How will TT:120 differentiate itself from N, OO and 3mm scale?

[Nearholmer]

Good point.

 

I thought that, within the constraints of physics, which will always be against it, N had ‘got there’ in terms of running, but I bow to your knowledge that says it hasn’t.

[Revolution Ben]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

You have left out a key element - running.

 

In my limited experience...

 

Hi there,

 

Well, quite.  More recent N models (Farish 08, NGS Hunslet) offer very fine running in 0-6-0 mechanisms.  I can't speak for any 0-4-0 mechanisms because I do not have any.

 

Although large Co-Co locomotives do run well in N some of the more modern units transfer power through the train which also helps with running.  Axle pin-point pick-ups (fitted to Kato models 20 years ago, and now commonplace) improve running significantly.

 

For the last decade nearly all N powered models have been supplied with DCC sockets and speakers factory fitted.   The improvements offered by DCC are, IMO, particularly useful in N.

 

00 certainly has the advantage of mass, but improvements in pick-ups and refinements such as stay-alives and better electronics have significantly improved the performance in N in recent years.

 

But of course I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

And as has been said, having nearly twice the mass *should* ensure TT:120 every opportunity to perform better than N.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Revolution Ben

[andythenorth]

On 29/07/2022 at 11:24, Revolution Ben said:

 

…I was able to look at a continental TT Bo-bo electric loco by, I think, Tillig.  When I actually handled it and set it down to admire I was struck by how much physicaly larger it seemed than N; I had been expecting the difference to appear more marginal.

Same conclusion with the TT Roco BR 132 Ludmilla I posted in the other thread. 🙂 
 

But the Ludmilla is huge IRL, wondering if the Heljan 31 I've ordered will have the same sense of presence….? Time will tell 😉

Edited July 30, 2022 by andythenorth

[whart57]

22 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That point about G1 and G2 pre-WW1 has to be understood in the context of how people used those gauges at the time. If we now think G1, we might think 10ft minimum radius curves, but as 231G will know from that magazine some users then were building what we would now call 

train-sets, using 2ft of 3ft radius curves, so could get a circuit and a few sidings into a room maybe 10ft of 12ft square. There are innumerable requests from readers for details of how to accurately signal such cramped layouts too - they took signalling far more seriously than curve radii.

 

More likely than not they were laying the rails on the floor rather than having a dedicated baseboard. A generation later you had Hornby Gauge 0 tinplate track which definitely was designed to be laid down and then taken up.

 

I don't think the lady of the house would tolerate meths fired steamers in the living room either - out in the garden with them!

[britishcolumbian]

Here's a like-with-like comparison of a different sort. The locomotive is 1:120 scale 63' (approx), the coach is 1:150 scale 65' (approx).

 

[Railpassion]

Here's German N, Piko TT and Hornby OO 

Old photo so excuse the quality 

[Jeff Smith]

People get used to whatever scale/gauge they are working in.  It's interesting to compare relative sizes, my O-16.4 Glyn Valley stock equates in size with short wheelbase 4mm stock.  By the same approximate comparison a TT120 Pannier would probably be similar in size to the larger OO9 locos.

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

More likely than not they were laying the rails on the floor rather than having a dedicated baseboard. A generation later you had Hornby Gauge 0 tinplate track which definitely was designed to be laid down and then taken up.

 

I don't think the lady of the house would tolerate meths fired steamers in the living room either - out in the garden with them!

Mostly no. Hornby Gauge 0 tinplate was undoubtedly in the toy train leagues but though in 1909 there were some tinplate layouts laid on the floor or temporarily on the dining room table (presumably rather grander dining room tabels than would be found in most homes now!) most of the  layouts featured in Model Railways were recoginsably model railways, laid out on baseboards and as often as not with the track ballasted and often fully signalled - sometimes with interlocked frames. 

Here are two examples. The first in 2" gauge using live steam  with three externally fired steam locos,  a geared tank loco a "standard (I assume Basset-Lowke) Lady of the Lake" and a Great Eastern 4-4-0 The latter looking to be a reaosnable scale model. The layout was fully signalled though Mr. Franklin admitted that he had not yet fully interlocked it 

I suppose that in 2" gauge a 4ft 6in radius curve is not too horrendous but the second layout, a clockwork driven 0 gauge affair has very right curves. There's no scale on the drawing and the spurs off the TT appear ro be rather longer than the plan suggests but the curve does follow closely round the perimeter of the "Bristol" stabling point. From the limited photos the locos - though not scale models were certainly not toys  The track was tinplatre and the curves absurdly sharp by our standards. Nevertherless the layout was fully signalled with points and signals operated bt rodding and wires  and operated in as authentic a manner as possible.  

