Roy L S

21 minutes ago, ColinB said:

That still doesn't remove the issue that you cannot pickup current from those wheels. As for the rubber well you have your opinion, I have mine. You cannot get rid of the fact, rubber is an incredibly good insulator, design isn't going to get rid of that. Those wheel will only pick up current on the flanges.

The thing is that if using traction tyres a good designer will position them so as to not impact on the pickup footprint of a locomotive, so a loco with four/six tender wheels picking up together with the front four of a typical six wheel/three axle coupled wheelbase will still have a decent length pickup footprint barely compromised by a set of tyres on the rearmost coupled axle. Also as you say, it isn't just the treads of a wheel that pickup power, the flanges will also do so when in contact with the rails and this will still be the case with a tyred wheelset.

Longevity of tyres will depend on two things primarily, first the material used, rubber may last considerably less time than say something synthetic like neoprene, but also chemicals used in track cleaning (even residues) can be quite caustic have a significant degrading effect which is why I never use any (just a rubber).

What I would say though is the need for tyres increases with the reduction in volume for tractive weight and this is typically more the case in smaller scales, so in N (which I primarily model) for many steam locos in particular they may be necessary, for locos OO if well designed, having greater volume for weight available in footplate/loco body/chassis arguably less so.  

Roy

9 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@Roy L S I think they did the Crewe Cut first as they've been promised for years and potentially would have been overshadowed by Blue and Green versions.

Could be, and I appreciate the Crewe Cuts have been promised for a long time. If there was no suitable bodyshell I would get it but there is and so it seems such an odd way to go about things given the inevitable popularity of those two liveries.

Roy

11 hours ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Based on his reference to D1733 I understand that @Roy L S was indeed talking about N and Grafar.

I was indeed. Although this is a "Bachmann" thread their quarterly announcements capture the entire spectrum of their product range and for that reason it didn't seem inappropriate to mention it here. The OO 47 (lovely as it is) did include two tone green and BR blue amongst it's initial releases, therefore all the more strange that Farish did not following the recent sound upgrade, not lease as a bodyshell was available. Given that the green and blue versions of almost all Farish diesels sell out fastest and probably between them account for 50 plus percent of the N market era-wise, it seems one heck of an "oversight" not to have produced them. 

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

My spidey senses are tingling and I've a real hunch that this quarter we will see:

1. An OO gauge Palvan
2. An N gauge tanker
3. A new scale for Bachmann linked to 7mm, maybe building on their 009 developments
4. More buildings

I'll go out on a limb maybe some more N gauge 47s Tops era or earlier.

I recall being told by one of the Bachmann Team that there wouldn't be any more 47s for a while, I did say it was absolutely crazy not to produce BR two-tone green and BR pre and post TOPS when they do have a suitable bodyshell (as seen on the Collector's Club XP64 model which I have). I am at a loss personally to understand how these decisions are made, not least because there has just been a huge resupply of Mk1s in BR Maroon and Blue/Grey which would go with those locos perfectly 🤔..

I am not going to Model World Live, but would still be interested in an update, not least because there hasn't been a huge amount of info provided since the original announcement. As far as I know, we have been told thus far that the unit will use a development of the 128 chassis as a power unit (hopefully with an improved speaker arrangement) will be available in two or three car sets depending on livery and we have been shown some illustrative artworks.

What hasn't yet been confirmed as far as I can recall (and apologies if it has) is what DCC socket will be used, whether one or two decoders will be needed, or the sets will be electrically connected via conductive couplings, if internal lighting will be fitted or a retro fit option like the Pendo (I hope the latter as I prefer not to have it) or indeed whether for this one sound options will be available.

I don't think anyone would expect to see an EP yet, never mind pricing, but some kind of update would be most helpful.

Roy

1 minute ago, Paul.Uni said:

Given the lack of release date for the previously announced models on the Bachmann website, you won't see them in 2024.

I am more interested in whether I will see them at all! 😁

My main modelling interest is N, and realistically, after the announcement of the LMS Twins in Q1, alongside the Dance Hall brake van and the anchor mounted tank subsequently, much as I would like a new-tool steam announcement (the last being the 8F over seven years ago) I am not expecting anything else of significance. Maybe some news on the much delayed J39 or a further sound upgrade (the WD Austerity would seem ripe for this) but that really would be it.

