Hornby announce TT:120

[Porfuera]

45 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Does this imply that the best niche for TT is modern prototypes?

 

I don't really understand that. Are you linking smaller houses/flats in the UK to younger people and saying that younger people tend to model modern prototypes?

 

For a start old(er) people downsize. Also if people only model what they know then there wouldn't be anyone modelling Eras 1 and 2 because there's no-one left that remembers them.

 

Edited February 28 by Porfuera
Removed Era 3!

[teletougos]

That is for HO. I think that modeller lives on the 'Big Island' where they  tend to prefer HO. 

 

4mm is still the thing among Tas modellers so far as I know, with some even building to 14mm gauge. The prototype was a very British railway, and they're blissfully unbothered by much chance of RTR models. 

 

 

**********

 

Modern image seems the niche where TT makes most logical sense. To me anyway. And physical impossibility can usher people toward radical choices ? 

 

I don't know the UK proto scene enough to be able to scope how many 4-wh wagons are left, or even shortish bogie ones. I live beside a 1:1 railway and everything going past looks pretty big. 

 

 

Edited February 28 by teletougos

[Porfuera]

38 minutes ago, teletougos said:

Modern image seems the niche where TT makes most logical sense. To me anyway. And physical impossibility can usher people toward radical choices ? 

 

I don't know the UK proto scene enough to be able to scope how many 4-wh wagons are left, or shortish bogie ones. I live beside a 1:1 railway and everything going past looks pretty big. 

 

So if railway locos/carriages/wagons are getting longer these days and also the tendency being towards longer block trains then if space is at a premium I would have thought that older eras would make more sense for TT:120?

 

I guess it depends on your definition of modern image as well but I'd have thought perhaps something going up to UK Era 7 (or 8 maybe) whether steam or diesel with small-to-medium locos with 2-axle wagons and smallish bogie wagons and short formation passenger trains?

 

Although I would guess that there are probably some ultra-modern image services somewhere that would fit the bill...

 

Edited February 28 by Porfuera

[Steamport Southport]

People do know that a WCML express passenger train in the 1920s and 1930s was longer than a HST?

 

 

 

Jason

[Hroth]

2 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

People do know that a WCML express passenger train in the 1920s and 1930s was longer than a HST?

 

 

 

Jason

 

And had an interesting power unit at the front too!

 

Of course, the 1950s equivalent is easily modelled in TT:120, Hornby do the locos and carriages to suit, West or East coast to taste...

 

[Steamport Southport]

3 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

And had an interesting power unit at the front too!

 

Of course, the 1950s equivalent is easily modelled in TT:120, Hornby do the locos and carriages to suit, West or East coast to taste...

 

 

And with GWR to come in the Castle and Colletts. Gresley coaches already announced.

 

I doubt the Bulleids will be too long after. 

 

 

 

Jason

[teletougos]

29 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

So if railway locos/carriages/wagons are getting longer these days and also the tendency being towards longer block trains then if space is at a premium I would have thought that older eras would make more sense for TT:120?

 

 

I am not seeing how you come to that. I would have thought the ability to fit more and longer wagons on a layout (if there is a maximum size the layout can be) would make a smaller scale more attractive than a larger one. 

[Jeff Smith]

Reverting to layout building and awaiting stock releases - surely now is the time to spend a year or two building a layout so that when those red and yellow boxes turn up we can put them to immediate use.....  This would also spread the cost and give us something to do amid the endless speculation.....🤔

[Porfuera]

57 minutes ago, teletougos said:

I am not seeing how you come to that. I would have thought the ability to fit more and longer wagons on a layout (if there is a maximum size the layout can be) would make a smaller scale more attractive than a larger one. 

 

My point is that although yes you can fit in more, even in TT:120 most people are still not going to be able to run a full-length HST or a 12-unit DMU/EMU or a Class 66 pulling 30 Arnold container flats or the above-mentioned example of a WCML express passenger train from the 1920s and 1930s or a 9F pulling however many 16T minerals.

