Roy L S

14 hours ago, Stefen1988 said:

The LMS Twins look really nice, the Brake Van also.

 

I'm very curious what we can expect for the running year.

 

I hope we see some re-runs of further Steam Locos, LNER Peppercorn A1, BR Standard 4MT Tank or something else would be nice.

 

Surprising and awesome would be a new 'big four' Coaches tooling.

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

4 hours ago, grahame said:

 

I believe there is a simple and very cheap kit version of a pallet van available from the NGS. The downside is that it probably runs on a one piece Peco chassis.

 

 

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.

4 hours ago, Ed-farms said:

 

As Stefan said the Standard 5's had new numbers added, and of course the sound for all (doubt the Fairburn will get sound). However samples shown means nothing, Bachmann will have samples now for stuff due in the May or even August announcement but they have not shown them. 

 

Who is to say they are not keeping those samples hidden away and only showing what is announced at shows

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

On 11/03/2024 at 13:14, Ed-farms said:

 

My guess is there will be extras, every model so far seems to have had new running numbers or livery variations land with the previously announced batch, just a cae of duplicate liveries so 2 numbers of one livery, or a new livery to the production batch   

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.

Has there been any news on the status of this model or the Battle of Britain, both were "about to go into tooling" in September last year in which case I would have hoped to see some EPs by now, I am wondering if there has actually been any progress....

16 hours ago, Paul.Uni said:

Given the lack of release date on the Bachmann website, I wouldn't expect them this side of Christmas.

I was told by someone from Bachmann that release of J39s was put back because Bachmann weren't happy with the running quality of the models, the fact that there is no release date would certainly suggest that arrival is not imminent, but how long will probably depend on what precisely was wrong, what is needed to correct it and what factory capacity is available. I have one on order to go with my existing locos, and having fitted sound to two of those it would be just my luck that Bachmann have played a blinder and completely re-tooled it as a loco-drive to modern standards 🤔. That said, from what I was told way back when it was originally released (again by someone from Bachmann - Colin Allbright if memory serves), the J39 was only viable as a model because of the existence of the B1's Group Standard tender drive, so I am probably safe...

27 minutes ago, smr248 said:

The TT120 loco has approx twice the volume of the N version.  Therefore, all things being equal, it COULD have twice the mass, which, is what we'd really want.  You've just made this very confusing by adding all manner of other variables into the discussion.

The Hornby TT120 08 is perhaps overpriced for what it is (the Farish one isn't cheap either) but it COULD be improved significantly although, obviously, Hornby are unlikely to re-engineer it any time soon.  I'd prefer to look to the future a bit and hope that Hornby improve, which I think they will (the alternative for me will be to for German outline).

Personally I've now had enough of the BS reviews by Sam, Son of Sam, etc.

 

That is because "mass" is but one factor in smooth operation as far as shunting (or anything else) is concerned and it is important to look at all the variables, it is also interesting to note that in spite of the volume it appears no heavier than the Farish model. I bought my TT120 08 as a pre-order and paid quite a bit less with the collectors club discount than the £136.99 I note is now the asking price (in fact having checked it was just £101.14) and I didn't feel it excessive. I agree, they could have given it a technical spec much closer to that of the Farish model, but as it is, I would still describe the loco as competent.

I absolutely agree as regards the "clickbait" reviews all they have done is show their ignorance.

Regards

Roy

7 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said:

 

Of course, anything that HO/OO is too big for, N will do better than TT by virtue of being smaller. And it's not a "bit" bigger, but significantly so (okay not quite halfway between 1:148 and 1:76, but it is bang-on halfway between 1:160 and 1:87)... I understand that you're arguing from a point of defending N scale, but no, I will argue that for actual operations, shunting etc, TT is a much better option than N, exactly because of its size. You *can* do it in N, but you can do it *better*, and more easily, in TT.

 

IMO N is best suited for situations where you want to reproduce sweeping views with good depth of scene, such as the British Columbia Rockies. I suppose N would also size-wise be best for reproducing a vast industrial complex with dozens of miles of trackage inside, but operationally it'd be suboptimal...

