Jump to content


Moderated Status
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ravenser last won the day on January 5 2011

Ravenser had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

3,140 profile views

Ravenser's Achievements



  1. Hornby went into TT:120 because of a particular issue. The biggest brand in British outline model railways had no product in a smaller scale than OO to offer the space challenged. Despite the fact that they are most emphatically heavily involve in N and TT with Hornby International, to the extent that Hornby International might be even skewed towards the smaller scales (Arnold seem to have a disproportionately large number of models on offer compared to their HO brands) , Hornby in their home market had nothing smaller than 4mm Bachmann have the market leader in British N, (Farish) and the recent OO9 range,. Dapol have been number 2 in British N. Revolution grew out of N and are now both N and 4mm. Cavalex do both 4mm and N. British outline is only one part of Rapido's interests (I'm not sure how far they are involved with North American N). Nobody else really had Hornby's problem - pretty well everyone else already has a small-scale product to sell Hornby presumably felt that if they went into N they would at best become the number 4 brand in N and it wasn't worth it. If they'd "sold" N , inevitably 70-90% of converts' spend would have gone to Farish, Dapol, Revolution, Peco et al, and Hornby would have been left doing a lot of heavy-lifting in sales but picking up crumbs in spend. TT120 wasn't an obvious move - which is why nobody really saw this coming even when Hornby were rumoured to be working on TT. You can argue about whether it was a good move, but the stuff has so far apparently sold as briskly as it's been made and there's no sign is damaged Hornby's bottom line.. At the bend of the day what matters to the hobby is what new opportunities and possibilities the models open, not how we score detailed Hornby commercial policy out of 10 . We now have two different small scale options, with different merits, not one But I can't see why a manufacturer who already has a British N range as their small-scale product would want to get involved with a rival scale . Bachmann have OO9 for those who with insufficient space who find Farish doesn't suit. Dapol have extensdive N gauge interests . Accurascale made their feelings about the venture known at the time, not least by responding by announcing that they were looking for N gauge subjects. It had something of a look that they were backing N against TT:120. At this point I'm not sure how any AS support of the TT:120 venture would sit with their established brand values None of this means TT:120 isn't a commercially viable scale or won't establish a decent sized niche market. I just don't see anyone who already has significant British N interests getting involved. They don't need to. The people who might get involved are those outside British N, especially if they are already in TT, and those who have already shown their hand. Heljan have no British N interests I can immediately think of, and they've already flirted with the idea of British 1/120. BritishColumbian mentioned Tillig - if a viable British TT market becomes established, you can imagine them wanting a slice of whatever action is going. Someone was behind the Gaugemaster 66 announcement, which as I understood it was a Request for Interest on behalf of A Manufacturer - Gaugemaster themselves were not as I understood it going to be the manufacturer. A Continental brand with existing TT interests represented by Gaugemaster would be the obvious suspect. Rapido explored the idea of a 3mm model with the 3mm Society a few years back; someone from Revolution expressed the view that they weren't necessarily ruling out making something at some point in the future , I believe? But I don't think that was meant to suggest anything was under current or imminent consideration In my view that's where another manufacturer of British 1/120 scale RTR might emerge. But I think anyone hoping for Accurascale, Bachmann, or Dapol to get involved is whistling into the wind
  2. Good to hear this is not quite the end . A very fine layout, superbly built - and a very tragic loss of its builder An excellent exhibition all round - good to see the North Cornwall Minerals locos from the MR of my youth. Iain Rice humanised P4
  3. I've used SMP bullhead flexible in OO and had no problems. On the other hand I have seen the issue on C+L flexible some years ago. C+L has more prominent chairs than SMP, and the tale doing the rounds at the time (15-20 years ago) was that there had been slight damage to the mould for the C+L OO trackbase which resulted in one or two of the chairs being slightly raised. I believe this mould has since been replaced For that reason, I went with SMP. I would imagine that Peco were careful to ensure their 16.5mm bullhead flexible would have no problems with modern wheels . But I haven't build a new OO layout since it was introduced, so I have no direct experience
  4. This is OO - a bespoke Marcway item as it happens. It's fully matched/compatible with RP25/110 wheelsets and I've had no trouble with drop in or derailments.
