Porfuera

Quite easy when you're dealing with whole numbers of feet I guess but I imagine it gets tedious if you're having to include odd inches and fractions of inches (and maybe yards) and then you're having to convert lots of measurements for a wagon or a loco or something...

I was just making the point that it is easier to divide by 100 than it is to divide by 76 or 87 or 43.5 or whatever, regardless of the units that the original drawings are in. That's why I spent my life working with computers - they are much better at sums than I am.

I freely admit I'm rubbish at sums and on reflection something in TT100 might be only 42% bigger by volume than the same thing in TT:120. Even so, 42% is still a fair difference. I'm sure that someone better than me can get the right figure!

I know you are just expressing a personal opinion, but you don't say whether the 3mm layout that you saw was running on 12mm or 14.2mm gauge track but if it was 12mm gauge then surely the rolling stock was over gauge which would contribute to its apparent bulk, giving the wrong impression when you look at something like TT:120 that has the correct gauge-to-scale ratio - just as it would when comparing British H0 to British 00. And just as a model in TT:120 is almost twice the volume of the same model in 2mm scale, then something in TT100 is going to be around 60% bigger than the same thing in TT:120, so no surprise that TT:120 looks a fair bit smaller than TT100. As for scale, that is just a ratio of the size of a model to the size of the real thing - I can't see how there is anything psychological about it apart from some people having a preference for bigger scales and others for smaller ones. And surely there is nothing intrinsically special about architect's scale being 1:100 - it is simply easier to divide a measurement by 100 if you're making a model, which is nice for TT100 but it isn't an insurmountable problem in other scales.

My four BG Mk3 coaches arrived yesterday - I had to delay the DPD delivery by 8 days because I was away on hols ☹️ but today I finally got the chance to play with them check them and test them. I think they look great. I can't comment on the prototypical accuracy but then that doesn't bother me as long as they 'look right' from normal viewing distances. The running qualities are excellent in both directions - i.e. both when pulling and pushing - although so far I have only tried a loop of track so no points to date. But I'm relieved that I don't have the wheel binding issues reported earlier. The only initial 'problems' were a couple unplanned separations between coaches. Inspection with a magnifying headset (those couplings are so tiny!) showed that, once the couplings were correctly aligned, sometimes both metal hooks remained raised rather than dropping down and locking onto the opposing coupling. A light touch with a screwdriver dropped the hooks into position. A bit of running in might fix this but I'll probably fit magnetic couplings when I get around to it. I might wait and see what the proposed Hornby ones look like before I decide which ones to buy. I'm very happy and I'm looking forward to the Class 50s and the Mk2F coaches! EDIT: apologies for the phone-camera blurry photo!

I watched it last night and I quite enjoyed it. I thought they were pretty open about the issues that were discussed. That is good because if anyone is suffering from any of the running problems mentioned then it could point a way to a potential fix. For me, I think I may need to take a look at the insides of the axle boxes of my 12T tank wagons - but I think that's about the only problem I've had so far. Touch wood! Also good to know that issues are being investigated and addressed when they are discovered. The exchanges about the design/development/production schedules were also interesting and also that they're not sticking rigidly to the original plan - as we've seen with the J50. My take on it was that they're keeping an eye on whether steam or modern image is selling better and they may further adjust the release schedule to suit. I wasn't sure what to read into Martyn Weaver's body language at times, though - he occasionally seemed a bit fidgety - I'm sure that should mean something! 😆

True to form for Hornby's logistics company (CCL ?), despite all four emails arriving within about an hour of each other last Friday, I've just noticed that three of my Mk3 carriages are showing as 'Dispatched' with a date of today (the 15th), but the Buffet is still showing as 'Processing'. I guess I should have known better than to expect all four to arrive in the same package... or at least, on the same day.

That image is probably a couple of 00 scale locos because Hornby didn't even have a complete TT:120 loco available to show on the Q&A - IIRC all they had was a couple of recently-received test mouldings that they hadn't even had time to assemble. I don't know for sure but I suspect that the front coupling on the 00 is optional/removable (at least, I think I've seen this on other 00 models) and that's possibly why they didn't put it on the photoshopped images they're using for the TT:120 models.