 

For the majority I think TT:120 may provide the opportunity to run realistic medium-length consists in a small space with some space for landscaping but full-length modern trains will almost certainly be out of reach of most people as will some of the older expresses and freights.

 

So probably most people will still be modelling a branch line or a yard or something along those lines but perhaps with a bit of extra space to allow slightly more running length than you get in 00.

 

But then if what you gain with TT:120 is lost with the reduction in the room size in newer UK properties then we'd be back to square 1 in some cases.

 

Edited February 28 by Porfuera

[Chris M]

3 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

Really? Perhaps you should take a look at the following video. The "it won't be possible" has been done already.

 

But then I guess it is much easier for all those that don't like TT:120 to knock it by complaining about how small the range is or how slow Hornby are at getting it to market or how they've made the wrong choices of locos than it is to get on and do something about those things.

 

 

Call me picky if you like but I do like all my stock to be the same scale. 

[Porfuera]

6 minutes ago, Chris M said:

3 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

Really? Perhaps you should take a look at the following video. The "it won't be possible" has been done already.

 

But then I guess it is much easier for all those that don't like TT:120 to knock it by complaining about how small the range is or how slow Hornby are at getting it to market or how they've made the wrong choices of locos than it is to get on and do something about those things.

 

 

Call me picky if you like but I do like all my stock to be the same scale. 

 

Yes you are being picky - your original statement was "Until the range increases dramatically TT:120 will be very much a train set scale; it won't be possible to build a serious model railway for the foreseeable future." and it has been done and you haven't refuted that.

[Roy L S]

I suppose there is a difference between a "serious" model railway and a truly credible one though? The first, in terms of track, buildings and scenic products along with the as yet limited amount of rolling stock is certainly possible, but the second, without a wider range and better balance of locos and rolling stock is arguably as yet still quite some way off ...

 

Roy

[Moxy]

44 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Reverting to layout building and awaiting stock releases - surely now is the time to spend a year or two building a layout so that when those red and yellow boxes turn up we can put them to immediate use.....  This would also spread the cost and give us something to do amid the endless speculation.....🤔

 

Yes, that is what I'm doing.  I already have enough Hornby track to make a 4' x 1' inglenook shunting layout, a couple of the Peco laser cut buildings and some Scalescenes downloads that can be shrunk down to TT:120.  Oh, and a blue 08 (which I might repaint into green or black to backdate it).  Just need a few more wagons to shunt (and time to build it of course!)

[Jeff Smith]

Personally I favour the Peco track - live-frog points and lower profile flexi rail but this is a Hornby thread so I'll say no more......

[Porfuera]

8 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

I suppose there is a difference between a "serious" model railway and a truly credible one though? The first, in terms of track, buildings and scenic products along with the as yet limited amount of rolling stock is certainly possible, but the second, without a wider range and better balance of locos and rolling stock is arguably as yet still quite some way off ...

 

Roy

 

I think you're splitting hairs - ignore any 3MM stuff, Garry has done plenty of conversions of TT:120 locos, both steam and diesel using Hornby and 3MM society chassis and 3d printed bodies, also repaints of locos and coaches into other liveries and has built and is running 3d printed wagons that are not available as RTR so it can be done.

 

The original criticism was that the range isn't big enough to build a 'serious' model railway but there is always going to be something missing from RTR to stop someone making an exact replica of some place and time and compromises always have to be made except by a very few people.

 

How many people here could do better? And if you don't think what he's done is good enough then why not try to do better yourself?

[Roy L S]

2 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

I think you're splitting hairs - ignore any 3MM stuff, Garry has done plenty of conversions of TT:120 locos, both steam and diesel using Hornby and 3MM society chassis and 3d printed bodies, also repaints of locos and coaches into other liveries and has built and is running 3d printed wagons that are not available as RTR so it can be done.

