Ratio plastic loco kits

[kevinlms]

8 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

About £30 less than an etched kit of the 1400 Class, although the Ratio kit on Ebay did include wheels.

 

I did once try to build a motorised version of the 4-4-0, but it was beyond my abilities at the time and I gave up. It was completed by a friend who was a very accomplished modeller. but he never regarded as one of his better models. I had previously built an Airfix 0-4-0 Pug, using the motorising kit. It worked, after a fashion.

I suspect that these 2 kits were a big mistake by Ratio. It must of cost them a fair bit of money for the masters and if I remember correctly, they didn't make new models for some time afterwards. In fact they consolidated their range. An example is that some of the LNWR wagons disappeared forever.

 

The lesson ought to have been learnt from the Airfix & Kitmaster loco kits.

 

I did buy the 2-4-0 kit, because the last ones lasted longer in service, but I never completed it.

[wainwright1]

I recall that the Ratio LNWR wagon kits that were withdrawn were offered in a plastic bag without instructions, but with the standard transfer sheet which was PressFix and very good, maybe just before the range was sold to PECO. I bought some and and have built them. I have not bought any kits recently, but I think that the current kits have water slide transfers which are not so good. Other kits which were discontinued were the NBR Open Cask Wagon and GWR Tube Wagon, although these may have been withdrawn earlier. I have an unbuilt Open Cask kit somewhere to add to my pre-grouping collection.

RB

[The Johnster]

Having recently built several Parkside wagons, and renumbered some coaches, I can state that current waterslide transfers are very good indeed; I suspect that computerised printing technology means that the carrier film can be minimised very effectively.  The ones with the Parksides and 3rd party ones from CCT and Fox have been excellent.  You do have to apply them to a clean and smooth surface though, and CCT's object to matt acrylic paint, the carrier film showing up with microscopic air bubbles forming underneath.  A semi-matt 'eggshell' finish is fine, and you can apply a coat of proper matt over the top to seal the transfer.

[cctransuk]

5 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The ones with the Parksides and 3rd party ones from CCT and Fox have been excellent.  You do have to apply them to a clean and smooth surface though, and CCT's object to matt acrylic paint, the carrier film showing up with microscopic air bubbles forming underneath.

 

From the Cambridge Custom Transfers instructions; " CCT transfers are of the waterslide type, and they should be applied to a smooth gloss finish ".

 

ANY waterslide transfer that has a carrier film will show 'silvering' if applied to anything other than a GLOSS surface.

 

The reason is simple; gloss = microscopically smooth, matt / satin = microscopically very rough / rough; the air is trapped in the 'valleys' between the micro-peaks.

 

It amazes me that, no matter how often this is repeated, or printed in large, bold type, so many modellers fail to believe it, and then comment when the inevitable happens.

 

There's no way round it - transfers onto gloss; seal with gloss; then apply whatever matt / satin, weathering you choose.

 

For optimum results, apply the transfer into wet Klear floor lacquer - but practice first; Klear goes tacky / dries VERY quickly.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

 they didn't make new models for some time afterwards. In fact they consolidated their range. An example is that some of the LNWR wagons disappeared forever.

 

4 hours ago, wainwright1 said:

I recall that the Ratio LNWR wagon kits that were withdrawn were offered in a plastic bag without instructions, but with the standard transfer sheet which was PressFix and very good, maybe just before the range was sold to PECO. I bought some and and have built them. I have not bought any kits recently, but I think that the current kits have water slide transfers which are not so good. Other kits which were discontinued were the NBR Open Cask Wagon and GWR Tube Wagon, although these may have been withdrawn earlier. I have an unbuilt Open Cask kit somewhere to add to my pre-grouping collection.

RB

 

As I understand it, the "consolidation" was due to Peco, who bought up Ratio. I had the original LNWR kits in conventional yellow boxes, so the plastic bag thing must have been a case of trying to clear discontinued items with minimum overhead. But, all Ratio kits I've ever bought, either in the 1970s-early-80s period, or more recently, have had waterslide transfers. Here's a case in point:

 

 

Built c. 1980. Note the discoloration of the transfer film with age and rather obvious overlap with the rivet detail. Microsol or equivalents were unknown to me then, even if they existed, or indeed varnish.  This wagon has since been stripped, rebuilt, and painted GW red with rub down lettering from the BGS - now that was a faf!

[Steamport Southport]

Some of them went well before they became part of Peco. I don't think the GWR Tube and NBR Cask wagons were available in the 1980s. Some still lurked on shelves though. I think the LNWR kits went about the same time apart from the P Way set.

 

The last two rolling stock kits were the SR Bogie Van B and BR Clay wagon, Both of which were supposed to be part of a new range of multi media kits with white metal and etched brass components with proper wheels. That was about 1986.

