Hornby announce TT:120

[J-Lewis]

23 minutes ago, BrakeCoach said:

I didn't know TT was also rising for US models as well. Good to know!

MTB recently reissued their SW1200 switcher and they are apparently considering a second US loco and another freight car.

[frobisher]

4 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

Class 50 did not have as many varied liveries as Class 37s or 47s, but you're right a BR Blue Class 50 is a major hole in the releases. They could also release further Large Logo subtypes of the Class 50. There is still much more this tooling can give in the short-term! 

 

Given the tooling so far only covers the refurbished class members there's very little overlap between it and BR Blue (I think it was as low as 3 or 6 members of the class carried that livery when refurbished).

[Covkid]

4 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

Class 50 did not have as many varied liveries as Class 37s or 47s, but you're right a BR Blue Class 50 is a major hole in the releases. They could also release further Large Logo subtypes of the Class 50. There is still much more this tooling can give in the short-term! 

 

Class 37s and 47s are going to be insane once released. If there was one diesel I would want to own the tooling for it would have to be a Class 47. The amount of different variants and liveries that loco has had over its lifespan coupled with its widespread use make it such a versatile tooling. Simon confirmed way back that they were going to release a TT Class 56 too. If they can reuse elements of the Class 47 tooling on the Class 56, that only increases the addressable models that can be released from that single tooling. 

 

The Class 37 is also one worth fighting over with its many liveries and subtypes. And obviously the Class 66 is going to end up being on the same level as the Class 37 and 47 in terms of what can be released. Increasing the addressable market with European Class 66 variants is just perfect. We know there is a market for European Class 66s/77s because Marklin/Trix have released them in HO and N. And the Class 66s are priced competitively. I think many TT modelers on the continent will be happy! 

 

I think it is still a market which is not yet known. and I believe there are several collectors of class 50s who have most if not all of the fleet. These will be few and far between but worth consideration as the people who may buy all the known releases. So consider the variations.  A number of "D400s" didn't have the MU cables fitted from new, then some had black rather than orange boxes on the front. Not sure how many were built wih the "D" prefix, then there were none. Fast forward a few years to plated headcodes, then high intensity headlight, then refurb.  Large logo then Sir Edward Elgar in various detail differences. 

 

After that there are all the oddities like 50117 and 50149 in RfD, 50008 50015 and 50019 in DCE liveries, 50017 in faux LMS streamliner livery.  Then the privatisation era with D444 in two tone green, 50035 in Loadhaul livery and 50031 in Intercity livery, then 50007 and 50049 in GBRf livery. 

 

Imagine a selection of these in a glass case on the wall. 

 

Plenty to choose from 

[GenericRMWebUsername]

37 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Given the tooling so far only covers the refurbished class members there's very little overlap between it and BR Blue (I think it was as low as 3 or 6 members of the class carried that livery when refurbished).

Absolutely you're right that the three locos they've announced so far have been post-Crewe refurb, but we also know they designed additional variations into the tooling. From one of the videos:

"Because at some point during the lives of each of these locos were changed. Modified bits, knocked off bits, put on lights... for example this one started out with a head code.... All these variations we have to design now so that in the future we can release it. And you could be surprised "oh they're doing this one." 

 

That's a rough transcription, but it does give us an idea that they still have other versions in the pipeline for release. If they were tinkering with head codes, that would pretty much guarantee they can make a BR Blue version with their existing tooling. This is similar to how we already know that they have designed TT120 HFA, CDA, MHA wagons alongside the HAA wagons scheduled for release next year.

 

[teletougos]

7 hours ago, BrakeCoach said:

I didn't know TT was also rising for US models as well. Good to know!

 It isn't really. The situation rarely alters. One loco (done twice by MTB, and once years ago, as an etched kit), a couple of other locos shells, a couple of hoppers and the odd 3-D printed item does not amount to much. Some are oddballs resized from artwork for other scales. The little available, covers eras from the 1920s to the 2000s. It is not possible to prototypically model US outline without a lot of scratchbuilding. 

[Michanglais]

12 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

I wouldn't be shocked if their willingness to release the coaches for a full train will be dependent on the sales of their other HSTs. TT120 is a scale that lends itself to longer train formations. If people show willingness to invest in an entire HST formation (like yours truly 😅), I don't see why they wouldn't make the supplementary coaches available. The fact that Hornby released full HST formations was indicator of their seriousness to make TT120 into a real scale. When they all go on sale there will be 29 different HST related products in the range including the forthcoming set (5 HST Pairs, 23 individual coaches, and one set). By mid year 2024, 28 of the products should be on sale. 

