moawkwrd

Thanks I ended up fitting both my 3F and 4F with coreless motors to see if this would improve the running properties and it has somewhat. However, using my PWM controller they're a bit... lurchy. Seems to require at least 3-4V (track measured) before they move off at some chat and can then be wound back in to around 2-3V but even that is too fast for shunting and results in frequent stalling. Not like my Class 108 (DCC Ready version, not the older one) or 25 with original GF motor which require more voltage but are much more controllable albeit with a lower top speed at the full 12V. Considering my layout is a sleepy-ish branchline that's far preferable. I'm thinking of putting back in the original GF motors to the 3F/4F with new brushes and no suppression capacitor. Shouldn't be too difficult to chip out the araldite I put in to secure the coreless motors. From reading around, it would appear these controllers doesn't have any kind of feedback just straight PWM at around 16KHz. I'll be quite happy with it if I can get the motor combination right for these locos, and intend to mount the components in the frame of the layout for a neater solution for twin track operation.

Hi all, I’ve recently embarked down an N gauge rabbit hole whilst taking a break from TT:120. I built a twin track PWM controller supplied by Handem for a small desktop oval layout I’m building, which works great with an older example of the Graham Farish Class 25. However, the similarly aged Class 4F that I got doesn’t run so well. I have to turn the power quite high before it starts to move and it shoots off - then I can reduce the power and it steadily maintains motion. Could this be due to the capacitor that was wired in to prevent noise interference? I don’t think the Class 25 has one due to the split chassis design. I’ve also got a Jinty of the same era which needs fixing so I could experiment by removing the capacitor on that first once I’ve fixed the pickups. Sorry if this is an obvious question, quite new to the hobby and still learning. Thanks,

Looks like a fine model - getting excited now for my BR Blue set on preorder!

I couldn’t fight the temptation - it doesn’t really fit my current layout but it may be at home on my next one. My reasoning for the preorder of a blue and yellow set, plus 5 coaches, is that with the discount at the time, it was a significant saving and I just really like it. But then I also ordered a class 50 and Mk2 coaches… 😅

Looks like the HST sets are about to land - website is showing the Intercity Executive version in stock. Naysayers can stick that in their pipe and smoke it.

What do you mean? Rails, Gaugemaster and TMC have all 3 for preorder. I’m sure others do too.

Yeah they appear to be having email issues. No “your preorder has arrived” email and no order confirmation yet for an order I placed yesterday morning which I’ve been charged for and is showing in my account.

Class 08 now up for preorder on Hornbys website - https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-class-08-0-6-0-d3986-era-5-tt3028m And it is 6 pin like the others, as expected.

How does the Tomix stuff figure into that?

It will be interesting to see how big the TT announcement in April is relative to today, as an indicator of which Hornby considers more important for their future. That said the number of OO models due by then from previous announcements is considerable, add in the Phase 1 TT stuff still due by then and it’ll be an avalanche of new stock coming in all around the same time.

It is much needed balance from a larger perspective however, as there must certainly be a number of small local model shops which couldn’t compete over the past 20 years as Hattons grew and grew and came to dominate online sales in the hobby with their innovations, customer service and sheer volume. Such a big player leaving the market will undoubtedly offer more sales opportunities to other retailers, particularly smaller ones, some of whom are struggling all the same. A small silver lining in terms of the hobby as a whole, perhaps. And who knows, some Hattons staff may well benefit from opportunities arising from such a redistribution of market share.

Yes, I'm hopeful that we'll see more track pieces from Peco this year. I originally had a Tillig doubleslip there (I assume single slips aren't common on the continent as they don't seem to offer one?) which doesn't fit exactly but could be made to work. I left enough on the middle road for a small tank engine or class 08 to be parked there, as well as the other siding on the throat side. Swapping the sidings and that loco spur around and added a further bay looks like this now; is that what you had in mind? Though I probably will play around with the angles and lengths to get it in better proportions. If I push back the triple track I could then have the bay platform between them and the goods sidings. As macabre as it is I did give thought to stocking up on track from Hatton's closing down sale but thought better of it since I'm nowhere near starting this layout yet and want to see what Hornby announce tomorrow and in April.