 

The original criticism was that the range isn't big enough to build a 'serious' model railway but there is always going to be something missing from RTR to stop someone making an exact replica of some place and time and compromises always have to be made except by a very few people.

 

How many people here could do better? And if you don't think what he's done is good enough then why not try to do better yourself?

Wow! I was speaking in general, not with any specific layout in mind, and not intending to denigrate anybody's efforts as building a model railway. I do not know the layout, but from what I can see it looks like serious attempt at a model railway to me. However in terms of "credible", how often would a Hymek rub shoulders with an A4 and how often would an A3 shunt the yard? Rule 1 is everyone's friend, what people run is a personal choice, and it certainly isn't my place to judge that - I hadn't even noticed until you pointed it out that some items are 3mm/ft so not strictly TT120 but clearly some skilled modelling irrespective.

 

However, that is not my point. "Credible" doesn't mean you need to have every possible loco and item of rolling stock available, but it does mean having sufficient to provide a representative cross-section for a specific area/location and speaking in a general sense (which I was) that is simply not possible at present for the majority looking at TT120 as an alternative and will not be for some considerable time to come.

 

Whether I or anyone else can or cannot do better is entirely irrelevant, but as it happens by way of just one example, the products are available for me to do something serious and more "credible" in N Gauge right now and in a significantly smaller area relative to TT120 and that is the mountain Hornby need to climb - established scales.

 

Roy

[Moxy]

56 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Personally I favour the Peco track - live-frog points and lower profile flexi rail but this is a Hornby thread so I'll say no more......

 

So would I, but the Hornby track was cheaper, and I bought it in the first year when they were offering members discounts and post free over £50.00.  It will do for my first TT:120 layout.

[Porfuera]

12 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

However, that is not my point. "Credible" doesn't mean you need to have every possible loco and item of rolling stock available, but it does mean having sufficient to provide a representative cross-section for a specific area/location and speaking in a general sense (which I was) that is simply not possible at present for the majority looking at TT120 as an alternative and will not be for some considerable time to come.

 

Whether I or anyone else can or cannot do better is entirely irrelevant, but as it happens by way of just one example, the products are available for me to do something serious and more "credible" in N Gauge right now and in a significantly smaller area relative to TT120 and that is the mountain Hornby need to climb - established scales.

 

Roy

 

My main reason for posting that video was not to show "every possible loco and item of rolling stock available" but to show what could be done in the way of conversions to produce a 'serious' layout (whatever that may mean) and the fact that a very good layout can be built in spite of people claiming that TT:120 is only any good for train sets.

 

I still say that a 'creditable' layout (again, whatever that means) could be produced in TT:120 right now even with the current range, especially with a bit of converting and scratch building as in the video. As I said before not everything is available RTR in any scale and compromises of many types have to be made, even in 00 or N.

 

But I guess what you are saying is that such a TT:120 layout would not be what you personally want to build. That's fair enough but I think we all knew TT:120 would be pretty slow to develop even if Hornby had managed to keep to their original plans, which they obviously haven't, and so people developing layouts in TT:120 will be compromising more than most.

 

And as has been said before, 'creditable'/'serious' layouts/modellers probably aren't are the target for this scale at the moment although some people are managing to build such layouts with what is currently available or planning them with an eye to what will be available shortly.

 

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, Porfuera said:

I don't really understand that. Are you linking smaller houses/flats in the UK to younger people and saying that younger people tend to model modern prototypes?

I’m not even vaguely suggesting they’re linked in that way. The post I quoted originally from @teletougos notes the increasing numbers of bogie freight wagons (and lack of 4-wheel ones) in the UK and thus the need to have bogie vehicles that take up more space if running a class 66. Similarly wagonload freight has gone, and modern EMUs etc. often have longer fixed formations than the ones they replaced.

