What locomotives and rolling stock should be produced first?

[eldomtom2]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Forget traditional kits for TT:120. However using a Shapeways printed bodyshell on a RTR chassis is quite practical. Back in the day when OO loco ranges were pretty limited, white metal kits were a popular way of expanding the range. 3D printed body shells is just the 21st century equivalent

Yes, but remember 3D printing isn't that popular in other scales.

[Mike Storey]

I am beginning to miss the point / lose the plot here. If one wanted a much "bigger" layout in the restricted space available, one could simply choose N gauge, if one's eyesight could manage it. If one wanted something more detailed, or something you could actually see with older eyes, and accepted the space restrictions, then 00 (or EM or P4) is the obvious course.

 

What does TT:120 bring? The difference to N gauge (at 1:148) for eyesight issues, is marginal, and the space saved also pretty marginal - or am I wrong?

 

I note the eager froth lists, but just who will buy this scale, and why?

 

[andythenorth]

2 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

I note the eager froth lists, but just who will buy this scale, and why?

 

People who want something that isn't OO, N, O, Z, 3mm, 5.5mm, gauge 1, LGB, HO, or Lego trains? 😜

[Mike Storey]

6 minutes ago, andythenorth said:

 

People who want something that isn't OO, N, O, Z, 3mm, 5.5mm, gauge 1, LGB, HO, or Lego trains? 😜

 

You forgot 32 mm. Unforgiveable.

 

[newbryford]

Is there mileage in an enterprising manufacturer making a motorised 8'/8'6" 0-6-0 chassis with 4'7"-5'0" wheels and letting the 3D guys do their stuff?

Maybe including a set of "bolt-on" weights to the chassis?

[britishcolumbian]

21 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

I am beginning to miss the point / lose the plot here. If one wanted a much "bigger" layout in the restricted space available, one could simply choose N gauge, if one's eyesight could manage it. If one wanted something more detailed, or something you could actually see with older eyes, and accepted the space restrictions, then 00 (or EM or P4) is the obvious course.

 

What does TT:120 bring? The difference to N gauge (at 1:148) for eyesight issues, is marginal, and the space saved also pretty marginal - or am I wrong?

 

I note the eager froth lists, but just who will buy this scale, and why?

 

For my part the lack of actually to-scale RTR British equipment is literally the only reason I've never actually bought any.

 

On paper the difference does seem marginal even between TT and N 1:160, but in physical reality the difference is very noticeable, especially if you put them side by side; our TT scale modular club here in Vancouver has a display piece with three 40' boxcars side by side, one HO, one TT, and one N, and being almost bang-on halfway between the other two, the TT is immediately noticeably different. At 56' 9" long a Class 31 will be 5.675" in 1:120, in 1:148 it's 4.6" - that's a full inch.

 

Your first paragraph answers its own question, though: TT will deliver for those who want *both* detail and space-usage.

[Ravenser]

54 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

I am beginning to miss the point / lose the plot here. If one wanted a much "bigger" layout in the restricted space available, one could simply choose N gauge, if one's eyesight could manage it. If one wanted something more detailed, or something you could actually see with older eyes, and accepted the space restrictions, then 00 (or EM or P4) is the obvious course.

 

What does TT:120 bring? The difference to N gauge (at 1:148) for eyesight issues, is marginal, and the space saved also pretty marginal - or am I wrong?

 

I note the eager froth lists, but just who will buy this scale, and why?

 

 

People who want a layout in a footprint between 1' x 4' and 8' x 2', but aren't prepared to build their own pointwork and chassis

 

The "cameo" or "diorama" layout is a popular genre , especially in finecales. But it still requires space in 4mm.

 

Railway Modeller published a famous plan by Roy Link , the Art of Compromise . It was 6' x 1' , and depicted the most minimal GW terminus . But it would still have required 18" extra for a fiddle yard. That's 7'6" length for the most vestigal 4mm branch terminus. 

