Ravenser

Rovex suffered two major losses during the relevant period. In 1959 the MD , John Doyle, was killed in a car crash and replaced by Richard Lines. And in 1964 the chief designer John Hefford, died prematurely (Source - Pat Hammond's book Neither date quite meshes with TT-3 . By 1964 sales had collapsed to minimal levels anyway - in 1959 TT-3 had still 5 years to go I get the impression - peering back into the mists of time - that the "scale" side of 3mm took off very rapidly and strongly. In fact I get the distinct impression TT-3/3mm was a pretty successful "scale" gauge , until the end of Triang production kicked the legs out from under it. It seems to have been the toy-shop/train set side of TT-3 that failed badly There was certainly interest in the idea of TT in the "scale" hobby before Triang . Edward Beal wrote a booklet about TT in his Modelcraft pamphlet series , which I think predated Triang, and people were certainly aware of Hal Joyce launching the scale in the US. It seems there may have been one or two experiments with a scale of 1/8" to the foot (1:96) even before WW1 When was Lone Star powered "Treblo-Lectric" launched? Wikipedia quotes dates of 1960 or 1961, but only 2 British locos were ever available, and I think rubber band drive was used. 1962 is the date quoted for the launch of N by Arnold on the Continent; 1963 is when Rovex tried and completely failed to launch TT-3 in France It does look like Arnold and N saw off TT and Rokal/Zeusse in Western Europe. In Britain , I'm not really sure if Lone Star was early and strong enough to account for the collapse in TT-3 sales. The alternative theory, that model shops were reluctant to stock TT-3 , may have more merit. If the sales were only ever modest, after a bit a vicious circle may have set it - it isn't selling so the shops won't stock it, the shops don't stock it, so it doesn't sell As far as Eastern Europe is concerned , the conventional story is that the Soviet Bloc had a designated manufacturer of small scale model railways , Zuesse/BTTB making TT , and the state planners saw no reason to permit the introduction of a rival scale, N. Therefore TT was your only option if you wanted smaller than HO. What is interesting , though, is that N seems to have made very little inroad in Eastern Europe since 1990. It appears that TT is very much the second scale in countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, N is almost nowhere , and HO seems to have a lower market share than in Western Europe (those German language market share stats again) This argues against TT being an inherently flawed concept. After more than 30 years of direct competition from N it seems to be doing very nicely thank you in Eastern Europe

We are perhaps at slight cross-purposes. I don't mean that TT:120 will compete for those already committed to N . Indeed I very much think it won't. If someone is already fully engaged with N , they won't move over to TT unless some special factor intervenes. What I meant to say is that N and TT:120 are rival options for those who haven't got space to build a meaningful layout in 4mm (which here means OO - if you can't do it in OO, where radius requirements are least demanding , you certainly haven't got space for EM or P4) People normally start in OO. Those who have space issues have N as an alternative. But quite a few feel N is not for them , or try N , don't get on with it and revert to 4mm . They then build up stock in 4mm for that magic day when the space needed will actually be there. If it ever comes... Broadly speaking the only people TT:120 will pick up from N are those on the fringes who were going to drop out of N anyway. And there do seem to be a .lot of people who "bounce off" N - try it for space reasons, don't get on with it somehow, and move back to 4mm TT:120 will attract far more people who are nominally in 4mm than it attracts folk who are in N . But the people it attracts from 4mm will be those on the margins , with no layout and no effective outlet for their modelling. Quite a few of them might otherwise drop out of the hobby. Figures are slippery, but market share figures for sales by scale in other countries commonly show HO at around 60-70% of the market (German language figures were posted in another TT thread) . Andy's survey shows around 90% of people here in 4mm. That is way above other countries. There seems to be a big suppressed demand there - lots of people who logically should be in a smaller scale but aren't . Presumably British N doesn't suit them. TT doesn't "cannibalise Hornby's OO sales" because those people aren't in a position to spend a lot. The time when you really spend money on models is when you are building a layout. Get people building layouts and you grow the market for products. 100% of a layout builder's spend is much better than 50% of a day-dreamer's spend Hornby are posing the question "If not N , then why not TT?" (I assume market research has been done . Q. "Why wouldn't you have a model railway?" A "Haven't got the space. And costs too,these days" . Given that Hornby are in both N and TT on the Continent , the logical response would be to try people with some Arnold N: "How about this? Would that change your mind?" A : "No , far too fiddly." [Hands them some Arnold TT] "And how about this?" A: "Oh, that's a nice size") Some statistics from Pat Hammond's Triang book. In 1962, Triang TT-3 sold 3,900 sets in the UK and 400 abroad , half what it sold in 1960 (presumably the peak year for sales) By 1964, TT-3 sales were 1/6th of 1960 levels (so , by deduction , 1300 sets + 100 overseas) In 1962 Triang sold 154,000 OO/HO sets in Britain and 14,000 overseas. So TT-3 represented about 2.5% of Triang OO sales, and perhaps 1%-1.5% of total OO set sales. It really was a fleabite . Even in the best year (1960) it can't have been more than 5% of Triang OO sales and maybe 3% of total OO sales I think 1962-3 is before commercial British outline N was properly available? On those figures it looks like TT-3 was never very large, and was in freefall before British N was really on the scene B y way of contrast someone estimated from carton markings that Hornby have already delivered over 2600 Scotsman sets, and carton markings indicate 888 sets in the first Easterner batch. That's at least 3500 sets dispatched in the first 2 months. Getting close to the 1962 totals already , with 10 months still to go On the other hand everyone would agree that the market for OO is a fraction of what it was in the glory days of the trainset around 1960 Hornby may have already achieved greater market penetration with TT:120 than Triang ever achieved with TT-3 When this thread started, there was intense scepticism that Hornby would sell enough of this for Phase 3 and 4 models ever to go into production. They were widely dismissed as vapourware. It's at least clear that we are heading into Phase 2 now, and there's already enough head of steam to get this project well into 2024 TT:120 is competing with N to attract those folk who haven't got space for 4mm. While N gauge's renaissance after Bachmann bought Farish has clearly increased its share of modellers gradually , after 50 years I think it's very unlikely that N is going to make substantial further inroads into 4mm's huge market share TT:120 needs to bring something different to the table , though. It is going to need to be more constructional , because RTR is going to be more restricted, and therefore construction will be needed to fill the gaps. It needs to lend itself to that. I also think it needs to be strong in small shunting planks and branch lines. To run three coach trains , loco-hauled, in OO , you'll need 12' length. That's pretty well impossible in a modern flat. Go to TT and you are down to 8' length or less. That will fit, with room to spare, along a bedroom wall. So will Minories in TT. An autocoupler prefitted that couples reliably and uncouples easily would give it an advantage over both OO and N 2 x 2 car DMUs (57' low density) or a tank engine + Quad-Art are not exactly big trains. But they are more or less unattainable for a lot of us in 4mm nowadays

