PECO announces its entry into the TT gauge market

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

Can I just say say that there is no "correct" version of 3mm scale. The Society can't win can it, either it is authoritarian or it can't make up its mind. Which is it because it can't be both 

Yup, someone will always want to shim in the railhead to the ‘correct’ 11.959mm etc etc 

(Proper Enthusiastic Detail And Note Taker s) 😉

 

[The Dorset Wanderer]

Good luck trying to get a Tri-ang TT Jinty to run on code 55 track- wait for the wingers!

[BernardTPM]

It might work - remember there are no rail fixings on the inner edge of the rail. What was Tri-ang's flange depth, does anyone know? Lima's old pizza cutter N gauge wheels run on the Peco 55 N.

More likely to run into problems when it comes to pointwork if the flangeways are tighter than 1950s standards.

Edited June 8, 2022 by BernardTPM

[AndyID]

There is a problem 😀

 

120 has the track gauge to scale but it suffers from the same problem as H0. Unless you use very close to scale wheels (think P4) you have to distort other dimensions to build a practical model. That is particularly noticeable with steam outline H0 locomotives. 00 and TT (102) don't have that problem because the reduced gauge allows the wheels, valve-gear, splashers etc. to be modeled more accurately and that has a lot to do with the overall appearance of a locomotive.

 

Consequently, unless you can model in something equivalent to P4 (with the all limitations that it imposes) you either have to compromise on the track gauge or the accuracy of the models that run on the track.

[MartinRS]

I can't see any mention of rail joiners, though Hattons say the rail is code 55. Will Peco N gauge code 55 rail joiners work with the TT:120 track?

Edited June 8, 2022 by MartinRS
typo

[peak experience]

I've always been envious of non-UK modellers with their correct gauge to scale models and trackwork. As a modeller with little time to do much actually modelling, if I see that Peco and others are really making an effort and will cater to BR Blue era modellers, (a type 2, a rake of MK1's, a standard brake van and some 16 tonners would be great for starters and cover every region), I'd have no hesitation selling most of my OO and N scale stock and starting in TT 1:120. It's a no brainer for me. It's the perfect size. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by peak experience

[Nile]

1 hour ago, MartinRS said:

I can't see any mention of rail joiners, though Hattons say the rail is code 55. Will Peco N gauge code 55 rail joiners work with the TT:120 track?

From the pictures in the video it looks similar to N code 55 rail, so I expect those joiners will work in the same way.

[bradfordbuffer]

1 hour ago, peak experience said:

I've always been envious of non-UK modellers with their correct gauge to scale models and trackwork. As a modeller with little time to do much actually modelling, if I see that Peco and others are really making an effort and will cater to BR Blue era modellers, (a type 2, a rake of MK1's, a standard brake van and some 16 tonners would be great for starters and cover every region), I'd have no hesitation selling most of my OO and N scale stock and starting in TT 1:120. It's a no brainer for me. It's the perfect size. 

What if what you wished for was avaliable in 3mm 14.2mm gauge...would you play? 

3mm is half way between OO and N! I'm not knocking new British tt1:120 but locos and stock will be smaller than expected,  but look on bright side still bigger than N.....oops tin hat Time

[JR_P]

Is this TT stuff all a bit of a distraction…. ?! A bit like all these ‘what if’ liveries that have suddenly started appearing…. 🤨

 

Personally I’d much rather Peco concentrated on getting more of their N gauge points and crossings converted to unifrog…. at least the TT points they are proposing are unifrog, which in itself is a good move.

 

My fear would be that with diminishing discretionary spending (thanks to rising inflation and ‘cost of living crisis’), what small pot of money is spent on railway modelling is getting spilt yet one more direction…. the N gauge market is small enough as it is, it doesn’t need to have to compete with another ‘similar’ scale…. 😟 [sigh]

[Mr chapman]

4 hours ago, JR_P said:

 

 

Personally I’d much rather Peco concentrated on getting more of their N gauge points and crossings converted to unifrog…. 

