Simonsteel

5 minutes ago, Nile said:

On the subject of close coupling I tried a mod to the supplied couplings, as the gap is way too big with them as they come.

It won't go round train set curves now, but looks a lot better. I've only checked it with Peco large points.

 

Edit - they are glued in.

The gap looks much better with the modifications you've made

I don't know if anyone has tried but two teak coaches have Hornby close couplers attached. The gap doesn't seem to make much difference so for those wanting close couplings, roco ones may be a better choice. 

Curiously, I also put a 6 wheel coach next to the recent Gresley teak bogie third. Still a similar gap but the corridor connector makes the coaches feel closer. The colours are slightly different but seem to be a good match with each other; the gresley being more brown and the graining is much more subtle. Both effects are rather wonderful and are great additions to LNER coaching stock.

The coaches are looking brilliant, including the DVT; high hopes for a good quality product to have a little display set.

I was wondering about the TSOE though. Shouldn't these coaches have roof vents near the blanking plate? Cannot remember if they are together or offset, keep getting confused between the standard smoking vents and the first class vents.  

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

So much debate about these coaches...

 

but I dont see much conversation about how many rakes of each people are going to buy.

 

Indeed people arent even discussing merits of buying lit vs unlit.

 

Are people planning to buy all 372 Hattons and all 82 Hornby versions ?

 

its certainly the most ambitious range of coaches in oo gauge history..  no ones ever made so many versions of so few prototypes that I can recall.. it beats the mk1 by a long mile... and theyve been made of 5 decades.

 

so much euphoria, but I wonder if it will end as a cash bleed.. I cant see most people buying more than 1 or 2 sets.. which is what.. 10 coaches from 454 variants on offer...

Even Lima, didnt make all 512 class 47’s, but at around 100 it felt like it, and that still took a decade.

 

To be honest, Hornby has twisted my arm with the LNER coaches. They would go well alongside their existing wood stock for variety. I'm down for a good set of 10+ unlit coaches over time for a planned small layout. However, I am also staying loyal to the Hattons + Compound's coaches (he helped a lot  to design them). Different needs can be given from both and both look really well made.

Personally, the Hattons pre-war brown coaches can fill a slot that they were around longer than Hornby's, giving the sense that they could no longer be teaked but were still pressed in service. Hornby's teak are a newer refined addition that could have been created on company demand. Then again, rule one can always apply! 

This may be everyones chance to show exactly what coach they want; the more interest shown, the more likely that actual prototype representations could appear future-wise. Heres hoping someones taking notice!! 

I've just been checking out the CAD's for the 6 wheel coaches. From the looks of it, the seating appears to lie within the brake compartment. Don't know whether this is an error or not, but some passengers won't be able to see outside!! 

Brilliant work in terms of developing the 4 and 6 wheel coaching stock! Will definitely have to invest in multiple sets purely for some lovely colour schemes. May end up rocking the boat (sorry!) but wonder whether success would lead to more respective variant coach patterns? Or maybe even "Genesis" Style non corridor bogie stock in the future? Cannot wait to see the model EP's...

Close up photos are great for comparison, but do we get carried away sometimes?

 

I've photographed my own models and found things on them that aren't easily visible to the naked eye. (In fact they probably wouldn't have been noticed except for the enlarged photo)

 

The photos of the models a few posts up are about twice the size of the actual mo it tdel. Would the discrepancies or ft up see RR was be so noticeable if they were 1:1 size of the model itself?

 

Cheers,

Mick

For anyone wanting to justify a rake up north, a rake was spotted by old ferryhill station.

This rake consisted of a GBRF blue JNA-T, a VTG blue JNA-T and a long rake of Ermewa (non Tarmac branded) wagons.

A perfect excuse of there ever was one!

It does make the APT-e and the venerable Bratchell model like bargains! Quality means you pay for what you get and more.

However, unlike the latter, more varieties can be made to suit the modeller whilst maintaining a standard pricing of what you wish. For a challenge, you have a 321 kit, that retails for around £320 with motoring an extra £64 to make a running set: a total of &384 for a running model. Unlike some modellers, we aren’t (potentially) confident enough to build up such a model without damaging it. Though there are no reports I am aware of. This still makes makes the Bratchell kit appealing to experienced modellers, with their hard word put into such a kit to make it rewarding.

For others, £384 could be a price worth paying for a high spec model that can be justified on a lot of lines, with hazard lights, cab and interior lights, low mechanism to allow a full model interior. Whether that could be a 321 for £464 for a class 321. Which then adds its own problems.

Whilst the current poll shows that a 321 has a slightly higher vote, the possibility would mean that we could lose potential voters to make this viable. That being the case, would compromises on the model be desired to keep the costs down, or are features wanted to keep this model with other high spec EMUs and DMUs that are in different ranges? Or, with a multi-pay option, or would this still put people in line to pick a model or two up?