  5. Are there enough second class bits left over to make up a TSO or SK?
  6. As this thread has resurfaced - what a difference a year makes. Doncaster 2023: Doncaster 2024: Dawlish at Doncaster show 2024
  7. Sorry to hear you lost the venue, and well done to all parties in coming up with a replacement at short notice to ensure the show takes place
  8. It’s high time I finished the tale of my Airfix plastic kit which has been in suspense for over two years – the tale, not the kit. We left the 1/72 Fairey Battle here, nearly complete but in need of painting. The last few bits were duly added and the model painted in accordance with the instructions. So far as I can remember all painting was done with the acrylics supplied (there were 15 pots in the gift set). I did my best to reproduce the camouflage scheme freehand and I tried to paint the canopy bars as neatly and carefully as possible. I can quite see why an aftermarket product for aero modellers is paint masks for cockpit canopies. The supplied transfers were applied and micro sol applied when over raised detail. And here we are: This is all built strictly in accordance with the kit. Not something I usually do as a railway modeller… The Battle currently lives on a clear plastic stand on top of the bookcase. (These came from Airfix and to make the web order up to mitigate postage I bought a 1/76 Cromwell tank as a potential load for a Warflat. More of that when I get round to building the etched Warflat.) However as a single engine aircraft the Battle is a fairly modest sized model and the long term aspiration is to build one of the twin engine aircraft in the gift set, probably the Hampden as it’s the largest and has Lincolnshire connections. That then leaves open the question of what I do with the Battle. So I decided that I ought to attempt a diorama display base suitable for displaying a single engine aircraft in 1/72. Where I would actually display the display base I’m not sure, but in the meantime I had a stout hexagonal box going spare to keep the display base in. That accounts for the otherwise odd shape of the display base: it’s a hexagon with two of the vertices chopped off to get fingers into the box to extract it. As far as the inspiration is concerned I’ve a couple of military modelling books on terrain modelling, both by Osprey and Richard Windrow. Mostly the projects aren’t the right scale for a 4mm modeller, but one of them has a chapter on Modern Surfaces and item one is concrete hardstand with an illustration of a simple base set on an airfield. My display base is a straight crib from that, although different materials may have been used. The surface is a piece of foamcore board cut to shape and scribed for the joints between concrete panels. This was painted with Humbrol concrete paint: apart from anything else I wanted to check the colour was ok before I use it on Mercia Wagon Repair. I drew out a large radius arc on the edge and sprinkled a little Woodland Scenics material on it. The joints are picked out with a dark pin wash. The core of this base is a spare shelf from an Ikea CD/DVD tower like the one shown here: (this one has been used as a ballast test piece for the N gauge project). This was built out with spare bits of balsawood, edged round with more balsa and then thin card edging applied. Most of this was done with aliphatic resin: I’ve bought several bottles of this from Rocket, I know not why, and now I’m looking for opportunities to use them up and save my stocks of more useful glues. Finally a thin card backing was applied.
  9. That's an extremely impressive 37 . Superb weathering
  10. I was accused of inventing them when I alluded to them as examples ofr prejudice. It was suggested I could not provide any evidence they had ever been said., Rather reluctantly I have provided the evidence I didn't make them up
  11. Quite. I'm 99.999% certain they're utter nonsense. But posting hard evidence they're cobblers when you can't actually buy the models yet or pick them up or measure them is challenging. What could I say in response? "Well, actually I think they looked quite nice.." ? I table it as evidence that quite a few people in the "established hobby" are prejudiced against this scale and this venture, and that's why visiblity is low, not that there is anything wrong with the models. I think some of the opposition to this scale is unreasonable
  12. I'm not in the business of starting a row, or putting anyone up as a public coconut shy. And I would hope we can move to positive discussion about building layouts and making models in this scale. But since the existence of the "coaches to a different scale from the locos" comment has been questioned , here is the exchange taken from a modest sized close forum, in a thread "Hornby go TT120 Bonkers". Its a bit worse than I remembered Poster A Poster B: Poster C: The thread has been dormant since early Dec 2023 after a splutter of activity around Warley last year of which these posts formed a part. Previously it had been dormant since October 2022. Not a lot of interest in TT:120 there. I have not noticed any such issue myself, and the HSTs on Dawlish look utterly convincing. I'd rather not start this hare running on here, but unfortunately I wasn't imagining the comments. Better if we discussed the positive opportunities for making railway models at a scale of 1/120...
