Falcon Brassworks - a warning!

[t-b-g]

44 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

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

 

This has cropped up on another thread. The quality and accuracy seems to depend on who drew the artwork. In the early days, Jidenco kits were hand drawn and not all by the same person. There were some where the designer didn't understand the basic concepts of a wagon having the sides between the ends or the ends between the sides but you don't have full length sides and full width ends all designed to fold up from a floor! If you can't get that right, you are going to struggle drawing more complex bits that are supposed to fit together.

 

Some of the kits were genuinely not too bad. Some were awful. I have built both! So it is not down to the builder although a degree of skill and experience can help spot problems and sort them out at an early stage, rather than go on up a dead end with no way out.

[GeoffAlan]

On 14/05/2018 at 13:27, PenrithBeacon said:

In his quiz programme of yonks ago Humphrey Lyttleton used to have a fictitious assistant called Samantha

Not just Humph'. Practically everyone she met had her! She is what used to be called....'No better than she ought to be!'

At least if Humph's excuses for her leaving the show early were correct., Her replacement Sven seems to be of same ilk.

[Willie Whizz]

10 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

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.

 

I think most modellers would go along with that, John, for these and indeed any other comparable kit-type products you cared to name - IF those words (or a close equivalent)  were displayed on all the packaging and in all the advertising and reviews, so that people could be aware of what they were buying BEFORE parting with their hard-earned cash.  That way, far far fewer would remain unbuilt or unfinished and either getting sold to other newly-minted mugs on e-Bay or else stored for years at the bottom or a stash of "one of these days" purchases, awaiting the acquisition of a personal skill-set which may or may not ever materialise in the end.

[Jub45565]

Jim Smith-Wright has built the LMS D1804 Gannet kits:

 

http://www.p4newstreet.com/look-mum-no-glue.html

 

I thought he had also done the D1800 Trout kit too, but can't find it now and I am most likely mis-remembering the work he did to the Hornby version.

 

These are probably two cases in point - the Trout is unlikely to have a large market now due to the RTR version (however well or otherwise it builds), but the D1804 is otherwise a gap and would sell some.

[Blandford1969]

On 09/06/2020 at 09:53, chris p bacon said:

 

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

North of £100.

 

I am just finishing a Falcon Brass SR 3500 Gallon tender for a U class. You initially look at the etches and think, that's not too bad.

 

However the sides for the inside of the tender and front side of the footplate are not there. There are no holes ready for opening up, no sandboxes on the front of the tender. The tab and slot did not fit. I filled it off and replaced it with scrap brass to help guide the tender into place. It is starting to look ok now. However a lot harder that you would have hoped. I should have said the smoke deflectors are replacement scratch built ones for a Wills U class. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Blandford1969
Add comment on the smoke deflectors

[chris p bacon]

49 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

North of £100.

 

Blimey!   I see what you mean.

 

I'm going to try and help Andy (UAX6) with a Clan/Clan goods and see if I can improve the chassis which he feels is a problem......it can't be any worse!  

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

North of £100.

 

I am just finishing a Falcon Brass SR 3500 Gallon tender for a U class. You initially look at the etches and think, that's not too bad.

 

However the sides for the inside of the tender and front side of the footplate are not there. There are no holes ready for opening up, no sandboxes on the front of the tender. The tab and slot did not fit. I filled it off and replaced it with scrap brass to help guide the tender into place. It is starting to look ok now. However a lot harder that you would have hoped. I should have said the smoke deflectors are replacement scratch built ones for a Wills U class. 

Whatever you do don't be tempted to solder the layers together using the large etched holes - the outer skin will distort round each hole and they will be very visible on the outside. I made this mistake once - many years ago....

[Blandford1969]

16 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Whatever you do don't be tempted to solder the layers together using the large etched holes - the outer skin will distort round each hole and they will be very visible on the outside. I made this mistake once - many years ago....

Too late, I did, but only a little bit and got away with it. However it did need replacement parts. The attached photos show some of the changes.Supports around the base to help locating the body, support across the middle to give support to the top. Scratch-built sandboxes, coal door and guides built and added, tender well sides scratch-built and supports underneath at the front to help with location. 

