TT:120 Easterner

[Ravenser]

I am most certainly not Simon Kohler in disguise. 

 

As I said, my point was "what can you do with a TT:120 set/already promised products " , not to say "you shouldn't model X in this scale you should model it in that scale"

 

 A post war ECML layout does seem like an obvious candidate for TT:120

 

But I do note that a thread about actual TT products is getting repeated posts arguing that you shouldn't model the ECML in TT:120 , you should do it in N.... I'm struck by the way that any attempt to see positives or potential or opportunities in this new scale gets jumped on in that way

 

And the line always seems to be "why model in TT when you can open a box in N?"  In the case of an OP whose main modelling commitment is P4, that seems a seriously misplaced  line to take. If you went up to an S gauge modeller and asked him why on earth he was doing it when he could simply buy everything RTR in OO, you would be missing the point. Some people may prefer a more constructional approach

 

I do think that TT:120 is probably going to be a more craft-based scale than N - you will need to do more yourself and hopefully the moderately larger scale will allow you to do so more easily.  Certainly Continental TT looks a more craft based culture than Continental HO and N . 

 

I stand by my comment that based on everything I've seen so far the culture of N gauge seems a lot more RTR and a fair bit less constructional than I'm used to in 4mm. The models you show are nice to see: it's just there seems to be a lot less of that in N than in 4mm

 

I'm aware of both Chivas and the NGS kits. In fact I currently have a Chivas SSA kit and an NGS chemical tank kit in progress (this even before I've ballasted the track). I've also built a couple of SSAs from Cambrian kits in 4mm so I have a direct comparison. The Chivas N gauge kit is very simple but it relies on a RTR Peco chassis which has completely the wrong  suspension - a compromise nobody would accept in 4mm. I'll be changing the plastic wheels. The body I removed from the donor Peco wagon is clearly based on the 1960 Izal palvans - but stretched to fit a TTA chassis. This is the 4mm equivalent:  4mm Izal van from Rumney  . 

 

The same Peco chassis goes under the NGS chemical TTA. It is a very simple kit indeed , and I certainly intend to get and build more of the kits. (A wagon works will handle plenty of repairs on tank wagons) . And I'm painting my kit. But building kits seems rather less common in N than in 4mm, even though the kits that are available seem to be really very simple - just a few pieces

 

One of the key components for TT:120 to develop will be a moderate range of plastic wagon kits. That won't come from Hornby - Peco (under the Parkside brand) seem more likely

 

I've seen the Hornby coaches in the flesh - there was a TT layout operating on their stand at Warley, and I spent 5 minutes or so looking. The wagons also looked good - close to modern 4mm standard in my view , and better than the steam age N gauge wagons I've seen in the shops.

 

Lastly, I'm afraid you've missed my point about wheel and track standards. In a 4mm context it's taken for granted that wheels and track should be properly matched so that the wheel/track interface works correctly. This is not primarily about looking pretty , its about engineering coherence - though in practice the finest wheels and track are produced to the tightest compatibility.

 

 The basic engineering principles of the wheel /track interface don't simply evaporate cos you're modelling in N.

 

I've taken the trouble to do some measuring of things in N and the results are here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/171439-do-we-need-a-current-day-brmsb/page/14/

 

Not a single wheelset seems to conform to either old or new NMRA standards as listed in the NGS Handbook, or to NEM310/311. The wheelset differ significantly from one model to another within the same manufacturer's range .

 

Hornby declare they are working to the established Continen tal TT standards

 

A consistant wheel and track standard delivers better running , and is therefore a plus

 

 

[Ravenser]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

For my own part, although ordering the Easterner this is a value for money buy to understand the scale and quality.  The Mk1 coaches might find a use on a GWR BLT which is my main interest.  And obviously I look forward to the suggested GWR products....

 

Apologies. The 57xx will clearly be a critical item... Would a single track secondary route , maybe a holiday route with a passing station and holiday trains , work as a continous circuit?

[Jeff Smith]

No apologies required.  My last completed (and sold) layout was Bachmann RTR On30 continuous run and frankly a bit boring! However, yes the 57xx would fit, but so would have a green 08, but that decision by Hornby has already been beaten to death!

 

Anyway, I anxiously await my Easterner.....

[Roy L S]

19 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I am most certainly not Simon Kohler in disguise. 

