Hobby

Hopefully to continue like that next season!

8 hours ago, 47606odin said:

i think I’d have to remove the plastic webs under the rails, and I think course sand would be a better ballast especially in a siding

If that's Peco code "55" all that would do is show the "foot" of the rail, wouldn't it? You wouldn't get an open space if that's what you were looking for?

People have tested modern TT (Tillig, etc.,) on Peco and it runs OK, as Hornby are supposedly using the same standards there's shouldn't be any issues.

That's it for now, I have to do the fettling for the local West Mids NG group meet on the 19th...

Got the magazine this morning, so now have the lot!

Just the trains themselves to come!

Just listen to yourselves, blowing an innocent comment out of all proportion.

12 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

However half a dozen unconnected persons sent scans of the page/comment over to me yesterday raising eyebrows; it's incorrect to relate it to 'sense of humour', it's a generational thing.

Sorry Andy, but it's still humour, I could easily have said the same thing quoting exactly the same scenario and I expect many would agree with me. If he'd have said "partner" then I expect no one would have said anything, though, I suppose. 

To call it sexist, though, is making a mountain out of a molehill, it was said in jest with no intention to offend.

Trust social media to blow things out of all proportion.

7 minutes ago, TomE said:

lazy, outdated, casually sexist language 

A bit OTT for that comment, I'd suggest, mountain out of molehill springs to mind... I'll leave it at that, seems no-one has a sense of humour these days.

46 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

Hornby TT:120 Club magazine page 13. SK answering the editor's question 'What are those advantages?' I think SK gets carried away sometimes.

8 hours ago, TomE said:

Brave words to put in print in this day and age

 

 

The scale not the only outdated thing at Hornby it seems. 

 

Tom.  

And it's rather said that something said/written in jest is taken so seriously by someone else... Sign of the times, sadly, that one can't say anything these days without someone reading far more into something and taking "offence"... 🙄

Plenty of 009 kits used chassis where the original body held the motor in, they were either designed to use a cut back body or the 009 body was designed to hold the motor in just like the original N body. Just takes some planning.

What's the wheelbase and bogie centres? I'm wondering about a Class 25.

Just thinking out loud, but would the old BTTB T435 chassis work? I haven't got one to measure, but someone might have.

And TeaTea...  🤣

34 minutes ago, Grafarman said:

I too received my club pack today, and have to say the old 'new, shiny train set' urges began to be felt, along with thoughts along the lines of 'how big's the dining room table?' 'it's much cheaper than O' and 'well, it can easily be put away between running sessions' and so on and so forth... not that any excuse/reasoning is ever needed for these things!

Soooo... 'Go hard or go home' as they say; pre-order for the A4 set going in tomorrow...

 

David 

Tomorrow?! Just go for it today! I've added an 08 and wagons to my pre order so well committed now!

29 minutes ago, meatloaf said:

I too wanted to get a few bits. Ive already got one of the peco unifrog points so wanted to see how it joined to the Hornby stuff with the rail profiles being different

TBH I am waiting until I get the set, the proposed layout will feature Peco out front and Hornby for the curves (the set track ones) at either end and fiddle yard. I suppose I could get some Peco and start the station but I'm still finishing Mittenburg so it wouldn't be straight away.

Like everything else I will await the track, there's no rush, and so far Hornby's site has worked well enough, though I've only done a pre-order so far. 

Not surprising.

Just now, melmerby said:

This picture:

Just compare the background masking residual traces just above the couplings by the brown lump:

Blimey, don't those couplings look big! 🤣

It (and it's 00 brother) was good enough for most of us in it's day!

5 minutes ago, andythenorth said:

Looking at the Arnold TT:120 Kof I have sat here (which is tiny), the couplings don't dominate in real life like they do in the photos.  They are visible though.

I'd agree with that, I was expecting them to look terrible in real life but they aren't too bad. I don't know why they look so bad in photos, though.

Just now, boxbrownie said:

That does look very nice, but I still have a problem with the size of the coupling, really dominates the area.

 

But not the end of the world, unless of course those couplings (has anyone identified them as other proprietary couplings or a new item from Hornby?) can be “pre-uncoupled” for push shunting, that would be worth having them.

They are couplings as used by Tillig:

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which implies that TT means 3 mm/ft scale rather than 0.1 in/ft scale! Since you are making a gauge approximation anyway - 9 mm gauge standing in for true scale metre gauge at 9.84 mm - it just goes to show what a mess the hobby has got itself into in defining scale/gauge combinations! 

Quite, though TTm is a recognised designation for TT 1:120 using 9mm track to represent metre gauge on the Continent, they accept the discrepancy, it's a lot closer for 3ft 6ins/1067mm gauge, though. I have some of the Shapeways bodies for future use as though I like TT scale I didn't like the 6.5mm track I used on my TTe layout, though that is spot on for 750/760mm gauge!

Trying to sort out NG designations would give Andy an even bigger headache than this thread does!! 🤣

Deleted

Mmm, yes, they are not known for their accuracy of the designations! ;)

TT3m?! :)