[andrewshimmin]

3 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Reverting to layout building and awaiting stock releases - surely now is the time to spend a year or two building a layout so that when those red and yellow boxes turn up we can put them to immediate use.....  This would also spread the cost and give us something to do amid the endless speculation.....🤔

 

Well, I started mine a year ago with just the first set I'd acquired - and it's progressed very slowly due to, erm, life. So I for one am not too dismayed about the delays because I've been even more delayed myself!

(Plus, it spreads the cost)

[leonk]

14 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

For 4mm or 3.5mm scale? Ideally for 3’ 6” it needs to be H0 (ignoring for a moment that I think some historical Tasmanian railway modelling uses 00, despite the gauge difference, because of the availability of relevant British stuff for conversions).

 

That would be me making the M class, and yes it's for HO.

HOn3.5 (HO scale with 12mm track) is taking off at the moment thanks to companies like Wuiske Models and SDS.  

 

As someone who grew up in Tassie I totally understand why the older modellers went with 4mm scale, but in the future I see HO being the winner for new starters.

 

 

 

Edited February 29 by leonk

[teletougos]

15 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I’m not even vaguely suggesting they’re linked in that way. The post I quoted originally from @teletougos notes the increasing numbers of bogie freight wagons (and lack of 4-wheel ones) in the UK and thus the need to have bogie vehicles that take up more space if running a class 66. Similarly wagonload freight has gone, and modern EMUs etc. often have longer fixed formations than the ones they replaced.

 

That's basically what I'm getting at. I was not the first to have said it.  The initial comment about the issue with modern era OO was on RMWeb (can't find it now). It reasoned that a layout, as a minimum ought give a train three times its length to run in, plus space for a fiddle yard - which needs to be as long as the train.  A 66 and three ferrywagons takes 4'. So a 16' shelf layout is needed to run that. 12' in view + 4' fiddle yard. 

 

That's why I think TT will have a niche with contemporary modellers, especially the ones modelling the highly detailed branch or industrial -often urban - settings that represent a lot of the great OO layouts I see at exhibitions. Wagons & locos have gotten so big. And contemporary flats and houses don't necessarily have a wall 16' long.

 

I'm told by Americans living in urban areas, that this is an issue for them too now. Mainline HO locos are about the same length as an OO 66'. Or longer - an ES44 is 53' between truck centres. A huge model. Popular wagons like auto racks are 89'. The standard train set 33' hopper or 40' boxcar is gone from American railroads. We're talking about a prototype where each wagon is twice as long as it was. That's got to add up. You can't imagine space out of thin air. 

 

N really isn't the scale for that kind of detail, doesn't have the 'presence', nor as I have seen, is it that good for shunting. 

 

That said, I have seen really detailed N layouts which attained this, but they're kind of like when Tom Cruise comes into a room. It's logistical ; it doesn't just happen. They need to be high up, stacked heels ha (!)  and it all needs very good lighting to in order to ensure 'presence.'  The best N layout I saw was in a kind of 'lightbox' and designed to be viewed at eye level. It was really good, but doing all that must be hard work. 

 

This is why I think TT is the smallest practicable size. 

 

Edited February 29 by teletougos

[Roy L S]

2 hours ago, teletougos said:

 

That's basically what I'm getting at. I was not the first to have said it.  The initial comment about the issue with modern era OO was on RMWeb (can't find it now). It reasoned that a layout, as a minimum ought give a train three times its length to run in, plus space for a fiddle yard - which needs to be as long as the train.  A 66 and three ferrywagons takes 4'. So a 16' shelf layout is needed to run that. 12' in view + 4' fiddle yard. 

 

That's why I think TT will have a niche with contemporary modellers, especially the ones modelling the highly detailed branch or industrial -often urban - settings that represent a lot of the great OO layouts I see at exhibitions. Wagons & locos have gotten so big. And contemporary flats and houses don't necessarily have a wall 16' long.

