Ravenser

The new locos in question are : Class 37 Class 47 J94 57xx Castle class. Class 31 I'm calling them a new announcement because Hornby have announced they are going forward to be produced. Yes they are in the initial brochure, but there has been very widespread scepticism about if and when most of the items in the brochure would actually be produced . Look back at the early pages of this thread and you'll find poster after poster suggesting that TT:120 would never get past the Phase 2 models, that it would be quite a few years before Hornby got as far as those, and the more hardline opponents were expressing extreme scepticism that anything more than the launch range would ever appear. The whole of Phases 3 + 4 were widely dismissed as vapourware or brochureware , and anyone who took any of the Phase 3 + 4 announcements seriously was treated as so obviously naive and unrealistic that their opinion could simply be ignored. Now, just 9 months after the launch we have Hornby stating that 6 locos from Phases 3+4 are going forward for tooling and production . They enter the world of TT-numbers and pre-order off the website (although they haven't yet been added to the Hornby shop) You can't have it both ways . - Either you have to discuss the available range as "everything in the brochure" at which point you have to stop saying "but what can you do with a couple of Gresley Pacifics and an 08?" - Or you accept that Hornby have just announced a near doubling of the locos available in TT:120... For the record , I count as Phase 2 : Class 66 Duchess HST Class 50 Stanier coaches Mk3s KFA wagon MDO 21T TTA HAA It was originally suggested the Phases would each be 6 months , with Phase 1 running to Easter, Phase 2 till October 2023 and so on.. Clearly that has slipped - Phase 1 took about 9 months, which would then imply Phase 2 running until the end of Q1 2024. But I simply don't accept that Hornby are going to leave a gap of over a year without major releases in TT:120 , from the 08 in May 2023 to a next significant release in July -August 2024. Not when we've seen EPs of the Stanier coaches and the HST power cars at Warley , we've seen trial shots of the 50 and we know that the J94 and 57xx just announced in fact went out for tooling 6 months ago

It is noticeable how entirely negative the mood has become. A week or so back Hornby announced 6 new locos for the scale. There has been , in practice, zero reaction on RMWeb to that announcement. That is unprecedented. The frothing over the slightest RTR product or news is notorious. But 6 new RTR locos announced - and not only is there no thread, I doubt if the number of posts on the entire forum mentioning the fact is in double figures. Perhaps our 2024 New Year's Resolution should be to focus on what can be done with TT:120 , rather than how and why TT:120 isn't going to work. A lot of stuff has already been sold - perhaps close to 10,000 Gresley Pacifics, maybe 25,000 Mk1 coaches, perhaps 10,000 Pullmans. Hornby will continue to pump it out for the foreseeable future. There comes a point where there is so much of the material out there that the established hobby cannot simply carry on ostentatiously looking in the other direction. At som,e stage people will start to build model railways in 1:120 scale - just because there is going to be far too much stuff in existence for this initiative to vanish without trace. In the meantime those buying TT:120 are very largely new to the hobby. Maenwhile the scale's penetration in the established hobby is minimal , if that. You could have spent all day at Ally Pally , all day at Railex, and all day at DEMU Showcase (3 very different shows ) and never guessed that there was a 1:120 scale. I've never seen such a divisive situation in the hobby. What precisely is the established hobby going to say to all these newcomers when they bump into us ? "You're not part of the hobby I'm in"??? I hope not.

A ladder on the DB 08 is an unfortunate mistake. I don't think authentic autocouplers is a realistic demand in this or any other scale. The compromises inherent in fitting model railway couplers to models are something we have to live with. Detailed comments on the particular light clusters correct for particular locos at a particular point in their long carrier in a class of 900+ may be pressing detail accuracy beyond what can sensibly be expected The need for the tooling suite for the 66 to cover all varients was cited by SK at the start of the year as a reason why the 66 had only just gone out for tooling. Apparently that includes the European varient, so it does seem they intend to tool up something that can represent more than a "generic 66" For what it's worth , Gaugemaster show what seems to be a photo of an actual DB 08 , anf it does have ladders.Gaugemaster - DB 08. Until someone has one in their hot sticky hand , it is difficult to know where exactly we stand There is in fact a separate thread for the TT 08 (gasp!) here so perhaps detailed comment could be taken there, where it will be easier to find in future