Things have not been going particularly well for Mercia Wagon Repair recently. As a result I've become rather disheartened and I've been wondering whether I should in fact pull the plug on the project. Issue number one can be seen here: A key point, buried fairly deep in the track plan has broken up at the tie bar. This is the second point to break up at the tie bar out of 7 points I've bought so far (The first large radius point disintegrated at the tie bar before I even laid it.). That is within 9 months of starting work on this project. This particular one failed a few weeks ago during use. It uses a Peco motor fitted to the designed-in attachment holes: in other words I'm using a proprietary product exactly as it is designed to be used. I've never had such failures in forty years in 4mm. At this stage there seem to be two possible approaches: - Extract the plastic tiebar, somehow, and try to wiggle a replacement PCB tiebar under the rails and also over the actuating pin of the point motor. Not a nice or easy job - Buy a replacement point. Cut out and extract the old point, wire and lay the new one. Reconnect wires ... Then there is the matter of frog switching The Peco leaflet with the Code 55 N gauge points makes no mention at all about connecting the frog to a switch to supply it with power. I've read the thing 4 or 5 times carefully through, and such a reference to frog switching simply isn't there (though from memory such instructions do appear with 16.5mm electrofrog points). All that the leaflet says is "Turnouts are ready for immediate use - seperate levers are not necessary ." On 4mm electrofrog points there is a wire run to the side , for the purpose of feeding the frog off a switch. There is a linkage wire under Code 55 N gauge points , connecting the swtich rails and the frog - but there is no "loose" wire to link to a polarity switch There is every sign that Peco expect purchasers simply to lay their Code 55 N gauge points as they come, and rely on contact of the switchblades with the stockrail. That is an unreliable contact, and risks leaving the entire switchblade /frog assembly dead - about 3" of track. (Not a theoretical comment . I've seen this on the wagon works fan , and it is a serious issue for a layout designed around shunting wagons with an 0-6-0 diesel shunter. You should get away with it when running a bogie diesel with all wheel pickup, especially a long one like a Class 66, but wagons are supposed to be shunted around the Works by 0-6-0s) I tried to tweak the tips of the switchblades on the offending point to ensure contact. I think it may have been the point I had to tweak for switchblade contact - which may have ultimately led to the failure. You can understand why I'm less than impressed with this product... Having recounted this in a thread elsewhere , someone (with whom I've previously crossed swords several times) appears to state that you can in fact lift the linkage wire "frog jumper" underneath Peco Code 55 points and attach a wire to this "jumper" in order to connect the frog to a polarity switch on the point motor , thus providing a switched power feed to the frog and switch blades. (Which is the best way to wire a live frog) . But - I've already laid the points. To get at that wire connection and solder on a feed wire to a polarity switch I'd have to lift the points. The track is laid and wired and running. Lifting it all and replacing the cork would amount to "scrap and start again" It might - to a 4mm mind - seem possible just to accept the issue and carry on. But over the past few months I've picked up disturbing vibes that shunting and shunting/operational layouts are "not what N gauge is about" : It may be unfair to seize on a single comment, but it crystallizes a vibe I feel in the air. Shunting in N using the "standard" Arnold coupling seems to be regarded as pretty iffy. I have gone for the replacement Dapol Easi-Shunt knuckle couplers - effectively NEM Kadees in N. But they are costing me over £5 a vehicle. They frequently require packing of the NEM pocket to limit or remove drooping , which results in the tail fouling pointwork . And my impression after 3-4 operating sessions is that they are rather less certain and reliable in coupling than the Kadees I use in 4mm on Blacklade. They uncouple over the fixed Dapol uncouplers, not always conveniently. As usual, successful delayed action is rather elusive. Put another way - can you remember seeing many "shunting planks" in N? (Either at shows or in the magazines.) Many branch line termini? An N gauge Minories? Micros or Boxfiles using N? N gauge inglenooks and other shunting puzzles? On reflection, the typical N gauge layout seems to be a longish continous run. Commonly on a 2'6" deep solid board , with 12" return curves at each end, and the fiddle yard hidden behind a backscene set 2/3rds of the way back. Operation consists of firing a train out of the fiddle yard, sending it round the the circuit and back into a road in the fiddle yard. "Cavalcade" layouts do not interest me. I don't want to build one, I don't have the space for one. That is not what Mercia Wagon Repair is about. Am I trying to