Plastic Locomotive Kits - A discussion and views to the future

[grahame]

3D printed parts should be produced to a standard that does not require "finishing" by the builder before painting. Spending one or two hours sanding parts is counter productive and may adversely affect the overall finish by removing/rounding off details.

 

 

This issue (those damn stratification ridges) is a major stumbling block with 3D printing that has not been resolved in the last five or so years and becomes a bigger issue with smaller scales. Also is that the finer print material (acrylic resins?) are both often incredibly hard (making it difficult to file smooth) and yet very fragile (will break if dropped). And the 3D kits (un-motorised) that I have purchased from retailers (not ordered from Shapeways) are pretty expensive, poor value for money and have required a lot of extra work to make - not exactly suitable for starters. I've certainly been put off them. 

 

But back to plastic kits: apart from the massive expense (as already detailed) of developing such a 'beginner' kit (and at a low enough price to appeal to the OP), is that there is already quite a competitive range of popular OO/HO loco plastic kits available from Dapol at pocket money prices (around £9 to £12 each). Developing suitable motorising kits for them might be easier and cheaper option.

 

G. 

[cctransuk]

 

 

Dapol manage by slowly extracting the life out of the old moulds, even the coaches have returned.

 

Stephen

 

Really? I must have missed that - which ex-Kitmaster coaches were / are available from Dapol?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[The Johnster]

I am old enough to remember the 60s, the heyday of Airfix railway kits, and a very good introduction to modelling they were too.  One gained an understanding of quartering with the simple half axle assemblies, and of the intricacies and delicacy involved in assembling valve gear and motion.  There were 'motorisation' kits available, which I had a go at at for several locos, and I bodged some to sit on top of RTR chassis as well.  The motorisation kits were a set of brass top had bearings that you force fitted into the axle holes in the frames, a piece of old rail to use as a coupling rod, pre drilled for the crankpins, and the suggestion of using Romford motors, wheels, and gears (in all fairness, little else was available in those days!).  Pickups were a matter for your own devising!

 

The results, unsurprisingly, were a bit hit and miss, mostly miss.  I got a Biggin Hill to run reasonably well, ballasted by old nails set into the body with plasticene, and even managed a 9F, but the weakness was always the plastic motion, which wore and jammed as well as being a bit too fragile for regular running.  One could lubricate it to some extent with graphite, pencil lead, but it would wear out after very low mileages.  I attempted a BR Standard 3MT tank with an old Triang body and a Standard 4MT mogul kit motorised chassis, but this never ran well and I never got the body to sit right on the Airfix chassis.  My Drewry shunter worked well enough, but my attempt at a 350hp shunter failed miserably because of the outside frames and having to fabricate a  conventional chassis for the top hats to sit in; perhaps my choice of balsa for this was unwise...

 

I think the concept of motorised plastic loco kits from 3D printed parts could be revived, especially for modern traction where no outside motion is involved.  But there is a limit to what size of parts can be produced by a domestic type 3D printer, which is what is likely to be available to the small outlay cottage industry manufacturers that are going to be the rule rather than the exception given the size of the potential market.  People will make 3D parts for their own use and then take the opportunity to market them for a small profit for the benefit of others, much like the model established in the etched number/nameplate game and transfers.

 

I would expect quality, and the fit of moving parts perhaps made of nylon type materials for strength, to be superior to the old Airfix kits and their Dapol/Kitmaster successors (I know that Kitmaster were the originators of many of these, but that was slightly before my model-making era), and motorisation to be more successful than some of my abominations; even I was upset by the piece of rail coupling rods!  But some issues will remain.  The kits will still need to be ballasted to be able to pull any more than their own weight, and motorisation kits complete with wheels, gears, and motor must be a) included in the box, b) require no soldering, c) include a ready built or at least fold up integral gear box, d) include pickups, e) have a rigid metal (I would suggest fold up nickel silver), and e) include a mould for a ballast weight to fit easily inside the loco.  Everything you need to build a running locomotive must be included in the box, and there must be no soldering involved in this process (a few screws, nuts, and bolts are fine!).

