Hornby TT Easter announcement 2024

[Geep7]

Must admit the Class 37 has me interested. Split headcode in Blue or Large Logo Blue, plus some Blue & Grey Mk1's (come on, where are the SO/SK's?) and a few TTA's and 12-ton vans, and there is a start for a West Highland branch terminus.

[Northerngirl]

I'm glad to see that the 66 finally has something to pull, but still not enough for a modern layout, I hoped we'd atleast get the class 800 that they hinted at the original launch 

[HExpressD]

Has anyone said "Nothing in it for me" yet?

[GenericRMWebUsername]

3 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

Those container liveries have already been announced by Arnold as a second run of those wagons so those were a bit of a cheat. However, a lot of people won't know about Arnold so it will probably boost sales, especially in shops if they are reboxed as Hornby.

 

Actually, this may explain something I had been confused by. About a month ago, the new container wagon liveries were yanked from the Arnold website. I didn't know what to make of that... If Hornby TT now has custodianship of the tooling, that would explain why they're no longer on sale with Arnold. From now on they will be sold by Hornby.

 

Not that it makes a difference from the Hornby Hobbies Group macro perspective, but you're right that it will impact the availability of the items in the UK. How many local model shops are stocking Arnold TT:120? Probably not many. While Hornby TT:120 is not in most model shops, its reach is rapidly expanding. It's better to have it included in the Hornby range to get the models into the hands of more modelers. 

 

This was smart. 

[Dava]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

No 57XX was ever auto fitted so an autotrailer would be utterly pointless.

 

Yes, I know some were used conventionally but my point still stands. All you will get is people using them wrong....

 

 

 

Jason

 

Even I know the 64xx pannier tanks were auto-fitted and most people would find it very difficult to distinguish between a 64xx and an 8750 [57xx with later cab]. 

 

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The signals don’t go with anything they produce. The only place you’ll find a SR rail built signal and any of the locos is on the Marchwood branch (which are both bracket signals) and not with the containers or tanks in the liveries produced. 
Ok for trainset but useless for a realistic model. 
I’ve just bought the HST so yes I like the scale but this is still a mess of a range with no joined up thinking and silly errors in the commentary. 

TT:120 seems to have been aimed at the trainset/Rule One mob from the get-go.

 

My suspicion is that subject selection is biased toward how well they sold in OO rather than any coherent connection with one another.

 

John

Edited April 2 by Dunsignalling

[D9020 Nimbus]

The choice of the J50 makes some sense when you think about it. There was demand for an 0-6-0T and this was the only one that could be produced quickly — the only other 0-6-0T they would have a CAD for would be the "Terrier", but fitting a Bluetooth decoder in one would be challenging to say the least.

 

The class 37 seems to be being prioritised over the class 31, for which they will have an 00 CAD as a starting point.

 

It was easier building a range in earlier times, when the aim was to have a loco capable of covering every type of duty — but when the HD "0-6-2T" was expected to cover all of the big 4 (it was never officially an N2).

 

Triang certainly did have LMS leanings with the "Princess Elizabeth", Jinty and its tender engine equivalent — although the only "big" locos in their TT range were the "Merchant Navy" and "Castle". The first ex-LNER loco they did was the B12 in OO.

 

Only Airfix had the goal of providing a balanced range — 14xx and auto-trailer, large Prairie and B-set, Castle and "Centenary" stock — bit of pro-GW bias there, although other railways were being worked on (some models of which were planned but never made, such as the ex -LSWR O2 and G6).

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

This is what happens when you run a model train company with people who know nothing about trains!

 

CJI.

I think that the inevitable problem with starting a new scale is that any coherent range would have to be so narrowly focussed on one group/region/era, as to entirely exclude everyone with other interests.

 

At 72, I recognised early on that I don't have fifty years in front of me to wait for TT:120 availability to reach fifty percent of what is already covered, or even what I already own, in OO.

 

Those who like the scale must, for now, mix and match in the hope that the gaps will gradually narrow over time, or just not mind/care!

 

The critical question is, perhaps, whether enough people have enough patience to stick around for as long as that may take.

 

John

Edited April 2 by Dunsignalling

[Steamport Southport]

40 minutes ago, Dava said:

 

Even I know the 64xx pannier tanks were auto-fitted and most people would find it very difficult to distinguish between a 64xx and an 8750 [57xx with later cab]. 

 

 

Maybe booking an appointment with Specsavers would be an idea....

 

Totally different looking beasts!

 

 

Both Ben Brooksbank

 

 

Jason

Edited April 2 by Steamport Southport

[Dava]

7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Maybe booking an appointment with Specsavers would be an idea....

 

Totally different looking beasts!

 

 

Both Ben Brooksbank

 

 

Jason

 

I should have written that in 1:120 scale most people(including myself) would find them indistinguishable, or maybe not interesting enought to tell them apart. Also I dont think Hornby promised a 57xx in TT120, just a pannier tank. As for eyesight, I've just spent £500 on new varifocals and avoid specsavers ever since they gave me a duff prescription.