As far a N goes, I think any further major announcements will be held off until the International N Gauge Show in September, but that is based on nothing more than a gut feeling which can of course be fallible.

Roy

2 hours ago, E100 said:

 

Yes, they most certainly have and that may well play into a few of the delays we've seen but I'm confident I can recall somewhere an acknowledgement that it was a conscious decision to move away from the strict 3 month window as well.

That much I do recall, it was said an earlier showing of the EP, later info on pricing/liveries at the Quarterly Announcements, delivery potentially beyond the 3 month window but not excessively so i.e. months rather than years as used to be the case. 

2 hours ago, E100 said:

 

 

For me with the lamps I personally feel it's a good step forward but still feels a bit of beta stage. I think it would perhaps have been more appropriate to have it just on the steam and sound version for now. With the potential for fine tuning on the included decoder through an update or through user settings things like brightness can be changed and the rear lamp settings modified as well. Fast forward a year or two and this would make a very nice addition much like the rear lights we now find on many items of rolling stock.

The real issue is that only if a loco were running "light engine" (i.e. without a train) would a lamp be fitted to the rear of the tender at all. That rear lamp denotes the rear of the train is present i.e. to a signalman that the train is complete, were there any train behind the tender there would never be a lamp positioned there under any circumstances that I am aware of, the tail-lamp would be on the last vehicle in the train.

I honestly see no reason to change my initial thinking that this kind of lighting is nothing more than an ill-conceived and rather "naff" gimmick that adds very little and isn't truly credible, much better stick to getting the basics right I would say.

Roy

To be fair, Bachmann are in this short clip simply informing when the announcements for the Summer will take place, we do already know about the 7mm scale Quarry Hunslets, wagons and buildings, but not specific models/liveries or as far as I am aware pricing, and that will follow on from the initial info given at Statfold Barn. The same is true of the recently announced OO Palvans and the N Gauge Farish anchor-mounted tanks where so far EPS only have been shown.

Personally I am not completely clear whether there will be any further models announced for any scale at forthcoming quarterly announcements going forward, or whether all models will have EPs shown earlier, and the quarterly "announcements" just add in further info - this was my understanding but doesn't mean I haven't got it wrong! If it should transpire (and as I say this may be clearer to others than to me currently) then I can see the intrigue of the announcements will be very much diluted and the "wow" factor for surprises like the N Gauge LMS Twins somewhat less impactful, so I am thinking there may be a change in the focus of them.

From what I have understood, this appears to have been a case of responding to feedback in making such changes, and doubtless it will be beneficial in some ways as announcing at EP stage provides an earlier "heads up" gives more time for retailers and also potential purchasers to know what is on the horizon and plan their purchases.

It may not suit some though and as with most things, in making such changes is a case of damned if they do, and damned if they don't! 🤔

Roy

I am not a huge fan of Sam's Trains but out of interest kind of speed-watched through his review of the Black Five. I have to admit, based on the issues reported and demonstrated, it is understandable that he would be disappointed, I would have been too. This is supposedly a "premium" locomotive which is sold as a basic analogue model yet still costing North of £200 even discounted. 

Some of the issues such as "bendy" footplate have been seen before on locos such as the K1, and one would have hoped that steps would have been taken to remediate that for future models, but apparently not (albeit only time will tell whether it is endemic in this model).

Glue-smears are unacceptable on any product, never mind a premium one.

The loco-tender socket looks extremely "flaky" from the images, and I do wonder whether the existence of it is more to do with ease of assembly in the factory than significant benefit to the end-user? I pose this as a question as I model in N, where it is almost always the case that loco and tender are permanently coupled and wiring hard-wired through. Certainly the resultant loco-tender gap looks excessive, but more importantly cannot be easily reduced.

I guess the lighting issue will be a matter of personal choice/opinion, but for me it is the naffest thing on what is supposedly a premium model and I really do think Hornby have mis-read the Market or are just trying too hard to be "innovative". The lamps look really bulky and overscale, at the size they may work better on the Ellis-Clark O Gauge Black Five possibly? However the biggest point is that the oil-lamps are there primarily to provide a visible cue to signalmen and other railway workers of the class of train, and even when lit, the light produced would be minimal. Adding illumination appears therefore a gimmick for this particular class of loco, but I would accept potentially less so where lamps are electric as was the case on certain classes. However, the point is that even here very often an oil lamp was fitted atop the electric lamp anyway. I wonder what market research was done amongst modellers to determine whether this was a desirable feature? My suspicion is not a lot.

