Simon Says

[pirouets]

A couple of interesting insights apart from TT there about Hornby as a whole such as the opportunity to get Graham Farish and presenting the TT proposal when the company became obsessed with the Olympics.

 

Having just moved from N to OO in truth my ideal would be TT as is the right mix between what my eyesight can cope with and what I can cram in a 12 * 6 shed.

[bigherb]

I always liked TT if it had carried on I'm sure it would be what I would be modeling today. TT models when running seem to have the inertia of OO models unlike N gauge.

[Hedfordtfc]

I always liked TT if it had carried on I'm sure it would be what I would be modeling today. TT models when running seem to have the inertia of OO models unlike N gauge.

Triang's TT stuff was far better than it's OO product way back then. The BRCW DMU and the Brush type two were exceptional mouldings for the period. 

[jjb1970]

As ever, a hugely engaging, insightful and thought provoking blog. In many ways TT is the perfect scale in terms of an optimum compromise between compact size and presence and detail. I'd love to see somebody have a go with RTR UK outline TT but I'm not sure it'd be attractive commercially.

[Ozexpatriate]

It's no secret that I enjoy Mr. Kohler's blogs very much (and congratulations to Simon on reaching the first anniversary of "Simon Says" by the way) but I will say that I found this blog thought provoking on multiple levels.

 

I have no familiarity with TT. It may indeed be the perfect scale, and like baby bear's porridge, "just right". Not too small like "N" and just enough more space efficient than H0/00.

 

Having said that, I can't see it being commercially successful. There is just too much legacy in model railways. Reinterpreting Herb's comment about the inertia of 00, that "inertia" exists in more than just a Newtonian mechanical sense.

 

Without that "inertia" the bastard scale/gauge combination (to use Simon's apt expression) would have died long ago, yet it lives on and moves from strength to strength - commercially overwhelming all the competing scales in Britain including 0, H0, EM, P4 and N.

 

It's easy to see Simon's passion for introducing a TT range. It is the dream of every marketeer to start with a clean sheet of paper and launch a greenfield project with no legacy baggage yet retaining a knowledge of all the hard-won lessons learned. I think had Hornby tried to launch TT in the middle of both their supply chain crisis and the Olympics experiment, it's hard to imagine the company surviving.

 

Could TT kill off the 00 juggernaut? I don't know. I don't think it can commercially coexist - much like "S" scale died in the US.

[Fenman]

It's no secret that I enjoy Mr. Kohler's blogs very much (and congratulations to Simon on reaching the first anniversary of "Simon Says" by the way) but I will say that I found this blog thought provoking on multiple levels.

 

I have no familiarity with TT. It may indeed be the perfect scale, and like baby bear's porridge, "just right". Not too small like "N" and just enough more space efficient than H0/00.

 

Having said that, I can't see it being commercially successful. There is just too much legacy in model railways. Reinterpreting Herb's comment about the inertia of 00, that "inertia" exists in more than just a Newtonian mechanical sense.

 

Without that "inertia" the bastard scale/gauge combination (to use Simon's apt expression) would have died long ago, yet it lives on and moves from strength to strength - commercially overwhelming all the competing scales in Britain including 0, H0, EM, P4 and N.

 

It's easy to see Simon's passion for introducing a TT range. It is the dream of every marketeer to start with a clean sheet of paper and launch a greenfield project with no legacy baggage yet retaining a knowledge of all the hard-won lessons learned. I think had Hornby tried to launch TT in the middle of both their supply chain crisis and the Olympics experiment, it's hard to imagine the company surviving.

 

Could TT kill off the 00 juggernaut? I don't know. I don't think it can commercially coexist - much like "S" scale died in the US.

 

A "me, too" post, I'm afraid. 

