Hornby announce TT:120

[moawkwrd]

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The layout design thread I mentioned is here: moawark's new layout 

 

I’m not demanding to see finished layouts, but where are the threads for people starting the journey? 

Don’t worry, the layout from that thread is well under construction, as well as an end to end shelf layout (which I’ve documented in more detail over on the official Hornby TT Forum).
 

I’m currently out of the country for a few weeks but I can add some pictures if anyone’s interested.

 

I can’t speak for others but for myself at least, I don’t really have any interest or inclination to document the process - indeed my problem is that by the time I think it would be good to document something, I’ve already 90% done the thing in question. I have recently thought about making some YouTube videos of my layouts - but that would be it and it wouldn’t be how tos, just general updates as I feel fit. But again I probably wouldn’t make an effort to post them here.

 

However, I disagree with your premise that newcomers need others to show them the way to do things in a new scale - beyond the track and rolling stock etc nothing is different to any other scale - why does there need to be TT specific content for… kit building or scenery or whatever? I’m certainly not that interested in such content and I’m one of those newcomers. I’m building my layout in my own time for my own pleasure. There’s enough content in other scales that transfers across already, most of what I read/watch is OO or N.

 

I come on here to ask quite specific questions and that’s about it really. Internet forums are not a popular thing these days, and I’m guessing not that popular amongst all the new people buying TT stuff, as has already been surmised several times. 

I’ve got several of the Osborn kits in my to buy list - I’ve got an L&Y kit too from a brand new small manufacturer. Don’t think anyone’s posted about them on here - they exist though and they’re making new kits to boot.

 

I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make… or why. If you can’t see TT content, that’s probably because you’re not looking for it in the right places. Why do you need to see it in order to believe the scale can be successful? And why do TT’ers owe you that content to prove it? Quite frankly, I’d argue most of us don’t care. I’d rather spend the time playing with trains.

Edited May 12 by moawkwrd
Spelling

[Jeff Smith]

40 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I am in no way hostile/criticising new entrants and a trainsetr may well be an effective starter package here. But new scales require experienced “serious modellers” to blaze the trail and provide proof of concept. You cannot expect a brand new scale to hand you everything on a plate . You will have to roll up your sleeves and build stuff . Pioneering requires a certain level of skill set. For some, that’s the whole attraction. The new entrants have certainly turned up -   my worry is that the pioneers and “serious modellers” have gone missing. They are needed to provide leadership and inspiration, and show how it can be done

I am not entirely in agreement.  Hornby is gradually providing a complete system for modellers that are happy to run RTR trains on basic track with some readymade lineside items - whether it be a temporary or semi-permanent layout.  This also applies to Hornby's OO system.  You are suggesting it will not flourish without some element of scratch-built or significant conversions - if EM/P4 or 2mm had never happened would OO and N have floundered?  To the best of my knowledge HO and N do very well in the US without any significant 'serious' modelling, ie virtually no rolling stock kits other than box vans......  

 

Time will tell if a finescsle TT:120 movement will appear - the correct scale/gauge ratio may well not encourage it but finer wheels and track may appeal to some!

[britishcolumbian]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

To the best of my knowledge HO and N do very well in the US without any significant 'serious' modelling, ie virtually no rolling stock kits other than box vans......

 

I dunno about that, there are *loads* of kits available for all manner of equipment, especially once you get into resin kits and the like - F&C, Speedwitch, Westerfield and many others. They're actually pretty important if you want to get into modelling Canadian railways with any real accuracy.

[009 micro modeller]

59 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

The term seems often to be a self-congratulatory pat on the back for members of the finescale movement. But in finescale building your own pointwork and building loco chassis are normal. The late Frank Dyer was a “serious modeller”. He scratchbuilt a large stud of ER steam in the 1950s when there were barely any kits never mind RTR, and built all his own pointwork. Peter Denny scratchbuilt pretty well the lot - EM in the 40s and 50s was much harder than TT:120. People still do construct most of their own stock in 7mm finescale  

 

Where are the threads with people building chassis for Lincoln Locos bodies? Osborn Models have a range of kits.

