Copley Hill Works

Good to see you giving this another shot Simon, you deserve it after the heartache of the original. On another note has Mr king at all though of signing to have these resin parts mass produced? I agree that they represent a great opportunity for youthful modelers to get a hand up the ladder and arguable should be extended.

 

Yours

 

ScR

Having read about Graeme King's conversion since I first saw them on the LNER forum, I've found the threads, notably Tim's, very interesting. The 'kit bashing' element appeals to me, and it's a great step on the way to more involved conversions and building from kit. However, it just seems shame to bring in whole cheque-book-modeller thing into it.

On another note has Mr king at all though of signing to have these resin parts mass produced? I agree that they represent a great opportunity for youthful modelers to get a hand up the ladder and arguable should be extended.

 

Bearing in mind these parts are made by Graeme in his spare time for a very small number of people to actually use, I strongly doubt that he'd want to take them any further. They are merely another way of producing a Thompson pacific, should that be what you wish to do .

 

However, it just seems shame to bring in whole cheque-book-modeller thing into it.

 

I'm with James on that one!

However, it just seems shame to bring in whole cheque-book-modeller thing into it.

 

I'm with James on that one!

 

You seem to be having a go for mere mention of "cheque book modeller" as opposed the actual context of my post:

 

Some of us do have the spare cash to order X kitbuilt model made by Y kitbuilder, and that's absolutely fine and I would never wish to decry anyone being a "cheque book modeller" (because quite frankly, if I had the cash, I'd be one of these cheque book modellers too). However, not all of us do have the money to spend on a full DJH or PDK kit, and on wheels, gearbox and motor, and then pay someone to build said kit professionally.

 

That's where Graeme's components fill a massive gap in the market for those modellers who do want to portray a section of the East Coast mainline; and let's face it, without one or two examples of these classes running about, it's not a wholly accurate representative of the period 1944-1964 of the ex-LNER main lines.

 

Rightly or wrongly, there's now entirely different two ways of building models of these Thompson Pacific classes, and the results on both sides speak for themselves.

 

Let's not try and turn it into a "them and us" scenario of kitbash versus kitbuilt. It's more a question of economics and the personal comforts of modelling. Neither right or wrong; different, and it suits some of us better than others.

 

The DJH and Proscale kits are significantly more expensive if you factor in who builds it, at what price, and with what wheels, gearbox and motor combination, and it's a fact that if you can afford to have one built and finished professionally, then undoubtedly you'll get a better Thompson Pacific.

 

My point was that this way of building one allows those with less deep pockets (myself included) to build or have built a Thompson Pacific more economically. Perhaps "cheque book modeller" as a term was ill advised but I was in no way denigrating anyone who does have deep pockets for modelling. In fact I'd love to have the cash to be one myself, and I say as much in the blog entry above.

I am also resigned to the fact that my blog entry has had a 1* rating; which frankly doesn't seem fair or warranted. But I suspect that was the intention behind that rating.

I think it's a good blog entry Simon. As a fan of the Thompsons like you are, I really love what you've been able to do to create all the Thompsons and I think that Graeme's stuff is a really great aid to that and I didn't get the impression that you were having a go at people who have kits built. Keep up the good work :-)

You seem to be having a go for mere mention of "cheque book modeller" as opposed the actual context of my post:

 

It didn't need mentioning - surely the issue to discuss is this method as an alternative to building from kits or from scratch?

 

The DJH and Proscale kits are significantly more expensive if you factor in who builds it, at what price, and with what wheels, gearbox and motor combination, and it's a fact that if you can afford to have one built and finished professionally, then undoubtedly you'll get a better Thompson Pacific.

 

More expensive maybe, but more freedom to taylor the model to your exact needs? Why do you need someone to build it? Looking at Tim's thread the key saving is one of time - finishing a conversion requires a very similar skill set to finishing a kit off to an acceptable standard. Have you seen Chris Pendlenton's model of 60505 Thane of Fife? He didn't pay someone, just a lot of practice and skills developed over the years. Probably the best model I've seen or read about which has portrayed one of Thompson's pacifics.

 

If you look at Tim's thread he's carefully chosen components which maximise the result (such as the etched cab sides) with regards the effort and time required. I don't think he'll mind me saying (and if he does, he's known me long, so tough!) that a full scratch built model by someone of the calibre of Chris Pendlenton will always have a bit more finesse than the RTR conversion, but as layout locos as part of an overall scene Tim's will work perfectly.