 

 

Jason

[melmoth]

In one of Iain Rice's books he states that the moulds for a couple of the earlier kits had worn out. I think the GWR Tube might have been one of them.

[wainwright1]

 

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

As I understand it, the "consolidation" was due to Peco, who bought up Ratio. I had the original LNWR kits in conventional yellow boxes, so the plastic bag thing must have been a case of trying to clear discontinued items with minimum overhead. But, all Ratio kits I've ever bought, either in the 1970s-early-80s period, or more recently, have had waterslide transfers. Here's a case in point:

 

 

Built c. 1980. Note the discoloration of the transfer film with age and rather obvious overlap with the rivet detail. Microsol or equivalents were unknown to me then, even if they existed, or indeed varnish.  This wagon has since been stripped, rebuilt, and painted GW red with rub down lettering from the BGS - now that was a faf!

You are probably right about Ratio clearing old stock for the LNWR kits, I recall that there was either a small add or part of a main ad in I think the Railway Modeller stating they had a limited quantity of the kits and that they would be discontinued.

The transfers were definitely PressFix which I use for all my Southern pre-grouping wagons and I think I still have the remains of some of the LNWR ones. I think that they even had made up very small tare markings for the solebars which I found useful.  These transfers seem to adhere very well to most surfaces, but satin and gloss are best, and I find that if I apply the smaller lettering  lightly, I can manoeuvre it with end of a cocktail stick to get it into perfect alignment with no carrier film. 

RB

[Compound2632]

I've looked back in my notes for my wagon building topic. A couple of years ago I picked up a second-hand Permanent Way set for just £8; the box gave the kit number as 755 rather than 575, indicating that it was a very early version; this did have Pressfix transfers. However, I'm confident in my belief that the earliest kits I bought, including kit 753, as I have a loco coal wagon I originally built in the early 80s, had waterslide transfers. Curiouser and curiouser...

[Steamport Southport]

I thought all the LNWR wagon kits had long gone apart from the Per Way set. I've just found these.

 

https://peco-uk.com/products/lms-traffic-coal-and-4-plank-wagons-kit

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I thought all the LNWR wagon kits had long gone apart from the Per Way set. I've just found these.

 

 

The original kits, as discussed here, were:

 

751 - one plank open (D1) and two plank dropside ballast wagon (D62)

752 - two plank open (D2) and four plank open (D4/D9)

753 - five plank traffic coal wagon (D54) and four plank loco coal wagon (D64)

 

Subsequently, the kits were repackaged as:

 

755 - permanent way set, containing two D62 ballast wagons and a D48 bolster rail wagon pair, the mold for the latter being adapted from the D1 mold.

756 - four plank open (D4/D9) and five plank traffic coal wagon (D54)

 

The numbers for these two kits morphed at some early stage from 755 to 575 and 756 to 576; in this guise they have been more-or-less continuously available in the Ratio range.

 

Evidently the D1 from kit 751 is lost for good, the mold having been modified for the p/way kit. Do Ratio still have lurking somewhere the molds for the D2 and D64?

 

 

[Graham456]

On 18/07/2019 at 18:10, melmoth said:

In one of Iain Rice's books he states that the moulds for a couple of the earlier kits had worn out. I think the GWR Tube might have been one of them.

 Judging by the amount of unbuilt kits of the open C that can still be found at toy fairs and shows all these years later ratio worked the moulds hard !

[Invicta]

On ‎18‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 21:53, Compound2632 said:

I've looked back in my notes for my wagon building topic. A couple of years ago I picked up a second-hand Permanent Way set for just £8; the box gave the kit number as 755 rather than 575, indicating that it was a very early version; this did have Pressfix transfers. However, I'm confident in my belief that the  earliest kits I bought, including kit 753, as I have a loco coal wagon I originally built in the early 80s, had waterslide transfers. Curiouser and curiouser…

 

I picked up a kit 753 traffic and loco coal pair from a trader at the GCR model railway event last month (coincidentally for just £8 as well- must be the going rate for elderly Ratio!), in the usual yellow box, and that definitely has Pressfix rather than waterslide transfers- although from memory, my earliest childhood/teenage ventures into wagon kit building at the end of the 70's/beginning of the 80's were Ratio and all came with a waterslide sheet- (NBR cask wagon and GW Iron mink both long gone, although I do still have the Caledonian bogie 'Iron ore' wagon). As you say, curiouser and curiouser...

 

What did surprise me about my '753' was that it included not just a couple of moulded coal loads, but a bag of some kind of simulated coal (haven't opened that to investigate). Was the bag of 'coal' an original part of the package?

