TT:120 Class 50

[Hal Nail]

4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

No, I didn't mean 1:1 as well.

I have a vague recollection the originals didn't quite count as r-t-r either. Didn't the electrics need some work?!

[F-UnitMad]

On 30/10/2023 at 09:32, Phil Parker said:

Another photo, thanks to @AY Mod for cleaning this one up for me.

 

Does the coupling still work with all the buffer beam pipes fitted? Impressed if it does.

 

[bradfordbuffer]

6 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Does the coupling still work with all the buffer beam pipes fitted? Impressed if it does.

 

Does it couple up to coaches that doesn't look like mk1s....mk2 that look like mk5s🤪

 

It's all phils fault for posting pictures of the 50!

 

Let's give manufacturers the credit they deserve...the loco will be bashed about by a 5 year old when dad's not looking they have to be robust....not museum a1 models...

 

Try and scratch build a diesel loco for 170quid...

[JDW]

It looks nice, especially in GWR green, and I'm sure it will be well received by those starting out in TT, but it looks rather tall next to the Mk2s behind it doesn't it? Or are the coaches too low? Compared to an image such as this one http://www.hondawanderer.com/50002_Yarnton_1986.htm where the loco and stock are pretty much the same height.

[jjb1970]

8 hours ago, bradfordbuffer said:

Let's give manufacturers the credit they deserve...the loco will be bashed about by a 5 year old when dad's not looking they have to be robust....not museum a1 models...

 

 

This is something that gets lost in many reviews, manufacturers have to make products which are usable by the intended market. Going all out for super detail and true scale dimensions (I don't mean the headline scale of 1/120, 1/87, 1/76 or whatever, but the dimensional compromises necessary to make a RTR model work) is great for the fine scale niche and collectors, but companies like Hornby have to make models which will work on set track, can be handled by a normal human being (as opposed to a museum curator) and work on a layout without shedding bits. I have brass models for which removing them from the box was a fraught experience because of the detail and fragility.

[nickb4141]

18 hours ago, admiles said:

As this is pointed at me I'll respond. I don't need to be "pleased". I merely said it didn't, to my eye, capture the look of a 50 too well. That, as I've said is subjective. Just my opinion.

 

We all will look at a model and form an opinion of how well it captures the look of the prototype in probably the first few seconds. That doesn't involve breaking out the ruler or counting the rivets to see how accurate it is. Merely the impression or look of the thing.   Some models nail it and some don't. Where a model falls on that particular spectrum is down to the individual doing the viewing. 

……may I suggest a trip to ‘Specsavers’ ? 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JDW said:

It looks nice, especially in GWR green, and I'm sure it will be well received by those starting out in TT, but it looks rather tall next to the Mk2s behind it doesn't it? Or are the coaches too low? Compared to an image such as this one http://www.hondawanderer.com/50002_Yarnton_1986.htm where the loco and stock are pretty much the same height.

Looking at the photo you posted, the mk2s look to be at the same height as the  top of the headcode box on the locomotive. The locomotive roof is then higher than the top of the headcode box. It seems like the models are at a similar height. 
 

I agree that the model coaches do look low in the photo of the model, but it’s a very different angle. 
 

In the side-on photo you posted, the prototype coaches show clear space between the top of the bogies and the bottom of the coach body. Unclear whether that gap is present on the models.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Guest
Clarity

[smr248]

Perhaps it does sit too high but if it was lowered slightly the wheels would touch the body and it wouldn't go round the sectional track curves.

Either don't look at it too closely or go back to 00 narrow gauge.

The bright yellow snow ploughs also seem to accentuate it.

[bradfordbuffer]

31 minutes ago, smr248 said:

Perhaps it does sit too high but if it was lowered slightly the wheels would touch the body and it wouldn't go round the sectional track curves.

Either don't look at it too closely or go back to 00 narrow gauge.

The bright yellow snow ploughs also seem to accentuate it.

There was a day when 'modellers' modelled and made a 26 or 27 out of a Lima 33 etc...if it sits to high ....lower it

Agree with smr248

Even the new wave of high end rtr 4mm stuff has problems 

It's a train set ...enjoy it

Edited November 4, 2023 by bradfordbuffer

[Steamport Southport]

11 minutes ago, bradfordbuffer said:

There was a day when 'modellers' modelled and made a 26 or 27 out of a Lima 33 etc...if it sits to high ....lower it

Agree with smr248

Even the new wave of high end rtr 4mm stuff has problems 

It's a train set ...enjoy it

 

But we are talking about models costing nearly £200 not Lima models that cost about a fiver!