 

My point was that this way of building one allows those with less deep pockets (myself included) to build or have built a Thompson Pacific more economically. Perhaps "cheque book modeller" as a term was ill advised but I was in no way denigrating anyone who does have deep pockets for modelling. In fact I'd love to have the cash to be one myself, and I say as much in the blog entry above.

 

You're not comapring like with like - a RTR conversion you do yourself will always be cheaper than a professionally built loco!

 

I think it was ill advised to even mention a 'cheque book modeller' - it took away from the model concerned.

But this was in response to the idea that the kit built models were always superior because of the final result. Total expenditure was not factored into the original debate, and thats the crux of my point made this evening.

 

I did not bring up skills because the original comparisons made were kits made by professional modellers and any locomotives made using Graeme's parts.

 

I've no doubt someone with the skills and time could build both proficiently but we're not debating that. My point was, and remains, a question of budget.

I'm afraid if you mention budget then other factors come into it. Three key areas for having a successful layout; time, money, skill. Take one out and the others can compensate.

 

However, without the budget then you need the skill to produce the model. Then it becomes hard to compare it with a full professional job as this ceases to be an option for the cash strapped modeller.

 

If you'd just simply said you can't afford a professional build so you were having a go yourself, it would have come across quite differently. Or even simply, 'I'm building a model of this loco using these parts' - matter of fact modelling is the way to go

I think you're trying to read offense into a blog post where none is intended James.

 

Without wishing to muddy the waters further, my point is - and always has been - that Graeme's parts have allowed Thompson Pacific models to be made for significantly less money than buying and building, or having built for you, a kit built one.

 

And I believe the gist of my blog post was that exactly; I can't afford to get a kit built or do one myself (as much as I'd like to) so this allows me to build them myself.

 

It is a shame that you've both latched onto that single throwaway line when it appears we're all on the same page regarding modelling and its economics.

Rightly or wrongly, there's now entirely different two ways of building models of these Thompson Pacific classes, and the results on both sides speak for themselves. Let's not try and turn it into a "them and us" scenario of kitbash versus kitbuilt.

 

I can't help but being perplexed by this statement Simon.

 

I have not seen anywhere on this forum where that attitude has been shown. If you are referring to Mr Wright's interesting observations posted by Andy Y in Tim's thread, then I honestly can not see where a 'them and us' attitude is shown. If anything Tony is very complimentary about the resin casting, and although he is clearly more comfortable building kits (he has most likely built more Thompson Pacifics than Doncaster and Darlington ever did) he does very much praise the work Tim has done, and the parts Graeme has produced.

 

I think the only negative point made by Tony is comments that the resin builds 'are superior' than the kit builds, which I agree with Tony that they aren't, but when done properly are definitely as good when sourcing particular etched parts.

 

I personally think the way forward for any Thompson A2 for me, would be down Graeme King's Resin parts route as the results are simply superb and with their RTR chassis, have proven very reliable. This was clearly shown when Tim tested Gilbert's 60505 'Thane of Fife' on Leaman Road.

 

I do feel that mentioning the comments 'them and us', if anything could create a situation that as far as I had seen, does not exist!

I can't help but being perplexed by this statement Simon.

 

That is your perogative Tom.

 

I have not seen anywhere on this forum where that attitude has been shown. If you are referring to Mr Wright's interesting observations posted by Andy Y in Tim's thread, then I honestly can not see where a 'them and us' attitude is shown. If anything Tony is very complimentary about the resin casting, and although he is clearly more comfortable building kits (he has most likely built more Thompson Pacifics than Doncaster and Darlington ever did) he does very much praise the work Tim has done, and the parts Graeme has produced.

 

He does praise Graeme's work, yes, but there is also some criticism of, for example, the resin cab in particular which I felt at the time (and still feel actually) was unfair when you consider the amount of work needed (and demonstrated ably elsewhere on this forum) to make a DJH cab correct dimensionally. The resin cab may indeed be a thicker material, but it is to all intents and purposes entirely accurate for an A2/3.

 

The accuracy of the part seems to have been completely overlooked in favour of praising kit built A2/3s as being vastly superior. How have we come to a state of affairs where a more accurate and ready to fit component is decried for the material it is made in?

 

I think the only negative point made by Tony is comments that the resin builds 'are superior' than the kit builds, which I agree with Tony that they aren't, but when done properly are definitely as good when sourcing particular etched parts.