I noticed that as well - my HST arrived on 22nd March but the points don't appear to have been credited yet. Hopefully we're on the cusp so fingers crossed for next week, although I'm fortunate in that all my pre-orders are already in so I don't have anything I want to buy (at the current time 🤔) therefore I can afford to wait in any case. I might be waiting on the Class 37 before I spend mine! I must resist the J50...!

I was originally charged p&p on each one - each carriage was a separate order (in spite of ordering all four at the same time) and as there was only one of each carriage then each order was under £50 and so each one attracted p&p (I hope that makes sense!) I'll be contacting Hornby about the p&p after the carriages arrive. I didn't think it worth doing beforehand because I think you only get the p&p back on ones that arrive on the same day. So if (for example) all four were to arrive on different days then from what I've read I don't think they'd refund any p&p in that instance.

A couple of hours ago I received four emails saying that my four BG Mk3 pre-orders have arrived. My credit card has been debited as well.

Mine are quite tidy - I have 10 devices between 192.168.0.10 and 192.168.0.27

Thanks for that reply - that sounds like a practical and sensible approach. I've just switched on every device in the house I can think of (except the Z21, which is boxed up atm) and a quick check of my hub shows that there are 10 devices connected so I don't think I'm going to worry about it for the time being.

That doesn't mean anything to me - I think you are answering a question that I didn't ask. I was told that there is 'risk' involved in connecting an Ethernet cable from my wifi hub directly into my Z21. I asked what that risk was and what could happen - I'm pretty sure that doesn't answer that question.

So what could happen? What is the risk? I don't deny that what I have done works by good luck - my home network hub's IP address was correct for the Z21 - I said as much above. If it hadn't been then the IP address of the tp_link router would presumably not have changed itself and I would've had a working Z21 with internet connectivity on that network. But it didn't work due to the IP address clash between the hub and the tp_link router, which is what makes it work the way I've configured it.

I think you've missed the point of my post, which was that I have not changed anything, anywhere, (so zero risk of making a dog's breakfast of either the home network or the Z21) yet I have ended up with a Z21 that is accessible from my home wifi network (rather than having to use the Z21_xxxx network of the supplied tp_link router) and therefore I can control trains via the Z21 app and still access the internet without even having to change my devices to a different network. In fact, simply trying to connect an internet link to Roco's supplied configuration of the Z21 and tp_link router left me with a Z21 that didn't even work, so presumably if I wanted to get that configuration working I would have had to make some changes somewhere. That's something I might investigate later but just out of curiosity because I'm more than happy with what I have now. IP addresses are as much a mystery to me as the next person, despite having worked in the IT industry for about 35 years (I did software - i.e. programming, fault-finding and analysis - other people handled the networking) and I was simply hoping that if others were able to follow my post then they might also be able to end up with a Z21 connected to their home network with internet connectivity and without the risk of irrevocably changing something that would result in the Z21 not working. Achieving that does depend on their home hub/router having the same IP address (range?) as the tp_link router's 192.168.0.1 but if they're trying to have internet connectivity while using the Z21 and they haven't achieved that any other way then it might be worth a try. Surely it is just a question of plugging their internet connection directly into the back of the Z21 and if it works, it works? And if it doesn't work then nothing is lost - isn't that correct?