 

As I said, my point was "what can you do with a TT:120 set/already promised products " , not to say "you shouldn't model X in this scale you should model it in that scale"

 

 A post war ECML layout does seem like an obvious candidate for TT:120

 

But I do note that a thread about actual TT products is getting repeated posts arguing that you shouldn't model the ECML in TT:120 , you should do it in N.... I'm struck by the way that any attempt to see positives or potential or opportunities in this new scale gets jumped on in that way

 

And the line always seems to be "why model in TT when you can open a box in N?"  In the case of an OP whose main modelling commitment is P4, that seems a seriously misplaced  line to take. If you went up to an S gauge modeller and asked him why on earth he was doing it when he could simply buy everything RTR in OO, you would be missing the point. Some people may prefer a more constructional approach

 

I do think that TT:120 is probably going to be a more craft-based scale than N - you will need to do more yourself and hopefully the moderately larger scale will allow you to do so more easily.  Certainly Continental TT looks a more craft based culture than Continental HO and N . 

 

I stand by my comment that based on everything I've seen so far the culture of N gauge seems a lot more RTR and a fair bit less constructional than I'm used to in 4mm. The models you show are nice to see: it's just there seems to be a lot less of that in N than in 4mm

 

I'm aware of both Chivas and the NGS kits. In fact I currently have a Chivas SSA kit and an NGS chemical tank kit in progress (this even before I've ballasted the track). I've also built a couple of SSAs from Cambrian kits in 4mm so I have a direct comparison. The Chivas N gauge kit is very simple but it relies on a RTR Peco chassis which has completely the wrong  suspension - a compromise nobody would accept in 4mm. I'll be changing the plastic wheels. The body I removed from the donor Peco wagon is clearly based on the 1960 Izal palvans - but stretched to fit a TTA chassis. This is the 4mm equivalent:  4mm Izal van from Rumney  . 

 

The same Peco chassis goes under the NGS chemical TTA. It is a very simple kit indeed , and I certainly intend to get and build more of the kits. (A wagon works will handle plenty of repairs on tank wagons) . And I'm painting my kit. But building kits seems rather less common in N than in 4mm, even though the kits that are available seem to be really very simple - just a few pieces

 

One of the key components for TT:120 to develop will be a moderate range of plastic wagon kits. That won't come from Hornby - Peco (under the Parkside brand) seem more likely

 

I've seen the Hornby coaches in the flesh - there was a TT layout operating on their stand at Warley, and I spent 5 minutes or so looking. The wagons also looked good - close to modern 4mm standard in my view , and better than the steam age N gauge wagons I've seen in the shops.

 

Lastly, I'm afraid you've missed my point about wheel and track standards. In a 4mm context it's taken for granted that wheels and track should be properly matched so that the wheel/track interface works correctly. This is not primarily about looking pretty , its about engineering coherence - though in practice the finest wheels and track are produced to the tightest compatibility.

 

 The basic engineering principles of the wheel /track interface don't simply evaporate cos you're modelling in N.

 

I've taken the trouble to do some measuring of things in N and the results are here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/171439-do-we-need-a-current-day-brmsb/page/14/

 

Not a single wheelset seems to conform to either old or new NMRA standards as listed in the NGS Handbook, or to NEM310/311. The wheelset differ significantly from one model to another within the same manufacturer's range .

 

Hornby declare they are working to the established Continen tal TT standards

 

A consistant wheel and track standard delivers better running , and is therefore a plus

 

 

 

The comment about Simon Kohler was of course tongue in cheek.

 

I wasn't for a minute suggesting that a person shouldn't model the ECML in TT120 if that is their choice, simply that for it to be even remotely representative you need a lot more locos/stock than is likely to be available for a very long time to come. Of course that doesn't mean that in almost every other respect apart from rolling stock a fine TT120 layout can't be produced right here and now using Peco track, accessories and a modicum of scratch building (I look forward to seeing it), it largely depends what an individual is looking for.

 

My chosen modelling scale is British N and has been for years but I am most certainly not so closed minded as to say it is the only possible choice, I just don't appreciate the stereotyping which is in my experience not representative, in my Club alone we have a healthy number of "N Gaugers" who are also very capable modellers in the broadest sense. 