 

The interest in micros (under 4 square feet) and boxfiles signals a real desire for layouts in very small spaces . But in 4mm it requires extreme compression

 

But somehow N gauge doesn't quite cut it with that kind of small layout. People don't build shunting planks and "loop and 2 sidings" termini in N. Your "if their eyesight could manage it"  is critical. So is manual dexterity. There seems a general view that making things in N is just a bit too difficult for 90% of ordinary mortals

 

Running in N is distinctly poorer than 4mm. The coupler is felt not to be good for shunting. N has a reputation for being rather coarse and a little basic. The classic N gauge layout is a continous circuit on a door. In practice, N seems to be a gauge for doing mainline subhects in a medium sized space

 

So the concept is - take the 4mm finescale cameo layout , and do it in a smaller scale than 4mm. But a larger scale than N - because we know it won;'t work in N. 

 

1:120 has twice the volume of N . That could be critical when it comes to achieving good running . You can do a reasonable big diesel RTR in N. But things like a Buckjumper, a Terrier or an M7 are much more of a struggle. Twice the volume means twice the mass and a bigger, more responsive motor. And DCC gets a lot easier

 

The popularity of things like Hornby's Peckett and Sentinel, the Dapol B4, the Hattons Barclay and P - and above all the Hornby Ruston 48DS points to a real demand for small prototypes in small spaces. So does the takeoff of RTR OO9

 

Think a standard  gauge loco with the volume and mass of a Bachmann OO9 Baldwin...

 

Put another way - I live in a 2 bedroom flat. Blacklade is an extremely compressed terminus , that just about manages a loco + 2 coaches or a 3 car DMU. I'm proud of what I've achieved - but at 8'6 long it blocks up the entire living room when I put it up

 

6' x 1' would be far more comfortable. But I can't do that much with it in 4mm

 

6 x 1 in TT-120 equates to 10' x  20" in 4mm . You can do things with that.

 

"RTR finescale in modest spaces" is the concept here. This is not about coarse scale 2-8-0s : a deadscale track gauge won't allow that

 

P.S, The photo of Foxcote Colliery in the front page advert is what I'm driving at. It's 2mm finescale - but 2mm finescale is way too difficult for most of us. That kind of finesse, that kind of subject - but supported by RTR, in a somewhat larger scale

Edited June 17, 2022 by Ravenser

[rmnik]

A bit left field but how about some LT A60/A62 stock. They may not be widespread but where they did go there were a lot of people.
They will even play nicely with the 31.

[Moria15]

27 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

6' x 1' would be far more comfortable. But I can't do that much with it in 4mm

 

6 x 1 in TT-120 equates to 10' x  20" in 4mm . You can do things with that.

 

"RTR finescale in modest spaces" is the concept here. This is not about coarse scale 2-8-0s : a deadscale track gauge won't allow that

 

 

 

Agree..  as per the Heljan and Peco tagline..  no compromise..  ie the first RTR scale/gauge where the track is the right width under the models.

 

For those of us used to modelling in N gauge, that extra inch on a class 31 can mean an awful lot, especially when you get into DCC, sound and stay alives :) 

 

don't forget..  CJ Freezers origional plan for Minories was for TT..  I just looked up the origional plans and it was for 60" x 8"  excluding fiddle yard.

 

Main line terminus, almost made for Class 31's in 5 foot length :)

 

Graham

[Flying Pig]

26 minutes ago, Moria15 said:

..  as per the Heljan and Peco tagline..  no compromise..

 

I think people are getting carried away with that slogan.  Unless you go dead scale (and Peco's points are not) there will need to be some compromises.  

[DCB]

2 hours ago, newbryford said:

Is there mileage in an enterprising manufacturer making a motorised 8'/8'6" 0-6-0 chassis with 4'7"-5'0" wheels and letting the 3D guys do their stuff?

Maybe including a set of "bolt-on" weights to the chassis?

Probably not.  Triang 00 went for 8ft + 8ft 3" which is perfect for a GWR King,  Right for the back end of a 57XX pannier and the front of Midland 1F/2F/3F/4F Fpwler 2-6-2T etc  Good British compromise, suits 0.1% of the population.

 

If going for 1:120 scale the Austerity 0-6-0   and 2-8-0,  SR USA 0-6-0T and class 08 and 66 sound like no brainers as they ran in France.  WW2 saw many Dean Goods left in France to amuse the Wehrmacht , and a 4575 ran in Poland in the 2000s so they may well sell to existing 1:120 modellers.   

Conversely continental 1:120 stock won't run on UK TT layouts as its much too high and wide whereas UK 1:100 TT generally run on Continental 1:120 layouts.
I suspect the dead hand of the focus group and associated consultants here...