I am not arguing simply from the point of view of "Defending N Scale" for the sake of it (N Gauge as we call it this side of the pond the "N" standing for "Nine" millimetres gauge) I am doing so based on my own experience of modelling in the scale for more years than I would care to count. In terms of your size comparisons, the point is that we are talking about British models so comparing to 1:160 etc is quite irrelevant, the simple fact is that British N is scaled at 1:148 or 2.065mm/ft and TT120 is 1:120 or 2.5mm/ft so is barely 1/5 larger.  I have TT120 models and can make direct comparisons, in fact please see picture of Hornby TT120 08 shunter, versus the Graham Farish N model - of course the TT120 one is noticeably larger, but as the Farish one has a cast metal body in terms of weight there seems little in it. In terms of mechanics, the Farish model comes with a coreless motor, has a "Next 18" decoder socket and speaker fitted as standard (in fact the one in the picture has a factory fitted Zimo sound decoder), by contrast the TT120 model has a can-motor (3 pole I believe) and just a basic 6 pin DCC socket..

In terms of actual shunting, the physically larger wagons and the additional weight could be an advantage for TT120 I agree, but it is only one of a number of factors in the mix such as whether points are insulfrog or electrofrog to aid good pickup for reliable slow running, how carefully track has been laid, the type of uncoupling system employed - I would think Dapol Easi-Shunt couplings in N would knock the spots off the mechanically actuated TT couplings that the Hornby models come with but by contrast traditional Arnold "Rapido" type N couplings would be a different matter entirely 🤔.

Regards

Roy

11 minutes ago, Michanglais said:

One argument I haven't seen come up for a while is that in TT:120, everything is to scale. Correct gauge to scale. Both British OO and N are 'incorrect'.

 

While this may not be an issue for some modellers, it always bugged me as a mainly Continental Europe modeller in HO and N (+ variants using the same track). The only British OO locos I've got are AC electrics given I doubt we'll see them in TT for a long time. 

 

Even tho the OO uses the same track gauge as my HO stuff, I have to store it at a strategic length because it just looks plain wrong.

 

This was one of the initial main arguments for TT:120. Clearly, apart from wagons, Continental and British stock are not generally seen side-by-side but, despite the very attractive recent release 37s in OO, I'm holding out for one in TT.

A fair point about scale/gauge ratio, and no getting away from that being out for both OO and British N. Speaking as a British N modeller I have never concerned myself too much with the discrepancy because the scale four inches the track is too narrow to prototype represents just over 0.5mm, so you would need good eyes to spot it! However in OO (4mm/ft) 16.5mm gauge represents 4ft 1in and so the 2.3 mm discrepancy is arguably more visible and even more so the scales - 4mm/ft v's 3.5mm/ft.

Consistent scales (2.5mm/ft) between TT120 and established Continental TT is another distinct advantage as far as mixing and matching British and Continental stock is concerned (for those who want to) too so yep, let's not forget that one. 

So no argument, that's two very valid points in terms of positives of TT120.

Regards

Roy

5 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

I've seen Proto:160 done successfully, as an experiment; I've seen fish made in 1:160, and spoked wheels on a (non-powered) track speeder... yeah: extreme detail is doable in N. If you're as... committed, let's say, as the gentleman in question who did these things. Is that practical for most modellers? No. Have you ever seen those videos of this guy who has a miniature (dollhouse sized) fully working kitchen, and he makes real food in it, in dollhouse-sized portions? Yeah... that's doable too. But not practicable. TT's forte really is that it can do the things that N can do but HO/OO cannot because it's small enough, and it can do all the things OO/HO can do but N cannot, because it's big enough. *That* is the point.

It may prove to be the case for some people with a propensity to (say) scratch-build, but in truth there is otherwise almost nothing that TT120 can offer that is not possible in N. In fact it actually faces some interesting disadvantages, space for one and to take an example, my N layout which is 7.5ft x 2.5ft equates to an area of 18.75 square feet, to create an identical layout in TT120 (which is just 1/5 larger size wise) the dimensions grow to 9.4ft x 3.1ft and the area grows to 29.1 square feet which is in square footage terms significantly more. 

TT120 is a credible scale for sure, and for some I do not doubt that being that bit bigger than N will make it the right choice for them, but to talk in terms of "advantages" as regards N is actually for the most part more subjective than factual.

As regards OO, yes, it takes a lot less space and it could well be that those new to the hobby and attracted to the universally recognised Hornby "Brand" will go for it for that reason alone without looking further and as I recall it was largely those "new" people Hornby were targeting.