 

To understand the range of locos and rolling stock needed to truly represent ECML post-war operation I had the privilege of being invited to operate Tony Wright's "Little Bytham" on a couple of occasions. The variety is truly mind boggling and .even in N things can only really be loosely representative, but my point was more that in a space 1/5 smaller than TT120 would take you can have something carrying a decent cross-section of trains as part of the package right now. For those who are set on TT120 I accept that point is moot.

 

In terms of wheel standards, it was certainly my understanding that Bachmann used established international N standards for flange and wheel profiles as do the likes of RevolutioN, but I do not know if this is also true of Dapol and others. Certainly operationally I have few problems practically speaking.

 

I would have to agree that some (not all) NGS kits in relying on generic Peco chassis are a compromise, and having put together some O wagons I appreciate your point, but whether TT120 kits will be any better is as yet an unknown, a lot will depend on volume of sales possible. Similarly whether the extra 1/5 in size will make TT120 more of a "chassis up" kitbuilder's scale is totally unknown and entirely dependent on take up of this initial range and indeed who the target Market is. If it is a new as yet untapped one then there is realistically a blank page, it could just as well be that new entrants will be looking for RTR not kits.

 

I honestly can't see things moving seismically in the next 12 months, but at least by then people will have been able to see and handle the Tt120 offering and draw their own conclusions. As for me, I am looking forward to receiving my Easterner set, new scales don't come along at all often and this is why I believe as yet there are few conclusive answers as far as TT120 goes or how it will fit in around other established scales (if it does)..

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

 

[idd15]

According to Horny TT120 live on YouTube that was “broadcast” today, Hornby now have an expectation that the Easteners sets will be in their warehouse 30 Jan.

 

There are also two 0-6-0’s in the pipeline with one in tooling and the second about to go into tooling.

 

HST’s will have the same lighting capabilities as the OO models and the 66’s will also have directional lighting.

 

Wagons and 08’s in production and they will do a green 08 if enough people ask for it!

Think those are the main points for us TT folk. Worth a look on YouTube.

 

HTH

idd

 

 

 

 

 

[spamcan61]

6 minutes ago, idd15 said:

According to Horny TT120 live on YouTube that was “broadcast” today, Hornby now have an expectation that the Easteners sets will be in their warehouse 30 Jan.

 

There are also two 0-6-0’s in the pipeline with one in tooling and the second about to go into tooling.

 

HST’s will have the same lighting capabilities as the OO models and the 66’s will also have directional lighting.

 

Wagons and 08’s in production and they will do a green 08 if enough people ask for it!

Think those are the main points for us TT folk. Worth a look on YouTube.

 

HTH

idd

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for watching the 'video' and distilling out the salient points so I don't have to ;-)

[D9020 Nimbus]

It's worth pointing out that the models listed by @Roy L S as "available" in N gauge is a listing of those that have been made in the past to reasonably current standards (so doesn't include the "skirted" V2). Not many of these are actually "available" at the present time. Loco-wise there are Dapol A3s and A4s. There are no Farish A1s or A2s available new, nor have there been any for some time. The Dapol 9F is currently available, as is the Farish "Austerity" (the latter only in LNER livery). The Farish J39 was last done about 11 years ago; a reissue was promised in 2019, but has yet to arrive… it's currently scheduled for this year, I think.

 

The only mark 1 coaches available new at this time are the suburbans, the BG and RU. The Thompson coaches have gone a couple of years ago, and have never been offered in maroon. Neither of the two B1s offered in the past has been available for some time. The Dapol Gresley coaches have just been reissued in crimson/cream livery.

 

Generally if the model you're interested in is made by Dapol, it will generally be reissued from time to time. If it was made by Farish, you will have to wait a long time—if it ever arrives at all. Of course, they might be available secondhand …

[Flying Pig]

25 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

Similarly whether the extra 1/5 in size will make TT120 more of a "chassis up" kitbuilder's scale is totally unknown and entirely dependent on take up of this initial range and indeed who the target Market is.

 

How the actual market develops is more important here.  If "modellers" buy the stuff and want kits there'll be a market for them regardless of what Hornby originally envisaged.

[john new]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Apologies. The 57xx will clearly be a critical item... Would a single track secondary route , maybe a holiday route with a passing station and holiday trains , work as a continous circuit?

That last point is a yes but with one big Rule 1 yes/no issue to contend with. I found this out decades ago in trying to work out a sequence for a club layout of Evercreech Junction, the problem is summer Saturday services were tidal - very early mornings overnight Friday departures inward, then out from the coast in the rest of the morning with later afternoon inbound again. Reason holidaymakers booked out of their B&Bs on changeover Saturday mornings and the new lot registered in teatime and onwards.

 

Therefore you either use rule 1 so that up and down trains occur all day (our cheat) or have a very big fiddle yard so you get a sequence of main line trains one way plus the odd local both ways in the first half swapping to the reverse direction for the second half.

 

There are prototype cross-country holiday lines, the two most notable being the S&DJR and the M&GN - neither using the big pacific types. There are prototype branches with big engines on short trains but the only one’s I can recall off the top of my head are ex-LSWR routes, not  ex-LNER.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by john new
Typo correction

[Roy L S]

21 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

It's worth pointing out that the models listed by @Roy L S as "available" in N gauge is a listing of those that have been made in the past to reasonably current standards (so doesn't include the "skirted" V2). Not many of these are actually "available" at the present time. Loco-wise there are Dapol A3s and A4s. There are no Farish A1s or A2s available new, nor have there been any for some time. The Dapol 9F is currently available, as is the Farish "Austerity" (the latter only in LNER livery). The Farish J39 was last done about 11 years ago; a reissue was promised in 2019, but has yet to arrive… it's currently scheduled for this year, I think.

 

The only mark 1 coaches available new at this time are the suburbans, the BG and RU. The Thompson coaches have gone a couple of years ago, and have never been offered in maroon. Neither of the two B1s offered in the past has been available for some time. The Dapol Gresley coaches have just been reissued in crimson/cream livery.

 

Generally if the model you're interested in is made by Dapol, it will generally be reissued from time to time. If it was made by Farish, you will have to wait a long time—if it ever arrives at all. Of course, they might be available secondhand …

 

Available in the sense that they have been produced fairly recently and can be purchased in most cases new or preowned by shopping around. Such is the nature of batch manufacturing these days that it is pretty much universally accepted that no manufacturer will maintain a full inventory in their warehouse.

 

I have to agree that Dapol do tend to produce much more frequent re-runs of their models than Bachmann these days. In terms of Farish steam, as well as the J39 (due mid-year) there is also the sound upgraded 5MT to come around the same time..

[D9020 Nimbus]

Some ex-NER branches were RA9 — Richmond for one. I believe V2s were used on trains to Catterick Camp on that branch. B1s were common, more particularly in Scotland. I can't recall any mention of Pacifics appearing on branch lines; that would be pretty much restricted to the ex-LSWR.

[john new]

1 minute ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Some ex-NER branches were RA9 — Richmond for one. I believe V2s were used on trains to Catterick Camp on that branch. B1s were common, more particularly in Scotland. I can't recall any mention of Pacifics appearing on branch lines; that would be pretty much restricted to the ex-LSWR.

The odd school special for Ampleforth, plus IIRC a BR days one-off royal(ish) wedding special used the Coxwold and Gilling Branch with big engines but would be very restrictive as model. A single date for the royal service and very few days per year for the school specials.

 

Partly interpretation as what constitutes cross-country for ex-LNER but the Leeds Northern line via Ripon might creep in (I considered that a main-line) and you might include oddities too like race specials to Wetherby.

 

There was one I did forget, Hull to Scarborough via Beverley and Filey but I can’t remember what RA it was in steam days.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Some ex-NER branches were RA9 — Richmond for one. I believe V2s were used on trains to Catterick Camp on that branch. B1s were common, more particularly in Scotland. I can't recall any mention of Pacifics appearing on branch lines; that would be pretty much restricted to the ex-LSWR.

 

1 hour ago, john new said:

The odd school special for Ampleforth, plus IIRC a BR days one-off royal(ish) wedding special used the Coxwold and Gilling Branch with big engines but would be very restrictive as model. A single date for the royal service and very few days per year for the school specials.

 

Partly interpretation as what constitutes cross-country for ex-LNER but the Leeds Northern line via Ripon might creep in (I considered that a main-line) and you might include oddities too like race specials to Wetherby.

 

There was one I did forget, Hull to Scarborough via Beverley and Filey but I can’t remember what RA it was in steam days.

 

 

Just to add that the East Lincolnshire line is a no-no as well : special dispensation required during wartime to run V2s , though Britannias were OK . 4472 made it into Grimsby in 1969 as a one off . B1s got into Skegness and Cleethorpes . I think Britannias are being touted for a later stage, but I'm trying to confine ideas to suit to what is definitely promised in Phases 1-4, with models floated as later phases being used to fill out the scenario

 

Given the availability of A3 and A4 from the start , along with Mk1s and the likely availability of etched sides for Mk1s in TT:120 from Worsley , I still think a Stoke Summit style  ECML layout is the best option if you want a "watching the trains go by" style layout using the intial releases. JeffSmith has said that's not his cup of tea, and it's not mine but it will suit quite a few people , and you need a big space to try it in 4mm. With Gresley coaches promised in a later phase, along with a 31 , a 9F and probably a Britannia and an A1 after that, the bare bones for an approximation of an ECML lineside would be there

 

The holiday line idea came from JeffSmith saying his interests were GWR . I was trying to think of a way of combining a Castle (the large GW loco promised)  maroon Mk1s and 57xx in a rural scene. But there are difficulties

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, john new said:

That last point is a yes but with one big Rule 1 yes/no issue to contend with. I found this out decades ago in trying to work out a sequence for a club layout of Evercreech Junction, the problem is summer Saturday services were tidal - very early mornings overnight Friday departures inward, then out from the coast in the rest of the morning with later afternoon inbound again. Reason holidaymakers booked out of their B&Bs on changeover Saturday mornings and the new lot registered in teatime and onwards.

 

Therefore you either use rule 1 so that up and down trains occur all day (our cheat) or have a very big fiddle yard so you get a sequence of main line trains one way plus the odd local both ways in the first half swapping to the reverse direction for the second half.

 

There are prototype cross-country holiday lines, the two most notable being the S&DJR and the M&GN - neither using the big pacific types. There are prototype branches with big engines on short trains but the only one’s I can recall off the top of my head are ex-LSWR routes, not  ex-LNER.

 

 

 

The holiday line idea was a response to JeffSmith saying his interests were GWR. It won't suit a Gresley Pacific...

 

I was trying to think of a scenario which could combine a Castle (promised) with a 57xx and maroon Mk1s , for a simple continous run layout.

 

There are problems because routes like the Cambrian , the Ruabon route through to Barmouth Jnc and the Afon Wen line could not take a Castle  (there have been one or two such layouts in the magazines recently).

 

It would at least have more operational interest than the mainline plain double track "cavalcade" layout, through crossing trains and a pickup goods to shunt the yard

 

The S&DJR did see Bulleid Pacifics , but they haven't been promised in TT:120 although 9Fs have been. 

 

Castles could certainly reach Kingswear and I think maybe St Ives as well, but those were BLTs. Mk1 corridor stock doesn't quite seem like regular branch line fare in the 1950s

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Ravenser

[Chris M]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I stand by my comment that based on everything I've seen so far the culture of N gauge seems a lot more RTR and a fair bit less constructional than I'm used to in 4mm. The models you show are nice to see: it's just there seems to be a lot less of that in N than in 4mm

 

So are you suggesting that N gauge modellers are lesser than 00 modellers?  From what I have seen almost all 00 layouts at exhibitions rely heavily on RTR, and why not? I don't see that choosing to buy a well detailed model is not as good as trying to build and decorate a kit to the same standard. I rely entirely on RTR locos for my N gauge layout and your comment feels like a bit of a dig at me and my fellows.

 

You comment is also odd because Hornby TT:120 is clearly aimed at the "train set" market at the current time. Initial sales seem to suggest it will be successful but only time will tell. If you are a serious modeller wishing to create a serious layout running a good variety of correct stock I expect it will be a decade or more before a sufficient range of locos and stock is available in TT:120 no matter what your location or era.  I will be amazed if we see any TT:120 layouts using 25% kit or scratch built locos in the next five years.

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, Roy L S said:

 

 

 

Whether TT120 kits will be any better is as yet an unknown, a lot will depend on volume of sales possible. Similarly whether the extra 1/5 in size will make TT120 more of a "chassis up" kitbuilder's scale is totally unknown and entirely dependent on take up of this initial range 

 

I honestly can't see things moving seismically in the next 12 months, but at least by then people will have been able to see and handle the Tt120 offering and draw their own conclusions. As for me, I am looking forward to receiving my Easterner set, new scales don't come along at all often and this is why I believe as yet there are few conclusive answers as far as TT120 goes or how it will fit in around other established scales (if it does)..

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

 

 

The key question is going to be whether the extra size of TT120 is enough to make an appreciable difference to the ease of making things

 

Etched coach sides may be a good test. Etched brass sides on a donor vehicle is an accepted route in 4mm , and clearly perfectly workable in 3mm, with comparable results. It doesn't seem to be a common resource in N. Will it work in TT:120, or is that too below the critical point where the technique stops working well? Repainting coaches is accepted in 4mm , and necessarily in 3mm . Plain maroon is as easy as they get .

 

If reskinning Hornby Mk1s with Worsley etched sides and respraying in maroon is reasonably easy  and you don't need to be Tim Watson to get a decent result , then it's "game on" for TT:120 as a constructional scale. If it's too much of a struggle for the average experienced modeller , then this is a RTR-only scale and things look much more difficult for it

 

 

Quote

In terms of wheel standards, it was certainly my understanding that Bachmann used established international N standards for flange and wheel profiles as do the likes of RevolutioN, but I do not know if this is also true of Dapol and others. Certainly operationally I have few problems practically speaking.

 

I'd hoped that was what I'd find , but when I lifted the bonnet and started using the dial calipers things were all over the shop. I can't reconcile my measurements for any vehicle with any of the 3 published 9mm standards, and they aren't even the same on vehicles from the same manufacturer. It's a bit depressing . The NGS approach of sticking a page at the back of the Manual saying "here are 2 standards, but actually the manufacturers don't really work to either" looks a bit like washing your hands of the whole subject.

 

Since the N gauge project is a modern wagon works and largely uses big bogie wagons , there's probably enough mass and inertia to  stop things running amok. But I do wonder about the NGS Hunslet stalling at frogs because one wheel has fallen into the Grand Canyon , sorry Peco's idea of a crossing flangeway. So far there's no significant problems, but big lurches are visible as stuff crosses points

[Ravenser]

6 minutes ago, Chris M said:

So are you suggesting that N gauge modellers are lesser than 00 modellers?  From what I have seen almost all 00 layouts at exhibitions rely heavily on RTR, and why not? I don't see that choosing to buy a well detailed model is not as good as trying to build and decorate a kit to the same standard. I rely entirely on RTR locos for my N gauge layout and your comment feels like a bit of a dig at me and my fellows.

 

You comment is also odd because Hornby TT:120 is clearly aimed at the "train set" market at the current time. Initial sales seem to suggest it will be successful but only time will tell. If you are a serious modeller wishing to create a serious layout running a good variety of correct stock I expect it will be a decade or more before a sufficient range of locos and stock is available in TT:120 no matter what your location or era.  I will be amazed if we see any TT:120 layouts using 25% kit or scratch built locos in the next five years.

 

 

I said 4mm modellers , not simply OO. Yes most OO exhibition layouts rely heavily on RTR , but not exclusively. A lot of 4mm modellers supplement RTR with kits, especially at exhibition level. 4mm finescale plays a relatively larger part in the 4mm scene than 2mm finescale does with N. My perception is that a lot of N gauge layouts rely exclusively on RTR - possibly because N is just a bit too small to make building it yourself comfortable.

 

Whether TT:120 offers a sufficient increase in size to make a serious difference to ease of construction is a critical question

 

Hornby TT:120 is not aimed at the "train set" market, because that is an "older children" market. It's aimed at adults new to the hobby, who feel that 4mm takes up more space than they have available . I think this is probably a 21-50 demographic.

 

It's other big target is those already in the hobby who don't really have space to do much in 4mm , but who have dabbled with N and found it didn't suit them . From a 4mm perspective I see a steady trickle of postings from people saying "Don't have much space, haven't been able to build a layout, tried N but couldn't get on with it , so here I am back in 4mm"

 

Whether TT:120 will work for those people is another critical question.

 

Those kind of people will start with RTR , but they may well be open to supplementing it with some kind of build yourself (such as a 3D print) - if the scale allows it .

 

Whether TT:120 is big enough to allow something like the ease of construction we take for granted in 3mm and 4mm scale is very much an open question , and probably quite critical to the future of all this

 

I'm not saying that N gauge modellers are lesser modellers. I'm saying that N gauge is arguably a bit too small for making things to be comfortable 

 

I still have fairly painful memories of attempting to apply 7 seperate decals to the end door of a shipping container in N 

[Roy L S]

33 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Since the N gauge project is a modern wagon works and largely uses big bogie wagons , there's probably enough mass and inertia to  stop things running amok. But I do wonder about the NGS Hunslet stalling at frogs because one wheel has fallen into the Grand Canyon , sorry Peco's idea of a crossing flangeway. So far there's no significant problems, but big lurches are visible as stuff crosses points

I agree, the Peco flangeways are, erm, generous to put it nicely.

 

From the sound of things you aren't put off by kits, so perhaps Code 40 N Gauge track may be something to look at?

 

Here is a pic pf a B8 turnout in Code 40 Bullhead I recently made. This will accommodate modern N wheels such as latest Farish but with a smooth ride through the frog. Yes, the kits take a bit of time to make, a number of wiring feeds and need to be dropped along with needing a slow action motor (with polarity switching for the frog) but in terms of finesse and looks there is simply no comparison when put next to Peco Code 55.

 

These can be bought from  https://www.britishfinescale.com  along with plain track components, Wayne Kinney (proprietor) is really helpful.

 

Regards 

 

Roy

 

[Jeff Smith]

43 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

These can be bought from  https://www.britishfinescale.com  along with plain track components, Wayne Kinney (proprietor) is really helpful.

Wayne has been quite busy lately with OO and EM projects but must be keeping a watching brief on the progress of British TT:120 with the potential of fine scale BH track.  This also could have Continental sales potential!

[Ravenser]

14 hours ago, Roy L S said:

I agree, the Peco flangeways are, erm, generous to put it nicely.

 

From the sound of things you aren't put off by kits, so perhaps Code 40 N Gauge track may be something to look at?

 

Here is a pic pf a B8 turnout in Code 40 Bullhead I recently made. This will accommodate modern N wheels such as latest Farish but with a smooth ride through the frog. Yes, the kits take a bit of time to make, a number of wiring feeds and need to be dropped along with needing a slow action motor (with polarity switching for the frog) but in terms of finesse and looks there is simply no comparison when put next to Peco Code 55.

 

These can be bought from  https://www.britishfinescale.com  along with plain track components, Wayne Kinney (proprietor) is really helpful.

 

Regards 

 

Roy

 

 

 

I'm afraid I've laid nearly all the track , so I'm committed to Peco code 55 now

 

That said, 2 out of 7 points I've bought have failed at the tie bar in the 9 months I've been going . One before it was laid and I had to buy a replacement as the switch blades broke up. the second has one blade sprung loose, and I'm going to have to try to extract the plastic tie bar somehow and somehow fiddle a piece of PCB strip under (and over the solenoid point motor pin) and solder the switch blades in place to the PCB

 

If that fails, it will be cut the point out with a slitting disc and replace (It's deeply buried in the track formation). I'm really not looking forward to any of this...

 

Hence my main reaction to the Code 40 is "I hope the tie bar is securely fitted" . That would be a substantial plus over Peco in my eyes

 

N gauge track  (The affected point is above the TTA in the third picture , with a white patch under it , concealing the whacking great hole for a Peco solenoid)

 

Apologies for thread diversion . Trying to drag this back on topic - this side project makes it possible to play with large modern stock that I could never hope to run on a 4mm project , as I live in a 2 bedroom flat .

 

That is a logic that crosses over to TT:120 as well as N . The wagon works project could have been done in TT - a couple of 66s and an 08 would do the job. Some compression would be needed to fit in the same 6' length , but many more of the wagons would be 4 wheel (HAA, CDA, TTA,) + IFA so train lengths should still look ok . It might work best pushed back to the 1990s with 47s and 37s and treated as  a BR facility.

 

Since I had a small core of modern N stock in a drawer (arising from 2 Dapol 66/5s I was given) , N gauge was a a given for me

Edited January 20, 2023 by Ravenser
an IFA is useful - but not 4 wheeled

[Dava]

On 02/01/2023 at 23:35, Ravenser said:

 

The LNER had 201 Pacifics and 2 streamlined B17s, which were de-streamlined after the war

 

The Pacifics were used over about 750 route miles., serving London , 5 major provincial conurbations and 7-8 medium sized cities.  The streamlined B17s operated over 112 route miles serving London , one medium sized city and one large county town.

