I think you already covered it.

I think you already covered the reason in your original post...

To some people, its no more complicated than that.

George

if I recall....

TT is the second totally AMERICAN scale at 1/10 inch to the foot. The other is S scale. You can still find American TT scale on Evil-Bay as well, so it's not quite an oddball, it simply fell into disuse. The Europeans seemed to fall in love with it and have adapted it to their own locos and rolling stock. 

Scratchbuilding

There's a modeler here in the Omaha area, Ryan Moats, who's building his entire HOn3 layout - including all locomotives, cars, structures, etc. - from scratch, simply for the challenge - http://canonicalblue.org/BlackhawkCentralCity/ .  I could be forgetting something, but I think the only "ready-made" items he's using are the locomotive motors and decoders, wheels, and trucks.  I think he's even scratching his locomotive drivers.

Except for the truck/wheel issues, guys like that could model in any scale with about the same amount of effort.

... and then there is "T gauge" ...

Try getting North American locos/rolling stock for this gauge - 1:450. It is the challenge. Here is one offering:

http://trainaidsa.com/shop-tgauge.shtml

Most of what is available is Japanese locos/rolling stock, but Trainaidsa is getting some North American.

Scratch building

Thanks for posting that, Joe.  I spent an enjoyable hour or so reading about his modeling.  I'm impressed!

Just for the heck of it....

I went to Ebay after I wrote my last post, and you should see all the American TT scale there. I was surprised. HJ Products was one maker, the other was Kemtron. There are some modern US TT makers too, one in particular named Gold Coast which had some nice 40s era cars for scale.

TT in the 1990s

In the mid-1990s, RailTech in Ann Arbor, Michigan was trying to stir up renewed enthusiasm for TT scale. I ended up building a small demonstration layout for them based on the old Model Railroader "Gold Hill Central" project layout.

It was an interesting project- the track was from Tillig, and for motive power we used an HP Products B&O saddle tank switcher kit. I had more fun building that little switcher than anything I'd worked on in a long time. The rolling stock was old wood and cardstock boxcar and reefer kits that I modernized with plastic pieces where I could, and with Kemtron brass trucks from a dwindling supply we had on hand.

After a while I began to really appreciate the benefits of the size, and started building a few cars from scratch in styrene. Those never got finished because a change in living situation at that time put my modeling on hold for a while after that. When I was able to resume modeling, I shifted my focus back to HO scale.

Railtech was planning to release some North American equipment in TT, including a 2-8-0 and some boxcars, but didn't get much farther than tooling some Delrin freight car trucks before it got out of the TT scale business.

TT Track Uses

In Europe, the TT track works out to be about a meter gauge, which a lot of the European narrow gauge lines used HOm.  So when I picked up some RadisheBahn equipment, it turns out the track was just a little too wide for my HOn3 equipment.

What benefits?

That's exactly what IO wanted to learn about.  What are the benefits?  Obviously, smaller models need less space than HO, and larger models are easier to work on then N, but what benefits are you referring to?  I'm surprised to hear there are any TT modelers out there, to be honest.

Benefit

Since the scale is 1:120 and 1/10=12" you don't have to work in millimeters. It's an AMERICAN scale after all.

Benefits

The benefit I appreciated the most was mainly the smaller size than HO, without being quite as small as N scale. I'd spent a good deal of time doing fiddly command control installs (primarily SelecTRIX) in N scale locomotives by that time, and TT involved a bit less eye-crossing.

But also, as ThatAppyGuy pointed out above, being able to do the scale conversions in my head as I worked.

Benefit?

Since the scale is 1:120 and 1/10=12" you don't have to work in millimeters. It's an AMERICAN scale after all.

The AMERICAN Congress approved the metric system on 1866.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology

Why we are still bogged down with the cumbersome feet and inches mess is beyond me.

Jose.

@Jose - Why? Because...

Americans seem to hate change. One of the first proponents of the Metric System in the US was Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President. As an example of our resistance to change see the discussion of the changes to MRH.

I, for one, use metric measurements in much of my model building.

Much depends on the exact

Much depends on the exact context the question is asked as to "Why TT?"

TT originated in an era when HO was thought to be the smallest practical scale, but following the war even smaller electric motors became available making a smaller yet scale possible. For those with really limit space for a layout, as it was for many in the 50's, TT looked very promising, along with its "American" dimension scale, rather than being scaled in millimeters. This was also an era of dedicated scratchbuilders, so the lack of much in the way of commercial equipment was not much of an obstacle to hobbyists. Just about everything for TT was kit only, or scratch. Naturally, once even smaller N gauge surfaced, with its little RTR trains, TT in America was essentially doomed having lost much of its advantage.

Today's niche American interest in TT by hobbyists arises mainly out of a desire of the hobbyist to be "different" in his modeling from others, just as there are also Sn3 enthusiasts. I gather its more about that and the challenge than anything else that drives TT enthusiasts.

NYW&B

Which is the question?

Why do they do it?  Because they want to and should not be belittled for trying.

Or what are the benefits sought via TT gauge.  I'll address the latter.

ONE I can recall when O-scale seemed "real" vs. HO scale seemed toy-like.  But then HO got a lot better.  Not just the rolling stock but also the scenery details. Please recall Vic Roseman's article in MR about how to model a passenger station platform -- wow, all those accessories available for HO.

TWO just an opinion, HO is the last scale (going smaller) where the scenery, if you squint -- fields, brush, small trees in particular -- looks halfway realistic.