Not to point out the obvious, but with their popularity around the world this can't have helped if they were doing it for all overseas orders...

Despite being in my early 30s, I actually did visit the old shop before it closed, as a train obsessed child who grew up in Merseyside. However you’re missing the point I’m making, since I doubt in-person sales have made up a great proportion of their turnover for at least a decade, in that it’s very worrying for other online retailers if a well known shop couldn’t make it work. With them buying a US retailer only 2 months ago, I suspect there must be more to todays news than just “general market conditions and changing demographics”.

On the contrary, if Hattons of all places couldn’t make online shopping work for the hobby then it’s worrying times ahead for everyone. Didn’t they also just recently buy a US retailer? Lots of questions will come from this. Very sad, hoping the staff can find work quickly elsewhere.

There was a cost of £30 to begin with after the initial free period. They then made the club entirely free and got rid of the printed magazine and sign up freebies, and the discount.

Is that due to the double slip and three track set up? I've been playing with the Lima set today and I think I've come to a decision, perhaps a pragmatic one. After setting up a loop of horrid steel track and initially being impressed by the detail on 40 year old models, the novelty wore off as it was just as fiddly as TT has been with worse couplings leaving much bigger gaps, and watching a big loco like the Western going round and round those radius 1 curves was a bit silly in reality. Would it be different with a proper end to end layout and a timetable etc? Possibly - but I think I can achieve all of that with TT. With my existing rolling stock and preorders in TT, my half built TT layout, and the fact that it was TT that got me back into the hobby, I think I have decided that I am going to stick with TT:120 for the forseable (or at least until the April announcements!). Whilst I could sell off all my TT stock, clean up my track packs and sell as much as I can - ultimately I'm trying to compare apples with oranges by looking at cheap old OO rolling stock and thinking it's a great deal compared to my brand new TT stuff. Whilst I may enjoy the time and fiddling it would take to build up in OO and convert old locos to DCC and replace motors, add detail, etc - ultimately it's unlikely I'd save much money compared to what I've already spent or going forward. It's also partly a chicken and egg situation - if everyone who's been brought back or for the first time into the hobby by TT:120 had the same thoughts as me and ditched it for old OO stuff, there's no chance of it ever succeeding so any fears that Hornby would pull the plug would become self-fulfilling. Prices of used stock would also become unfavourable as people ditched it on mass and swapped to OO or N in any event. This brings me back to the plan; Compared to the last OO plan, TT lets me fit more in but not in the way the N gauge layouts can become too much track for the space. Allowing for longer platforms (longest being approx 140cm) and sidings in the scenic area whilst limiting my fiddleyards to a max length for my planned HST consist (1x TGS, TSO, TRFB and TF) at 107cm~ and four coach steam trains when I fancy changing era. Operationally I think it works (it should do since it's essentially a plan I've seen from several sources across the web) but I've added an extra siding to allow for some goods movements. For steam engines, would it be in any way prototypical to pretend there is a loco depot nearby and have an engine bring it's train in, run around and back out of the scenic area - this could be combined with a different engine waiting in the opposite orientation prior to it's arrival, ready to couple up to the rear and depart again. My fiddleyard allows for any route in and out with the shortest of the verticals being long enough to accommodate my A4 and 3x Mk1 coaches and then some smaller sidings for solo engines and whatever else. Sticking with TT alleviates some of the pressure to get started on this, since I have my other layout to work on if I'm not selling everything, and leaves open my options for which era to model since already TT is spanning more than 1 in terms of what is available. Obviously if the expected tank engine appears in 2024 then a late steam/early diesel setting that can also be used for BR Blue is my only option. That's quite a wide range to try and model in one layout so perhaps I'll end up going for one or the other. I'm planning to fix up the Lima Class 52 (missing buffers, couplings, and could benefit from the CD motor upgrade which is pretty cheap), whilst using some of the coaches for weathering practise before I do it to my TT stock. I can also start to plan for DCC automation (blocks etc) once I'm finalised on the plan. So roll on Tuesday and April to see what Hornby announce, and any of my preorders that might arrive by then!

