knitpick

What I should also have said is try DC Kits for the 3H Centre car. According to the web site, DC Kits still do the 2H and 3H kits (as well as a 3T kit) - so presumably the 3H centre car can be produced as required. Charlie at DC Kits is normally quite helpful in supplying extras - but you might have to wait a short while for the relevant bits to be collated together as it wouldn't be an "off the shelf item". Again should be easier than a cut and shut operation.

Why cut-and-shut a 2EPB DTS? Just repaint it to match and put in the middle of the 2H. It's then a 3T. The 3Ts were formed when (most of) the 3Rs (class 206) were disbanded. So Blue/Grey period onwards. The main issues are the heights of the NEM boxes in that the intermediate ones on Bachmann produced 2EPB and 2H are low whereas the outer ones are the correct height, plus no connectivity for lighting. Just trying to save you some work.

Yup - Lilley Bridge Depot. Technically it was an Underground depot - works trains for surface lines albeit I have seen Tube battery locos in there. Also the High St Ken - Olympia shuttle used to run only when there were exhibitions at Olympia. But I think that now there are regular through services travelling between Clapham Junction and Willesden, the Olympia shuttle is daily.

I half agree with you. The clue is "bomb damage". To me they are primarily reminiscent of the East End albeit South East London as well. It was the docks that got most of the bombing. South and South West weren't that badly damaged. Yes there were the odd "bomb sites" but most of the housing was (and still is) late Victorian / early Edwardian multi-storey, often with basements. A little further out you come to the 1930s style. If the OP is interested in South or West rather than South East, (as the suggested locations would imply) then sorry - few if any blocks of flats. And those that there are would likely be system built tower blocks.

If you're interested in relatively modern stock in current liveries, Bratchtell Models (web www.bratchellmodels.com) do a lot of SR EMUs - 455, 456, 319 etc. They come ready painted and look good but I have no experience of building one - I keep baulking at the price. However with the current trend for Bachmann MU prices, perhaps Bratchell aren't quite so expensive after all? As for buildings, the Wills modern industrial kits look good. For station buildings etc, the Bachmann 1930s style station building looks the part to my eyes - especially for London Suburbia. They also do a (low relief?) Underground station on a corner. Also Bachmann did a typical Southern sub station - necessary for 3rd rail. They also have the modern waiting shelters albeit in blue rather than the more common for London red. Finally, large areas of London have the railway on arches with small businesses underneath; for these I would use the Wills arches. Just some thoughts that might help.

I might be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but Tiles Kev? OK I haven't visited all Underground stations but have been through a fair few. As far as I am aware, tiles are only used on (deep) Tube lines - lining the large circular tunnel used for the station platform. S stock is "Surface" rather than Tube stock - now being used on the Metropolitan, District, Hammersmith & City, and (Inner) Circle lines. Those lines were all built using "cut and cover". The stations are generally open to the air (to let the smoke escape - they were originally steam hauled lines). As far as I can tell, the walls were more like the Wills Arches with a slight batter (lean) to them. Agreed that since being built, some below ground level Surface stock stations have been covered over but the walls remain basically flat. Note that the difference between "Surface" and "Tube" stock would explain why the Kingsway kit didn't work. BR Mark 2Ds have run on Surface lines and clearly wouldn't fit down Tube tunnels. Notwithstanding this, I believe that some stations may have had glazed bricks (different size from tiles) and AndrewC's posters do look good.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the angled style bus station is wrong for London Transport. Most buses were rear entrance. Even the front entrance one man operated buses (Titans and such) were just that - front entrance, centre exit. Whereas the angled style bus station requires front entrance and exit. OK the RFs were front entrance and exit but were replaced well before your time period. In a number of cases this was by RMC / RCL Routemaster coaches - rear entrance with doors. Mind you even with oopen platform rear entrance, at Putney Bridge Station, the road was one way. Buses that stopped on the off side of the road disgorged and loaded passengers into the road (route 85 and later also 85A to Kingston). [Note edited to correct route numbers to 85 / 85A - but then I only used that route to get to school . . .]

Very nice indeed. Have you thought of a location yet? I would suspect somewhere around Wimbledon / Morden as being the obvious choice. A few thoughts - feel free to ignore. Firstly, most arches that I was aware of under the Underground were occupied - even close to stations. In this context, a coffee and sandwich bar, a newsagents and a taxi office would make sense rather that the Eastender's style car bashing shop (that would be away from the station, the other side of a road). Given the number of arches, also one or two shops "To Let"? a Model Railway shop? plus a charity shop? Second, I would be tempted to resite the station building. To me the passageway towards the station platforms seems a bit close to the arch support. I'd be tempted to place that narrow passageway central to an arch. But that does raise the issue of where the stairs to the upper District line platforms go - albeit they will turn through 90 or 180 degrees as required. Third, some bus stops - and possibly buses terminating? Though that would imply either the road is one way - or you would need to widen it to 3 lanes. Finally - that D78 stock does look good. Now where did I put my Credit Card?

Agreed a 3H would be good. When the 2EPB was announced, I suggested to Kernow that the 3T was a possibility - the body mouldings are all there. But apparently the 2EPB wiring harness inside the body "prevents this". Now a carefully designed centre car tooling for a 3H and / or 4EPB just might also allow the production of a 3T as well?

