When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[Golden Fleece 30]

That is very interesting Rod, adapting the Airfix crane to TT so something to look out for.

 

I wonder what finescale was at the time.

 

I remember my father buying the Castle when it first came out with maroon coaches as he had recently bought the Jinty set which was regularly set up on the table top as was intended. 

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

The January 1958 Railway Modeller featured another TT-3 layout, the Harlesden and West Dulwich Railway by R. D. Dimmock, with liberal use of Bilteezi buildings. It was described on the front page as 'A fine-scale TT-3 railway'. The track was hand-built and the article says, 'What has been proved...is that all TT wheels (with the exception of Rokal) will work on fine-scale track laid to prototype principles'. There is a diagram showing the standards to use.

 

The same issue announced the release of the Tri-ang TT Windsor Castle, with an ad pricing it at 49/6 for the loco and 6/5 for the tender. According to an inflation calcuator this would be about £62 today for both.

 

June 1962 had a feature on adapting an Airfix breakdown crane for TT.

 

Interesting that the magazine called layouts 'systems' then.

 

Doesn't "fine-scale" track involve 14.2mm gauge?  

 

Before getting my coat , I assume it actually refers to the 00 standards adopted by Tri-ang  for TT-3 (roughly their steam roller 00 wheels scaled down to 75%). Luckily this was adopted by all manufacturers so everything would run together. (Rokal wouldn't count as their models were to TT-25 anyway.)

[rockershovel]

Outside third rail?

 

TT25?

[Il Grifone]

Originally TT was 2.5mm to the foot scale for Continental prortotypes* (Rokal**). The restricted British loading gauge problem was solved by Tri-ang adopting 3mm to the foot. To avoid confusion one was labelled TT-25 (IIRC the decimal point was dropped for convenience) and the other TT-3.

 

* Probably actually some numerical ratio (1:120 or 1:125?), but always so quoted in the UK.

 

** Predated Tri-ang AFAIK and there may be other makes (Wesa?). My introduction to TT was Tri-ang and I know very little about the history of the scale before this.

 

EDIT

 

1:120, 1/10" = 1 foot

Edited August 1, 2017 by Il Grifone

[5050]

'Scale' in this sense probably means that the pointwork was built with 'proper' wing rails and fixed 'vee' rather than the 'Universal' moving wing rails beloved of Wrenn and others.

 

The Dudley Dimmock layout was possibly built to advertise his company (Taylor and McKenna? or similar*, a large London area retailer anyway) who were pushing TT3 at the time.  I remember the layout being a bit 'sparse' as if it was still only part built although, for the time, it was quite impressive.

 

*EDIT - it was Howell Dimmock not as I said above.  The clue is in the name!!

Edited August 1, 2017 by 5050

[Il Grifone]

I've just remembered the first time I heard of Rokal was in a Peco 'Shows you how' leaflet on using TT for 00 3 foot narrow gauge (1959 IIRC). They had built a saddle tank ('Mouse') on a Rokal chassis.

 

IIRC it was included in an issue of RM in which the 'Layout of the Month' was a Welsh narrow gauge (Milwehr & Lleni? - it was a long time ago). The author employed various electronic devices. Thermal delay devices for station stops (I bought one of these, but never used it) and dismantled selenium bridge rectifiers to make diodes. One use of the latter was on buffer stops - the locomotive would stop before the buffers  and then could be reversed out. I thought this was a great idea, but didn't realise that it would only work with 3 rail with the locomotives one way round.

 

EDIT

 

Curiosity led me to Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TT_scale

 

http://www.ttscale.com/w-history.htm

Edited August 1, 2017 by Il Grifone

[rodshaw]

Doesn't "fine-scale" track involve 14.2mm gauge?  

 

Before getting my coat , I assume it actually refers to the 00 standards adopted by Tri-ang  for TT-3 (roughly their steam roller 00 wheels scaled down to 75%). Luckily this was adopted by all manufacturers so everything would run together. (Rokal wouldn't count as their models were to TT-25 anyway.)

 

The article does say these standards are identical to the OO gauge ones 'except for the matter of gauge'. Back-to-back is 10mm, flange depth 0.75, wheel thickness 2.5, flange thickness 0.5, wing rail gap 1.5 and check rail gap 1.25.

 

It also keeps mentioning a company or brand called Hub, who manufactured track bases, wire & tube etc., and the layout is referred to as a Hub layout.

[rodshaw]

'Scale' in this sense probably means that the pointwork was built with 'proper' wing rails and fixed 'vee' rather than the 'Universal' moving wing rails beloved of Wrenn and others.

 

The Dudley Dimmock layout was possibly built to advertise his company (Taylor and McKenna? or similar*, a large London area retailer anyway) who were pushing TT3 at the time.  I remember the layout being a bit 'sparse' as if it was still only part built although, for the time, it was quite impressive.

 

*EDIT - it was Howell Dimmock not as I said above.  The clue is in the name!!

