Ravenser

It's worth teasing out... Most of us, if pushed and using historic measures like magazine circulations , would have said pre-pandemic that there were 100-125K reasonably active modellers , and maybe 150-200K involved with the hobby at the widest definition. (It's frequently recalled that around 1980 the Railway Modeller alone had a circulation of over 100,000. Now it's in the mid thirty thousands) Take your 70,000 , apply 20% market penetration (rounding the 18.3% from Andy's recent RMWeb survey) and you get 350,000 modellers in the hobby. That makes the hobby nearly twice the size we thought (4mm seems to have 85%-90% market pentration , depending on what overlap you assume between 4mm standard gauge and OO9) Your 40% uplift on the NGS figure is also startling . So much discussion has assumed that the hobby is gradually dying out, and that everything must very slowly wind down There has very clearly been a significant influx of younger folk with families since the start of the pandemic. You see and feel that the demographic at shows has shifted downward, markedly - even though the Mum and Dad with Toddler in Pushchair (chanting "Thomas the Tank!") have vanished almost completely N gauge may have done disproportionately well, but even a 30-35% increase in the hobby is quite staggering to consider The actual gripe from the trade seems to be that Hornby can't supply them with all the stuff they want to order and think they can sell. Bachmann too have severe supply restrictions - hence the moans in N that there's no Farish being made , and the whole EFE initiative If the hobby has really grown by a quarter or a third (or even more) that means a massive uplift in demand for RTR, but restricted supply from Hornby and Bachmann. It's not that others are eating Hornby's lunch - it's that the tables are piled high with food for all. Thios would also put a new perspective on the fears that current hard times will strangle sales. There may be a lot of suppressed demand out there (And if there are a lot of recent entrants in the hobby , they may be relatively uncommitted to a specific gauge and open to moving into new scale)

To a considerable extent . But - why wouldn't they? Firstly - 1:120 is a commercial scale elsewhere. It's been growing moderately for the last 3 decades. Hornby (as Armold) are already in it, they went into it from nothing, and they've done ok . They are regarded positively in Continental TT There's nothing inherently wrong with the scale that makes it somehow unsaleable. Continental experience is that where TT is established in a market , it is number 2 scale, and N gauge is trailing in the far distance. In the Peco TT120 thread Someone linked to some German-language market share statistics, and the figures were interesting. Not only is TT number two across Eastern Europe, it has a much bigger share of the market than N does in places where N is second scale. HO:TT ratios in Eastern Europe can be around 3:2 - elsewhere HO:N ratios are 2:1 or 3:1 , and in Britain the 4mm/2mm ratio is almost 5:1 I'm not expecting anything like that in Britain : I reckon TT:120 will be doing very well to get to 50% of N here in the medium term. But much of the negative commentary assumes that TT is a scale / product that nobody would dream of buying. That assumption is wrong Secondly - why do you think people would be more likely to keep buying N? I see a steady trickle of postings from people who are in 4mm and say they don't have space for a layout. Almost invariably they then say "tried N but couldn't get on with it / it wasn't for me" or some variation on that. A LOT of people are "bouncing off" British N gauge, for whatever reason. The scale appears to have a very high churn/dropout rate. I don't see people saying they "tried 7mm but couldn't get on with it so I've gone back to 4mm" Also , you will sell a lot more stuff to people starting out in a new scale than to someone who has been in it for years, and is just buying a few items to top up. The bulk of the N gauge market is established modellers who've been in the scale for years. Everyone who buys TT:120 is starting with a clean slate, so can be assumed to be open to buying quite a bit of stuff. That gets you through the first few years. I'm not quite clear what you are driving at with this relentless negativity on all points and all issues. What we know is that so far all items have sold out very quickly, half a dozen TT:120 group have spontaneously come to life on Facebook, there is interest within the modelling community in working in the scale (potentially up to 25% of the hobby are open to it) and people are starting to make things using 3D bodies We have the A4 and Mk1s coming shortly, followed by individually available locos, coaches, followed by P3 Staniers , an 08 and wagons, all in the next 3 months. Lets see how far and how fast this keeps going..

