moawkwrd

Indeed, and it’s so boring and dull.

It’s the same as what’s in the OO sets, but then such controllers have never been great.

One of those looks like it may be correctly assembled already - just looks like the metal hooks have come loose. There is a good pic here of what they should look like - https://www.osbornsmodels.com/roco-408190-scale-1120-tt-close-couplers-24-58123-p.asp

As a newcomer also drawn in by TT back in late 2022, I really think there's a lot of value in building something small to start with. Get one of the scale model scenery baseboard kits and put together a shunting layout - with TT their baseboards are plenty big enough. Use that as a test bed to learn layout building skills and also whether you enjoy shunting or not. At the same time you could put together a simple baseboard a similar size to the Hornby TrackMat layout (6ft x 3ft I think it is) to throw a loop or two of track onto (most of which you'll get in a starter set + track packs) for round and round if you wanted. Such a layout is also useful for running in purposes - even if you don't fix the track down and pack it all away each time. I know people on here typically advise new modellers to steer clear of sets as a starting point as a false economy but I don't think that applies as much in TT due to the range of rolling stock and the fact that the sets are a good value for rolling stock the same standard as what's available separately. The track in most cases ends up being essentially free so if you use it later on or not it doesn't really matter. The worst thing would be to embark on some grand plan and then find out you hate it and want something completely different, or getting frustrated with electrics of either flavour/scenery/track laying/etc and losing your optimism. It is after all supposed to be a fun hobby. At least with above, most is reuseable, and it'll be a good use of time whilst the TT range continues to expand. Then in time you'll know what you want from a big round the room layout, you'll have the skills to build it properly, and you won't make expensive mistakes that you might have made otherwise - speaking from experience! I've got 2 layouts on the go in TT (a shelf layout and a roundy roundy) but both are replacements for false starts I made when I didn't know any better and now I'm taking my time.

I may be off base here but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of TT:120ers aren’t the type to go to shows in the first place, let alone physical shops to buy stock either, so it’s not surprising that people firmly in other scales aren’t seeing TT in those settings. It’s all YouTube and online shopping these days for me at least. Unless it’s a local show/toy fair I’m not very interested. Whether that’s the same for all newcomers I can’t say but it wouldn’t surprise me.

It’s plainly obvious that if you’re looking for evidence of the scale taking off or whatever, you aren’t necessarily going to find it in places like here for a multitude of reasons. The whole point was to grow the hobby and get new people in - that those people aren’t joining internet forums to document their layouts isn’t surprising, if the demographics are trending younger than with the existing scales. Comments like those dismissing train set operators probably don’t help encourage people either. People do steer clear of here various reasons.

Maybe I’m an outlier but my interest in modelling (as a young whipper snapper in my 30s) doesn’t come from either heritage railways or the current mainlines - I don’t care what the railway is doing now. I’m modelling to recreate scenes I find old photos of, read about in historical texts and see in old videos uploaded to YouTube. Hence my interests start with Midland/LNWR through to LMS, then early British Railways through to BR Blue. I wasn’t alive for any of that. Doesn’t stop me from wanting rolling stock from those times. Maybe I’m a weirdo. But then I mostly purchase used as a result as very little new stuff today interests me, and that which does is normally too expensive. I just bought a new in box Hornby Railroad LMS Jinty off eBay and it’s a perfectly fine model for a DC layout. I don’t believe Hornby have sold it in a number of years, otherwise I might have bought it from them. These are staple models that Hornby should always sell cheaply, IMHO. Correction: They’re currently selling the SDJR model in two colours for £80 each… why?

I imagine the large stock balance includes a sizeable chunk of staple items that sell modest volumes reliably, otherwise if it was old Steampunk and other unsellable stuff it would’ve been written down, possibly to less than cost, if their accountants are doing their jobs properly. Does anyone know if items of track and scenic materials go out of stock regularly? I imagine they don’t (TT:120 stuff excepted). That would run across the Airfix and Scalextric ranges too.

Looks great side-on like that! I've held off on getting mine - preordered the HST set instead since it's a no brainer to get an extra coach for free, and off on holiday for 2 weeks in a week or so. Planning to order my guards, buffet and first coach when I return ready to make up a 5 coach set.

Not sure why you've repeated the same thing twice over the last few pages? People have already responded effectively to your points. Your last point is completely irrelevant to the thread.

From my own experience and others on the Hornby forum, their current setup is pretty awful and could be dramatically improved. It's not unheard of for people to receive an individual parcel per item of preordered stock, with all of the admin and notifications that entails (and the poor DPD person having to carry them all for delivery) rather than just bulking preorders into a single package like most others would do. Then the rigmarole of contacting Hornby to get a refund on the individual postage charges entails... all of which takes up resources and costs money. Recently I wanted to return a preordered item within the timelimit of the distance selling regs... it took almost 3 weeks to get an RMA number from Hornby customer services (as required for returns) and the refund took another week to arrive. When almost everyone else makes the above process so easy, it's a shock that they're still set up like it's the early 2000s. It would be an easy win to solve since nobody else seems to have this problem and Hornby are hardly unique in their requirements. Whoever they've outsourced it to is doing an awful job and costing time, money and effort all around. Binning them could only be an improvement.