Just to resurrect this topic... Apologies if many people already know this, but I'm hoping it might be useful to someone and save them a bit of time. I was recently trying to connect my Z21's tp-link router to my home wifi hub so that I could have internet access while using the Z21. Initially I used an Ethernet cable end-to-end for simplicity and for testing. I noticed that whenever I plugged the Ethernet cable from the hub into the tp-link router's WAN port (blue on my router), the Z21 stopped working. A bit of investigation showed that the LAN IP address on the tp-link router was changing from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.1.1 and consequently the tp-link router was no longer able to communicate with the Z21, which is expecting 192.168.0.1 A bit more investigation showed that my home wifi hub's IP address was also 192.168.0.1 - presumably this was causing a clash of IP addresses and the tp-link router was obligingly changing from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.1.1 in order to avoid the clash, but resulting in it no longer being able to communicate with the Z21. Given that my home wifi was already using the IP that was expected by the Z21, I decided to remove the tp-link router entirely and simply plug the Ethernet cable from the home wifi hub directly into the Z21 - and everything worked! The advantage of this is that I no longer need to connect my devices to the tp-link router's network (Z21_4245) - I can just leave the devices connected to my home wifi network and I can control the Z21 with the app and still have internet access on my devices. Possibly this won't work for everyone - it guess depends on the IP address of your home wifi being 192.168.0.1 to begin with, but that should be easy to check. Back to @PaulM381's original post about how to get the wifi connection to the Z21. I removed my Ethernet cable and instead of using powerline adaptors I had a wifi extender that had been given to me (the actual model is a tp-link RE330 but I assume that other - and better - ones are available) - see pictures below to give an idea. This is configured with the same network name and password as my home wifi, it is plugged in next to the Z21 and as you can see it has an an Ethernet port which is then connected directly into the Z21's Ethernet port. It may not work for everyone (possibly it will depend on home wifi signal strength at the place where your layout is located) but for me it works in place of my original 10 metre Ethernet cable strung across the lounge and into the dining room(!) and as I mentioned above I can now control my Z21 without changing networks and still have access to the internet on my devices. I hope that all makes sense and that I have the terminology, IP addresses and everything else correct - and that I'm not teaching everyone how to suck eggs.

I've been looking through the guides and I think I've found the answer, at least to the first part: "Please note that you are advised to Unlink and Delete any HM7000 decoders from HM | DCC prior to deleting the app from your phone or tablet. If it is not possible to do this, you may be required to Reset your HM7000 decoder prior to linking it to the new install of the HM | DCC app. - It is advised to use the Export Device Reset Codes from the Settings ‘ ‘ screen prior to uninstalling the HM | DCC app. - If this is not possible, 1-use Reset Codes can be requested from HM.customercare@Hornby.com if required."

I'm having a bit of a problem with one of my HM7000 locos - I think I need to uninstall and reinstall the app on my tablet. Is there anything I need to do first? For example do I need to Unassign my existing locos or even Unlink & Delete them? I don't want to reinstall the app and find that the new install tells me that my locos are linked or assigned to some other app and then won't allow me connect to them. And is there any stored data that I should delete as well? Cheers, Neil.

Cross-post from the main Hornby TT:120 thread, but the BG and GWR Mk3 coaches are showing as in stock. Did anyone get any further in finding the reason for the dragging wheels on the Exec Mk3s? Was it tight axle points in the bogie frames or something else like the wheel flanges rubbing on the underside of the coach or somewhere, which has been seen before and which also seems to be happening with the some of the new BR 50-foot brakes? I haven't seen it reported anywhere else so I'm hoping it is an assembly issue rather than a design problem.

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the BG and GWR Mk3s are showing as being in stock

Another couple of things that appear to have been dropped from the catalogue are the BG Mk2e coaches and the GBRf liveried Class 50, although all these are still in the shop but with dates of Spring next year. And they're going to bring out a 'Y' point - that's something I'd like to see from Peco.

A new Train Terminal is out, although from a quick scan it looks to be everything in the announcement. There are four pictures of the 37 to zoom in on. https://uk.Hornby.com/community/hornbytt120-club/members-area/blog-and-news/time-more-tt You may need to log in. No sign of the Club magazine yet - the publication date is April but no actual date given.

There is an auto-calibrate function available for use with different makes/motors to the current Hornby profiles - I don't know whether that would help?

I seem to remember someone saying that the Hornby TT:120 12T tanks might have some connection with Oxford - a quick google shows the Fisons, Mobil and Carless ones in 00 from Oxford with the same running numbers as the TT:120 ones, plus the two new ones announced this week. Also, wasn't there an announcement of a Class 66 from Gaugemaster at one point? IIRC there wasn't even CAD for that and it was withdrawn even quicker than Heljan's 31. I also don't subscribe to the theory that Heljan were 'forced out' of TT:120 - they simply took a business decision to pull out. Heljan couldn't be sure whether they would've got their 31 to market before Hornby given that Hornby has been developing their TT:120 range for years as had already been said. Heljan don't have any magic solutions when it comes to getting developments to market - I keep saying I've been waiting for their Class 02 since September 2020. OK the Class 02 is a new loco for them whereas a 31 would use existing research and maybe some of the existing CAD but they'd still need at least a couple of years if not more to do the rest of the work that comes after that.