Roy L S

The Graham Farish Flying Scotsman is a model from the 1980s and is very crude, it is in no way comparable to modern Farish products so to compare against modern TT120 lacks any credibility at all.

A nice looking layout for sure, and you are entitled to your opinion, but in saying that TT120 locos are "better looking" that Graham Farish models, could I ask precisely what are you comparing given that Graham Farish do not make an A3 or A4? The only possible direct comparison is the 08 which is neither better or worse looking than the Graham Farish model - it is what it is - an 08 (I have both models), a thoroughly competent model but in reality (with rose coloured TT120 specs off) it is no better detailed overall than the Farish model. Comparing the A4 I have with the Farish Peppercorn A2 Pacific, I wouldn't say that overall it is better or worse, and in some ways (especially wheel standards) looks more crude. In terms of running, the 08 is no better than the Farish model in my experience and to add to that, the TT120 A4, which is a beautiful model for sure and runs very nicely, but it absolutely isn't a better runner in any way when compared to any of my numerous recent coreless motor loco-drive Farish tender locos, which, it is worth noting, have a more advanced technical spec than the TT120 counterparts (coreless motor, Next 18 DCC socket, fitted speakers). I do agree that the dead-frog Hornby points in the picture look better than Peco N Settrack points, but that isn't really a fair comparison as most serious N layouts you see will, unless an absolute minimum space layout, typically use Code 55 track and medium radius Streamline points as a minimum (With live frog or Unifrogs). My own experience is that far better than the Hornby Code 80 track that came with my Easterner set (if more expensive) is the Peco Code 55 TT120 track and point-work which really is excellent and what I have bought for when I get round to my own TT120 layout project (looking more likely to start sooner with the arrival of the J50). Roy

So basically they are saying any new Dapol product regardless of scale that is on sale direct from China should be looked upon with suspicion. Well people have been warned, but I guess to some it will still depend on just how much of a "bargain" something appears to be. Caveat emptor for sure, I would have very little sympathy with anyone if a duff item arrives ...🤔

It was reported that following the Collett Goods 0-6-0 in N Peco said they would not make any further locos, as they were/are primarily a model railway track manufacturer. In terms of the two locos produced, you are partly correct. The Jubilee was made for Peco by Rivarossi of Italy, and there were three different incarnations. The first in LMS black can be identified as having driving wheels coupled with gears (the rods did not do the work - just cosmetic - on the front wheelset there wasn't even a crankpin). The next batch dispensed with the gear-coupled driving wheels, the rods then connecting all wheels, again LMS black, a final batch were produced in LMS crimson in the early 80s. Interestingly the Jubilee was never produced in BR livery. Batch sizes were quite large for the market and took many years to sell through. I think there may have been only one batch of Colletts in different liveries, although it was upgraded from initially having only a single traction tyre on the tender to having two. Peco were unfortunately for them too far ahead of the Market in that the loco had a DCC chip onboard, but an oddball 4 pin Lenz job, this was used to help "justify" a premium price of £130 which was a lot when released, of course not helped by the loco being UK manufactured adding to cost. One of the biggest issues with this loco was the choice of tender used to house the mechanism, a larger (I think 3,500 gallon) one which was extremely rare for this particular loco and look out of proportion. It was/is though a model of utmost quality. Peco have of course since collaborated with Kato to produce 009 locos, which seems to confirm they have no desire to produce further locos on their own, and I suspect a similar collaboration would be the only way Peco would be involved in a TT120 loco. Roy

I was referring to a brand new scale as regards British models and the UK Market which given that the thread title is "Hornby Announces TT120" I thought fairly obvious.

