The Outlook Has Improved!

[Edwardian]

This may be a temporary phenomenon, and it may prove limited in its extent, so I will try to remain calm.

 

But

 

I have noticed a change recently, very recently, in the way RTR manufacturers and commissioners appear to view the Pre-Grouping period.  Dare I suggest that it is being looked at rather more seriously than it has been, even in the last 2-3 years?

 

In fact, it appears that there is something of a sea-change in progress.

 

There are signs that the days of producing only late condition models of pre-Grouping types and, therefore, of restricting the pre-Grouping liveries to 'as preserved' examples, are finally behind us. 

 

Rather, it seems that manufacturers and commissioners are increasingly prepared to tool up for 'as built'/early in service condition, in addition to late and BR-compatible condition.  Look at the most recent releases and announcements:

 

- Hornby SE&CR H Class in 'as built'/pre-Grouping in service condition - in the not too distant past Hornby would have restricted the Wainright livery version to the preserved example (with the incorrect bunker detail for in service condition). 

 

- Hattons SE&CR P Class, at least aspiring to be in 'as built'/pre-Grouping in service condition, and, with excellent and responsive decision to include replacement buffers included, coming close!

 

- Bachmann NER E1/J72 (1914 batch) in 'as built'/pre-Grouping in service condition. 

 

- Rails/Bachmann Caley 812 in 'as built' condition

 

- TMC/Bachmann NER Class O/G5 in 1899-1901(haven't yet checked which batch the model represents) 'as built' condition

 

- Bachmann GNR Large Atlantic in main range in 'as built'/pre-Grouping in service condition

 

- Bachmann LB&SC H1 Atlantic in pre-Grouping in service condition, built 1905, but resembling c.1914/6 without bogie brakes 

 

Compare that with the earlier generation:

 

Hornby rebuilt T9, rebuilt Class 700 Black Motor, late condition/preserved Radial, rebuilt Claud, late condition J15, Kernow Grouping and onwards Well Tank and O2, Bachmann as preserved Compound and City, late condition 3F etc.

 

Apparently gone are the days when the accurate in service pre-Grouping version was restricted to the few classes that could bear a pre-Grouping livery without any tooling variation, i.e. those that did not have a major rebuild post-Grouping (Hornby M7 and Bachmann E4). 

 

Could it be that manufacturers are finally waking up to the potential of earlier periods?

 

Well done them!  

 

 

[Mikkel]

I came across this old thread recently. Exactly 8 years later, it made me smile: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/10216-rtr-pre-grouping/

[Edwardian]

I came across this old thread recently. Exactly 8 years later, it made me smile: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/10216-rtr-pre-grouping/

 

Thank you.  I may just have to answer it!

[Metr0Land]

 

This may be a temporary phenomenon, and it may prove limited in its extent, so I will try to remain calm.

 

But

 

I have noticed a change recently, very recently, in the way RTR manufacturers and commissioners appear to view the Pre-Grouping period.  Dare I suggest that it is being looked at rather more seriously than it has been, even in the last 2-3 years?

 

In fact, it appears that there is something of a sea-change in progress.

 

There are signs that the days of producing only late condition models of pre-Grouping types and, therefore, of restricting the pre-Grouping liveries to 'as preserved' examples, are finally behind us. 

 

Could it be that manufacturers are finally waking up to the potential of earlier periods?

 

Well done them!  

 

 

Not sure they're specifically looking at pre-Grouping but modellers of that era are benefitting from change of approach to higher spec models.

 

As we all know virtually any long-lived loco can be a minefield for detailed variations.  It seems to me that from the outset manufacturers are designing-in the possibility to contruct almost any variation, and tie it to the relevant number/colour.  The Lord Nelson isn't relevant to pre-Group but I believe Hornby have said they can produce every conceivable combo except for 1 loco?  This type of approach seems to be becoming the new norm across manufacturers. 

 

Thus, if you design-in variations early on, it's possible in many cases to cover pre-Group variants at minimal incremental cost, as opposed to designing a pre-Group loco from the outset?

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps the manufacturers have recognised that smaller, less expensive locos in "unusual" liveries will sell to a largely undiscerning group of modellers. Undiscerning in that they will buy anything different because it is pretty, unusual, etc. even though it hasn't crossed their mind previously that they wanted it. The spin off is that those who genuinely wanted a RTR (usually 00) model of that particular prototype will get one. 