The "bones" of the model look really good, but my feeling is that Hornby have just tried too hard to differentiate and justify the price-point. I think a better made model without the gimmicks would be/is the way to go personally.

Roy

20 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

The problem is that if you spend £500K on tooling up a loco, write off 20% of that as depreciation against the first run and then leave the tooling unused and undepreciated in store , you have a £400K "asset"  that is in fact of no trevenue-earning value sitting on your books. And in the real world £500K of cashflow went out the door to create this tooling, but only £100K has been written into your books via depreciation

 

You never got your development costs back. But an unrecognised loss is being punted down the line to infinity. Eventually the accountants will have to do something about this 

 

But the fact Bachmann have on a number of occasions run something once or twice , and then it's disappeared, suggests something odd about Kader's handling of depreciation of tooling

 

I may have been a little pessimistic about the Jinty - it seems it was run quite a few times between 2004 and 2018, but not since. The Standard 4 tank looks like it's not been seen for well over a decade and it was upgraded to DCC Ready 

 

Class after class looks like this . Just 9 versions of the Super D were ever produced. This was model of the year in 2008. Just 6 versions of the J11 . Just 9 versions of the Deeley 3F. Just 9 versions of the Crab

 

All those useful medium-sized black kettles that Bachmann got such a reputation for making... They don't seem to have made any of them for years

 

Surely running the tooling in the store for well regarded models of numerous general service classes has to be better for cashflow than tooling up a small pre-grouping class of restricted geographic coverage at great expense?  

 

Surely there is a fundamental difference between amortising tooling costs over production runs from sales of the item produced (that is to say a recovery of the cost/investment) and depreciation of the tooling value in the company's books and one is not inter-dependent on the other?

A model can recover the tooling cost over an initial run or x number of production runs depending on the business model used and as far Bachmann is concerned as far as I am aware this information is business sensitive and not in the Public domain, but would be factored into the sales strategy and costings for a specific model. However, irrespective of the way the cost is amortised surely the tooling still has a "value" and it is that value which will be depreciated by whatever accounting method is appropriate to the company or accountancy rules that prevail in the relevant country?

The second thing I would query (unless the number used is illustrative only) is how a cost of £500k for a typical model is arrived at? Again we have only anecdotal information which suggests that tooling probably typically costs in the region of £100k - £200k for a loco, but as far as I know no manufacturer routinely discloses this for reasons which again are pretty obvious. 

I kind of understand the rationale for thinking that the "bread and butter" classes of loco will have more potential for repeat runs and therefore better returns, but that would seem to be be based on assumptions that we are not privy too. I am sure there will have been models which have struggled to cover costs, and lessons learned from them, but equally an organisation like Bachmann will not produce more "niche" models without being confident of covering costs by whatever sales model they apply be it one production run or a number, and that will all be factored in to the pricing.

Roy

8 minutes ago, Legend said:

Well what I think we’ve learned is if their is CAD for the 00 version then that seems to make it easier for a TT120 version to appear , which is why I think we’ve got a 50 instead of a 47 . So on that basis if you looking for something Southern  have a look at one of the more recent releases . I would have thought a Drummond 700 might appear as it also fills a slot in the range ie an 0-6-0 tender loco . Would prefer a J36 though ! 

More specifically, rather that the OO CAD, it would be the existence of an extensive and pretty recent R&D file on the prototype loco that may well have influenced the choice. As there will be different considerations such as material thicknesses (which cannot necessarily be shrunk), clearances, drivetrain, DCC socket space and adequate tractive weight in the smaller model, I would have thought a brand new CAD would be done from the ground up, but yes, that can be derived from R&D already done as can livery artworks.

Regards

Roy 

1 hour ago, Revolution Ben said:

 

Roy,

 

The wagons are in production but they aren't yet ready to ship. Once they are we will start issuing balance invoice requests, that is usually the clue that models are imminent.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

Hi Ben

Thank you, it was more the anomaly that the field where estimated arrival date would go is blank, whereas in the case of other projects with a closed order book an estimate is given. I don't think I will receive any prior notification having paid in full, typically orders have just turned up thus far, but I will keep watching for news.