Hornby can keep knocking out models from the OO tooling they already have . It works for Dapol. It's what a lot of Continental manufacturers were forced to do when the market got saturated, the prices got silly and the money ran out.

But actually , we don't know any of that . It's entirely speculative. - We don't know the size of the British market for model railways. - We don't know what proportions of Hornby Hobbies' turnover relate to model railways and what to other things. We don't know how big Hornby International is, and what proportion of Hornby's model railway activity is in HO, N and TT - We don't know the split /share of different gauges/scales within British modelling. (I've been criticised in the past for quoting market shares based on a Model Rail survey - I was told the numbers are worthless. Andy has run a survey on here - but we are quite often told that the RMWeb community isn't representative of the hobby as a whole... ) - We have some idea of turnover for Bachmann Europe and Peco - but quite a bit of Peco's sales may be outside Britain , and we don't have any estimate of that proportion. Some of their sales revenues are magazines and Pecorama - we don't have estimates for that.. Transfer pricing might affect Bachmann Europe's figures - Rapido are primarily manufacturers in the North American market, so we have little idea of the size of their British activity - We have very little idea of the current turnover of anyone else. A certain amount is in N not OO, or in O but we don't have any numbers as to the split... So we are speculating on Unknown Number A (Hornby's OO turnover) as a proportion of Unknown Number B (total UK market) . We are then guessing at Unknown Numbers M, N , O , P, and Q (new entrants' turnover) and what proportion of it is from OO to arrive at Unknown Number X (new entrants' OO revenue). This is followed by a guess as to whether Unknown Number X is a significant size relative to Unknown Number B, and an assertion that Unknown Number X has grown significantly relative to Unknown Number B in recent years. A further assumption is then piled on top of this - that any growth in Unknown Number X has come at the expense of Incumbant 1 /Unknown Number B, rather than Incumbant 2 or 3 , or as a result of growth in the overall market , or as a result of shifts between scales This isn't a commercial costing. The uncertainties make Reading the Tea - leaves look reliable A confident declaration is then made on the basis of this tower of uncertanties that X,Y, and Z are eating Incumbant 1s lunch... RevolutionBen has suggested that there are 70,000 people active in N. That is a figure that most of use find startling to the point of disbelief. In that figure he is assuming a 40% growth over the last 5 years or so, due to media exposure and the pandemic. That too is an extraordinary number. It's been understood for many years that the size of the hobby has been in gentle decline for decades. Even a 10% increase in the size of the hobby over the last 5 years would be a dramatic reversal But for the purposes of this exercise , let's run with a very high estimate of the size of N 5% of 70,000 is 3500. Estimates from carton markings are that Hornby must have already sold at least 2000 of the Scotsman sets. It is reasonable to believe that The Easterner has sold similar numbers, and that people have bought either one or the other as a starter pack, not both. It looks like Hornby have already sold TT:120 sets to over 3500 people, which is more than 5% of the number active in N. Therefore they have their equivalent of 5% of the N gauge market, with 9 months of the year still to go