I wasn't comparing to early British N, I was referring to the focus Bachmann had on re-establishing a new Graham Farish N range in the mid to late 2000s ("noughties") following their takeover of the UK based Poole operation and initial use of the original Poole designed models made in China. There was a pretty relentless introduction of new tool models for a time, and as I say in one year I recall seven new locos alone plus significant rolling stock. A slightly different scenario granted, but the scale in Britain had to be grown again from a low point where very little British N was produced by anyone following closure of the Poole factory in 1999 and Bachmann re-starting Farish production in China some time later (two ish years?) followed by the brand new models to which I refer. In terms of manufacturers I have spoken to, suffice to say universal names in our world so mainstream rather than "cottage" industry types who currently have no plans to enter the TT120 space and who produce a range of N products already. Inevitably any manufacturer with an ounce of business sense will watch the TT120 situation closely, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. In terms of cottage industry involvement, I think the advent of 3D printing has helped enormously, and I would not challenge that there is support for TT120 from that area and I feel pretty confident that some innovative designer will produce 0-6-0 models that fit the J50 chassis in time. It is interesting to compare the introduction of TT120 to TT3 and look at how that evolved. There are some quite legitimate direct comparisons as TT3 was a complete range introduced by one manufacturer, and in a very similar way to TT120 the scale started with a very limited range (just two locos for example - Jinty and Castle) and was scaled up from that initial launch in a similar way as Hornby are doing today, with more locos, rolling stock, accessories and a new track system following. Also, in a similar way, there was cottage industry support in terms of products by the likes of Gem and K's to name but two and a slightly bigger name Kitmaster (who produced Mk1 coach kits and a Royal Scot kit too). I have a fair collection of TT3 and have a fair level of enthusiasm for it, appreciating it for what it was. I was even a member of the 3MM Scale Association for a time, so have a reasonable understanding of the history too. It is an inalienable fact that no other mainstream manufacturer joined Tri-Ang on their journey then, and I know there has been much debate on this forum already about the cause of the demise of TT3 as a mainstream scale, with much being made of the introduction of the more compact N (and British N's infancy) as a contributory factor, which I know is to an extent disputed but I personally believe was key along with the untimely death of a key Tri-Ang staff member. I have one of the Pat Hammond books that tracks the rise and fall of TT3, and how sales from a peak in the late 1950s dropped to about 1/6 of that value by the early 60s. It could well be that a different dynamic exists today and TT120 will not suffer the same peak and then demise as TT3, but the loss of the "champion" and driving force (SK leaving) at a critical time for it is a worrying comparison for me personally. However, I think the pivotal point is not about how much product Hornby will introduce and how quickly, it will be if (and I say if not when) another manufacturer dips a larger toe in the water beyond a single open wagon, and I do hope that will happen. I also think an association akin to the N Gauge society or 3MMSA will help by growing a critical mass of members and with that the confidence to talk to manufacturers directly (Think N Gauge society Hunslet, Kits and rolling stock). It is after all still early days just yet... Roy

But then TT120 is the rarest of things, a brand new modelling scale in model railways and in terms of overall products there has been significant volume, but of necessity it included the mundane but essential items such as track and accessories which skews the position somewhat. In terms of locos and rolling stock I don't think I would be bold enough to say "more brand new models than any other manufacturer in any scale" and I don't think that's correct, in fact the volume of releases thus far has been comparatively slow - to take just one comparable example, in British N I can recall during the late "noughties" when Bachmann were trying to get the Farish range re-established one particular year where if memory serves, there were seven locos alone released. TT120 was launched with a huge fanfare and with hugely optimistic "promises" by some then at Hornby in terms of what would be delivered and when, a classic case of over-promising and under-delivering which didn't help. In current economic conditions Hornby have the hardest of jobs and are doing their best within the inevitable financial and logistical constraints that exist but it hasn't been perfect and the TT120 "fundamentalists" would do well in my opinion to balance their sometimes overspun views with a little more pragmatism. Aside from Peco who have dipped a toe in the water with some track (which arguably has a global market), lineside models and buildings (and a single British wagon) nobody else has committed to producing anything for the British market, and from my conversations with some manufacturers they don't actually seem that interested. This makes Hornby's job in establishing the scale all the more difficult and it is going to take more time than was initially suggested. Roy

Yes, they would both be good choices, the G2 had a very long life and one preserved. The other loco ripe for the picking now UM have ceased production is the LNER B12/3 - another loco with inside cylinders so no complex valve-gear, and again one preserved on the North Norfolk Railway, a stalwart in the Hornby range for many years as an affordable express passenger loco.

