Hornby announce TT:120

[009 micro modeller]

7 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

Japan doing N at 1:150 scale/9 mm gauge makes some sense, because the narrow-gauge appearance is a good thing, since Japan runs on Cape gauge.

Although still not enough, to be accurate for Cape gauge it ideally needs to be 1:120. T gauge (and the slightly obscure ZZ) has a similar issue despite being originally developed in Japan.

[TT100 Diesels]

9 hours ago, fezza said:

 

It's worth saying that a lot of old TT100 is available at shows and is often very cheap. You can also buy modern 3d printed bodies to put on old model chassis. Get yourself a feedback controller and they will run well too. That's the way I'd go if I decide to go down the TT route. 

 

I really like the TT120 British outline stuff coming to market, its lovely. But as @fezza has said, it is quite small, and having seen it myself do tend to agree. Sure my TT100 stuff (3mm) requires modelling input , but at the end if the day, It has more presence or heft if you like. And when comparing the "ideal size" that sits between OO and N, TT100 wins for me for British outline. 

 

However, as @britishcolumbian says, the continental and American outline stuff is bigger in TT120 due to the bigger prototype loading gauge so in terms of presence, I think it "looks" closer to 3mm. 

 

The point made about mixing TT120 British and continental outline models is to me up to the individual. Depends what ones take is on a rule 1 sliding scale with serious authentic looking layout at one end and fun train set at the other. No right or wrong as long as one is gaining some enjoyment out of it.

 

The interesting question for me is if I were starting out afresh. What to go for, OO, 3mm, TT120 or N ? So many pros and cons for each choice, I really don't know, but we are spoiled for choice.

 

Cheers

TT100 Diesels

[britishcolumbian]

32 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Although still not enough, to be accurate for Cape gauge it ideally needs to be 1:120. T gauge (and the slightly obscure ZZ) has a similar issue despite being originally developed in Japan.

Yes, and TTj does exist, but it is very niche and eye-wateringly expensive. I saw a Tenshodo D51 in 1:120 advertised some time in the 90s, for the then-equivalent of $3000 - could get a very good used car for that price back then.

 

Edit to add: NZ120 is fairly common and uses the same setup, 1:120 on 9 mm track, and I know of a few people who've done some South African and Rhodesian outline models like that, too, and one person has done Canadian National's Newfoundland operations in 1:120/9mm as well. I've long been mildly tempted to dabble in a bit of Rhodesian modelling, but... I'm tempted by a lot.

Edited April 26 by britishcolumbian

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

Yes, and TTj does exist, but it is very niche and eye-wateringly expensive. I saw a Tenshodo D51 in 1:120 advertised some time in the 90s, for the then-equivalent of $3000 - could get a very good used car for that price back then.

 

Edit to add: NZ120 is fairly common and uses the same setup, 1:120 on 9 mm track, and I know of a few people who've done some South African and Rhodesian outline models like that, too, and one person has done Canadian National's Newfoundland operations in 1:120/9mm as well. I've long been mildly tempted to dabble in a bit of Rhodesian modelling, but... I'm tempted by a lot.

I know, I just wonder what the point is of increasing the scale (to 1:150, compared to 1:160 for standard gauge Shinkansen in the case of Japanese N) if it’s still not increased enough to actually scale correctly to the gauge. Otherwise it would seem sensible to just make everything the same scale.

 

The other 3’ 6” prototypes that might be of interest in the context of British 1:120 are town tramway systems, especially in the Black Country and East Anglia. A nice addition to a standard gauge layout perhaps?

[britishcolumbian]

9 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I know, I just wonder what the point is of increasing the scale (to 1:150, compared to 1:160 for standard gauge Shinkansen in the case of Japanese N) if it’s still not increased enough to actually scale correctly to the gauge. Otherwise it would seem sensible to just make everything the same scale.

 

I think the main factor behind Japan going with 1:150 on 9 mm is size. Japanese dwellings tend to be much smaller than even British and European ones (nevermind North America!), and in that context, 1:120 is a *lot* bigger than 1:150. The arrival of 9 mm gauge opened the possibility for railway modelling to become a mass hobby in Japan, but Kato decided that using the international standard of 1:160 would look too wrong, so opted for 1:150, which looks a good bit less wrong, as you still have the impression of narrow gauge.

[Hobby]

9 hours ago, TT100 Diesels said:

 

I really like the TT120 British outline stuff coming to market, its lovely. But as @fezza has said, it is quite small, and having seen it myself do tend to agree. Sure my TT100 stuff (3mm) requires modelling input , but at the end if the day, It has more presence or heft if you like. And when comparing the "ideal size" that sits between OO and N, TT100 wins for me for British outline. 

 

 The point made about mixing TT120 British and continental outline models is to me up to the individual. Depends what ones take is on a rule 1 sliding scale with serious authentic looking layout at one end and fun train set at the other. No right or wrong as long as one is gaining some enjoyment out of it.

 

I'd go slightly different. TT for me its the ideal scale as i can run Continental and British alongside each other and they will be correct. As I've travelled extensively over the Channel I know how big they are and to have them the same size if I mixed 100 and 120 it would just look wrong! Size wise it's ideal, enough bigger than N and smaller than 00. TT3 would be OK but for what i said earlier, and the gauge discrepancy.

Edited April 26 by Hobby

[Porfuera]

18 hours ago, Railpassion said:

After being enthusiastic about TT120 as a concept, and having had a TT continental layout for a time, yesterday I finally saw the Hornby range at Monk Bar Models in York. 

 

My first impression was that it's too small. It was quite a shock to see the scale close up, Flying Scotsman, the 08, and HST.  I was strangely disconcerted and underwhelmed, it simply did not work artistically. I never expected to say it, but I think that 3mm 100 is a much more satisfying size and scale. 

I saw the 3mm 100 diesels at the York Show and felt the were immediately attractive in shape and size. 

 

There is something psychological about scale, and it's no coincidence that 1:100 is architect's scale. 

 

I know you are just expressing a personal opinion, but you don't say whether the 3mm layout that you saw was running on 12mm or 14.2mm gauge track but if it was 12mm gauge then surely the rolling stock was over gauge which would contribute to its apparent bulk, giving the wrong impression when you look at something like TT:120 that has the correct gauge-to-scale ratio - just as it would when comparing British H0 to British 00.

 

And just as a model in TT:120 is almost twice the volume of the same model in 2mm scale, then something in TT100 is going to be around 60% bigger than the same thing in TT:120, so no surprise that TT:120 looks a fair bit smaller than TT100.

 

As for scale, that is just a ratio of the size of a model to the size of the real thing - I can't see how there is anything psychological about it apart from some people having a preference for bigger scales and others for smaller ones.

 

And surely there is nothing intrinsically special about architect's scale being 1:100 - it is simply easier to divide a measurement by 100 if you're making a model, which is nice for TT100 but it isn't an insurmountable problem in other scales.

 

Edited April 26 by Porfuera

[britishcolumbian]

28 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

And surely there is nothing intrinsically special about architect's scale being 1:100 - it is simply easier to divide a measurement by 100 if you're making a model, which is nice for TT100 but it isn't an insurmountable problem in other scales.

Quite, and 1:120 is just as convenient - 1 inch to 10 feet.

[Gary704]

I’ll wade in here rather than lurking in the dark corners!  Tbh when that Easterner train set finally arrived I was quite “shocked” by how small it was. However the detail and how it “sat” on the track with no wobble or overhang very quickly proved to me that I had made the right choice. Strange really.,

”00” no longer seems right to me. 

[Porfuera]

1 hour ago, Porfuera said:

something in TT100 is going to be around 60% bigger than the same thing in TT:120

 

I freely admit I'm rubbish at sums and on reflection something in TT100 might be only 42% bigger by volume than the same thing in TT:120. Even so, 42% is still a fair difference.

 

I'm sure that someone better than me can get the right figure!

[osbornsmodels]

Quote

it is simply easier to divide a measurement by 100 if you're making a model, which is nice for TT100 but it isn't an insurmountable problem in other scales.

 

Do you think  so when virtually all the available drawings are in feet and inches!! I don't find it easy when I then have to convert to mm. Not that difficult but certainly not 'easy'

[Porfuera]

4 minutes ago, osbornsmodels said:

Do you think  so when virtually all the available drawings are in feet and inches!! I don't find it easy when I then have to convert to mm. Not that difficult but certainly not 'easy'

 

I was just making the point that it is easier to divide by 100 than it is to divide by 76 or 87 or 43.5 or whatever, regardless of the units that the original drawings are in.

 

That's why I spent my life working with computers - they are much better at sums than I am.

[Jeff Smith]

4mm/ft is quite easy.......

[Porfuera]

19 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

4mm/ft is quite easy.......

 

Quite easy when you're dealing with whole numbers of feet I guess but I imagine it gets tedious if you're having to include odd inches and fractions of inches (and maybe yards) and then you're having to convert lots of measurements for a wagon or a loco or something...

[Les1952]

On the point of TT:120 UK stock looking small.   in 2022 I travelled from Newark on Trent to Venice by train.

 

Four trains, LNER to London, Eurostar to Paris then an Italian Frecciarossa to Milan and a Swiss train to Venice - the latter being a through train from Geneva.

 

The train from Newark to King's Cross was the only one where we travelled First Class, and had the most cramped seats of any of the trains- despite the seats in UK first Class being 2+1 seats across the gangway and all of the others being 2+2.  That brought it home just how much smaller the UK loading gauge is- our trains are not only much lower but also a fair bit narrower, compounded by the Azuma not being built to the full UK loading gauge to allow for tilt.

 

 

Pics show the Azuma and the Swiss unit.

 

Les

[Jeff Smith]

HO always looks a bit narrow-gauge to me.....

[moawkwrd]

23 hours ago, Railpassion said:

There is something psychological about scale, and it's no coincidence that 1:100 is architect's scale. 

Surely the psychological bit is the fact UK railway modellers have been working with largely incorrect scales for more than half a century and now something more correct has turned up.

Edited April 26 by moawkwrd

[natterjack]

For those having trouble with scale conversions and working in a CAD drawing programme, just draw the thing full size in your datum measurements and, when satisfied, draw an easily convertible box around the whole thing and change the scale in one go. All done with only one calculation.   You might then have to sort out practicable clearances, material thicknesses etc but that is another matter.

[black and decker boy]

4 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

I was just making the point that it is easier to divide by 100 than it is to divide by 76 or 87 or 43.5 or whatever, regardless of the units that the original drawings are in.

 

That's why I spent my life working with computers - they are much better at sums than I am.

Easier to divide by 76 than 100

 

 

its 1 less button to press on the calculator ;-)

[TrainsRule88]

I actually quite like the idea of TT:120 and will probably buy a few items once the range has expanded. 
 

I do like the idea of the correct gauge for the scale, however as with everything in model railways, there will always be compromises. The gauge might be correct, but the compromises are elsewhere such as the huge flanges on the TT wheels. 
 

Hopefully as this scale progresses, they can make the flanges on the wheels smaller. I remember when N gauge & 00 gauge also had giant pizza cutter flanges in previous years but now both have most often very fine flanges. I am sure TT will go the same way eventually. 
 

What I actually like is seeing a new scale in the UK being born. This provides us to own a piece of model railway history!

Edited April 26 by TrainsRule88
Spelling

[Railpassion]

Here's a 1/100 model of Friedrichstasse in the Cold War from the Palace of Tears Museum in Berlin 

[natterjack]

7 minutes ago, Railpassion said:

Here's a 1/100 model of Friedrichstasse in the Cold War from the Palace of Tears Museum in Berlin 

Problem with using Imperial Western 1/120?

[britishcolumbian]

6 hours ago, osbornsmodels said:

Do you think  so when virtually all the available drawings are in feet and inches!! I don't find it easy when I then have to convert to mm. Not that difficult but certainly not 'easy'

Well 1:120 is your friend then! 1 inch = 10 feet! :)

[PeterStiles]

12 hours ago, Porfuera said:

12 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

4mm/ft is quite easy.......

 

Quite easy when you're dealing with whole numbers of feet I guess but I imagine it gets tedious if you're having to include odd inches and fractions of inches

Ah, but the pint is, when it's smaller than 1mm it's too small to worrit about, or model.

 

Except the rivets.

[Porfuera]

9 hours ago, Railpassion said:

Here's a 1/100 model of Friedrichstasse in the Cold War from the Palace of Tears Museum in Berlin 

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, really, apart from the fact that 1/100 is an international architectural modelling scale.

 

Just like TT:120 is an international model railway scale, whereas TT3/TT100 isn't.

 

In fact, AFAIAA it is so international that the rest of the world just calls it 'TT' whereas we are forced to call it 'TT:120'.

 

Edited April 27 by Porfuera