 

I would be curious to know if typical Z/TT/N-Gauge modelers spend more of the their budget on coaches and wagons than a comparable HO/OO/O modeler. HO/OO/O modelers might spend their money on new locomotives rather than chasing after wagons to make entirely accurate train formation lengths due to the constraints of layout size. Obviously, there are plenty of HO/OO/O who do model accurate train formations, I'm just curious about your typical modeler. I bet some firms have done that analysis.

 

I don't know if I'm a 'typical' N scale modeller (!) but I certainly spend quite a large part of my budget on forming prototypical length rakes for my locos. I 'collect' HO and OO locos, but not really coaches. I have formed a full-length rake of Pullmans/Mk1s in TT (perhaps not prototypical), which is really waiting for a green diesel (I've got an A4 to haul them for the time being but I'm not a great steam fan, that will get sold off once a green 37 or 47 arrives). I suspect I am not alone in this. Anyway, that's beside the point of your question!

 

With my limited contact with other N scale modellers, I would say the trend is towards building full-length trains and investing more in rolling stock. My interests in N are French/Swiss so I couldn't really speak for the UK market but the one UK N modeller I do know has a collection of full length HSTs. Don't know if that's typical but I suspect most N modellers have at least one or two full-length trains in their fleet.

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

[britishcolumbian]

1 hour ago, teletougos said:

 It isn't really. The situation rarely alters. One loco (done twice by MTB, and once years ago, as an etched kit), a couple of other locos shells, a couple of hoppers and the odd 3-D printed item does not amount to much. Some are oddballs resized from artwork for other scales. The little available, covers eras from the 1920s to the 2000s. It is not possible to prototypically model US outline without a lot of scratchbuilding. 

I wouldn't say that. You could fairly comfortably do a small layout set in the late 1960s or early 1970s set in an industrial/warehouse area without much problem. The only real difficulty is the caboose, since those were fairly railway-specific... but there are some available, for example Southern Pacific, Canadian National, and Pennsy outline. The offerings *are* limited, but the situation isn't nearly as bleak as you're presenting it to be. It has grown a lot since I first got into NorAm outline TT in the noughties.

[teletougos]

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

I wouldn't say that. You could fairly comfortably do a small layout set in the late 1960s or early 1970s set in an industrial/warehouse area 

Almost the defining bit of rolling stock in that timeframe was smooth sided, riveted or welded 50' boxcars. Not sure there is a 50 foot boxcar like that in TT at all. I mean, you can get away with the industrial scenario, but it looks kind of unusual without the key vehicle of the era. Can't recall if Possum Valley did one, but if he did, it'd be virtually unobtainable now. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by teletougos

[britishcolumbian]

11 minutes ago, teletougos said:

Almost the defining bit of rolling stock in that timeframe was smooth sided, riveted or welded 50' boxcars. Not sure there is a 50 foot boxcar like that in TT at all. I mean, you can get away with the industrial scenario, but it looks kind of unusual without them. Can't recall if Possum Valley did one, but if he did, it'd be virtually unobtainable now. 

50' PS-1 is forthcoming... not sure when, but it's coming, from Zeuke.

 

However, that said... there were still *lots* of 40' cars still around in regular service in the late 60s/early 70s, it all very much depends on the region. Of course a lot of mainline service will be 50 footers, say on the SP Coast Line with auto parts cars. But Canada for example was lousy with 40 footers well into the 80s, I even remember seeing them in the 90s (Canada still had a lot of 36' Dominion boxcars in use to the late 70s and even into the early 80s). Repaint some SW1200s into CN green and keep one fresh in the Lazy 3 livery and you're good to go with what we've got available now...

 

One could argue that NorAm TT is better for modelling Canadian subjects, than American... which is helped by the fact that several of the small-series producers in Germany are modelling the Canadian scene themselves...

Edited November 21, 2023 by britishcolumbian

[britishcolumbian]

9 minutes ago, teletougos said:

Almost the defining bit of rolling stock in that timeframe was smooth sided, riveted or welded 50' boxcars. Not sure there is a 50 foot boxcar like that in TT at all. I mean, you can get away with the industrial scenario, but it looks kind of unusual without them. Can't recall if Possum Valley did one, but if he did, it'd be virtually unobtainable now. 

Also I do believe Possum Valley did a 50' car, possibly two, but I don't recall - at the time they were still available, I was more interested in the late 1940s/early 1950s.

[teletougos]

On 21/11/2023 at 09:12, britishcolumbian said:

 

 

One could argue that NorAm TT is better for modelling Canadian subjects, than American... which is helped by the fact that several of the small-series producers in Germany are modelling the Canadian scene themselves...

Think the 'defining' auto boxcars of the 60s - 70s would be 60', or the 86' monsters

 

I'd agree with the Canadian thing. There is a Canadian covered hopper (the other big defining vehicle of the 60s - 70s was much larger hoppers, equipped for very specific bulk products.)

 

There was a 50 foot boxcar briefly IIRC, where someone had hacked up a 40 foot car and extended it.  I asked if it had a prototype on one of the American rolling stock groups. Response was unprintable  (it wasn't just rivet counting, it really didn't look like anything, and had an impossible door arrangement.) It was dropped quickly.

Edited November 22, 2023 by teletougos

[Pacific231G]

It's curious that the land of TT's birth is the place where, after an encouraging start, it almost died out (though you could probably say the same about H0, developed in London and once almost as popular as 00 but pretty rare for British outline ) I've never really understood why. The usual assumption was that it was killed by the arrival of N scale but, if that was the reason, why hasn't Z done the same to  N? 

[britishcolumbian]

1 hour ago, teletougos said:

I'd agree with the Canadian thing. There is a Canadian covered hopper (the other big defining vehicle of the 60s - 70s was much larger hoppers, equipped for very specific bulk products.)

There is also the 36' Dominion boxcars and stock cars, too, and a 36' reefer. My only issue with the Canadian covered hopper that's available is that it's a rarer type, there are other prototypes that would've been better to model first.

 

Anyways to get back to my main point, though, is that if one does some research for specific locations, something fairly accurate to *somewhere* in North America can be done in TT relatively easily.

[teletougos]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

It's curious that the land of TT's birth is the place where, after an encouraging start, it almost died out (though you could probably say the same about H0, developed in London and once almost as popular as 00 but pretty rare for British outline ) I've never really understood why. The usual assumption was that it was killed by the arrival of N scale but, if that was the reason, why hasn't Z done the same to  N? 

 American TT was (edit:) mainly a kitbuilder's scale and less of an RTR one. It was pretty much oriented toward steam, with only a couple of first generation diesels, and as far as I'm aware, a white metal DD35 or DD40  body kit was the only second generation one.  

 

N scale right from the start was RTR.  

 

Other factors as regards N and Z - N probably seemed a better option than TT until it came to be realised that 1:160 was too small to have much 'heft' and fine detail wasn't apparent because of lack of size. You can't know till you build it I guess.

 

N was a scale for 'trains in the scenery', and Z even more so,  maybe Z didn't seem sufficiently differentiated from N?

 

If TT had turned around and produced RTR in 1962 when N came out, it may have been able to demonstrate that it was a better fusion of small size while still maintaining 'presence' & an ability to portray visible detail. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by teletougos

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

16 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

HO/OO/O modelers might spend their money on new locomotives rather than chasing after wagons to make entirely accurate train formation lengths due to the constraints of layout size. Obviously, there are plenty of HO/OO/O who do model accurate train formations, I'm just curious about your typical modeler. I bet some firms have done that analysis.

I recall there was data from a major European HO manufacturer ether on Ur-RMweb or a contemporary long-gone site. It was distinctly unimpressive: per loco one coach or three wagons (someone correct my recollection if in error, and you have that data).

 

The evident lococentricity of the RTR OO interest leads me to suspect a yet lower proportion of rolling stock. (And it would be more informative to know what the collector customer and modeller customer ratios are, segregated for steam and D+E, by freight traction:wagon, passenger traction:carriage, ratios.)

[Pacific231G]

38 minutes ago, teletougos said:

 American TT was a kitbuilder's scale and never became much of an RTR one. It was pretty much oriented toward steam, with only a couple of first generation diesels, and as far as I'm aware, a white metal DD35 or DD40  body kit was the only second generation one.  

 

N scale right from the start was RTR. 

I think it became a kitbuilder's scale with items produced by Kemtron etc. but the original offer by Hal Joyce (who invented TT) certainly included a range of RTR products. However, I got into North American H0 for a while in the 1970s and everything I had was kit-built- mostly "shake-the -box" kits it is true. I don't remember seeing any RTR N. American products in Victors (there may been diesels but they didn't interest me) though I know Rivarossi was producing it.  I think there were tax reasons in the USA that made kits preferable to RTR though many of them  could be assembled in about ten minutes (If you took your time!)

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Pacific231G

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

The usual assumption was that it was killed by the arrival of N scale but, if that was the reason, why hasn't Z done the same to  N? 