do something in N that everyone knows cannot and should not be done in N? A project that cannot and should not be? When I've raised the issue of shunting in N - apart from the implications of trolling and being offensive - I've been assured that the NGS Hunslet is the very bee's-knees in N gauge running. There can be no question of things being possible in 4mm that are not possible in N. So I bought one, and here it is: It is indeed a very small locomotive. It cost me £82 which in this day and age is a remarkably keen price (I stuck a wagon kit for a TTA in with the order to bulk it up). The finish and printing is admirable. It does indeed run very slowly, being heavily geared down. But it does not run as sweetly or quite as reliably as my Farish 04. What it reminds me of is many a kitbuilt small locomotive on 4mm finescale layouts. It waddles a little. It runs slow, and it keeps going , but it waddles. Not quite a even movement. It's a decent locomotive and it will do a job of work on the layout. I'm not the "toys out of pram" type who returns things in a huff because they do not meet his exacting standards 100%... But it's not as sweet and smooth running as the 04. And it will be obvious from the photo just how short the wheel base is and just how long the switchblades and frog are on the adjacent point. Any hesitation in contact - they're dead. And the Hunslet will stop. Dare I blaze ahead with this project with electrically compromised "live frogs"?? Do I dare spend £145 on a Farish Class 14 in British Oak orange as an additional shunter??? Nobody has mentioned that one as an outstanding shunter. In 4mm I'd have not a shadow of a doubt that a modern RTR 0-6-0T would run shunt very happily over live frog points, smoothly, slowly, reliably all day. But in N?? Disposable income is a little tight at the moment. My savings may be ample - but I'm not necessarily prepared to dip into them to buy a loco that turns out not to be capable of the job required I started the Chivers N gauge SSA kit. The Peco chassis used is wrong - leaf spring suspension not pedestal. In 4mm that would be a show-stopper. But in N - nothing can be done. Then I read this in the current NGS Journal: That's me told then - the Chivers SSA kit and the NGS chemical TTA kit I'm currently working on can never be good enough to sit alongside a Dapol or RevolutioN wagon with any credibility...... not unless my name's Tim Watson I painted the main sprues in the TTA kit white - the suggestion in the instructions that they could be left as self-coloured plastic took me aback. Then the bag with the rest of the kit disappeared . Could I find it? I could not. The cars are some cheap plastic ones I managed to find in a model shop's box, which I'm trying to paint up and make passable. Modern cars are quite difficult to find in N . I've got boxes of the things in 4mm/HO needing a good home... How many more points will fail at the tie bar, and how soon??? At this stage there seem a number of options: - Press on and hope. Try to fix the tie bar and leave other pointwork as is. - Replace the bust point . Maybe try to fit frog feed wires to one or two others. - Rip up most of the points and trackwork , and replace them, fitting point feedwires to the replacements. This would mean major reconstruction and rewiring - Pull the plug. Decide this project can't be made to work satisfactorily and get out of N. Dispose of the N gauge stock and bits for whatever I can recover before I sink more money time and effort into a quicksand (I spent over £150 at Warley on a new loco, wagons and bits for this project) Since two of the locos were given to me and have personal connections, I couldn't dispose of the lot. If I scrapped it , what would I do? - I think the plan could be done in TT120. There would be some loss of train length, but with mostly 4 wheel wagons it could be manageable. Width might be a more serious issue in a larger scale. 66s and an 08 are promised in TT:120, and in some respects the project might be better done in BR days , with a 37 and 47 as the main line power. But the 66 is 10-12 months away in TT, and I'd have to buy every single item from scratch. This was a project to use a core of existing stock.... - If we're talking about stuff I already have, that points towards either 3mm, (where I have a bag of wagon kits, some second hand Triang and half a dozen Peco points in stock), or OO9. But I have no serviceable 3mm loco, and no design. I have two OO9 Baldwins and some stock, but the design I came up with is 18" wide , not 11" , although I have more length than I drew out. - I suppose I could try to come up with an LCC tram scheme in 4mm - Even Son of Boxfile in OO ???? Or I could box the whole lot up, and put away all N gauge modelling until at least September . When I would re-assess what is to be done about this , in a more cheerful frame of mind. All my modelling time has been going into N recently - I haven't done any 4mm for about 9 month's let alone had Blacklade up. I know 4mm works, and even more importantly I know I can make it work , within reason. Time to do what will work, instead of plunging deeper into the swamps of N?