 

If this seems a cynical view, it is. As a former trustee of the LNWR Society and involved in promoting the modelling side, I know how few people actually modelled the LNWR, despite the wealth of kits available. When the Bachmann Coal Tank  was announced, form what was written on social media such as RMweb, it was easy to believe that hundreds of enthusiastic LNWR modellers had been waiting in the wings. Have sales of complimentary carriage and wagon kits from the Small Suppliers? Not from the ones that I know.

 

I believe it is further evidence that it doesn't really matter what the Chinese factories produce, they will be bought by those who regard themselves as modellers, but have also have become collectors. Perhaps it is a result of today's consumer society, where an ability to buy/amass/collect stuff is often seen as a measure of someone's worth.

[Edwardian]

Not sure they're specifically looking at pre-Grouping but modellers of that era are benefitting from change of approach to higher spec models.

 

 

 

No, I don't say they are, but they are prepared to include them by investing in tooling variants, which isn't cheap.  This is not something manufacturers bothered with previously.

 

 

Perhaps the manufacturers have recognised that smaller, less expensive locos in "unusual" liveries will sell to a largely undiscerning group of modellers. Undiscerning in that they will buy anything different because it is pretty, unusual, etc. even though it hasn't crossed their mind previously that they wanted it. The spin off is that those who genuinely wanted a RTR (usually 00) model of that particular prototype will get one. 

 

If this seems a cynical view, it is. As a former trustee of the LNWR Society and involved in promoting the modelling side, I know how few people actually modelled the LNWR, despite the wealth of kits available. When the Bachmann Coal Tank  was announced, form what was written on social media such as RMweb, it was easy to believe that hundreds of enthusiastic LNWR modellers had been waiting in the wings. Have sales of complimentary carriage and wagon kits from the Small Suppliers? Not from the ones that I know.

 

I believe it is further evidence that it doesn't really matter what the Chinese factories produce, they will be bought by those who regard themselves as modellers, but have also have become collectors. Perhaps it is a result of today's consumer society, where an ability to buy/amass/collect stuff is often seen as a measure of someone's worth.

 

I am happy to have an accurate pre-Grouping model subsidised by the undiscerning collector!

 

I would temper your cynicism slightly, however, Regrettably, Oxford Rail has shown how little effort need be made towards accuracy in order to sell pretty novel product. Yet, still, Hornby, Bachmann, Rails and TMC are all, evidently, prepared to put the effort in to make a number of accurate variations of a 'pretty thing', despite Oxford proving that you can get away with being the Ratners of RTR and still make plenty of dosh.

[Regularity]

I came across this old thread recently. Exactly 8 years later, it made me smile: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/10216-rtr-pre-grouping/

Second sentence from the OP says it all for me:

Unfortunately, it is very poorly catered for in the RTR stakes.

What happened to actually modelling the trains, rather than simply creating a setting for ready-made purchases?

Edited February 24, 2018 by Regularity

[Edwardian]

Second sentence from the OP says it all for me:

What happened to actually modelling the trains, rather than simply creating a setting for ready-made purchases?

 

You see, I don't see RTR and "modelled" trains as incompatible or mutually exclusive.  You could bring out a RTR item a day and I would never run out of things that would need to be modelled.

[coachmann]

Perhaps the manufacturers have recognised that smaller, less expensive locos in "unusual" liveries will sell to a largely undiscerning group of modellers. Undiscerning in that they will buy anything different because it is pretty, unusual, etc. even though it hasn't crossed their mind previously that they wanted it. The spin off is that those who genuinely wanted a RTR (usually 00) model of that particular prototype will get one. 

 

If this seems a cynical view, it is. As a former trustee of the LNWR Society and involved in promoting the modelling side, I know how few people actually modelled the LNWR, despite the wealth of kits available. When the Bachmann Coal Tank  was announced, form what was written on social media such as RMweb, it was easy to believe that hundreds of enthusiastic LNWR modellers had been waiting in the wings. Have sales of complimentary carriage and wagon kits from the Small Suppliers? Not from the ones that I know.

 

I believe it is further evidence that it doesn't really matter what the Chinese factories produce, they will be bought by those who regard themselves as modellers, but have also have become collectors. Perhaps it is a result of today's consumer society, where an ability to buy/amass/collect stuff is often seen as a measure of someone's worth.

Being involved in manufacturing, you obviously learned the same things as others did who were in manufacturing.....That folk don't know what they want until you tell them. It sounds cynical to the onlooker, but facts bear this out.  

[Regularity]

You see, I don't see RTR and "modelled" trains as incompatible or mutually exclusive. You could bring out a RTR item a day and I would never run out of things that would need to be modelled.

Yes, but it is the setting for the trains you are modelling, not the trains themselves.