 

I'm told by Americans living in urban areas, that this is an issue for them too now. Mainline HO locos are about the same length as an OO 66'. Or longer - an ES44 is 53' between truck centres. A huge model. Popular wagons like auto racks are 89'. The standard train set 33' hopper or 40' boxcar is gone from American railroads. We're talking about a prototype where each wagon is twice as long as it was. That's got to add up. You can't imagine space out of thin air. 

 

N really isn't the scale for that kind of detail, doesn't have the 'presence', nor as I have seen, is it that good for shunting. 

 

That said, I have seen really detailed N layouts which attained this, but they're kind of like when Tom Cruise comes into a room. It's logistical ; it doesn't just happen. They need to be high up, stacked heels ha (!)  and it all needs very good lighting to in order to ensure 'presence.'  The best N layout I saw was in a kind of 'lightbox' and designed to be viewed at eye level. It was really good, but doing all that must be hard work. 

 

This is why I think TT is the smallest practicable size. 

 

 

You make some interesting points above, and I don't think there is any question that TT120 will carve a niche for some modellers, in fact it is important to bear in mind that TT scaled at 2.5mm/ft is already an established scale with mainstream manufacturers and a following in some countries. The key question is whether what Hornby have marketed as "TT120" (to differentiate it from TT3 that went before) will do the same thing as far as modellers of British Outline are concerned.

 

The so called "rule of thirds" is and idea that is very old, in fact I believe it may go back to the days of Cyril Freezer (Of PECO/Railway Modeller fame) but it is important to appreciate that this is not a strict rule of any kind, more an opinion that may have more relevance in some layout scenarios than others. 

 

In terms of the smallest practicable scale, it really depends what you mean. If you are talking from a commercial standpoint then clearly that is wrong, as N has been around for over 60 years (And British N for only a few years less), with many manufacturers worldwide and a huge following. In terms of detail I would respectfully disagree too, comparing the TT120 models I have purchased to my British N models, they are no better detailed (in some cases less so), no more accurate in the sense of fidelity to prototype and in many cases less technically sophisticated. I would concede that as a scratch-builder's scale TT120 is probably going to be easier to get along with for some people, but the advent of 3D printing means you can "draw" a model in any scale in CAD and resize it either in the CAD or slicing software to any scale you wish, and the detail remains pretty much unchanged subject to the capabilities of the chosen printer.

 

In terms of shunting, I have seen plenty of N layouts where shunting is very capably undertaken, N locos' slow running is typically excellent these days and choices of couplings mean it is much easier to do "hands off" than with standard N couplings. The extra volume of TT models may though make though shunting easier with a greater element of weight being possible to prevent unexpected movement of wagons, but I actually think that more important is the choice of coupling used regardless of whether we are talking TT or N. The ones that Hornby models come with look awful and require a fixed operating "ramp" to uncouple "hands off" and so for the TT120 layout I was planning (and still have stock and track for) I was actually looking to use less obtrusive N Gauge "Easi-Shunt" couplings and magnets, taking advantage of the NEM pockets.

 

In terms of TT being smallest practicable size, to an extent that depends on your definition of "practicable". However in terms of what manufacturers think, they clearly do not have the same view, or N would not by comparison to TT globally be orders of magnitude larger as an overall market and in terms of manufacturers producing models. 

 

I say all the above with some "skin" in the TT120 game and not as an "armchair" outsider, I see a niche for TT120 as a further choice which will doubtless suit some, just as TT3 has continued to do many years after Tri-Ang production ceased (thanks to the 3mm Scale Association and the sheer volume of TT3 models Tri-Ang produced of which I am lucky to have a modest collection). What I do not see is TT120 challenging the established scales of N or OO to any meaningful extent, but would finish by saying that I don't think it really needs to in order succeed in a commercial sense.

 

Regards

 

Roy

Edited February 29 by Roy L S

[BachelorBoy]

Hornby's flip-flops on Playtrains have not improved my confidence in the company to make the right decisions on TT:120.

[GenericRMWebUsername]

The first Class 43s have arrived. Head over to the corresponding HST page for videos: