Modern Traction Kits

[Michael Edge]

Alistair told me that he bought MTK mostly for the window press tools, the few kits he got round to involved so much work he might just as well have started from scrtach.

However that doesn't take anything away from what Colin Massingham did to promote and assist non-steam modelling, I built a lot of DMU and EMU sets for customers and I still have a few for my own use now.

I can't let the above comments about Q kits go unanswered either. Mike Cole was a real pioneer in diesel modelling, right back in the mid 60s if anyone remembers "Sundown and Sprawling" at the Leeds exhibition and in Railway Modeller. He went into production with resin moulded bodies from his own scratchbuilt locos and most of these were excellent (this was in the early 70s when almost nothing was available). The problems only arose when he became allergic to the materials he was using and changed to poor quality white metal.

[Clive Mortimore]

19 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Alistair told me that he bought MTK mostly for the window press tools, the few kits he got round to involved so much work he might just as well have started from scrtach.

However that doesn't take anything away from what Colin Massingham did to promote and assist non-steam modelling, I built a lot of DMU and EMU sets for customers and I still have a few for my own use now.

I can't let the above comments about Q kits go unanswered either. Mike Cole was a real pioneer in diesel modelling, right back in the mid 60s if anyone remembers "Sundown and Sprawling" at the Leeds exhibition and in Railway Modeller. He went into production with resin moulded bodies from his own scratchbuilt locos and most of these were excellent (this was in the early 70s when almost nothing was available). The problems only arose when he became allergic to the materials he was using and changed to poor quality white metal.

I still have the November 1970 Railway Modeller with one of Mike's articles in it. As a 13 year old kid who had only trainspotted diesels Mike was so inspirational, somebody modelling the railway I knew.

[finelines]

Alistair told me that many of the original masters were very good but Colin had a habit of taking second or third generation copies as masters which destroyed the filelity. 

 

Perhaps somebody can can confirm that he died as a result of removing asbestos from a preserved diesel as I have been told. A total different light?

 

Roger

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

If MTK was that bad then why did Alistair Rolfe take over the range and selected what he thought was worth saving and reintroduced some of them, improving some at the same time, these kits are now available through Phoenix Precision 

 

True some of the Steam outline locos were extremely challenging. The coach kits were fine and went together just as well as the Westdale (?) and Hobbytime/BSL kits, the EMu & DMU kits were much the same only requiring decent motor bogies.  The whitemetal diesel kits went together requiring a bit of filing and filling as did the rail cars, which now are correctly described as scratch building airs, rather than complete kits. The kits were certainly beyond novice builders abilities, but not as you claim unbuildable . A MTK diesel well built with a decent mechanism would certainly pull more stock than its plastic equivalent. But then as said it was at a time when this part of our hobby was not being addressed by the RTR trade, if you wanted modern image this was the route you went down, 

 

 

 

Here is a MTK Wagon basher built many years ago (still waiting for glazing and the roof fixing), agreed not as good as the latest RTR models, but built 20+ years ago using a DS10 motor on a simple chassis made from PCB board with etched W irons. I bought off Alistair a Bristol Railcar 10 + years ago, still waiting to be built this time with a High Level Pacemaker gearbox/sub chassis

 

What I can say is, these kits are buildable by modellers with a basic skill set, and far more pleasing when built yourself than just getting your credit card out

 

As for your rant "Colin Massingham had done a kit - and it was a crude misshapen lump and unbuildable, here are 3 photos of a MTK kit I bought off eBay which was professionally built and clearly shows the opposite, 

 

Clearly shows in the right hands high quality models can be built

 

 

The W&M railbus. ...

 

I remember attending DEMU Showcase after Alaister Rolfe took over the range. He had the whitemetal castings for several types of railbus on his stall "As you see them, no warranty" , and at £15 each I was tempted to have a go at the W&M railbus. 

 

He gently but firmly dissuaded me from buying it, saying I wouldn't be able to build it. I remember him pointing to the nickel silver strips he had soldered along the tops of the sides to cover over the great unfillable gaps between the sides and the roof casting.

 

I also the remember the comment in his press release that quality control for the MTK  range would be markedly improved, as a result of putting the failed castings back in the melting pot, instead of packing them in the box.....

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the previous regime.

 

I stand by my comment that the main effect of Colin Massingham's industry was to block anyone who produced decent kits from tackling modern image subjects - because MTK had bagged the lot, and the "gentleman's understanding" in the hobby that you don't duplicate other people's kits meant that nobody else was going to try. Thus D+E was left without more or less without any decent 4mm kits - and consequently detailing RTR has evolved as the normal and almost the only route to a model

 

That 73 front is rough - even after a professional has done their best

 

I shall now go back to my Parkside and Cambrian wagon kits

Edited March 9, 2019 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Alistair told me that he bought MTK mostly for the window press tools, the few kits he got round to involved so much work he might just as well have started from scrtach.

However that doesn't take anything away from what Colin Massingham did to promote and assist non-steam modelling, I built a lot of DMU and EMU sets for customers and I still have a few for my own use now.

I can't let the above comments about Q kits go unanswered either. Mike Cole was a real pioneer in diesel modelling, right back in the mid 60s if anyone remembers "Sundown and Sprawling" at the Leeds exhibition and in Railway Modeller. He went into production with resin moulded bodies from his own scratchbuilt locos and most of these were excellent (this was in the early 70s when almost nothing was available). The problems only arose when he became allergic to the materials he was using and changed to poor quality white metal.

 

My direct experience with Q kits was a whitemetal Baby Deltic which I bought second hand, and dispaired of building. I gave it away to someone on here and refused to charge postage because I thought it worthless. The photos are a direct comparison of the castings with those of a NuCast Sentinel - and NuCast have taken a fair bit of criticism over the years . The NuCast castings - late Autocom production - are in a completely different league of quality. I've only come across 1 of the resin bodies but that was unfortunately sticky, and owned by someone else.  The worst feature of Q Kits seems to have been the motorisation - the suggested chassis seems to have been a piece of stick

 

I've since built a Baby Deltic from a Silver Fox body - hardly an arduous bit of modelling , admittedly - and the NuCast Sentinel is shown below, just to make the point that I do actually make stuff myself.

 

But I want to protest quite strongly against the claims that "Anyone with basic skills could build MTK kits and get a decent model". That really is viewing the range through rose-tinted spectacles. There is a reason why Colin Massingham called his 7mm range El Crappo, and I think we'd all have been a .lot better off, and 4mm modern image would have much more support in kits , if Colin Massingham had only tackled half as many subjects, and left the rest to others

 

I've used the ex MTK castings for a 150 underframe and also to detail a 155. They were Alaister Rolfe's production, and they were a bit rough and crude even so. The long air-tanks represented by a cross between a dustbin lid and a dartboard in whitemetal were best forgotten.

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Ravenser

[cctransuk]

20 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

But I want to protest quite strongly against the claims that "Anyone with basic skills could build MTK kits and get a decent model".

 

I can't speak for the MTK cast loco kits -I have no experience of them - but the DMUs and EMUs were buildable by the relatively inexperienced. How do I know? I built a GRCW twin DMU when I had very little experience, and I still wish I hadn't sold it to the fellow member of my local club who covetted it.

 

As for Q-kits, I persuaded my local model shop proprietor to order several, thinking that I had the skills to build them after my experience with the MTK DMU. Suffice to say that the sticky, misshapen, warped lumps of resin were wholly unfit for sale, and I had to ask for them to be returned to the supplier.

 

Mike Cole was indeed a master of building modern traction from plastic card; those of us of a certain age drooled over his articles in the model press. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for his moulding and casting skills.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Re6/6]

Here are a couple of Southern electrics. This one was a pig to build. It started out life as just a plain brass wrapper which was made from around 20 thou brass to which soldering required gas as I didn't have an old 'heavy duty' iron.

 

Nonetheless, We're pleased to have 20003 as a 'Balcombe' loco. It sits atop a Bachmann 37 fitted with Ultrascales.

 

Fitted with a Judith Edge beautifully etched nickel-silver working pan which is not 'live' but has full movement. Built for us by 'David B' on here.

 

This one is a CC1/CC2. We were kindly offered it for purchase and it has been made to a good standard. The builder also had trouble soldering to the shell!

 

 

I believe that Alistair Rolfe of No Nonsense Kits had intended to rejuvenate these kits with improved parts but he sadly is no longer with us.

 

Not MTK (I think!) but truly awful and £270 was paid for it! Somebody obviously liked it to pay that money!

 

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Re6/6

[Ian Kirk]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

My direct experience with Q kits was a whitemetal Baby Deltic which I bought second hand, and dispaired of building. I gave it away to someone on here and refused to charge postage because I thought it worthless. The photos are a direct comparison of the castings with those of a NuCast Sentinel - and NuCast have taken a fair bit of criticism over the years . The NuCast castings - late Autocom production - are in a completely different league of quality. I've only come across 1 of the resin bodies but that was unfortunately sticky, and owned by someone else.  The worst feature of Q Kits seems to have been the motorisation - the suggested chassis seems to have been a piece of stick

 

I've since built a Baby Deltic from a Silver Fox body - hardly an arduous bit of modelling , admittedly - and the NuCast Sentinel is shown below, just to make the point that I do actually make stuff myself.

 

But I want to protest quite strongly against the claims that "Anyone with basic skills could build MTK kits and get a decent model". That really is viewing the range through rose-tinted spectacles. There is a reason why Colin Massingham called his 7mm range El Crappo, and I think we'd all have been a .lot better off, and 4mm modern image would have much more support in kits , if Colin Massingham had only tackled half as many subjects, and left the rest to others

 

I've used the ex MTK castings for a 150 underframe and also to detail a 155. They were Alaister Rolfe's production, and they were a bit rough and crude even so. The long air-tanks represented by a cross between a dustbin lid and a dartboard in whitemetal were best forgotten.

 

 

 

Off topic but I am interested to see the cast version of the Nu Cast Sentinel.  This was obviously produced by using the  plastic mouldings as a pattern for the rubber moulds which make white metal castings.  I produced this kit for Nu Cast years ago and it originally had an injection moulded plastic kit for the body and white metal underframe parts. I did the patterns (in brass ) for the undeframe etc.  and produced the plastic mouldings for the then Nu Cast.  I think I still have the injection mould tools but as this is now available RTR there would be no point in re-running these.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian 

[Steamport Southport]

The white metal Sentinel kit is one of the kits that have been reissued by Nu Cast.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105342-nucast-partners/&page=5

 

 

Jason

[hayfield]

16 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

The W&M railbus. ...

 

I remember attending DEMU Showcase after Alaister Rolfe took over the range. He had the whitemetal castings for several types of railbus on his stall "As you see them, no warranty" , and at £15 each I was tempted to have a go at the W&M railbus. 

 

He gently but firmly dissuaded me from buying it, saying I wouldn't be able to build it. I remember him pointing to the nickel silver strips he had soldered along the tops of the sides to cover over the great unfillable gaps between the sides and the roof casting.

 

I also the remember the comment in his press release that quality control for the MTK  range would be markedly improved, as a result of putting the failed castings back in the melting pot, instead of packing them in the box.....

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the previous regime.

 

I stand by my comment that the main effect of Colin Massingham's industry was to block anyone who produced decent kits from tackling modern image subjects - because MTK had bagged the lot, and the "gentleman's understanding" in the hobby that you don't duplicate other people's kits meant that nobody else was going to try. Thus D+E was left without more or less without any decent 4mm kits - and consequently detailing RTR has evolved as the normal and almost the only route to a model

 

That 73 front is rough - even after a professional has done their best

 

I shall now go back to my Parkside and Cambrian wagon kits

 

 

I find your comment about the MTK Rail bus's quite strange and totally the opposite to my experience. Alistair was selling the rail bus's quite openly and these have been continued by Precision Paints, not only that but I remember having a chat on the phone and in person at a show about the Bristol Rail bus and how to build it. Perhaps either the kits he was referring to were original castings, which sometimes could be quite variable, he certainly explained to me the kit was a set of parts which required additional parts to be scratch built, and in fact was extremely helpful in explaining his method of making a roof from plasticard. However as I got to know Alistair through a different project I can see him trying to put off people who he thought might struggle with a scratch aid type of kit. 

 

I also bought over the years several MTK diesel kits, just for the fun of assembling them, recently buying  Western and Warship locos, with the Warship there are an additional set of cast ends, as the originals were miss cast (quality control at MTK was sadly lacking) and the Western ends are a bit out of shape, and will require some careful reshaping. I know these will never make true scale models, but they are of a time when modellers were expected to model making and many people do actually like to take these old kits on as a challenge, and get a great deal of pleasure out of building them

 

As for MTK stopping other companies making kits through a gentleman's agreement, there have been many duplicated models in the past ,

 

Do enjoy your plastic kits and as they use scale wheels they will run perfectly through finescale turnouts and crossings 

Edited March 10, 2019 by hayfield

[Michael Edge]

My comments about Q kits were mainly related to the original resin moulded ones, my only experience of the white metal ones was a USA 0-6-0T - which eventually produced a very nice model (after a lot of work).

This is one of Mike's best models, Falcon, produced in the 1970s. Mine, seen here on Cwmafon, is a bit battered after just about surviving a leap on to the floor but still looks good. It also runs perfectly with one Mike Cole built power bogie. 

More to the point this RH 165DE is an MTK white metal kit, a bit crude by today's standards (I built it in 1981) but an acceptably accurate model, also on Cwmafon. Incidentally the layout is still here (in store) and we would like to get it out again as soon as an exhibition organiser invites it.

[hayfield]

Michael

 

I think it is a case of judging items in today's standards, rather than those of the time they were introduced. especially in a time when etched kits were in their infancy and both the quality and selection of RTR products were far from what we have today

 

As far as Q kits I only bought one kit (S/H) and sold it when I decided not to build it. It certainly would have been a bit of a challenge to build, but not impossible to build. The quality was of its time and as many other kits would benefit from some additional parts

 

The quality now of products is far better, I have duplicate kits of Southeastern Finecast and Wills locos, the quality of both casting and the materials used are far superior from the newer  Southeastern Finecast loco than the Wills. I also have models from GEM when it came from both original Wales version and from the Bedford company, which is exactly the same, the newer model is better.

 

K's kits come in for some flack (sometimes deservedly) but they were in my opinion better than a few other company products. But look at the s/h market, whitemetal kits are quite sought after, many have been well built and are still giving great service after many years

 

Then of course there is something about building something yourself, there is of course the pleasure of creating something, especially as your skill sets improve. or getting something that has stopped working and bringing it back to life. its all too easy to sit back and criticise, or say a RTR loco is far better. But as you have shown quality of the model is down to the builders skills, as you say might be missing a few details but both give a very good impression of the prototypes, plus what I guess is quite a few pleasurable hours of model making

[jjb1970]

I wonder how many people have been put off rolling stock kits by poor quality products? I build plastic kits and used to do model engineering when I could use the engine room lathe, milling machine etc. I'm not unfamiliar with working with metal and joining metals. However I tried model locomotive kits years ago and decided they weren't for me. A kit should be of good fit and should come with usable instructions. The kits I tried were awful in terms of fit the instructions were if anything worse. I would rather scratch build than fight with a bad kit as at least if you scratch build you can do your own design and understand how it should go together. I was used to the quality of plastic kits made by companies like Tamiya, Hasegawa and even Airfix and couldn't really see any reason not to expect a similar standard of professionalism from model railway kits.

[cctransuk]

33 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I was used to the quality of plastic kits made by companies like Tamiya, Hasegawa and even Airfix and couldn't really see any reason not to expect a similar standard of professionalism from model railway kits.

 

Because the production of injection moulded plastic kits from tool steel moulds by a large corporation is worlds away from the production of cast whitemetal kits from vulcanised rubber moulds in a small workshop.

 

You're comparing apples with oranges - the size of the market for mass sale plastic aeroplane kits dwarfs that for niche subject British locomotive kits.

 

To those of us that build the latter, the personal skill required to produce a first class model is what gives far more satisfaction than merely applying solvent glue to perfectly fitting plastic components.

 

Each to their own.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood

[lapford34102]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

You're comparing apples with oranges - the size of the market for mass sale plastic aeroplane kits dwarfs that for niche subject British locomotive kits.

 

To those of us that build the latter, the personal skill required to produce a first class model is what gives far more satisfaction than merely applying solvent glue to perfectly fitting plastic components.

Quite true but I suspect you've never tried the likes of Sword, Modelsvit or Valom to name but three.  Don't think anyone has described their kits as "perfectly fitting" - ever.

 

Stu

[jjb1970]

Whether or not the market for plastic kits is bigger than that for rolling stock kits is irrelevant to a person buying a kit (and model train kits are not cheap) and discovering that the castings are poor, fit poor and instructions pretty much useless. We keep seeing posts on this board deriding those who buy RTR and bemoaning the decline of real modellers etc yet few of these posts seem to consider that a causal factor in the decline of kits was the quality of some (not all) kits which left some with an aversion to kits. 

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

We keep seeing posts on this board deriding those who buy RTR and bemoaning the decline of real modellers etc yet few of these posts seem to consider that a causal factor in the decline of kits was the quality of some (not all) kits which left some with an aversion to kits. 

 

Sorry - that's simply not true.

 

I've never had a kit that defeated me - though I did reject Q-kits untried.

 

The reason for the decline in the kit market was the availability of a much greater pool of RTR, so those that had been building kits as a last resort had a viable alternative.

 

Either you enjoy building kits or you don't.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[hayfield]

12 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I wonder how many people have been put off rolling stock kits by poor quality products? I build plastic kits and used to do model engineering when I could use the engine room lathe, milling machine etc. I'm not unfamiliar with working with metal and joining metals. However I tried model locomotive kits years ago and decided they weren't for me. A kit should be of good fit and should come with usable instructions. The kits I tried were awful in terms of fit the instructions were if anything worse. I would rather scratch build than fight with a bad kit as at least if you scratch build you can do your own design and understand how it should go together. I was used to the quality of plastic kits made by companies like Tamiya, Hasegawa and even Airfix and couldn't really see any reason not to expect a similar standard of professionalism from model railway kits.

 

More have probably been put off by the better quality kits with large amount of parts, Or buying an etched kit with little thought on either the complexity of the build and or any idea of the soldering processes required to build it.

 

Some just buy their favourite loco ( which tends to be large and has complicated motion) rather than cutting their teeth first on something much simpler

 

There is a world of difference between a click together plastic kit and one of the larger more detailed kits, likewise starting off building whitemetal wagons is far better then migrating to simple small loco kits, the same is true for etched kits

[hayfield]

5 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Sorry - that's simply not true.

 

I've never had a kit that defeated me - though I did reject Q-kits untried.

 

The reason for the decline in the kit market was the availability of a much greater pool of RTR, so those that had been building kits as a last resort had a viable alternative.

 

Either you enjoy building kits or you don't.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

John

 

I agree with you to a certain point, but there are modellers who prefer to build something than buy it, their pleasure comes from the build rather than the operation. On the other hand the quality of modern RTR models is so high, many cannot build to that standard

[pete_mcfarlane]

12 hours ago, lapford34102 said:

Quite true but I suspect you've never tried the likes of Sword, Modelsvit or Valom to name but three.  Don't think anyone has described their kits as "perfectly fitting" - ever.

 

Stu

 

I've built some Sword Aircraft kits recently, and the fit wasn't great but the end result was pretty accurate and looked right. There are plenty of kits out there which fit together perfectly but have major dimensional errors and look wrong when finished, so I'd rather have something that takes a bit more work but is basically right. 

 

Oddly, with my fairly limited experience of whitemetal loco kits it's the better fitting together ones that seem to have the most dimensional errors. 

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

John

 

I agree with you to a certain point, but there are modellers who prefer to build something than buy it, their pleasure comes from the build rather than the operation. On the other hand the quality of modern RTR models is so high, many cannot build to that standard

I purchased a GEM kit years ago and to my mind it was unbuildable. I expected to do some cleaning of castings & removal of flashe etc. General fettling.