 

Quelle surprise!

 

I do feel that mentioning the comments 'them and us', if anything could create a situation that as far as I had seen, does not exist!

 

An idea which was not one that I put forward; it is one that I definitely highlighted in my blog, however, and warned against:

 

Let's not try and turn it into a "them and us" scenario of kitbash versus kitbuilt. It's more a question of economics and the personal comforts of modelling. Neither right or wrong; different, and it suits some of us better than others.

 

The context of my blog seemingly - and continuously - overlooked in favour of trying to hammer home some point you believe I was making?

Enough please.

How have we come to a state of affairs where a more accurate and ready to fit component is decried for the material it is made in?

 

I think we've been there for a long time!

 

This is why DJH made the switch from full white metal kits to providing major sheet metal components, such as cab sides, as etchings. Selecting the correct material is a key part of kits I feel, certainly the better ones - waiting to be built for my Dad is a D49 which was made by McGowen - everything is w/m, even the rods and valve gear! Thankfully things have changed since then!

Selecting the correct material is a key part of kits I feel, certainly the better ones - waiting to be built for my Dad is a D49 which was made by McGowen - everything is w/m, even the rods and valve gear! Thankfully things have changed since then!

 

I wouldn't wholly disagree with you there James.

As I see things, this is a rather terrific demonstration on how one can create a non rtr loco type which looks good without it costing a fortune.

 

It's all about playing the cards that have been dealt to you. You have money to put into a project, you put it in and often better results will come of it.

 

Some don't have that sort of cash. It's not nessesarily an opposite side to the hobby, it merely requires a different approach to the same goal a bit of creativity in the methodology involved.

 

End of the day, any modeling project is going to need work to make it to a decent standard. Both approaches require a certain level of expertise and effort and hard work to pull it off. No-one here that I can see is doubting that of the other.

 

The defining difference is if you have a kit, you have alot of the decisions made for you into where to source the parts, detailing differences aside. Detailing differences are the extra mile a specific modeller goes to make a specific locomotive. That's his or her perogative and comes into it regardless of what method you employed to make the actual model. When you have to kit bash or bit a bit more frugle with where yoiu source components, then those decisions you have to make for yourself. Sometimes it makes for an easier build in places, sometimes it makes for a harder one.

 

End of the day different methods suit different people and the budget thing is indeed worth mentioning in this blog because what Simon has very well done is started to demonstrate how one on a very limited budget can produce really nice results, but does not shy from the fact that if you have the funds available to pour into the project you should consider doing so and the wider options a larger budget opens up for you.

I have built a PDK A1/1 and as far as I can see in the limited photos of the Graeme King Conversion it is superior to the kit as supplied for a number of reasons.

 

For a non finescale modeler the Hornby version will actually go round curves , the PDK version struggles to go around 36" curves as not enough sideplay was designed into the chassis , a fact I never realised until it was built. The Hornby version has a excellent chassis ready built whereas any kit will only run as good as the modeller who builds it can achieve.

The resin boiler is reasonably detailed however I prefer the Hornby as once the top join is filled it looks much better. It is also easier to work with than the resin version being soft and soapy feeling.

A number of small parts are nowhere the quality of the Hornby version which much better detailed and the correct sizes.

Some of the etched body parts were incorrect size and/or poorly detailed.

The Hornby Tenders is a superb moulding and has the edge on the etched version I can live with thicker sides on the Hornby.

 

I also have a NuCast A2/1 which is light years away from any of the current rtr models available.

Finally

 

One thing that does let the King A1/1 down are the resin smoke deflectors , without checking I believe these are now available as etches? The resin ones on the A2/3 I have built are ok once painted but etched is always superior on thinner items. Hopefully a etch will become available for replacement cabs on the A2/3 version ( I have run out of the much superior DJH etched version).

As I see things, this is a rather terrific demonstration on how one can create a non rtr loco type which looks good without it costing a fortune.

 

Out of interest, how much would the total be if all components were bought new?

 

Some don't have that sort of cash. It's not nessesarily an opposite side to the hobby, it merely requires a different approach to the same goal a bit of creativity in the methodology involved.

 

You'll actually find that many who commission models are doing so as their time is lacking - even with plentiful time if you tackle a large project it will require large investments of time. My old customers included many like this.

