge RTR. At that extreme value you will certainly render the check rails on all pointwork completely ineffective , which won't help reliable running either. (That was a couple of quid down the drain at DEMU Showcase...)

 

I'm afraid the "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Move along now, nothing to see here"  attitude has not served N well , in allowing this mess to come into being while everyone assures each other "It's all fine, fine, fine"

 

Since Hornby are sticking to the established NEM standards for 12mm gauge, and so are Peco, TT:120 comes with a consistant coherent wheel/track package so that the components of the wheel/track interface actually work properly together. That is a distinct advantage.

 

At the  moment I can't do anything myself to try and sort out the issue in N , because I haven't even been able to identify a source of a back to back gauge that complies with any known standard....  (DCC Concepts advertise their N gauge B2B gauge as setting at 7.65mm. That is again outside the latest NMRA value of 7.54mm , never mind the NEM value or the "old" standard of 7.2mm)

 

I can't even set the rolling stock wheels at a correct or sensible back to back value...

 

It is a complete mess

 

In terms of back-to backs in N, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, here is a link to N Brass: -

 

N Brass Locos, Kits in N, 3mm, OO and O, Standard and Narrow Gauge

 

Reference 23992 if you search the alphabetical list of headings it comes under "gauge" (sorry, I can't seem to post a direct link).

 

This sets B2Bs at 7.45mm and when I have needed to check and reset back-to backs I have found it very good.

 

Best wishes

 

Roy

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by Roy L S

[PeterStiles]

I'm surprised people get so hung up about the ability to run non-uk locos (or not) that are the correct scale... The benefits I see are all those Other things that are made in TT scale buildings, accessories,and most important People.

 

Who else is slightly embarrassed by using HO figures on an OO layout or 1/160 figured on an otherwise 1/148? The huge ranges of figures the continental (well, German) manufacturers sell are just so enticing and...pre-painted we pretend that they are just "short people" but really we know it's *so* wrong...

[Mike Harvey]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Let's expose the slum that are current (non)-"standards" in N gauge: actual wheel and track dimensions in current British N

 

It is quite untrue that "I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile."

 

When I actually measure them , I can't find any consistancy between wheelsets on N gauge models from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. And as I said in the original posting, none of these wheel sets comply with either of the wheel standards printed in the back of the NGS manual , or with the NEM values 

 

The idea that they do  is a comfortable but unfounded delusion. And I'm making a song and dance about it in the hope that once the stone is lifted and the creepy crawlies wriggle out something might actually be done to clean up the mess. Which would result in N gauge being rather better than it currently is..

 

The technical name for the bumping and lurching at pointwork is "drop-in" . It is the result of the gap at the crossing being larger than can be spanned by the wheel tread - which therefore drops into the gap. It is a well-known issue to anyone familiar with wheel and track standards. And since Peco code 55 points date from the late 80s (so I'm advised by a well-known modeller in  N) they are engineered to take the very coarse N gauge wheels of the 1980s with a big gap at the crossing. Consequently "drop-in"  occurs with all modern N gauge wheels , and especially the much finer profile used by the likes of Revolution. I am certainly seeing this with all stock as it runs across all Peco code 55 pointwork. It is not the result of some "personal negative force-field" of mine : it comes from a fundamental incompatability in the wheel/track interface

 

This sort of thing will do nothing for electrical contact to the wheels of a short-wheelbase loco crossing a point

 

(The ghastly MOROP/NEM bodge traditionally used on the Continent to get round "drop-in" is to make the flanges so deep that the wheelset "grounds" at the point , and runs through the crossing supported on the tips of its flanges, instead of on the wheel tread. Hence the notorious "pizza cutter" flanges on Continental RTR in HO and N)

 

And while we are about it - West Hill Wagon Works sell "Back to Back Gauges for N/OO9" which come with no stated value on the packet. When I measure them, they appear to give a back to back setting of 7.85mm, which is way outside even the current NMRA back to back , that nobody attains on any British N gauge RTR. At that extreme value you will certainly render the check rails on all pointwork completely ineffective , which won't help reliable running either. (That was a couple of quid down the drain at DEMU Showcase...)

 

I'm afraid the "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Move along now, nothing to see here"  attitude has not served N well , in allowing this mess to come into being while everyone assures each other "It's all fine, fine, fine"

 

Since Hornby are sticking to the established NEM standards for 12mm gauge, and so are Peco, TT:120 comes with a consistant coherent wheel/track package so that the components of the wheel/track interface actually work properly together. That is a distinct advantage.

 

At the  moment I can't do anything myself to try and sort out the issue in N , because I haven't even been able to identify a source of a back to back gauge that complies with any known standard....  (DCC Concepts advertise their N gauge B2B gauge as setting at 7.65mm. That is again outside the latest NMRA value of 7.54mm , never mind the NEM value or the "old" standard of 7.2mm)

 

I can't even set the rolling stock wheels at a correct or sensible back to back value...