 

What I did not expect to see was one side of the loco, noticeably longer than the other, which each section between boiler bands being 2-3 mm different in length, or about 10mm overall. Or the whitemetal chassis, to be at least 15 degrees out of square - one side leading the other.

 

I considered it to be a total waste of money. I still have it somewhere.

[Clive Mortimore]

I enjoy building things if I cannot get it  ready made, be it a RTR conversion, kit or scratchbuild. Kit making being low on the list of my likes mainly because of the poor quality of many model railway kits. This weekend I am taking my small layout Pig Lane (Western Region)  to Ally Pally every loco will be RTR because they look the part and run well. My old Pig Lane use to go out to shows and all the locos on shed could be scratchbuilt, at the time many of the smaller ER classes of diesel were not available RTR or kit.

 

Enjoy setting the scene, providing the actors be they RTR, modified RTR, kit or homemade.

No scratchbuilt locos but there are a few RTR conversions and a MTK loco.

[hayfield]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I purchased a GEM kit years ago and to my mind it was unbuildable. I expected to do some cleaning of castings & removal of flashe etc. General fettling.

 

What I did not expect to see was one side of the loco, noticeably longer than the other, which each section between boiler bands being 2-3 mm different in length, or about 10mm overall. Or the whitemetal chassis, to be at least 15 degrees out of square - one side leading the other.

 

I considered it to be a total waste of money. I still have it somewhere.

 

 

Kevin

 

I am quite surprised you had those issues with a GEM kit, I have built a couple of the original ones and had to do some minor work on them, the revised kits from the Bedford Owner onward's are far better in quality both in the castings and the material used, The same goes for the Wills kits, the new revised Southeastern Finecast are far superior for the same reasons

 

The K's kits were a bit notorious whilst the castings were not too bad, the quality of the chassis, wheels and motors were the weakest items, but there were far worst kits on the market

 

Reading some of the threads on here even modern kits have their issues, there are a couple of builders who regularly either remodel or scratch build some of the parts

 

For a long time I have said kits should be rated in their ease of build, but then this is very subjective

 

I enjoy reading IanLMS posts on here, from the first loco kit he built, and the issues he faced as a novice loco kit builder and now how his skills have increased over time, he is currently building a super model of a Royal Scott loco with little troubles

 

A friend of mine has built a Wills Caley tank,the body was fine, but he rushed the etched chassis, we stripped it down and rebuilt it and its a super runner now 

[St Enodoc]

I've told this story elsewhere on RMweb but I'll repeat it here anyway.

 

In the 1980s I built an MTK 2-BIL kit and displayed it at a Leeds MRS show. Colin and his great mate Graham Beaumont (Jidenco) saw it and the conversation went something like this:

 

CM: That's a nice 2-BIL.

 

GB: Can't be one of yours then.

 

I still have an MTK 18000 kit waiting to be built.

 

The best description I can think of for Colin (and Graham) is "lovable rogue".

 

Regarding Q Kits, Mike Cole very generously sold me (as an impoverished student fellow member of Leeds MRS) an 18100 kit with a damaged body moulding at a very low price. I managed to get it into a reasonable state and it runs quite well on two Hornby class 47 motor bogies.

[Barry O]

When they first arrived for sale MTK and Q kits allowed  diesel and electric modellers  opportunity to get hold of models which did not require you to scratchbuilt. I have a number of MTK and Q kis(resin bodied) diesels/emus.

At the time the alternative was......

 

And it didn't put anyone off from doing a better kit...what materials could have been available at the time? Etching was just getting going (Jidenco kits could be very challenging),  whitemetal, or wait for Triang (length to suit their packaging), Trix (questionable scale) to produce one....or get plasticard and build one..which Clive has done so admirably.

I hate to say it Ravenser but there are some less than easy plastic kits around...the Parkside LNER Grain wagon being one of them, Airfix -1/72 spitfires (ever got the wing angles correct). As technology improves Parkside have been updating their older kits. And what a difference that makes)

 

Baz