When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[Golden Fleece 30]

Regarding the nameplates I have just received some Kings Cross ones which are far better.  All I need to do is be able to see to cut them out nicely, the last time I did these was about 40 years ago and did not need glasses.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

After a little cutting out Cunard White Star has her nameplate fitted. I did get carried away with the filing one corner but at 80mph it's not noticeable. Some paint did flake off and will need touching up but I removed all the centre as I want to paint it light green as the prototype and hopefully paint a flag on it.

 

Garry

Edited March 31, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[kevinlms]

While this is an interesting topic, I'm surprised a bit at the publicity, the then new scale received in the mid 1950s. I've read articles from 1957 and there are a few layouts described. They all start of with lines like (to quote from RotM 1957 May 'Windsor & Eton').

 

"At last here was a system which offered reliability, good appearance and the possibilities of decent layout in a small space - at the right price!

Promptly I sold the existing "OO" layout I was operating and started on my "TT" venture."

 

So TT certainly had a huge impact, so much so, that many modellers and even manufacturers (judging by the number of ads for TT), seemed almost ready to write off OO as a dead end.

 

However history shows that the opposite very soon became true. So what brought about TT's quick fall from grace and did these early adoptees, regret their choice?

 

Too late for me, as I received my first Tri-ang train set when aged 9 or 10 in 1965/66. Kind of glad in a way, as I much prefer 4mm.

 

[Golden Fleece 30]

While this is an interesting topic, I'm surprised a bit at the publicity, the then new scale received in the mid 1950s. I've read articles from 1957 and there are a few layouts described. They all start of with lines like (to quote from RotM 1957 May 'Windsor & Eton').

 

"At last here was a system which offered reliability, good appearance and the possibilities of decent layout in a small space - at the right price!

Promptly I sold the existing "OO" layout I was operating and started on my "TT" venture."

 

So TT certainly had a huge impact, so much so, that many modellers and even manufacturers (judging by the number of ads for TT), seemed almost ready to write off OO as a dead end.

 

However history shows that the opposite very soon became true. So what brought about TT's quick fall from grace and did these early adoptees, regret their choice?

 

Too late for me, as I received my first Tri-ang train set when aged 9 or 10 in 1965/66. Kind of glad in a way, as I much prefer 4mm.

I am confused Kevin, are you now TT or 00? My parents bought me Dublo (3-rail second hand) Tri-ang 00 and then TT when it came out. I still have a few of the original items and in the late 60's did start on N. In the early 70's I even tried Z when it came out but swapped that for the new Fleishman turntable when that came out. I never sold any of the other scales and in the 80's went to Fine scale 0 gauge. I have since gone back to 3-rail (using modern Peco track) and 18 months ago resurrected my TT. I have now sold a lot of 0, N, and some 3-rail as I much prefer TT as easier to work on in the house as my layout shows and easier to take to shows. Apart from the 0 gauge all my layouts are to normal standards which I personally prefer to finescale. I do need to now sell ALL the remaining N if possible especially the layout.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

While this is an interesting topic, I'm surprised a bit at the publicity, the then new scale received in the mid 1950s. I've read articles from 1957 and there are a few layouts described. They all start of with lines like (to quote from RotM 1957 May 'Windsor & Eton').

 

"At last here was a system which offered reliability, good appearance and the possibilities of decent layout in a small space - at the right price!

Promptly I sold the existing "OO" layout I was operating and started on my "TT" venture."

 

So TT certainly had a huge impact, so much so, that many modellers and even manufacturers (judging by the number of ads for TT), seemed almost ready to write off OO as a dead end.

 

However history shows that the opposite very soon became true. So what brought about TT's quick fall from grace and did these early adoptees, regret their choice?

 

Too late for me, as I received my first Tri-ang train set when aged 9 or 10 in 1965/66. Kind of glad in a way, as I much prefer 4mm.

The lack of development of TT-3 and it's ultimate demise as a mass market scale was a shame. I'd always seen it as a good compromise where you could get a decent layout into the the small spaces of modern homes (Cyril Freezers's classic Minories was designed as a five foot long TT-3 city terminus) without going down to what has always seemed to me to be the birds eye view of N scale. TT models still seem large enough to feel present with.