 

A particularly thought-provoking entry in Simon's always-stimulating blog. And I think the strategic problem he has identified for the current big manufacturers is hugely significant: I can see lots of incremental improvements, but no big step-change. Now most of us have our post-Merchant Navy super-detailed model fleet, surely sales and profits can't be sustained by producing evermore niche products? There is almost certainly a future there for the smaller manufacturers (and hasn't Heljan's entire post-Western business model been based on that?). But I'm struggling to see Bachmann and Hornby making a decent living out of that market alone.

 

I like the idea of a completely new approach: and TT would have a lot of advantages, particularly for those of us who find N too small to engage with, and 00 a little on the large size for satisfactorily sweeping models. Intriguing.

 

Oh, and I'm absolutely delighted to have contributed to the death of the exclamation mark - thanks, Simon!

 

Paul

[Dunsignalling]

Mr. Kohler's latest missive (Table Service!) is about TT. I'm sure it will interest some.

A fascinating insight into Simon's thinking on the subject but he seems to gloss over a number of important issues.

 

He correctly describes the initial success of Tri-ang TT fizzling out due (predominantly) to competition from the firm's own OO products but doesn't acknowledge that Tri-ang TT was pretty much over before N gauge really got going. Indeed, it's demise may have helped the smaller scale get established.

 

Any future TT system will be exposed to competition from two well-established scales in a way that the 1950s version was not. However, Simon only appears to consider how it might enhance Hornby's turnover without accepting that, for it to really get off the ground, it would have to attract existing N Gauge users AND cannibalise Hornby OO sales.   

 

There is a rather blithe assumption that modellers who embrace both OO and N would want (and be able) to slot a TT layout in as well. Maybe, but how many?

 

Surely the main appeal of TT was, and is, to those who find N gauge too small and fiddly but who lack the space for a satisfying OO layout; IMHO these would be more likely to form the backbone of any future market for r-t-r TT than a fortunate minority with enough room (and time/money) to dabble in multiple scales. 

 

Tri-ang TT cost as much to produce as OO with the latter consequently being perceived as "better value"; unfortunately, that is one thing that won't have changed.  

 

John

[jjb1970]

I think that this will be a real issue for modern image. OK a few of the current OO diesel locomotives could be improved but it will not be a step change like the wave of new releases replacing old Lima and pre-China Hornby tooling in the 00's where people were happy to go out and replace models they already had. If somebody brings out a new OO 25, 31, 40, 47, 56 or whatever it may be better than the existing Hornby and Bachmann models but would it be a big enough improvement to make me replace models I've already got? Probably not as the models I have are very good. We can see even the big manufacturers going more and more into niche choices and the market seems to be very fractured and I think this trend will continue.

[The Stationmaster]

Mr. Kohler's latest missive (Table Service!) is about TT. I'm sure it will interest some.

Well that certainly puts in context the rumours which were circulating two or three years back about Hornby working on a new TT range - which I expected every year would be in the big announcement but never was although they had apparently been seriously sounding out opinion among 3mm scale modellers.

 

Oddly enough at the time I thought it would be an ideal way for Hornby to break the mould and get out of the 'new model rat race' which was increasingly infesting 00 and of course it was very logical for SK to see where Hornby's traditional approach of producing models in huge numbers could be going (and I suspect has actually gone, at least in some respects).  Tackled boldly and properly marketed I do wonder how successful it might have been - definitely a brave idea but one which would have required a lot of investment.  And that could hardly compete with a wizard wheeze idea for marketing loads of Olympic themed stuff could it?  A fascinating 'might have been'.

[bigd]

With houses getting smaller, there mat be an opening for TT.

However it would be a brave manufacturer that took the plunge.

[Ozexpatriate]

Now most of us have our post-Merchant Navy super-detailed model fleet, surely sales and profits can't be sustained by producing evermore niche products? There is almost certainly a future there for the smaller manufacturers. ... But I'm struggling to see Bachmann and Hornby making a decent living out of that market alone.

