New Peco TT120 set track

[Peachy]

I see in this months Railway Modeller that Peco have announced some more TT120 Code 55 set track to compliment their points & crossover (and of course flexi) 

Great to see this and although only 310mm/R2 plus some straights, I do hope this is a sign of more things to come. 
I’m personally hoping R3 & R4 will soon follow (I want them for use in a helix) and of course slips & curved points would really help with small layout builds. 
Cheers Peco! 

Edited August 5 by Peachy
Spelling

[PeterStiles]

Ye of little ambition! I want R5 and R7 curves!

[steve1023]

Concrete sleeper flexi for me. 
 

[Butler Henderson]

Wonders if Peco are actually producing them as the thick sleepers at the ends look very much like Roco track including Roco made Hornby System 6. Did Roco make TT track and if so maybe its those toolings being used by someone for Peco,

[RichardT]

The ends look exactly like Peco N Setrack, so I suspect that these are made by Peco. It’s what they do, after all.

[Peachy]

My Peco track wish list;

Concrete sleeper flexi 

R3 & R4 (for easy Helix building if nothing else)

Double slip

Y point

curved points

Turntable long enough for a Duchess 👸 

(Although I fancy @Westhillwagonworks might beat them to that 😉)

Edited August 5 by Peachy
Forgot something

[osbornsmodels]

new brochure coming out showing more commitment to the scale. Another mainstream manufacturer coming back on board possibly as well

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Peachy said:

I see in this months Railway Modeller that Peco have announced some more TT120 Code 55 set track to compliment their points & crossover (and of course flexi) 

Great to see this and although only 310mm/R2 plus some straights, I do hope this is a sign of more things to come. 
I’m personally hoping R3 & R4 will soon follow (I want them for use in a helix) and of course slips & curved points would really help with small layout builds. 
Cheers Peco! 

 

I think points and crosings to Setrack geometry would be useful and make the conversion of plans from other scales much easier.

[moawkwrd]

Agreed, the different geometry of the Hornby track probably has held back the scale a tad because layout plans don’t scale easily, mostly due to the points. If you’re wanting to attract people who’ve left the hobby or new people you need to make it as easy as possible.

 

Of course part of the reason for that is the rolling stock not being able to go around tighter curves. If Hornbys points had been tighter there would have been a lot of frustration with the initial sets.

Edited August 6 by moawkwrd

[PeterStiles]

36 minutes ago, moawkwrd said:

different geometry of the Hornby track

I thought it was the same as the well-respected and potentially-considered-standard Tillig track

[Peachy]

Although obviously being a fan of Peco track, I’m not so sure that Hornbys track is entirely to blame for all of the issues some newbie’s or returning modeller’s have had with derailment.
I think a lot of those issues could be firmly attributed to the bogies on the A1/3/4 having a combination of poor back to back axles, poor assembly of the mount & poor placement (in the factory) of details such as the steps on the A3’s. With these sorted, I’ve had no problems. 
Also, for example, there was one chap who complained & complained all over social media about these issues and eventually gave up, selling his layout and stock to Malc’s models where upon inspection his layout showed the most poorly laid track I’ve ever seen (such as shoehorning different radius within one 180 degree curve with gaps up to 4mm apart! Nothing could successfully run on that track let alone a long chassis with a delicate bogie. 

[moawkwrd]

1 hour ago, PeterStiles said:

I thought it was the same as the well-respected and potentially-considered-standard Tillig track

It is but it’s completely different to N/OO set track which obviously all of our plan books over the past few decades have been largely based on, particular those aimed at beginners.

 

So as soon as you start adapting plans everything needs to be wider and pushed out to accommodate the bigger radius points which for beginners isn’t ideal.

Edited August 6 by moawkwrd

[meatloaf]

If the straights match the length of the streamline points that will be a bonus. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

It's a pity they couldn't do some more wagons than just the 7-plank — they have followed up the N gauge 7-plank wagon with 16-ton minerals and BR standard ventilated vans in both plywood and plank-sided versions. All of these would be useful in TT:120…

[irishmail]

On 06/08/2024 at 14:35, D9020 Nimbus said:

It's a pity they couldn't do some more wagons than just the 7-plank — they have followed up the N gauge 7-plank wagon with 16-ton minerals and BR standard ventilated vans in both plywood and plank-sided versions. All of these would be useful in TT:120…

Can't remember where I saw it, maybe one of the facebook groups, but did see mention of Peco possibly doing 16 tonners for next year?