Equally you could ask why T hasn’t done the same to Z (or maybe it has to some extent?). I’m not sure but I think at sub-N scales everything is a bit too tiny - perhaps N is the minimum sensible size for a lot of people. Also Z and (especially) T were very specific to one manufacturer for a long time and still are to some extent, and especially in T not everything can be motorised as it is so small. Whereas in N even really small shunting locos are possible nowadays.

[Pacific231G]

25 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Equally you could ask why T hasn’t done the same to Z (or maybe it has to some extent?). I’m not sure but I think at sub-N scales everything is a bit too tiny - perhaps N is the minimum sensible size for a lot of people. Also Z and (especially) T were very specific to one manufacturer for a long time and still are to some extent, and especially in T not everything can be motorised as it is so small. Whereas in N even really small shunting locos are possible nowadays.

That's probably true but the same applies to TT v N and, for many people, 00/H0 v TT or N. For me TT is the minimum sensible scale. 

Reading pre-war MRNs it is clear that for many modellers the same applied to 00/H0 v 0 scale but, when my father died, my mother gave me his small collection of N gauge stock. It was intended for a layout he never built and was suitable for a GW branch line so I did think of building one. I certainly could have done - I'd succesfully built a couple of H0e layouts- but I simply found the size just too small to feel any real connection with it. I'd had TT-3 as a youngster and never felt that was too small.  

At the Globalrail exhibtion last year there were layouts in 0, H0, TT and N and I definitely  found TT big enough but N too small and clearly this is a  very personal thing. 

 

Something that surprised me about Z was that, using Märklin's products, a trackplan would likely take as much space as in N gauge as the points were no shorter.

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Covkid]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The evident lococentricity of the RTR OO interest leads me to suspect a yet lower proportion of rolling stock. (And it would be more informative to know what the collector customer and modeller customer ratios are, segregated for steam and D+E, by freight traction:wagon, passenger traction:carriage, ratios.)

 

I think you are generalising.

There have been a reasonable number of wagon types available to the UK modeller should they avail themselves of them.  This has dramatically increased in the last five years, particularly from the likes of Accurascale and Rapido. I probably have around 150 RTR wagons, another 30odd kitbuilds and well over a hundred kits yet to build.  Admittedly I have over 50 locos, so my ratio is not great, but I do have enough stock to run a 50 wagon mineral train and several 10 coach passenger trains. 

[Covkid]

6 hours ago, Michanglais said:

With my limited contact with other N scale modellers, I would say the trend is towards building full-length trains and investing more in rolling stock. My interests in N are French/Swiss so I couldn't really speak for the UK market but the one UK N modeller I do know has a collection of full length HSTs. Don't know if that's typical but I suspect most N modellers have at least one or two full-length trains in their fleet.

 

Cheers,

Michael

That surely is the huge selling point for TT:120.  You can run full length passenger trains and realistic freights (bank balance permitting).  I imagine a typical East Midlands / South Yorks train of a class 56 and 35 or 36 MGRs would look really impressive in the scale - particularly as each MGR wagon could be very subtly slight different in tones and colour to it's neighbours in the rake.  Similarly a rake of hooded steel coil carriers could present a very impressive "modern image" freight to run.   

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

46 minutes ago, Covkid said:

I think you are generalising...

Yes, but based on the past twenty five years experience. Retailers tell me they depend on loco sales, and of RTR OO product, rarely take orders for other than locos. Also I purchase as much as possible s/h for the cost saving. The rolling stock so obtained is typically well used; the locos, most have only been out of the box once or twice, possibly for a test run, no wear evident on the driven wheel tyres.

 

My priorities are much as you describe, I have traction 'pools' and stock groups from which to form full size trains. There's a thousand items of rolling stock and just over 80 locos, so that I can cover variations in both the loco classes and train make ups: and that's about a dozen vehicles per loco*. Combine me with the chap I met in Somerset this spring with 600 locos, no stock, and that's not even two vehicles per loco...

 

*I have left the DMU's out!

[BrakeCoach]

7 hours ago, Michanglais said:

 

I don't know if I'm a 'typical' N scale modeller (!) but I certainly spend quite a large part of my budget on forming prototypical length rakes for my locos. I 'collect' HO and OO locos, but not really coaches. I have formed a full-length rake of Pullmans/Mk1s in TT (perhaps not prototypical), which is really waiting for a green diesel (I've got an A4 to haul them for the time being but I'm not a great steam fan, that will get sold off once a green 37 or 47 arrives). I suspect I am not alone in this. Anyway, that's beside the point of your question!

 

With my limited contact with other N scale modellers, I would say the trend is towards building full-length trains and investing more in rolling stock. My interests in N are French/Swiss so I couldn't really speak for the UK market but the one UK N modeller I do know has a collection of full length HSTs. Don't know if that's typical but I suspect most N modellers have at least one or two full-length trains in their fleet.