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

Yes, but does that actually indicate any sort of deliberate strategy on the part of the manufacturers to focus on building up the GWR?

 

I suspect the answer is yes.

 

No matter what you are modeling you want appropriate items to go with it, and that inherently means when creating a new market picking a prototype and sticking with it.

 

Sticking with the GWR gives multiple options for a layout - whether an engine facility or the "typical GWR branchline terminus" that a single GWR engine doesn't offer.  Which means increased sales.  Which the people running the businesses will likely be aware of.

 

As a possible counterpoint, Rapido North America's struggles with their Canadian steam loco program - in part (based on comments online) because of the lack of passenger and freight cars to go with it.

 

4 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

That depends on your personal modelling philosophy. From one perspective all that is needed is one loco and the necessary stock to form an appropriate train.

 

If that is what makes one happy then great, but for much of the market variety is key hence the fact that so many of us own far more locos than can really be justified.

 

4 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

People keep saying this but I don't believe it's a practical course of action. Sure you can produce bodyshells and do the actual physical production for the end customer, but that still leaves them with the time-consuming and often fiddly process of painting, transfers, etc. Shapeways etc. have 3D prints available for everything imaginable - but there really isn't that much uptake there; there's a fair bit, of course, but it by no means has made RTR or traditonal kits obsolete.

 

This I agree with.  3D printing has it's place but it isn't for the majority of people, just like kits aren't.  Most of us simply don't have the skills to do a proper job of painting and finishing, and more importantly don't have the time to develop those skills if we actually want to build and run/play with a layout.

[britishcolumbian]

51 minutes ago, DCB said:

If going for 1:120 scale the Austerity 0-6-0   and 2-8-0,  SR USA 0-6-0T and class 08 and 66 sound like no brainers as they ran in France.  WW2 saw many Dean Goods left in France to amuse the Wehrmacht , and a 4575 ran in Poland in the 2000s so they may well sell to existing 1:120 modellers.   

 

The 08 can have further appeal since it would interest the handful of TT scalers in Denmark and the Netherlands and Australia. As for steam a USATC S160 would appeal on the Continent since scores of them were used in Hungary and elsewhere. 

[eldomtom2]

6 hours ago, mdvle said:

I suspect the answer is yes.

 

No matter what you are modeling you want appropriate items to go with it, and that inherently means when creating a new market picking a prototype and sticking with it.

 

Sticking with the GWR gives multiple options for a layout - whether an engine facility or the "typical GWR branchline terminus" that a single GWR engine doesn't offer.  Which means increased sales.  Which the people running the businesses will likely be aware of.

But they have not stuck with the GWR. They have produced many non-GWR items as well. They have produced "enough" GWR items, from one perspective, but they certainly haven't gone all-in on one region.

[F-UnitMad]

4 minutes ago, Tim Dubya said:

Forgive the dumb question (I know nothing about diseasels) but did the 31's ever run on ex GWR metals at all?  

 

I have a copy of a photo on the Internet of 31 415, then allocated to Old Oak Common, on ECS duties at Paddington, circa 1979. It was carrying a white stripe like the 31/4s allocated to Finsbury Park did at that time, too. 

[Flying Pig]

7 minutes ago, Tim Dubya said:

Forgive the dumb question (I know nothing about diseasels) but did the 31's ever run on ex GWR metals at all?  

 

 

Yes - I think there's some discussion in the Heljan 31 thread.

 

9 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

The 08 can have further appeal since it would interest the handful of TT scalers in Denmark and the Netherlands and Australia. 

 

As has been pointed out on one of the other threads, the 08 was similar to but noticeably different from the earlier EE 350hp locos that ran in those countries (as well as in the UK).

[newbryford]

2 hours ago, Tim Dubya said:

Thanks guys, I have now engaged my brian and according to Wikipedia:

 

"Locos were also allocated to Bristol Bath Road and Old Oak Common on the Western Region, where they could be found working passenger trains as far west as Barnstaple and Paignton."

 

So you GWR guys need some coaching stock and you're away for passenger services👍

 

 

 

 

Check the time periods when 31s were allocated to the WR.

It's likely that GWR passenger coaching stock may have been few and far between by then - if at all.

[britishcolumbian]

17 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

Yes, but remember 3D printing isn't that popular in other scales.