  13. I totally agree with you. How many decades did 009 exist without British outline RTR? Just track, and mechanisms . People got on with it, and it's a recognised niche in the hobby. Now there is a skeleton of RTR, but you still need to make stuff. Comments about there not being a "coherent range" in TT:120 RTR are the equivalent lof saying about 009 : "yes, theres a Baldwin RTR, but there's no Simplex and no Hunslet and half the rolling stock is missing . So you still can't model WWI Western Front operations..." But people can and do... Where there's a will there's a way. I do think some of this is simply an exercise in raising objections and creating difficulties, rather than genuine obstacles to modelling at a scale of 1/120
  14. I’ve refrained from further comment until I had chance to watch the videos about Dawlish , (and also because it’s been a murderous week at work) I was initially very cautious because saying things about a project I knew almost nothing about didn’t seem sensible in the circumstance. I’m not subscribed to World of Railways as I already have far too much coming into my email inboxes, and dread taking on more No reflection is meant on anyone at Warners, but it’s rather disconcerting that this thread – in practice the main place for discussing the new scale on here – reached page 310 with barely a whisper about what should be “flagship of the fleet” for TT:120 at this stage. It’s good to see we now have photos being posted. The layout is crisp and very well-executed with a high standard of modelling, scenically dramatic and it uses some sophisticated and innovative techniques. The members of the team are obviously experienced and capable modellers and conform to our stereotype of “the backbone of the hobby”. The layout is, as I understand it, 10’ x 4’, and a continuous run with sweeping curves and a 6 road fiddle yard at the back. There is no central operating well. As far as I could see the up and down are separate and unconnected circuits, which will have made rewiring them for separate power districts. The layout appeared at Doncaster, and I understand it is at Market Deeping club’s own show at Stamford this weekend. And when the HST appeared - it looked very very right Dawlish - the HST Hobby picked up on one of my comments: By “a developed trainset” I mean things that look like the plans in this brochure at page29-33: Hornby brochure That is, an oval of track on a solid board with no scenic break, and no fiddle yard or staging sidings. The single station is not laid out according to railway practice, and prototypical operations aren’t possible. (An aside - on P3 of the brochure there's a graphic comparing the size of a OO, TT:120, and N gauge loco. I think this scotches any idea that people buy in TT:120 because they don't know about N) Now – Dawlish and Hobby’s layout are continuous circuit layouts without a centre operating well. Hobby’s layout will be a line of single boards, and I gather that’s the format of Bregstad, which Les intends to use with his forthcoming British 1/120 scale layout. But they all, as I understand it, have/will have a fiddle yard at the back, and a backscene which stops you seeing it from the front. This raises an issue. A continuous circuit on a single board with sharp return curves is N gauge practice. Les is already flagging that on a 2’6” board (probably the usual limit in depth) Pacifics are faced with an R2 curve and don’t like it. Dawlish uses 4’ x 2’ boards two deep I understand, which negates the benefit of having the whole depth of the layout on a single board, but allows reasonably generous curves which are Pacific friendly. But there’s no central well. Coming from a 4mm background, I think in terms of continuous circuit layout with a central well or round the walls of a room and terminus/fiddle yard layouts on a line of single boards, and wince at pushing Pacifics through R2 curves. You’d be wanting at least 2’6” radius in OO (maybe 2’ off-stage), which equates to about 18” in TT:120. On the other hand TT:120 clearly allows for much more dramatic scenery than 4mm. Squeeze the circuit onto a single board and you have 15”-18” depth of field for the scenic section in N , not a lot better in prototype terms than the 2’ depth of field that you normally get in 4mm. With Dawlish that depth of field is immediately 2’ , which equates to about 3’2” in 4mm (4mm boards are rarely so wide) and the team were even thinking they might go deeper There are 2mm finescale layouts with big scenic depth – Chee Tor , Copenhagen Fields, and the 2mm layout of Kingswear come to mind. But the trains seem to get lost in the landscape. What I remember of Chee Tor is the limestone gorge , not the trains. With TT:120 the trains have twice the volume and therefore speak with a louder voice. You can get big dramatic scenery, but the trains themselves have more presence. It seems a better balance And I’ve not seen any terminus /fiddle yard schemes for TT:120. Sorrento Park is exactly that, and it’s in the same scale. I can’t see why a British equivalent wouldn’t work. But then terminus /fiddle yard layouts seem pretty rare in N. The NGS Journal seems to be running a series of pieces on small N gauge layouts – and they all seem to be continuous circuit. Surely one angle for TT:120 is that an expansive “shelf switcher” should be possible? We have an 08, and a J50 will be along shortly, followed by a 57xx But still: I initially mentioned Dawlish and the layout I photographed – both projects connected with a magazine . To that add Hobby’s project , and froobyone's layout thread , though on this page he was expressing doubts and verious people were urging him to go N , or even 3mm . I'm glad top see he's pressing on. The layout design thread I mentioned is here: moawark's new layout It’s still thin pickings from a forum with 44,000 accounts according to Les On Bregstad, in the nicest possible way I’m with Roy LS. And I saw one or two