From a peco video on their YouTube channel I believe they said everything will be updated as and when the tooling is worn-out. Both the insulated and live frogs will be around for a while yet. 

[AndyID]

Just a bit of info:

 

A model scaled at 1:100 (it's really 1:102) is 18% larger than a model scaled at 1:120, or the other way around a 1:120 is model is 15% smaller than a 1:102 model.

 

But that's only in one dimension. In terms of three dimensions a model scaled at 1:102 is actually 64% larger (in terms of volume) than the same model scaled at 1:120. That's a good bit more than the difference between 00 and H0 (48% larger).

 

I don't know to what extent we tend to assess volumes rather than linear dimensions but my guess is we are very aware of volumes.

[spamcan61]

11 hours ago, peak experience said:

I've always been envious of non-UK modellers with their correct gauge to scale models and trackwork. 

 

Just because the gauge is right doesn't mean the rest of the model / layout is 100% accurate (whatever that means to individuals) - see comments upthread about outside valve gear / splashers for example. As somebody ( Cyril Freezer?) once said, the track gauge is the least compromised dimension on most layouts.

[Golden Fleece 30]

2 hours ago, AndyID said:

 

A model scaled at 1:100 (it's really 1:102) is 18% larger than a model scaled at 1:120, or the other way around a 1:120 is model is 15% smaller than a 1:102 model.

 

But that's only in one dimension. In terms of three dimensions a model scaled at 1:102 is actually 64% larger (in terms of volume) than the same model scaled at 1:120. That's a good bit more than the difference between 00 and H0 (48% larger).

As in this photo. It shows an Atlas 1:100 and a Corgi 1:120

[Nile]

Could do with a N scale (1:148) model in that photo as well.

[JohnR]

16 minutes ago, Golden Fleece 30 said:

As in this photo. It shows an Atlas 1:100 and a Corgi 1:120

 

Would be interesting to see a OO and N Scotsman (Scotsmen?) to compare. 

[Golden Fleece 30]

15 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Would be interesting to see a OO and N Scotsman (Scotsmen?) to compare. 

Not an A3 but four A4's. 0 gauge, 00 gauge, TT (3mm) and N gauge all of 60017 Silver Fox

[fezza]

At a time when the hobby is moving in an RTR direction, starting a new UK scale without any RTR rolling stock looks an odd decision. The 0 gauge revival only really came with the first affordable 0 gauge RTR locomotive. There really needs to be a TT start set to help people.

 

Maybe we will get some GWR stock eventually but at the moment people are complaining that there isn't enough modern spec GWR RTR in n gauge for a convincing branch line (No prairies, collett/dean goods or mogul) so it's hard to see how TT will compete anytime soon.

 

It is a strange decision when one thinks about Peco's limited supply of core products that are in heavy demand such as 00 bullhead track.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by fezza

[Dunsignalling]

The critical factor in fitting a layout into one's available space is the minimum radius that locomotives will negotiate. With bogie-mounted diesels and electrics, the finest gauges (P4, P87, and 14.2mm gauge at 3mm, plus a dead-scale version of 1:120 if such a thing exists) are fairly forgiving.

 

However, steam locomotives, especially larger ones with outside cylinders, are a very different matter and without the side-play incorporated in OO and TT3 (12mm gauge) standards, the required minimum increases dramatically. For example, a 4mm Pacific loco on OO underpinnings will go round an 18" curve (albeit looking rather silly in the process) but the same thing in P4 will need three-to-four times that.   

 

Thus 3mm scale on 14.2mm track behaves more like P4 than TT3 and, whilst individual models are smaller than OO equivalents, the minimum usable curves they will negotiate will be greater. If TT-120 is truly to be a space saver, it will require similar compromises to OO, TT3 or indeed, HO. Whilst the latter has a true scale/gauge relationship, outside-cylinder steam locos involve "adjustments" to chassis proportions to make it work. 

 

Peco are claiming "fine" standards for their track. Even if that equates more to EM standards than P4, it is unlikely that a TT-120 layout will come out any smaller than a TT3 equivalent, and might well be a bit larger. 