The tender which is for 31618 now just needs more holes drilling for the handrail. A water softener lid has been acquired and axleboxes to be added. The frames were thrown away and a Comet set of frames with Mainly Trains brake blocks are being used for the underneath. Its not a kit I would recommend to a beginner. 

 

Oh and the tender frames were the wrong shape at the front and needed amending. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Blandford1969
Add comment on the frames

[Michael Edge]

That was lucky, mine was a complete mess and had to be completely replaced. It looked like a good idea when I saw it (and some Gibson tender kits are a bit similar) but it falls down on the physics of heating and expanding brass.

[Blandford1969]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

That was lucky, mine was a complete mess and had to be completely replaced. It looked like a good idea when I saw it (and some Gibson tender kits are a bit similar) but it falls down on the physics of heating and expanding brass.

Yes, I have got one of the high sided Fowler tenders, but due to how thin it is may replace with a scratch built top and sell the original on!

 

 

[Buhar]

On 11/06/2020 at 19:53, chris p bacon said:

 

Blimey!   I see what you mean.

 

I'm going to try and help Andy (UAX6) with a Clan/Clan goods and see if I can improve the chassis which he feels is a problem......it can't be any worse!  

If this goes to plan, is there any chance of joining in?  In fact, a mention is HR Society circles could end up with quite a few expressions of interest.

 

Alan

[chris p bacon]

24 minutes ago, Buhar said:

If this goes to plan, is there any chance of joining in?  In fact, a mention is HR Society circles could end up with quite a few expressions of interest.

 

Alan

I'll Pm you Alan.

[Enterprisingwestern]

9 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

Too late, I did, but only a little bit and got away with it. However it did need replacement parts. The attached photos show some of the changes.Supports around the base to help locating the body, support across the middle to give support to the top. Scratch-built sandboxes, coal door and guides built and added, tender well sides scratch-built and supports underneath at the front to help with location. 

The tender which is for 31618 now just needs more holes drilling for the handrail. A water softener lid has been acquired and axleboxes to be added. The frames were thrown away and a Comet set of frames with Mainly Trains brake blocks are being used for the underneath. Its not a kit I would recommend to a beginner. 

 

Oh and the tender frames were the wrong shape at the front and needed amending. 

 

But apart from that what was wrong with it?!!

 

Mike.

[Denbridge]

On 06/06/2020 at 11:55, k22009 said:

 

I didn't find the Claughton build i recently shared on here too bad.

 

 

Dave

That's an interesting read,  thank you. I can only assume that the Claughton must have been re-drawn at some point. The one I built (eventually) was from a Jidenco kit when it first came out, your descriptions don't seem to match my experience of that kit 

For the record, I actually enjoy building Jidenco/Falcon kits, despite their shortcomings.

[uax6]

On ‎12‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 21:29, Buhar said:

If this goes to plan, is there any chance of joining in?  In fact, a mention is HR Society circles could end up with quite a few expressions of interest.

 

Alan

 

Gulp... I must dig everything out for Dave then! Its on the list for tomorrow...promise!

 

Andy G

[Denbridge]

On 09/06/2020 at 07:49, 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.

There lies a problem. Talking at a show, I was told that to provide a specific set of etches involved having several sets of others done at the same time.

Apparently, not only does a sheet include more than one kit, the kit that is wanted might also be spread over 2 or more sheets.

[DLT]

Many years ago, I helped Iain Rice at one of his early Etched Kit Construction weekends in Chagford.  Participants had to bring their own kit along, and Mallard coaches, Colin Waite horseboxes etc were the usual order of the day.   Jidenco kits were discouraged, even back then they were described as "parts for the scratchbuilder" rather than "kits".

[adrianmc]

Southern Railway ex SE&CR Class B1 4-4-0 to P4 standards built from a Falcon Brass kit (LK116).

 

(Kit was purchased direct from Philip Rudd back in June 2001 - as an aid to scratch-building it wasn't inexpensive at £65.45)

 

 

 

[mike morley]

On 09/06/2020 at 12:36, Ravenser said:

 

Okay:

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

 

 

To that I would add that the axle mounting plates arent deep enough to fix to the underside of the end platforms, as directed by the instructions, which makes mounting them a bit a bit fiddly and getting the wagon to sit square a trial-and-error job.