 

Not criticising people’s choices, just making a point that the more RTR there is, the less scope there is for individuals to do their own thing without it being mistaken for something bought in a shop.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Regularity

[Mikkel]

I came across this old thread recently. Exactly 8 years later, it made me smile: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/10216-rtr-pre-grouping/

 

Thank you.  I may just have to answer it!

 

 

It's always interesting to return to old threads and see how utterly wrong we can be sometimes. Or uncannily prophetic:

 

Think, for example, how lovely a SE&CR 'H' Class 0-4-4 would be in fully lined out SE&CR green, together with coaches to go with it...

[Edwardian]

Yes, but it is the setting for the trains you are modelling, not the trains themselves.

 

Not criticising people’s choices, just making a point that the more RTR there is, the less scope there is for individuals to do their own thing without it being mistaken for something bought in a shop.

 

Fair point. Most of the locos on CA will be shop bought, but so mangled as to be barely recognisable as such.  I believe that is "bodging", or, possibly, "bashing" rather than "modelling", however.

 

I, too, cherish individuality, but, then, I've seen P4 layouts with look-a-like RTR diesels and late steam locos, and, even, ready-to-plant buildings.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but what I'm noticing about these engines is not their finer wheel standards but the fact that they are essentially the same as everyone else's!

 

Any layout I build on a pre-Grouping subject would, I reckon, never have more than, say, 25% RTR motive power and between 0% and 10% RTR rolling stock. This is because it is not simply a matter of how much RTR pre-Grouping there is out there, but  the fact that no given subject (company/period/region or type of line) will ever have anything close to comprehensive treatment.  

 

So, I think there will be enough to do in each case to ensure individuality.  At the same time, that 25% is a welcome leg up for a new project.  I really wouldn't put the importance of RTR higher than that.

 

Thus, while I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure I'd find it a problem in practice. And, when I have managed to get some way into the West Norfolk RTR loco fleet, tell me whether or not you think it looks like everyone else's!

[Killian keane]

Yes, but it is the setting for the trains you are modelling, not the trains themselves.

 

Not criticising people’s choices, just making a point that the more RTR there is, the less scope there is for individuals to do their own thing without it being mistaken for something bought in a shop.

We are an extremely long way off pre grouping RTR becoming so prevalent that there is little left to model by ones self, for any given pre grouping company there is no more than one or two locos and a couple of coaches available rtr if that, having lots of rtr equipment available never spoiled anything for the br era onwards modellers

[Edwardian]

I don't think we should think in terms of "RTR Pre-Grouping modelling".  That is a long way off, if ever, and as Simon says, would it even be desirable? 

 

As RTR exists, and generally to a good standard, I'm all for spreading the joy to earlier periods, but I don't see it being more than one element in a modelling mix. Unless one is opposed to RTR in principle, it seems odd to oppose it when it comes closer to one's area of interest.

[Dunsignalling]

Yes, but it is the setting for the trains you are modelling, not the trains themselves.

 

Not criticising people’s choices, just making a point that the more RTR there is, the less scope there is for individuals to do their own thing without it being mistaken for something bought in a shop.

There are literally hundreds of pre-group prototypes for the manufacturers to choose from so any such confusion will be an unfortunate coincidence.

 

In any case, don't people model for pleasure but choose what to model based on practical need? I know I do.

 

The personal significance of a self-built model with endures after construction is over and the advent of a r-t-r equivalent shouldn't change that.

 

I have several r-t-r locos that have displaced kit-builds from operational duties but I still enjoy seeing my creations in the display cabinet.

 

John

[Regularity]

Fair point. Most of the locos on CA will be shop bought, but so mangled as to be barely recognisable as such.  I believe that is "bodging", or, possibly, "bashing" rather than "modelling", however.

 

Doing anything to personalise a bought item is at the very least the first step down the modelling path.

Modelling is creating a representation of the real thing. What you do to create that beyond simply buying is still modelling, no matter how you describe your skill level.

We are an extremely long way off pre grouping RTR becoming so prevalent that there is little left to model by ones self, for any given pre grouping company there is no more than one or two locos and a couple of coaches available rtr if that,

Yes, but as James has clearly taken on board, I am using hyperbole to generate good-natured debate.

The “problem” with pre-group RTR is that manufacturers will cherrypick, largely based on what has been preserved (as well as being available for measuring, etc, it is also more likely to generate sales). I hope this then leads to an interest in building kits and from scratch for the rolling stock side of things - an open wagon body is just a few hours’ work. What I fear is foaming in anticipation of rtr wagons.

having lots of rtr equipment available never spoiled anything for the br era onwards modellers

 

Well, you might think that, others might disagree!