 

There is no point in any of this IMHO unless a kit can be brought to market for around the £50 mark; there needs to be a clear price advantage over RTR, and as the likely market for them is going to be people used to RTR, easy assembly WITHOUT SOLDERING is vital.  The economics of this sort of thing may be attractive to RTR companies who can release items in a CKD form, passing on the saving of the final assembly cost in China and wiggling out of the warranty costs in the process.  I'm not gonna be holding my breath, though!

[Jol Wilkinson]

I am old enough to remember the 60s, the heyday of Airfix railway kits, and a very good introduction to modelling they were too.  One gained an understanding of quartering with the simple half axle assemblies, and of the intricacies and delicacy involved in assembling valve gear and motion.  There were 'motorisation' kits available, which I had a go at at for several locos, and I bodged some to sit on top of RTR chassis as well.  The motorisation kits were a set of brass top had bearings that you force fitted into the axle holes in the frames, a piece of old rail to use as a coupling rod, pre drilled for the crankpins, and the suggestion of using Romford motors, wheels, and gears (in all fairness, little else was available in those days!).  Pickups were a matter for your own devising!

 

The results, unsurprisingly, were a bit hit and miss, mostly miss.  I got a Biggin Hill to run reasonably well, ballasted by old nails set into the body with plasticene, and even managed a 9F, but the weakness was always the plastic motion, which wore and jammed as well as being a bit too fragile for regular running.  One could lubricate it to some extent with graphite, pencil lead, but it would wear out after very low mileages.  I attempted a BR Standard 3MT tank with an old Triang body and a Standard 4MT mogul kit motorised chassis, but this never ran well and I never got the body to sit right on the Airfix chassis.  My Drewry shunter worked well enough, but my attempt at a 350hp shunter failed miserably because of the outside frames and having to fabricate a  conventional chassis for the top hats to sit in; perhaps my choice of balsa for this was unwise...

 

I think the concept of motorised plastic loco kits from 3D printed parts could be revived, especially for modern traction where no outside motion is involved.  But there is a limit to what size of parts can be produced by a domestic type 3D printer, which is what is likely to be available to the small outlay cottage industry manufacturers that are going to be the rule rather than the exception given the size of the potential market.  People will make 3D parts for their own use and then take the opportunity to market them for a small profit for the benefit of others, much like the model established in the etched number/nameplate game and transfers.

 

I would expect quality, and the fit of moving parts perhaps made of nylon type materials for strength, to be superior to the old Airfix kits and their Dapol/Kitmaster successors (I know that Kitmaster were the originators of many of these, but that was slightly before my model-making era), and motorisation to be more successful than some of my abominations; even I was upset by the piece of rail coupling rods!  But some issues will remain.  The kits will still need to be ballasted to be able to pull any more than their own weight, and motorisation kits complete with wheels, gears, and motor must be a) included in the box, b) require no soldering, c) include a ready built or at least fold up integral gear box, d) include pickups, e) have a rigid metal (I would suggest fold up nickel silver), and e) include a mould for a ballast weight to fit easily inside the loco.  Everything you need to build a running locomotive must be included in the box, and there must be no soldering involved in this process (a few screws, nuts, and bolts are fine!).

 

There is no point in any of this IMHO unless a kit can be brought to market for around the £50 mark; there needs to be a clear price advantage over RTR, and as the likely market for them is going to be people used to RTR, easy assembly WITHOUT SOLDERING is vital.  The economics of this sort of thing may be attractive to RTR companies who can release items in a CKD form, passing on the saving of the final assembly cost in China and wiggling out of the warranty costs in the process.  I'm not gonna be holding my breath, though!

 

How much of the cost of a Chinese factory RTR loco is in labour? Relatively little I think, which has then got to be offset against special packaging and a more (?) comprehensive set of instructions. If you could save 20% of the RTR price, I would think you would be doing well.

 

As for warranty, will anyone buying a CKD kit from Bachmann or the likes, sold by one of the retail warehouses not expect to have a warranty. The likelihood is, if someone messes it up, they'll blame the manufacturer and expect their money back or a replacement.  When I ran a model shop that sold Tamiya R/C  car kits, which are probably at the same the skill level of what you describe for a loco kit, there were a number of people that struggled to assemble them correctly. I provided a free "fix it" service, but I can't see that working with internet sales.

