oo scale Class 320/321 Questionaire poll

[Andy Mac]

I'd be happy with Realtrack but seeing as they are only on the second batch of liveries with the 156, which has loads of paint jobs yet to be announced, and following that the 142 I suspect they are fully occupied for the next couple of years.

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...

[SRman]

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

 

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.

[Simonsteel]

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!

[Simonsteel]

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!

[njee20]

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!

[Simonsteel]

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! 

[njee20]

You’d still want head and tail lights, essentially all you save is the cost of the motor, which as part of a 4-car unit is fairly trivial.

[Simonsteel]

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.   

[njee20]

You don’t need another poll. We’re back into random wish listing territory like your last thread.

 

Even this one has lost its way if your intention was to prove to Revolution there’s a market for a 320/321 in OO gauge.

 

You had a thread which could have captured that, but it got diluted into “vote for any MUs you want”, and now ironically you’ve got a thread for which that would be suitable and it’s sort of about 321s, although you’re now talking about dummy units and 325s again, and quite honestly I can’t see how a 321 really gets you anyway to a 325.

[Simonsteel]

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.

[SRman]

One of the things we do with the Poll Team is look at potential spin-offs which would allow a manufacturer to maximise their investments. I agree with Simon that he has limited the poll to classes 320 and 321, but the fact remains that those two classes were, themselves, part of a larger 'family' of units utilising the same jigs and components with variations to produce units suitable for the particular traffics they were ordered for. Windows conform to a few particular sizes to suit main windows, short windows, toilet windows, door windows and driving cab side windows (class 317/0 and 210 excepted - their side windows conformed to the standard mark 3/3a/3b style and size). Body profiles remain constant, while cab fronts (and, indeed, crew cab access) vary considerably - the original class 317/0 and 455/8 cab styling was quite dire! 

I think it is quite in order to discuss these potential variations, even though the actual voting is only for the nominated classes. 

Incidentally, I have not voted here because classes 320 and 321 are quite useless to me. Some of the potential spin-offs may well entice me to buy, though. Think of the earlier Bachmann classes 158/159/166 and 170, where 2- or 3-car units have been produced using the same few chassis components. I cannot detect any difference between the class 159 and 166 motorised chassis, for example.

Edited June 24, 2018 by SRman

[Roy Langridge]

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.

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

[Simonsteel]

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?

[Revolution Mike]

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

[Roy Langridge]

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

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

[Simonsteel]

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.

[Simonsteel]

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. 

[Andy Mac]

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

That’s the killer question, what would people be prepared to pay....

 

I’m with Roy, £350 for a 3 car class 320...... though I think the 321’s ( which are not for me) being 4 car, you could easily add another £100....

 

Makes the Rapido APT-e seem like a bargain....

Edited June 25, 2018 by Andy Mac

[Simonsteel]

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?