Regards

Roy

At the risk of having my head bitten off (again 🤔) in respect of the N Gauge models the order book closed on 30th September 2023, and it was my understanding that the wagons were in production. However, having checked the RevolutioN project page on their website, unlike every other project with an "order book closed" status there is no estimated UK delivery date for these wagons (or their OO gauge counterparts where admittedly the order book didn't close until 31/12/2023 - much later).

Could one of the Gents on the Revolution Team provide an update on the status of these wagons please?

Many thanks

Roy

Lovely looking models, I feel sure they will find a "niche" in their own right and as a feeder for standard gauge layouts in O too, a great use for Peco O-16.5 track and refreshing to see this mentioned in the video.

Very interesting, but aligns with the changes to how Bachmann will be announcing new models going forward. The green hints 009 and Statfold is about pretty much all things narrow gauge, but the exhibition itself isn't. Nonetheless I would still put my money on 009, maybe not a loco but a piece of rolling stock.

Roy

On 08/04/2024 at 15:46, teletougos said:

Does Farish do an eight coupled steam loco with about 10mm dia wheels ?  (Potential TT conversion material.) 

 

Older is okay, as I think they look easier to regauge. 

The older type 8F was free of the tiny pony wheels which were only found on the 4 wheel bogies, but they were very crude by today's standards, reasonable but not spectacular runners and certainly not as good as the latest coreless motor locos. 

The later 8F is an altogether different beast, with modern coreless motor chassis, DCC Next 18. fitted speaker, see through spokes etc - a lovely model. However I would suggest that given the design of the chassis, pickups and axle-bearings converting to a wider gauge could be something of a challenge. Also, there has only been one production run so far and that was a few years ago now so you are likely to only find one secondhand and probably not cheap.

Roy

1 hour ago, Ed-farms said:

 

Does anyone know what the term is for a collection of Austerities? 

An Economy of Austerities maybe?

29 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Welcome back to the Association Roy.

We do bearings for Farish split axle locos such as the Jinty, 4F etc which is about as close as we are likely to get to drop in wheels but still involves soldering up etched coupling rods and quartering the wheels. The problem the Association always comes up against is that no sooner do we make parts to convert locos the manufacturer changes the way they do things. The EFE Austerity chassis is, in many ways, similar to the Farish ones but with different size bearings which means that I should be able to use Association wheels but the bearings will have to be modified or replaced. It would be great if the Association made bearings to suit but expecting the already stretched volunteer base to make bearings that are likely to sell in the tens at best is asking a bit much. 2mm modelling will always involve a bit of do it yourself. Steam, Im afraid, is always going to be more difficult than diesels to convert. Apologies, if this sounds a bit negative, I assure you its not meant to, just trying to be realistic.

Are you anywhere near a 2mm area group?

 

Personally, I'm very much looking forward to future EFE releases, particularly if its the diesel I rather hope it will be.

 

Jerry

Hi Jerry

Thanks for the info and encouragement, I appreciate that as with all things in most clubs or associations a limiting factor will be capacity in terms of both personnel and resources. 

I will doubtless end up buying some drop in wheelsets for one of my Farish Class 24 diesels to form a 2mm start point and buy some plain track by way of a small trial layout - I think breaking into 2mm really requires getting something running which so far I have failed quite dismally to do. I would have much preferred that to be a steam loco, but your points are all well made and understood. I guess I would see simplicity as key to that first steam conversion, so that would mean crankpins that are designed to facilitate reuse of existing coupling rods, on the basis that transition to 2mm scale has to be a staged process, from there moving on to fold up frets etc.

I live near Bicester so I think there is an Oxford Area Group that is reasonably close, and I really should investigate that 🤔.

EFE's next diesel loco. I had pondered this myself and as existing models seem to have some basic provenance in the DJM plans (I am not saying designs or CADs just plans) and also because there are so few diesel classes not already made RTR in N, I had been thinking in terms of the Baby Deltic which would certainly suit me fine! Rather excitingly in terms of steam that DJM thinking would also seem to suggest a Q6 0-8-0 at some point 🙂 which is probably why I am a mile off!

Regards

Roy

16 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

Not sure about drop in wheelsets but there will certainly be an article at some point on finescaling them in as straightforward a way as possible. Graham kindly let me have the EP sample to pull apart and I bought one so I'll be doing something and I know of at least a couple more that have been finescaled - using at least two different routes so far!

