Size Comparison Photos between TT 1:120 and other scales: Standard Gauge and Narrow Gauge

[Hobby]

I put this on the Peco announcement thread but it's probably more suited to this part of the forum. A question many people have asked is how does 1:120 scale stuff relate to other scales in size. We can put scale drawings up but I feel it's better to use photos of actual models. I took this one quite a few years ago and it's not the best of shots (the two black locos on the left fade into each other, but I can't do it again as some of the stock has been sold.

 

 

L-R: 0e (0 scale NG), H0 SG, H0m, H0e, TT SG, TTe, N SG, Z SG.

[47606odin]

Perhaps keeping to Std gauge would have been better than mixing up std and narrow gauge

[Hobby]

At the time the photo was taken this development hadn't happened. Anyhow it was taken to show how NG related to SG and scale. I'm sure others will come along shortly with photos that will meet your standards, sorry mine didn't!

[Nile]

Originally posted in the Peco topic , here are mine.

 

N (148) and TT:120 (Corgi)

 

N(148) - TT:120 - TT-3 - OO

[Vanguard 5374]

A rather good phot from Flickr showing 1/43, 1/76, 1/120 and 1/150

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/acstudio/26607703513

 

[F-UnitMad]

On 17/06/2022 at 22:35, Nile said:

Originally posted in the Peco topic , here are mine.

 

N (148) and TT:120 (Corgi)

 

N(148) - TT:120 - TT-3 - OO

For me these are the most useful photos I've seen yet. 

Personally I think I would be more tempted to 'dabble' in TT if it was 3mm scale on 14.2 or whatever track; there is more difference from N than TT120, but still smaller than OO. I suppose Peco have an eye on international sales of their track by adopting TT120, and Heljan are backing this up with the Class 31. 

It would only be a 'dabble' in my case as I'm committed to US & UK O Scales, but I do like modelling just outside the 'mainstream'. I have "been there & done that" with N, OO & HO, no going back to those. The recent boom in UK O is driving it perilously close to being mainstream nowadays, which is a bit frightening!! I think I'm still very safe with US 2-rail O, which is a very small niche even in the USA, let alone here!!

[Vanguard 5374]

On 18/06/2022 at 08:11, Vanguard 5374 said:

A rather good phot from Flickr showing 1/43, 1/76, 1/120 and 1/150

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/acstudio/26607703513

 

 

Apologies for it being a render rather than physical models, however I feel doing a similar photo shows the difference in scale.

 

 

Left to Right: 1/76 00, 1/87 H0, 1/101.3 TT3, 1/120 TT and 1/148 British N

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Vanguard 5374 said:

 

Apologies for it being a render rather than physical models, however I feel doing a similar photo shows the difference in scale.

 

 

Left to Right: 1/76 00, 1/87 H0, 1/101.3 TT3, 1/120 TT and 1/148 British N

That is a really helpful picture, thank you - to me it shows clearly a logical sequence in the ‘British’ scales from 1:76 OO to 1:101.3 3mm Scale and then to 1:148 British N, and demonstrates very well how 3mm scale fits neatly in the middle.

 

If you were to add a sixth rendering for 1:160 Continental N Scale then I suspect the second sequence: 1:87 HO to TT:120 to 1:160 Continental N would also have TT:120 neatly in the middle too, and with the advantage of the correct scale / gauge combination and commonality between the UK and overseas models in the these three scales, set against lack of commercial support - which UK TT:120 can start to change.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[britishcolumbian]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I suspect the second sequence: 1:87 HO to TT:120 to 1:160 Continental N would also have TT:120 neatly in the middle too

It is indeed! When the Vancouver TT modular group sets up for public shows, we have a little display piece demonstrating this using three 40' boxcars side-by-side. It never fails to draw positive comments about what a great size it is.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A couple of photos of the Auhagen Bahnhof Moorbach kit I’ve bought to try out TT:120 for size.  The comparator is an unfinished OO Gauge Ratio GW Station kit I started a couple of years ago (504, based on Castle Cary):

 

 

 

My first impression is that this looks great - a noticeable / significant size saving over the OO, yet without being too small.