 

 

 

Jason

[JDW]

Not quite sure if smr's comment was aimed at me or not, I hadn't realised only TT modellers are allowed to look at TT models or to form an opinion, I'll try not to look at them in future. Not sure why we need comments like "go back to OO", it feels a bit childish and isn't remotely relevant to any of the discussion points. 

 

I chose a fairly side-on image with minimum effects of perspective to try and show that (to me) either the loco looks quite tall or the coaches quite low compared to the very similar roof line of the two in the image. I had a quick search around for pictures or videos of Hornby's OO version coupled to coaches and there didn't seem to be the same degree of difference there either (I know that not all stock is exactly the same height).

 

I'm well aware of how models work, I have plenty of them, though thank you for taking the time to explain for anyone who doesn't that wheels might catch on the body if it were lower. That wasn't, incidentally, my point, I thought it looked too tall compared to the coaches, not that it sits too high on its bogies, but I'm sure we'll find out when reviewers take a closer look and ger the ruler out.

 

Of course, it's great to see the range expanding so quickly, and with a locomotive class that is likely to be popular as well as with a long life-span. And it looks like a nice model which, to me, captures the essence of the real thing. But the significant height difference was almost the first thing I noticed when I looked at the picture of it coupled to the Mk2s. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's just the angle of the photo.

 

 

[natterjack]

24 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

But we are talking about models costing nearly £200 not Lima models that cost about a fiver!

A solution would be for the Hornby  to adopt 2mm fine scale standards, the delicacies of which would doubtless be a major attraction to a rather small market and somewhat compromise the international nature of the enterprise. Nothing stopping the individual modeller giving it a go.

[jjb1970]

This is where people should understand the realities of manufacturing. Many condemn any and all dimensional compromise without thinking why such compromises are made. Hornby could use smaller diameter wheels, increase bogie - body clearance, increase body width to play with bogies movement or even an inner movement such as the old Rivarossi CC7100) or no doubt other options. Or accept that the model would not be able to go over normal curves. Which compromise do people want (or object to least)? This is why model designing still has an element of the artistic, it's not just a case of using a shrinking gun.

[smr248]

1 hour ago, JDW said:

Not quite sure if smr's comment was aimed at me or not, I hadn't realised only TT modellers are allowed to look at TT models or to form an opinion, I'll try not to look at them in future. Not sure why we need comments like "go back to OO", it feels a bit childish and isn't remotely relevant to any of the discussion points. 

 

I chose a fairly side-on image with minimum effects of perspective to try and show that (to me) either the loco looks quite tall or the coaches quite low compared to the very similar roof line of the two in the image. I had a quick search around for pictures or videos of Hornby's OO version coupled to coaches and there didn't seem to be the same degree of difference there either (I know that not all stock is exactly the same height).

 

I'm well aware of how models work, I have plenty of them, though thank you for taking the time to explain for anyone who doesn't that wheels might catch on the body if it were lower. That wasn't, incidentally, my point, I thought it looked too tall compared to the coaches, not that it sits too high on its bogies, but I'm sure we'll find out when reviewers take a closer look and ger the ruler out.

 

Of course, it's great to see the range expanding so quickly, and with a locomotive class that is likely to be popular as well as with a long life-span. And it looks like a nice model which, to me, captures the essence of the real thing. But the significant height difference was almost the first thing I noticed when I looked at the picture of it coupled to the Mk2s. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's just the angle of the photo.

 

 

My comments weren't aimed at you (or anyone else) and were not meant to offend.  I actually agree that the thing is a bit on the high side but was merely trying to say that this is a consequence of having the correct gauge as opposed to the 00 compromise.

Your response is rather offensive as far as I'm concerned.  Perhaps you shouldn't be so thin skinned?

[Phil Parker]

Please put the handbags away.

[bradfordbuffer]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

But we are talking about models costing nearly £200 not Lima models that cost about a fiver!

 

 

 

Jason

35 quid for Lima 31 in its time so factor inflation and mechanisms improvement ish the same....In my humble opinion...each to own thoughts

Price of European tt120 ain't cheap!

Edited November 4, 2023 by bradfordbuffer
Typo

[bradfordbuffer]

22 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Please put the handbags away.

Your photo....your fault!😜

[andrewshimmin]

28 minutes ago, bradfordbuffer said:

35 quid for Lima 31 in its time so factor inflation and mechanisms improvement ish the same....I'm my humble opinion...each to own thoughts

Price of European tt120 ain't cheap!

 

£35 in 1989 is about £110 now, just with raw inflation.

So the question is whether the TT120 model is 50% or so better than the late eighties model in terms of quality/value for money.

Certainly seems so to me, but everyone has to make their own decision.

No one's forced to buy it. If you don't like it, spend your money on something else.

As for me, I wasn't intending to get one, but now I've seen these photos I'm going to have to be physically restrained from buying one...