I think this is a misunderstanding of the situation. A second source of British outline RTR in TT:120 doesn't make Hornby more likely to keep making it. If anything it slightly increases the chance that the project becomes unremunerative and Hornby pull out Hornby have announced such a large programme of new products in TT:120 rolling forward so far that an extra couple of items from someone else isn't going to make a lot of difference . This is as comprehensive as could reasonably be hoped for at the start of a new scale Despite scepticism expressed at the start about whether they would really happen, it's now clear that items into Phases 3/4 are moving into tooling. The initial shipments are selling through. The range and scale is receiving hitherto unimaginable publicity through the television series. A user base/scale community is starting to emerge. It's going to be full steam ahead , all guns blazing, for the next 18 months. Beyond that we can't yet see..... But this does mean there is going to be a userbase/scale community for British outline modelling in 1:120 scale. (Size and character to be determined) . There is going to be a fair amount of tooling for British outline RTR models in TT:120 in existence. And a couple of years' production of actual models out there. That means the genie is out of the bottle. British outline modelling in 1:120 scale will continue in some form, regardless of whether Hornby are able to sustain their British range, and indeed regardless of whether Hornby Hobbies prosper or collapse into administration (and all; scenarios between). The existence of commercial TT on the Continent will help to underpin it now that it is coming into existence We're no longer debating whether British outline modelling in 1:120 scale can exist at all. We've debating what form its future will take. Will it be a largish scale based on construction supported by ready made point work and some mechanisms , as OO9 and 7mm were for some decades? Will it be a small construction-based scale like 3mm? Or a full blooded RTR scale like N and OO? All options are on the table . But if the userbase grows to a decent size and Hornby then drop out, someone on the Continent may well be tempted to dabble,...

Class 66 , Class 92, Class 87, and any type of wagon Freightliner have also used in Eastern Europe. (Hornby have indicated that the delay sending the 66 for tooling was due to sorting out the variations covering Eastern European 66s) This doesn't help steam age modellers, but 08s and J94s might not be completely without interest to the Continental market

If there is some kind of market for British outline TT, then it is likely that one of the players in Continental TT might have a punt on a British model or two . Especially of something that has also run in Eastern Europe. There are a few options for that nowadays. I am very curious who may have been behind Gaugemaster's Expressions of Interest for a Class 66 . My guess was that it was a defensive play by a Continental manfacturer who was trying to block Hornby out of having a TT 66 to see in Eastern Europe by getting there first. Given BritishColombian's comments about Tillig's "proprietorial" attitude to the scale, Tillig are a definite suspect. Piko and Roco are also possible. Hornby's 66 has gone for tooling , and we can be confident it will go into production. So will the IFA - both are being released in E European liveries under the Arnold brand The scenarios are therefore: - TT:120 in Britain prospers and remains in long-term production from Hornby - After a few years Hornby largely drop TT:120 in Britain , but the 66 and some other items including the track remain in the range under the Arnold brand - Hornby go bust . Production stops . Someone buys the Arnold TT tooling (an entirely saleable asset) along with the 66 and any other dual market items , and they go back into production - Hornby go bust. The British TT tooling is lost. Someone on the Continent plugs the obvious gap by releasing their own 66. We know someone out there is already willing to tool up a 66 in TT if there isn't one from Hornby I'm not sure quite why you are so determined that there cannot or should not be any commercial support for this scale in Britain outside Hornby (even to the point of denialism about Peco making TT:120 track for the British market) . But we already know that 2 Continental manufacturers are willing to look at tooling up a British locomotive in TT if it isn't available from Hornby. That is where we should logically look for any other RTR players to emerge. I doubt very much that anyone with a stake in British outline N will go anywhere near this scale for at least a decade. But those manufacturers already in Continental TT may be willing to have a modest punt, if they see some kind of market

Agree. There is resistance/opposition to TT:120 , but it doesn't come from those in 3mm. Look elsewhere for that.... I would see it as a question of cordial fraternal relations between two adjacent scales. There's an interesting and generally speaking supportive letter in the current Mixed Traffic, which arrived last week. (Personally, I think the question of the 3mm Society covering 1:120 scale would only arise in the event that Hornby abandon British outline TT:120 after a few years. At that point there might need to be a lifeboat operation such as the Society was launched to do in 1965 for 3mm after Triang pulled out. But as I've said before, British outline 1:120 scale would always be in a stronger position given the existance of TT as a fully commercial scale on the Continent) Useful to know that the wagon wheel size is more or less standard with the Continent. If we get plastic wagon kits, then that could be a resource. Alternatively Hornby could sell packs of their own wheels - as they do in OO