[woodenhead]

27 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Maybe booking an appointment with Specsavers would be an idea....

 

Totally different looking beasts!

 

 

Both Ben Brooksbank

 

 

Jason

 

😁😁😄

[Neil]

49 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think that the inevitable problem with starting a new scale is that any coherent range would have to be so narrowly focussed on one group/region/era, as to entirely exclude everyone with other interests. ...

 

Not necessarily, launching with a couple of BR standards  would give a reasonable geographical spread. Though the timeframe would be limited it is at least a popular one and class 08, 37 (to an extent 24/25 and 31) would overlap and carry the possibilities forward. It's arguable that there should have been a 16T mineral and BR standard brake van in the range from the outset too.

 

I guess that once the novelty wears off there will come a point where the lack of coherence will put off anyone wishing to build a layout with some degree of authenticity. Those with a reasonable amount of space at their disposal will look again at OO and those who would struggle to find room may well head off to the better served n gauge. 

 

Further thought, even the relatively recently produced UK 009 releases have a greater coherence than Hornby's TT120 range so far.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Maybe booking an appointment with Specsavers would be an idea....

 

Totally different looking beasts!

 

 

Both Ben Brooksbank

 

 

Jason

 

As has already been said, TT120 is largely aimed at the 'don't know, don't care' brigade.

 

To that market, a pannier tank is a steam loco with square tanks and no tender - end of!

 

CJI.

[Steamport Southport]

48 minutes ago, Dava said:

 

I should have written that in 1:120 scale most people(including myself) would find them indistinguishable, or maybe not interesting enought to tell them apart. Also I dont think Hornby promised a 57xx in TT120, just a pannier tank. As for eyesight, I've just spent £500 on new varifocals and avoid specsavers ever since they gave me a duff prescription.

 

In the catalogue as a 57XX.

 

So, Graham Farish were wasting their time making both the 57XX and 64XX in N Gauge then? Dapol have since done another 57XX. 

 

Or is it only TT that should have "generic" models as obviously everyone modelling in TT can't tell the difference between engines?

 

Seems some people want to go back to the bad old days of Triang, Hornby Dublo and Lima where it was a case of "That will do". 

 

I do sometimes struggle to understand this hobby....

 

 

 

Jason

[PaulRhB]

4 hours ago, Porfuera said:

would anything different have sold better?

Well yes if they made LNER coaches instead of Pullmans I’d have bought 24 on top of 8 Pullmans but I’m never going to buy three rakes of Pullmans, 😀

 

If they’d made a freight loco I’d have bought at least one to go with the 12 PO wagons I’ve bought.  😉

 

I’m kinda locked into buying 8 mk3’s for the blue power cars but like the APT a several month wait to marry up loco and train is frustrating and a bit silly. The teaks to go with Mallard could be 18 - 36 months away yet so yep I’d certainly have bought more 😉

 

Going back to the announcement itself, I’ve noticed they’ve shown the pics of the 80’s HST with deflector on the roof but the set artwork showed the just released 70’s one without. 
 

[woodenhead]

31 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

So, Graham Farish were wasting their time making both the 57XX and 64XX in N Gauge then? Dapol have since done another 57XX.

The 57xx was Poole heritage was it not, the 64xx was a modern tooling to go up against a modern tooling Dapol 57xx.

[Porfuera]

2 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

Actually, this may explain something I had been confused by. About a month ago, the new container wagon liveries were yanked from the Arnold website. I didn't know what to make of that... If Hornby TT now has custodianship of the tooling, that would explain why they're no longer on sale with Arnold. From now on they will be sold by Hornby.

 

Not that it makes a difference from the Hornby Hobbies Group macro perspective, but you're right that it will impact the availability of the items in the UK. How many local model shops are stocking Arnold TT:120? Probably not many. While Hornby TT:120 is not in most model shops, its reach is rapidly expanding. It's better to have it included in the Hornby range to get the models into the hands of more modelers. 

 

This was smart. 

 

Could be, but the pages still seem to be there if you search for Sffgmss on the Arnold shop here and the new liveries show availability of Autumn (unless these are legacy pages that haven't been removed from Arnold's site yet).

 

And Arnold will be selling the Class 66s alongside Hornby (although with different variants and liveries) so I don't see why the container wagons couldn't be sold in the same way, given that Arnold probably has more market penetration in Europe than Hornby has.

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, Northerngirl said:

I'm glad to see that the 66 finally has something to pull, but still not enough for a modern layout, I hoped we'd atleast get the class 800 that they hinted at the original launch 

Plenty of TT Container & EANS Freight Stock already available from the European Manufactures.