Even if it was there with the same level of information as in the TT:120 catalogue but showing European liveries that will be available it would make more sense. To not mention it at all is peculiar, particularly if it’s due to be released this year. Suggests that the continental version will be coming much later than the UK model, assuming that isn’t delayed as well. Phase 1 & 2 items slipping to 2025 and beyond is killing enthusiasm about the whole project, particularly for new modellers brought back into the hobby by TT:120 like myself.

Thanks - yes I'd been reading and watching videos about the various improvements I can make pretty cheaply. I think that's part of the attraction of OO over TT, the availability of that kind of thing and the low cost as well as the fettling which is enjoyable in itself (when it goes well!). More planning - this time improving on the OO plan I think with v6 and the more conventional fiddleyard arrangement. Also added the rest of the room so you can see what it'll be like. I intend to have this layout at quite a high level (at least 4ft) so that there is space underneath for my existing TT layout (if I decide to keep it) and sufficient storage. If I weren't planning to go DCC straight away (because I buy cheap old models that need converting for example), would this layout be relatively simple to wire for DC?

So I've replicated the previous OO plan as best I can in TT using a mixture of Peco and Tillig track pieces - using the same 44x60cm baseboards as a size guide it results in needing one less of the baseboards. The fiddleyard remains the same size - the straight being one 91.44cm piece of flexitrack in both scales. However, in TT I've been able to fit in a longer max platform length of the same length where as in OO I somehow managed to get a max platform length of 128cm and a max fiddleyard length of 130cm, using only one extra of the baseboards (albeit some of them rotated giving my less depth to work with for scenery). Obviously keeping them the same orientation and the extra board would allow for longer platforms and fiddleyard in TT also, potentially giving me max platform length of 156cm, allowing for approx 8 Mk1s to be hauled although more likely that I'd keep the long platform and run shorter trains but that does feel a bit like filling the same space just for the sake of it. With approx 91/128cm max length, that means a max train of in 3.8 coaches (26cm Mk1s so could fit 3 and a shorter parcels etc) OO, versus 4.4x coaches (again using one of my Mk1s at 16.5cm) in TT, assuming a loco of between 18cm - 28cm in each respective scale. I'm therefore still torn over scale as there isn't much between each respective plan based on the above. My cheap Lima set arrived today so I intend to spend the weekend playing with both to see if I can come to a decision. It's a Class 52 and 4x carriages in BR Blue/Intercity colours and I'm actually quite impressed with the detail considering it's age (must be early 80s as the catalogue is the 82/83 version) and cost.

Didn't really intend for this to become a TT:120 vs OO debate, although I guess I was opening the door to one. Another take at the plan - this time more based on a real life station (Greenwich Terminus before the tunnel extension - ignoring the real life location) using another three way point and adding in some loco spurs in the fiddle yard. I don't think there's enough to space for anything other than a parcels/mixed goods platform in the space I have with OO without filling the space with track somewhat. I think the runaround is a bit too much already and I'm not happy with it joining prior to the normal throat points. The alternative of course is to drop a point after the 3 way - But I'm not sure about that either. I guess removing it entirely (perhaps adding some pieces back in a scenic reminder of a previous track layout) is the other option, as well as removing the middle track between platforms as redundant. Any thoughts? In other news, I've managed to pick up a cheap Lima OO BR Blue (a Western with 4 coaches) set to use as a test bed for weathering, DCC fitting, and also help me decide whether to go back to OO by comparison to my TT stock, which should guide where this plan goes.