 

If it were a viable and practical sales opportunity, wouldn't the RTR manufacturers already have done it?  Perhaps they would see it as detracting from their more profitable RTR sales, or perhaps they see the greater majority of RTR buyers as being disinterested. Has their experience of peoples capability with fitting detailing components frightened them off. A look at the "frothing" when a new loco is announced is rather indicative of  the enthusiasm for buying finished models" in the box" without much consideration of cost.

[grahame]

There is no point in any of this IMHO unless a kit can be brought to market for around the £50 mark; there needs to be a clear price advantage over RTR, and as the likely market for them is going to be people used to RTR, easy assembly WITHOUT SOLDERING is vital.  

I'm not convinced that is a viable market sector - generally those who prefer RTR baulk at any modelling activity and the big excuses for not attempting any is lack of time and a lack of skill, particularly in achieving an acceptable paint finish. I suspect all such a range would do is compete with the current, already small, kit and scratch bashers market.

 

Also the price point of £50 would need to be tested - has it been established that would generate sufficient sales, turnover, cover costs and provide a decent return?

 

G

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Were the recent "Great British Locomotives" a commercial success?

 

I bought quite a few only because they were there and available in High Street shops. Did they create their own market?

[Phil Parker]

How much of the cost of a Chinese factory RTR loco is in labour? Relatively little I think, which has then got to be offset against special packaging and a more (?) comprehensive set of instructions. If you could save 20% of the RTR price, I would think you would be doing well.

 

As for warranty, will anyone buying a CKD kit from Bachmann or the likes, sold by one of the retail warehouses not expect to have a warranty. The likelihood is, if someone messes it up, they'll blame the manufacturer and expect their money back or a replacement.  When I ran a model shop that sold Tamiya R/C  car kits, which are probably at the same the skill level of what you describe for a loco kit, there were a number of people that struggled to assemble them correctly. I provided a free "fix it" service, but I can't see that working with internet sales.

 

If it were a viable and practical sales opportunity, wouldn't the RTR manufacturers already have done it?  Perhaps they would see it as detracting from their more profitable RTR sales, or perhaps they see the greater majority of RTR buyers as being disinterested. Has their experience of peoples capability with fitting detailing components frightened them off. A look at the "frothing" when a new loco is announced is rather indicative of  the enthusiasm for buying finished models" in the box" without much consideration of cost.

 

I've been told more than once that labour is the largest chunk of a RTR model bill. Presumably, this includes design and engineering some of which is carried out in the UK. How much would you save? Someone still has to pack the CKD kits into boxes. 

 

Jol is (IMHO) spot on about the backup required. In response to a barrage of "I can't work out how to put the pre-made handrails into the pre-drilled holes in my loco cabside" wails on forums, I wrote up the process on a couple of ViTrains models. My guess is that the makers would find themselves with a postbag full of badly assembled models with demands that these be sorted out. All you've done is move the manual labour from China to the UK. Yes, you can put a caveat on the box, but in the same way, modellers think their first port of call for a faulty model should be the manufacturer rather than the retailer, that will get ignored and social media will fill up with complaints.

 

Modern models are far more complex than the old Triang CKD kits. If you lok at video of the assembly process, it's fiddly and complex work. Presumably this is why LLC haven't been able to have it carried out in the UK...

[Phil Parker]

Were the recent "Great British Locomotives" a commercial success?

 

I bought quite a few only because they were there and available in High Street shops. Did they create their own market?

 

For a while, until they weren't and then series was canned.

 

However, none were working RTR models or designed to be. I don't see a cottage industry of people providing motorising kits, unlike the plethora that sprung up around the Airfix range back in the 1960s. If you wanted to make them work, you were on your own. Fun for some, but then so is kitbuilding.

[Ravenser]

A further - and I suspect painfully relevant - consideration.

 

Gathering dust on my bookcase is this:

 

A part built Branchlines chassis for the Airfix Drewry shunter. It's stalled at this point because I was persuaded to make it compensated, and I reached the point where I had to fit compensating beams - which isn't considered in the kit design - and one way and another it is all problematic , and building some plastic coach kits seemed easier and more productive. As did sorting out a Hornby 101 and 155...

 

There is also a Branchlines Airfix Railbus package deal that's a long way down the build list.