The "issue" may in fact be that you have been using Flieschmann and Kato points , whereas I bought Peco Code 55 because Peco seems to be the norm for British N gauge modellers and I assumed that with Code 55 Streamline I was buying a modern "finerer" track product .It appears I have not. I might speculate that as Kato make both stock and track they might take the trouble to ensure they are compatible, an d perhaps the crossing flangeways are finer than those of Peco . Similarly MOROP's NEM standards do have some weight with Continental RTR manufacturers and therefore the sort of incompatibilities I've described ought not to occur. However the NGS clearly have no interest in the subject, judging by their presentation of two standards drawn up by others, neither of which actually apply to anything. As a result British N is where it is. However the most productive way of taking this particular discussion forward would be for someone to measure the crossing flangeways on Kato Unitrack and Flieschmann Profi points using a feeler gauge, and post the values found on here somewhere. If it is found that both are finer, and more compatible with modern wheels than Peco Streamline then that would be an objective reason for using them on layouts in preference to Peco. (I assume the sleepering isn't much different). Unfortunately I've already laid the track on my project so I'm now committed committed to Peco.. I'm grateful to Roy L S for advising that 7.45mm is an accepted B2B figure among N gauge modellers and pointing me to a source of gauges . I wasn't aware of that supplier, and I rather think I will be doing some business with them. Sadly this info didn't make it into the relevant bit of the NGS Manual. (To pick up one point: current Farish and Dapol wheels aren't to current NMRA profile . The NGS Manual notes that Farish are bitwixt and between and my own measurements confirm it. Most British |n wheels are thicker and have deeper flanges than NMRA profile)

Let's expose the slum that are current (non)-"standards" in N gauge: actual wheel and track dimensions in current British N It is quite untrue that "I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile." When I actually measure them , I can't find any consistancy between wheelsets on N gauge models from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. And as I said in the original posting, none of these wheel sets comply with either of the wheel standards printed in the back of the NGS manual , or with the NEM values The idea that they do is a comfortable but unfounded delusion. And I'm making a song and dance about it in the hope that once the stone is lifted and the creepy crawlies wriggle out something might actually be done to clean up the mess. Which would result in N gauge being rather better than it currently is.. The technical name for the bumping and lurching at pointwork is "drop-in" . It is the result of the gap at the crossing being larger than can be spanned by the wheel tread - which therefore drops into the gap. It is a well-known issue to anyone familiar with wheel and track standards. And since Peco code 55 points date from the late 80s (so I'm advised by a well-known modeller in N) they are engineered to take the very coarse N gauge wheels of the 1980s with a big gap at the crossing. Consequently "drop-in" occurs with all modern N gauge wheels , and especially the much finer profile used by the likes of Revolution. I am certainly seeing this with all stock as it runs across all Peco code 55 pointwork. It is not the result of some "personal negative force-field" of mine : it comes from a fundamental incompatability in the wheel/track interface This sort of thing will do nothing for electrical contact to the wheels of a short-wheelbase loco crossing a point (The ghastly MOROP/NEM bodge traditionally used on the Continent to get round "drop-in" is to make the flanges so deep that the wheelset "grounds" at the point , and runs through the crossing supported on the tips of its flanges, instead of on the wheel tread. Hence the notorious "pizza cutter" flanges on Continental RTR in HO and N) And while we are about it - West Hill Wagon Works sell "Back to Back Gauges for N/OO9" which come with no stated value on the packet. When I measure them, they appear to give a back to back setting of 7.85mm, which is way outside even the current NMRA back to back , that nobody attains on any British N gauge RTR. At that extreme value you will certainly render the check rails on all pointwork completely ineffective , which won't help reliable running either. (That was a couple of quid down the drain at DEMU Showcase...) I'm afraid the "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Move along now, nothing to see here" attitude has not served N well , in allowing this mess to come into being while everyone assures each other "It's all fine, fine, fine" Since Hornby are sticking to the established NEM standards for 12mm gauge, and so are Peco, TT:120 comes with a consistant coherent wheel/track package so that the components of the wheel/track interface actually work properly together. That is a distinct advantage. At the moment I can't do anything myself to try and sort out the issue in N , because I haven't even been able to identify a source of a back to back gauge that complies with any known standard.... (DCC Concepts advertise their N gauge B2B gauge as setting at 7.65mm. That is again outside the latest NMRA value of 7.54mm , never mind the NEM value or the "old" standard of 7.2mm) I can't even set the rolling stock wheels at a correct or sensible back to back value... It is a complete mess

The wheel and track standards are considerably better than N . Firstly , if you use the same code rail in a scale 25% larger, the effect is finer. Ditto the same flange/tread dimensions... Secondly - for the first time ever we have a scale launched with a coherent consistant wheel/track standard. A wheel /track interface that actually works properly. N gauge is a horrible mess in that respect: I can't find much commonality in wheel standards between different items from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. Consequently N gauge bumps and lurches all over the shop. TT:120, with a coherent wheel/track standard should run smoothly We've just had SIX new locomotives for this scale confirmed as moving forward for production , 6 months ahead of the date when I timidly suggested Hornby might announce a couple of new items. And you are arguing that nothing is happening? The page upon page of frothing and politics we'd have had if anyone had announced a new Class 37 in any other scale.... But it's TT:120 , so there's not even a new thread about the announcements

If the Sheringham branch is running , its a short walk between the two stations at Wroxham

Duchesses are being advertised for sale, as are 66s, by Hornby, Gaugemaster, Kernow etc. So I'm expecvting the Duchesses and HSTs before Christmas. I am working on the assumption that the J94, 57xx and 9F are likely to be announced as part of the 2024 range announcement. How much they announce is going forward for production will no doubt depend on how well the Duchesses HST and other TT:120 items sell in the next 6 months. If they do well , then the Castle may join the party, and I think if they do the Castle they have to go for the Collett coaches promised alongside it. A more cautious programme would be 9F, Mk1 SK and two or three more wagons. But the whole of Phase 1 + 2 was announced with R numbers and almost entirely made available for pre-order late last year. Given that it's all been selling strongly I doubt Hornby will wait until the latter part of 2024 or later (a 2 year gap!) to announce a few more items are going forward into production. Q1 2024 deliveries might slip to Q2 2024. But I really think Hornby will announce something extra for TT120 around the New Year

Early this year we were told that two 0-6-0s were then going out for tooling as well as the Class 66 So I'm assuming that they will appear at the same time as the 66 - which I would expect to be Q1 2024 I'm assuming that there will be a "traditional" 2024 range announcement for OO based on stuff already in the development pipeline , even if the new management decide to limit the development of new tooling for OO locos and coaches in future (on the basis that the items being tooled would pretty marginal prospects...) Therefore I assume there will be some "new " TT:120 announcements as part of the 2024 range . These would be confirmation things already listed in the brochure are going ahead into production. Revealing two 0-6-0s are going to be on sale in a few months would make sense as part of that. The 66 and the 57xx and J94 will be the first TT:120 models that Hornby have had to develop from the ground up. They had already done 1:120 Corgi diecasts of Peppercorn A1 , A3 and A4 which must be related to the TT project, so there will have been welll advanced on CAD for Gresley Pacifics. 08s Duchesses, and 50s have all been done in OOin recent times, so the reasearch and a starting point for CAD already exists. But 66, J94, and 57xx are not subjects where Hornby has developed anything before (66 is ex Lima, J94 ex Dapol, and the 1970s Pannier doesn't really count). So it's not surprising they are a little way down the programme

You may want to read this before going down that route: Dodgy Dapol Pannier

looks good, and othr people have been reporting it runs well , so hope yours does too. I notice that - for whatever reason - this is more or less the first seperate thread on here for any of the TT models. (I think there was one short thread related to one of the follow-on sets) That obviously makes finding info about a model easier than hunting through a 235 page general thread for relevant bits

Yes, but you need a 12mm gauge mechanism . Designing a RTR 20 in 1:120 isn't the issue here - it's "what can you stuff under a Lincoln Locos body to power it" I think you will struggle to find an existing 12mm gauge mechanism that you can get into a TT Class 20 bodyshell

ALD (a small outfit) have promised a low-volume RTR 25. But Baby Deltics and 22s also come into the frame. We are as likely to be talking about 1960s era layouts as 1970s-80s... Fitting the mechanism in the narrow body of a 20 will be the issue. Luke Stevens had some challenges shoe-horning a Continental TT mechanism into a Lincoln Locos 33: Lincoln Locos 33 and 35 in TT:120 It may therefore be that a 10' or 10'6" wheelbase mechanism would be more useful . Anyone who wants to stick a cabside yellow diagonal on their Duchess will be relying on Lenny Seeney for AL1-6 for the foreseable future