Surely the psychological bit is the fact UK railway modellers have been working with largely incorrect scales for more than half a century and now something more correct has turned up.

Thinking about signalling for the layout - Would I be right in thinking that only a home signal on the left and a junction signal at the end of the platform are really required (for anti-clockwise running) for this plan? I assume the rest of the points would have ground signals instead for shunting moves, all controlled by the signal box since it has a good view of everything from the bottom right. For clockwise, would it be plausible that the home signal for the main line is before the tunnel rather than immediately after it before the point? Then another home can sit on the left hand side opposite the end of the platform. For the branchline 1 or 2 home signals and ground signals seems sufficient. I know on the original Bredon there was quite a lot of signals in both directions which looked a bit too busy to me.

Couldn't see a way to like your reply - but thank you, this is super useful. Operationally that's what I was thinking as well - I'm going to stick a small building by that siding too so there's a reason for freight to be dropped off their as well as moving back to the yard. Arguably curved points on the bends would work cleaner for this but at least it means there's an excuse for the J50 to run through the station then onto the outer line and then back in again to access the yard so lots to keep me busy when running trains. Re DMUs, that's my reasoning for having another platformed siding of at least 2 straights so that eventually a 2 car DMU can be accommodated there, as well as for goods trains dropping off platformed freight, parcels etc before moving to the other sidings.

Yes but they wouldn’t be seen together so it’s irrelevant and running a 125 alongside A3/A4s makes just as much sense. Having steam eastern locos isn’t a reason to then only have diesel or electric eastern locos unless they’re of the same era surely.

How does the 225 fit in any better than the 125 with the current and upcoming eastern steam locos?

Just in the sense of balance, the static side-on Hornby pictures of the OO J50 also do not show a front coupling. This isn’t a TT specific issue, unless it was mentioned in the text that accompanied it.

This layout is looking great! Wish I had that kind of space to do TT:120 Justice.

Yes mine three. Could be the back to backs too wide?

People say this a lot but I don't think it really holds up to scrutiny... he says as a 30 year old who finds anything past 1980-ish dull and boring, with current day at the worst end of that spectrum. If TT:120 had only been current/modern stuff I never would've got back into the hobby.

Hi Phil, Thank you - this is super helpful I took the station/sidings layout straight from the Peco plan book but I see what you're saying about the bay platform being... too much. That's an easy fix I think - something like this instead? Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout. In place of the bottom left siding - I could add a staggered platform there possibly instead. That'd make use of the footbridge I have from the first attempt. I do have some hardboard left over - I think that would be sturdy enough with some reinforcement below and cork above to add a bit of extra width... I could fit a few extra inches at least but then I might be able to fit in 3rd radius instead if I do that. Hmm, will think on that. Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

Thanks again If I push out the track as far as I think it can go whilst still allowing for the tunnel mouths on either side, I think I could fit another set of points in the fiddleyard to allow anti-clockwise running. It does mean that siding is a bit shorter though so reduces my max train length. There's also space for another point to add a spur on the inner fiddleyard siding. Perhaps wouldn't require that straight away but could be added later. Sadly yes, I think with the above I'm already at the limits of my space. I had to get rid of the extra loop there from the original Bredon - I also wasn't totally sure on the purpose of that. I'll have a play around this weekend with the latest plan and the single line one as see how I feel about the twin track on the right. I take your point, but I feel like the original single track is perhaps too... symmetrical in the way a train set is if that makes sense? I like how Bredon appears to be a single track mainline joining with a branch line, or twin going down to single - it makes it feel like the station serves a purpose along a route, so taking that feature away I think results in a layout with less interest, even if it means there are operational impacts as a result.

Thank you - I had similar thoughts yesterday after my last post when thinking about the track movements that could take place. Can I clarify - do you mean the original Bredon plan or one of mine? If mine - I think I can use both plans like so: Does that work better operationally do you think? Might have to adapt a couple of the short straights for it to fit but that's no issue. I think the main fiddleyard sidings are just about the same length - 4 and a bit 16.6cm straights so could accommodate 3 coaches and an engine depending on the rolling stock with effectively a dead third siding in the top left for others locos etc. Could always replace the third radius curves with extra points if I needed more.

Thanks - I do have XtrckCAD installed actually but much prefer AnyRail. I find it’s easier to use (especially when using flex track).

Hornby announced the J50 for TT earlier this week which should be available by end of this year. That and the green 08 will be enough to start with, and my Pacific’s on passing trains. I’m not expecting to finish building it any time soon. It took me 3 months to ballast the track first time around. Plus of course rule 1 so I can run my HST, Class 50 with Mk2s and blue Class 08 shunting TTAs as well. The base board size is fixed unfortunately due to space restraints - that’s partly why the original plan didn’t work and has been ripped up.