Paul-41ATI

Hi, forgive me but given that I have many European TT (and HO) models, bogies do not appear to be inter-changeable according to any NEM standard between brands (though in HO I have managed to swap Y25, and LHB BR651 bogies between Roco and Sachsenmodelle - the Sachsenmodelle Y25 bogies are quite crude)

Should also add - I see no reason whatsoever for a "Railroad" range - there are no previous moulds in TT120 from defunct ranges to be used, ie, like old OO gauge Mainline, Lima, etc, and everything is new and Hornby will be using modern CAD/CAM production techniques.

9Hello Guys, Didn't realise it would cause such opinion. I am in total support of detail - I have large collections of European HO and TT, and UK outline N - all finscale with excellent detailing - I do not own any poor quality moulded or die-cast models. The reason I am finescale with full detail ? - I use to design BR Traction & Rolling Stock, including bogie and wheelset design so I am a stickler for detail and proportion (OCD ?) However, a 2" diameter handrail is only 0.416mm in scale diameter for TT120 - extremely fragile (the top handrails on the Hornby TTA catwalks are wire I presume in order to achieve this). I am extremely supportive of Hornby TT120 - and have said this to Hornby directly, but being from the industry I notice things, eg, I have two complete trains of the Arnold TT cereal hoppers - absolutely superb except for a slight niggle with bogie moulding - the bogie side frames should be a complete continuous arc from suspension casting to suspension casting (ie, no straight section at each end where they meet the suspension castings) and the side frame should be slightly deeper (the moulded bogie looks a bit like a DB Y31 bogie type but having scale 920mm diameter wheels, not 840 as used on a Y31 type bogie (which would also require subtle changes to suspension springs axleboxes)). Having said that, the Arnold Multifret wagon is absolutely superb and I cannot fault it at all. So, absolutely fully supportive of detail - and absolutely no going back to poor, inaccurate, grossly overscale mouldings.

Hi, an appeal to manufacturers please - TT120 is a superb scale and with modern CAD/CAM production techniques models are exquisite. However, for items like handrails, etc, actual 1: 120 reduction looks too thin - such parts need to be slightly overscale in diameter to look right (I'm not advocating Tillig or Piko but they seem to have got it right in this respect). Also, what would be really super given the new nature of TT120 in the UK, would be for any manufacturers to have a standard common interface for bogies, ie, height of centre pivot, pivot pin diameter, sidebearer positions, etc. This would, in future, enable change out of different types from different manufacturers.

Hi, the seven plank wagons are superb and nobody should ever be critical of timescales to introduction, but we do need freight stock from early BR era through to bang up to date to encourage youngsters. My newsagent stocks Hornby TT120 and can see the appeal over N gauge for youngsters - need the wagons to go with the forthcoming class 66s

Also to add the Peco points have track centre spacing of 35mm - quite appropriate for British outline - for my European outline layout I use 38mm on visible sections, but revert to 43mm track centres for hidden sidings, etc (need to take account of vehicle overthrow)

Hi, perhaps a recap re track (I have a large collection of European TT). Hornby's track geometry appears to be the based on Tillig, ie, including the R631 point, though not strictly as per Tillig since the Hornby points require LH or RH diamond crossing whereas Tillig has just a standard crossing, which is also the basis of their single and double slip. Also, using the Tillig R310/R631 curved points and appropriate R310 curves, curved crossovers can be achieved maintaining 43mm track centres. BUT Tillig point's do not have over centre spring locking (except for their pre-ballasted toy range) - therefore if Peco produced set track using Tillig's geometry, they would have a clear winner of a set track system (and would suggest Hornby and Peco work together to have just one system - Peco ?, even in futureHornby train sets ?) I have emailed Peco to ask if they would also consider curved points, single and double slips based upon their point's and diamond crossing, together with concrete sleepers track - hopefully soon so I can start my more to scale layout. I have also suggested to Peco that a standard 10' wheelbase wagon underframe (a couple of axle box types - plain split androller bearing - but not open fronted or Hybox, with shoe suspension, etc) would suffice for most BR and predecessor companies wagon types, with a multitude liveries of course.

Hornby's track is not quite the same as Tillig - and I cannot understand why. The points are different to Tillig - at R631, by geometry, 15 degrees has a length of 163mm - so very close to the 166 length. But Hornby's seem to have a long lead to the start of the switch rails. Also, Tillig only have 1 x 15 degree crossing (and use the same geometry for their single slip and double slip), whereas Hornby has both LH and RH crossings - it's all about the position of the end of the curved rails (SK told me the R640 was to compensate for the end position of the curved rails, but a direct copy of Tillig may have proved easier on track pieces required). I guess too late to change tooling now. Also, why such wide switch to stock rail gaps ? However, I really need lots of R310 / R631 curved points - Hornby's USP is they incorporate a latching mechanism- Tillig only does this on it's plastic ballasted "toy" track. If Hornby were to produce curved points - then please copy Tillig geometry.