I'm an inactive member of the 3mm Society . I'm sympathetic to the idea and possibilities of a scale or scale that is significantly smaller than OO but larger than N, and which allows scope for making things yourself without undue difficulty and without requiring every point and chassis to be handbuilt by yours truly. 3mm scale (1:101) is different from 1:120 scale (0.1" /ft). 3mm scale is necessarily a scale in which you need to build stuff yourself, although the kit support available is by far the best for any non-RTR scale, ready-made 12mm gauge points and flexible track have been available from Peco for some years, and some RTR 12mm gauge mechanisms can be sourced from the Continent. 65 years of experience has been that making things in 3mm scale is not much harder than doing so in 4mm, a reasonable level of finesse can be achieved in the scale , and small shunting planks /"operational" terminus /FY layouts have never been seen as an "issue" by anyone It's in that context - donor 12mm mechanisms - that 3SMR stock a small amount of Continental TT RTR. Clearly that also supports anyone in Britain who wants to pursue Continental outline TT TT:120 is being launched as a scale with full RTR support . I believe that any new scale will need to be constructional in its early years because any new venture will always, inevitably, have less RTR /trade support than the incumbent scales . The fundamental question is whether there are possibilities , opportunities or advantages in working at a scale of 1:120, as opposed to other scales you might work to. That is a very different question to "is there more RTR available in X?" (The comment applies as much to 7mm and OO9 as TT:120. For very many years there was no real RTR in those scales. But they developed considerably as scales/gauges based on construction, because they offered possibilities worth exploring) If TT:120 proves inconveniently small to make things for most people, then its potential and its future will be seriously limited. If it proves unsuitable for shunting planks and branch line termini its potential will be seriously restricted. To have a real future, for the foreseeable future this scale needs to be "RTR ++" - that is , a good core of RTR bulked out by constructional modelling accessible to any modeller willing to make a serious attempt at it. From what I can understand, the 3mm Society committee has decided that TT:120 does not represent "an existential threat" to 3mm, and the 3mm Society carries on as before. From what I've seen elsewhere and on here 3mm modellers seem generally supportive rather than hostile to the scale, and the 3mm Society's recent survey has shown that existing 3mm modellers will stay in 3mm (see Chairman's comments in Jan 3mm Society Newsletter) Every scale/gauge needs its oen eco-system of products, traders and support. What is becoming clear is that quite a lot of the constructional support for TT:120 is going to come from parts of the 3mm eco-system: Lincoln Loco , 3SMR , and Worsley Works are all from that world There are two groups who do see TT:120 as a serious threat. It is clearly an alternative to N gauge as a small scale, and some N gauge modellers see it as a potential threat to support for the scale: Comments on TT - Farish thread That's led a few folk to try to counter any suggestions about what could be done in TT with "but you are better off doing it in N!" postings. (For what it's worth - I don't think many committed N gauge modellers will change scale. TT:120 is potentially of interest to those on the margins, who are in N because they don't have soace for 4mm, but feel N doesn't really work for them. The loss of people who wouldn't stick around anyway isn't going to have much effect on N) The other group hostile to the scale are some parts of the retail trade. This is a matter of commercial interest. There doesn't seem to have been any great enthusiasm in the retail trade for the launch of a new scale, and Hornby's decision to sell direct means that some retailers feel that success for TT:120 would open up an existential threat to their own business' survival in other areas. Hence there will be some traders who would like this scale to fail, and who might oppose it. It's getting quite difficult to see a future for TT:120 based on being sold in every model shop up and down the land. Either the scale fails commercially - in which case model shops would never get involved anyway, as there will be nothing to sell, or we end up with a limited number of specialists carrying a deep range of TT:120 and most shops having none. I could see 3SMR as being one of those specialists. (And I think quite a few shop owners , if offered the chance to sell TT:120, will tell Hornby where they can stick it. Because sales will be through the Hornby website initially there will be not much evidence to convince the sceptics that there is genuine demand for it) (A parallel would be the first few decades of DCC , when the hobby in Britain very largely rejected it as a waste of effort. DCC was available from a limited number of specialist retailers such as Mackays Models. Most model shops , if asked , would have told you that DCC was an expensive but pointless product)

