D9020 Nimbus

Can anyone who has one of these tell me the dimensions of the "holes" in the ends where the track would run through? While the website gives the overall dimensions, it doesn't give these.

I suspect the reason for freedom from derailments is down to the coaches having body mounted couplings rather than bogie mounted as was the case in the past.

I can't see how it makes any difference to the cost of printing which way you go. If the files are bitmap graphics, then I'd have thought downsizing from OO would be best. In any case I suspect the labels work out a lot less than the printer ink…

It does occur to me that in code 55 Peco track, while the rails are actually code 80 buried in the sleepers, the blades will have to be genuinely code 55, which may account for their fragility. I've used Fleischmann N gauge track on a couple of layouts. While the earliest points I purchased are fine and remain so, later ones have given problems. A 3-way point which stopped working, an ordinary point that jammed, and more recently a point that developed a short (this latter is a live frog point, despite being set-track, that doesn't require special wiring). On pushing the replacement into place, the pressure caused one of the running rails to detach from the track-bed. The second replacement was fine, though… for now.

Some of the British railway companies had stations with very distinctive track layouts. The Midland Railway, builder of the Settle and Carlisle line (whose typical buildings are in the current range) is particularly notable for the lengths it went to to avoid using facing points. In particular, lay-bys (lines to put a slow train on so it could be overtaken) were dead-end sidings rather than loops. This was intended as a safety measure (and it avoided the cost of facing-point locks). But it was a contributory factor in a serious railway accident (Charfield, 1928) due to the time taken for a goods train to be shunted aside, although the primary cause was a SPAD (signal passed at danger).

The A3s were nearly all named after racehorses. Many years ago, there was an article in Railway World Annual where they listed the information on each one—where they could find it, as some were very obscure. The ER "Deltics", by contrast, were all named after famous racehorses—mostly Derby winners.

If using track plans of European origin it's a good idea to be aware that station track plans in most European countries are very different from British ones. Three way points and double slips are much more common, and loops are preferred to sidings for handling goods traffic, on the whole. And the goods shed of a branch terminus would often be next to the station building. Of course, remaining branch terminus stations are like British ones now—just a single line, with no goods facilities…

The Tillig EW1 points are shorter (129.5mm vs 166) and are equivalent to radius 3 plus a straight piece of track, so can't be included in a curve either. Tillig do however make curved points. The non-ballasted Tillig points are non-latching, and require either an additional hand lever or a point motor which is capable of holding the blades in place. They appear to be what Peco call "unifrog", though the text relating to this is one of the few parts of the catalogue not to have an English translation provided.

I have a Tillig V36 (the same type of loco) in DR Era III livery—mine is a fine runner, and I haven't yet had any problems with Tillig locos in either TT or narrow gauge. I've bought several items from Modellbahnshop Lippe before, but I haven't had to return a faulty one yet. I've had issues with other brands though—especially split gears on Farish models, both Poole and China made, though from about five or six years ago they changed to using white nylon gears instead of black plastic and these appear to be better. FYI, the V36 was a WW2 design for the Wehrmacht, and post war they appeared in both Germanys, in France (030DB) and Italy—and no doubt others. 236 is the DB era IV designation. Models have been made in HO by Lenz and by Fleischmann/Roco, and in N by Minitrix and Hobbytrain. They were sometimes used on passenger trains, not just for shunting.

I saw 60007 Sir Nigel Gresley hauling a freight train at Low Fell in the early 1960s. If I remember correctly, it was mostly 4-wheel vans and travelling on the main line, not on the goods lines. The coal trains, however, were at the time all hauled by either J27s or Q6s and that would remain the case until practically the end of steam in the area (1967). I'd have thought the Scotch Goods would have usually been hauled by a V2, or perhaps an A2 (6’ 2” wheels, smaller than the other Pacifics).