[Nearholmer]

Box Tunnel looks suspiciously as if it might be a box.

 

Mr Smart became the first secretary of The MRC, so he was a serious modeller by the standards of the day. More personally, he was somehow related to my Great Grandfather, possibly an uncle, or maybe a cousin, I’m not sure. My GG was also a Smart, and an absolutely super-skilled model-engineer, who built telescopes and some excellent long-case clocks, as well as steam road locomotives.

[whart57]

I don't disagree that there were permanent layouts built by enthusiasts but I doubt that was the norm. It isn't really today either that the majority of railway modellers have a permanent set up at home. 

[PaulRhB]

On 19/06/2022 at 22:03, whart57 said:

 

I wrote one article but it was never presented for publication, partly because I didn't want to do all the designs myself. However the sort of spaces we considered were:

• The "third" bedroom, a room 7' x 5' or slightly larger
• A living room shelf, up to 12' long but only 12" wide
• A fold up layout made of two 3'6" x 18" boards plus a 30" long fiddle yard. Something this size would fit in the boot space of most cars for taking down to a club for working on

In all these cases it would be hard to fit in a 00 layout without frustration. The smaller scale is quite doable though. Maybe something for another topic?

 

On 19/06/2022 at 22:17, Nearholmer said:

Struck me earlier that many CJF style small BLTs, designed to cram the most possible into a small space in 00, could be built to exactly the same dimensions, and would look far better, in TT (3mm or 2.5mm). The change down scale would allow everything to breath a bit, and details like trap points, which tend to get squeezed out, could be included.

A similar approach to that I took with 009 might work. Modules designed to easily fit in the car or box together and stand in a corner 4ft tall but only 1ftx1ft base for those two plus the corner board living on top of a cupboard. 
 

 

It can stay up in the corner of the room for a few days without getting in the way. The left hand one is 8” wide by 3ft 8” and the one on the right 1ft wide and the same length. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by PaulRhB

[Nearholmer]

Ah, yes, that’s exactly why I’m interested in this TT120 thing.
 

I’ve got just under 8ft long by 16” wide bookshelves, about 1200mm tall (enjoy the mix of units!) upon which things can sit permanently, and a further c6ft along the same wall which can be occupied by layout temporarily (that bit needs to be packed away after playing). Currently has a bonkers-tiny coarse-0 photo plank layout on it, but I do sometimes hanker after snorting a bit of fine-scale, and having done 009, H0e, and 014 to death in the past, this potentially appeals in a way that N doesn’t.

[whart57]

Aaaahhhh, Billy bookcases .........

 

It's a shame there isn't an easy modification to those IKEA standards that would create a space for a small layout.

[PaulRhB]

11 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Aaaahhhh, Billy bookcases .........

 

It's a shame there isn't an easy modification to those IKEA standards that would create a space for a small layout.

Stack three on their sides should leave a waist height shelf 😆 The 5x3 shelf version on its side makes a useful height shelf. 

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, whart57 said:

I don't disagree that there were permanent layouts built by enthusiasts but I doubt that was the norm. It isn't really today either that the majority of railway modellers have a permanent set up at home. 

 

The vast majority of modellers who don't have a permanent home layout either have a portable layout or layouts, or else belong to a club and look to the club to provide them with a layout on which to run their stock. Or else they are armchair modellers with aspirations, collecting boxed stuff for the future project and going to shows/ posting on forums.

 

In my own case , I have two small portable layouts, and have started building a third using the boards from another project that stalled years ago. I don't have a "permanent set up at home" but I'm certainly not laying out track on the carpet. My sspirations tend much more towards the finescale terminus /fiddle yard layout than to the trainset oval

 

I'm increasingly suspecting I'm just the sort of person TT-120 is intended to appeal to

Edited July 31, 2022 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

On 30/07/2022 at 00:51, Revolution Ben said:

 

Hi there,

 

Well, quite.  More recent N models (Farish 08, NGS Hunslet) offer very fine running in 0-6-0 mechanisms.  I can't speak for any 0-4-0 mechanisms because I do not have any.