 

It was built by one R. D. Dimmock and exhibited by Taylor & McKenna.

[Barry O]

Leeds MRS built layouts in a hybrid scale of between 2.5 and 3mm to the foot in the mid 1950s including a model of Conway (complete with Castle) .

 

This was before the start of commercial TT3 sales

 

Baz

[5050]

It was built by one R. D. Dimmock and exhibited by Taylor & McKenna.

So I was right then in the first post!.  I was only going by memory and it's a long time since I read the article.  The Howell Dimmock company must have been later perhaps? 

 

The 'HUB' branding appears in the T&M adverts and on some of their own branded products I think.  I've never been able to translate it into any meaningful way relating to the company.

 

Dudley Dimmock wrote several articles on point building over the years.  Some of his methods would, these days, possibly raise a few eyebrows?

[sagaguy]

It was built by one R. D. Dimmock and exhibited by Taylor & McKenna.

It was Dudley Dimmock,Howell Dimmock was a model shop in Lordship Lane,Tottenham,N.London.He was in partnership with Chris Howell who later had a model shop on the corner of Bruce Grove & Lordship lane,Tottenham.I met Dudley in the shop in the 1970s,being born & worked in Tottenham until i moved in 1985,they were two really good shops.Last i heard of Dudley,he was the manager of Bassett Lowkes shop in High Holborn,London.I also think he worked for Graham Farish,Poole as well at some point.

 

                  Ray.

[Golden Fleece 30]

Had a lovely day today meeting and making friends with a member then being able to obtain these items. 3 of these locos, Royal Scot, whitemetal BEC Brush 4 and WR King, I had not got so really pleased that now I think I only require an LNWR 4-6-0 to have a full set of kit locos from the "good old days" while Tri-ang TT was still alive and kicking.  The track is very nice but as it is slightly different to Peco with sleeper spacing I will be using it in the goods yard and fiddle yard.

 

Garry

[NCB]

Originally TT was 2.5mm to the foot scale for Continental prortotypes* (Rokal**). The restricted British loading gauge problem was solved by Tri-ang adopting 3mm to the foot. To avoid confusion one was labelled TT-25 (IIRC the decimal point was dropped for convenience) and the other TT-3.

 

* Probably actually some numerical ratio (1:120 or 1:125?), but always so quoted in the UK.

 

** Predated Tri-ang AFAIK and there may be other makes (Wesa?). My introduction to TT was Tri-ang and I know very little about the history of the scale before this.

 

EDIT

 

1:120, 1/10" = 1 foot

 

Never heard of TT-25. International TT (1:120) seems always to have been known simply as TT. It originated in the US with Hal Joyce and his company HP Products which was formed in 1945. TT stood for Table Top railway. Rokal started a couple of years later,  and from there the Eastern Europe TT companies developed. Some individuals were building TT layouts in this country before Triang got started with TT-3; they largely scratch-built their own components, including wheels.

 

Re the reference to "fine-scale" above, think it was to do with the use of hand-built track with rail soldered to copper-clad sleepers, which looked rather more realistic than the Triang product. Some 3mm/ft modellers currently use 12mm gauge finescale track and standards, which is essentially near-scale code 60 bullhead rail, using soldered construction or plastic chairs, as with 14.2mm gauge but built to the narrower gauge. Done well it's hard to tell it's a narrower gauge.

[BernardTPM]

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing TT-2¹/₂ used in some early 1960s publications.

[Il Grifone]

           It was a British thing to avoid confusion. The rest of the world had no need (for them TT was 1:120) and for Britain TT(3) meant Tri-ang and 3mm to the foot. I did see a suggestion of using ⅛" to the foot for Irish broad gauge prototypes, (on 00 track IIRC, but using Tri-ang stock - an N.C.C. Jinty).

 

 

EDIT.

The strange line up of the page appears to be a programme glitch.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Il Grifone

[rodshaw]

There is a theory that multiple universes exist, some possibly like our own but with subtle differences. In one of these universes, imagine TT did become the next big thing and eclipsed OO. There would be lots of RTR TT on sale from Hornby and Bachmann, discounted by Hattons, and OO would be a niche market reserved for those who think TT is too easy or too small. There would be a 4mm society with a membership of about 1000, and a retailer called 4SMR.

 

Then there would be another universe where N was eclipsed by TT instead, and another where OO, TT and N all have about 33% of the market each.

 

And there would be bound to be at least one universe where 3mm scale is the norm, and another where 2.5mm or 1:120 caught on instead.

[Golden Fleece 30]

I have now received four of the Railway Modellers mentioned regarding TT layouts and they make some interesting reading. One of them also had a second TT layout in it which was quite a nice set up too.

 

What was interesting regarding the Lydney layout is that it was mentioned that a 2-10-0 and a 14xx had been scratchbuilt by BEC themselves. These are two locos never made by BEC although GEM did manufacture the 14xx at one time.