 

I think it was Arnold's introduction of a well developed range of N gauge products of frankly higher quality than Tri-ang that effectively killed off TT-3 as a mass market scale. I went from Hornby Dublo three rail to Tri-ang TT-3 as a youngster when it was the coming thing but I never got the good running that I'd taken for granted with HD and I would say that Tri-ang's track and wheel standards were decidedly coarse.

 

I think part of TT-3's difficulty was that only Tri-ang ever mass produced it as a complete product and TT (1:120) wasn't taken up by Western European manufacturers anything like as enthusiastically as N gauge later was . Though you could buy white metal kits for various locos (I had a Ks condensing pannier tank) they generally seemed to rely on the Tri-ang mechanism as did most of those, at least initially, who used it for narrow gauge in 00n3.

 

I think you can see this legacy today in narrow gauge modelling where, even in countries like France where metre gauge was far and away the dominant narrow gauge (20 000 kms of metre gauge public railways versus about 450kms of 600mm), Apart from those modelling Swiss railways relatively few narrow gauge modellers now seem to use it and overall H0e and OO9 are vastly more popular than H0m and OOn3. This is  partly I suspect because of the far easier availability of N gauge mechanisms, wheels, etc. and possibly also because of the influence of Austrian manufacturers where 760mm gauge was and still is the "standard" narrow gauge. 

 

Fortunately for those of us who use 12mm gauge for modelling narrow gauge railways, Tillig do make good mechanisms and there is also enough interest in Swiss railways to sustain H0m.

 

I did keep some of my Tri-ang TT-3 rolling stock with a view to adapting it for H0m but the standards proved far too coarse.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Pacific231G

[kevinlms]

I am confused Kevin, are you now TT or 00? My parents bought me Dublo (3-rail second hand) Tri-ang 00 and then TT when it came out. I still have a few of the original items and in the late 60's did start on N. In the early 70's I even tried Z when it came out but swapped that for the new Fleishman turntable when that came out. I never sold any of the other scales and in the 80's went to Fine scale 0 gauge. I have since gone back to 3-rail (using modern Peco track) and 18 months ago resurrected my TT. I have now sold a lot of 0, N, and some 3-rail as I much prefer TT as easier to work on in the house as my layout shows and easier to take to shows. Apart from the 0 gauge all my layouts are to normal standards which I personally prefer to finescale. I do need to now sell ALL the remaining N if possible especially the layout.

 

Garry

Sorry Garry if not clear, I've only ever modelled in 4mm OO or EM. Too much of an investment to chop and change.

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here is a low relief model in TT scale of York Minster built by a friend of mine Bob Dawson who I used to work with 30 odd years ago. He also had a TT scale low relief full length street of Duncombe Place in York near the Minster.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Not just TT but any scale DCC is always talked about as being superior, well, I have never liked it and every show I go to has at least one DCC layout giving problems but this one at York yesterday was the ultimate. This sign was on when I arrived at 10.00 and was still there at closing time, 4.30. Looking at a preprinted PC sign it makes me think this has happened a few times before. Someone at the show did think it had been like it most of the weekend.

 

When will these operators realise that DCC gives far more problems than analogue?

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

IMHO, DCC contravenes the great engineering maxim KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

 

(Apart from being expensive which is never Grifone friendly.)

 

Sorry for all the acronyms!

[Golden Fleece 30]

IMHO, DCC contravenes the great engineering maxim KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

 

(Apart from being expensive which is never Grifone friendly.)

 

Sorry for all the acronyms!

I agree David,

 

I have long been an advocate of analogue only at model railway shows and have special ones just for DCC where they can discuss all their non working issues with each other and if layouts do work keep that infuriating non realistic sound to themselves and not annoy others.

 

Garry

[Wolseley]

IMHO, DCC contravenes the great engineering maxim KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

 

(Apart from being expensive which is never Grifone friendly.)

 

Sorry for all the acronyms!

 

 

Exactly.  Even if I was running modern equipment I don't think I would want to use DCC.  I spend enough time at a computer screen already as it is.

[5050]

Hornby clockwork and Lego trains always seem to keep going whenever I see them at exhibitions.

Edited April 3, 2018 by 5050

[kevinlms]

I agree David,

 

I have long been an advocate of analogue only at model railway shows and have special ones just for DCC where they can discuss all their non working issues with each other and if layouts do work keep that infuriating non realistic sound to themselves and not annoy others.