 

Streamlined B17s haven't even been done in OO.....

The streamlined B17 would be an ideal 3D one piece print on a 4-6-0 chassis when one appears, such as a Black 5 or the Castle 

 

Ravenser said: 

“I do think that TT:120 is probably going to be a more craft-based scale than N - you will need to do more yourself and hopefully the moderately larger scale will allow you to do so more easily.  Certainly Continental TT looks a more craft based culture than Continental HO and N .”

 

I like craft based modelling , I’m not a micro-engineer capable of building chassis in this scale. Crafting from an RTR base is ok. An 0-6-0 chassis with replacement kit or 3D bodies will be very useful for example. So would Peco wagon kits with steel chassis, wheelsets, couplings available. A green 08 shunter set would be a good start.

 

Dava

Edited January 20, 2023 by Dava
Update

[Les1952]

15 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Some ex-NER branches were RA9 — Richmond for one. I believe V2s were used on trains to Catterick Camp on that branch. B1s were common, more particularly in Scotland. I can't recall any mention of Pacifics appearing on branch lines; that would be pretty much restricted to the ex-LSWR.

 

V2s did run to Catterick Camp on troop trains.  They ran twice through Croft Spa on each trip- once chimney first and once tender-first.  This was because the lead for the Richmond branch faced North, so the V2 ran round its train before pulling it back the 7 miles to Eryholme Junction.

 

It then ran round again at Catterick Bridge as the lead for Catterick Camp faced Richmond...

 

 

Pic on my recently sold layout.

 

Les

 

[Taigatrommel]

18 hours ago, Ravenser said:

  Certainly Continental TT looks a more craft based culture than Continental HO and N .

 

Depends on the prototype.  I've seen Hungarian and Polish outline layouts with extensive selections of kit/scratchbuilt stock, and German & Czech outline ones exlusively populated with RTR.  When it comes to scenics I sometimes notice the same buildings cropping up across layouts, though I've also seen a healthy number modelling specific prototypes.  This is equally true for H0 though.

 

There are a decent number of "small series manufacturers", but I have no idea how the number compares to other scales - I never got in so deeply with German H0 as I have with TT.  Here's a list which might not be comprehensive:  https://www.fktt-module.de/de/Kleinserienhersteller

 

Sometimes models which I thought were kit builds have been revealed to me to be RTR, for example there's a remarkable range of German TTe, not cheap but still prices are lower than Bemo equivalents.  The range of TT Czech outline building kits seems to outnumber those of German outline!

 

If one wanted to see a representative taster, I'd say Erlebnis Modellbahn in Dresden the best for layouts that I've been to, though Modell Hobby Spiel is good for trade.

[Philately]

For me the Easterner represents BR as I remember it better than the Scotsman.  

 

Apropos secondary ex-LNER secondary routes, in the days before the 4-car Metro-Cammels, the Newcastle-Carlisle route was populated by B1s but V2s were not uncommon.  There was a Haymarket turn for an A3 which travelled Edinburgh-Newcastle, then Newcastle-Carlisle, and corresponding return trips.  Also, I remember a Kingmoor Britannia on the east-bound "Paddy" from Stranraer to Newcastle, leaving Carlisle at 1410.

 

I also remember seeing A3s, A4s and Deltics being run in on Sundays, heading westwards to Hexham after maintenance at Gateshead, and of course traffic diverted via the Waverley route when the ECML north of Newcastle was unavailable. No doubt other classes got similar treatment but didn't catch the eye.

 

So it should be possible to twist history sufficiently to run some unusual locos in unusual places.  Anyway, Rule 1 applies!

 

Oh, and 60004 William Whitelaw was the standby A4 at Waverley station.  It didn't have a corridor tender, and could sometimes be seen late in the day on a stopping train to Newcastle. 

 

 

 

[gc4946]

Best fit for Hornby's expected and planned steam/transition era models would be the ex-Leeds Northern line.

Gresley's (and Peppercorn's) pacifics were regularly used and Black 5s and class 37s (planned) also worked on the route.

Black 5 45211 was photographed at Ripon in Martin Bairstow's book "Railways around Harrogate, volume 1 (1986)" on page 22.

On page 19, a split headcode class 37 D6765 on oil train with brake tender was photographed near Dragon Junction in 1964.

Mk1s, Gresley , LMS Stanier and Pullman carriages were used too.