Heljan in OO are very very loco-centric . They must have done 5 or 6 diffferent types of loco for every wagon they've done. Something like AS's Mk2B/C project or their chaldrons or Rapido working their way through SECR and GW wagons is inconcievable from HJ HJ were very much following their OO form with TT120: 3 locos announced , but no rolling stock. There's a fair chance that if they'd announced some rolling stock it wouldn't have been duplicated

My background is oceanfreight pricing, and I think there are quite a lot of linkages leading to the current keen pricing of TT:120 - and the distribution structure adopted (The following may seem to go all round the houses, but bear with me, we'll arrive at TT:120) Bachmann Europe are constrained in their pricing by their main competitors in OO and N. They can only price a little above their major competitor in OO (Hornby) - and in fact they do. Bachmann models are generally 5-10% more expensive than Hornby , considering the general run of things Farish can only be priced a little above its major competitor in N (Dapol) and in fact it is. Dapol's Class 66 is £126, and the Farish model is £159 (list price on manufacturer's website in both cases). Generally the gap seems to be around £20 a loco., so around 10-15% dearer from Farish. Dapol are not generating much if any new tooling in N , but they are keeping their existing modern tooling in regular production . They have limited tooling and development costs to recover. Steam engines cost a bit more than diesels in both scales. The "market price" for a RTR loco in N is rather lower than for OO (Bachmann OO 66 is £159 again . But that's an older model and they have sharp price competition from Hornby on 66s . A new Class 37 is £245 , DCC Ready, and a Class 57/3 is £190) We know that Bachmann Europe have to "buy slots" internally at the Kadar factory, and they are struggling to get all the capacity they want - hence the EFE venture. Which largely relies on using tooling where someone else has already paid off the R&D and tooling costs There is bitter complaint in N about the lack of Farish production and especially of steam. The cause, I suggest, is the market price of British N . At the price they need to sell at in N, Bachmann Europe cannot afford to bid enough for the factory capacity to make it. Hence the range is "bulked out" with expensive Scenecraft low relief toilets and the like. The cost of capacity issue may bite particularly hard on steam , being more expensive to make In one sense this isn't a problem for Kadar. Bachmann Europe is essentially a tap that can be turned on or off as required to keep the factory running full tilt. Since there is plenty of third party work and a capacity shortage, the tap can be left turned off. Reality is more complex - Kadar HQ have clearly given their blessing to the EFE venture to keep product flowing through Bachmann Europe, and no doubt some capacity can be found for Bachmann at "mate's rates" Now to Hornby and TT. TT:120 essentially is competing with N , for the support of people who haven't got space for a 4mm layout. Many of those are not currently in the hobby. Some are in 4mm on a marginal basis, buying bits in the hope of one day having a layout, after deciding N doesn't work for them So Hornby do not have a free hand when pricing TT:120. Prices have to be competitive with N and are therefore constrained by what Dapol and Farish are doing. The TT:120 Class 66 needs to sell for something in the £125-150 range, because that's the price in N. While TT:120 is competing with N for support - that';s at least the next 5 years maybe the next 10 - it has to be similarly priced, or cheaper And that means "cheaper than current OO" (Railroad always excluded) Selling direct is a way to do that. If your competitor is selling via model shops, with the retailer adding a markup , then it is quite easy to set a direct website price for your model that is comfortably above your competitor;'s wholesale price , but well below the price it sells at in the shops. Put very brutally - you can have it cheap , or you can pay a substantial markup to retailers to have it through a local model shop. And in fact the "new boys" in the hobby do a very large proportion of their business direct. That is part of "the Aussie model". Bachmann have set their face against doing any direct selling and their price levels are the highest in the markets they operate in. If you want to sell new tooling models for a new niche, at a price that competes with Dapol's N gauge - and also to have the entire range readily available nationwide, from launch, you may have no choice but to go direct . You have to act like Aucision - if you try to act like Bachmann Europe, it will fail. (Chadwick Model Railways seems to want substantially reduced retail prices from Hornby, everything sold through local modelshops at improved terms to the model shop - and heavy investment by Hornby in new tooling for OO. Those things are not compatible) For this reason - price levels in N - the idea that Hornby can simply whack up the prices 18 months in and squeeze a captive market is not realistic. They need to compete with that Dapol 66 and whatever Farish are charging for a TTA, until the scale is very well established

I think Heljan got unlucky. Nobody expected the sheer scale of Hornby's programme. I'd been saying for several months I thought we were missing the Key Player in all of this : what had been announced didn't quite make sense unless there was someone else out there going to make a small range, and Hornby were an obvious candidate given their presence in Continental TT But I was really taken aback by the sheer scale of what they announced. I was expecting something modest like Hornby-Arnold's entry : 2-3 locos, maybe 2 pairs of coaches, a few wagons. Not the huge programme we got.. If Heljan were assuming a similar modest programme , strongly weighted towards steam given Hornby's "reputation", then the 31 may have looked a fairly safe option, unlikely to be done by Hornby. An announcement featuring Classes 08, 31, 37, 47, 50, 66, HST and Azuma, plus Mk2 E/F and Mk3 was way way beyond reasonable expectations. Hornby are popularly supposed only to be interested in big green kettles with names, and to have no real interest in D+E. The J94 and 08 might also have seemed things that Hornby wouldn't bother with ALD a small outfit , are promising a Class 25 in TT as either RTR or nRTR (not sure which). Once I tabulate the Hornby list it leaps out and hits you they are doing pretty well all the major Co-Co diesels , but no Bo-Bo apart from the HST.... Everything HJ talked about in TT was already in the Hornby OO range. That may have been unwise. No Rats, McRats, no Cromptons, or hydraulics, no Peaks, no 56, 58 . They already do many of those in OO but they didn't go for any of them. They could have done a Jinty or a Buckjumper or even a 4F . They didn't. They would still have been in the game if they had. And no rolling stock. HJ don't do rolling stock.... (Rapido and AS do make rolling stock in OO)

Can I strongly second this. Nobody is obliged to go into TT. The vast majority of the hobby never will. If you have no interest in adopting the scale , I would respectfully suggest ignoring the subject rather than making several posts in TT threads telling those interested in its possibilities that it's rubbish and doesn't have any, and people shuoldn't adopt it. 7mm isn't my cup of tea. I don't feel obliged to post in dedicated 7mm threads telling everyone that 7mm doesn't have much future and they shouldn't chose it as a scale.....