 

I hope that the Caley 0-6-0 encourages modellers to consider how the boiler and other parts could be used to create a Dunalistair 4-4-0, how the M7 might be the basis for an 0-4-4T, etc.

[sem34090]

I for one currently make use of locos that have almost all been purchased as complete locos (I say that as I have numerous kitbuilt locos) mostly in running condition. I normally end up doing something to them, but on the whole they remain largely unaltered unless I repaint them.

 

This does not mean, however, that I am unwilling to build kits or find other ways of procuring the locos and stock I desire. As I, personally, find brass coach kits prohibitive in cost, even when compared with the overpriced coaches now being produced RTR, I have found other ways of creating coaching stock, my main plans being to acquire rather a lot of Ratio coach kits to bash, and maybe some Triang Clerestories if I find any at anything close to a reasonable price. The same goes for loco kits, given my low skill level. I have become somewhat stuck in that even second hand kits are not cost-effective when compared to a similar loco I can utilise as a base, but that I know will run. However, if I do not buy a kit I cannot progress my skill level. I am therefore stuck, so have decided to use 3D printing as a happy medium between the two, where I can have the pleasure of modelling the loco (Albeit virtually, so not as satisfying) and fitting it onto a chassis I know will work. As a happy consequence I can also make money out of my CAD designs to help fund further prints.

 

But, as it seems I don't build etched brass kits or even whitemetal ones (On cost grounds) some will say that I'm not a modeller, yet I am not content to simply gobble up anything in a pretty livery that the RTR manufacturers produce. I am finding RTR expensive, but still cheaper than a kit, and for me price is key as I have little in the way of money! As such I discovered that 3D printing is a cheap way of getting the models I want. I still need to put work into each model, just in a different sense to one of you talented kit/scratch-builders. 

 

For those who say 3D printing is more expensive I present the following comparison:

 

SE.Finecast LSWR G6 0-6-0: £42 excluding VAT (Last time I looked: excluding chassis kit)

 

My own 3D Printed G6, through i.materialise: £16.74 excluding VAT (Including chassis kit)

 

So, for the price of an SE.Finecast G6 I could purchase two of my own kits! Or purchase one of my kits and the wheels and motor to fit in it. As it stands, my own G6 will be purchased without the chassis so as to allow me to fit a Bachmann LMS 3F (Jinty) 0-6-0 chassis underneath it, simply because I already have one and it lowers the cost for me.

[Regularity]

And here we see the skills and training of a lawyer coming to the fore:

You see, I don't see RTR and "modelled" trains as incompatible or mutually exclusive.

That is not something I actually said, nor is it anywhere near what I was talking about.

You see what happens with these slippery legal people?

 

You’ve got to watch them closely, or they catch you out. And count your fingers after shaking hands...

 

Mischievously...

[Regularity]

But, as it seems I don't build etched brass kits or even whitemetal ones (On cost grounds) some will say that I'm not a modeller,

 

Who are these “some”? I haven’t met any of them.

And why and the do you care what they say?

 

This is utter .

 

But thank you, you have provided me with ideas for a blog post!

[sem34090]

Simon,

 

I have read some comments on here which can be easily taken to imply that those who make use of ready-to-run products are not to be considered modellers. I apologise if this is not the case, and if my comment is all entirely invalid.

 

I also apologise for having apparently driven you to the use of profane language on a public forum. I can probably guess which words you have chosen to use.

 

At any rate, I can assure you that the entire post is not as invalid as you apparently make out, as there are many people in this fine hobby who look down on those who don't build kits on a regular basis. I can also assure you that I am developing a range of 3D Printed locomotive kits which take time to design and develop and are cheaper than current alternatives.

 

I am intrigued at the prospect of my post spurring a blog post of yours. I await more with interest.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

P.S. I apologise for the use of formal language in the above post, I just find it calmer when I'm feeling mildly miffed.

[Edwardian]

And here we see the skills and training of a lawyer coming to the fore:

That is not something I actually said, nor is it anywhere near what I was talking about.

You see what happens with these slippery legal people?

 

You’ve got to watch them closely, or they catch you out. And count your fingers after shaking hands...

 

Mischievously...

 

I wouldn't do that!  In fact, I'd count your fingers for you to make sure you had them all

 

And then charge you for the time that took.

 

I hope this then leads to an interest in building kits and from scratch for the rolling stock side of things - an open wagon body is just a few hours’ work. What I fear is foaming in anticipation of rtr wagons.