Edited July 23, 2019 by Invicta

[Compound2632]

36 minutes ago, Invicta said:

What did surprise me about my '753' was that it included not just a couple of moulded coal loads, but a bag of some kind of simulated coal (haven't opened that to investigate). Was the bag of 'coal' an original part of the package?

 

Yes, now you mention it I remember that so-called coal - and getting rid of it when I renovated my wagons a couple of years ago. I had the impression it was chopped up bits of sprue!

[Prometheus]

That tube wagon was a particular horror, even before the moulds wore out! A shame, as it was, potentially, a useful kit.

 

Tony

[Edwardian]

On 11/07/2019 at 10:24, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

There is a volume break - which will move with development - between competing systems such as injection moulding and printed, and for the present only short production runs favour printing. Injection moulded model loco kits are still being manufactured, but for assembly at the factory. (This idea was common in MR clubs in my youth, since when I have got on with pulling them apart and rebuilding them into what I wanted. We would have been weeping into our beer with gratitude for the present plentiful supply.)

 

But the major obstacles to the general popularity and thus uptake of loco kits are two:

Mechanism to make it go;

Exterior paint finish.

 

While it is economic to produce complete models by a factory system, that's what will continue to constitute the general market. Technology changes making shorter runs possible may well open the door to increasingly niche low volume sales subjects (hurrah! more choices of what to pull apart) but they will still be assembled and finished RTR products.

 

Kit production by whatever technique will have to run to stay ahead in various ways, for those still wanting to build their own. (Possibly until the day comes that we all have our in home replicators, and 'the kit' now comes from whoever wrote the programme; scratchbuilders(SW) included.) And yet there will still be determined scratchbuilder(HW) types insisting on cutting materials and assembling the good old fashioned way. Possibly with a little help from their 10 axis laser mill, electron beam welder and chromobiogenic surface coater...

 

 

 

You make several very good points, if I may say so.

 

Injection-moulded ABS plastic will, for the foreseeable future, remain the best technology for volume production, including RTR.  Once one has amortised the tooling costs, it is relatively low cost in production.  it is the additional components,  assembly, painting etc etc that pushes up the costs of RTR, especially locos, but in, say, a simple RTR open wagon, there's probably only 3-4p worth of plastic.

 

The problem is that Injection-moulded ABS plastic will only really be suitable for products that the manufacturer can be confident will sell in sufficient quantities to amortise the very considerable tooling costs within the first production run.  That militates against variety and variation, rarity and risk. 

 

The Rails of Sheffield ex-SE&CR van pioneers an advance in 3D printing.  It is a new development in both the material used and in the print technology.  It is the first time that we have seen something 3D-printed that is deemed suitable by a commissioner and partner manufacturer for a RTR product.  This is so in terms of:

 

- mechanical properties of the material

- quality of finish

- paint adhesion

 

All in all, it's price point is not too bad compared with, say, Bachmann's state of the art injection-moulded vans, which are almost as fine and detailed, but at the cost of many separately applied components.  Yet the fact that Rails' van is more expensive, despite the lack of tooling costs, shows that the best 3D printing is still more expensive to produce per unit than something injection moulded.  I estimate for the foreseeable future approximately £10 more than the nearest injection-moulded equivalent.

 

Both materials have characteristics that must be accepted or worked around.  Injection moulded pieces have mould lines, for instance, whereas something 3D printed will probably have support witness marks somewhere. Both can do a good job and there is no reason why the latest 3D print technology should not be employed to produce kits.  Like RTR items, the lack of upfront tooling costs means that lower volume kit runs are possible, though on current showing, I would expect them to be more expensive than an injection-moulded kit in mass production.  Still, more choice at greater cost is, perhaps, better than an otherwise more restricted choice. 

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Injection-moulded ABS plastic will, for the foreseeable future, remain the best technology for volume production, including RTR.

 

Are the mainstream manufacturers now using mostly ABS?

 

Traditionally, polystyrene has been the material of choice for injection moulded RTR models - the fact that they react to Mekpak, etc. indicates that.

 

ABS, on the other hand, needs a more aggressive solvent such as Plastic Weld.

 

Perhaps I have failed to notice such a change - though I continue to have no problems using Mekpak, etc. to attach polystyrene details to the latest RTR models.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Are the mainstream manufacturers now using mostly ABS?

 

Traditionally, polystyrene has been the material of choice for injection moulded RTR models - the fact that they react to Mekpak, etc. indicates that.

 

ABS, on the other hand, needs a more aggressive solvent such as Plastic Weld...

 

Unfortunately they don't tell us what witches brew was squirted into the moulding tool.

 

My perception is that OO loco bodies, and anything used as running gear or structure in vehicles such as coach bogies and underframes, will be in a polymer requiring butanone for a strong bond, the implication being a species of ABS. Mekpak makes a weak tack, ideal for adding details.