Code 80 is "necessary" because that is what Tillig TT track is. This Hornby track range has been designed to go head to head with Tillig on the Continent. They want to sell to people who have already started their layout using Tillig. Apparently the geometry is much the same, too Peco's code 55 range is making a different pitch : here is a track that is much finer than the Tillig you've been accustomed to.... The two track ranges are targetted at both Mittel Europa and the British market The large majority of OO modellers still use code 100 , because this newfangled code 75 is dangerously fine for their models. Actually code 75 is no finer than code 100 - indeed as Peco's latest round of tightening up as they retool seems to have started with some code 100 items , code 100 may be finer than code 75.... I'd love to think most OO modellers were now tilting towards code 75. But intermittant helping out on the DOGA stand at a few shows pre-pandemic taught me that most people use code 100, because they want to use that 1980s HST or Scotsman they found up in the loft last year... As a keen supporter of wheel and track standards for OO I wish it were not so.... but that's the reality on the ground And in N the dominant track is Peco Code 80 . So TT:120 starts out with two ranges that are 25% "finer" than N . (reciprocal of the scale difference - Code 55 in N is 5/4 of code 55 in TT) And if Peco not Hornby becomes the dominant track brand - as in every other scale/gauge - then TT track becomes significant better than N "Currently" is misleading here because this is all so new , and the range will develop quickly. Come back in Q1 next year and there will be a "package" of 66 + 08 + airbraked wagons that opens up freight operations of the last 25 years. With a J94/Austerity, 57xx and 21T MDOs , a South Wales colliery could be done - I trust with locos that actually run well enough to make shunting possible ( this piece will explain why you won't be doing that in N..... a loco that ran so poorly would be a cause celebre in OO and it would have no commercial future, But in N... "mind over matter, mind over matter / If you don'r mind, it doesn't matter...") Come to that , if the proposed 37 gets the green light next year, in 18 months the Stationmaster could attempt 1960s S Wales coal operations in TT120.... I think the TT:120 debate will drift in a holding pattern with the same tropes until Q1 next year when things shift significantly . If the 2024 New Year announcement includes a green light for the 9F as Phase 3 starts , then that's a companion for the Gresley Pacifics (ECML) the Duchess (WCML) and even S Wales express power ....🤪

I fear the negativity runs deeper. The thread on the initial announcement by Peco is here: Peco TT 120 thread And inside a week people were appearing in the thread to declare that the product really wasn't for the British market, it wouldn't work , etc etc. Although the opening pages of that thread are a lot more positive than anything generated by the subject since. TT:120 no doubt creates a large supply of additional sticks with which to beat Hornby, but the said sticks are fuel on fire that was already burning. My own view is that as it's happening and Hornby have jumped in boots and all, the hobby ought to make the very best use of it we can , and see what benefits we can get out of the whole thing. But overall reaction in the hobby (not just here) has been pretty negative , and quite a few people seem to want to close the whole thing down fast and hard. That was happening before Hornby broke cover

It's not in the brochure. And there were plenty of MR 0-6-0s and 0-6-0Ts that shared that basic chassis

There are practical reasons why I think its one of the more high-risk choices (and why I think Phase 2 will be a stiffer task to sell than Phase 1) Consider: Class 50 - 50 locos. Class 31 - 261 locos , Class 37 - 309 locos , Class 47 - 500+ locos. Class 08 - over 1000 locos Class 08 - introduced 1953, scores still in commercial service in 2023 (70 years and counting..) Class 31 - introduced 1957, two still in network service in 2020 (63 years and counting..) Class 37 - introduced 1961, a number still on the network in 2023 (62 years and counting..) Class 47 - introduced 1963 , quite a few still on the network in 2020 and I assume still today. (60 years and counting) Class 50 - introduced 1967, withdrawn 1994 (no more than 27 years) The 50s served on the northern part of the WCML - but they didn't arrive until after the Duchesses had gone (they just overlapped with 9Fs, which surely will be in the next tranche of models to go for tooling) Otherwise it ran on the WR from the mid 70s to the early 90s All the others ran alongside all the major classes of Pacifics. And also alongside IET and HST and 66s And because there were so many of them , they got around most of the network That is why I reckon the 50 is a higher risk choice (The Duchess is higher-risk than A3s and A4s , because Gresley Pacifics are mutually reinforcing. You buy an A3 , then you buy an A4 to go with it. Then, for an authentic fleet, you buy two more A3s and another A4... There were 201 LNER designed Pacifics - but only 38 LMS ones. 4-6-0s were the backbone of LMS express services but Hornby have only ever done a Black 5 and an unrebuilt Patriot -the latter, last century. The Duchess is more exposed until they get down to the Black 5 late in Phase 4 )