I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that people have to be building all their own loco chassis and track, or that only those who do so can be considered ‘serious modellers’ (I don’t myself, but then again I also wouldn’t particularly describe myself as a ‘serious modeller’, whatever that’s supposed to mean). However, I was thinking more about the sort of things that I might do in 009 (e.g. building wagon kits, modifying and repainting RTR stuff, general bashing, and a bit of light scratchbuilding on proprietary chassis), but which it seems a lot of people aren’t doing in 00 (often because they don’t have to as their chosen prototype is well provided for in RTR, but that’s different from refusing to do so or not being able to). Even other well-established standard gauge scales like 0 and N don’t have quite the level and variety of RTR that 00 has, and similarly it’s unlikely that TT will get to quite that level of provision (and in any case it doesn’t have it yet). TT is going to require the sort of modelling that I was talking about in 009 - using some of the RTR stuff in unmodified form where appropriate, and then bodging, repainting, modifying etc. to fill in the gaps (even if your modified wagons aren’t absolutely, perfectly accurate it’s better than running some that are clearly for the wrong railway company). However, I think it’s already in a better position than British H0, for instance, as there’s a growing and current RTR range, rather than RTR being randomly sourced either from similar overseas prototypes or secondhand stuff. Perhaps that’s an alternative definition of a ‘serious modeller’ - not necessarily someone who is very highly skilled and builds absolutely everything from scratch to an amazingly high standard, it could equally be someone at a lower skill level who researches the prototype and tries to modify, kitbash or add to their RTR stock to represent it to the extent that their skills allow (even if only approximately) rather than just running the inaccurate RTR equipment and lamenting that there isn’t something more appropriate available. My overall point was really about those who (sometimes a bit pompously) consider themselves to be ‘serious modellers’ but still expect everything to be available RTR to exactly represent what they want.

[Ravenser]

23 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that people have to be building all their own loco chassis and track, or that only those who do so can be considered ‘serious modellers’ (I don’t myself, but then again I also wouldn’t particularly describe myself as a ‘serious modeller’, whatever that’s supposed to mean). However, I was thinking more about the sort of things that I might do in 009 (e.g. building wagon kits, modifying and repainting RTR stuff, general bashing, and a bit of light scratchbuilding on proprietary chassis), but which it seems a lot of people aren’t doing in 00 (often because they don’t have to as their chosen prototype is well provided for in RTR, but that’s different from refusing to do so or not being able to). Even other well-established standard gauge scales like 0 and N don’t have quite the level and variety of RTR that 00 has, and similarly it’s unlikely that TT will get to quite that level of provision (and in any case it doesn’t have it yet). TT is going to require the sort of modelling that I was talking about in 009 - using some of the RTR stuff in unmodified form where appropriate, and then bodging, repainting, modifying etc. to fill in the gaps (even if your modified wagons aren’t absolutely, perfectly accurate it’s better than running some that are clearly for the wrong railway company). However, I think it’s already in a better position than British H0, for instance, as there’s a growing and current RTR range, rather than RTR being randomly sourced either from similar overseas prototypes or secondhand stuff. Perhaps that’s an alternative definition of a ‘serious modeller’ - not necessarily someone who is very highly skilled and builds absolutely everything from scratch to an amazingly high standard, it could equally be someone at a lower skill level who researches the prototype and tries to modify, kitbash or add to their RTR stock to represent it to the extent that their skills allow (even if only approximately) rather than just running the inaccurate RTR equipment and lamenting that there isn’t something more appropriate available. My overall point was really about those who (sometimes a bit pompously) consider themselves to be ‘serious modellers’ but still expect everything to be available RTR to exactly represent what they want.

 

I totally agree with you. 