Paul, I quite agree with the sentiment about smaller manufacturers - I think that's why we have seen so much commissioning activity in the last couple of years. Niche manufacturing suits the "no repeat business" model very well. Your closing observation echos Mr. Kohler's comments:

 

Drawing a comparison between these modern locomotives [class 37, 47 and 50] and their steam equivalents made me think that perhaps Hornby should start to plan for the future when healthy volume sales of new locomotives and rolling stock for that matter would be a thing of the past.

 

... My thought process started with the assumption that there were no more suitable or financially viable locomotives that I could justify Hornby producing?’ At the time Hornby had and probably still does have a strict criterion on tooling and production costs versus sales and sales potential. If I could no longer justify the cost of producing new ‘00’ scale locomotives what would be the consequences where Hornby was concerned, plus what would happen to the hobby as a whole keeping in mind that the modeller always wants something new to spend his or her money on?

Clearly there remains a large number of unmodelled prototypes, and I will stipulate that they each will appeal to a smaller number of people. At some point this strategy is unsustainable, though it doesn't feel like we are there yet.

 

The answer to the question is in the numbers of new entrants to the hobby. New entrants will still want to purchase new models of the traditionally perennial selling items (though some will no doubt take advantage of a second-hand market fueled by people leaving the hobby).

 

It all boils down to numbers.

 

I think most of us work with a basis that the rate of attrition (mostly, and sadly so, through mortality) is greater than the rate of new entrants. If that premise is accurate model railways in their current form are doomed anyway - it's a question of time.

 

Offsetting this is the fact that people are living longer. I think the strategy to target niche models will work for the time being.

[Beacon]

I've often contemplated a move to N gauge - usually each time I realise none of the rooms in my house will ever fit my dream layout! However the arguments against it always win out again after a while and I stick with OO. If someone like Hornby went for TT I think that could swing a change for me - a combination of smaller size than OO but more refined detail than N, coupled with the idea of a bit of a challenge too.

 

Maybe with Bachmann, Peco and Heljan having braved the step into narrow gauge recently this isn't too much to hope for one day... you never know! I liked the argument in the blog that a radical change of scale would be an answer to the duplication between manufacturers and the decreasing number of options left for saleable new models.

 

An interesting read.

[JSpencer]

20 years ago, TT gauge would have been good for me to restart again but now my collection is too large to want to restart again.

 

As I have diverse interests, 1/76 scale for OO works well with my models of tanks and Aircraft.

 

This means I do not agree with 1/120 for TT (you might as well go for N gauge) as 1/100 scale would work well with aircraft and tanks , except for both of those again, I have quite a collection now in a larger scale.

 

Newcomers, it will be great but too late for me personally.

[Ozexpatriate]

A comment on the Hornby forum made me wonder if Simon's idea of TT being "radical" could be something truly radical.

 

What if a hypothetical Hornby TT range was launched - but with no legacy considerations whatsoever (other than track specification)? Track would be the standard 1:120 scale track with the existing profile but everything else completely new.

 

The DC versus DCC control could be ignored. Track power could be completely eliminated and replaced with radio controlled*, rechargable battery powered motive units. For longer running battery vans/coaches could be coupled. New close fitting couplings could be standard. (Some facility to use isolated depot sidings as recharging points might be possible.)

 

* Something like Bluetooth.

 

The only control devices would be software based, running on a mobile telephone, tablet or computer. With track power removed, tracks could be used for detection - properly modelling the real world. (All rolling stock could have a resistive axle that would trigger the detection.)  A comprehensive signalling and automatic train control software system could be implemented with minimal track blocking isolation and wiring.

 

In a different scale to all the legacy systems in Britain the tyrannical inertia of the present marketplace could be sidestepped.

 

By being truly radical, is the concept then a winner? 

[railroadbill]

I'm not sure you can avoid  legacy considerations.

 

There were several TT layouts at Alexandra Palace this year, all interesting in different ways (but with exhibitions it's what has been done rather than the scale itself that attracts attention).  Problem, I think, is that TT isn't a new greenfield scale at all. The old Triang standard (Simon says it was about 1:101 scale) set the scene in the UK, then there has been the much finer scale 3mm standard, with some parts available from that society, plus the European commercial standard of 1:120.  So you could have 3 different layouts, all nominally called TT but to 3 different standards. And people are doing all these.