comments from Les a while back suggesting he was having doubts about following through with a British layout. I hope he’s still up for it. Roy himself seems to have cooled a bit from initial enthusiasm, and Keith Addenbrooke who produced the welcome thread in the TT:120 section has gone in another direction according to his blog. (over and out..) British Columbia is 1 - an existing TT modeller committed to the scale and 2 - overseas, so I can't cite him as evidence of existing British modellers adopting the scale. Present company apart - who's out there?? I’m not demanding to see finished layouts, but where are the threads for people starting the journey? Market Deeping knew that an HST and 50 and coaches were coming so they got building. We know whats already committed to, and imminent . “Hornby haven’t done an X yet, its 3 months/12 months away” doesn’t cut it – unless people simply don’t believe Hornby announcements until they see the product in the shops (Which is why I posted the photo of the other layout . There it all is…) As for “serious modeller”, it’s a loaded term and I’m very much with The term seems often to be a self-congratulatory pat on the back for members of the finescale movement. But in finescale building your own pointwork and building loco chassis are normal. The late Frank Dyer was a “serious modeller”. He scratchbuilt a large stud of ER steam in the 1950s when there were barely any kits never mind RTR, and built all his own pointwork. Peter Denny scratchbuilt pretty well the lot - EM in the 40s and 50s was much harder than TT:120. People still do construct most of their own stock in 7mm finescale Where are the threads with people building chassis for Lincoln Locos bodies? Osborn Models have a range of kits. There's an LMS van here Osborn's LMS van kit I’ve not built one myself or done business with Osborns – but the only thread I’ve seen about a build was from Luke Stephens – and Luke seems to have fallen silent, and I can't find the thread (GW Siphon) I am in no way hostile/criticising new entrants and a trainsetr may well be an effective starter package here. But new scales require experienced “serious modellers” to blaze the trail and provide proof of concept. You cannot expect a brand new scale to hand you everything on a plate . You will have to roll up your sleeves and build stuff . Pioneering requires a certain level of skill set. For some, that’s the whole attraction. The new entrants have certainly turned up - my worry is that the pioneers and “serious modellers” have gone missing. They are needed to provide leadership and inspiration, and show how it can be done If anyone believes I don’t myself make anything, workbench and layout blogs are here (and I don’t rise high enough to be called a “serious modeller”) Workbench and layouts
  15. I went to Railex last year - there was not a trace of the new scale. At DEMU Showcase pretty much the same , bar a couple of items on the West Hill stand. One retailer had some models at Ally Pally this year though they weren't prominent - that;s one more than last year. If there's been any reference to a new scale in MRJ I've missed it, - despite an accurate scale/gauge ratio being the holy grail of the finescale movement. The finescale people aren't averse to minority interests and different standards - but it seems, not this one. Something similar could be said of DEMU Update. It must indicate something that after 18 months or so two of the 3 most popular posts in this tread remain a post describing the whole thing as a pointless waste of money and effort, and a crack about the Titfield Thunderbolt. I'n not very heavily into the Facebook groups - but what I've seen posted on there looks more like developed trainsets than layouts as we generally think of them, I don't recall what you would call a conventional model railway layout in 1/120 being shown. And the demographic there does seem to lean strongly to people new to the hobby. Enough people are buying this for items to go out of stock and retailers to want to carry it, but I can only remember one layout design thread on here (from someone who had started with a developed trainset and immediately wanted to go further) , and I can't recall any layout project threads on here for British outline 1/120, certainlty not where construction had started. There are none active in the TT:120 section here. Those few initially talking about possibly building a layout on here seem to have lost or be losing interest. The few casual comments about the new scale I've heard from other modellers face to face have been negative - I recall someone saying that Czech TT was one of their interests, but they wouldn;t be touching Hornby's TT:120 "because it's not proper TT". There seems to be a surpisingly common belief that there's something off about the scale - that the coaches are being made to a different scale to the locos , and that Hornby had invented a new scale are two I've heard. No basis that I know of for any of it, but it bubbles away I think there is significantly more potential interest in TT:120 from the existing hobby than appears on the surface , but the fact that very little is appearing on the surface is significant. You would expect a new commercial scale to spark some enthusiasm in the hobby, but its quite difficult to find interest, positivity and activity at shows, amongst groups of existing modellers, or in large parts of the media. Several magazines are certainly supportive, but it's not clear this is spilling over into very much activity among existing railway modellers. Hornby said initially they were targetting newcomers rather than the existing hobby, although there was a degree of scepticism whether that would work . But it seems to be the way it is actually playing out. Layouts will be the way the way to convince people already in the hobby. I'm just not sure the layouts are coming through - apart from those sponsored by magazines
  • Create New...