 

I think I once attempted as a young lad to build the Airfix Battle of Britain. But as I had no possible way of making it go , the whole exercise seemed pointless

 

I also have a Judith Edge kit for a Steelman Vanguard . This is etched nickel silver , goes on a Black Beetle and having laid hands on one of the last suitable Beetles in the country , and with the Boxfile back up and running I promised myself I'd build it . But soldering always seems daunting and a big thing to settle down to, and somehow...

 

I've drifted into deciding to build a plastic locomotive kit. This:

https://www.steamreplicas.co.uk/Airfix-1804-Steam-Loco.asp

 

But instead I'm replying to this thread.....

 

Meanwhile the GBL Jinty, and the Hornby 0-6-0T bought to go under it sit untouched - because the motor appears directly connected to the chassis , and I need it  DCC.

 

We won't mention the painted Silver Fox Baby Deltic body in the drying box that I really should finish.

 

The point is that there's actually plenty of this stuff already around. Somehow vit doesn't get built though.

 

 

[uax6]

Funny you talk about compensation and hornblocks, I've been having a conversation with Mike Edge on the simpler use of radius arms... Why go fiddlely with horns when you can simply use radius arms?

 

Andy G

[Ravenser]

Funny you talk about compensation and hornblocks, I've been having a conversation with Mike Edge on the simpler use of radius arms... Why go fiddlely with horns when you can simply use radius arms?

 

Andy G

 

1. I've never heard them mentioned before and don't know what they are - let alone how to implement them

2. I'm committed now...

[brack]

A few weeks ago I shared my 3D printed Y7 on a different thread when discussing the mechanism. It was released about 4 years ago and I sold a few of them through shapeways. I wrote what I thought to be fairly comprehensive instructions on a website. The kit comes in at just over £50, with the wheels, rods, buffers, gears, handrail knobs, motor etc bringing that to £80 or so (sourced by the purchaser, but links to providers/items needed listed on website). The mechanism uses an inexpensive gearmotor and 2 bevel gears with gibson wheels and rods - nice and simple to assemble. the body/chassis are sprued together, with brake blocks and clack valves sprued to the chassis. it requires a little finishing work, but in my opinion less than I'd do on a whitemetal kit and the finished loco (again, in my opinion) is better than the old nu-cast kit. Dave Alexander's kit is better than mine, but then it is a mixed media brass/whitemetal kit, costs more and requires somewhat more skill to complete.

 

For a beginners kit I'd argue you don't need compensation, and an inside cylinder 4 coupled prototype is probably your best bet. In terms of soldering, whatever you do you'll likely end up needing to solder the motor to the pickups.

 

 

Essentially a two piece kit.

 

With regard to finishing/surface detail on 3D prints, the trick is to anticipate this in the design. Don't put rivets on areas you'll later want to smooth - use Archer's rivet decals afterwards. Leave some parts just as printed holes for added bits of wire/rod - don't fall into the trap of trying to print everything in one piece just because you can. The Y7 uses gibson buffers as printed ones would not be as strong or fine, likewise the pipework and handrails - turned knobs and bits of wire are both more robust and better looking than trying to print stuff on.

If you are to use shapeways I find that FUD is accurate enough for mechanisms, FD will work fine too, but I haven't had much luck with the various coloured acrylics. WSF is awful stuff, don't bother with it. It looks awful and people think that this is what 3D printing is. Also if you're using WSF for mechanisms it tends not to print true in the Z axis on their machine so your holes end up slightly oval shaped and distorted. I don't recommend it. That isn't to say that I haven't made mechanisms work from WSF, and I've seen others who have managed as well, but I just can't trust it.

 

 

Don't rule out 3D printing - there is some rubbish out there, both in terms of print quality and design quality, but there is some good stuff too. I personally won't release a model to the public unless I've printed and built one first - there are plenty of unforeseen snags that don't become apparent until you try to build one. I'd be very wary of ordering a 3D print from an unknown designer if I hadn't seen a finished model. It won't come down to the £20 price point for some time though, so won't be rivaling Dapol kits any time soon. In terms of a beginner modeller the other option to look at are resin cast bodies on RTR chassis - there were some nice industrials out a few years back but they seem to have disappeared now. Resin will pretty much trump 3D printing on price if you can cast your own product, but requires more work than doing the CAD, uploading it to shapeways and cracking out a test print/build, then waiting whilst they produce it to order for whoever wants one.