I had this comment from a letter in the current NGS Journal in mind: Conversions and kit-building are simply not a credible option for the vast majority in his view - only RTR can do the job That's me told then - the Chivers SSA kit and the NGS chemical TTA kit I'm currently working on can never be good enough to sit alongside a Dapol or RevolutioN wagon with any credibility...... not unless my name's Tim Watson I also note someone who had a pop at me on another thread, indicating And I referred previously to hearing someone exhibiting an N gauge layout as a show saying that he wouldn't consider building kits - they were too difficult. I'm coming from a 4mm background where it has long been taken for granted that an ordinary competent can build a better wagon than anything you can buy , and where only recently have RTR locos and coaches reached the standards of good kitbuilt models. I really hope the prejudice against construction in N is ill-founded, but it seems to be real and quite widespread and I'm finding it a bit chilling. If all that were possible in N is taking things out of a box and running them as is., I personally would find that pretty limiting. I've launched into building a modest-sized modern image shunting layout in N , to use some models I'd more or less accidentally acquired , in the blithe assumption that a shunting layout with operational interest using RTR models was routine proven stuff, and I'm now getting serious cold feet about whether I'm attempting something that ordinary mortals can make work. I'm having to change the couplings at great expense (still not quite as good as Kadees in 4mm), I bought a shunting loco that was supposed to be the very bee's-knees in N gauge running - and it's not actually as good as the Farish 04 , ready made points with RTR are creating all sorts of problems.... I'm now sufficiently concerned by the issues , and the repeated whispers that "you can't do this in N . Not what N is for.." that I am actually wondering whether I would be better to pull the plug now and abandon the project before I pour more time, effort and money into something that may not actually work .. I have no doubt such a layout can be built in 4mm and 3mm . But in N? Where is the cut off point at which this sort of thing stops being viable, and all you can do is run round in a circle at a decent clip? Would I be better just to cut my losses at an early stage and walk away from a layout with nearly all the track laid and wired and nearly all the stock bought? My motive here is that we have a new scale - and a significant number of folk (not including you) appear to be trying hard to post it out of existance before it becomes established . As a hobby we ought to be trying to find positives and opportuntities in a new scale, not trying to club any possibilities out of existence It's not just about "Hornby -hating" . My recollection of the initial thread about the Peco announcement was that discussion involved repeated interventions from outside by people telling us that TT:120 wasn't happening, that the Peco products were not for the British market . that the Peco announcement did not mean what it said, and only the very naive would take them at face value. "TT:120 is not happening. Stop talking about it: this is NOT going to happen. Move along now, nothing to see here" Over and over again In over 40 years in the hobby I don't think I've seen major announcements greeted with such sustained hostility, amounting to sullen anger and seething outrage. There really do seem to be quite a few folk out there flatly determined that TT:120 will not happen. P.S. Like the EM1

"How does this stack up against the existing options , OO and N?" is a pretty fundamental question. A very crude size comparison barely touches that. Sam's Trains measured up and concluded that the rods in the valve gear were 0.1mm overscale, and the pins 0.2mm overscale. To my eye the valve gear in TT:120 looks a lot lot better than in N where it is jarringly overscale. But the pins are still a bit over the top in TT120 It would havev been an easy comparision to do. "How does the valve gear stack up in these 3 scales - here's N close up, here's TT:120 close up , here's OO. " How do the wheel standards compare? How much is scale compromised in N ? How much in TT:120?" Again - how do the three couplings in the 3 different scales compare? Which couples best? What about uncoupling? Which is smallest and neatest? How about close coupling? (The Arnold coupler in N is poor enough that most suggest it militates against shunting successfully. The tension lock in OO is a pig to uncouple, ugly and obtrusive. Come to that the N gauge coupler is pretty chunky. The Tillig -type looks like the best of the three, albeit against pretty weak competitors) One key issue is going to be whether the extra size of TT is enough to render constructional work comfortable . There is a widespread prejudice that making , modifying, detailing or repainting rolling stock is not entirely practical in N. Can TT:120 overcome that issue?

Given the claims that the track's been made by the factory responsible for Tillig track, and is simply Tillig with a different logo stamped on the bottom, it was a bit surprising. I even wondered if he had somehow included the bit of 6th radius included to return the siding to straight But Chadwick Model Railway's audience probably wouldn't use Hornby setrack in OO , and most of them would go straight for Peco track as a reflex action. (So would I if working in the scale) As an argument for "TT:120 is rubbish - don't touch this scale" I found it somewhat less than compelling