 

Jerry

I have been an "on the fence" potential 2mm modeller and on and off a member of 2mm SA. I have just renewed membership for another year and have some handmade points (made for me years back) ready for a small trial layout. What has put me off starting has been the lack of a simple (and I mean simple) drop in wheel conversion kit for a RTR steam loco, yes diesels no problem but something similar is I think definitely needed for steam modellers to get something running easily as a "toehold" in the scale. As I have said above, the EFE J94 seems like the perfect opportunity to address this.

Roy 

18 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

This raises some interesting issues - particularly that "presence" or "heft" does matter, and that it's one of the things that make a significant difference to people. There is no doubt that 4mm/HO have traditionally represented a sweet spot, where presence , detail and ease of construction are good, but space demands are a lot more modest than 7mm.

 

However it is increasingly becoming the case that things have shifted and 4mm is no longer such a convenient size. There are two issues - the chronic housing shortage which is squeezing the space available at home (amongst other issues you won't be building a permanent layout if youre on a shorthold tenancy), and the fact that railway vehicles have steadily grown over the last 75 years. 23m vehicles are much longer than 57' ones, 66s are much longer than 20s and 25s or an 0-6-0 goods , and not merely have wagons grown well beyond the classic 17'6" underframe we've reached a point where almost all wagons on the network are bogie vehicles, taking 8" to 12" length in 4mm. 

 

It's good to see that the emergence of TT:120 is producing a small but significant flow of  new members for the 3mm Society. I know the Society has identified that it has a demographic issue, and this should help to address it. But it is easy not to see the wood for the trees here. The simple fact is that 60 years after Triang pulled the plug on TT3 in the face of a devastating collapse in the modest sales of the range, 3mm scale is very much still with us.

 

That's why I'm very much one of those saying that TT:120 is here to stay. And I think the hobby should come to terms with that fact, and try and make the most of it. There have been concerns expressed recently about negativity in the hobby, and it's deeply depressing that within 72 hours of a significant new product announcement , discussion is back to scenarios for the collapse of the initiative and whether the scale will disappear completely.

 

It won't. This has gone far too far, far too fast, to disappear completely now. I enter one big caveat - what kind of future British outline modelling in TT:120 has is very much up for grabs. But a future it will have. By early next year there will be 8 British prototype locos available in TT:120. There will be at least 5 different suites of coaches , and a decent range of wagons. This is more than TT3 managed.  The Phase 2 items have been open for pre-orders for 18 months, so presumably the first production runs \are largely sold already and further runs will certainly follow. Behind that Hornby are already heavily committed to Castle, 37, J94, 57xx, 31, 47, and probably a 9F and more rolling stock. TT:120 has been selling as fast as they make it - when people stopped counting batch sizes last year production of Gresley Pacifics  was apparently heading towards 10,000 and presumably it's comfortably into 5 figures now. It's full steam ahead for the next 12-18 months at least, even on the most pessimistic scenarios

 

Even if you believe that TT:120 will follow TT3 with a parabolic sales curve falling away steeply 3-4 years in, there is going to be just too much stuff out there , and too many people actively involved, for this scale to disappear from British modelling. Even the scraps of British outline HO from the 1970s (which were total commercial failures) have provoked a Society, and a bunch of folk doggedly convinced this is the answer. The long term prospects for TT:120 are much better than for 3mm after 1964. Triang removed the only source of readymade 12mm mechanisms and 12mm gauge track. That garotted the scale - those are the two things that are most difficult to make. In contrast, this time 12mm track will always remain available because of the Continental market, 12mm mechanisms will be available, there will be an ecosystem of 1/120 items,and once a model 66 exists in TT, then someone will keep making one

 

Anyone who thinks that TT:120 can be headed off at the pass, that it can be clubbed out of existance by posting online, or that if we all stick together and refuse to recognise it, TT:120 will go away and we can all go back to the happy land of 2022,  is deluding themselves. (I have in mind the notorious Chadwick video with its chanted refrain "it's a trainset!"  : surely an attempt to suggest that TT:120 has no place in railway modelling and should be opposed) . The only sane response is to say "Well, it's here . I don't know whether I'd have done it, or how far it will be a commercial success for Hornby. But it exists, and Hornby's money isn't my problem, so let's see what we can make of it"

 

If you haven't got room to do it in 4mm - and a lot of people haven't, what do you do?  It is not  obvious that N gauge is the only possible modelling scale smaller than 4mm.   It is very noticeable that for a lot of people who don't really have space for 4mm,  N gauge is not a workable solution.