 

How many decades did 009 exist without British outline RTR? Just track, and mechanisms . People got on with it, and it's a recognised niche in the hobby. Now there is a skeleton of RTR, but you still need to make stuff.

 

Comments about there not being a "coherent range" in TT:120  RTR are the equivalent lof saying about 009 : "yes, theres a Baldwin RTR, but there's no Simplex and no Hunslet and half the rolling stock is missing . So you still can't model WWI Western Front operations..."

 

But people can and do... Where there's a will there's a way.

 

I do think some of this is simply an exercise in raising objections and creating difficulties, rather than genuine obstacles to modelling at a scale of 1/120 

 

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

 

I dunno about that, there are *loads* of kits available for all manner of equipment, especially once you get into resin kits and the like - F&C, Speedwitch, Westerfield and many others. They're actually pretty important if you want to get into modelling Canadian railways with any real accuracy.

No loco kits from a brief look at those sites, boxcars and other freight rolling stock only.  I know there are structure kits as I've made some in 1/48th.  But I see no evidence of loco wheels or gearboxes, only a couple of motors.  P87 is almost non-existent as far as I can tell.

Edited May 12 by Jeff Smith
Added info

[Red Devil]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Where are the threads with people building chassis for Lincoln Locos bodies? 

 

 

Mainly on the 3mm page😄. However joking apart I do think that side will come, there's quite a few nice projects , Deltic, 313, and Mk2 coaches in 120 and in real terms it's early days yet.

 

I looked at 120 but decided on 3mm as it suited me better, but I reckon it'll come with time.

 

But it'd be perfectly possible to build your own stuff in 120, I might even have a bash myself just to see. I think something like this might be on the cards....

 

 

[Ravenser]

I'm not in the business of starting a row, or putting anyone up as a public coconut shy. And I would hope we can move to positive discussion about building layouts and making models in this scale.

 

But since the existence of the "coaches to a different scale from the locos" comment has been questioned , here is the exchange taken from a modest sized close forum, in a thread "Hornby go TT120 Bonkers". Its a bit worse than I remembered

 

Poster A

Quote

When I first saw the Hornby TT120 at Warley last year something appeared not to be quite right, but I put it down to possible early versions/EPs, display case distortion, etc. However, having seen the layout this year and being able to get completely up close, it confirmed I wasn't seeing things.

It appears to me that the majority, if not all, of the locos are slightly larger than the coaching stock. It potentially looks like one is to a fractionally different scale than the other ie one is 1:120 and the other is 1:122 or 1:118. Its only fractional, and depending on what are together, alters how noticeable it is, but the 08 parked on the front of a rake of Mk2s was towering over them.

I'm not sure if this has been picked up by any of the mags, although with Hornby mag not spotting the first Flangeway Salmon was 1 inch too short it doesn't hold much hope (!), or if within the froth on the other place it has come up? If anyone from here has taken the plunge and got some TT120, a proper measure and scale up would be interesting to know.
 

 

Poster B:

Quote

That was also my impression when looking at a 50 next to a coach online.

However I'm think Hornby have raised the body of the 50 to allow it to go round trainset curves... it all looks a bit weird from the buffer beam up. I guess the wider wheels to body ratio Vs OO gauge might cause problems. Maybe that's why OO came about?

 

Poster C:

Quote

As for the 08 towering over the Mk2s, maybe the 08 has been mistakenly done at TT100!

 

The thread has been dormant since early Dec 2023 after a splutter of activity around Warley last year of which these posts formed a part. Previously it had been dormant since October 2022. Not a lot of interest in TT:120 there.

 

I have not noticed any such issue myself, and the HSTs on Dawlish look utterly convincing.

 

I'd rather not start this hare running on here, but unfortunately I wasn't imagining the comments.

 

Better if we discussed the positive opportunities for making railway models at a scale of 1/120...