 

Garry

Sorry but I have to disagree with almost everything you say (and most of the last few posts).

 

To me, I go to exhibitions to see a range of modelling interests (unless it is in fact a themed exhibition i.e. narrow gauge). A balanced exhibition is the best sort, IMO.

 

This thread is about the virtues of TT gauge models, please stick to that topic, without denigrating others choices. Not sure that is true that DCC layouts are unreliable, it depends on the quality of the modelling standards of the owners. I've certainly seen 'traditional' layouts not working too - perhaps I've even been a member of a club, whose layout that has failed, as well.

 

 

DCC has no place in inappropriate places/layouts, some examples being a Tri-ang one (OO or TT), where traditional DC control is totally appropriate and expected.

 

 

Where I do agree with you, is where there is too much sound on a layout and dominates the surrounding area. Most frustrating for the neighbours.

[NCB]

While this is an interesting topic, I'm surprised a bit at the publicity, the then new scale received in the mid 1950s. I've read articles from 1957 and there are a few layouts described. They all start of with lines like (to quote from RotM 1957 May 'Windsor & Eton').

 

"At last here was a system which offered reliability, good appearance and the possibilities of decent layout in a small space - at the right price!

Promptly I sold the existing "OO" layout I was operating and started on my "TT" venture."

 

So TT certainly had a huge impact, so much so, that many modellers and even manufacturers (judging by the number of ads for TT), seemed almost ready to write off OO as a dead end.

 

However history shows that the opposite very soon became true. So what brought about TT's quick fall from grace and did these early adoptees, regret their choice?

 

Too late for me, as I received my first Tri-ang train set when aged 9 or 10 in 1965/66. Kind of glad in a way, as I much prefer 4mm.

 

Triang TT failed for some very simple marketing calculations. Today's model railway industry benefits hugely from the internet, both in terms of interesting potential customers, and in selling stuff to them by mail order. In the 1950s and 1960s nearly all sales were done through model shops, who were being asked to support two Triang ranges not one. A lot of shops preferred pushing Triang OO, as OO was already established, and it made sense commercially. Add to that the market as a whole declining, and Triang decided to bail out. Maybe they could have adopted an alternative strategy, but they didn't. N is sometimes given as the reason, but British N didn't really get going for a long time.

 

However, TT didn't die. The 3mm Society was formed as a response to Triang pulling out, and is one of the factors behind the scale continuing. Some manufacturers such as GEM and Bec continued to support the scale. It's always had its enthusiastic followers. The one thing it hasn't got is new ready-to-run rolling stock. But it still has big attractions, whether you concentrate on Triang, building your own stuff, or a mixture of both.

[NCB]

 

DCC has no place in inappropriate places/layouts, some examples being a Tri-ang one (OO or TT), where traditional DC control is totally appropriate and expected.

 

 

I know at least one modeller, in Canada, who operates a large TT exhibition layout using Triang TT, and it's all DCC controlled. But then he knows what he's doing.

 

A friend of mine switched from Gauge 1 to American HO, and has a superb layout which on several occasions has figured in Model Railroader. It's all DCC controlled. Operation is an essential feature and he has a crew of up to 8 people in to spend a day running through the timetable. But before he built it he sat down and decided exactly what he wanted and how to do it. He knew what he was doing.

 

Too many people use DCC because it's supposed to be the thing without thinking it out. Same could and did happen with DC. It happened with P4; countless layouts which never really worked. But P4 is perfectly feasible.

 

I thought of DCC with my current 3mm/ft layout; it has the potential to simplify things. However, I decided I could do what I wanted easily enough without, with less effort. I have another layout in mind though, and that might well end up as DCC.

[Il Grifone]

Here is a low relief model in TT scale of York Minster built by a friend of mine Bob Dawson who I used to work with 30 odd years ago. He also had a TT scale low relief full length street of Duncombe Place in York near the Minster.

 

Garry

 

By sheer coincidence, SWMBO was watching one of those house search programmes and they were talking about the restoration of York Minster when I opened this post. 

[kevinlms]

 

 

Too many people use DCC because it's supposed to be the thing without thinking it out. Same could and did happen with DC. It happened with P4; countless layouts which never really worked. But P4 is perfectly feasible.