 

 

There could be an opening for a scale larger than N but smaller than OO. If you are in N long term then clearly N works for you and you don't see the issue. There are those who like the presence and detail and ease of construction in 4mm - but haven't got the space. 3mm is bedeviled by scale gauge issues: do you go 14.2mm then have to handbuild all the track and chassis to exacting standards? Or do you go 12mm and have a seriously underscale track gauge? Hornby have said, in effect, the gauge has to be 12mm , since that is already a commercial gauge, and there's a Continental market for the track.  Then it makes sense to go to 1/120 scale , because that is the  scale used commercially on the Continent for 12mm gauge RTR  .

 

Those then are the intermediate options : 3mm scale /14.2mm gauge, 3mm/12mm gauge, TT:120 . Take your pick. Different people will make different choices in differing circumstances

 

The argument that there is more RTR available in N is simply not the knockdown argument that some folk think, if your starting point is "N gauge is too small a scale to satisfy me".

 

Put another way 7mm modelling has flourished and grown in the last 35 years, even though no conventional RTR was available until about 10 years ago. If someone likes the heft of 7mm, it's not an effective argument to say that there is more RTR in OO and you can build a layout in less space, so you should stick to 4mm.

 

OO9 has only had RTR support quite recently . But for half a century it got by ok without it, based on kits and the availability of 9mm track and mechanisms. The lack of RTR was not a knockdown argument against OO9. Some of the hobby actually like making things.

 

Even this is to concede too much to the naysayers. It's entirely possible given what we've seen so far, that demand for TT:120 will be fully sufficient to sustain production of commercial RTR indefinitely. S gauge is a commercial scale in the US. The range of RTR is much smaller than for HO, of course, but folk who like the scale or perhaps want to be different, work in it.  Marklin's Z gauge is never going to displace N , but it's been around since 1972 and there are no threads with eager posters speculating about how soon Marklin will drop it

 

All of those scenarios are on the table for TT:120 in Britain. What is not possible is a scenario where 1:120 is not an available option for British outline modelling, (even if the cynic in me mutters that MRJ will only publish its first article on "P120" about 9 months after Hornby announce a suspension of production...)  

 

"As I was going down the stair

I met a man who wasn't there.

I saw him there again today -

I wish, I wish he'd go  away"

 

(AA Milne, I think - someone may be able to confirm)      

There are so many points made in the above that I agree with, but a few I do not: -

"There are a lot of people in the hobby who have "bounced off" N. Over the years I've seen a lot of comments of the form " Haven't got a lot of space or a layout,  started off in OO, tried N but it wasn't for me/found it too fiddly/couldn't get on with it so here I am, back in OO . Now how do I do something in the limited space I've got?"

I think there will inevitably be some, but I would challenge there being "a lot" and certainly not enough to in itself warrant an entirely new scale being developed.

"The argument that there is more RTR available in N is simply not the knockdown argument that some folk think, if your starting point is "N gauge is too small a scale to satisfy me".

Respectfully I disagree. We have already witnessed comments to the effect that people will not engage with TT120 as a viable modelling scale until there is sufficient a range of models. I do not want to get into the issue of how quickly Hornby can (or will) add products to the range, but it is clear that the lack of range in TT120 now (and for what may be a considerable time to come)  is preventing some from entering the scale. Such a range does exist in N, it is substantial, supported by many manufacturers and absolutely will attract many potential TT120 modellers for whom that is an issue, not least because of the quality of what is being produced, which is comparable and in many cases better. Also, at 2.065mm/ft (I am talking British here as TT120 already is a thing on the continent and elsewhere) is actually less than 1/5 smaller as a scale than TT120 - noticeably smaller of course, but significantly smaller? For a small minority possibly yes, for most probably not and for a layout in terms of square footage it takes up a lot less space for a comparable Tt120 layout. So, there absolutely will now and for a long time to come be a significant number who if looking for a minimum/smaller space British layout will choose N over TT120 based on available range alone. 

"Even this is to concede too much to the naysayers. It's entirely possible given what we've seen so far, that demand for TT:120 will be fully sufficient to sustain production of commercial RTR indefinitely. S gauge is a commercial scale in the US. The range of RTR is much smaller than for HO, of course, but folk who like the scale or perhaps want to be different, work in it.  Marklin's Z gauge is never going to displace N , but it's been around since 1972 and there are no threads with eager posters speculating about how soon Marklin will drop it".