I think a one line summary of that review video would be "I do not come to praise Caesar but to bury him" Something that strikes me on further reflection is how little information was provided. I don't think we were told the gauge is 12mm . We weren't told that the Hornby track is code 80 . Given how much time was devoted to the track, that is surprising. We were told that the Peco track is better - we weren't shown any. We weren't told Peco is Code 55 , or told it can in fact be connected to Hornby. I don't think we were explicitly told that the scale is 1:120 (1/10" to the foot or 2.54mm) . There was little meaningful comparison between the 3 different scales (OO, TT, N) - how long is a Mk1 in each? how long is an A4? what footprint for a layout? Given how much emphasis was given to Hornby making a profit by selling this , it's odd that I can't recall him mentioning the price of the set, or comparing it with the price of equivalent OO models . The comments are full of comments about "overpriced, rip -off, very poor value" - but the prices are actually slightly less than N , and maybe 2/3rds of equivalent locos in OO. It's rather difficult to make meaningful comment about prices without mentioning any actual prices.... He could have done a meaningful comparison between the 3 models of an A4 in different scales - he had them there. Instead a good deal of time was devoted to displaying pictures of Pacifics running backwards on preserved railways (and looking pretty ungainly doing it), reading out a Heljan press statement , selected prior emails from people who had not seen any actual product, a rant about Hornby's 2023 OO announcement and the appearance of Caley 123 in it. Matters which have little or no relevance to the merits of the models in hand (Very few people model preserved railways ) Sam's Trains is not my cup of tea. But Sam's effort on this was far more informative and objective,and he subjected the models to more extensive running tests. Sam found the detail items bag, held it up so you could see it in close up and told you what is in it. This video simply dangled a small item in the middle distance at a random point in the video and muttered "oh there's a detail bag". And so it went on.. Given the play made about "limited availability" it was noticeable that no mention was made of the existing set released, or all the other items announced in this scale by Hornby . Only by inference from the Heljan press release would you have gathered that Hornby were producing more in TT120 than just this set. That is fairly basic information about the new scale - strikingly omitted, I'd say because someone was grinding a large axe If you are going to rant about the selection of a CK and BSK, then I think you really need to admit that a Mk1 SK and a BG are promised later and that LMS Stanier stock , in 1st, 3rd and Brake 3rd are imminent I don't believe reviewing should be a spectator bloodsport. A review needs to consider the merits of the product as well as any issues. Otherwise they are giving a seriously misleading impression of it I also wondered why he bought the set, given he is clearly fully committed to 4mm. Spending £200 to make an attack video is curious, and I did have a wry smile at the repeated insistance "there is no second-hand" when his own set is clearly going to be on ebay in short order The Hornby set controller appears to be based on PWM . Hence the noise . It's not a scale specific controller - it's in their OO sets. In reality the audience for Chadwick Model Railway will not be using trainset controllers to run their railways, so the loco should have been tested on a normal controller such as the audience would use themselves. Other reviewers did so and the issue disappeared Fine to say "the Hornby set controller is not a great piece of kit, and you will want to use something else. This part of the set is not great value - you may want to consider just buying the locos and coaches as seperate items , available shortly - and buying Peco track instead ". But giving the impression the loco itself runs like a bag of nails is misleading ... The main "QC issue" - the bit of tape - was laboured at great length (though the very simple fix was moved briskly through) In general this video was near a hatchet job on the whole project as could be managed whilst staying factual. I have to ask what he was trying to achieve? My immediate reaction was that he wants to discourage anyone from having anything to do with TT:120, and this is primarily based on his hostility to Hornby and their commercial policy. This seems to be a video basically designed to squash TT:120, and give Hornby a good kicking. I don't see that gets you anywhere now. The thing exists, and will continue existing. Attempts to stamp out TT:120 before it takes hold are now futile. The stuff is selling reasonably well, and most of the hands-on comments are fairly positive. Quite a lot of the stuff is being bought by people not already active in the hobby - despite the loud scepticism that this won't happen. Despite the negativity, people already in the hobby are having a dabble . In the medium term , people will see the stuff and make their own minds up And it only needs a modest sliver of the hobby to have a go for this to have long-term viability It's happened, it won't go away, you can't squash it - the only sensible thing to do now is see what benefits we can find in it

I'm not certain exactly what your motor is. But my understanding is that Hornby have been using sealed can motors for some years, and you can't get inside to service them. If the motor fails, you have to replace it with a new one. It's a "swap out the whole component and replace" approach

A very negative take. I'm struck by the comment that discussion of the Hornby marketing strategy is more important than the models themselves... The simple fact is that the models now exist, and they will continue to exist. What really matters is what is done with them from here on in . Having seen the way that even the scraps of British outline HO from 35 years ago ( often quite crude), sustain modelling and a society , I'm absolutely certain that TT:120 will be a scale for modelling British subjects from here on in, however Hornby's venture develops. What is up for grabs is what form that modelling takes, not whether it will happen at all. Two or three more comments struck me. One was the remark that yes, the models were nicely finished "but we expect that as standard, don't we?" A sustained attempt was made to find anything and everything that might constitute a fault and to dwell on it as long as practical - anything positive about the actual models was dealt with as briskly as possible. "I'm not here to blow hot air up Hornby's backside". The question of what use the hobby will make of 1:120 scale, and what opportunities it might offer was completely ignored. I would have thought "what possibilities does this scale offer the modeller?" is the first and most fundamental question about any new scale I question the statement that new entrants to the hobby normally rely on second hand for their stock. Teenagers may do, and people returning to the hobby after many years commonly start with "I've got this stuff from my childhood and I want to do something with it". But in my experience they then start buying new RTR. As for the percentages plucked out of the air , we have the recent RMWeb survey to correct them. That showed 85-90% active in 4mm (depends how you aggregate OO/EM/P4 with OO9) and under 20% active in N, with those active in some form 7mm somewhere in the 12.5-15% range. (That totals to well over 100% - quite a few people model in more than one scale) Put crudely , that means 9 out of 10 modellers in this community work in 4mm . Not even 1 in 5 work in N/2mm Finescale. But "not even 1 in 5" is quite enough to support a large active N gauge scene . Ditto 7mm with maybe 1 in 7 active in the scale. I've said before that if TT:120 gets to be half the size of N (= 9% active in the scale) in the medium term it will be doing very, very well indeed. This is a niche scale Given that, it really doesn't matter if 2/3rds or 3/4s of the hobby has zero interest in the scale. Frankly we should expect that. To put it quite starkly, it is entirely possible for more than half the hobby to be strongly negative about 1:120 scale and hostile to its existence - but for 1:120 scale still to attract the support of 1 in 11 or 1 in 10 of the hobby and to become a very active modelling scale.... (I'm not sure that kind of polarisation in the hobby would be good. But it is entirely possible for the numbers to pan out that way. TT:120 does not need the support of a majority of the hobby. It only needs a modest sliver of the hobby on board for it to become viable)