 

My second thought however is to wonder if I’ve stuck the right hand barge board on to the end of the Ratio roof properly in the top photo - I’d not noticed that before (I don’t think it’s actually as badly aligned as the camera makes it appear!)

 

Back to the comparison: how the smaller components for the TT:120 kit such as doors and windows compare to OO:

 

 

Interestingly, to me the doors and windows for the TT:120 kit don’t seem that much smaller than the ones in the OO building.  It could be the particular model of course, but in terms of modelling, the individual components don’t look too small or fiddly.

 

As someone brand new to this scale, my initial feeling on seeing TT:120 next to OO for the first time in person is one of great excitement - I can see why experienced TT:120 modellers (Europe / US) and 3mm Scale modellers believe it’s ideal for modelling, and for layout-building.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[rodshaw]

For a door which is 78in. high, or 6ft 6in, height in 1:120 should be about 16.5mm.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

59 minutes ago, rodshaw said:

For a door which is 78in. high, or 6ft 6in, height in 1:120 should be about 16.5mm.

 

Agreed.  I didn’t have a ruler with me earlier, but have been and measured the doors as follows that confirms the sizes seem correct:

 

The Auhagen TT:120 toilet door is about 17.5mm, which is approx 6’10”

 

 

The Station Building doors are a bit bigger - around 21mm (equivalent of 8’3” which is suitable for a more imposing entrance):

 

 

The Ratio OO kit has doors about 26mm tall = 6’6” in 4mm Scale, which is spot on for a standard door in a secondary station (the window above is extra, so the total doorway is nearer 33mm or 8’3”).

 

 

People will be noticeably different in size: a 6’ tall person should be 24mm in OO (21mm in HO), but only 15.24mm in 1:120.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Vanguard 5374]

On 24/06/2022 at 07:05, Keith Addenbrooke said:

That is a really helpful picture, thank you - to me it shows clearly a logical sequence in the ‘British’ scales from 1:76 OO to 1:101.3 3mm Scale and then to 1:148 British N, and demonstrates very well how 3mm scale fits neatly in the middle.

 

If you were to add a sixth rendering for 1:160 Continental N Scale then I suspect the second sequence: 1:87 HO to TT:120 to 1:160 Continental N would also have TT:120 neatly in the middle too, and with the advantage of the correct scale / gauge combination and commonality between the UK and overseas models in the these three scales, set against lack of commercial support - which UK TT:120 can start to change.

 

Put a few more scales in, all of which are 5mm and below. TT120 is in the middle, Lime Green.

 

 

L-R: 1/64, 1/76, 1/87, 1/101.3, 1/120, 1/148, 1/160, 1/220 and 1/450.

[rodshaw]

Two figures, one HO 1:87 and one TT 1:120, both Preiser. The HO one is 22mm high, the TT one 15.5mm.

The HO one would be about a scale 6ft 3in. high, and the TT one would be just over 6ft. 1in.

By comparison the red door is about 17mm high.

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by rodshaw

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’ve acquired a couple of Tillig TT coaches.  There are some photos on my own Moorbach thread, but I also took a few comparison shots for here.  Unfortunately I don’t have OO rolling stock to use in photos, so the comparator is my Metcalfe GW Signal Box.  The first photo uses 12mm gauge Peco Code 75 H0m track (Peco Code 55 TT:120 will have finer rails and smaller sleepers):

 

 

The size difference is particularly noticeable as these are very long European Mainline Coaches.  

 

In these next three shots, the front / right hand track has been swapped for 16.5mm Peco Streamline Code 100 OO / HO track, so the red Speisewagen is sitting inside the rails:

 

 

 

 

The Touropa Coach looks a bit narrow, but this will be partly down to the H0m sleepers on the 12mm track - it’s not TT:120.  It may also be partly the effect of decades of looking at wide-to-gauge OO r-t-r coaches on the right hand track as well of course.