You are watching how TT:120 will develop as a scale ... 3D printing and laser-cut are extremely powerful techologies for producing highly detailed accurate stuff without tooling in very small numbers. And they are readily accessible and plenty of people can do them for you. A big bonus - they are readily rescaleable TT:120 has to be a constructional scale in its early years . Every new scale has to be, in its early stages. But 3D prints , lasercut and downloadable buildings are going to produce far better results , with much much easier construction , than the whitemetal kits other scales had to rely on in their formative years. And its not about "avoiding paying Hornby 20 quid", it's about getting all the things that Hornby unavoidably haven't made (yet) . Want a BR vent van (or an LMS or LNER one) ? VDA? Lincoln Locos have a huge range of 3D printed loco bodies/bogies/underframes in 3mm and Lenny Seeney is making them all available on request in TT:120. There was someone on a Facebook group with ten steam engines in TT:120 under construction from Lincoln Locos 3D printed range (It's worth pointing out that he hasn't managed to get the TT:120 logo onto a lot of pages where the model is actually available in 1:120 - the Britannia , Hymek and 33 are all known to be available in TT:120 but not marked... ) You are documenting the fact that people new to the hobby are already showing that (some of them) are willing to have a go at this

Those two posts pull in opposite directions.... Firstly , any new type 5 loco is immediately jumped on . Bachmann are doing the 69s, Revolution the 93s, Dapol did the 68s.. This is almost the only source of new subjects with meaningful sales potential . All of these have got to be a lot more promising than a Newton Chambers car carrier (And licencing excluides you facing duplication) The problem is multiple units. Bachmann can't be bothered reviving their well regarded Voyagers . Nobody feels like doing a 120. Hornby tweaked their 4-VEP, but otherwise its almost a decade since anyone did a new 4 car EMU in 4mm I think? Once you get into long high-speed EMUS it's even more difficult and Hornby are the only people with a serious track record in the field. The Stationmaster questions whether any of these models made commercial sense. I share the doubt about whether Simon Kohler was wise to give the dreamers of the DJM threads their heart's desire at the expense of Hornby's tooling budget by doing an APT. But I do have to take note that the demand seems to be there for them to have done a second run, even if coaches from the first run have ended up in the bargain bin, This is more than anyone would dare to do for the hapless Hornby D16/3 - a model for which nobody had a word of criticism when it came out (It's just that nobody actually wanted to buy one). Rapido seem to have got away with their APT-E as well. We obviously don't know the commercial results of these models. But Hornby aim them at the trainset market - they've had a " modern high speed train" set ijn the range for about 40 years. The Pendolino filled that slot for a number of years and has now been displaced by the IET. The Pendolino was explicitly not a "full-fat" model, although it was pretty respectable and vastly better than Dapol's short-lived botch. Hornby also did seperate coaches to allow you to build up a full length rake , and enough people wanted to do it for an extended debate about how far the motor bogie was up to the job (Someone I knew had a full length set , and we threw it around the abortive club project at speed a few times with my Voyager in the other direction, so I can confirm the motor bogie would do the job on the flat) . Given the sales in sets this one ought to have washed its face , and probably the same applies to the IET which ought to have a long life in the trainset market. The Eurostar was done after sales of the Joeuf HO one suggested there was a market , and Hornby did not do more than a single intermediate coach pack. You had to resort to etches from Hurst for that. It appeared in sets and train packs over some years in two liveries The APT certainly and possibly the Eurostar and maybe even the Pendolino may fall into a category along with things like Tornado, Duke of Gloucester and the W1 : exotic subjects done to Railroad standard to keep down the cost , which probasbly cover their costs but don't have much re-run potential and may not generate a big return . The IET , since it is in use on much of the network, is a better bet and it's not surprising Hornby have pencilled it in for TT:120 But the fact Hornby have kept a "modern high-speed trainset" in their set range for 40 years points to these things being a commercial success