Roy

2 hours ago, teletougos said:

 

That's basically what I'm getting at. I was not the first to have said it.  The initial comment about the issue with modern era OO was on RMWeb (can't find it now). It reasoned that a layout, as a minimum ought give a train three times its length to run in, plus space for a fiddle yard - which needs to be as long as the train.  A 66 and three ferrywagons takes 4'. So a 16' shelf layout is needed to run that. 12' in view + 4' fiddle yard. 

 

That's why I think TT will have a niche with contemporary modellers, especially the ones modelling the highly detailed branch or industrial -often urban - settings that represent a lot of the great OO layouts I see at exhibitions. Wagons & locos have gotten so big. And contemporary flats and houses don't necessarily have a wall 16' long.

 

I'm told by Americans living in urban areas, that this is an issue for them too now. Mainline HO locos are about the same length as an OO 66'. Or longer - an ES44 is 53' between truck centres. A huge model. Popular wagons like auto racks are 89'. The standard train set 33' hopper or 40' boxcar is gone from American railroads. We're talking about a prototype where each wagon is twice as long as it was. That's got to add up. You can't imagine space out of thin air. 

 

N really isn't the scale for that kind of detail, doesn't have the 'presence', nor as I have seen, is it that good for shunting. 

 

That said, I have seen really detailed N layouts which attained this, but they're kind of like when Tom Cruise comes into a room. It's logistical ; it doesn't just happen. They need to be high up, stacked heels ha (!)  and it all needs very good lighting to in order to ensure 'presence.'  The best N layout I saw was in a kind of 'lightbox' and designed to be viewed at eye level. It was really good, but doing all that must be hard work. 

 

This is why I think TT is the smallest practicable size. 

 

You make some interesting points above, and I don't think there is any question that TT120 will carve a niche for some modellers, in fact it is important to bear in mind that TT scaled at 2.5mm/ft is already an established scale with mainstream manufacturers and a following in some countries. The key question is whether what Hornby have marketed as "TT120" (to differentiate it from TT3 that went before) will do the same thing as far as modellers of British Outline are concerned.

The so called "rule of thirds" is and idea that is very old, in fact I believe it may go back to the days of Cyril Freezer (Of PECO/Railway Modeller fame) but it is important to appreciate that this is not a strict rule of any kind, more an opinion that may have more relevance in some layout scenarios than others. 

In terms of the smallest practicable scale, it really depends what you mean. If you are talking from a commercial standpoint then clearly that is wrong, as N has been around for over 60 years (And British N for only a few years less), with many manufacturers worldwide and a huge following. In terms of detail I would respectfully disagree too, comparing the TT120 models I have purchased to my British N models, they are no better detailed (in some cases less so), no more accurate in the sense of fidelity to prototype and in many cases less technically sophisticated. I would concede that as a scratch-builder's scale TT120 is probably going to be easier to get along with for some people, but the advent of 3D printing means you can "draw" a model in any scale in CAD and resize it either in the CAD or slicing software to any scale you wish, and the detail remains pretty much unchanged subject to the capabilities of the chosen printer.

In terms of shunting, I have seen plenty of N layouts where shunting is very capably undertaken, N locos' slow running is typically excellent these days and choices of couplings mean it is much easier to do "hands off" than with standard N couplings. The extra volume of TT models may though make though shunting easier with a greater element of weight being possible to prevent unexpected movement of wagons, but I actually think that more important is the choice of coupling used regardless of whether we are talking TT or N. The ones that Hornby models come with look awful and require a fixed operating "ramp" to uncouple "hands off" and so for the TT120 layout I was planning (and still have stock and track for) I was actually looking to use less obtrusive N Gauge "Easi-Shunt" couplings and magnets, taking advantage of the NEM pockets.

In terms of TT being smallest practicable size, to an extent that depends on your definition of "practicable". However in terms of what manufacturers think, they clearly do not have the same view, or N would not by comparison to TT globally be orders of magnitude larger as an overall market and in terms of manufacturers producing models. 

I say all the above with some "skin" in the TT120 game and not as an "armchair" outsider, I see a niche for TT120 as a further choice which will doubtless suit some, just as TT3 has continued to do many years after Tri-Ang production ceased (thanks to the 3mm Scale Association and the sheer volume of TT3 models Tri-Ang produced of which I am lucky to have a modest collection). What I do not see is TT120 challenging the established scales of N or OO to any meaningful extent, but would finish by saying that I don't think it really needs to in order succeed in a commercial sense.