The middle-top ;point should come off the bottom route on the point to the right, not the top route. It is part of the track linking (So that middle point should be RH , not left) . The curv ed route on the middle point becomes the curve that brings the loop back straight..

In the case of a new RTR model - which is where most of the angst arises - none of the above will apply. In the case of a home-built model, you have to keep going after any bugs and tweaking things till all is well. In general the main suspects are lack of juice, and this is likely to be down to ill-fitting or inadequete pickups, or dirt. These days most locos have adequete pickups , but older locos didn't and you might have to fit more. Wheels need to be kept clean And the issue might be the state of the layout, not the state of the loco. I have a Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T , bought "new-secondhand" . As bought it barely ran. I oiled everything carefully , including the joints in the motion, and it then ran very nicely. Some months later, the oil had clearly dried out and it ran badly. So I oiled the motion and it ran very nicely... Clearly the motion is slightly tight somewhere . A vigourous maintenance regime keeps it happy , but there's a slight issue lurking, and it isn't me... I would be cautious about pointing the finger at the owner in the case of every faltering loco. Some older RTR mechanisms were indeed rough, and only a certain amount can be got from them. And you need to define your context. A kit-built chassis may indeed be a poor runner that no amount of routine maintenance will fix - it may not have been properly fettled and adjusted to start with "the problem with this loco is you" can be a very corrosive idea. Nobody has a "negative personal force-field" that causes locos to stall and vehicles to derail. Every issue has physical causes derived from principles of mechanical and electrical engineering. You have to test, check, find and define the issues and address them. And then it WILL work.

I would tend to allocate such a siding as a parcels facility . Set back from the front platform into the parcels depot / shunter to pull the loaded vehicles out and sit on the blocks while the train engine runs down from the FY

How many full length trains can you stand in the loop? The fan of 4 sidings will be a bit limited in terms of train length

Think you could smooth this a little . If you replace the middle point at the top (which is RH) with a Left Hand point immediately following the point at top right, , you get a straight exit to the bottom road at the top. The lower road of the loop is then longer , clear of the points, and any train taking the lower through road has a much smoother journey . You've cut out two sharp reverse curves , and if done with flexible track the revised alignment can be done with much gentler curves The real railway doesn't like those kind of reverse curves, as they are hard on stock , especially when shunting, and increase the risk of derailment. Hence the prototype's very strong preference for sidings to open out as a fan, with reverse curves eliminated as far as possible. It also sames space - something desirable on the prototype as sidings then have greater capacity

Could it be a sizeable town somewhere north east of Nottingham - served by a line leaving the GC London Extension somewhere north of Nottingham? (Mansfield on steroids , I suppose) A3s were used on the GC from 1936 , so an A3 on a portion of a Marylebone express that divides/combines at Nottingham Victoria is not incredible, and you can have a busy shuttle service to Nottingham and Leicester. The GN can come to the party via the Nottingham /Grantham line (cue Skegness excursions ) and if you want to push the boat out then the Woodhead electrification has happened faster and been extended south to Nottingham and Colwick - trains divide at Nottingham Victoria with the A3 continuing to Majorbrough and an EM2 taking most of the train onto Manchester...

Not the most reliable form of conducting the sparks known...