THREE Imagine the plight of the 4'x8' plywood benchwork era.  Where was a scale were the turnback curves were other than painful for 40' foot box cars and light duty steam?  Atlas and MR believed that 1/87 resulting in 18" curves were OK.  But if you study the cover of Feb '13 MR, you see that telltale angle as cars slide through an over-tight curve.  (Same observed when MR and Kato ran N-scale heavyweight passenger cars on a 3'x9' layout, "The Salt Lake Route";  especially noted in their video.)  TT would have seemed to be a blessing compared to HO.  And back then, N scale was a scale for the brave and hardy.

FOUR  I can only speculate, but I think that some of the rolling stock detail that is only modeled in 2-1/2 D on the bottom of N-scale freight cars could be fully 3-D in TT scale.  I'd like that.

Lots of things have come and gone.  The Cord, Studebaker, PRR and Penn Central, 8-track.  TT was an evolutionary branch that ended.  It was what it was.  All I ask is that you imagine a clean slate, a tabula rasa for the hobby.  Would you really choose 1/22.5, 1/48, 1/64, 1/87, 1/160, and 1/220? 

Or perhaps would you think more about hobbyists' needs and less about legacy track from a prior scale?  Wouldn't you try (USA only)

1:24,  1:48,  1:64,  1.96,  1:120, 1:180

(To me Z-scale at 1:220 is cute but can't put enough ounces on the rail to permit realistic switching.)

##

TT scale FAQ

http://www.ttscale.com/faq.html

Although originally developed in America  "TT scale in Europe is second only to HO scale, and is gaining." 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read elsewhere that ROKAL TT scale produced in East Germany (1949-1968) is 3mm = 1 '   a little larger than US TT  1/10" = 1' or 2.54 mm = 1'   It is interesting that like HO it mixes "English" and Metric units

Thanks for the responses

Nobody is belittling anyone, as far as I can tell.  We all make our own decisions about what to model and how to do it, and we all have our reasons for making those decisions.  My question was/is an honest attempt to learn more about those reasons for the folks who have chosen this somewhat obscure (today, in the US) scale.

That's a big part of the question.  There must be some advantage, real or imagined, that drives a person to eschew an established scale and go for something different.  That could be as simple as "I want to be different" or "The scale conversion is easier" but whatever it is, I'd like to learn more about it.

I don't know.  I'm not a big fan of imperial units and complex scale conversions.  I'm finding that more and more I use the metric side of my rulers and calipers whenever practical.  Quick, what's 3" in 1:24, or 1:96?  Conversely, what's 3 cm in 1:100?  To be honest, I'm surprised that there is not an all-metric scale out there.  1:100 actually seems quite practical.  Of course, once you have rulers made for a given scale, the scale is almost immaterial.  Just do all your work with that ruler, and it can be of any scale you like.

I like this comment from the FAQ posted:

I'm one of those people who don't like to look at a model and be able to identify the manufacturer first.  I like to see the model for what it is supposed to represent.  I can see the appeal in that regard!  Of course, someone who knows all of the limited range of products available for North American TT modelers might more readily identify every one of them on a given layout.

scale is relative

I understand that in Europe at least, a great number of the plastic structures available are actually undersized for HO, and TT scalers happily use them without modification.  I think North American kits are usually better scaled in terms of doors and windows (even if they are compressed in other dimensions,) so it might not be possible to use them without altering at least the doors.

S scale has suffered from a lack of kits and detail parts, and borrowing them from other scales was always common, so I think similarly that modified HO buildings would be a sensible way of getting structures for TT.

S and TT around the world

How do you define "totally AMERICAN scale"?  Both are used widely outside the US. 

Mark

S scale

One thing that's no longer true about S is the need to scratchbuild everything or borrow from other scales.

While it's true that S doesn't have the selection of HO, it does have enough support in flex track, RTR locomotives, and RTR rolling stock to build a layout.  There are quite a few structure kits available also.

This site http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/sscale.html has a lot of information on what's available.  Note that S Helper/Showcase Line is no longer in business and has sold all their tooling to MTH who is expected to begin production some time this year.

The NASG site also has information on what's available.

Enjoy

Paul

not totally

I think "totally" American is an exaggeration, but both of the scales originated in the US, while most of the rest were either European or Japanese inventions.  You could define 1:48 O gauge as American too, though the 1 1/4" track gauge originated in Europe as 1:45 or 1:43 in England.

1/4" Scale Origin

I believe that 1/4" 0 (zero) scale/gauge came from the same source as gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4.  Henry Greenly was the Englishman behind them all, he even dabbled in smaller scales still.  At some point British modellers changed to 7mm to the foot (and later still created Half Zero scale at 3.5mm to the foot).

Why they changed is subject to conjecture, one reference I read suggested that it was a drawing error but I think it might be the same reason that they use 4mm scale on 16.5mm gauge track.  A slightly (if 10-15% is slight) larger scale on the same gauge gives them more room for the overscale thickness wheels without having to push to rest of the loco outwards (cylinders and the British style footplate and splashers.  The same problem with overscale thick wheels (eg RP25 - 110) causes problems with other prototypes as well leading to cylinders being pushed out on many steam locos.

Mark

Ah-Ha!

That's the best explanation I've heard yet for the slight narrowing of the gauge in a number of scales.  While the OO vs. HO argument - making room for motors in the smaller models - makes some sense, if cannot really apply to all the scales.  After all, O in all it's variations is still much larger than either HO or OO, so there has to be room in there for something.

Interesting note - a lot of models (mine included) solve the problem by keeping the cylinders where they should be, but putting the crossheads and piston rods off center.  Granted, that doesn't help much with splashers on British models, but it works pretty well on this side of the pond

OO from H0

I believe it's actually a case of early British modellers wanting to use existing continental mechanisms in their loco models, but finding that an H0 British outline body would not fit over the drive, and compromising by making the body oversize.  It's one of many cases where existing wheels and track components were usurped for a different scale, which continues with things like G gauge and On30 today.