[DLT]

1 hour ago, adrianmc said:

Southern Railway ex SE&CR Class B1 4-4-0 to P4 standards built from a Falcon Brass kit (LK116).

 

(Kit was purchased direct from Philip Rudd back in June 2001 - as an aid to scratch-building it wasn't inexpensive at £65.45)

 

 

 

 

Wow, what a beauty!

[micklner]

1 hour ago, adrianmc said:

Southern Railway ex SE&CR Class B1 4-4-0 to P4 standards built from a Falcon Brass kit (LK116).

 

(Kit was purchased direct from Philip Rudd back in June 2001 - as an aid to scratch-building it wasn't inexpensive at £65.45)

 

 

 

£65.45 = £96.00 now according to inflation calculator. How much did you actually use of the kit ? Lovely model.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, adrianmc said:

Southern Railway ex SE&CR Class B1 4-4-0 to P4 standards built from a Falcon Brass kit (LK116).

 

(Kit was purchased direct from Philip Rudd back in June 2001 - as an aid to scratch-building it wasn't inexpensive at £65.45)

 

 

 

 

 

Adrian

 

Can I say you have made a wonderful job building this loco, and as you said was sold to you on the basis that it needed a lot of skill in assembling it, certainly not one for the novices to etched kit building, Whilst in today terms £65 is not expensive for a loco kit, you are talking about 20 years ago before the explosion in commodity prices. so it was not a cheap kit then

 

The issue with all makes is the old chestnut, which is the level of skill required to build each kit. Many kits remain unbuilt/part built simply as the buyer/builder underestimates the skills required to complete said kits. Then how do you judge skill levels ?

 

As I said I have built a couple and have one to build. and you have hit the nail on the head in that they are difficult but not impossible to build. They do come with some quite exquisite castings and turnings

Edited June 17, 2020 by hayfield

[adrianmc]

I posted the picture as an example of what can be produced given a Falcon Brass kit, however the B1 is not my work but that of good friend and very skilled 4mm modeller Jeff Day.

 

Jeff wrote an article about the locomotive in Scalefour News No. 140 (December 2004) in which he goes into detail about the model's construction.

 

The locomotive body itself was used as supplied from the kit with a few modifications - e.g. the cab roof supplied is from an F1 which has a vent which the B1 does not have; it has an extra rib over it's centre.

 

The tender supplied with the kit is for a C Class! When this was pointed out to Philip is became apparent that Jidenco/Falcon Brass didn't do one for a B1 so Philip supplied his etches for the tender for a F1 and Jeff heavily modified it to look the part.

 

One thing Jeff did say was the locomotive was much easier to build in P4 than 00 due to the fact that since the wheels are set further apart, the splashers can be thinned down and hence allow the boiler and firebox to sit in between them better thus making more space for the motor. Also the secondary splashers are functional to allow the crank pins and coupling rods to move up above the running/foot plate.

[Blandford1969]

ISo we have established that Falcon Brass is like the parrot and is dead. There is a demand for some of the kits, but the way they were originally laid out means that they are not economic. 

 

They can build into reasonable results, but with a lot of work. 

 

So what would the chances be of someone else doing just etches for some of the most popular kits?

 

Many are replaced by other more modern kits or ready to run. However there are some which are not and from sales on Ebay would suggest there is a demand.

 

So which ones - Here would be my suggestions

HR Clan / Clan Goods / Durn / Castle /Small Ben

SR K10 / L11 / H2 / Wainwright O1

A high sided flat sided Fowler tender

 

So it needs someone to take it on. Would anyone consider it?

 

Many in the range have others who produce better kits. 

 

What do others think

 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

13 hours ago, Denbridge said:

There lies a problem. Talking at a show, I was told that to provide a specific set of etches involved having several sets of others done at the same time.

Apparently, not only does a sheet include more than one kit, the kit that is wanted might also be spread over 2 or more sheets.

That's exactly what I suspected and since the etches are almost certainly hand drawn there isn't even any prospect of rearranging them. It's a pity but it does seem that they are effectively dead.