I agree with this - certain models would sell all year round if they were good value with enough detail to please most people and some modern features (DCC Ready with prefitted speakers for example). A good shout by another poster to vary running numbers by batch too, as that's a pretty cheap and effective way of increasing choice, as is livery.

Thank you all for your comments - it's really helpful to get this plan right before I start buying anything (and in the right scale!). To be clear also, this isn't a layout that I'm intending to start building until probably Autumn/Winter 2024 at the earliest, by which point we'll have a better idea of the future plans for TT:120 and hopefully some more releases from other manufacturers. The current lack of stock doesn't bother me too much, as with owning a Class 08 and having preorders in for the HST and Class 50 and Mk2 stock, I'd already be able to run a decent BR Blue layout without anything new being announced. N gauge is a definite no from me unfortunately - been there before with a GF set and various Kato bits and pieces and whilst it was fine for a simple layout on DC, it's not a scale I'd enjoy fiddling with for DCC and automation. I wouldn't relish trying to get stay alives and sound working on those models either, even with the TT Class 08 it was a struggle! With a smaller scale I'd naturally have to buy more stock also so added expense. So definitely either sticking with TT or moving to 00. I can see the appeal of modelling a preservation railway and actively follow a few layouts on YouTube that do just that, but it's not something that interests me too much, and as above, I'm not planning a railway just for what it available now in TT as I've already basically got that in my roundy round layout which I intend to keep and just run whatever I like on. Bury Bolton Street is a good shout - as the obvious way to adapt that track plan is to set it in a hypothetical timeline where it didn't close and become preserved. The triangular junction to the south of the station is a nice way of modelling an entrance to my fiddleyard. I also came across a plan that had 3 lines running into 2 platforms using a three way point for run arounds - does anyone know if this is prototypical? This is in 00 also - making use of the new unifrog curved point in code 100 helped fit in a longest straight of approx 90cm which should fit 3x Mk1 carriages in 00. The length of the runaround track is approx 25cm so would limit which loco hauled trains could release themselves. The upper most line would be used for some kind of freight or possibly with a bay platform - parcels/milk/goods depending on what setting I end up with. If I was starting from scratch in 00 I could be pretty specific in terms of era and running stock which may help. I think I've managed to allow access to all 4 fiddleyard lines but may be able to add a further line in by widening the baseboard. All points are either medium or large apart from the curved ones. Hopefully an improvement on my first plan though I'm sure it can be improved further! I'd like to leave a fair amound of space around the track for scenery rather than trying to hem in as much as possible. I'd envisage it being in a cutting again or elevated on a viaduct so surrounding buildings could give a sense of location particular in the corner area. Edit, I realise after posting this that the station plan is basically one of yours @Harlequin! I saw it somewhere else though.

Thank you both for your replies I can see what you mean now about the fiddle yards - to be fair I hadn't finalised the point work in them completely. I assume the best approach is to dedicate any equal amount of fiddleyard lines to each and then ensure all of them can access either running line, particularly if I want automation of a schedule of sorts? Do you mean have the goods yard where the branch line goes into the curve and not necassarily connected to the fiddle yard so that it can form part of the scenic area on it's own? I'll have a play around with that idea and see what I can come up with. Are there many examples of such arrangements near these sorts of terminus in real life? Yes, I had thought that I would just make use of hands or the Peco Loco-Lift cradle to assist in assembling trains as required but I can see how that would get frustrating. It's inevitable for steam engines without a turntable I guess. For Diesels more point work in the fiddleyard to allow for running around could help but it would complicate the track plan and expense. I don't believe a Fairburn has been mentioned yet, but we should get a better idea in April when there's supposed to be a new range announced for preorders. So far we know there are 3 0-6-0s (J94 and Pannier tank and rumoured to be a Jinty) planned, and then "several small tank locomotives" beyond stage 4 but as to what they are is anyone's guess. Thank you for this - the issue of suitable stock in TT may force me to change to 00 still yet, so I will have a play around with the track plan more adapting this curved approach to the space I have. In TT I would have to incorporate more Tillig track pieces which I'm not averse to as by all accounts they're very good.

