NCB

I don't mind waiting for actual products, modelling takes time. But if there's no indication of who will produce what momentum could be lost. Just ordered a class 31.

3 months since the dawn of TT-120. Not much as emerged since. I don't think it matters at this stage. But I do think we need more over the next 3 months, to give us a better idea of where things are heading.....

I've done a 48xx and not a problem with splasher width.

Here's some examples, in 3mm: Mitchell Manor. Problems: None! That sensible man Collett put the cylinders far enough forward fot the crossheads not to clash with the leading crankpin. Also, he used wide footplates and generous splashers with plenty of room for wheels. Worsley 42xx. Problems: Crosshead clashes with leading crankpin. On the prototype they recessed the crankpin into the coupling rod and the clearance is still frightening. I drifted the cylinders out and filed the crankpin nut to half thickness, and it still gives problems. Mitchell 517 class. Problems: Typical Dean narrow footplate and narrow splashers. I removed the splashers, fixed them further out and allowed zero sideplay on the leading drivers, but it's still very tight. 3mm Society Dean goods white metal kit. Problems: same as 517. I thinned the splasher sides and it works, just.

Hi Andy. Trouble is I'm not sure which bit you're actually objecting to. Nope. I use what's there. What I assume RTR manufacturers are dedicated to is getting engines and the like as accurate as possible, because they get slaughtered on here if they aren't . Others maybe, not me. I want some form of TT to be a commercial success, and think one would be of advantage to 3mm even if it's TT-120. Possibly !

Sorry you're struggling Andy. To put it simply, 3mm on 12mm track works and is probably the most flexible option. Fine scale 3mm on 14.2 mm track or 2.5mm on 12mm track could be made to work but may have constraints unacceptable to producers. May. Strict NEM 2.5 standard track and wheels can't be done with a lot of British stock without a lot of bodging. Why do you think there is no mainstream example of British products running on scale track? Read George Mellor on it; it was the wheels.

Nice. Two minor qualifications: Because of tread coning the support at the crossing nose is never quite perfect. And we could probably get away with 2.0 width; the drop would be minimal. Also, Peco may be using a smaller wing rail gap; I'm not in a position to check. If so the wheel width could be reduced further.

On the contrary: I have 35 years of experience working to 3mm scale and correct 14.125mm gauge, getting the 3mm Society's slightly over wide fine scale wheels fitted inside locomotive bodies. Mostly it works but sometimes I have to cheat. Using NEM width wheels in scale British bodies would be hugely more difficult. I do know what I'm talking about. Maybe a compromise which works can be found but as yet I can't see it. For a long time I've been enthusiastic about having commercial products in 2.5 or3mm. I want it to succeed

It is. I'm assuming that the intention is to produce bodywork typical of modern standards. You can't do that if your wheels are too wide; you have to distort the bodywork to get the wheels to fit. Peco is relying on others to build the locomotives.What happens if they come back and say it can't be done to an accreptable standard? Ican see 2 options; drop the project, or build stuff in 3mm on 12mm track.

It worries me as well; it.s the biggest doubt I have about Peco's proposals. The NEM standards are virtually spot on for the 3mm Intermediate standards, and there's no way I'd use them for 3mm stock on 14.2mm track.Think Peco are attempting the impossible

The 3mm Society now offers moulded track bases in 14.2mm and 13.5mm (Sort of EM in 3mm) gauges and sprues of chairs for use in constructing pointwork etc., all for code 60 bullhead rail. Interestingly, these are manufactured for the 3mm Society by Peco, so I believe. Make of that what you will!

The most common sleeper length pre WW-1 was 9'. Post WW-1 for new track it was 8'6", and remained that for bullhead track, past the end of steam. I'm not sure if that is still true for modern track. The Peco sleepers look a bit short to me. Sleeper width was usually 10" but there were slight variations. Timbers used in pointwork were normally 12" wide. 14" wide could sometimes be found in special circumstances. Here's the trackwork at an early stage of my 3mm/ft 14.2mm gauge layout, which uses 9' sleepers. 3mm Society Code 60 rail and chairs, plastruct sleepers, designed in Templot.

Wonder how the Pryce-Jones parcels were dispatched from Newtown. The existance of the Pryce-Jones bay at the station suggests some of it went in vans, but would they be goods or passenger?