We've had two years of the pandemic, and the exhibition circuit is still markedly reduced from what it was in 2019 (No Stevenage, no York, no Railex, no Peterborough last year. And so forth) . A rough count up says my show going has halved compared with pre-pandemic, and I seem to be going to a much higher proportion of the "available opportunities" The survey result may be an accurate reflection of where we are now , as opposed to where we were in the decade before the pandemic

Hornby have said that they are working to NEM310/311 for TT. At this stage (until someone measures something) no reason to disbelieve that. Similarly we presume Peco points are to the same standard (NEM110 in the case of track - 0,9mm - 1.0mm flangeways.) A "finescale" standard for TT:120 using 3mm Society wheels would ideally be matched with handbuilt pointwork to the appropriate matching 3mm Society track standard (12mm Intermediate : 0.9,mm-1.0mm or 12mm Finescale : 0.75mm - 0.85mm. 3mm Soc Technical Note 2 here ) It would therefore appear that "standard" 3mm Society wheels for 12mm Intermediate Standard ought to be fully compatible with NEM110 track to 12mm gauge such as we presume both Hornby and Peco points to be, and they could be used immediately as a resource for builders of locomotives 3mm Finescale wheels would need handbuilt pointwork to preserve full compatibility , though 12 mm track to this standard is known territory, and gauges/support should be available in 3mm scale . The sleepering would obviously need to be adjusted (That said, in OO plenty of people use Gibson/Ultrascale wheels on Peco and waive away the issue . "It works just fine". I don't necessarily recommend it, but people do it) Whether anyone in the future will want to go the whole hog and invent a deadscale P120 standard I don't know. But in the first instance if anyone wants to build their own or refine the wheels/track it seems simplest to run with what's already available "off the shelf" for 12mm gauge in 3mm scale

A 1/72 Fairey Battle , from a vintage Airfix kit, one of four kits in a cheap boxed set Account of construction here Battle 1 Battle 2 . I still need to write up finishing it: the idea of attempting a very simple tarmac diorama to display it is awaiting arrival of a supply of Round Tuits A Cromwell tank (Airfix 1/76) . Bought to bulk up the order for display stands for the Battle : intended to serve as the load for a DOGA Warflat kit at some point.

A fascinating little survival - must be almost 90 years old

There's a small trickle of responses in the "AC / clockwork / live steam /Radio Control" area that look to me like 7mm / G1 coarse scale and outdoors Quite a few of the others really ought to be under the DC, DCC , both categories. R/C and "dead rail" technology is talked about, but there seem to be only a handful of people actively doing it, and it may be that the models are actually large scale. (As far as I'm aware Don Rowland is the only person to have made a serious sustained attempt at r/c on a 4mm finescale layout - or indeed any 4mm layout) "Custom linear motor " sounds rather interesting . Why am I thinking steampunk/Dan Dare??

If you are going to put wagons up against them , there might be an issue. It is also likely that they have been compressed for N But they might do at the back of the layout . It's really quite difficult to say without examining them closely There is however one issue - together they cost £90 , for a moderate sized N gauge industrial structure

The magazines had become very focused on the exhibition scene where layouts were concerned. The fact that Hornby Magazine could run an "innovative" feature called "Layouts that Never Leave Home" points to how far the selection of layouts appearing in the magazines was aligned to layouts appearing at shows. I know that Blacklade would not have appeared in a magazine if it hadn't gone to a particular show Once the pandemic struck, all that switched quite rapidly. Suddenly there were no shows, and after a few months the mags started featuring lockdown projects , which are invariably quite modest- sized home layouts To a degree , that's fashion in publishing, but the fashion is more about switching coverage from "the circuit" to what's happening at home, and we are seeing a different style of layout because that's what is possible at home and exhibition layouts have been more or less off the table for over 2 years... Watching the trains go by may be very popular amongst the exhibition spectators, but I'm not so sure it's what people want when they are building something at home . The branch line became a cliche for a reason This is someone's lockdown project - a small urban terminus in N , very nicely done, seen at Shenfield in September. I think the whole thing including FY is no more than 7' long, and it may be only slightly larger than Carl Arendt's canonical 4 square feet I It isn't about "shunting or constant loco swapping" - which would certainly cover a Minories-style operation, but I'm thinking about the potential for steam age subjects, which are, in this kind of space and to this kind of standard in TT:120 P.S. You may actually be responsible for the whole Boxfile concept in Britain. Certainly I'd never heard of the idea until you floated it as a DOGA competition in 2003 ( 😲) , and I was initially very sceptical that it could be done. Your Melbridge Box Company might be the first practical British Boxfile