[britishcolumbian]

23 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

No loco kits from a brief look at those sites, boxcars and other freight rolling stock only.  I know there are structure kits as I've made some in 1/48th.  But I see no evidence of loco wheels or gearboxes, only a couple of motors.  P87 is almost non-existent as far as I can tell.

Not kits per se, but there are piles of parts for kitbashing (or superdetailing) locomotives - Cannon & Co is famous for this (there are others too, but I don't do HO so don't remember off hand). Kaslo Shops also do/did loco kits/conversion parts for Canadian subjects - BC Rail's 50kV electrics spring immediately to mind. As for wheels, NWSL can provide just about anything you want.

 

P:87 isn't common, no, but it does exist - I know of two or three P:87 modellers in BC and a few more in the Puget Sound area of Washington state. That's just a small corner of the continent.

 

And RPM ("Railway Prototype Modelling") meets happen all over the continent, some of them like Cocoa Beach and Naperville have been quite big, too. I attend the BC RPM meets as often as I can, and have been to ones in Washington state several times, too.

[britishcolumbian]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Where are the threads with people building chassis for Lincoln Locos bodies? Osborn Models have a range of kits.

For example:

 

[AY Mod]

4 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I'd rather not start this hare running on here, but unfortunately I wasn't imagining the comments.

 

Those sources quoted are based on 'looks like' without any empirical substance. Of little value until better evidenced.

[Ravenser]

41 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Those sources quoted are based on 'looks like' without any empirical substance. Of little value until better evidenced.

 

 

Quite. I'm 99.999% certain they're utter nonsense. But posting hard evidence  they're cobblers when you can't actually buy the models yet or pick them up or measure them is challenging. What could I say in response? "Well, actually I think they looked quite nice.." ?

 

I table it as evidence that quite a few people in the "established hobby" are prejudiced against this scale and this venture, and that's why visiblity is low, not that there is anything wrong with the models. I think some of the opposition to this scale is unreasonable

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

Quite. I'm 99.999% certain they're utter nonsense.

 

And yet you are desperate to post this allegation here. 

 

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

I'd rather not start this hare running on here,

 

Yes you would. This is just another pointless dig, from someone who keeps moaning about people being negative about TT:120. 

 

There's a simple cure for that. 

[Ravenser]

7 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

And yet you are desperate to post this allegation here. 

 

 

Yes you would. This is just another pointless dig, from someone who keeps moaning about people being negative about TT:120. 

 

There's a simple cure for that. 

 

I was accused of inventing them when I alluded to them as examples ofr prejudice. It was suggested I could not provide any evidence they had ever been said., Rather reluctantly I have provided the evidence I didn't make them up

[ColinK]

I saw a fair bit of the new Hornby TT stuff a few days ago.  Have to say it is a nice size and loos good.  Could well be tempted.

[osbornsmodels]

a while bach Moawkward stated I’ve got several of the Osbourne  😒(No'E' please) kits in my to buy list - I’ve got an L&Y kit too from a brand new small manufacturer. Don’t think anyone’s posted about them on here - they exist though and they’re making new kits to boot.

 

I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make… or why. If you can’t see TT content, that’s probably because you’re not looking for it in the right places.

 I have built a small diorama just to display various TT items that we manufacture. In this picture for example everything in shot is made by us and is available  right now )except the signals which were just for show). The track is Peco.

[froobyone]

Just now, ColinK said:

I saw a fair bit of the new Hornby TT stuff a few days ago.  Have to say it is a nice size and loos good.  Could well be tempted.

:D

[Hobby]

My layout is built to fit in the car, so us actually similar sized and similar track layout to one of my H0e layouts. If I were building for home use it would be very different.

 

Regarding Lincolm loco bodies the reason there's not many around is that there's few chassis that would fit. The 3mm version are big enough to take a butchered continental chassis, that's not the case with TT120. It will be as the range expands though.