However - for the last 9 months Hornby haven't really needed sales and support from the wider established hobby. They've sold everything they've made in very short order, largely to people who are new to the hobby. They don't actually need more folk to jump into the TT:120 product range at this point - they are struggling to to meet existing demand. And - disconcerting as it is to us long-standing committed modellers - when Hornby said at the start they weren't aiming this scale at existing modellers , they were targetting people not already in the hobby, they very clearly meant it. To a large extent they have delivered, too. Even though extreme scepticism was widely expressed in the hobby about whether TT:120 could ever attract any significant number of newbies There is also the awkward fact that for the last quarter of a century chucking rocks online at development pictures of new RTR diesel locomotives has been an important part of the hobby for quite a few in D+E.. Since membership of the club was free if you signed up in the first 3 months most existing modellers with a serious interest in the possibilities of the new scale will have signed up and will be able to see the pictures. If you aren't a member of the club it's very unlikely that you have any intention of buying a model of a Class 50 in 1:120 scale in the next 2 years. Why expose the model to the whole circus of sustained and systematic online abuse when basically none of those lining up to lay into it or otherwise comment would ever have bought one? (or indeed any TT:120 model). [I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with the model. Perfectly decent new 4mm models of diesels have had rocks chucked at them for decades. It's a recognised sport] Look at this another way - Bachmann have moved to a policy of only announcing new models when they are on the point of release. That cuts out the whole business of seeing EPs in glass cases, CAD renders, animated months-long debates online about whether they've got the X wrong... Bachmann seem to have come to the view that the whole thing was a liability rather than an asset, and they would be better off simply saying "Here you are . Brand new model . Buy it now", not making every new model run a years' long gauntlet of online abuse. Apparently this is working fine for them The real purpose of these development shots of the TT:120 Class 50 is rather different. They send the message , loud and clear , that the TT Class 50 is definitely for real and actual models will be available to buy in the near future. Given the scepticism about whether many of the models Hornby announced would ever see the light of day , that's necessary for Margate to do. The number of people who have wandered into this thread announcing that Hornby have got the range all wrong and they should have made an X ... - only for someone to point out that Hornby did in fact announce an X as part of Phase 2/3/4 in their original programme, isn't funny. It stems from the extreme negativity about the original announcement which led to most posters dismissing anything announced for Phases 3/4 as pure vaporware not to be taken seriously , and anything in Phase 2 as very much open to doubt as to whether it would actually be produced. People simply didn't bother reading the list of models announced. Phase 2 is happening, all of it , in the next 9 months: the question now is what we get from Phases 3+4 and when At some point, Hornby will need all the sales and all the potential market they can drum up for TT:120, from every source. And I happen to think the Class 50 is one of the riskier models in the range. But right now Hornby don't actually need the wider established hobby to shift the product, and in the short term the risks from exposing it to a very hostile environment probably outweigh any possible boost to sales. Afterall you can't sell more than 100% of production... It's a very disconcerting situation. So far Hornby have been able to sell ev erything they can make in 1:120 scale without bothering to market it to existing railway modellers at all.

Railway Modeller has arrived and it lists 5 retailers for TT-120: - Gaugemaster - Frizinghall - Bure Valley Models - Cheltenham Model Centre - Chester Model Centre Kernow are additional to that list, and confirmed. Peters Spares are to carry spares. Its interesting that a couple of smaller shops are willing to be TT:120 specialists This is all very like the way the "new entrants" operate : start with direct sales, then open the product out to a small number of retailers . It is "the Australian business model" (which evolved in part because there really aren't that many model shops in your average state. Sydney runs to about 3 - Bergs, Casula and Hobbyco) The new entrants have been seen as highly successful and I've not seen any suggestion that their limited subset of retailers, taking a modest proportion of total sales , is holding back their market penetration Hornby have accidentally copied another part of the "Australian model" , which is sales by direct pre-order and the model being made once the orders are in - because the stuff sells straight through on arrival and people are effectively pushed into pre-ordering what they want as there is very limited stock on the shelf. The distribution strategy also mirrors the way niche scales and products are usually marketed. DCC , in its first 20 years when it was dismissed and disregarded by the bulk of the hobby here, was sold through a small number of specialist retailers, often 1 per brand I have a feeling that getting Phase 2 sold out may require more heavy lifting than Phase 1 did - sales as individual items may take more work than selling the starter sets. Hence a good point at which to bring in a small number of retailers - many of them boxshifters with nationwide reach

I(t's rather difficult to prove that they've modelled an orc or a Paladin incorrectly

If the platforms had fouled the stock , then you would not have worn a groove in anything: the coach would have come off with a jolt and a bang. The normal rule is to check clearances using the longest vehicle you possess. DMUs may well be 57' underframe units (low-density DMUs normally were) . therefore if a Mk1 at 64' goes round you should be fine with a DMU Quite a few platforms in days gone by were below standard height, so it is arguable that you have simply modelled an example

Given that the Continental TT market under the Arnoldf brand will be a very important part of the total sales for the , it pretty well has to be compatible with Tillig, the dominant brand in Continental TT . Certainly I've heard that the geometry of Hornby's trackwork is closely based on Tillig . This means that people buying Arnold TT stock no longer have to go down the road to Tillig to get track to run it on...

I believe it was announced but never actually made?