[HSB]

On 06/08/2024 at 14:35, D9020 Nimbus said:

It's a pity they couldn't do some more wagons than just the 7-plank — they have followed up the N gauge 7-plank wagon with 16-ton minerals and BR standard ventilated vans in both plywood and plank-sided versions. All of these would be useful in TT:120…

I'm very disappointed that they are putting their time and effort into set-track instead of increasing their range of wagons. Some underframe kits like they do in 00 would be a help as they could be used with 3D printed or laser-cut bodies from other sources.

[JohnR]

59 minutes ago, HSB said:

I'm very disappointed that they are putting their time and effort into set-track instead of increasing their range of wagons. Some underframe kits like they do in 00 would be a help as they could be used with 3D printed or laser-cut bodies from other sources.

 

I don't think the people who work on the track also do the rolling stock. 

 

Having said that, I think Peco would really clean up with a 16T minerals and BR 20T brake van.

[D9020 Nimbus]

The BR brake van has not (yet) been retooled in N gauge. The existing version is from tooling that is over 50 years old and is, to say the least, dimensionally inaccurate (though there is an accurate BR brake van in N from Farish).

[TrainsRule88]

Great to see some new setrack for TT. I personally would like to see some concrete sleeper track for TT and also some bullhead track. Bullhead track would be excellent to have in TT as for the first time it is the correct gauge for the scale and would look fantastic!

[osbornsmodels]

nimbus commented

Quote

though there is an accurate BR brake van in N from Farish).

I wonder how long Bachmann Farish resist the temptation that is TT1:120. After all they have embraced 00-9 and NG7 which were minority scales/gauges until reasonably recently.

Fingers crossed for if and when Heljan gets back on board. If Ben Jones is lurking, any news or comment?

[JohnR]

2 minutes ago, osbornsmodels said:

nimbus commented

I wonder how long Bachmann Farish resist the temptation that is TT1:120. After all they have embraced 00-9 and NG7 which were minority scales/gauges until reasonably recently.

Fingers crossed for if and when Heljan gets back on board. If Ben Jones is lurking, any news or comment?

 

I think Bachmann are quite happy with expanding their 009 and NG7 ranges rather than going into another scale, which it could be argued is competing with N, that they are already in.

 

Heljan is a different matter, though, and they could well be looking at it. 

[osbornsmodels]

John R commented

Quote

I think Bachmann are quite happy with expanding their 009 and NG7 ranges rather than going into another scale

Perhaps but the argument about competing with their N scale does not square with Peco's position who have long been into N Scale. Also Bachmann Scenecraft are already committed to producing a small range of buildings to commission for Malc's Models. Business is Business!

[Peachy]

I received the production samples direct from Steve yesterday. Video review will be up on my channel later this afternoon.

i must say I’m pleased to report the tooling looks just as good as the Streamline and the geometry is spot on.
And of course, super smooth. 

[Peachy]

So my video reviewing the new set track production samples has been up now since 4pm yesterday and although it’s attracting plenty of views, there’s been almost no comments or discussion about wether people think this set track is a good/bad idea etc. 

Anyone on here got any thoughts? 

My personal view was initially that bringing out set track was a waste of Peco’s time, and that I wished this announcement was for more Streamline specialist point work or concrete sleeper flexi. However, after actually using it, I was impressed with actually how well it performed. 
As a “Streamliner” I think the r2 could well be a good compliment to Streamline as getting the code 55 flexi to join sweetly on 180 curves is always a testing task. Also if they do bring out 3 & 4 I’ll definitely be looking at using it for a helix. 
The only thing that I think might have been better to do would have been to launch this as a starter set? But then Steve Haynes did say that’s likely to be next on the list. 

Edited August 11 by Peachy

[meatloaf]

Im glad that Peco are doing the set track. In some ways its a better system than the 00 or N systems as the streamline points can be slotted straight into an oval without the need to cut lengths of flexi to fit. Plus with set track curves theres no need to mix peco points or flexi with Hornby curves.

 

Maybe R3 and 4 next along with a short straight to use between the streamline points to give the set track double track spacing. 

 

Actually @Peachy how far off the standard Hornby double track spacing would a pair of streamline points with  short straight between them be?

 

Set track spacing can be achieved in N and 00 using streamline points and a small straight using large radiusa points and ST-2 straights in N and using medium radius points and an ST-202 in 00