 

But a new scale for a totally new control system, that could be a selling point.

[Ozexpatriate]

But a new scale for a totally new control system, that could be a selling point.

That was precisely my concept. British outline doesn't exist in 1:120 scale.

 

I think such a system would be perfect for the Thomas line of products. No wiring required, IOS/Android controlled. Any four year old can do it.

 

Won't happen of course.

[railroadbill]

Maybe the app should come first then the hardware will follow.  Somewhere I read that Bachmann are experimenting with a bluetooth transmitted control system?  Also with batteries becoming better and smaller all the time,  small battery locos are more feasible.

[Legend]

Thoroughly enjoyable blog. I thought the interesting part was what models would be introduced into a new range . Duchess,A4,A3 , 37 and 47. He goes onto mention a Jinty in a train set. Fascinating insight into introducing a new range. And of course introducing a new scale means they could have got it absolutely correct no OO/HO compromises. He doesn't say it but I'd imagine any new range would have been DCC from the beginning

 

It could have been the stimulus Hornby and the model railway industry in general needed. I can see smaller manufacturers coming in to provide kits in a virginal market whereas they are squeezed out of a saturated oo and n market

[Dunsignalling]

And of course introducing a new scale means they could have got it absolutely correct no OO/HO compromises. He doesn't say it but I'd imagine any new range would have been DCC from the beginning

 

 

The trouble with "no OO/HO compromises" is that it also means "no generous OO/HO clearances" so big outside-cylinder locos in 1:120 scale would require minimum radii at least as large as their OO counterparts. That would negate the space advantage which is supposed to be a major attraction of TT.

 

A lot of people conveniently forget the various tricks our much-denigrated "bastard scale" lets us get away with that more accurate standards don't permit. Check out what P4 Pacifics demand; six foot if you're really good at tracklaying to consistent curvature

 

Compulsory DCC might put off as many potential buyers as it attracts, but if the "same old, same old" list of locos is what we could expect initially, I wouldn't be interested until it had been going for a few years anyway..............   

 

John

[ozwarrior]

What I don't understand is if P4 requires 6' then how does H0 get away with such tight curves? Do they accept compromises that 00 modellers wouldn't? If I'm off beam please excuse my ignorance.

I'd go for TT for sure if it was available although it would take a awfully long time to build a range up so thinking about it perhaps it would for the most part suit new entrants better?

I think Hornby would need a well-heeled supporter.

Regards,

Les

[Dunsignalling]

What I don't understand is if P4 requires 6' then how does H0 get away with such tight curves? Do they accept compromises that 00 modellers wouldn't? If I'm off beam please excuse my ignorance.

I'd go for TT for sure if it was available although it would take a awfully long time to build a range up so thinking about it perhaps it would for the most part suit new entrants better?

I think Hornby would need a well-heeled supporter.

Regards,

Les

My reply was addressed at a somewhat utopian view that "new TT" wouldn't involve "any" of the compromises that we are accustomed to in OO.

 

The critical "slack" that OO gives is clearance between wheels and outside cylinders, just where you want to put the valve gear on big steam locos. That's the reason why you can't get away with much in P4, if you provide enough side-play to get the loco round tight curves, the motion will tie itself in knots. 

 

This applies to all scales, a friend of mine has an N Gauge Southern Pacific Cab Forward Mallet that won't look at anything under a 15" radius curve, equivalent to 2' 6" in OO.

 

HO is not a precisely accurate scale/gauge, though it is closer than OO. There are dodges that can be employed; continuing with the N Gauge comparison, Dapol moved the cylinders outward on their 9F, you can have low-relief cylinders with material omitted from the backs and there are other ways of gaining a bit here and there.  