 

Although not TT another interesting item was a 5 way scratchbuilt point, now that is something I would like to see in operation.

 

Garry

Edited August 4, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[detheridge]

Had a lovely day today meeting and making friends with a member then being able to obtain these items. 3 of these locos, Royal Scot, whitemetal BEC Brush 4 and WR King, I had not got so really pleased that now I think I only require an LNWR 4-6-0 to have a full set of kit locos from the "good old days" while Tri-ang TT was still alive and kicking.  The track is very nice but as it is slightly different to Peco with sleeper spacing I will be using it in the goods yard and fiddle yard.

 

Garry

Hi Garry,

Interesting to see the A4 chassis with a K's Mark 2 motor rather than the standard Triang motor, an XT60 IIRC. Likewise the 0-6-0 chassis where the X03 (is that the right term? - standard motor anyway) has been replaced with an XT60. Any idea why the previous owner did this? The K's Mark 2 is a terrific beast, and will pull a house with a lump of whitemetal on top of it. Gem used it to power their 5.5mm narrow gauge locos, of which I have a lot!

 

Regard,

 

David.

[Il Grifone]

The 0-6-0 chassis had its own motor of dinky dimensions. I would think with the extra space inside a J50 and the weight of the white metal body, it was thought something a bit beefier was advisable. I imagine the result is almost unstoppable.

 

K's motors are much maligned. All the examples I have run very smoothly. The HP2M is possibly an exception. I have one somewhere, which appears to run OK, but I have never fitted it to anything. I believe latterly they supplied it in all their kits, but would think it would struggle with one of their larger locomotives.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Golden Fleece 30]

Hi Garry,

Interesting to see the A4 chassis with a K's Mark 2 motor rather than the standard Triang motor, an XT60 IIRC. Likewise the 0-6-0 chassis where the X03 (is that the right term? - standard motor anyway) has been replaced with an XT60. Any idea why the previous owner did this? The K's Mark 2 is a terrific beast, and will pull a house with a lump of whitemetal on top of it. Gem used it to power their 5.5mm narrow gauge locos, of which I have a lot!

 

Regard,

 

David.

Hi David,

 

I have no idea about the locos etc as they were a charity organisation sale but whoever did it and built the locos was skilled.

 

The K's motor has whitemetal castings attached to it to enable it to be used on a TT Britannia/M.Navy so it most likely will not be the only one to look like this, K's must have designed the castings for regular use.  This motor looks unused.

 

The XT60 in the Jinty chassis I guess was to try something different as the standard motor (not XO3 as far as I know) would be strong enough with a whitemetal body on it, my others are.    The Jinty/Castle motor may not have a designated number as it was not a complete motor unit.  The bearing end plates were held in the chassis by small lugs with the armature/commutator a separate piece.  It is fitted with possibly a slower gear ratio as there is a large fine pitch gearwheel added.

 

I did fit an XT60 to a Castle chassis in the 70's as seen here.

 

Garry

[APOLLO]

A nice little handbook worth having is this one by mike Bryant.

 

 

Brit15

[Golden Fleece 30]

The 0-6-0 chassis had its own motor of dinky dimensions. I would think with the extra space inside a J50 and the weight of the white metal body, it was thought something a bit beefier was advisable. I imagine the result is almost unstoppable.

 

K's motors are much maligned. All the examples I have run very smoothly. The HP2M is possibly an exception. I have one somewhere, which appears to run OK, but i have never fitted it to anything. I believe latterly they supplied it in all their kits, but would think it would struggle with one of their larger locomotives.

Hi David,

 

I always liked the K's motors having had a few in 00 locos a long, long time ago and in a scratchbuilt chassis I made, I never had any issues with any apart from the later ones, HP2M? that had a plastic frame and bearings.  Those were terrible from day one with the shaft not spinning true before any gears etc were fitted.

 

The Jinty chassis motors are quite strong especially with the whitemetal bodies fitted.  Similar to a K's bodyline on a Dublo R1 chassis.  The only issue is the pole piece width making it very limited to what it will fit, even Tri-ang made their Castle with a flat sided firebox shape instead of the Belpaire one but for tanks its a good little chassis to use.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

A nice little handbook worth having is this one by mike Bryant.

 

 

Brit15

I thought I had bought one a couple of months ago then realised mine was the Edward Beal one so still looking for this.

 

Garry

Edited August 5, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[APOLLO]

Seems to be one on Amazon Garry, used one for £2 + P/P

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Modelling-TT3-Mike-Bryant/dp/B071H98B3X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

Brit15

[detheridge]

These two are rather terrific as well. The Rolling stock in TT3 book gives lots of options for converting stock, while the 1962 edition of 'New Developments' has a whole chapter on TT including conversion of the Kitmaster Royal Scot, and cutting down Bilteezi OO buildings for TT purposes. MRN featured his TT West Midland layout in two editions in 1965.

Edited August 4, 2017 by detheridge