SRman

Glad you finally got a good 'un, chuffinghell. I found both of mine to be good runners right from the start, although one was a bit tighter than the other fresh out of the box. Some continuous running has helped. I have also recently received a Dapol B4 and a Heljan 07, and both have shown very slight tight spots at one point in each of their wheel revolutions; not enough to say they need to go back, and only evident at dead slow speeds (and I mean dead slow on DCC, which usually gives finer control than straight analogue DC). I am giving these two long continuous runs facing in both directions, so we'll see how they fare in the future. Both run perfectly well at the more usual 'service' speeds.

Arnica is great for muscular or vascular (read bruising) pain, not so much for joints or arthritis. I am still using arnica on my hip where I had a heavy fall last year, causing some deep level bruising and nerve damage. It helps.

I did a quick search on Google (for images) for 'Gloucester class 100' and came up with this: http://www.railcar.co.uk/type/class-100/official.

No, don't give the Aussie Tax Department or Customs any ideas, please!

. I used CT Elektronik DCX75z 6-pin decoders - plenty of room for these.

I have used this facility for some time now; especially useful here in Australia, and saves postage and insurance plus the danger of damage or loss to the decoder in transit. Bif is always extremely helpful, and if things don't work as they should, he modifies the file to suit - I have done a few older v3.5 reblows and the files didn't always quite fit, so Bif removed one or two unwanted features, such as the station announcements or pantograph start up on a class 350 file I was using for a class 450.

I'll have to bookmark their website. Like the others here, I have had nothing but great dealings with WeHonest in the past - I must admit some misgivings the first time simply because the name sounds so dodgy! I have bought people figures, colour light signals, Belisha Beacons and weeping willow trees from them, amongst other things. The trees were particularly good value. This was taken on my old layout, but I have saved all of the trees for re-use on the current layout. Willows on River Bank 4 by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr

Many years ago it was possible to find all sorts of odd brands or even unbranded track. I know one of them was Lima, but there were others I cannot remember now; all I do know is they were somewhat cheaper than Peco was, but in the long run, they weren't worth the money anyway.

Interesting. DougN and I bought our earlier Pecketts from Metro Hobbies in Melbourne; a quick check just now revealed they are showing it as "In Stock" for $154.99, which represents quite good value. I'm not after this particular version, but for any Aussies out there, jump in quickly if you do want one.

As several others have said, Peco's code 100 is very robust and reliable. With proper ballasting it can look quite presentable. On my previous layout, all done with Peco code 100, a visitor once paid me the ultimate compliment by asking if it was finescale track. Painting the rails and ballasting to the tops of the sleepers, or even over the sleepers for the engine shed tracks, disguises the depth of the rails considerably. On my current layout, I have only got as far as ballasting the Underground tracks (not in the tunnels, I should add), plus one small portion of the upper level tracks, and the programming track. N15 30764 Sir Gawaine on Race Special - 1 cropped by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr Bachmann Class 66 125 Sunderland - Portrait by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr Bulleid 10201 with Bulleid coaches - 1 cropped by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr And one from the old layout: Middlehurst from engine shed - mod 3 by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr I am using some Peco code 75 and bullhead track in the new engine shed area, but this will not be a high traffic/heavy use area. I noted that even handling these tracks requires a lot more care because they are markedly more fragile than the code 100 track. I should also point out that I have tried a few other, cheaper brands of track over the past years, and all have failed the test of robustness, with rails popping out of the retainers even after some years of being pinned or glued in place - I always came back to Peco, and mostly to code 100, certainly for all the main running lines.

. So they got the lucky Break!

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.

As the coaches are kit-built, it really depends on what green the builder used. One would hope it is from ne of the model paint ranges, but only the builder really knows what he/she used.

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.

Agreeing with you, Andy, I don't think any of us are objecting to paying the extra. As has been mentioned earlier in this topic, in many cases it is not just the price that is dictating the purchases, it is the availability of the particular models (or non-availability in Oz) that drives us to buy overseas. Having done that, we win on price as well, with or without the extra 10%.

I agree it is better to concentrate on the small set of very closely related classes first. My point was that they could easily lead to the other variants as follow-ons in the future. Obviously, some of those types would be easier to do than others ... the 322 was really a minor variation on the 321 to start with. My own interest is really on Southern-based units - possibly the nearest to the 320/1 would be the 2-car class 456, which shares the cab design, but has the additional jumper cables and bits and pieces covering them. But yes, concentrate on your initial ideas first.

The GM Opel Kadett, Vauxhall Chevette and Holden Gemini (which itself was actually an Isuzu) were all based on the same pans with local variations to the front styling, interior trim levels and engines/transmissions. The Vauxhall Cavalier was, I think, based on the GM J-car, which also had Opel and Holden equivalents; in Holden's case it was the ill-fated Camira.

The Hornby Mark 2s come up OK with a few tweaks. I still have one NSE example in service within a rake of Bachmann coaches and it doesn't stand out as being out of place or different in any way. Firstly, I painted the insides of the window surrounds in black to disguise the body thickness. Next I flush-glazed the windows: clear plastic (or the vacuum-formed stuff available commercially) for the main large panes and door droplights, but Krystal Klear (or equivalent) liquid glazing for the vents. The bogies would be better swapped out for either the earlier Triang/Hornby ones or some Bachmann or Replica ones, but I haven't got that far. The bogies as supplied are of the type Hornby introduced where the base layer is to a BR1 profile with the B4 frames superimposed. The left-hand numbers are correct for NSE when it was first launched.

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!

Hi Simon: I found your voting topic here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135014-oo-scale-second-generation-emu-wish-list-poll/; however, you have class 415/6 as one category, where I think you might have meant classes 455/6 (being 2nd gen units, where 415/6 are 1st gen units and Bachmann already produce the BR standard version of class 416, the 2 EPB). I have put a vote for the 415/6 category but assumed what I have written above to be true. Having said that, I would love a full 4-car class 415, in either BR standard or Bulleid form.

Sorry to correct you here, but the class 150s bear more resemblance to the class 317-22/455-6 group than the class 313-5/507-8 group. The differences can be clearly seen if you look at photos of class 455/7 trains, which have one trailer per set from a class 508. If using the class 150 as the basis (especially class 150/2 for classes 317, 318 and 455), the underframe details would be entirely different for the electric units compared to the diesel units. I seem to recall someone on RMweb has converted two 2-car 150s into a 4-car class 455.

How about a wired version of the CT Elektronik DCX74z (6-pin version pictured, but it shows the available size). IMG_20180609_164405 by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr

I have no use for a 320/321, but would love a class 319, which is not all that different, using the same basic mark 3 shells. As it is, I have built a Bratchell Models kit already, but wouldn't mind a nicely detailed RTR version. If you broaden the poll slightly to reflect the 'family' of units, classes 317 - 322 and 455 and 456 could all be included as variations of the base design. Of course, the cab ends and faces are all different, and some of the window sizes vary between the classes, but a good set of tools could allow for many (if not all) of the variations, just as Bratchell do now.

The handrails on this prototype example appear to be black: they are definitely darker than the main body colour. It just goes to show that, for modelling purposes, just about anything goes!

Yes ... chicken!