Jump to content
 

Falcon Brassworks - a warning!


cctransuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Starter for those wanting to learn to solder, to be fair.  I haven't ever built one so I can't comment on how appropriate that is.

Not very, basically. 

 

Paul A. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 04/06/2020 at 15:45, cctransuk said:

Given the family connection, how about Dart Castings / MJT Components, etc.? Has anyone placed an order lately? If so, what was the service like?

 

About a month ago I mailed an inquiry about a product showing  out of stock on the website, received a response within a couple of days saying they had had a hunt around a found a couple of the etches I required. The order was placed and items received within a couple of days. Absolutely no issues with Dart Castings as far as I'm concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 04/06/2020 at 17:53, Steamport Southport said:

I had hoped the better of the kits would have found their way into the main range by now.

 

I think the GWR Gas Tank was only revamped about five years ago as it was featured as a new kit in the magazine that Bob Barlow started before his death. Finescale Model Railway Review I think it was called.

 

 http://www.falconbrassworks.com/details.php?code=WK128 

 

Although it might have been the other Gas Wagon.

 

http://www.falconbrassworks.com/details.php?code=WK127

 

 

It was the WK128 kit that was "revamped", I have one. The revamp merely consists of one extra etch with a few new parts on and some items replaced by castings. The bulk of the kit is still the same old etches. It is however still missing parts that are clearly shown in the revised instructions. IIRC the etched brake gear was supposed to be replaced with cast items which never materialised. I think it will remain in the To Do pile for a long while yet.

Edited by 57xx
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well, things move on I suppose. CAD improves over hand drawn artwork, folk now expect greater accuracy. I built some over the years, I learned a lot by doing so. I would not be critical, they were what they were.

 

This one was actually an anchorage kit, though the etch was done by Jidenco. It ended up in the Falcon range. Still a very sweet runner.

 

2068358203_kest1.JPG.33e332a9e070e96c37826c4e6b890baf.JPG

 

 

A few years later I bought another when it was part of the Falcon range. Grew a bit. They ended up in general use on the Caley.

 

740408209_kest2.JPG.8fdf28cd332f9028a1997bd16f422e34.JPG

 

 

I think this is a Falcon etch. I bought it for a couple of quid as a bare etch, not even in a bag. It sat for a long while until I came across a photo and realised what it was. Squeals a bit on corners but doesn’t fall off.

 

 

1138387304_kest3.JPG.b103e8dd40d9533cdb30cb7f303c4382.JPG

 

 

If they ever get going again I’d have another pug etch. I fancy one of the early versions. On the bright side scratchbuilding the buffers would be straightforward.

Edited by Dave John
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Buhar said:

Those sort of changes means re-doing the artwork, which would have been hand-drawn.  Mind you it could be an opportunity to get things the same size and fitting together!  However, it's "I wouldn't start out from here" scenario for probably most of the loco kits.  If someone thinks it's viable, doing the artwork for an etches only kit (ie no castings) is probably one of the cheaper ways into small-scale production.  

 

Alan

Yes, its needs starting again, but on a computer designed system.  As it stands the etches have to be treated with extreme caution and are really just a scratch building aid.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The brake gear on the wagon kit etches (that i have) are useless. All attached to the solebars, so out of line with the wheels and usually so thin an etch they bend when you so much as look at them.

The Damo B had the "relief " detail on the wrong side when you folded up the solebar etch anyway too.

Definitely more scratch aids than esoteric kits.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Blimey, don`t all this go on...anyone with an ounce of modelling nowse would av/should av never taken on such an out of date poorly designed product in the first place what were they thinking of.   As the saying goes   " this Parrot is dead"

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have always though there should be a market for the Jidenco/Falcon brass etches, we (Judith Edge) sell a lot of "etches only" quite profitably and Worsley Works does the same but:

It depends very much on how the etches are arranged for production - nearly all ours are one sheet per loco type but these might be mixed up to use space "efficiently".

Re-working them as kits is not a viable option, effectively it would be starting again with little reference to what already exists. They are as I have pointed out before extremely variable in quality, accuracy and "buildability" - some are very good, others not so. 