Regards

Roy

2 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

I think you're splitting hairs - ignore any 3MM stuff, Garry has done plenty of conversions of TT:120 locos, both steam and diesel using Hornby and 3MM society chassis and 3d printed bodies, also repaints of locos and coaches into other liveries and has built and is running 3d printed wagons that are not available as RTR so it can be done.

 

The original criticism was that the range isn't big enough to build a 'serious' model railway but there is always going to be something missing from RTR to stop someone making an exact replica of some place and time and compromises always have to be made except by a very few people.

 

How many people here could do better? And if you don't think what he's done is good enough then why not try to do better yourself?

Wow! I was speaking in general, not with any specific layout in mind, and not intending to denigrate anybody's efforts as building a model railway. I do not know the layout, but from what I can see it looks like serious attempt at a model railway to me. However in terms of "credible", how often would a Hymek rub shoulders with an A4 and how often would an A3 shunt the yard? Rule 1 is everyone's friend, what people run is a personal choice, and it certainly isn't my place to judge that - I hadn't even noticed until you pointed it out that some items are 3mm/ft so not strictly TT120 but clearly some skilled modelling irrespective.

However, that is not my point. "Credible" doesn't mean you need to have every possible loco and item of rolling stock available, but it does mean having sufficient to provide a representative cross-section for a specific area/location and speaking in a general sense (which I was) that is simply not possible at present for the majority looking at TT120 as an alternative and will not be for some considerable time to come.

Whether I or anyone else can or cannot do better is entirely irrelevant, but as it happens by way of just one example, the products are available for me to do something serious and more "credible" in N Gauge right now and in a significantly smaller area relative to TT120 and that is the mountain Hornby need to climb - established scales.

Roy

I suppose there is a difference between a "serious" model railway and a truly credible one though? The first, in terms of track, buildings and scenic products along with the as yet limited amount of rolling stock is certainly possible, but the second, without a wider range and better balance of locos and rolling stock is arguably as yet still quite some way off ...

Roy

7 hours ago, natterjack said:

Well actually I was asking a question re OO, and you seemed to have some knowledge of the market.

OO has the biggest following in the UK by some margin with British N coming second at around 20-25% of the size. The heavy discounting relates to a number of factors including (over) supply and competition - it is a hugely competitive marketplace with a number of "players" looking to carve a niche and attract market share. Is it a growing Market? Honestly I am not a OO modeller so do not know to what extent that may be true.

By contrast TT120 Market Share in the UK is as yet miniscule by comparison to any other major established scale and with only one principal supplier of locos and rolling stock (Hornby) who have almost complete control of pricing, alongside an as yet very limited range thus far and similarly constrained supply, I would not at this point expect to see any heavily discounted British TT120 models at present or indeed for some time to come until/unless the scale becomes more established and another manufacturer or two jump on board.

Roy

2 hours ago, natterjack said:

Now that I'm actively seeking TT120 bargains I'm seeing  lot of recently released OO locos at heavily discounted prices, some in the order of 50 to 60%. Is this usual for this time of year? I have yet to  see any equivalent TT120 stock clearances.

Sorry I may be missing something, but I am not seeing the relevance of your point to the matter of added detail and comparative lack of impact it has on on overall cost of producing a model or price to the end user? 

On 23/02/2024 at 08:29, Les1952 said:

 

We demand so much detail and so much of it is extremely delicate and falls off at the first heavy shunt on the layout.  There are a lot of parts which, if placed in a bag for those whose models stay in the box unused (a lot) or in a showcase could lower the assembly cost significantly.

 

 

 

Les

It is a fallacy Les, the factory added extra detail isn't adding that much to the overall cost of a model at all, this misconception has been done to death, although it seems to me that some people think that if they repeat it often enough it will become fact - it won't.

As has been said repeatedly the biggest factor dictating the cost of any model is the volume produced by the factory and typically even in OO in the grand scheme of things these aren't huge so unit cost will be high, added detail or no added detail.

Regards

Roy

On 17/02/2024 at 16:11, Cass7117 said:

LNER Signals please

In N as well as OO please 🙂

As an avid N Gauge modeller of steam/diesel transition period and noting that the West Country and GW Mogul will hopefully by now actually be in tooling, I would really like to see those models followed up by a tender loco of an LNER prototype. There are some pretty large classes of loco that might fit the bill and some had very long lives. I am thinking maybe a 4-4-0 like "the Shire" to follow on from the Schools or possibly a K3 which was originally a Great Northern design so a number of livery choices.