Hornby under and influenced by Simon Kohler clearly saw a market for TT120 or they would not have started investing in the scale so heavily, this has continued, possibly in a more pragmatic and diluted form under current management. Initial demand was strong, but how many like me will have taken a "punt" on an "Easterner" set (or similar) because at a discounted price of £165 for a complete set it would simply have been rude not to, based on curiosity value alone? How much of this has translated into sustainable future sales to newcomers to railway modelling, or "converts" from other scales it is simply too soon to say. Definitely it has some, and some (like me) will see TT120 as a small "side hustle" to another established modelling scale but that's all, which doesn't matter as after all it is still sales, but then some, and likely a very significant proportion of existing modellers won't engage with the new scale at all. 

Will TT120 succeed and become established as a British modelling scale? At this point it is too soon to say for sure. What is abundantly clear is that Hornby have belief that it will and have a strategy to add products to the range for the next few years so they are giving it every chance. Personally I believe it will probably carve itself a place a place too, because the size will inevitably suit some as an alternative to OO or N and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. However I can't see it threatening those established scales in terms of volume. If we could "fast forward" five years, I think that there is much more chance that we would see TT120 continuing to be modelled in Britain than not and with manufacturer's support.

Roy

17 minutes ago, Simond said:

I question the use of the word “Fake”.  
 

The items are almost certainly made using the same tooling and processes that the “genuine” ones are, are probably packed in the same boxes, from the same printers and will likely be in all respects indistinguishable from those bought from the Dapol website or factory shop.  I wonder how Dapol can say that they won’t be eligible for warranty, as they won’t be able to distinguish such products from those they have sold any more than the customer can (except by the receipt, perhaps).

 

 

Except of course that with the exception of direct sales from Dapol your warranty is not with them, it is with the retailer you bought the loco from because that is who your contract is with. In either case though, be it Dapol or a retailer, they would very reasonably expect you to produce proof of purchase as part of any return/warranty claim. if bought direct from China via eBay or otherwise, the only proof of purchase a person could provide would make it self evident that the model was purchased through an unauthorised channel so your warranty and any claim under it would be void.

Roy

3 hours ago, Linesideohotos said:

An up to date comparison between the Farish and EFE Longmoor Military Railway Austerities. As Kernow are doing some deals on them I couldnt say no !! 

Bet the old Farish one hauls more !

The EFE one is no slouch in the haulage department, one of mine pulled 20 mineral wagons with no bother at all. I don't think there would be that much in it as there seems a fair bit of weight in the J94 so I am thinking tanks/footplate may be diecast. It should be remembered that the cab of the old Farish model is plastic.

As should be expected given the ancient provenance of the Farish model, the new EFE one trounces it in pretty much every respect imaginable in terms of accuracy, detail, and running quality and is of course DCC ready. In my opinion there really isn't any comparison between the two (I have three EFE ones).

Roy

Models started coming out post WW2, I think the first loco may have been a generic 0-6-0 tender loco and wagons under the "Formo" brand, including a set, but am not 100% sure from memory.

The GF OO range was probably at it's zenith in the 50s with two rail OO models of the "Black Five" (ish 🤔), King, Merchant Navy, later a Large Prairie and 94xx, plus rolling stock (including Pullmans). A substantial range of OO track evolved into the 60s, there may have been a US "Hudson" loco too I believe. The tender locos were weird contraptions with a two pole tender mounted motor driving loco wheel, some kind of "clutch" arrangement in the drive, plunger pickups and a kind of "box" at the front of tenders to enclose the driveshaft. Survivors can still be found but rarely in good condition. 

The Prairie asd 94xx were more traditional in design and remained in a reduced OO range in the 60s. The "mainline" and "suburban" generic coaches in various liveries plus wagons and vans (all ending up in more modern packaging) survived into the late 70s along with the 94xx in BR Black and GW green. This residual range was discontinued at the end of the 70s at which point Farish concentrated on their N models. 

I had a 94xx in the late 70s (pestered my parents for one) and it was a really nice loco, the diecast body gave it lots of weight, and by that point it had a decent can motor so ran really smoothly. It sat nicely on my shelf with the "new" chassis N Gauge 94xx I also had 🙂.

There's probably more to it, but that is the post-WW2 Farish basics I think.

Roy