It's always easy to be over dramatic, but in some ways the 08 and the wagons are critical items for the development of the scale. I saw the below comment on the last F\arish announcements thread and it's revealing: The chronic housing shortage has now reached a point where for many people a branch line terminus or a shunting plank isn't possible in 4mm without severe compromises. The appearance of "micros" and Boxfiles shows how severe the problem has become I am well aware of the issues: I live in a 2 bedroom flat , and there are serious restrictions on what I can do in 4mm. I'm single, though - many folk are more restricted than me But one way or another N does not seem to be catering for those kind of layouts . Whether it is the standard n gauge coupler , which is said not to be very suitable for shunting, whether it's mechanical concerns/limitations lingering from the old days of Poole-era Farish twenty years ago (when N gauge mechanisms seem to have been quite rubbish), or the small size of steam era wagons in N, or limited availability of RTR N steam in recent times , or whatever ... That kind of layout doesn't seem to happen much in N. N is not challenging OO in this area. Meanwhile space is harder to find than it was in the 1950s, and 15" radius curves are no longer tolerable in OO. The sort of small layouts Cyril Freezer was designing in the 1950s and 60s for those with restricted space are off the table. The classic BLT formula for a small layout has become a struggle in 4mm for many So , if the 08 runs well, and the coupling works well, and the wagons are ok - TT:120 could give many people the chance to create an effective "small layout" in a modest space without crippling compromises. Something which isn't really possible in OO or N for a lot of people at present. The 08 will be the first small loco we see in TT:120. If a sweetly-running Inglenook is possible as "proof of concept" using that , the first wagons , and the standard coupling , then it is "game on" for shunting planks and BLTs in TT:120 (For the sake of clarity, I'm not specifically suggesting Inglenooks in TT. That would simply be a "proof of concept" that shunting puzzle layouts will work nicely in the new scale. Carl Arendt defined a "micro" as 4 square feet or less - say 4' x 1' or 6' x 8". Two boxfiles are 29" x 9". I'm wondering what can be done in TT:120 in such spaces. People don't use N gauge in them. For whatever reason.)

"Norfolk is a county cut off on three sides by the sea, and on the fourth by the LNER"

A branch line terminus , with the fiddle yard behind it on the same board, reached via a curve? That is, a U shaped layout on a solid board? "loop on a single board" is a common enough format in N, with a backscene rather than an operating well screening the fiddle yard. But on the whole N doesn't do branch line termini In a scale 25% larger than N that should still be possible. But the concept of looping the FY behind the scenic section , not off to the side means that the length needed would be slashed . And length required is often the major space constraint. This potentially means reaching across the backscene to handle the fiddle yard. That might be a practical difficulty. However the real awkwardness comes when you have to deal with stuff stuck right under the backscene. If the FY roads are all a few inches behind the backscene this could be much easier to work with. Your board is built , but based on a 330mm curve someone could take the board width down to 75cm/30". That certainly ought to be manageable to reach across, and the larger volume of TT:120 stock as against N (2x volume) would make it easier to handle when reaching over. Given that TT:120 is a smallish scale, the backscene can be relatively low in terms of actual inches - 4"-6" max height a further refinement - there is no real need for the BLT to run strictly parallel to the board front edge. Continue the turn a little, and have it running a little diagonally across the board. And a further effect of this set up - you get quite a lot of depth behind the station. Layouts with backscenes tend to end up as thin strips, but the format I'm suggesting would allow the station to seem set in a deep expanse of space . The 330mm curve equates to 21" in 4mm . A bit tighter than the "accepted scale minimum" for OO buit still not outrageous for a single track branch