Bearing in mind my first caveat, the best option might be to offer them on a sold as seen basis, flat pack in a board envelope would be cheap enough. I wouldn't worry about instructions, they weren't much use in the first place, but a drawing and some parts identification could be provided for very little cost.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ROSSPOP said:

Blimey, don`t all this go on...anyone with an ounce of modelling nowse would av/should av never taken on such an out of date poorly designed product in the first place what were they thinking of.   As the saying goes   " this Parrot is dead"

Parrot ?? more like a large Turkey !!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
37 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I have always though there should be a market for the Jidenco/Falcon brass etches, we (Judith Edge) sell a lot of "etches only" quite profitably and Worsley Works does the same but:

It depends very much on how the etches are arranged for production - nearly all ours are one sheet per loco type but these might be mixed up to use space "efficiently".

Re-working them as kits is not a viable option, effectively it would be starting again with little reference to what already exists. They are as I have pointed out before extremely variable in quality, accuracy and "buildability" - some are very good, others not so. 

Bearing in mind my first caveat, the best option might be to offer them on a sold as seen basis, flat pack in a board envelope would be cheap enough. I wouldn't worry about instructions, they weren't much use in the first place, but a drawing and some parts identification could be provided for very little cost.

If you ever decide to do a Highland Castle, Clan or Clan goods I will happily part with money to you and at the price they go for on Ebay you would think others would too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

If you ever decide to do a Highland Castle, Clan or Clan goods I will happily part with money to you and at the price they go for on Ebay you would think others would too.

 

What sort of prices do they go for ?  I know little about Highland/GNoS etc but guess they're not well served by suppliers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, isn't it - this range attracts completely opposite reactions.

 

Some confirm that they have built at least one or two, and found them quite buildable.

 

Others have built the odd one and found errors - they don't say if they completed the model(s).

 

Others dismiss the entire range as rubbish, but don't say if they have ever built one - or attempted to do so.

 

I think that this says more about the posters than about the kits.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

DJH used to do a Big Goods, Loch and Castle, there is the Ben from Nu-cast (has that been redone) and Lochgorm (derived from 5552) had one or two locos. The most comprehensive range was Falcon although there was a little duplication with other manufacturers. 

Alan 

 

Alan 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Funny, isn't it - this range attracts completely opposite reactions.

 

Some confirm that they have built at least one or two, and found them quite buildable.

 

Others have built the odd one and found errors - they don't say if they completed the model(s).

 

Others dismiss the entire range as rubbish, but don't say if they have ever built one - or attempted to do so.

 

I think that this says more about the posters than about the kits.

 

John Isherwood.

 

I think it's called freedom of speech John!

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I think it's called freedom of speech John!

 

Mike.

 

Of course it is - I've no problem with that.

 

I find it interesting, though, that the same product can produce such different reactions.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Funny, isn't it - this range attracts completely opposite reactions.

 

Some confirm that they have built at least one or two, and found them quite buildable.

 

Others have built the odd one and found errors - they don't say if they completed the model(s).

 

Others dismiss the entire range as rubbish, but don't say if they have ever built one - or attempted to do so.

 

I think that this says more about the posters than about the kits.

 

John Isherwood.

 

John

 

I have started 3 or 4 wagons and built 1, I just had major issues with the underframes. No idea about their accuracy just real pigs to build. If I ever get time they may get finished with kit bashed chassis

 

I have built 1 loco and about to have a go at a part built one, but it has a set of Gibson frames, the original kit ones are in the box and about as basic as a set of K's but in thinner material. I think as  been said, best treated as a scratch aid kit. However if its a choice of one of these kits or nothing, then perhaps they are worth the trouble if you have the skills and experiance required

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

John

 

I have started 3 or 4 wagons and built 1, I just had major issues with the underframes. No idea about their accuracy just real pigs to build. If I ever get time they may get finished with kit bashed chassis

 

I have built 1 loco and about to have a go at a part built one, but it has a set of Gibson frames, the original kit ones are in the box and about as basic as a set of K's but in thinner material. I think as  been said, best treated as a scratch aid kit. However if its a choice of one of these kits or nothing, then perhaps they are worth the trouble if you have the skills and experiance required

 

I think that I'd go along with that - basic, can be tricky, need some skill, rewarding if persevered with - and certainly better than nothing.

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Buhar said:

DJH used to do a Big Goods, Loch and Castle, there is the Ben from Nu-cast (has that been redone) and Lochgorm (derived from 5552) had one or two locos. The most comprehensive range was Falcon although there was a little duplication with other manufacturers. 