Hi Ben Looking at the rather splendid Vale of Rheidol loco you are progressing in 009 I think you are doing yourselves an injustice in terms of what you might achieve. That said I think there are a number of issues with the choice of the Garratt in N. I asked Harttons at one if the shows that they attended why the Garratt? The only reason given was because it did well in OO. In truth they didn't really promote it that actively either compared to their OO models and I don't think it really stood a chance. I am encouraged that you would even consider a steam loco and would personally suggest an 0-6-0 tender one or similar as an initial model to have room to accommodate innovations that RevolutioN prides itself on like DCC sound. Which one? Well I am sure there are many suggestions but for me the long lived and numerous LNER J26/J27. Roy

I think the J50 is a reasonably joined up choice given the existing A3 and A4 locos in the range, and with a BR green class 37 in due course a nucleus of a BR Eastern Region railway is in a small way beginning to form. I think some (but not all) J50s were vacuum braked so one could be pressed into service on a branch passenger train, but it would be cold in the winter with no steam heat. I can see me ordering one and with the BR green 08 incoming, a more joined up small branch terminus type shunting plank begins to look plausible. Again though the J50 is only 6 pin DCC ready, a basic 3 pole motor and presumably no speaker fitted so nothing technically sophisticated about it, which given strides being made in N feels like a bit of a mistake to me. Roy

I am not sure I would want to use a liquid lubricant on pinpoint bearings personally, it is likely to attract dirt and in time jam the wheels up more over time. If any kind of "lubricant" is to be used I would suggest graphite in the bearing pocket itself. Of course the other alternative that has been mentioned would probably be to carefully ream out the bearing holes slightly with a purpose made axle-reamer. Should someone expect to need to do this on a brand new model? No in an ideal world probably not and it would invalidate any warranty but it would be a potential solution as an alternative to returning them. It is interesting that Michael has identified the kinematic couplings going to full stretch, and to me this is another indication of overtight wheel bearings that are overpowering their spring mechanisms.

I am not sure my comments were intended to be "helpful" or unhelpful, they were observations based on what had been reported at that point, and actually @Michanglais and @froobyone who have both reported issues with stiff running Mk3s so far. No, we don't know if it is a single coach out of Michael's 8 purchased, but given the power car would cope with three but not five it does suggest that the problem is with more than one coach, I am sure @Michanglais will say if otherwise. Let's wait and see what consensus is once more of the coaches land with purchasers. Roy

That eight differently numbered coaches are being made is a fair comment and you would think it might point towards the intention of a full length train for those with space, but something has clearly gone awry if the reality now hitting consumers like Michael is that the coaches are too "draggy" to allow that or if that is how they are intended to be (seems doubtful) the power car is not sufficiently capable. I guess the big question is are all the TT120 Mk3s like it? If it turns out they are, pointing to an issue in manufacturing or assembly then there are likely to be a fair few disappointed purchasers if Michael's experience is typical. It will be interested to know what others' experiences have been, and if widespread what Hornby have to say, assuming they tested the power-car to and beyond the expected maximum load with these coaches. To be fair, the issue isn't unique to Hornby or TT120, immediately coming to mind in N are the Rapido Conflat Ps and NGS Ferry Vans, both having similar issues and manging to get past QC into the hands of consumers, and I recall the Revolution Mk5s also had some issues. Roy

I did say: - "If the coaches and dummy car are all suitably free-running, it does beg the question was the power car designed to run with a full 8 car set? ".. It would now seem to have been established that the Mk3s are not free running so that is clearly a contributory factor and would seem to be a design or manufacturing issue. In terms of what Hornby do or do not intend for TT120, most of the launch material shows locos and three coaches on a relatively small double-track layout, and it was Simon Kohler in interviews who was singing TT120s benefits in a smaller space and speaking of a target market that is new. I have so far only seen an HST and four Mk3s in promotional material not a full set anywhere, so my question did appear a fair one. I do have some "skin" in the TT120 game still (just) and want it to succeed but I am not so "evangelical" as to promote it blindly or ignore faults and pitfalls as some appear top be.

I am not sure why chipping the loco would make any difference to haulage capacity, surely haulage is down to just a couple of things, adequate adhesion and power which will both be the same regardless of whether DC or DCC is involved?

I have as far as I can recollect so far only seen the HSTs running with four coaches and a trailing power car (unpowered on the model) which is a long way from the prototypical 2 plus 8 or 9 formations, but if it is designed/intended only to pull the shorter load then absolutely, nothing inherently wrong at all.