 

I hope that the Caley 0-6-0 encourages modellers to consider how the boiler and other parts could be used to create a Dunalistair 4-4-0, how the M7 might be the basis for an 0-4-4T, etc.

 

This is a key point, and one I failed to make. Because the coverage is patchy, RTR pre-Grouping models cannot be more than a benign introduction to a world that will largely have to be modelled, not bought.

 

One of the several reasons why I am so keen on Pre-Grouping RTR is precisely because it gives people that leg up to earlier periods.  It is, however, only the start. 

 

I have enough on my plate trying to lay the permanent way and get it to work.  If, on a first project as mine is, I had to kit build locos before anything ran ... well

[Regularity]

I have read some comments on here which can be easily taken to imply that those who make use of ready-to-run products are not to be considered modellers.

 

My emphasis.

That’s my point.

The indiscriminate use of RTR straight from the box does not involve any actual modelling: it is simply buying. It is not even collecting: that usually means not opening the box!

There is nothing untoward in the intelligent use of RTR: that was never suggested, and whilst I enjoyed pulling James’ leg over the matter, no where have I or anyone else said that there is any mutual exclusivity in this.

 

I also don’t object to anyone enjoying themselves by opening some boxes and playing with the contents - I used to really enjoy doing this with my son, and his lack of interest is the only reason it doesn’t happen any more.

But, that isn’t modelling in any real sense of the word as an active noun.

I also apologise for having apparently driven you to the use of profane language on a public forum. I can probably guess which words you have chosen to use.

 

Generally speaking, I use “profane” language all the time. You didn’t drive me to anything. I realise that some people don’t like it, and that in some places it is not appropriate and moderate my language accordingly, but I find people’s disapproval of language to be amusingly pompous. It’s just a word to describe something, any offence/coarseness is in the mind of the beholder - look at the progression of the “c-word” from an anglicisation of the anatomically correct Greek word (beginning with a ‘k’ and ending in ‘os’) through an acceptable word in the time of Chaucer, the subject of some naughty word-play by Shakespeare to the ultimate taboo word in current usage.

And the second instance has the benefit of being legally defined as not being obscene and likely to corrupt public morals, and acceptable for display in public places such as record shops and indeed t-shirts.

At any rate, I can assure you that the entire post is not as invalid as you apparently make out, as there are many people in this fine hobby who look down on those who don't build kits on a regular basis.

 

Until you actually names these people, your argument doesn’t stand up.

Until you name them, they don’t exist, except in your mind.

And as I said, why are you in the slightest bit concerned what others think?

You are doing far more to create your own path than those who rely on others’ designs and creations. You have every reason to stand up and say, “This is how I do it. If you don’t like it, do your own thing and leave me alone.”

I can also assure you that I am developing a range of 3D Printed locomotive kits which take time to design and develop and are cheaper than current alternatives.

 

Frankly, it is not how I want to pursue my hobby, but I will be first in the queue to admire the skills you have developed and the achievements you are making.

 

I suggest you cease to worry about what “they” think, and carry on with your pioneering work in what will become an increasingly important part of the hobby.

[Regularity]

I wouldn't do that!  In fact, I'd count your fingers for you to make sure you had them all

 

And then charge you for the time that took.

 

No. That’s what I do for a living. I’m a “consultant”.

This is a key point, and one I failed to make.

 

Bügga.

I should have agreed the charges before providing you with the answer you had failed to come up with.

One of the several reasons why I am so keen on Pre-Grouping RTR is precisely because it gives people that leg up to earlier periods.  It is, however, only the start. 

 

I have enough on my plate trying to lay the permanent way and get it to work.  If, on a first project as mine is, I had to kit build locos before anything ran ... well

Good.

 

View everything, absolutely everything, as the starting point for a better model. Sometimes the distance between start and finish may be nothing more than a change of number and a light dusting of weathering powders. Sometimes it might the considerable leap from creating your own drawing and translating this into working with raw materials before you get anywhere near the light dusting with weathering powders. Most times, it will be somewhere in between.

 

View everything, absolutely everything, as the starting point.

That is the mindset of a true modeller.

 

Incidentally, within the industry of making wooden chairs, etc, bodging is a highly skilled and well respected craft, just as demanding as “fitting” on a railway locomotive engine.

[Regularity]

Am I alone in getting crosser when I get more complimentary about people’s abilities to exceed and succeed?

[Edwardian]

Am I alone in getting crosser when I get more complimentary about people’s abilities to exceed and succeed?

 

Probably ...