Re "sort of Q6 kit". That's how all Hornby locos will come. It's then up to us modellers to assemble, add as much detail as we wish and paint in our preferred livery. Apparently they even had an Adams Radial kit on display. Though all the buyer has to do with that is stick the roof on ;~)

Norm81 - from my knowledge of Physics, if you have two magnetic poles of the same polarity, they repel and there is a dead space between them with no magnetic field at all, gradually increasing until you get to the pole itself; there will be no magnetic field to attract the trip pin. With opposite poles, there is a very strong field between them and each trip pin will be strongly attracted to the nearer pole. As you say, you need a strong field and this is best achieved using opposite poles. If you check the Kaydee magnets that lie between the tracks you will find the North Pole is one long edge and the South Pole is the other long edge and the field goes across the track.

There's Invicta Models a very short walk from Sidcup BR station. OK it's not an Underground or Tube station BUT it's only a few stops out from Charing Cross, or Cannon Street if you're in The City. Not sure what travel zone it's in either. The Underground and Tube go much further out of London than the distance to Sidcup. But not much Underground nor Tube south of the river and nothing to the South East of London so in distance terms you're a lot nearer The City at Sidcup than say Ealing Broadway (both Tube and Underground). I have only used Invicta at shows, I haven't visited their shop. Usual disclaimer, but in my experience they have knowledgeable staff; they were formed by staff from The Signal Box, Rochester after the parent, Modelzone, went bust. You can check their web site www.invictamodelrail.com for more info on how to get there and what they sell. Oh and they are mentioned on RMWeb under Commissions. However, I doubt that they do much if any EM/P4/S4 though.

Sorry -0 I tried to quote Dungrange's post from 15:47 on 16th - but I'm clearly doing it wrong - please refer back to understand context. Having started this hare running - I feel the urge to add another two pennyworth. thebritfarmer - My comment was wishful thinking; as Dungrange implies, the market is likely to be too small to justify the cost. And I agree that the fault lies with suppliers to the UK market not using an established standard. But as Bachmann pointed out when they first introduced NEM coupling pockets, there is no OO scale standard height specified; the NEM standards are for HO scale. And we don't want to see HO standards being introduced in place of all existing OO scale standards. Lima tried it with their original (HO scale) class 33 - and (allegedly) it's why their class 55 bogie and wheels were wrong. In my view, where there isn't an established OO standard and use of an NEM standard would improve operability and interchange of spares then the NEM standard should be considered. This was done with the NEM coupling mount box and should also have been done with NEM mount heights. Hornby, Heljan, Dapol, and DJM / Kernow have done it where they provide the boxes and newer Bachmann models too comply. At the same time I don't expect these manufacturers to undertake urgent retooling of all existing models due to cost considerations; they need to consider the benefits of increased sales against the cost of retooling. Slightly off topic and another area of variable standards is OO official standards for wheel back to back vs NEM standards. A single common standard would be good but at least everything generally runs on commercial Settrack and Peco Streamline apart from really old Triang/Hornby. Unfortunately this does leave us with the need to "fudge" things where the NEM coupling mout is at the wrong height

Two images of a Hornby 142 with Kaydee no5s (if I can get the copying to work): One of the 142 and one of it coupled to a Lima 156. Note that these couplings are LOW and the trip pins are bent up and flat at the bottom to clear rails height. The whit plasticard packing on the 142 is 3x 60 thou.

To pick up on some of the points raised in response to my earlier post: Roundhouse - I think you mean Realtrack 143. The issue here is that the NEM pocket is a little low. As a result, the supplied tension lock coupling is stepped. The surrounding air dam (or whatever its correct name is) makes adjustment to get to the common height for a Kaydee 17 or 18 a non trivial task. Now if I could get an Underset version of an 18 . . . Suzie - I agree that Kaydees are more forgiving than the small tension lock style of coupling when propelling. However, Kaydees too can be difficult to couple on a curve - but probably not as bad as some tension lock couplings in some NEM pockets. It does depend on radius of the curve. Norm81 - I can but try to upload a picture of a Kaydee fitted Hornby 142. But as noted, this coupling sits too low. However I might try an Underset Kaydee and see if that raises the knuckle enough. Now where did I put my camera?

Orford, I have to disagree with your assertion "Do not use No5s with UK stock." I have done so with, I feel, success. OK, I did use them with modern image DMUs - and they don't have buffers. More to the point, they didn't have couplings either. And also for some, I did have to use longer reach 40 series couplings (Yeah - I know but the 140 series didn't exist then). Units given Kaydee couplings include Hornby Cl 142; Bachmann Classes 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 and 171; Dapol classes 150 and 155. For Hornby Class 153, I use NEM style, as I did for Lima Class 156. Note that the Lima pocket is really too low and the Class 142s were adjusted to couple with the Lima 156s. I have since been replacing the Lima NEM style Kaydees with series 5 / 40s so they can couple to correct height Kaydees - But the Hornby Class 142s are still too low. Note also that for the low height couplings, I bent the trip pin to clear running rails. The point here being that I did have my own standard that worked even if it wasn't interoperable with correct height Kaydees. I now have two standards which are not interoperable - which in turn is annoying. I also need to consider how to fit Kaydees to Realtrack class 143s

Same again; Friday afternoon 27th November. And after getting an email "if you don't order by 7 Dec the price goes up", I emailed to check that my order had been received. I got a reply similar to above - no packaging. So either they expected us all to trek up to Warley or they forgot to order packaging. And they only seem to let you know what is happening if you prod them. Out of interest Miles73128 - did you get an email confirming dispatch?