 

 What I’m trying to get is a feel for how TT:120 compares to OO.  A final overhead shot to show the width of the coaches (a 3.15m or 10’4” loading gauge scales down to 26.25mm):

 

 

Hope this helps, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

More new stuff - a couple of road vehicles, shown here next to some basic OO Hornby / Oxford Diecast models:

 

 

The Multicar is by Reifra, and the VW van by Epoche.

 

 

The size difference is obvious, so much so that I got a ruler to check the heights - the roof of the VW van is about 6’ above the ground (a bit over 15mm in TT:120).

 

The point was made early on in the discussion about TT:120 that it is closer in scale to British N (1:148) than other mainstream scales.  Pictures such as these comparing TT:120 to OO (1:76) bear this out.  

 

From what I’ve seen so far I don’t think there’ll be much difference in terms of track layout space needed compared to H0m, which also runs on 12mm track (recommended minimum radius for Bemo H0m is 330mm), but I think scenery and lineside parts of a layout will breathe much more easily, and that will help the overall effect.  We shall see, Keith.

[Vanguard 5374]

Amazing to see the difference between 1/101.3 and 1/120.

 

 

The Triang chassis is from my 5.5mm scale modelling so will remain with that scale for my modelling. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A couple of comparisons between a Tillig TT:120 German DBAG Br 101 Class Overhead Electric (Bo-Bo) and narrow gauge H0 locomotives - my apologies to those for whom these comparators aren’t particularly informative, but I don’t have any UK OO or N to use, sorry:

 

1.  TT:120 in front of H0e (a Ferro-Train 2095 Class diesel):

 

 

2.  And a height comparison with a Bemo H0m HGe 4/4’’ Furka-Oberalp locomotive (also a Bo-Bo):

 

 

 

Pantographs on Swiss Metre Gauge lines can be quite high, as overhead wires may be at the same height as for larger standard gauge locomotives (standard gauge wagons then also have room to ride on narrow gauge rollwagons).

 

The HGe 4/4’’ was an incredible model fitted with (just visible) working rack gear under the bogies, but was sold when I divested my H0m to fund more H0e (and now my TT:120 too).  For me, these comparators are very helpful, as I used Continental H0 Narrow Gauge to base my expectations of size for larger prototype / smaller scale Standard Gauge TT:120.  The difference is there, but it’s not too much, and the level of detail on the TT:120 locomotive holds its own next to the H0.  They’re all equally weighty models, Keith.

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Clarification

[rodshaw]

Here are some photos from the first ever layout I built back in 2000, with a mixture of TT3 and continental 1:120 stock. The thing that strikes me looking at them now is that, because of the larger continental loading gauge, they are very similar in size.

Obviously this won't apply to the new smaller British 1:120.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Someone planning their first layout in a new scale for them to model in has commented elsewhere on RMweb that they weren’t used to the relative sizes of rolling stock, which is useful to know when working out siding lengths and run-round loops.

 

@Vanguard 5374’s colour CAD renderings above are informative, and include scales from S to T, but for layout planning purposes I thought it might also help to compare some measurements.  With that in mind, I drew a simple diagram for a standard 57’ length UK coach, which I have as a comfortable 9” in OO (excl. couplings):

 

 

(Please do double check my maths)

 

TT:120 was of course the only one I could work out** (at least in inches) without a calculator 🙂.  The space saving with TT:120 over OO is again clear, wile those who have commented that TT:120 is not that much bigger than UK N have a fair point too, although I think there is enough of a difference for TT:120 to have more of a presence in three-dimensions (as well as the accurate gauge).

 

As a scale devised in the US and modelled most extensively in Europe, TT:120’s mid-point between HO and International N (1:160)* makes sense, each being approximately three-quarters of the scale above in size (measured in just one-dimension):

 

 

As an aside, what struck me as interesting, which I’d not noticed before, is the relationship between TT:120 and Z, which compares almost exactly with that between HO and International N (1:160), less than 0.2% different (again, in one dimension):

 

 

For completeness Z is 72.7% of N (1:160).  Hope this helps, Keith.