Edited May 12 by Hobby

[Phil Parker]

54 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I was accused of inventing them when I alluded to them as examples ofr prejudice. It was suggested I could not provide any evidence they had ever been said., Rather reluctantly I have provided the evidence I didn't make them up

 

All you have proved is that some loon on social media said something. Something no one else had read, or cared about. You haven't proved it to be true, but keep repeating it. If you are going to spread every baseless allegation from random corners of the internet, then RMweb is going to become very full, very quickly. Stop it.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

My layout is built to fit in the car, so us actually similar sized and similar track layout to one of my H0e layouts. If I were building for home use it would be very different.

 

Regarding Lincolm loco bodies the reason there's not many around is that there's few chassis that would fit. The 3mm version are big enough to take a butchered continental chassis, that's not the case with TT120. It will be as the range expands though.

Is there anything (I don’t mean available as a kit or 3D print, just UK prototypes in general) that might fit on the Kof chassis? Maybe some kind of small industrial diesel (and yes, I know there’s a couple of them in the UK but they’re not really typical over here).

[Jeff Smith]

8 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

Not kits per se, but there are piles of parts for kitbashing (or superdetailing) locomotives - Cannon & Co is famous for this (there are others too, but I don't do HO so don't remember off hand). Kaslo Shops also do/did loco kits/conversion parts for Canadian subjects - BC Rail's 50kV electrics spring immediately to mind. As for wheels, NWSL can provide just about anything you want.

 

P:87 isn't common, no, but it does exist - I know of two or three P:87 modellers in BC and a few more in the Puget Sound area of Washington state. That's just a small corner of the continent.

 

And RPM ("Railway Prototype Modelling") meets happen all over the continent, some of them like Cocoa Beach and Naperville have been quite big, too. I attend the BC RPM meets as often as I can, and have been to ones in Washington state several times, too.

I had not previous!y explored NWSL's offerings.  Yes there are gears, gearboxes, motors and wheels including P87, but these seem to be aimed at improving RTR locos not constructing chassis.  The wheels seem to be all disc for diesels - I cannot see any wheels for steam locos.  It is just a whole different scene to UK kits and bits, especially for steam.

[Hobby]

11 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Is there anything (I don’t mean available as a kit or 3D print, just UK prototypes in general) that might fit on the Kof chassis? Maybe some kind of small industrial diesel (and yes, I know there’s a couple of them in the UK but they’re not really typical over here).

 

Not as far as I'm aware, mine's one of the dreaded "preserved" railways that some people think "doesn't count" as a true model railway, so I can run, within reason, what I like. The locos on the layout aren't currently preserved ones, but ones that "were" in my little universe, the Kof fits in with that. I know that goes against all that several other posters think is acceptable in a model railway but it does suit the making of a model railway layout using the restricted range we currently have. As time moves on I'll be getting stuff nearer to what I remember in '66 to '68 and some stuff will be sold on.

 

If I were really ambitious all I have to look is look at other forums (noticeably FB and YT) to see Lincoln Loco bodies being used in TT 120 scale. I have seen B12, Peppercorn A2, Gresley V2, A5 tank, Stanier 2-6-4, J39, Lord Nelson, Claude Hamilton, C15, Standard 5, Met Cam 101 DMU, ex LMS 10000, Co-Bo, Warship, Hymek, Peak, Class 40, Park Royal railbus, Deltic. Also using Shapeways 3d prints :- Unrebuilt W/C, Q1, WR railcar, J69, USA dock tank, EM1 Tommy, and motorised Corgi Britannia, Peppercorn A1, converting a Brit into a rebuilt W/C. I believe there are also 4 more Lincoln Locos bodies in the pipeline not even added in their 3mm list and two of these the Hornby chassis is not even available yet. So plenty of other TT 120 locos running if you want to do the conversions and can live with some chassis discrepancies and plenty for others to choose from. Repaints of existing Mk1 stock is out there, but I'm happy with what they've done so far, though a BR Blue/Grey Mk1 would be nice, but I can wait!