[HSB]

Personally I find the J50 very good news and fits in with what I'd like to model in TT120. Whatever they produce won't please everybody!

[cornelius]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Totally different looking beasts!

 

 

Both Ben Brooksbank

 

One is pulling a passenger train and the other has a signal on the cab roof - easy!

[Porfuera]

2 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Well yes if they made LNER coaches instead of Pullmans I’d have bought 24 on top of 8 Pullmans but I’m never going to buy three rakes of Pullmans, 😀

 

If they’d made a freight loco I’d have bought at least one to go with the 12 PO wagons I’ve bought.  😉

 

I’m kinda locked into buying 8 mk3’s for the blue power cars but like the APT a several month wait to marry up loco and train is frustrating and a bit silly. The teaks to go with Mallard could be 18 - 36 months away yet so yep I’d certainly have bought more 😉

 

Going back to the announcement itself, I’ve noticed they’ve shown the pics of the 80’s HST with deflector on the roof but the set artwork showed the just released 70’s one without. 
 

 

I was talking about overall sales rather than one individual's purchases - if they had produced LNER coaches and/or a freight loco then they would have had to drop other things from the range and so those other things wouldn't have been there to be sold. It is swings and roundabouts.

 

Obviously they can't reproduce their 00 range overnight - that is going to take a long, long time. Nor can they satisfy everyone's individual wishlist - and in any case what is one person's favourite loco/coach/wagon/region/era will be anathema to at least a couple of dozen other modellers so whatever they do they can't win.

 

As for the HST artwork, I'd say that the power car with the deflector is a photoshop of the 00 R30239 HST train pack here while the box artwork is representative of what has already been released.

 

Edited April 2 by Porfuera
Corrected link

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

In the catalogue as a 57XX.

 

So, Graham Farish were wasting their time making both the 57XX and 64XX in N Gauge then? Dapol have since done another 57XX. 

 

Or is it only TT that should have "generic" models as obviously everyone modelling in TT can't tell the difference between engines?

 

Seems some people want to go back to the bad old days of Triang, Hornby Dublo and Lima where it was a case of "That will do". 

 

I do sometimes struggle to understand this hobby....

 

 

 

Jason

 

I would repeat my opinion that the CURRENT TT120 market is not YET as sophisticated as the 2mm. or 4mm. scale ones.

 

No-one is suggesting that TT120 will not develop to the same extent as the other scales but, as a newcomer, it is inevitable that it cannot yet support such detailed differentiation that you advocate.

 

Personally, I think that Hornby would have been well advised to have released regional sets containing complete, albeit short, passenger and freight trains.

 

CJI.

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The choice of the J50 makes some sense when you think about it. There was demand for an 0-6-0T and this was the only one that could be produced quickly — the only other 0-6-0T they would have a CAD for would be the "Terrier", but fitting a Bluetooth decoder in one would be challenging to say the least.

 

The class 37 seems to be being prioritised over the class 31, for which they will have an 00 CAD as a starting point.

 

It was easier building a range in earlier times, when the aim was to have a loco capable of covering every type of duty — but when the HD "0-6-2T" was expected to cover all of the big 4 (it was never officially an N2).

 

Triang certainly did have LMS leanings with the "Princess Elizabeth", Jinty and its tender engine equivalent — although the only "big" locos in their TT range were the "Merchant Navy" and "Castle". The first ex-LNER loco they did was the B12 in OO.

 

Only Airfix had the goal of providing a balanced range — 14xx and auto-trailer, large Prairie and B-set, Castle and "Centenary" stock — bit of pro-GW bias there, although other railways were being worked on (some models of which were planned but never made, such as the ex -LSWR O2 and G6).

Don't forget that Airfix also offered a pretty fair selection of LMS stuff, though the 2P didn't appear until after the range had passed to Mainline.

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

I'd completely forgotten about the TT:120 announcement today.

 

The 0-6-0 was a bit unexpected, though it sort of fits in with the Eastern Pacifics, and the green 08 should have been issued months ago. I'm sorry to say that otherwise Hornby seem to have run out of steam where TT is concerned...

 

 

I do wonder how much that might be down to the individuals who initially drove the concept past the "gatekeepers" having left the company. 

 

Who remains with the commitment to maintain momentum in the project?

[Porfuera]

32 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I do wonder how much that might be down to the individuals who initially drove the concept past the "gatekeepers" having left the company. 

 

Who remains with the commitment to maintain momentum in the project?

 

That seems an odd question. Just because well-known staff like SK was 'let go' and Montana left doesn't mean that the ship is rudderless. You could perhaps ask the same about 00 - didn't SK and Montanna deal with both? Projects aren't run by just one or two people.

 

And 'forgotten' isn't the same as 'never knew about' - it just depends where you are looking - social media was awash with froth about the announcements (even RMweb had some noise) but if you're not particularly interested then it will probably pass you by.

 

Edited April 2 by Porfuera