Modern Traction Kits

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, Barry O said:

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

Didn't Rossi build an AM4 for Hartford Junction?

[Barry O]

He had one but never built it

 

Baz

[hayfield]

In the period which MTK traded the quality of both ready to run stock and kits were not of the standard we accept today. Airfix kits were always held up as simple to build, but I have seen far more banana shaped railcars than straight ones. Or the over scale hinges on the cattle wagon and engine shed etc.

 

Looking at other kits McGowan and Bristol Models come to mind as not very easy to build and several companies supplied un-bushed whitemetal chassis for locos. K's kits come in for a lot of stick, but were in their day quite good kits

 

As has been said about MTK, in the hands of a proficient modeller a good model can be produced in most cases I have built a small selection of multiple units, rail car and locos, whilst some perhaps are nor easy or highly detailed they could be made to work. And were the only option available. Lets face it the aluminium coach and multiple unit bodies, were much the same as Westdale and BSL and the latter is much sought after

 

The quality of today's RTR items is so high only a few builders can match the standard, however for some the pleasure is in building something themselves, even if it is inferior. I have built a couple of modern day basic kits, which we refer to as aids to scratch building. I have found them very rewarding to build. No doubt in years to come a few will surface with new modellers bemoaning their lack of detail

 

As for MTK 40 years ago that was the basic standard of kits, today they are seen as a challenge to those who just like model making. They certainly increase a persons skill set 

[hayfield]

I bought a Warship class kit off eBay some time ago, it had 2 spare ends as one of the ends was miss-cast and incomplete, there is another Warship class kit on eBay and guess what suffers from the same issue (but without any replacement parts). I also have a Western kit to be built and as I said before in this thread one end is badly twisted (but salvageable), Other kits I have bought have been fine. But there does seem to have been poor quality control in some kits. And the plastic motor bogie was a complete disaster 

[Ravenser]

On 09/05/2019 at 07:23, Barry O said:

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

 

I remember an RM article on producing a 47 based on "casting" a papiermache bodyshell in a plaster mould. On reflection that might have been quicker, easier and produced a better result than the Q Kits Baby Deltic. I don't think it was the materials that were the problem with MTK , Jidenco or Q Kits

 

A personal nominee in the "pig-to-build plastic kits" field  - the Cambrian Walrus . I eventually built my second-hand one successfully, but despite my very best efforts the hopper isn't in fact dead square (though it's not actually noticeable) and I eventually concluded the bogies supplied were unbuildable and sourced the current 1 piece fold-up version.  Another entry is the Coopercraft Tourist Brake - arrgghh .  "We got a result"

 

It's not the materials used that I was objecting to.

 

I have an MTK LMS Porthole Brake Third which I picked up for a fiver under the misapprehension it was BSL. I will have to see if that is reasonably buildable , though I have some Comet castings to upgrade the udergubbins

 

I have a sinking feeling I have an Airfix Spitfire tucked away somewhere - Daily Telegraph freebee I think

Edited May 17, 2019 by Ravenser

[pete_mcfarlane]

18 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I have a sinking feeling I have an Airfix Spitfire tucked away somewhere - Daily Telegraph freebee I think

I'd agree that there were plenty of awful mainstream plastic kits out there. I'm currently building a Matchbox Meteor NF.14 night fighter (well, actually the Xtrakit rebox, but it's the same mould with the Lesney markings ground off).  Back in the 1980s Matchbox kits were as mainstream as you could get - you could even buy them in my local newsagent, and they came in a wonderfully designed box with brilliant box art. 

 

It's an awful kit in many ways, needing huge amounts of Milliput, along with a new (correct length as the kit original is wrong) resin nose. A lot of these issues are down to the various optional bits provided to allow Mks 12, 13 and 14 to be modelled, so the fuselages is in far more parts than usual which don't always fit together accurately. It all seems to be slightly over optimistic given the tooling technology of the time. I'm sure it will look lovely when finished. 

[Ravenser]

I faintly remember Matchbox aircraft kits from my youth. My youthful efforts in the way of aircraft kits were very inept and didn't get as far as paint jobs - I think they were more or less terminated when we went out to Australia for a couple of years when I was 14.  (Though I'm sure a few stray bits of  Sunderland and Wellington survive somewhere in the scrap box)

 

As well as the freebee Spitfire, I also have an Airfix boxed set of VC winners which a chain toyshop was clearing for a tenner (Hurricane / Fairey Battle / Whitley/ something else I think 2 engined) which seemed an incredible bargain for 4 kits..... I'm contemplating actually building the Hurricane, for use on a venture into OO9 . A boxed diorama 4'3" x 18" , representing a 2'6" military system using some regauged WD Baldwins , and serving - amongst other things an adjacent RAF station, set c1938.   With a Hurricane on its final approach dangling from the lid on a very short bit of fishing line tied round a penny washer.. (I gathered the Fariey Battle kit is flawed - and it's also significantly bigger).  I don't think I've tried to build an aircraft kit in 35 years.