Nobody has bitten , so I will.... A.R. Walkley's "Layout in a Suitcase" was the first portable layout, the first folding layout, the first exhibition layout. It demonstrated once and for all that a small shunting layout in 3.5mm/4mm scales could work, and work well, and look good. Nobody since has seriously doubted that a layout based on shunting and train operation is entirely practical in 4mm. The whole post-war phenomenon of the branch line terminus layout is based on that . However it seems that in smaller scales genuine doubt persists. Having ventured into the area recently , I've been disconcerted to come across comments like "N gauge isn't for shunting" . And there does seem to be something of a dearth of small terminus /fiddle yard in the gauge. It seems N gauge is generally treated as a way to build continuous run mainline layouts in a moderate space. "Micros" in N gauge seem invariably to be "pizzas" - ie a simple circle We are now getting to the point where finding sufficient space for a "small" layout in 4mm at home is becoming difficult. Whether that is due to the influence of the finescale movement (15" curves are no longer acceptable in 4mm) or the chronic housing shortage reducing space at home, or because modern vehicles are so large... The logical result should be that people move down a scale , and we see a flourishing of BLTs and shunting planks in N . But we don't. Instead we see heroic efforts to cram 4mm into ever smaller spaces through micros and Boxfiles. These are hyper-compressed representational small dioramas. Why this instead of moving to smaller scale? So - my suggestion is that RMWeb should celebrate the centenary of the "Layout in a Suitcase" by doing for small shunting layouts in "the smaller scales" what Walkley did so effectively for 3.5mm/4mm scale in 1925 Demonstrate unequivically that it can be done - and done well Through a layout building competition for self contained portable layouts in "the smaller scales" , built in the same footprint as Walkley's 1925 layout - Footprint : 2 boards , each 36" x 12" maximum dimensions - Boards to fold or box together to create a unit no more than 36" x 12" x 18" for storage (allows 3" deep framing) - Layout to be built in a scale not larger than 1/100 ( ie Z gauge, 2mm finescale, N gauge, TT, 3mm scale, including narrow gauge (Nm, 3n3 etc) or even broad gauge) - Layout operation to include shunting of vehicles (freight or passenger) by a locomotive - Terminus /fiddle yard layout, or self-contained system - Any prototype, worldwide, to be permitted (doesn't have to be British outline) - Time frame for actual construction: 12 months The layout will need to deliver operational interest, and to work well. (This poses an issue for judging: still photos can't prove reliable running. Could a Zoom Virtual Exhibition be part of the judging??? Or posted video clips??) The suggested footprint should be small enough to fit in a modern home without a lot of inconvenience . But in N gauge it would equate to a space approx 12' x 2' in 4mm - which most people would consider quite generous these days Any form of propulsion permitted - DC , DCC, Bluetooth, clockwork, live steam, home-brew linear motors .... [ not expecting any of the last 3...]

The GC has a certain romantic allure as "the lost main line" . Both in terms of the London Extension - its construction well documented, its closure total , and the issue of Channel Tunnel connections and (spurious) wider loading gauge trotted out on every programme discussing European rail links - and also the Woodhead Route What is now needed to kick start matters properly is coaching stock. It was the nature of the London Extension that traffic was limited and trains short. A Director and 6 coaches is entirely authentic for a Marylebone/Manchester express. Marylebone was and is a small terminus. It is actually the best prototype for a main line layout if you want to compress things... We are juststarting to see people dabble with SECR and LBSCR layouts , because locos, coaches and now brake vans are available RTR. Find some GC coaches you can do , and game on . (So Barnums might actually make sense to a RTR manufacturer. They lasted into the 50s)

Thanks for this. I have gapped all the point frogs using Peco insulated joiners anyway , so the layout is functional. The problem lies elsewhere. The frogs are not properly switched The Peco leaflet with the Code 55 N gauge points makes no mention at all about connecting the frog to a switch to supply it with power. I've read the thing 4 or 5 times carefully through, and such a reference to frog switching simply isn't there (though from memory such instructions do appear with 16.5mm electrofrog points). All that the leaflet says is "Turnouts are ready for immediate use - seperate levers are not necessary ." On 4mm electrofrog points there is a wire run to the side , for the purpose of feeding the frog off a switch- much as shown in the picture of the Unifrog point above (which is I believe TT?) . Certainly such a wire is visible on the Peco TT points shown in the video. There is a linkage wire under Code 55 N gauge points , connecting the swtich rails and the frog - but no "loose" wire to link to a switch It appears that you can in fact lift this linkage wire "frog jumper" and attach a wire leading to a switch on the point motor , thus providing a switched power feed to the frog and switch blades. (Which is the best way to wire a live frog) . But - I've already laid the points. To get at that wire connection and solder on a feed wire to a polarity switch I'd have to lift the points. Hence my comment about having to rip up all the track. The track is laid and wired and running. Lifting it all and replacing the cork would amount to "scrap and start again" There is every sign that Peco expect purchasers simply to lay their Code 55 N gauge points as they come, and rely on contact of the switchblades with the stockrail. That is an unreliable contact, and risks leaving the entire switchblade /frog assembly dead - about 3" of track. (Not a theoretical comment . I've seen this on my own project , and it is a serious issue for a project designed around shunting wagons with an 0-6-0 diesel shunter. I tried to tweak the tips of the switchblades on the offending point to ensure contact. One point has now failed, with a switch rail breaking away from the tie bar . I think it may have been the point I had to tweak for switchblade contact - which may have ultimately led to the failure. This is the second Code 55 N point I've had break up at the tie bar - out of 7 I've purchased, and in under 9 months work on the project. This was using a Peco motor fitted to the designed in attachment holes. I've never had such failures in 4mm. You can understand why I'm less than impressed with this product....) I was expecting frog switching and spent 30 minutes reading the instructions and looking at the points for it, before concluding it wan't there. I'm pretty sure the ordinary user will simply lay N gauge code 55 points as they come If Peco's TT120 points are designed as Unifrog , with a seperate wire for feeding the frog/switchblades off a switch, and instructions showing how to wire up to such a switch , then I stand by my comment that they are a better product than their N gauge equivalent (I am not hopeful that the attachment of the switchblades to the tie bar will be more robust in TT120. But at least with switched frogs all you need to worry about is whether the wheels run over ok . Electrical contact aint an issue)

One curious fact about these dirt cheap plastic battery sets with crude "models" - the ones I've looked at seem to use a track gauge of 16mm-16.5mm I don't know what we do with that fact, but it's there...

That may mean I have to rip the lot up and start the whol;e project again.... (At which point it may be simpler to abandon the whole thing )