 

Although large Co-Co locomotives do run well in N some of the more modern units transfer power through the train which also helps with running.  Axle pin-point pick-ups (fitted to Kato models 20 years ago, and now commonplace) improve running significantly.

 

For the last decade nearly all N powered models have been supplied with DCC sockets and speakers factory fitted.   The improvements offered by DCC are, IMO, particularly useful in N.

 

00 certainly has the advantage of mass, but improvements in pick-ups and refinements such as stay-alives and better electronics have significantly improved the performance in N in recent years.

 

But of course I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

And as has been said, having nearly twice the mass *should* ensure TT:120 every opportunity to perform better than N.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

 

I think I should probably reply in detail to make it clear I'm not in any way stirring.

 

I have been a 4mm modeller all my life. Come to that, a OO modeller. I was briefly flirting with a possible 3mm project about 20 years ago - but I got dragged into a club project and active membership of a society so nothing ever happened

 

However about 15 years ago , my then employer had a loco named, and by various twists and turns I ended up with two Dapol 66/5s and an FEA twin set for nowt. A 57 out of the local model shop's closing down sale and an 04 shunter plus a few modern wagons were intended to support some kind of minimal space layout probably based on a distribution park railhead. This never crystalised into an actual plan for an actual space, and the stuff has sat in a drawer, being taken out occasionally and given a run (yes I do oil the Dapol locos first!)

 

In the last year I've stumbled over a plan and subject that work, and which it seems I can do , making used of the stored N gauge bits N gauge wagon repair works   

 

And I've actually gone for it and started work building it, though progress is painfully slow Construction starts

 

I fully accept that after a near-death experience around 2000 when Farish production at Poole stopped, British outline N has undergone a dramatic renaissance. Contemporary N gauge RTR is vastly better in every respect than what what was available in the 1990s . But I'm picking up hints that Poole-era Farish was pretty rough - especially mechanically. The improvement is measured against a very low baseline

 

On my main OO layout I have several diesel locos using good pancake motors with nominal all wheel pickup (but traction tyres) and carefully tweaked decoders  (Lima 37 , Airfix 31, and 21/23 using 5 pole Hornby pancakes) . They are decent runners but clearly outclassed mechanically by every 21st century OO RTR traction I own

 

My impression of the N gauge Type 5s I own , after various trial running,  is they are as good as the breathed over pancake motors - but not in the same league as my "high-spec" OO stuff. I know how rough a Lima 09 and a Hornby 06 with the Smokey Joe mechanism could be as shunters.

 

And I'm increasingly aware that the layout will actually through its main focus on the works shunters, not the Type 5s

 

At this point , I become uneasily aware that nobody seems to build this kind of shunting layout in N , even though it's bread and butter stuff in 4mm and has been for decades. Now why is that? Could it be you can't do this in N? I note stray hints that shunting and N don't go together. (I intend to use the Dapol couplers)

 

So I'm very relieved to hear that the NGS Hunslet is reckoned to be a good 'un , as I've just ordered one. And an 08 would certainly fit.

 

As for DCC , my understanding is that fitting any of my Type 5s requires soldering wires to a set of tiny pads on the loco circuit board . I've done hard wired installations in 4mm , but the precision soldering required here is likely to be beyond me. I believe the Farish 04 is beyond DCC installation except by the very dedicated and skilled

 

The alternative subject for this 6' x 11" space would be a steam age shunting cameo with tank engines and 0-6-0s. But it would be desperately cramped and compressed in 4mm; and in 3mm you have the track gauge issue , and the need to build chassis and possibly pointwork. 14.2mm gauge is beyond me, at least for a side project. And nobody does that sorrt of thing in N.

 

But that territory , in TT-120 , with RTR locos that run well , ready-made track,  a scale gauge, plug and play DCC , and a decent coupler, done with some finesse - could be a big winner with people in my situation.

 

At present there seem to be serious obstacles of different kinds to doing it in 4mm, 3mm, or N 

[britishcolumbian]

23 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

At this point , I become uneasily aware that nobody seems to build this kind of shunting layout in N , even though it's bread and butter stuff in 4mm and has been for decades. Now why is that? Could it be you can't do this in N? I note stray hints that shunting and N don't go together.

 

I think perhaps people see N as more for "big scenery" than for shunting layouts? I know over here a lot of people who build a layout set on the mountain mainlines or northern BC opt for N for the depth of scene that the scale makes possible, that's impossible in HO or OO or bigger scales...