 

It is a complete mess

 

Thank you for quoting my reference to NMRA wheel profiles..... and then ignoring it. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about N gauge standards and maybe, just maybe, restating your displeasure at intervals in the Hornby TT:120 thread is not going to give it the airing you desire.  After 50 years modelling in N, but only the past 15 or so years modelling British N,  I am surprised that I do not have the operational issues you seem to.  All of my previous layouts have used Fleischmann Profi track (with lots of flexible track) and only in the past year have I switched to Kato Unitrack for a post-bereavement project where I was seeking quicker progress. And just to be clear I use a standard back-to-back of 7.45mm whether using Fleischmann or Kato track. I will resist responding the next time you bring up the N standards in this TT:120 thread.

[Hobby]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

i assume i’ll attract more hate for that, but its why it puts me off TT.. its too much compromise, much of it unnecessary and missed opportunity.

 

Of course you have the option to simply not post on a subject you aren't interested in just like several others in this thread who have absolutely no interest in TT120 other than to stir things and knock Hornby...

 

So why don't you and leave those of us who are happy enough to accept the compromises to do so in peace?

 

There's an "Ignore" button, you could use it...

Edited July 30, 2023 by Hobby

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Of course you have the option to simply not post on a subject you aren't interested in just like several others in this thread who have absolutely no interest in TT120 other than to stir things and knock Hornby...

 

So why don't you and leave those of us who are happy enough to accept the compromises to do so in peace?

 

There's an "Ignore" button, you could use it...

 

I think you need a hug and some love. ❤️

 

Your comments are a bit uncalled for.

i remain interested in TT and hope that at somepoint they get it closer to what I hoped it would be.

At risk of hate… that DB 08 needs bigger buffers, no ladders and an auto uncoupler.

the GBRF 08 needs less lights, roof lights/sirens.

 

its wrong in 00 with Bachmann’s GBRF 08 too, but those modellers are far more mature and much less aggressive about such feedback. I suspect though, someone else is listening and may address that in 00 in the near future.

 

My hope is the 66 isnt a 1 size fits all like Railroad.

 

I think though i’m the only modern image modeller who is open minded to TT as I see no one else commenting, I havent been in this thread much as its so hostile, I guess you yourself are maybe doing TT as much damage as as anyone else with comments like that…maybe thats why they dont speak up ?

 

Hornby is often criticised in 00 for modern image modellers due to perceieved quality , accuracy or detail issues. 

if modern image in TT is to be serious I think that perception needs to be addressed, thats the oppourtunity.

if TT is just an excuse to make expensive railroad in a smaller scale its no good for anyone imo.

Products only improve with feedback.

If they did this in OO they may not have had that same aggressive competition they have faced in modern image, and if TT is successful longer term, could end up facing the same again from others.

 

I hope it gets better, I hope you see this as constructive than destructive, as other modellers in other scales are far more mature and less sensitive.. beyond this I have Hornbys interest at heart, the hobby needs the name, whatever scale it throws its future into.

 

peace, were all modellers, even if we disagree.

Edited July 30, 2023 by adb968008

[Ravenser]

47 minutes ago, Mike Harvey said:

 

Thank you for quoting my reference to NMRA wheel profiles..... and then ignoring it. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about N gauge standards and maybe, just maybe, restating your displeasure at intervals in the Hornby TT:120 thread is not going to give it the airing you desire.  After 50 years modelling in N, but only the past 15 or so years modelling British N,  I am surprised that I do not have the operational issues you seem to.  All of my previous layouts have used Fleischmann Profi track (with lots of flexible track) and only in the past year have I switched to Kato Unitrack for a post-bereavement project where I was seeking quicker progress. And just to be clear I use a standard back-to-back of 7.45mm whether using Fleischmann or Kato track. I will resist responding the next time you bring up the N standards in this TT:120 thread.

 

The "issue" may in fact be that you have been using Flieschmann and Kato points , whereas I bought Peco Code 55 because Peco seems to be the norm for British N gauge modellers and I assumed that with Code 55 Streamline I was buying a modern "finerer" track product .It appears I have not.

 

I might speculate that as Kato make both stock and track they might take the trouble to ensure they are compatible, an d perhaps the crossing flangeways are finer than those of Peco . Similarly MOROP's NEM standards do have some weight with Continental RTR manufacturers and therefore the sort of incompatibilities I've described ought not to occur. However the NGS clearly have no interest in the subject, judging by their presentation of two standards drawn up by others, neither of which actually apply to anything. As a result British N is where it is.

 

However the most productive way of taking this particular discussion forward would  be for someone to measure the crossing flangeways on Kato Unitrack and Flieschmann Profi points using a feeler gauge, and post the values found on here somewhere. 

 

If it is found that both are finer, and more compatible with modern wheels than Peco Streamline then that would be an objective reason for using them on layouts in preference to Peco. (I assume the sleepering isn't much different). Unfortunately I've already laid the track on my project so I'm now committed committed to Peco..

