[Graham Plowman]

My thoughts on this:

Peco will obviously be privvy to the figures of how well their 2mm scale products sell. I suspect that given their models are not up to the standard of Bachmann and Dapol, they probably aren't doing that well.

Triang never supported TT3 seriously. It was not to the international standard introduced in 1945. Peco will know how well their 12mm gauge track is selling in the USA and Europe. I suspect they are trying to improve their sales in the UK.

TT3 was a coarse scale. In today's environment with better standards and highly detailed models it could be an attractive option, indeed, my observation of it at exhibitions is that it seems to be very much the realm of 'high standards' modelling due to the need to build everything as a result of no RTR.

Modellers everywhere are always short of space. The popular idea for a solution is to work in a smaller scale. I don't go along with that idea. Someone once said "If you are short of space consider O Gauge". O Gauge is very much "Less is more", although I think many would not agree. TT has the edge on OO for space without the loss of detail that comes with 2mm scale.

True track gauge in 120 scale is 11.9583333mm, an error of 0.04 of a mm or 0.35%. So it well and truly overcomes the "better track" argument. It is better than both OO and O gauge in that respect.

If they can get this close to the correct track gauge in TT then it demonstrates that there is absolutely no excuse why they cannot mass produce P4 !

Good luck to Peco. This could solve a lot of peoples' problems.

 

[Graham Plowman]

As I am sure you recognise the barrier to a true scale 4mm is not technical. It's about space requirement. That's why we have HO mechanisms in OO models.

The reason we have HO mechanisms in OO model is because the thicknesses of plastics and size/strength of valvegear is such that it is difficult to make them strong enough if the mechanism is correct gauge (ie P4).

What is going to be interesting here is that if they start with true-scale track for TT-120, then what are manufacturers going to do about the bodies/valvegear that they couldn't make thin/strong enough in 4mm ? They can do it in 3mm ? Hmmm. That provokes some thoughts...

If some brand had been brave back in 1990 with the fixed link to HO-land opening, and had launched contemporary D+E models in HO, by now we would have no scale/gauge problem in UK RTR modelling, fior the period since steam was withdrawn. UK HO D+E will work just as well as all the rest of the world's HO D+E.

Personally, I think the 'critical date' was some10-15 years earlier. If Lima had made its HO scale models in the 1970's to the same 'standard' that they achieved in the mid-late 1980's when we only had Lima and Hornby wasn't doing much, I think the whole proposition of British HO could be very different today. This would have meant that when the fixed link to HO-land opened, the UK could already have been HO and British products today would be running with compatibility with their European counterparts.

The recidivists like myself wanting steam, would still be in OO if using RTR. All the UK's narrow width dimension, thus less space for outside valve gear, and close fitting splashers on driving wheels limitations, which forced the OO compromise will equally apply to 1:120 TT.

It will be interesting to see what happens in 1:120 TT. They are starting with correct track. One wonders what compromises will be made to accomodate the narrower UK loading gauge. But at least they have the track gauge right! So long as we don't end up with 3mm scale track and 3.25mm scale bodies!!!

This makes the choices for anyone venturing steam models in TT 'interesting'. Might it be the case that those wanting Walschaerts gear pacifics and similar size locos are told 600mm minimum radius, or some similar figure? That would enable correct exterior appearance, no need for the 'vari-scale' approach of stretching the width dimension. With a new introduction, it should be possible to 'reset' minimum radius expectations. (Your inside cylinder 0-6-0 will be quite happy on 200mm radius or thereabouts, so the choice lies with the layout builder - compact curves = small locos - if you want a main line with big engines then much larger radii are necessary.)

Resetting the minimum radius expectation is long overdue. We are either building a model railway or we are building a toy trainset. If you want to build a trainset, then I'm afraid that trainset curves require compromises in the models. If you don't want models compromised, then don't use toy-trainset radius curves!

I always laugh when the 'better OO gauge track brigade' holler on about wanting 'better OO track', then they demand sub-30 inch radius so that they can have their pacific locos running round with massive front and rear overhang!!! Toy trains comes to mind.

 

[Graham Plowman]

To be perfectly honest, I think the TT:120 thing is an attempt at creating a whole new market for people to spend their money on.
Think about it: the OO market is basically saturated. All the major locos and rolling stock are being made and there are few opportunities for commercially viable products left. If a new market is created in a new scale, the whole thing can repeat itself.
Personally, I couldn't be bothered with TT:120 because it is too small. 4mm is about right for most people and for those that it isn't, there is 2mm.
O Gauge is far better - now there's a market which is now proven and has lots of opportunities, although sadly, most layouts I see I made by 'plonkers' - people who buy stuff and 'plonk' it on their layout with none of that ancient art called 'modelling' actually done. Rather reminiscent of the 60's when every layout had Airfix and Superquick buildings.