 

 

 

 

[Il Grifone]

I've got to admit to having a few aircraft kits stashed away. A half built Revell kit of some kind of American fighter turns up in a box from time. I hit a problem getting the tail fins to sit at the right angle and there is no indication of the correct angle in the instructions. The internet wasn't of great assistance either and the kit itself is no help at all as they flop about in their slots. I could make a joke, but it's extremely vulgar and I won't.

 

There's also a half built Revell 'Titanic'. Getting the two halves of the hull to fit together was the problem here. She's got to the point where she at least looks like a ship, but there's still lots to do. always a glutton for punishment, I've a 1;1200 (or is it 1:1250?) kit as well (I was going to build it as 'Britannic'), plus a few others. I thought they'd go with my collection of Tri-ang Minic ships. Maybe one day they will....

 

I gave in to temptation and acquired an Airfix sailing ship kit in the local charity a few years ago. I opened the box, looked at the contents, closed it again and she's sat under the bench ever since....

 

Obviously there is also a collection of railway kits awaiting their turn.

 

I know - I should spend less time on the internet!

[andyman7]

Continuing the theme of vintage modern image cottage industry kits of the 1970s, I picked up this made up Mopok CCT at the Bluebell last weekend (for £2, making it cheaper today than the kit cost in the 1970s....). It strikes me that with skill this could actually make a pretty good model but I quite like this effort from an 'average enthusiast' (to purloin from Railway Modeller's tag line)

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by andyman7

[Il Grifone]

I have a part built Mopok Hawksworth coach from a toy fair in a box somewhere. I thought I might be able to do something with it, but Hornby's coaches put paid to that idea.

 

I should have known better (it was cheap!). Many years ago I built a P.C. Models GWR 'toplight', with the same style of construction. Despite being  in full 1920s livery with the mouldings picked out in black, I have never really liked the flat appearance of the sides. Plastic just doesn't seem to have the charm of tinplate....

[cctransuk]

19 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

I have a part built Mopok Hawksworth coach ........ I thought I might be able to do something with it, but Hornby's coaches put paid to that idea.

 

I completed the Mopok Hawksworth, but it was showing its age.

 

However, I have stripped it to components and am about to rebuild it, using a pair of Comet coach sides.

 

I'm confident that a perfectly acceptable 'layout coach' will be the result.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I completed the Mopok Hawksworth, but it was showing its age.

 

However, I have stripped it to components and am about to rebuild it, using a pair of Comet coach sides.

 

I'm confident that a perfectly acceptable 'layout coach' will be the result.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Tony Wright has at least one Mopok brake composite on Little Bytham and it certainly does make a good layout coach. For many years I tried, without success, to persuade him to sell it to me but, as others have said, I now have several Hornby ones on my own layout.

[Prometheus]

W&T produced a model of a six-wheel Palethorpes van which was very similar to the Mopok CCT. I built one a year or two back, and whilst I eventually arrived at a satisfying result, the body and chassis took some thinking through. The main problems were a wooden floor that was too short and the acrylic body shell which was mis-shapen. It was an enjoyable step back though. I posted it on here somewhere.....

 

Tony

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, andyman7 said:

Continuing the theme of vintage modern image cottage industry kits of the 1970s, I picked up this made up Mopok CCT at the Bluebell last weekend (for £2, making it cheaper today than the kit cost in the 1970s....). It strikes me that with skill this could actually make a pretty good model but I quite like this effort from an 'average enthusiast' (to purloin from Railway Modeller's tag line)

 

 

 

I bought a Sausage van kit, decided to ditch the sides and replace them with scratch built plasticard sides, turned out very well

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, andyman7 said:

Continuing the theme of vintage modern image cottage industry kits of the 1970s, I picked up this made up Mopok CCT at the Bluebell last weekend (for £2, making it cheaper today than the kit cost in the 1970s....). It strikes me that with skill this could actually make a pretty good model but I quite like this effort from an 'average enthusiast' (to purloin from Railway Modeller's tag line)

 

 

Well, it definitely looks the part - certainly better than the Lima model of the day, though not quite as good as the Lima model thoroughly reworked

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

W&T produced a model of a six-wheel Palethorpes van which was very similar to the Mopok CCT.