[Butler Henderson]

Dapol manage by slowly extracting the life out of the old moulds, even the coaches have returned.

Think you have got mixed up with ex Airfix RTR Staniers that Dapol are now also offering in CKD format

[sem34090]

Now, I personally have nothing against WSF, but I feel that it is worth offering models in more than one material, for those who want it cheaper (WSF) and those who want it finer, albeit at greater cost (FUD/FXD/HDA).

 

As an example, through I.materialise (In their equivalent of WSF) I have been able to produce an LSWR G6, with chassis, for just under £17, excluding VAT and postage.

 

Some won't be happy with that, but so far I've found WSF (Through i.materialise) to be getting better all the time.

 

There's room for all abilities and pockets in this hobby, and I believe that a choice should be offered where possible.

[JCL]

You can't laser cut plasticard, 

 

Hi Justin, yes and no - you can't cut styrene, but you can cut something called Rowmark. York Model Rail do this for example http://www.yorkmodelrail.com/community/bespoke-laser-services/

 

With regard to finishing/surface detail on 3D prints, the trick is to anticipate this in the design. 

 

Certainly this is the case. Like any material, 3D printing has its pros and cons, the material, the machines and the experience of the manufacturers and designers is evolving all the time as can be seen on other threads here. Your excellent looking Y7 shows what can be done when thought is put into the design.

[Michael Edge]

1. I've never heard them mentioned before and don't know what they are - let alone how to implement them

2. I'm committed now...

Most of our kits include this simple compensation option now but you have one of only two kits which we supply without frames. If you want to know what swinging arms are, have a look at some modern rolling stock and see if you can find any hornblocks.

[The Johnster]

How much of the cost of a Chinese factory RTR loco is in labour? Relatively little I think, which has then got to be offset against special packaging and a more (?) comprehensive set of instructions. If you could save 20% of the RTR price, I would think you would be doing well.

 

As for warranty, will anyone buying a CKD kit from Bachmann or the likes, sold by one of the retail warehouses not expect to have a warranty. The likelihood is, if someone messes it up, they'll blame the manufacturer and expect their money back or a replacement.  When I ran a model shop that sold Tamiya R/C  car kits, which are probably at the same the skill level of what you describe for a loco kit, there were a number of people that struggled to assemble them correctly. I provided a free "fix it" service, but I can't see that working with internet sales.

 

If it were a viable and practical sales opportunity, wouldn't the RTR manufacturers already have done it?  Perhaps they would see it as detracting from their more profitable RTR sales, or perhaps they see the greater majority of RTR buyers as being disinterested. Has their experience of peoples capability with fitting detailing components frightened them off. A look at the "frothing" when a new loco is announced is rather indicative of  the enthusiasm for buying finished models" in the box" without much consideration of cost.

 

Good points, Jol, and I was only musing about the CKD concept for RTR manufacturers; I have no experience and little knowledge of the economics of mass producing RTR.  But the cost of the assembly in China is not just that of labour, which by the way is increasing there as workers not unreasonably demand a better standard of living in a successful economy, but the assembly process as a whole, the provision of a factory with overheads and running costs that have to be passed ultimately to the final customer.  

 

The way the Chinese produce models is cheaper than the way we can here because, as well as cheaper labour costs, they are able to sub contract the actual production of parts to competing small, cottage industry type workshops all over the place and cheaply transport them to an assembly facility for final putting together and packaging, a process eased by modern tech and CAD.

 

If kits of the sort I propose cannot be produced at a reasonable profit for around the pricing I suggest, I suspect they will not have much of a future in the UK's small market, but 3D printing has not made enough of an impact yet for an accurate assessment of how it might affect the situation.

 

Triang and Trix successfully marketed CKD models back in the 60s, so there is history to the idea.

[cctransuk]

Triang and Trix successfully marketed CKD models back in the 60s, so there is history to the idea.

 

.... well, marketed anyway - whether successfully is another matter; it didn't last long.

 

The motivation behind UK CKD was avoidance of purchase tax.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[BernardTPM]

You can tell built CKD Tri-ang coaches as the bogies are secured by a rather nice customised nut and bolt rather than a rivet.