 

But it's getting there. There's one small-series manufacturer in Hungary specialising in building kits and miscellaneous other details for scenery (transformer boxes, rubbish bins, etc) that uses 3D printing extensively; for some things they use 3D printing to make the masters for casting/moulding in resin or other thermoplastics (I can't recall off the top of my head which plastic in specific but can look it up if you'd like), for other things including one-off/custom pieces they sell you the 3D print directly. I got from them amongst other things a kit of the station at Leányvár, the parts of which are cast/moulded; the distinctively Hungarian neon-light station name sign is a 3D print (since they'll produce such signs on demand for any real or fictitious station). Certain other things are also 3D printed, e.g. statues of Kossuth or a Turul (a bird from Hungarian mythology). Their extensive use of 3D printing makes it possible for them to do something quite popular with modellers in Hungary: they'll make a kit for you of any building in Hungary *at retail cost*, i.e. they don't charge you for the CAD work, they just add it to their catalogue.

 

I think this approach would serve someone very well in serving the British 1:120 scene, too.

[eldomtom2]

Yes, but that's all a very different thing to claims about potential paradigm shifts in locomotive production.

[whart57]

This is an example of what is possible in 3mm scale, TT:120 won't be much different

 

 

The basis here is a loco body and tender created by Sparkshot and marketed through Shapeways. OK, perhaps I can be described as an experienced and competent modeller but the hardest modifications were the rods I'd made for my own back because I wanted a Sharp Stewart single rather than a 2-4-0. This is driven by a motor bogie in the tender but as I've said elsewhere, if RTR chassis are sold separately and there is documentation for designers to make body shells that clear the works and use existing mounting clips and screws, then 3D printing is a perfectly viable way of expanding the range of locos relatively quickly. It's the fettling to make things fit that requires most skill, and carries the most risk

 

Oh, and btw, though this loco is for a British themed layout and the prototype builder was Sharp Stewart, the prototype itself ran on the Netherlands Rhine Railway from Amsterdam to Arnhem and the German (at the time Prussian) border.

[eldomtom2]

Yes, you find assembling, painting, lining, etc. a 3D print easy. I would say most modellers - the one who primarily buy RTR at least, which is probably most of them - do not.

[britishcolumbian]

30 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Yes, but that's all a very different thing to claims about potential paradigm shifts in locomotive production.

We didn't go from the Wright Flyer directly to Concorde with nothing in between, did we. Put in that scale, we're at the Gloster Meteor right now... it *will* get there in our hobby, too - Lockheed are 3D printing parts for the F-35 after all, that level of tech will reach us hobbyists soon enough.

[eldomtom2]

6 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said:

We didn't go from the Wright Flyer directly to Concorde with nothing in between, did we. Put in that scale, we're at the Gloster Meteor right now... it *will* get there in our hobby, too - Lockheed are 3D printing parts for the F-35 after all, that level of tech will reach us hobbyists soon enough.

It's not about how good the 3D prints are. 3D printers can't paint or line - that's outsite their remit.

[britishcolumbian]

1 minute ago, eldomtom2 said:

It's not about how good the 3D prints are. 3D printers can't paint or line - that's outsite their remit.

Aha, I see what you're getting at... but 3D printing doesn't mean the end user need get a kit, a manufacturer can just as well use it as a step in the process of producing truly RTR equipment - one that will make things easier (and cheaper!) to produce more variety of stock since it eliminates the need for expensive tooling that eventually wears out. We may not be quite there yet, but we're proceeding apace.

[Moria15]

20 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

It's not about how good the 3D prints are. 3D printers can't paint or line - that's outsite their remit.

Actually, that's not quite true.

 

The new generation of full colour 3D printers actually can print in full colour down to a resoultion of 0.2mm.  Whilst currently, they are a little outside the price range of the home enthusiast, it won't be long, as we saw with the move from black and white home printers to full colour printers some years ago.

 

A couple of years ago, the multicolour 3D printer was developed...  now we have printers like the Mimaki 3DUJ553 which uses a technique to blend resin and ink to achieve a max number of over 10 million colours knoown as a full colour printer.  This was released in 2017 and is currently around $200,000...   however, there are other options now, down to aout $30,000  and the price is decreasing.

 

I would say give it a couple of years :)

 

Graham

Edited June 18, 2022 by Moria15