Of course we don't know whether this also applies to other brands of set track in other scales. The only reason it’s become an issue here is because the set was available before the separate items. When was an OO or N gauge set last tested—by anybody?

Funnily enough there seems to be more adverse comment from OO modellers than from N gaugers. A lot of it seems to stem from the perception that Hornby are moving development resources away from OO towards TT. This is often coupled with a comment that "the OO market isn't saturated". This really means "Hornby haven't made the model I want, and now there's less chance of them making it". It's not surprising that traders who can't sell it are hostile — any money spent on TT:120 is money they aren't getting, after all, so it's in their interest to discourage people from getting involved with the scale. The QC issues that CB picked up have been pointed out by others, though he was hostile to Hornby’s chosen method of distribution. As for "the bloke who does Little Bytham" (I assume you mean Tony Wright) he doesn't have a YouTube channel AFAIK although a couple of videos featuring his layout have appeared on the World of Railways Channel — I haven't seen the most recent one. He's certainly not an "influencer" as far as I can see.

It would be helpful if Hornby were to follow Bachmann's practice (before they changed to announcing only items planned to be available within the next three months or so) to give a list in the club magazine of all the items that have been announced together with the stage in the development process that they are at (research, tooling, 1st e.p., livery samples, in production, etc.)

Kato have produced models of RhB locos and stock (metre gauge) in N to a scale of 1:150 and running on standard gauge track—a combination sometimes referred to as Nn.

Tillig make a magnetic tool which lifts the couplings from above. Generally fine on wagons, not very useful on coaches which are usually too close together.

At 1:120 scale (2.5mm/ft) surely 60 ft = 150mm?

The Hornby train set controller, in my experience, causes buzzing at slow speeds in any model loco due to the pulse control. I'd suggest it's probably a good idea to invest in a better controller (Gaugemaster or HM2000, for example).

It's worth pointing out that the dust generated when cutting MDF is carcinogenic. Good quality plywood should also be resistant to warping.

Ratio (Peco) are planning GWR-prototype semaphore signals. Most European railway signals are quite different from British ones. IIRC traditional Italian semaphores are rather British in appearance but aren't available in TT.

NEM355 (N gauge) and NEM358 (TT) are supposed to be identical. I haven't tried them on Tillig (or any other TT model) but have tried them on various N gauge brands including Dapol (obviously) Fleischmann and Brawa with no issues — but they are too big to fit in the pockets on Farish stock… Perhaps the two standards are slightly different after all: an N gauge coupling has to be capable of lifting, a TT one doesn't, yet Fleischmann Profi couplings have been used on both…

There are third-party circuit breakers available (e.g. from DCCconcepts). Very necessary as some DCC systems aren't protected against short circuits, especially those of US origin.

That's disappointing — one advantage that TT has over N is that uncoupling is a lot easier — it is with Tillig anyway. So it looks as if it'll be necessary to replace the couplings on stock that has to be shunted, and I find the Tillig couplings very fiddly to install — they're supplied in kit form, and the metal part is very thin (too thin to hold with tweezers). And unlike tension-locks in OO (or TT-3 for that matter) you can't dispense with the hook on one of the couplings and expect them to stay coupled (I've tried, on a Piko V20). If the couplings have to be changed anyway, Dapol Easi-Shunts become an option — it's not as if Tillig couplings are cheap.

If you're a member of the TT:120 club, there should be a link in the member's area of the website to download a PDF version.

There has been some speculation that the date should actually read "winter 2023/4”.

There have been a few articles in Railway Modeller, though none recently—they were about the middle of last year before Hornby announcing it (i.e. just after Peco made their announcement). The Spring issue of BRM (due out digitally in four weeks, and in paper form in five) will contain a review of the Scotsman set by Tony Wright, an expert on things LNER. This isn’t the current (March) issue which is yet to appear in print form. There aren't as yet any TT:120 layouts for the magazines to cover, although a number of articles related to other gauges can often be relevant.