 

Perhaps it is telling that, even though the expensive tooling part has been done, Ratio don't think it worth re-running the Midland locos.

[black and decker boy]

A few years back there were the resin bodies for various industrial steam produced by ARC models which seemed reasonably popular and build into a good representation

 

Design to fit RTR chassis, finescsle modellerrs can also fit etched chassis such as High Level.

 

Some bodies had compromised accuracy in order to fit the rtr chassis so your idea will inevitably face the same

 

Not sure I see a huge market. Many rtr modellers seem aghast at changing numbers let alone making a kit. Most finescale modellers prefer brass kits and want absolute fidelity to prototype. What market exists between the 2, who knows

[Jol Wilkinson]

Good points, Jol, and I was only musing about the CKD concept for RTR manufacturers; I have no experience and little knowledge of the economics of mass producing RTR.  But the cost of the assembly in China is not just that of labour, which by the way is increasing there as workers not unreasonably demand a better standard of living in a successful economy, but the assembly process as a whole, the provision of a factory with overheads and running costs that have to be passed ultimately to the final customer.  

 

The way the Chinese produce models is cheaper than the way we can here because, as well as cheaper labour costs, they are able to sub contract the actual production of parts to competing small, cottage industry type workshops all over the place and cheaply transport them to an assembly facility for final putting together and packaging, a process eased by modern tech and CAD.

 

If kits of the sort I propose cannot be produced at a reasonable profit for around the pricing I suggest, I suspect they will not have much of a future in the UK's small market, but 3D printing has not made enough of an impact yet for an accurate assessment of how it might affect the situation.

 

Triang and Trix successfully marketed CKD models back in the 60s, so there is history to the idea.

 

 

A few years back there were the resin bodies for various industrial steam produced by ARC models which seemed reasonably popular and build into a good representation

 

Design to fit RTR chassis, finescsle modellerrs can also fit etched chassis such as High Level.

 

Some bodies had compromised accuracy in order to fit the rtr chassis so your idea will inevitably face the same

 

Not sure I see a huge market. Many rtr modellers seem aghast at changing numbers let alone making a kit. Most finescale modellers prefer brass kits and want absolute fidelity to prototype. What market exists between the 2, who knows

 

I think you have both effectively identified why the RTR manufacturers don't/won't produce any self assembly versions of their models. Insufficient retail price reduction and a seemingly total lack confidence (and skill) in the possible customer base in doing any assembly work. Would the retailers want to get involved in it, having to sort out customer cock ups? I rather think not.

 

The hobby, or at least the RTR buying sector, has moved on. Accurate, low priced RTR models is what they want. Those that like to challenge themselves, learn new skills, etc. won't really get anything from self assembly RTR, so a significant price saving would be the only selling point. 

 

Reading some of the "Kit negatives" in Brian's draft posted elsewhere, painting and lining is a major deterrent, so even 3D printing may not have much impact. It may/will change the way kits are produced (when a consistently decent finish at a competitive price is possible) but I believe the non kit builders will still not be interested. 

[Butler Henderson]

The CKD format raises cost issues in terms of providing comprehensive instructions, the packaging needed, and back up support in case of missing or damaged (probably by the builder) parts. If you take the Dapol Staniers for example the RTR ones are £17.27 or £18.41 (Dapol prices) while the CKD ones are £10.70 to £13.93. Translate that to a £120 loco at manufacturers list price it potentially equates to between £70 and £90 but you have a far greater complexity of parts which cannot all be slung into a single plastic bag and will need packaging apart with appropriate padding and cost increasing proportionally. There may be more scope for wagons and coaches than locos.

 

A solution to the increasing cost of RTR models arising from labour time could be for a lot of the add on parts to be supplied for the user to fit, however the Vi-Trains 47 was like that and got criticised by a number of people.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...To what extent do the good members of this forum feel that a new, possibly small, range of plastic loco kits may be beneficial to the hobby?...

...When it comes to things as complex as locos, if you've got the cash to research and tool an injection moulded kit, you might as well instead tool an RTR loco. The cost isn't THAT much more, but you can sell the RTR loco for many times the price that a plastic kit would be able to command.