As sold, they represent the early version. For 1980s version - underframe with Taperleaf springs and markings as per Total tank, ie, TOPS Nos, TOPS Panel, Hazchem panel on tank, TOPS yellow oval plate on solebar. However, you'd be better looking at relevant photos.

Hi, Airfix kit was the ESSO 35T Gross Laden Weight (GLW) tank wagons - 3200 series were class A and those still extant became ESSO 43200 etc, under TOPS (early 1970s), whilst 3300 series were class B and those still extant became ESSO 43300 etc. Incidentally, ESSO similar LPG tank wagons were ESSO 43101 etc. The Hornby models are the 45T GLW version, with UIC Double Link suspension, with 6105 becoming ESSO 56105 under TOPS. Since this batch was built mid 60s, they had less than 10 years before becoming renumbered for TOPS. In later years these vehicles would have had Taperleaf springs fitted in lieu of 13 plate spring (as per the Total model) - 15 foot wheelbase vehicles had a (higher) risk of derailment on jointed track and track having particular cyclic top and were thus reduced to 45mph in tare - Taperleaf enabled 60mph in tare and, with having air brakes, they were compatible to operate in Speedlink services, etc.

Actually good call by Hornby - the Carless tanks (owned by NACCO and leased to Carless) are actually 51 tonnes GLW, TOPS code TUA, with Gloucester pedestal suspension and fabricated soldiers. Plenty of other TTAs to go at though - refer my previous comments.

LPG tank wagons to add to list of types. Forgot to add - bring ESSO up to date with taperleaf springs and TOPS numbers / markings. Also forgot to add - liveries and markings for all the leasing companies: Tiger Rail, Railease, GE, BRT & E, Procor (PR), CAIB, VTG, etc. What about triple packs, for loose coupled trains, Speedlink, block trains, etc

My order is in process also. Various other liveries are possible, eg, Shell-Mex, Shell, ICI, STS, Algeco, Fina, Charringtons, Gulf, etc. Also, conical and truncated conical tank bodies are possible (bitumen, heavy fuel oils, etc). Then there are chemical tank wagons - chlorine, caustic soda liquor, etc (ICI Mond division). Plus CO2 tanks Looking at all the photos, the underframe are ripe for other models (with 13 plate or Brunnighaus taperleaf springs as appropriate) - Blue Circle Palvans, PO Open Boxes inc Scrap Boxes (multitude of liveries), China Clay tarpaulin covered Boxes, early design PCAS, BR HBAs/HEAs, MFAS, etc.

Guys, having worked in the industry (BR and mainland Europe, in design, testing and maintenance) could I perhaps give some simple, generalised/approx dimensions for rolling stock (but in reality, also needing gauge reduction, suspension movement calculations, etc): BR: 9'-0" wide, reducing to 8'-6" below 3'-0" platform height, 13'-0" high France, Italy: 10'-0" wide from just above rail level, 14'-0" high (but many routes being cleared upwards - as below) Belgium, Germany: 10'-0" wide from just above rail level, 15'-0" high. Standard platform height for container wagons in Belgium, Germany, etc is 1150mm, but for SNCF they developed the Multifret at 945mm platform height to operate similar container sizes within their loading gauge (it just so happened that 945 was suitable for the UK). 1150mm platform height wagons can use the standard Y25 bogie with 920mm wheels, but the Multifret uses the reduced frame height Y31 bogie with 840mm wheels. Both the original Tillig and Arnold models are therefore correct for the wagons they represent (though the ex Hobbytrain ? wagons that Tillig took over have a not too good looking Y25 bogie - I hope they will change them for a better looking version in future).

Just rec'd my wagons with "ONE" containers. Hornby are to be congratulated - absolutely superb/fantastic. Moulding is superb and very intricate, and the Y31 bogies capture their prototype design and really look the part. Not checked deck height but looks about right - should be a scale 945mm (new wheels, tare wagon). Buffer heights match my existing Tillig stock and new Peco UK wagons (prototype buffer height should be 3'-5.1/2" / 1055mm max with new wheels, tare wagon). Max width - over the UIC towing hooks - scales just under 8'-8", so inside BR wagon loading gauge of 9'-0". All in all, in my opinion, a superb wagon. Hornby UK to model some Tesco containers for these wagons, to be hauled by DRS class 66. Incidentally, re the forthcoming cereal hoppers from Arnold - these look, from the images, as though they are modelled on the standard UIC wagons, ie, wider and taller than those operated in the UK (wagons built for UK operation we're longer to compensate for the loss in cross sectional area).