 

The defining difference is if you have a kit, you have alot of the decisions made for you into where to source the parts, detailing differences aside. Detailing differences are the extra mile a specific modeller goes to make a specific locomotive.

 

If you 'build from kits' instead of 'kit building' then youhave many of the same decisions when it comes to the best parts to use.

I'm hungry now. Anyone fancy a Milky Bar?

Yep!

 

 

Although it does have etched deflectors

Ian, every time I see that model I know I've got a long way to go still with my modelling. Beautiful model.

Out of interest, how much would the total be if all components were bought new?

 

Obivously I can't quote pounds and pence, but of the options, I think this represents one of the cheaper ways to build a model.

 

You'll actually find that many who commission models are doing so as their time is lacking - even with plentiful time if you tackle a large project it will require large investments of time. My old customers included many like this.

 

I am aware of the time constraints involved by large projects, but time is not really what was being demonstrated here. This approach demands a good amount of time to get it right. I imagine there are a range of reasons why one would commision a model, all equally valid. One thing a commision is not though is cheap, nor should it be, the results speak for themselves and I dont think anyone was questioning why someone would want to commision a model, more give you an alternative should this not be the direction you wish to take for whatever reason, that is not for anyone to judge really except the modeller themselves. Obviously what you save in money you lose in time like you suggested which I suppose it what makes it an option rather than a singular methodology for the hobby. There is never a way that suits ALL criteria (cheap, quick, creatively satisfying etc) It's all about what suits you and what makes you tick as a modeller.

 

 

If you 'build from kits' instead of 'kit building' then you have many of the same decisions when it comes to the best parts to use.

 

That is indeed a fair point, and is yet another way of going about building or attaining a model. Every method has its advantages, it depends on what suits various people, be that on a time, or financial or indeed skill level.

Obivously I can't quote pounds and pence, but of the options, I think this represents one of the cheaper ways to build a model.

 

I was genuinely curious about the cost as I am always conscious of how much I spend - with a young family I often struggle to justify hobby spending to myself!

 

I am aware of the time constraints involved by large projects, but time is not really what was being demonstrated here. This approach demands a good amount of time to get it right. I imagine there are a range of reasons why one would commision a model, all equally valid. One thing a commision is not though is cheap, nor should it be, the results speak for themselves and I dont think anyone was questioning why someone would want to commision a model, more give you an alternative should this not be the direction you wish to take for whatever reason, that is not for anyone to judge really except the modeller themselves. Obviously what you save in money you lose in time like you suggested which I suppose it what makes it an option rather than a singular methodology for the hobby. There is never a way that suits ALL criteria (cheap, quick, creatively satisfying etc) It's all about what suits you and what makes you tick as a modeller.

 

Often people would commission a professional to undertake would which would allow them to do the bits they liked themselves. I have ballasted a layout purely because its owner, for whom I'd done a few diesels, didn't like doing it! That freed up his time to get on with other aspects.

 

For 'layout locos' as Iain Rice calls them, conversions liek this have real potential - even from the professional's point of view as fleets can be built up more quickly than building entitely from kits.

Honestly, I think this build will be a great respresentation of the a1/1, and will give Mr Martin many happy an hour with, which is after all why we do this It represents a way of doing things cheaper, but I wouldnt call it the best. Frankly there isn't a best way to make models as they all vary so much and what is available to the modeller changes all the time as well as their own circumstances! Every method has it's niche, and with the amount of varied people, I think it's great that everyone write's up their way of doing things, theres something for everyone! I think it would be foolish for anyone to criticise a way of doing something over the other or to discourage any singular way.

 

I was genuinely curious about the cost as I am always conscious of how much I spend - with a young family I often struggle to justify hobby spending to myself!

 

My apologies chap I misread your meaning, the pitfalls of the internet! lol. I know what you mean though, sometimes it's nice to know where your money is going especially with all of life's responsibilities, none of which come free! I think the cost thing would be an interesting experiment for somebody to do, recording all the specific and even smallest of costs, laying it up as a sort of bill and publishing it to give people an idea of whats involved etc, unless of course somebody has already done that in which case I apologise.

 

Often people would commission a professional to undertake would which would allow them to do the bits they liked themselves. I have ballasted a layout purely because its owner, for whom I'd done a few diesels, didn't like doing it! That freed up his time to get on with other aspects.

 

Again, tons of reasons why one would have one done, entirely the modeller's perogative and rightfully so! Definatly worth doing.