[bradfordbuffer]

1 minute ago, andrewshimmin said:

 

£35 in 1989 is about £110 now, just with raw inflation.

So the question is whether the TT120 model is 50% or so better than the late eighties model in terms of quality/value for money.

Certainly seems so to me, but everyone has to make their own decision.

No one's forced to buy it. If you don't like it, spend your money on something else.

As for me, I wasn't intending to get one, but now I've seen these photos I'm going to have to be physically restrained from buying one...

Get the lincon loco one.....tin hat time....IN THE CORRECT SCALE...

Fingers off key boards....its a joke

[JDW]

2 hours ago, smr248 said:

Perhaps you shouldn't be so thin skinned?

 

Not sure we need to resort to personal comments when discussing a model, it doesn't add anything. I can't be the only one to have read it in the dismissive sense you maybe hadn't intended, your second post is much clearer on what maybe you'd intended the first to mean. 

 

The point wasn't that I thought it sits too high (I don't think it does, it's pretty much the same as any other recent model) it was that I thought it was too tall overall (or possibly the Mk2s too low). I could be wrong, I haven't seen it in the flesh, but from what I can see in the pictures that was my impression  I'm not sure the comparison with OO is really relevant, there are (as someone said above) compromises with all models to make them usable.

[F-UnitMad]

35 minutes ago, JDW said:

it was too tall overall (or possibly the Mk2s too low).

Maybe a combination of both? 

Looking at the OP model photo, the coach cantrail line seems just a tad lower than the top of the 50's side windows. In this screenshot of the prototype photo, done on my phone using the lower edge of the frame to line things up, the coach cantrail & 50 side window tops more or less line up...

 

 

What is more interesting, is adjusting the photo to the coach roof line on the edge of the frame. Even taking into account the slight perspective in the photo......

The very top of the coach is quite a bit lower than the loco roof line!!

It may be that the Hornby 50 is a tad high, & the Mk2 coach a smidge low - but viewed from side on rather than a telephoto head on view, the error (if there is any) would be difficult to spot.

 

[smr248]

TT120 isn't much bigger than N.  Most people aren't going to be looking at them from the side so probably not much point in getting too wound up about 0.5mm (or whatever).  After all, it's only a toy train...

[Les1952]

One thing that has been ignored by many when discussing the lesser amount of detail-

 

In the Hornby TV series one of the designers was talking about scaling down a OO model to TT- you can't just use the shrink ray- not just because the scale to gauge ratio is different but because of thickness and strength of plastic.   Some parts of the loco in OO scale are about at the limit of plastic being able to hold itself together when handled.  Reduce the thickness of that plastic and it is no longer able to support itself.

 

One reason I got out of US outline N-gauge was that the newer loco models I wanted (types not in my stock that I needed to make the overall railway work) came with thinner and thinner handrails. Why? because modellers demanded them.  Not metal- too difficult to fabricate to correct thickness of handrail knobs and bent too easily- plastic.  Each new model was arriving with a polystyrene (expanded or foam depending on the origin) packing piece between the handrails and the loco body.  Try getting this out without snapping the handrails- not easy but manageable.  Now place the model on the track without touching the handrails.  Done it?  Just about.  Now return to its box- move the box without the packing piece in place- broken handrails.  

 

Don't expect finer and finer detail in small scales- there is a physical limit where the model can't survive being handled- and remember these are trains that youngsters will handle.

 

Les

 

As an aside someone could make a fortune making replacement bogie chains for Accurascale Deltics and door bangers for OO 20-ton wagons - the parts that come off almost as soon as the model gets used.....

[GEARJAMMER]

Well im not a TT:120 modeler, but as my profile pic probably hints at, i am a class 50 fan...... and i think it looks pretty bloody good, i did really look at it to try and find some faults and the only thing that jumps out (and Im surprised nobody else has picked up on it) as clearly being wrong is the foot steps up to the buffers, they curve but should be a 90 degree angle.....but that's all i could see to moan about. Im not sold on the snow ploughs but then Im not sold on the OO gauge ploughs either....

As for the height difference between the loco and stock id urge folk to actually look at the track the whole lot is sat on, to my eyes the front of the loco looks higher than the rear and im convinced its the track its sat on.

 

I personally think the face of the loco is spot on, annoyingly so because i look at the TT:120 model and think how did Hornby get that so right and the OO scale (which is my chosen scale) one so wrong???? I would actually suggest Hornby give their OO scale 50 a bit of a refresh and redo the front end based on this TT:120 one, loose the silly working radiator slats and i think they might then actually be able to compete with the all new Accurascale model.

[smr248]

It's not the track, the body isn't sitting on the chassis properly...  

Hopefully they'll sort it before they go into production.