Alan 

 

Alan 

 

The Ben is still spinnable by Dave at SEF, and Brian at Branchlines should have a suitable chassis.....

I'd love a clan, and clan goods, I've got the Falcon kits... I open them every now and again, shudder, and put them away again....

The casting look quite good mind...

 

You can borrow them Dave, and draw up buildable ones for me!

 

Andy G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, uax6 said:

You can borrow them Dave, and draw up buildable ones for me!

 

They'd be useful but Idealy a GA/drawing would be better. 

 

What parts are a bit naff as you could add to them with other more accurate parts and without going to the trouble of a complete redraw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

They'd be useful but Idealy a GA/drawing would be better. 

 

What parts are a bit naff as you could add to them with other more accurate parts and without going to the trouble of a complete redraw.

 

I can do the drawings too. The chassis is crap to start with, but the body <might> be buildable. The tender is a bit the same. For both!

 

Andy G

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2020 at 10:08, cctransuk said:

Funny, isn't it - this range attracts completely opposite reactions.

 

Some confirm that they have built at least one or two, and found them quite buildable.

 

Others have built the odd one and found errors - they don't say if they completed the model(s).

 

Others dismiss the entire range as rubbish, but don't say if they have ever built one - or attempted to do so.

 

I think that this says more about the posters than about the kits.

 

John Isherwood.

 

I think the most useful purpose for the thread ad this point would be to sort out what's what in the range - what kits are reasonably buildable and what kits are dogs...

 

Based on comments in this thread -

 

Okay:

- GW gas tank or wagon (not clear which)

- LNWR chemical pan trolley, "which just needed some minor detailing"

-  LMS cement hopper, "which checked out very well against the original LMS drawings"

- D1804 Gannet ballast hopper "kit wasn’t too bad, some of the parts were not etched cleanly and there were no tabs to help with assembly but it all went together reasonably well"

- SECR B1  4-4-0 "much easier to build in P4 than 00"

- LSWR steam railmotor

- LSWR Adams 4-4-0

- LSWR 02? 0-4-4T

- LSWR Drummond 0-6-0

- CR Pug

- HR Small Ben

- ex-Cambrian guards van. "actually rather better than the instructions had led me to expect.  The only real problem was that some of the fold lines were in the wrong place, and even that wasn't a major problem because they were so far from where they ought to have been the error was obvious even to a novice."

 

Marginal:

- Beattie well tank - write up by Iain Rice in MRJ some years ago, requires quite a lot of reworking : "compromises around the splasher area that caused him a spot of bother" . Between Jidenco and DJM this class has been unlucky

- Midland brake van - "dimensionally accurate but the designer got some of the panelling lines on the wrong side."

- NE 12T box van kit. "Too wide, had to be squeezed, and even then it can only represent the smaller batch that was wider. No outside framing supplied for the door, turned buffers that were completely wrong, solebar channel much too deep, and the underframe parts so poor that they all had to go"

- Aspinall rapid shunting tank kit "but in reality it would probably be easier to scratchbuild…"

- SR ballast wagon : "sent me down the road of scratchbuilding"

- Tender for a U: "having taken 2 days to build a tender replacing parts and adding many that should have been there in the first place!"

- HR Castle & Clan: "could be redone with the splasher sides folding up to make life easier. " 

Dogs:

- LNER F8  "basically rubbish, wrong sizes and poor etches ,and castings 90% of which went straight in the bin"

- Claughton : "More than 50% of the body components need to be replaced if one is to get a reasonable model out of the kit. And the underpinnings are just as bad. "

- LSWR K10: "not been researched well enough"

 

That's a start, consolidating what's been said.

 

There are clearly examples of these kits unbuild/part-built floating around on ebay etc . That in itself will undercut further production

Edited by Ravenser
update with comments on a few more kits from the thread
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Funny, isn't it - this range attracts completely opposite reactions.

 

Some confirm that they have built at least one or two, and found them quite buildable.

 

Others have built the odd one and found errors - they don't say if they completed the model(s).

 

Others dismiss the entire range as rubbish, but don't say if they have ever built one - or attempted to do so.

 

I think that this says more about the posters than about the kits.

 

John Isherwood.

They aren't all the same John, it depends very much on which one you have (tried) to build. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...