Well I will be the first to declare on that one. I voted for Scotrail Spotty Livery 320s, and I would happily pay £300-£350 and get 2 - as long as I have enough notice to save up!

 

Roy

I will try and make sure you have enough time for the model if we are successful. I'm aiming for some 142's and 156's from Charlie but it will be out of my hands, it is up for the public to make this model viable, I just want to help push this model and the N-gauge model along so both modellers can have one. 

Just to add a few thoughts into the mix:

 

- dummies save you nothing except the cost of a motor (and possibly some gears and a PCB) or may cost you more if you need to tool up a dummy chassis 

- we looked at the whole Mk3 based family when we started work on our 320/321 in N and there is very little that can be reused across the family if you want things to be correct.  It is better to think of things as discrete projects rather than create a potentially false hope that something that seems logical will follow on.  The one exception to that is that the drive train should be possible for any 20m unit.

 

From a 321/4 tooling you can do a 320, late version 321/3 (IIRC), 321/4 and 321/9. You can't do the original build 321/3s or the 322. The 456 would be a compromise because of the toilet area and missing window(s).

 

The real issue that hasn't been mentioned is what price would people pay? The Realtrack 156 is £230 and that is a considerably easier and cheaper model to tool.  So what would people pay for a 4mm 321?

 

Cheers, Mike

If that is the case, I appreciate your input, especially with yourselves working on the n gauge 320/321. Although I came here with no intention to demand wok on this, that and that, at least we can put to bed that the whole family will be difficult to produce. I hoped that unpowered locomotives may have been a possibility but thank you for this information. I have a weakness for the modern image so you may have to forgive me! If the 321/320 becomes successful, then who knows what is next....

As long as you won't mind, I will update the poll to represent the classes you have mentioned, plus an average of prices. As long as you do not mind helping to spread word of this poll and for the N gauge model? I'd have supported your project but it is unfortunate about the scale, but I have message a scotrail-mad friend about getting the spotty 320 from yourselves.

I appreciate the feedback and information, thank you.

So pretty much a completely different model then? The roof is different as well.

 

I am minded of the discussion that Dapol have most of a class 88 because of their 68. In reality, and confirmed by them, they have very little.

 

Let’s just hope for a 320/321 first. After that start the wishlisting.

 

Roy

It was always going to be a new model in the long run but there is potential for a spin off. If body dimensions could help with creating an accurate model then all the better.

All I did here was agree that there should be a RTR 325 and I would invest in some, but that is all. but I’m still sharing posts and using my social media to attract attention on the 321/320. And I’m encouraging those by finding solutions to aid with what I, and others, see as a model with potential.

All I can say is I’m doing what I can, being interactive but I’m not intentionally turning things into wishlisting. Help me with this project and if this can be used to support this kind of EMU, then if successful, there’s another project to work on. At the moment, just help with sharing posts to help?

This is still a class 321/320 questionnaire poll with a discussion for a model that is viable. With the potential for a 325, should the 321/320 be successful. If people want to to ask for a 325, they can try and find a way to get their ideas expressed, just like what I’m doing with mine.

Agreed, things got carried away with being new and overly optimistic/ambitious, but I have proven that 40+ people would buy into the 321 EMU. Though not a superior number, it’s a start and it’s a positive one. The poll has been amended to see if a Dummy 321/320 would be preferred for multiple train formations. If this is one way to encourage people then it might help. One person stated that he wouldn’t pay over the top so this may help bypass that issue.

From my sources, a 325 and 321 has a very similar, if not the same, body profile, bar roller shutters, cab ends and under frame details. This is where the ideology would be. People have brought it up, if there are similairities between the units, it’s just an expression of potential. I’d for one would love to see an 325 but priorities are the 321/320.

Agreed, The lights and cab lights would keep to the realism which a lot of people will want that feature.

That would be a great spin-off to the 320/321. If the 325 will be as popular as this, then there is a big chance to propose it. I do not believe I can create another poll as I do not want to rish locking this thread. If someone were to make a proposal/poll for that thread, I would back that project up and try get other people to invest.   

Dummies save very little money apparently, even less so proportionately in a multiple unit, so I’m not sure it’s the holy grail.

 

Would really like a RTR 325 though!

It seemed like a good idea but if pricing is the case in terms of sharing lighting features, it will not be hard to see, In the meantime this concept has been applied to see how people feel about it.

A 325 would be a lovely addition to the EMU family and I helped load them when I worked at Royal Mail, Tyneside. An unpowered unit would be more effective as only the cab would require lighting? That would be a better saving in terms of electronics. and I'd be up for two of them as well! 

442s are certainly mark 3 based, but each car is to the full 23m length of standard loco-hauled and HST mark 3s. They are not , therefore feasible in the sense of being knock-ons from the 320/321 - all of other types (including the 320/1) are based on a 20m length.

 

I had forgotten the 325s, which use the mark 3-based body shell with networker cab fronts. These would also allow for unpowered units intended for locomotive haulage.