 

In HO, it is possible to avoid any obvious nasties in outward appearances by employing all of the compromises but each only to a small degree, combined with lots of carefully shared-out side play on various wheelsets. However, that requires quite clever chassis engineering than we don't often see in OO. Perhaps the equivalent of what would be needed to produce an r-t-r Pacific in EM capable of negotiating 2' curves and probably another reason why large continental HO steam locos of quality are much more expensive than UK-outline ones in OO.

 

As soon as you start demanding a "proper" scale/gauge relationship that really doesn't include compromises (in HO, that's called P87) you come up against the same constraints that apply in P4 or any other truly "finescale" gauge. Diesels and electrics are much more forgiving but large steam outline locos will always reveal the limits.   

 

"Low compromise" 1:120 models are perfectly feasible but, I venture, not at anything near the price of our (more greatly) compromised OO equipment and with little or no gain in the amount of railway one could squeeze into a given space beyond the obvious one of train length and maybe getting four sidings in the width needed for three in OO.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

]What I don't understand is if P4 requires 6' then how does H0 get away with such tight curves? Do they accept compromises that 00 modellers wouldn't? If I'm off beam please excuse my ignorance.

I'd go for TT for sure if it was available although]

 

it would take a awfully long time to build a range up so thinking about it perhaps it would for the most part suit new entrants better?

 

[i think Hornby would need a well-heeled supporter.]

Regards,

Les

I think that hits the nail on the head. How could such a limited new range possibly compete with the established scales in attracting newcomers?

 

Simon Kohler's projected launch list would certainly have anybody interested in the GWR or Southern (or wanting to run steam era goods trains) heading straight to OO. 

 

Anyone wanting a model railway layout as apposed to an oval of track with "the usual suspects" whizzing round on a four or five coach "express" will require much more and that is copiously available elsewhere without waiting for "Hornby TT" to make what you actually want four of five years down the road (maybe).

 

IMHO, The models cited just would not be enough to do the job and the breadth of product needed to successfully launch any new scale (be it TT or British HO) against comprehensive, well established N and OO systems would have to be so large as to make the risks unrealistic.

 

Would Hornby really "bet the farm" on something that would be bound to impact negatively on their existing business and might not succeed itself? Sorry, Simon, I think the board got this one dead right. 

 

John  

[locoholic]

If Hornby had tried to reintroduce TT gauge 20 years ago when manufacturing in China was nice and cheap, so profit margins were good, and before we'd had quite so many high quality OO gauge models, I think it might have succeeded.

 

In the current situation I don't think it stands a chance, as model train manufacturing doesn't seem to be a particularly lucrative activity at present, even for established scales.

 

If anything, the aging population is driving a move towards O gauge, being the only scale our failing eyesight can cope with.

[railroadbill]

Probably be gauge 1 before I'm finished :-)

 

Presumably if someone wanted a layout in 1:120 scale it would be possible to do it using Tillig or Roco stock etc.  anyway. I'm guessing that there are some accessories like cars, vehicles, people available in that scale, but unlikely to be like the large ranges available in N or OO or HO.  Problem is if it would work as a British r-t-r scale, the scratch build scale in that sort of size being 3mm.     Also 1:120 too close to the established 1:148 perhaps?

[asmay2002]

If Hornby had tried to reintroduce TT gauge 20 years ago when manufacturing in China was nice and cheap, so profit margins were good, and before we'd had quite so many high quality OO gauge models, I think it might have succeeded.

 

In the current situation I don't think it stands a chance, as model train manufacturing doesn't seem to be a particularly lucrative activity at present, even for established scales.

 

If anything, the aging population is driving a move towards O gauge, being the only scale our failing eyesight can cope with.

 

They would still have been investing money in costly tools, etc. just to take punters away from their existing OO range unless it would have brought newcomers into the hobby or attracted people away from other manufacturers N.  Neither seem likely.  They would also have managed to alienate the entire existing 3mm mob by choosing s different scale.