 

Wagon bodies, coach interiors,  more use of polystyrene, as Mekpak makes a strong  bond.

 

I have never thought to keep any record. Where in doubt - modifying OO wagon and coach bodies - I try Mekpak first, and if that is ineffective then move to butanone. RTR OO Locos, if requiring a strong bond then I reach for the butanone immediately.

 

Current RTR product sampled for 'bashing' purposes: Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, Hornby, Replica. Haven't yet explored what's going to be required to make a bond to the body plastic of the Oxford Rail N7.

 

EXTRA! EXTRA!

News just in, the plastic body components of the Oxford N7 wouldn't bond using Mekpak. Even applying to both surfaces and quickly bringing into contact with more Mekpak added did not make a bond. Butanone did the job with one application in the usual way:  parts in contact and capillary action drawing the solvent into gap between.

Edited July 24, 2019 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
Update on today's experimental findings

[Nile]

If Mekpak isn't Butanone (or MEK) then what is it? According to the label Plastic Weld is Dichloromethane, which is not Butanone.

[Worsdell forever]

10 hours ago, Nile said:

If Mekpak isn't Butanone (or MEK) then what is it? According to the label Plastic Weld is Dichloromethane, which is not Butanone.

 

Isn't 'MEK-PAK' a trade mark of Slaters? originally it was MEK but it changed over the years but the name has stuck?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

10 hours ago, Nile said:

If Mekpak isn't Butanone (or MEK) then what is it?

Mekpak is a proprietary commercial mixture, prop Slaters). I never thought to put it through a gas chromatograph when such kit was at my disposal. (Anyone with entrée to an organic chemistry lab?) The dominating whiff that I catch suggests to me some ether is in there. But my sense of smell ain't quite right since the day I walked into a room filled with nitrogen dioxide.

 

(I am glad of this thread as it has revealed I am near the end of my bottle of Mekpak.)

[Compound2632]

The containers I have don't have a trade mark symbol, so I guess Slater's haven't felt it necessary to go to the trouble and expense of registering the name. Described as: "liquid polystyrene cement" and "contains: halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon". I'm not well up on organic chemistry, the foregoing link provides some information (including hazards); they are hydrocarbon chain molecules - no benzene rings - with some hydrogen atoms replaced by halogen atoms, most usually chlorine. 

 

Butatone (methyl ethyl ketone) has an oxygen atom substituting for one hydrogen atom of the butane molecule.

 

Like 34C there, I've discovered there's not much left in my 475 ml can!

Edited July 25, 2019 by Compound2632

[cctransuk]

10 hours ago, Nile said:

If Mekpak isn't Butanone (or MEK) then what is it? According to the label Plastic Weld is Dichloromethane, which is not Butanone.

 

I buy my 'Plastic Weld' - as dichloromethane - from the internet; https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/331520614240?chn=ps&var=540685213532&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=710-134428-41853-0&mkcid=2&itemid=540685213532_331520614240&targetid=520884138479&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1006537&campaignid=1782815661&mkgroupid=70885935282&rlsatarget=pla-520884138479&abcId=1139126&merchantid=113617886&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvPrrxNLP4wIVAbDtCh1HXQ6GEAQYASABEgLCU_D_BwE .

 

Similarly, I obtain 'Mek-Pak' as methyl ethyl ketone from the internet; https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SHL-5-Litre-pure-Methyl-Ethyl-Ketone-MEK-Butanone/371481665763?epid=1050938230&hash=item567e0860e3:g:wjoAAOSw5ZBWPQxw ; note the alternative name of butanone.

 

The bulk packs smell like the branded product; behave like the branded product; and are vastly more economical to purchase.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, Nile said:

If Mekpak isn't Butanone (or MEK) then what is it? According to the label Plastic Weld is Dichloromethane, which is not Butanone.

According to a pal of mine, the current recipe is basically some sort of industrial strength toilet cleaner.

 

Whatever it is, it seems to be much more effective than the previous weedy incarnation, so I've started using it again. 

 

Just as a matter of interest, the last couple of cans of MEK/Butanone, purchased through plumbing trade suppliers, have been branded as Ethyl Methyl Ketone rather than Methyl Ethyl Ketone. Anybody know why?

 

John

Edited July 25, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[kevinlms]

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

According to a pal of mine, the current recipe is basically some sort of industrial strength toilet cleaner.

 

Whatever it is, it seems to be much more effective than the previous weedy incarnation, so I've started using it again. 

 

Just as a matter of interest, the last couple of cans of MEK/Butanone, purchased through plumbing trade suppliers, have been branded as Ethyl Methyl Ketone rather than Methyl Ethyl Ketone. Anybody know why?

 

John

Presumably the major ingredient is listed first, then in descending order?