Nothing wrong with Bilteezi. The artwork itself is very good, and if you look at Mike Corp's excellent layouts such as Heybridge Wharf https://sites.google.com/site/3mmpublic/members-layouts/heybridge-wharf they can be adapted to provide an attractive and consistent look.

Let's not forget that RTR is rarely perfect.Wheels often don't look great. Sometimes the thickness of the plastic shows cf etched metal. Painting is often a bit odd; eg BR or GWR green often looks drab and too blue. And so on. What I hope is that new 2.5mm models are at the top in terms of quality. And it worries me that the determination to use correct gauge may compromise this.

Don't think there's a right way or a wrong way. It depends on what you are trying to achieve. i went for correct gauge because i wanted the challenge and the 3mm Soc provided the resources to do it. Nevertheless, I think correct gauge can be over-rated; to me overall look of the track is more important. There are 3mm modellers using fine scale standards but 12mm gauge track which frankly I can't tell apart from correct gauge in spite of over 2mm difference. There are 00 layouts where the track looks fine; it's the skill in laying it which matters.Two things matter to me; one is that everything blends together and looks right, and the other is that it works. Until somebody starts producing British TT-120 locomotives we can't really judge how it will pan out; outstanding models probably trump how track looks. I say that because the Peco TT-120 track to me doesn't look great, overscale rail and feeble rail fixings. We shall see.

With due respect, I think you misunderstand the issues and difficulties behind using correct gauge, in any small scale with the British prototype. I think I do, because i've spent 30+ years modelling in 3mm/ft to correct gauge. I use 3mm Soc fine scale wheels. Fine as they are, they are still wider than scale. I can get away with it 50% of the time, for the rest of the time I cheat! I drift cylinders and valve gear out, likewise splasher sides when necessary. And so on. Given that Triang intended to produce trains that ran on train set curves laid on carpet, I don't see what else they could have done; wheels had to be coarser than scale, thicker and with deeper flanges. To get them to fit inside locomotives, the gauge had to be narrowed. Incidentally, one of the advantages of using the narrower gauge with wider wheels is that the outer face of the wheels is roughly where it ought to be, which helps with appearance. Fast forward, and Peco is proposing correct gauge for the scale they have chosen. If they and others produce scale wheels, it may be possible. But I suspect such wheels are too fine for Peco's track, also Peco is inclined towards NEM/Morop wheel standards which are definitely not scale. In which case they may/will have to cheat. Which is better? Cheating with the track or cheating with the model?

... and 14.2mm track with 3mm Soc fine scale wheels is kno wn to work in 3mm. Big question is whether they will use fine enough wheels with 12mm track to work in 2.5mm. i've big doubts about NEM/Morop wheels being fine enough for British prototypes.

You may be right. i'll be interested to know how it's proposed to deal with cramped steam dimensions when using presumably overscale TT-120 wheels

Very neat painting. My painting of strapping tends to be a bit scruffy. Here's my 3mm/ft 2p fixed side wagons. Nigel

Here's a Cambrian Albion in 3mm scale: ... and here's the chassis: Modified High Level gearbox, Tramfabriek 8x16 coreless motor, 3mm Society fine scale wheels. Runs pretty well. Here's a similar Cambrian Seaham: Motors aren't a problem these days, gearboxes wouldn't be except gear suppliers to people such as High Level and Branchlines seem to be disappearing, which is why the 3mm Society is looking at sourcing its own. For wheels the 3mm Society has loads; however, getting the correct diameter and number of spokes for 2.5mm is a different matter. I think TT-120 will be for those who want (hopefully) high quality off the shelf ready to run models and 3mm for those who want to use the resources available to build their own. Nigel

The area which worries me is whether or not manufacturers can solve using workable wheels on accurate track within scale bodies.

We don't know. Peco has been working on this for some time. We don't know who else has been and for how long. ] For example Dapol have panniers in 0 and N. it wouldn't take long for them to dust off the artwork to work out how it could be done. After that it's down to detailed design and production schedules. They could be anywhere in that process. Likewise they have coaches and wagons to work on. They could even locate production in this country to smooth out the process. My guess is that something will appear sooner rather than later. Unless TT-120 flops the demand will be there.

Not sure if Peco are aiming at anyone in particular. Don't rule out sectional track appearing.

Big question is what wheels and axles are needed.