[Pacific231G]

On 30/07/2022 at 18:50, Nearholmer said:

Box Tunnel looks suspiciously as if it might be a box.

 

Mr Smart became the first secretary of The MRC, so he was a serious modeller by the standards of the day. More personally, he was somehow related to my Great Grandfather, possibly an uncle, or maybe a cousin, I’m not sure. My GG was also a Smart, and an absolutely super-skilled model-engineer, who built telescopes and some excellent long-case clocks, as well as steam road locomotives.

it was a box. He described it as such in the accompanying article and I think his locos- or at least their bodies were scratchbuilt. There was an odd and slightly morbid feature in those early day which was a competition in which modellers would set up the scenes of crashes on their layouts  and then write BofT type reports on them with responsibility ascribed to "signalman Smith " or "driver Jones"  I assume that  Henry Greenly's idea was that these would encourage  awareness of how real railways operated. Mr. Smart contributed one of these "crashes" in "Bristol" on his layout a couple of months before the two articles about the layout (actually written by "H.G." i.e. Henry Greenly rather than smart himself ) appeared in 1909.

On 31/07/2022 at 08:29, whart57 said:

I don't disagree that there were permanent layouts built by enthusiasts but I doubt that was the norm. It isn't really today either that the majority of railway modellers have a permanent set up at home. 

It's difficult to know, given that tinplate layouts set up temporarily on the floor would be generally unlikely to appear in Model Railways, but, though they did often use tinplate and often sectional track,  there were certainly enough permanent or semi-permanent layout laid out on some kind of baseboard for at least one to appear each month. It was also clear that the majority of photos of readers' locos or rolling stock were taken on some sort of baseboard mounted layout.

There were also a goodly number of garden or miniature railways featured. I did find two layouts that appeared to be laid out at floor level but one of them was set up in the sanatorium of a school on a long term basis but able to be removed when necessary. I think the other was modular with sections laid out on boards and the main station permanently errected in a room in which the other sections were stored when not in use . Baseboards tended to consist of planks but one used a series of wooden soap boxes nailed to the floor of a loft and concealed by green cloth with the track screweed down to them. These were cheap so clearly not every modeller was that wealthy. The most common formula seems to have been to use shelving laid out round a room and the majority of layouts were based on some kind of continuous run  which, with locos still mainly clockwork or steam, was probably inevitable.  

That period was an interesting one as the hooby of railway modelling grew out of model engineering and started to focus on the complete railway and, however crudely, its operation rather than just on model locomotives.  A fair number of layout articles also included timetables.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Pacific231G
grammar and typos

[D9020 Nimbus]

There are now DCC-ready 03s and 04s from Farish. And an increasing range of sound-ready and sound-fitted locos, including the 08 and 31, with the 60 forthcoming. Most Dapol diesel locos are also available DCC-ready and DCC-fitted.

[PeterStiles]

17 hours ago, Ravenser said:

I become uneasily aware that nobody seems to build this kind of shunting layout in N , even though it's bread and butter stuff in 4mm and has been for decades. Now why is that? Could it be you can't do this in N? I note stray hints that shunting and N don't go together. (I intend to use the Dapol couplers)

 

Hah! i've build/am building (*) a n gauge shunting layout... and am compiling a list of "things I've done wrong" not least of which was hoping that the Dapol Easi Shunts would allow me to shunt easily (cough) not necessarily the fault of the couplings - likely related to the use of small-radius curves and atrocious track laying...

 

So they aren't totally unheard of, but I accept they may not be the greatest of ideas :) (**)

 

 

 

(*) There should be a railwaymodeller specific tense for this

(**) I had/am having fun so, it makes me happy.

[Ravenser]

On 01/08/2022 at 07:59, PeterStiles said:

 

Hah! i've build/am building (*) a n gauge shunting layout... and am compiling a list of "things I've done wrong" not least of which was hoping that the Dapol Easi Shunts would allow me to shunt easily (cough) not necessarily the fault of the couplings - likely related to the use of small-radius curves and atrocious track laying...

 

So they aren't totally unheard of, but I accept they may not be the greatest of ideas :) (**)

 

 

 

(*) There should be a railwaymodeller specific tense for this

(**) I had/am having fun so, it makes me happy.