Hi all, happy new year! I've been a long time lurker of these forums but the time has come to get involved. I'm currently working on a rather simple roundy round layout in TT:120 (having started again in the hobby properly last year when I received Hornby's The Easterner Set) which is fine and a good way to learn some skills and finish something relatively basic. However, my mind has turned to what comes next and I'm left with a bit of a quandry around scale. Lately I've been reading more and more into DCC and automation (particularly DCC-Ex and JMRI) so the next layout will be a way to explore these. Therefore I'm thinking of a minories to fiddleyard design, and fortunately it looks like I can make it more permanent than the current one (which is a baseboard on foldable legs). Total space that I have in the spare bedroom is roughly 2.9m x 2.3m (roughly 9.5ft x 7.5ft) however there is an alcove wall next to the door, a radiator and window to navigate, and the room currently functions as my office for working from home 3 days a week, so I think a sensible approach is an L shaped layout along two walls opposite my desk. In TT:120 I've come up with the following plan (hitting the 50 piece limit but there'd be a total of 8 fiddleyard lines): All track is Peco TT:120, except for the double slip which is a Tillig piece but hopefully Peco may release one by the time I get to building this, and the Hornby curve set track pieces. The minories plan is fairly traditional with up and down lines coming into 3 platforms, with a branch line leaving from platforms 2 and 3. Setting would be a mix of late BR steam (to accommodate my current locos; A3, A4 and upcoming Princess Coronation) or BR Blue Diesels (for the upcoming HST, Class 50 and my Class 08). I think this setting would be useful for future releases in this scale (or at least what's currently planned with a small tank loco, Class 31 and 37 etc and hopefully a DMU at some point). This tilt towards mostly passenger traffic led me to making the platforms as long as possible and I've basically used one length of Peco flex as the minimum for both them and the fiddleyards - this should accommodate 4-5 coaches in TT scale (mixing Mk1s with the upcoming 57's) but I'm open to incorporating some kind of goods traffic as I've seen that done frequently with a milk/parcels platform etc. Control will be with DCC and some level of automation as mentioned. I envisage the scenic area starting somewhere in the corner on the approach curves (either tunnels or cuttings as I haven't decided whether the station itself will be elevated on a viaduct or in a cutting). Thinking about the current availability of TT stock and items, I attempted to make the same layout in 00 in a similar space which required flipping the track to allow for a tilt: My thoughts with this were that it'd allow me to buy secondhand 00 items for less - however it's a compromise with shorter platforms and fiddleyards which would limit me to 3-4 carriages per train and from looking at various places (eBay, Hattons, Rails of Sheffield etc) the actual used prices aren't massively less than what I've spent on new TT items so far (taking into account discounts) except for rolling stock like coal wagons etc which can be picked up relatively cheaply. It would also mean disposing of my TT rolling stock (or rather, just keeping what I want to run on my roundy round layout and cancelling preorders). I've been happy with TT so far, and it got my back into the hobby when I'd given up on N gauge (too fiddly) and 00 previously (not enough room) so perhaps waiting for items to appear in the scale is a good way of tempering my hobby and teaching me some patience. The baseboards in the above are the scale model scenery 600x440mm but I'd probably make my own as they're quite expensive to buy so many and would result in some points crossing joins. In either case I'd prefer to take a modular approach with homemade boards of varying lengths to suit the trackwork which I can handle and work on more easily (i.e. less than 4ft x 2ft size so I can access wiring etc on my workdesk). So I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the above (TT vs 00 for this layout) and also the track plan itself, whether there are any obvious improvements I can make, and whether a goods platform can be incorporated (perhaps a bay platform next to platform 3?) Another question I had was whether there are prototypical examples of a station like this being used as a junction by trains transferring from a branch line to the main line - as this would allow more variety in the traffic I run - but I guess if this were a London terminus, it would avoid the area altogether. Thanks, Mike