SRman you’re an absolute genius! Whilst the 325’s are also on a list of models to get (wish wallets would just print money), I think your unpowered units would be brilliant for this project. Without a motor, two sets, one powered and one unpowered, would cut down the costs whilst allowing long trains to be made. As the real things work in multiple, this can cut down on espenses.

The mark of people interested has passed 40+, it’s not the best but it’s good for 5 days of this poll being up. Share this post as far as you can on whatever you can do. We can make this project work!

Lol, having spoken with Charlie a few times over the last couple of months re my 156 orders, yes I can confirm that he is fully occupied with all his endeavours! I was tempted to volunteer some time to help him out! Lol...

You won’t be the only one! Desperately following his progress for the announcement of any Northern Rail 142 unit samples and even in the 156, currently being debated on whether to produce the old scheme or the newer version. Sounds like he hardly gets any rest!

As I said in one of the other topics, classes 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 and 322, plus 455 and 456 all use the same basic body shells, with variations in front end designs and window sizes, toilets, and equipment. I forgot about the class 210 DEMUs as well, but they are probably a step too far!

I’ve taken that into account. that could have been added to the list as well! In account to one of the forum members, it may be wise to focus on one project at a time and then if this is successful, then campaign for other class members then. From your advice, the ability to achieve all this is With the tooling is Sound!

Because I was recommended to focus on the 321/320 first, I ended up locking my older EMU poll. To be honest it looked promising but if someone could restart that poll, it could lead to some interesting results.

The 455, 456 and 442 were MK3 based iirc. There may be others but I can't recall.

There may be a fair few others, but detail differences may be a pain in terms of tooling. These lines of EMU's were previously suggested so the hopes of follow ups is certainly intriguing! If the bodies of the 455/456 and 442's of the centre cars are similar, minus the under frame details, then this could end up being cost effective whilst allowing for multiple variations. One can live in hope!

Hi,

 

I've tried to rally the cause for a oo 320/321 at every opportunity. I wonder, would it be worth at least gauging expressions of interest for a oo one? It may be that doing a oo and n version together would make the project more viable? I for one would put my money where my mouth is - I would like up to 6 Silverlink ones if i could get different running numbers! I would happily put down money in a crowd funder!

I am not modelling N-gauge but I have opened a poll to express interest for the 320/321. I am also trying to spread word to get the N-gauge 320/321 over the hurdle but I accidentally locked my own post. Here’s a link for the OO scale poll for those interested. But help get the RevolutioN model made by spreading the word too!

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135029-oo-scale-class-320321-questionaire-poll/?p=3205421&do=findComment&comment=3205421

If the N gauge version gets the green light, which I don’t think it has yet, i’m Sure we will see in the fullness of time, with or without this poll, a OO version, since the OO market is many times larger than then N, and hence more profitable...

The closeness of RevolutioN’s effort for their N-gauge model was the main reason behind this poll. Despite having a drop of numbers since the CAD’s were made, there could surely be a way to get them upscaled for an OO scale model?

If the model were to be made without this poll, that would be brilliant but it seemed a good idea to try and make something a possibility.

Shame the poll can't cope with multiple answers as I would be up for both NSE and Silverlink in a Class 321/4.

 

As for the Bratchell option yes we know they are there and make up a nice unit but unless you are prepared to spend a long time adding details they don't come up to modern RTR levels of detail - and why should they, they were launched to enable average modellers to get a very nice, pretty accurate model fairly quickly and with average modelling skills. If someone like revolution and Rapido were to come forward with an RTR model it would no doubt be a top notch model, but at a price. I don't think it's an either-or situation, Bratchell have a lot of Mk3 based kits in the range and even if the 319 gets picked off by Bachmann, and the 321 by A.N Other, it'll be a long time before the 317s and 445s get done so they still have a niche market.

 

On the manufacturer's front, Heljan, no thanks, not after the 86, Hornby, forget it, it's not a Pullman or a kettle, Bachmann, I think a 319 is more likely sometime next century, so for speed, quality and interaction with the community it only leaves Revolution and/or Rapido, which is no problem anyway.

I have updated the poll to reflect the class 321/4. I'm sure I may be missing a few liveries but corrections can be made, 

In theory, I can alter the poll to cater for alternative modes, I still want to respect you and No Decorum as you have both made a valuable input for this idea.

However, as people have posted here, it may be a bad idea to list off all these different classes in case I lock the thread again. It would be Just my luck!

It’s called enthusiasm. Well done you for creating a bit of interest

Joint enthusiasm can be a powerful thing. There did seem to be a fair amount of interest for the 320/321 so it’s just trying to help out.

There is capabilities for either manufacturer to make a brilliant model of this. Hopeful if there is a demand for the 321/320, there can be an effort to make similar classes.

Unfortunately, I had a poll for multiple choices but it got locked. It certainly would have ended up being a wish list. If we support this loco, we can then support other classes too!