It looks like one of the factors that killed TT in Western Europe was that neither the gauge nor the scale were in fact agreed or common ground between the manufacturers. This makes Triang's decision to go with 3mm /12mm rather easier to understand. They weren't being wilfully different, they were picking amongst a spread of existing options However none of that is an issue this time round. We get a clear consistant scale and gauge, the same as every other manufacturer and country, with the track gauge pretty well spot on , and working to a common and coherent standard (NEM310/311)

Scholarly caution is one thing, but as modellers we have to live in the real world on a practical basis. "It is not possible to model the GER before WW1 because we don't know what colour the coaches were" is not a useful practical or sensible statement. Any uncertainties are wildly overstated by it. There is a marked difference between the teak of the Metropolitan coaches in the photos I posted , and the sample panel which Edwardian posted as a sample of "Moulmein teak" . The coaches have an orange/chocolate cast. The panel has a paler less rich look , with what I might call a pinkish shade . I now understand the reasoning behind the paler and somewhat pinkish shade shown in the artwork for the Hattons GE coaches Phoenix are paintmakers , and would naturally want to work from some kind of colour chip. Adrian Marks' reasoning derives the paint colour from the colour of "Moulmein teak" as it is known today - which seems entirely logical if not absolutely precise and watertight Clearly GER "teak" paint is different from LNER teak and brown , and also from the Stratford Brown applied to pre-grouping GE section coaches after 1948 There are colours which are clearly and demonstrably wrong . Dark olive where it should be chocolate , teak printed like a pine grain shelf , and signal yellow where it ought to be BR warning panel yellow. But the worst that can be said about Hattons' choices are "we can't be quite certain that it's right, but it looks not unreasonable" My own slight interest is as the owner of a Hornby 6 wheel LNER all 3rd , who has the intention to acquire a Hattons 6 wheel LNER Brake 3rd and Composite to make up a short train representative of a minor LNER branch in the 1930s (totally out of period for anything else I do , but there you go). I think the Hornby coach will need to be weathered down a bit for such an old coach, and I was contemplating using a wash of Precision Pullman umber for the job , as the paint has no other real use for me... Precision LNER teak dull is a relatively pale shade : (Coaches "understood" to be ex M&GN ...) (I find it is a very useful weathering shade for the coat of brown muck that covers say modern engineers ballast hoppers)

In my case , a 1/48 scale plastic kit for a San Francisco cable car , acquired as a kid in 1981... I think the equivalent for Jimmy Choos is a 7mm brass loco...

And how badly compromised? Both the Bagnall and the 06 are very fat and the 06 has spurious boxes to get round the clips. Hence Hornby should naturally be looking for a boxy side tank to go on the chassis. Still slightly miffed they haven't done a Y4. But B4s exist in preservation and Y4s didn't survive

Cos they are boxy. Saddle tanks like the MR dock tanks done by Ks aren't going to work when we know that there are issues with motor width/fittings You might have got away with a GER Y4 , as that's boxy with big side tanks too. There were some Avonside 0-4-0Ts in S Wales that ended up with the GWR , that I think were fairly boxy side tanks too. And I suppose the Y7s that Rapido are doing are side tanks too But Hornby were never going to do this: The answer is probably that the B4s are the largest most-widespread class of boxy side tank 0-4-0T available..

Make of these what you will - three teak coaches, photographed on the Bluebell in November. Possibly some of the variation may be replacement panels as a result of restoration The Bluebell's ex Metropolitan Chesham set No undertaking is given that these shades match GNR, GER or LNER teak Possibly any colour images of "faux teak" on post war Thompson stock might help , if they exist. Doncaster and York would presumably have tried to get as close to actual LNER teak as they could