However the one I would really love to see (and I have badgered another manufacturer about this too!) would be the Great Central Robinson "ROD" 2-8-0. It had a very long service life, loads of livery choices, survived into the 1960s on BR with one preserved in the UK and a couple still surviving in Australia. There were loads of variations over it's life including side-window cabs, round-topped boilers, different valve-gear and more. Even if a little quirky I think it would be an absolutely brilliant choice.

Roy

2 hours ago, Brian-1c said:

 

Why don't you have control of the individual sounds in each loco ? I have complete control of every individual loco or MU in a consist on my system, regardless of how many in the consist. I regularly run double headed trains, or top and tailed, as well as consisting multiple 4 car EMUs. Only the lead address, in each case, has control over speed and direction, of course, but each individual address can be selected to control every function, lights sound, etc., independently. 

Simple answer to that is that (1) the basic sounds are very much speed related and so would have to be managed via the lead loco, then things like braking on F2 would need to control both locos together so would be the same issue. Things like whistles and ancillary sounds simply because I hadn't thought to select an individual loco within the consist to do so which is about knowledge, so I appreciate the tip. 

2 hours ago, tiger said:

I’ve put in pre orders for both of the LMS twins in black/silver, purely as a “rule 1” purchase. They will look great double heading a rake of crimson/cream Staniers.

 

I’ve ordered both with sound fitted, but this is going to be very expensive and I’m already having second thoughts. This might not be the best part of the forum to ask, but what are people’s experiences of consisting two sound fitted locomotives? As the sound projects are identical does it work well, or does it sound odd having the same sounds from two double headed locos?

 

Presumably having one sound fitted and one DCC without sound will make it hard to match the performance of the two locos when double heading - and one DCC sound fitted and one DC only running on DC I would guess is a non starter?

 

Maybe life will be simpler and cheaper with both non sound fitted?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Tom.

I have run two Farish Fowler 4Fs in consist, these were the first incarnations of the most recent models (not sound ready) and the sound fits were hard-wired, one by You-Choos and the other I did myself. Both have Zimo decoders and the You-Choos sound-file, running them in consist wasn't a problem and it was quite nice but of course you do not have individual control of sound in each loco. 

49 minutes ago, TomE said:

Very odd decision to trot out the Poole Mk.3s but I'm sure people will find a use for them!

The LMS twins look superb, definitely a rule 1 purchase but that black & sliver livery will be hard to resist, and nice to see more new tooling with those and the Dance Hall. 

Tom. 

In some respects yes, but if the twin pack is priced at £60 then after the "usual" 15% discount that is £51 or £25.50 a coach which is considerably less than more recently tooled models like the Thompsons and Mk1s so while I may be completely wrong, it possibly represents positioning some lower spec products at a lower price-point?

Roy

A "Twin" will definitely be coming my way, I am gobsmacked, realistically I never thought we would see these produced RTR in N so I am delighted. They tick a lot of boxes in terms or route usage and also I would think as a "collector's" piece. Plus, with a replica one being recreated one could even be "creatively" justified on a preserved railway today. 

I think my choice will be 10001 sound fitted in the later livery with yellow panel but very hard to decide....

Roy

From the video this new 31 looks to be a lovely model, and I personally I think there looks to be enough about it in terms of quality and features to find an enthusiastic following and adequate "space" in the admittedly somewhat crowded OO Class 31 Market.

Many have commented on the lines of "oh no not another duplication" but there surely comes a point in any project (typically when steel starts to be cut) when a manufacturer passes a point of no return with a model financially and has to continue to production irrespective of what another manufacturer does or announces?

Not being a OO modeller the whole thing is slightly academic from my perspective, but I can see this loco doing very well, and I am particularly interested in hearing the Mirrlees engine sounds, and it would be even nicer if the sound-file were made available so I can put it in my N Gauge golden ochre one, albeit Bachmann never have done that up to now I appreciate.

Roy

20 minutes ago, melmoth said:

Anyone for pre-drilled holes and etched handrails to be fitted by the purchaser?

I had suggested etched handrails but Andy from Rapido didn't thing that possible. Were it to be, I would suggest that they need to be factory fitted and finished or there would be accusations of it being an "almost" ready to run model - people would (in my opinion) reasonably expect that.

Personally, taking the 66 above as an example and reviewing my Farish Peak model I would say moulded on handrails would make for finer ones and if picked out in white would be perfectly acceptable in the case of this specific loco class. 

Roy