 

I'm grateful to Roy L S for advising that 7.45mm is an accepted B2B figure among N gauge modellers and pointing me to a source of gauges . I wasn't aware of that supplier, and I rather think I will be doing some business with them. Sadly this info didn't  make it into the relevant bit of the NGS Manual.

 

(To pick up one point:  current Farish and Dapol wheels aren't to current NMRA profile . The NGS Manual notes that Farish are bitwixt and between and my own measurements confirm it. Most British |n wheels are thicker and have deeper flanges than NMRA profile)

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

I think you need a hug and some love. ❤️

 

Your comments are a bit uncalled for.

i remain interested in TT and hope that at somepoint they get it closer to what I hoped it would be.

At risk of hate… that DB 08 needs bigger buffers, no ladders and an auto uncoupler.

the GBRF 08 needs less lights, roof lights/sirens.

 

its wrong in 00 with Bachmann’s GBRF 08 too, but those modellers are far more mature and much less aggressive about such feedback. I suspect though, someone else is listening and may address that in 00 in the near future.

 

My hope is the 66 isnt a 1 size fits all like Railroad.

 

I think though i’m the only modern image modeller who is open minded to TT as I see no one else commenting, I havent been in this thread much as its so hostile, I guess you yourself are maybe doing TT as much damage as as anyone else with comments like that…maybe thats why they dont speak up ?

 

Hornby is often criticised in 00 for modern image modellers due to quality and accuracy issues. 

if modern image in TT is to be serious I think that perception needs to be addressed.

if TT is just an excuse to make expensive railroad in a smaller scale its no good for anyone imo.

Products only improve with feedback.

 

 

I hope it gets better, I hope you see this as constructive than destructive, as other modellers in other scales are far more mature and less sensitive.

If you click through the images for the DB 08 listing on the Hornby website, you’ll see that in the photos of the actual model (3rd & 4th photos I think), the DB 08 doesn’t actually have the ladders. Maybe you could email them with your observations - I’ve found that they are open to feedback. The Blue 08 is shown with ladders in the main image too but the actual model doesn’t have them.

 

Regarding the 66, the images and the supporting text in Train Terminal have already highlighted that, for example, the bell is featured on the Evening Star version. I’m not sufficiently focused on other individual details of allthe class members to know if the other examples they’re planning have the correct features. As those are still being developed, again I’m sure they’d be receptive to correcting any errors if they can before its too late.

 

Hornby can certainly be criticised for their web shop - it’s riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The 08 photos showing the ladders being an obvious one.

 

As for the jibe about maturity of other scale modellers, I laughed out loud. This whole forum is riven with immaturity and pettiness and I feel sorry for the mods.

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by Guest
Missing word annoyed my pedantry and then realised 250 was the original EWS order

[Ravenser]

A ladder on the DB 08 is an unfortunate mistake. I don't think authentic autocouplers is a realistic demand in this or any other scale. The compromises inherent in fitting model railway couplers to models are something we have to live with.

 

Detailed comments on the particular light clusters correct for particular locos at a particular point in their long carrier in a class of 900+ may be pressing detail accuracy beyond what can sensibly be expected

 

The need for the tooling suite for the 66 to cover all varients was cited by SK at the start of the year as a reason why the 66 had only just gone out for tooling. Apparently that includes the European varient, so it does seem they intend to tool up something that can represent more than a "generic 66"

 

For what it's worth , Gaugemaster show what seems to be a photo of an actual DB 08 , anf it does have ladders.Gaugemaster - DB 08. Until someone has one in their hot sticky hand , it is difficult to know where exactly we stand

 

There is in fact a  separate thread for the TT 08 (gasp!)  here so perhaps detailed comment could be taken there, where it will be easier to find in future

Edited July 30, 2023 by Ravenser
add reference to Gaugemaster listing and TT 08 thread

[Hobby]

55 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

Your comments are a bit uncalled for

 

Pot and kettle spring to mind, especially your comments in the rest of the post.

 

Before making posts like that one I'd suggest looking in the mirror.

[Hobby]

Deleted.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Hobby

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

For what it's worth , Gaugemaster show what seems to be a photo of an actual DB 08 , anf it does have ladders.Gaugemaster - DB 08. Until someone has one in their hot sticky hand , it is difficult to know where exactly we stand

 

The corresponding image for the blue 08 on their website shows a ladder too, but my blue 08 doesn’t have one. It’s a shame that the images are inconsistent with the models

[natterjack]

Looks like there should be a thriving trade in refinishing Hornby TT locos to very particular requirements. Wonder just how many would pay for the realistic costs?

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, natterjack said:

Looks like there should be a thriving trade in refinishing Hornby TT locos to very particular requirements. Wonder just how many would pay for the realistic costs?

 

i’m sure anyone out there who finishes OO or N will happily do TT.

Railtec has ported most of their OO range to TT scale for modern image modellers who need transfers etc.

From a Modern image perspective your already set..

 

look at this list…

 

https://www.railtec-models.com/catalog.php?type=5&gauge=TT