 

I have a spare untouched W&T Palethorpes van kit, if anyone wants to make me an offer for it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Tony Wright has at least one Mopok brake composite on Little Bytham and it certainly does make a good layout coach. For many years I tried, without success, to persuade him to sell it to me but, as others have said, I now have several Hornby ones on my own layout.

 

I did wonder about replacing the bogies with Bachmann ones - but I'll try and rebuild the model with as many of the original components as possible; (apart from the Comet etched sides).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited May 18, 2019 by cctransuk

[Prometheus]

If anyone wants to take up John's invitation, they can be made to look like this:

 

 

Having found my original 2017 posting on this model, there is some interesting background information which confirms that they are, in part, of  Mopok heritage: this comment was bySkalelinkbob:

 

'...The W&T Palethorpes & Milk Van kits I produced in the 1970's used body shells and floors from Mopok for whom we were casting road vehicles & coach parts at the time. The Axleboxes were from Kenline whose products we stocked in our shop (Originally Wyatt & Tizard Ltd, then Wyatt's Model Railways Ltd). until 1987. The sides and ends were silk-screen printed with relief detail by a local printer...'.

 

Tony

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Prometheus

[roythebus]

Most of the Mopok patterns were made by Adrian Swain. 

 

I've got some bits of ABS suburban coach kits lying around. Last year I got rid of the Mopok full brake when the RTR one came out.

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, roythebus said:

Most of the Mopok patterns were made by Adrian Swain.

 

.... and remained available as castings from ABS until relatively recently.

 

I have a fair stock of those which I regularly use.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[47164]

Great thread , especially like others in no doubt having grown up on multiple airfix kits.

 

The ream of q kits and MTK fascinates me as some are hideous and others acceptable.,as I am always on the lookout for them.

q kits seemed  try various approaches in offerings.

class 40  - in an odd resin, ( I have one a mainline peak chassis), and looks better than a Lima or joeuf offering 

metro- vick  - in brass , there was a thread a year or to ago looks a good kits..I have to start one.

LMS twin - white metal a good representation, the bogie length is the same as power and rear dolly on a peak.

 

mtk

class 47.. cab front is a bin job.. almost as bad as Hornby 52.

class 25/3... a cracking model , fitting a Lima unit was a skill improver

class 33., shockingly probably the best looking MTK  loco I have built so far

class 45...looks  better than the mainline offering, sits on triang units , heavy but runs beautifully even with the bizarre spoked pony truck.

class 40.  - I see our Sheffield friends have one badly in need of help, but way over priced

class 128 - stands up well to silver fox and craftsman kits.

cravens .. good kit currently finishing up powering it up with a Lima 33 Ho unit.

 

 

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, 47164 said:

The ream of q kits and MTK fascinates me as some are hideous and others acceptable.,as I am always on the lookout for them.

 

Years ago, a trader allowed me to look into a Q Kits box before buying. Inside I found body sides where too little whitemetal had been poured into the mould, leaving big holes in the centre. Needless to say, I didn't proceed with the purchase. 

 

Somewhere I have a part completed CoBo. TYhe ends are best described as "puddled" rather than moulded. The etched sides were OK but the roof is made of three castings, each a different diameter curve from the others. I replaced it with a sheet of metal...

[roythebus]

I have a Cravens parcel unit which looks not too bad and runs well with a Lima HO motor bogie. I suppose I could finish it one day.

[cctransuk]

On 18/05/2019 at 11:50, cctransuk said:

 

I did wonder about replacing the bogies (of the Mopok Hawksworth BCK) with Bachmann ones - but I'll try and rebuild the model with as many of the original components as possible; (apart from the Comet etched sides).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Well - that didn't happen !! The body has been reconstructed using the Comet sides, which fitted perfectly. I then moved on to the bogies which, I discovered, had the bearing holes a full 2mm. above the axlebox centres; the wheels looked ridiculous. Remedial work involved filling the axle holes with low-melt solder and re-drilling the bearing holes.

 

... only to discover why the bearing holes had been incorrectly placed - the coach was then way too high!! I think that this dodge had been employed because the bogie frames were too deep.

 

Whatever, suffice to say that a pair of Bachmann bogies have been ordered - we WILL get there in the end!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[47164]

My cravens is the 2 car offering, came with no chassis detailing but everything else, ... l couldn't resist it as it was as good as being given away, now nearly complete dressed as one of the parcel units when they were seconded in their latter years, I enjoy the research and seeing what I can use from my various leftovers..and or course the continual learning curve with an MTK kit.