If the coaches and dummy car are all suitably free-running, it does beg the question was the power car designed to run with a full 8 car set? I have only seen videos of these TT120 HSTs running in shorter formations, never as a prototypical full set, and given (we are told) TT120 is intended as a limited space scale, maybe that informed the design brief for the model? I would certainly agree that traction tyres would be a solution, and properly executed it isn't a bad one. If a widespread issue maybe Hornby could be persuaded to provide an alternative wheelset with tyres? As an aside, it struck me when I received it that my 08 is pretty light and I'd be surprised if it could pull more than 15 wagons comfortably, but perhaps that is all most people would need of it, and again is it a question of where TT120 is intended to "fit" in the model railway world, which could be more (at present anyway) the smaller more trainset oriented options? Just to stress, I am not trying to denigrate Hornby or the scale if this is the case, because I recall right at the outset SK saying it was targeted at a whole new group of modellers with less space. Roy

I already have a Quad set, 3D printed bodies from Shapeways on largely scratchbuilt chassis with modified NGS Gresley bogies, it isn't perfect and wasn't cheap but at the time I figured that realistically it was probably the only way I would ever get a set. Since then I have taught myself CAD and bought a 3D printer, plus of course we have seen oddballs like the Birdcage set, so who knows what else is possible these days - I mean we have seen 10000 and 10001 produced in N and A Clayton too!

Appreciating Dapol do the Gresley corridor coaches in N and have for many years now, I don't necessarily think that means it would be them (if anyone) who does the Gresley suburbans. Bachmann have "previous" in "N" with the exquisite "Birdcage" set so it could equally well be them, although admittedly the fact Hornby do both Gresley and Thompson suburbans in OO may make them less viable for anyone to manufacture in N, but who knows. Roy

A large class of locos widely spread across the UK from the Somerset and Dorset to Scotland and elsewhere so actually loads of scope I would say and would fit right in with the recent Bachmann practice of different running numbers on the same base livery. Agreed the green one would be a marvellous preservation option and an ideal Collectors Club model.

I too am curious, and agree that the BR Standard 4MT Tank would be a good choice given that there has only ever been a single production run in two variants (one each of pristine late and early crest) so that's just 2008 models in all. We also know (because they were shown in EP form) that the tooling provides for a cab-side tablet-catcher recess meaning Scottish variants could be modelled (and of course weathered ones would be nice too) so plenty of scope. I am hoping that this is a loco that unlike the Fairburn (Due Nov/Dec) will be upgraded to Next 18 and DCC sound, and if that can be done in an 08 or Class 14, it should easily be possible in the 4MT Tank given it's large cab/bunker space (I have one I paid to be converted so technically no issues). As to new "Big Four" coaches, I would be very surprised to see more mainline stock given that Bachmann have already produced stock representative of each company already - LNER Thompsons, SR Bulleids, GW Hawksworths and LMS Staniers, what would be nice would be some suburban stock such as 51ft Gresleys. Roy

There is indeed Grahame, it comes as part of a pack of two kits (Kit 63): - Kit 63 Palvan / Steel Medfit twin pack NGSK0630 (ngsjoin.com) As you suspect it runs on the now somewhat long in the tooth Peco chassis, but does have the benefit of a price (to NGS Members only of course) of £9.40 for the two-pack. Roy

I was thinking the same thing. While buying the name and database can be seen as a nice gesture towards former customers to keep the name and database alive, it may well also be a hard nosed business decision to stop anyone else buying and using the brand name which clearly carries with it much goodwill.

I can say categorically that based on what I was told at Warley by a member of Bachmann staff on their stand (so from the horses mouth) the Fairburns will be re runs from existing tooling, so 6 pin DCC socket and not sound fitted. As to further running numbers I would be delighted to be proved wrong but doubt I will be. Roy

I would think the opposite will be the case, as the Fairburns are one of the final locos announced before transition to Quarterly announcements and deco samples have already been shown. The N Class and 4F which also pre-dated the change to Quarterly did not have multiple running numbers on a single livery variant (for example) It is only locos released since as part of Quarterly announcements that have multiple running numbers.