__________

* Japan uses 1:150 for N, which is also the scale Kato use for their Swiss RhB Nm9 product range.

 

** Edit: I’ve since realised why 57’ is a tidy 9” in OO: as 57 is three-quarters of 76 so 57/76 = 9/12.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
(extra maths)

[Hobby]

When comparing scales I feel that its "volume" that makes the difference rather than lengths. Look at the photos of the locos which show the bulk of the various models. An easy one to see is to compare an N scale building alongside an 00 one, they are massively different, TT comes in the middle so has the best of both worlds.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

When comparing scales I feel that its "volume" that makes the difference rather than lengths. Look at the photos of the locos which show the bulk of the various models. An easy one to see is to compare an N scale building alongside an 00 one, they are massively different, TT comes in the middle so has the best of both worlds.

Agreed - certainly when it comes to “presence”, which can also be a bit subjective. TT:120 may be 72.5% of the length of HO, but that is only 38.1% of the volume (.725 x .725 x .725).  Similarly, N (1:160) is only 42.2% of the volume of TT:120, so clearly smaller.

 

Using these same international ratios, N has only 16.1% of the volume of HO, which is why it seems so much smaller, and why there is room for something in-between.
 

When track planning using pencil and paper or a Computer programme however lines and lengths can also be useful, which is what my diagrams are intended to assist with - I should have made the link with my opening sentence clearer.  Keith.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Vanguard 5374]

Decided to dig out some Tomix items I had purchased for 009 conversion, they’re stated to be larger than normal N gauge models so here is a wagon alongside a Tillig wagon chassis. Not too far out but the rolling stock would need new chassis*, have taken the Percy model apart to see if I can alter the gauge by 3mm and will be trying the same with the Thomas model. Not exactly prototypical but the chassis may be of use for smaller prototypes or just a bit of fun on a layout.

 

 

 

 

* - I am drawing up some replacement printable chassis for these models for Tillig wheels, and will place the files on Thingiverse when complete. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Vanguard 5374

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’ve explained before that an attraction of TT:120 for me is it is similar in size to the H0e / H0m I’m used to.  When I compared locomotives in these sizes above (4th July post), I noted this comparator won’t work for everyone, but as I’ve had a chance to make up trains of matching lengths, here they are just in case it helps.  TT:120 is the lower / nearer train:

 

 

 

 

(Track is Code 80 Peco 009 / H0e 9mm gauge and Code 75 Peco H0m 12mm gauge, which is standing in for TT:120 for now).

 

It’d be nice to get some matching TT coaches in time, but these will do for now.  Each piece of track is a standard yard length.  The TT coaches are the full 86’ long, and being narrower as well as longer than the H0e coaches will overhang more on tighter curves, so I’ll need some wide mouthed tunnels.  On the other hand, getting the bogies on the rails is a lot easier.

 

I also took a couple of photos of the Br 101 next to a 40’ HOn30 Combine I scratchbuilt last year (when I had more modelling time).  I share them here as the two vehicles are almost the same size:

 

 

 

Hope this helps.  Stay safe and have a good week if you can, Keith.

[rodshaw]

Another aspect of size is, of course, the overall area you'll need for a layout. When I first got into railway modelling and was trying to decide whether to go for OO, TT3 or N, the width I'd need for a continuous run was the deciding factor. I discarded N as too fiddly and worked out that I could make a double-track layout with sidings and a passing loop in TT 12mm gauge on a baseboard 5ft by 2ft 8in. in size:

My posting on 8 July shows the result, using 3mm Society track. I'd have needed at least 6ft by 4ft in OO, an increase in area of 60 percent which wouldn't have fitted comfortably into the limited space I had, crammed in between a freezer and storage shelves.

(The layout is pretty crude to my eyes now, being mostly Triang and Bilteezi, but might be a nice idea for modern 1:120 stock and the new building kits around the corner).