Edited May 13 by Hobby
spelling

[britishcolumbian]

5 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

I had not previous!y explored NWSL's offerings.  Yes there are gears, gearboxes, motors and wheels including P87, but these seem to be aimed at improving RTR locos not constructing chassis.  The wheels seem to be all disc for diesels - I cannot see any wheels for steam locos.  It is just a whole different scene to UK kits and bits, especially for steam.

That's true - steam is a different beast in North America. There, the tendency is towards short-run RTR brass, far more than scratchbuilding - even little logging steamers like various Shays and Climaxes are/have been available as RTR brass, though I've also seen kits for such over the years. Steam kitbashing isn't too uncommon, though, especially in Canada, as the chassis available with US outline equipment is often as not suitable for Canadian equipment, at best only the cab and various details need to be changed, worst case you need to build a new boiler, too.

 

Yes, it is a different scene in North America as regards locomotive building, as there the tendency/preference is towards kitbashing using existing RTR equipment rather than outright scratchbuilding... because it's possible. There aren't many NorAm (non-steam) locomotives that couldn't be modelled by kitbashing an existing model; in fact the only diesels that come to mind are the unique beasts built for the Gulf Mobile & Ohio by Ingalls Shipbuilding. Scratchbuilding of electrics - particularly freight motors on interurban lines - is more common, though even there, existing chassis are more likely to be adapted (even if that means using only the bogies), than outright scratchbuilding from zero. There's more than enough available to make it unnecessary... but most railway specific hobby shops will have yards of wall space dedicated to just parts, from various suppliers like Cal-Scale, Miniatures by Eric, Cannon & Co, and many others I can't name because I'm not in HO so it's outside my radar scope... I only know of Miniatures by Eric, for example, because their N scale 48" fans for diesel locomotives translate to 36" fans in 1:120.

 

Another source for kits and conversion aids I forgot to mention is railway historical societies, especially for the bigger railways. They often do short-run production of kits for unique items (structures or rolling stock) specific to that particular railway.

 

But it's wrong to say there's no kitbuilding or scratchbuilding (in which I'll include heavy kitbashing) happening at all, or that P87 is is nonexistent... I know of a number of people into both, even counting only just those in my own little corner of the continent whom I've met personally. Actually, there seems to be this general attitude that you move from "playing with trains" to "modelling" when you start building kits, and when you do your first locomotive kitbash, you move from casual to "serious" modeller.

 

I'd encourage you to visit an RPM meet in your area, and you'll get a very different look at the North American scene... the big Cocoa Beach meet  happens in January, and it seems the others in the southeast are done for the year (https://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/rpm-event-calendar/), but maybe something to plan for the future?

[britishcolumbian]

17 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I know that goes against all that several other posters think is acceptable in a model railway

 

I wonder what those people would say if I ever built something based on the paper-exercise alternate universe I play with, in which BC never joined Canada and became a Dominion in its own right... 😆railways with electrics like BB15000, JNR EF66, and Vectrons over the years alongside EMD, Alco, Baldwin, GE, and other diesels, and Deltic-based A-B-A sets built under licence locally (think along the lines of a pair of single-cab Class 55s sandwiching a cabless one)... etc etc

[andrewshimmin]

I'd be intrigued to know how many people (of the total number with model railways, not just those on RMWeb) have a "serious model railway layout" as opposed to a "train set plus".

I'm assuming (it's not my distinction!) that the former means scenic, a real or fictional but fairly realistic location, reasonably realistic track layout and curves, a coherent set of locos and stock appropriate for the location modelled, maybe even prototypical or reasonably realistic operation... The latter would include any roundy-roundy with sharp curves, eclectic stock, disjointed or little scenery, unrealistic operations...

I suspect that there will be far more of the latter than the former. Many of them unfinished, unglamorous, but bringing great pleasure to their owners. I've only ever had a "glorified train set" and it's never bothered me at all.