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

 

While full-length trains on OO/HO is amazing, smaller scales like N scale does give you a lot of leeway into having full-length trains!

 

In the world of Japanese N scale, sets are often abbreviated to a 'main' bookcase set, and then (one or even two!) optional 'add-on' bookcase sets to finish the whole train. The instruction manual gives you the correct formation up to the correct numbers and car orientations. They somehow manage this with historical loco-hauled trains too.

 

I currently have a number of them full-length and some (like the Shinkansen 100-series) in its abbreviated main set.

 

I wish bookcases were also a thing in British N and TT, since it looks pretty neat and tidy with these!

 

Here's one with Mk1s and Staniers (I have 2 of these to fit the whole train). I've got one with IC Swallow Mk1/2/3s and steam mixed freight if anyone's interested to have a look

Edited November 21, 2023 by BrakeCoach

[GenericRMWebUsername]

A new Train Terminal has just dropped previewing the Duchess and Class 66s:

https://uk.Hornby.com/community/blog-and-news/train-terminal/testing-duchess-preview

 

Any experts on Class 66 care to weigh in on the components? Two elements that stand out right away are the components with both Arnold and Hornby branding. We knew that European variants would be different from their British counterparts (tractions tires), but it looks like they will be marketed under Arnold which makes perfect sense. The other detail that is notable is the tooling with the AC unit on the cab (I believe that's what it is, somebody can correct me if I'm in error). Overall they look good!

Edited November 21, 2023 by GenericRMWebUsername

[J-Lewis]

Class 66 part look good.  Will be interesting to see if there are price differences between the continent and British versions.  Would be hard to justify, but certainly UK outline seems a bit cheaper than the usual European TT  prices?

 

Not sure if there has been a confirmed release date for either of those locos but certainly looks like they are both on track for the summer?

[GenericRMWebUsername]

1 hour ago, J-Lewis said:

Class 66 part look good.  Will be interesting to see if there are price differences betweOen the continent and British versions.  Would be hard to justify, but certainly UK outline seems a bit cheaper than the usual European TT  prices?

 

Not sure if there has been a confirmed release date for either of those locos but certainly looks like they are both on track for the summer?

Oh, you raise an interesting point. Do they go for volume or higher revenue per unit? I'm guessing they go for volume. But you're right they could easily sacrifice some sales for higher profits. This is where the advantages of TT120 really present themselves. Either way they are going to be recouping the investment on their tooling faster thanks to Arnold. For a small scale that is still vulnerable in the UK, that is a great help. 

 

You could imagine TT products like a Eurostar being released that allow British, Belgian, and French modelers the opportunity to model those trains. The products I'm really hoping they release are all the ferry wagons that were used on the continent and in Britain. ModellBahnUnion in Germany has released a number of HO and N versions of these products. For example: 

https://www.modellbahnunion.com/Blog/MU-internal/Ferryboat-spine-wagon-Rbmms-55.htm?shop=modellbahn-union-en&a=catalog&p=1006 

 

https://www.modellbahnunion.com/MU-exclusive/MU-HO-gauge/Gueterwagen-Tcefs-H0.htm?shop=modellbahn-union-en&a=catalog&p=1094

 

Arnold already has released TT versions of early ferry rolling stock, so adding more to the range is sensible. Hornby/Arnold should also work on marketing the ferry range to each market. I've seen multiple UK modelers who were a little unsure about whether or not the Arnold ferry wagons were appropriate for UK layouts. And for good reason- no English language text describing the vans is available on the Arnold website. Imagine spending months designing a wagon, tooling it, manufacturing it and not bothering to put a description on the website! 

 

Preferably they could have a brochure or webpage with all the information on cross promotable products. Is that a little bit unnecessary for seasoned UK modelers who know their rolling stock inside and out? Yeah. But TT is aimed at expanding the market and new modelers could use the documentation to feel confident that they are making accurate train formations. Plus, I bet some modelers might not even realize the Arnold rolling stock exists. I'm hoping with Key Model World coming on as stockists they can assist with getting information out. Hornby Magazine's content is superb IMO and Hornby should be receptive to whatever suggestions they give. 

 

This turned into a bit of a rant, but I feel passionately that Hornby and Arnold collaborating could be essential to the success of British TT. Instead of investing in a Continental wagon and a British wagon they can invest in a single product and drive sales in both markets. That will help both Arnold and Hornby's TT ranges to grow more rapidly and efficiently. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by GenericRMWebUsername