 

John 

[bradfordbuffer]

17 minutes ago, Nile said:

Could do with a N scale (1:148) model in that photo as well.

And a OO one

And a EM one.......

 

But it does show how different they are, you have saved me a job was fireing up 3d printer today and was going to print 2 wagons 1:100 and a bit the other to euro trash.... 1:120! He says tickling dragons tail!

[Hobby]

For us NG-ers this might be handy:

 

 

Left to right: 0e, H0 (SG), H0m (Zeuke), H0e (NG 760mm), TT (1:120), TTe (1:120 760mm NG), N (1:160 SG), Z (SG). The noticeable thing is that "volume" wise the H0e and TT SG locos are pretty much the same and the same for TTe and N locos!

Edited June 9, 2022 by Hobby
Missed out a loco!!

[bradfordbuffer]

Who said tt was dead....be it 3mm, tt3, or tt 1:120 , 10 pages of discussion since Monday afternoon!

 

Long live life between N and OO!

[Hobby]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 it is unlikely that a TT-120 layout will come out any smaller than a TT3 equivalent, and might well be a bit larger. 

 

I doubt it will be larger, you are only looking at track radii, but standard modern RTR 1:120 stock will already go round sharp curves, also into the equation is building size, TT buildings are smaller than TT3 ones, same as the locos seen in earlier posts.  So the GWR branch that it seems lots want wiill be the same size track plan but have smaller buildings in 1:120 and so more room for scenery!

 

RTR has always been a compromise, with locos without splashers there's no issues as such but we'll just have to wait and see when it comes to older locos with them, I suspect if it happens most people won't be bothered about the compromise and the majority won't even notice it (whatever it is)... We aren't all rivet counters!

[Artless Bodger]

I see from Pocketmags that the new Railway Modeller issue contains drawings of the Collet Goods in 1:120 - is this a hint?

[Legend]

50 minutes ago, Golden Fleece 30 said:

As in this photo. It shows an Atlas 1:100 and a Corgi 1:120

 

I wonder . Is there a clue there . I didn't realise Corgi had a 1:120 Flying Scotsman . I appreciate its not motorised  but could this be a possibility from Hornby , a 1:120 range marketed through Corgi?

 

It is strange Peco taking this initiative . They are usually fairly conservative in their outlook . I appreciate the European aspect may mitigate their risk but could it be that they know there is another manufacturer considering it - this may just be the push needed to get that manufacturer to commit .

 

For me , Santa delivered my first OO trainset in 1965 , I don't know how many locos I have but its substantial. Its unlikely I would convert over . However , I do remember seeing in Tri-ang 10 years book a series of TT layouts and it was striking how much more you could get in . Approaching retirement I can see that there maybe an opportunity for a new layout in what is currently my office. N is too small for me  , but a new TT could possibly do it .  OK I get the point its not much bigger 1:120 compared to 1:148  but it is enough . If a new range appeared with DCC from the outset I think I'd be tempted . Something completely different from my existing set up . 

[whart57]

14 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

I don't think anyone is being authoritarian, more a case of too many cooks. When everyone comes chiming in with their way of doing it (they all have merits) it just confuses the issue. As an outsider you end up not knowing which way is up.

 

As an aside the best 3mm layout I've seen personally was a circular 3mm broad gauge layout! That track was closer to 00. But the locomotives with working inside motion were superb. The star of ally pally that year for me. 

 

Well many of those "cooks" have shuffled off to the great railway room in the sky. The Society's three supported gauges* were first experimented with in the 1960s. TT-3 modellers - as they were called then - were swapping out Triang wheels with Romfords while the Beatles were still anonymous Scousers. The range of options is no wider than for 4mm scale, it just seems more anarchic because the numbers of modellers involved are hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands.

 

*) There are some fine broad gauge layout models, both Brunel 7' gauge and Irish 5'3" gauge. The modellers involved have simply taken the Society's finescale wheel and track standard and added the extra millimetres where appropriate. The track gauge is broader but checkrail gaps and wheel profiles are the same as standard gauge.