 

 I feel that the introduction of a pretty extensive range of RTR models, which are in essence assembled injection moulded body kits on die cast metal mechanisms has been very good for this hobbyist. Those I grew up with in this hobby back in the sixties and seventies would have been very grateful for a tenth of what we now enjoy in decent quality RTR OO, as 'feedstock' ideal for adaption into the subjects they personally wanted.

 

As an example, with a grasp of some essential truths about the extreme conservatism of the UK's railway company design shops, a pre-group design 4-4-0 or 0-6-0 is likely to have 'cousins' elsewhere, and thus lends itself to modification; a very welcome fact for those wanting the small black locomotives for their particular patch, most of which are never likely to get a RTR model.

 

So my take on it is that there are already a pile of loco kits available, once you see past their being already assembled in a factory...

  

Were the recent "Great British Locomotives" a commercial success?...

 

 That the series was truncated with some of the 'to come' items not produced probably is an answer to that question. The producer presumably anticipated better returns by switching to alternative subjects. That doesn't mean GBL was a commercial failure, just that once the most popular items had  been released, alternative subjects promised more in the way of profit from the resources employed.

[uax6]

Most of our kits include this simple compensation option now but you have one of only two kits which we supply without frames. If you want to know what swinging arms are, have a look at some modern rolling stock and see if you can find any hornblocks.

 

Or look on Mike's Judith edge kits thread on here....

 

Andy G

[Ravenser]

Or look on Mike's Judith edge kits thread on here....

 

Andy G

 

I've just tried, but having scrolled through 9 pages I only managed to find one underside shot, which I couldn't really make any sense out of (though there was a lot of fine modelling and very appetising brass kits),  so I'd be grateful for a link

 

This is not a case of me being difficult/unresponsive, - also in the cupboard is a Judith Edge rod drive Sentinel, which has never been built - the Steelman Vanguard was supposed to be an easier alternative, and look how far that's got. If there is a manageable way of fitting such an arrangement to an old kit , or perhaps even a supplementary etch available , I'd be interested for future reference.

 

The background for this is that such small shunters would be for use on the Boxfile, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129948-whitefriargate-goods-aka-the-boxfile/  which is a very rough tough environment despite the improvements from mounting it on a tea-tray chassis, and I've always felt that an 0-4-0T will need all the help it can get. The current fleet comprises the Knightwing shunter and Silver Fox Hunslet tram already seen, a Silver Fox 05 Hunslet on Bachmann split chassis and a NuCast Y3 on a Tenshodo. A Steelman running on a Beetle would sit well with that, thought there is one nagging potential issue - the Knightwing shunter can only run one way round because the deep buffer beam foul in the other direction in one place, and the chipboard can't be cut back further to accommodate. Clearances are appallingly tight and there's a risk I build a very pretty shunter and then can't use it.... 

 

However shockingly coarse-scale the Boxfile may seem, it does at least give me the chance to run and use wagons & locos I've built myself, which would otherwise sit there quite futilely

 

Since the stash of unstarted "first loco kits" also includes a Craftsman 02, a Stephen Poole Y5, and a Branchlines 06 upgrade kit, I have far too many kits already - especially considering this isn't my main layout, I have other modelling interests (pile of London tram kits to declare) and a few interests outside railway modelling . 

 

So I'm not promising to start any more loco kits (bar the Steelman) - just finishing off the part-built stuff would be a big win. (I'm trying not to think of tasty things like Robert Thompson's Sentinel, and the Judith Edge D2999 and Kitson 0-4-0Ts...) But fitting some kind of compensation to the Sentinel would certainly be of interest when I finally get round to building it.

 

​At a more general level I suspect that I'm exactly the sort of person who would be the target for the suggested "plastic locomotive kit", especially as I find soldering daunting and sticking plastic comfortingly familiar. I'm not afraid of painting things plain black or plain green.

 

But - from my perspective the big issue is chassis building . A body can be bodged, but the chassis has to work properly. That can't be fudged.

 

​In that context the most inspirational and positive development on display is brack's Y7 chassis. Potentially close to a simple CKD chassis, reliably square and accurate. I suspect that a chassis block, potentially covered in muck and with little visible detail is one place where you might get away with WSF. It has to run true - a high surface finish isn't critical in the way it is on body sheeting.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Ravenser