 

I thought of DCC with my current 3mm/ft layout; it has the potential to simplify things. However, I decided I could do what I wanted easily enough without, with less effort. I have another layout in mind though, and that might well end up as DCC.

I know several people that ave converted existing layouts to DCC and not one has ever regretted having done so. Even those who are incapable of setting it up for themselves (they couldn't for DC only either). Yes, they rely on help from others, which is what this hobby is all about.

 

'Countless P4 layouts that never really worked', perhaps should read SOME P4 layouts? There is some level of building stuff to a reasonable standard, whether it be P4, OO or whatever. Just plonking track down and expecting perfect running is never going to work reliably, regardless of scale/standards used. We have all seen photos of track with kinks in it and the owner has constant derailments. Most of us know why and it needs fixing. Better to do the job properly, first time around.

[whart57]

I have gone for DCC and for me there are two advantages. One is that section switching is no longer needed, and that is the least realistic part of analogue DC, unless the builder has gone the whole hog and linked the sections to the signalling. How many times at an exhibition do you see that "oops" moment when a train comes to a dead stop because a relief operator mixed up the section switching? The other is because full voltage is always, present slow running and the careful build up of speed is more reliable. There are other positives. You can fit lights, and apart from the operational aspects, lights (and sound) also act as alarms for poor pickup. A red LED mounted in the firebox giving a glow on the track can do the same for steam outline locos.

 

You don't have to go Full Monty on DCC, but to me, being able to dial up a loco number and away you go without having to think about section switching is a big plus

[5050]

'Countless P4 layouts that never really worked',

Along with even more countless N, TT, HO, OO, EM, O layouts.

 

I haven't included S as all the ones I've seen (and that's not many!) always seem to work well.

 

Anyway, what's all this got to do with the history etc. of TT?

Edited April 4, 2018 by 5050

[Wolseley]

Along with even more countless N, TT, HO, OO, EM, O layouts.

 

 

Probably because no-one bothered counting them.

 

Mind you, being as basic and rugged as it is, I would be surprised if any of the TT layouts didn't work.

[kevinlms]

Along with even more countless N, TT, HO, OO, EM, O layouts.

 

I haven't included S as all the ones I've seen (and that's not many!) always seem to work well.

 

Anyway, what's all this got to do with the history etc. of TT?

Zero, but I wasn't the one who introduced P4 into this topic!

[detheridge]

 

 

However, TT didn't die. The 3mm Society was formed as a response to Triang pulling out, and is one of the factors behind the scale continuing.  The one thing it hasn't got is new ready-to-run rolling stock. But it still has big attractions, whether you concentrate on Triang, building your own stuff, or a mixture of both.

Er, have you forgotten Berlinerbhan/Tillig and Piko TT? 3SMR's website lists interesting motive power from them, and I remember at least one article in the 3mm society mag about using Tillig lcos as the basis of something interesting. The Piko Taurus  chassis is easily convertible for a Class 73 according to the site. To b sure, there's currently no British outline RTR, but TT modellers are nothing if not inventive!

Edited April 5, 2018 by detheridge

[NCB]

Er, have you forgotten Berlinerbhan/Tillig and Piko TT? 3SMR's website lists interesting motive power from them, and I remember at least one article in the 3mm society mag about using Tillig lcos as the basis of something interesting. The Piko Taurus  chassis is easily convertible for a Class 73 according to the site. To b sure, there's currently no British outline RTR, but TT modellers are nothing if not inventive!

 

No, but the thread is about TT3.

 

I have a Piko Taurus; impressive runner. Not sure about "easily" converted to Class 73 though.

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here are some tank overlays I have had done, one is printed on self adhesive paper, the other on plain paper.  These were done for me by a friend, Tony Winzar, who actually does them for Hornby Dublo Neverwazzas.  I asked him if he could re-scale and re-shape  to fit the Tri-ang barrel and this is the result.  Tony does not produce these for TT normally but will do a resize and set of 5 prints, of the same chosen name, for a small charge as there is a bit of work required to do the alteration.  The other photos show the different variations he could alter to suit and please contact him on tony_winzar@ntlworld.com if interested.

 

The black printed one fitted around a shell barrel was a test to check size and how better it looks to the standard TT version.

 

Garry

Edited April 5, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[detheridge]

 

I have a Piko Taurus; impressive runner. Not sure about "easily" converted to Class 73 though.

That's what it says on 3SMR.....