 

 

Interesting.   That looks like an N gauge inglenook?

 

Since I'm going post-privatisation my wagons should be 2-3x longer , which I hope will give greater weight/inertia and therefore make them more reliable runners. It also ought to help with coupling and uncoupling.

 

And bogie stock - which will account for quite a bit of the wagon fleet - should be slightly better at trackholding than rigid 4 wheelers. I'm trying to be careful with tracklaying, and a TTA seems to be perfectly happy on the bits of track so far laid

 

Most of my pointwork will be Peco small radius - there seems to be only one reverse curve in your plan - but it is the case that all auto-couplers dislike operation on sharp curves. I think all my magnets will be going in on straight track, which I hope should help.

 

That looks like a Farish 04 as shunter?

[PeterStiles]

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

n N gauge inglenook

Yes. Someone had to try. I'll post up my story once I've written it up nicely. I can tell you the title of the work is "Where I went wrong with my  inglenook".

You live, you model, you learn.

[Samedan]

I’m surprised that no one seems to have hit on the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the first excitable announcements of the “brand new scale!”. And that was: why on Earth aren’t  Peco bringing out their excellent track for 14.2mm gauge modellers, alongside, with partners, RTR locos and stock and building and scenic items for the existing but niche 3mm / 1:100 scale? That way, they would be supporting all the modellers and other traders who’ve continued to support 3mm scale over the long, lean years.

I was started off as a 5 year old in 1960 in Triang TT and went on to progress to kit and scratchbuilding as a teenager, before abandoning it for other pursuits and subsequently (on picking up the hobby again) other scales. So I understand the attraction of TT as sitting between OO and N etc etc. 

But, reading this thread, there are clearly some experienced modellers out there that are interested in trying something new and are prepared to fiddle about with what limited products are currently available or realistically programmed. Modellers who really care about correct scale/gauge combinations.

I strongly suspect, however, that you are in a minority. Shock, horror! 
Imagine yourself as a retailer. A dad/grandfather comes into your shop or to your stand and asks for advice on the best scale/gauge to start in on returning to the hobby or building something for the kids. How on Earth do you sell TT 120 to him when there are so few products available and no guarantee that many more will follow, soon or even over the next few years.
 And even if you can persuade that person to take the plunge, what an auspicious time to launch a completely (for the U.K.) new scale / gauge combo! The economy is heading for a prolonged recession and many folk are going to struggle to put food on the table and/or stay warm enough to eat it. Revolution says it will have to be high quality and high price - well thanks a bunch Peco, Gaugemaster and Heljan for that! As if we didn’t already have enough high quality/high price models to tempt us. Good luck to the manufacturers, distributors and retailers with this one, but I feel they would have done us all a better service by supporting established scale/gauges than pushing a new one. 

[Nearholmer]

12 minutes ago, Samedan said:

As if we didn’t already have enough high quality/high price models to tempt us.

While I completely understand the point you are making about the worsening squeeze on non-discretionary, let alone discretionary, spending, I do think that there is a rich choice of cheap, low-quality stuff around if that’s what you’re really after. You can even get cheap, high-quality stuff if you shop around carefully among secondhand things.

[Hobby]

31 minutes ago, Samedan said:

I’m surprised that no one seems to have hit on the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the first excitable announcements of the “brand new scale!”. And that was: why on Earth aren’t  Peco bringing out their excellent track for 14.2mm gauge modellers, alongside, with partners, RTR locos and stock and building and scenic items for the existing but niche 3mm / 1:100 scale? That way, they would be supporting all the modellers and other traders who’ve continued to support 3mm scale over the long, lean years.

 

I'm surprised by that, it has been discussed several times!

 

Peco's initial market for the track is not the UK but the much larger central/east European TT market. The number of modellers in 14.2mm I doubt would make such an investment work, in addition those who do model in TT3 using 12mm track would be left out! Best of both worlds for Peco, sales in an established scale and try to create a new market over here.

 

31 minutes ago, Samedan said:

Imagine yourself as a retailer. A dad/grandfather comes into your shop or to your stand and asks for advice on the best scale/gauge to start in on returning to the hobby or building something for the kids. 

 

Currently I wouldn't expect a retailer to recommend it as its a fledgling scale. However if it does expand, none of us have any idea what will happen in the future, then that retailer might well suggest it. Rome wasn't built in a day!

Edited August 5, 2022 by Hobby