The future of loco kit building

[Guest oldlugger]

Just when was this mythical past when "young people coming into the hobby for the first time" took up their soldering irons and hammers and started bashing bits of brass? Whilst a small number of us may have progressed from balsa wood planes or airfix plastic to white metal locos at a tender age, my impression is that most who did so successfully did so rather later. Given that we see a wide range of ages tackling kit building of one form or another on RMweb, I'm far from convinced that things are much different now from what they were twenty or forty years ago.

 

Nick

 

Well what happens when you're all gone (the people who are currently involved with RM)? Where will support for kits come from, and RTR for that matter? Mickey's suggestion of actual numbers on page 2 of this thread, I would say is very relevant. I started kit building at a very young age building an early DJH SDJR Fowler 2-8-0 (admittedly it was finished in two days and constructed badly, but the motivation was there!).

 

Simon

[DaveF]

I built my first loco kit, a Wills J39 on a Tri-ang 3F chassis when I was 16.

 

I've built various Ks and Gem kits of Midland prototypes over the years, they all still run well but are used less now.

 

More recently I built a Jidenco M&GN Hudswell Clark 4-4-0T in 00, and also one (I think from some Loveless parts) in 7mm. Also a GER tram in 7mm from some very old Highfield bits, just for fun - it actually runs well. None of them are highly detailed but it gives me a lot of pleasure to be able to say "I built that - and got it to work", sometimes against the odds.

 

GER Tram engine

 

M&GNJtR Hudswell Clarke 4-4-0T

 

I still have a small stock of loco kits to build when I get around to it - even a Midland Railway steam railmotor from Home of O Gauge (remember them?).

 

David

[DaveF]

Well what happens when you're all gone (the people who are currently involved with RM)? Where will support for kits come from, and RTR for that matter? Mickey's suggestion of actual numbers on page 2 of this thread, I would say is very relevant. I started kit building at a very young age building an early DJH SDJR Fowler 2-8-0 (admittedly it was finished in two days and constructed badly, but the motivation was there!).

 

Simon

 

I have a friend whose son is now producing "kits" using 3D printing, so there is a future, but it will be different. After all when I started you usually built white metal kits with glue. I remember that when I was very young Dad had to scratch build all the locos he wanted for his Great Central layout in the 50s.

 

David

[Kenton]

But it was the same, or worse, twenty, forty and (probably, I don't know) sixty years ago and some of us survived without having resources like RMweb where we could request help from others.

 

Nick

 

I always judge a kit by reference to the standard of instructions that were provided with an Airfix kit. I also expect that with the passage of time they should be even better.

 

The problem with most instructions is the assumptions made.

 

The kit designer often assumes that the kit builder knows the prototype as intimately as he does and is passionate about that specific loco, that class, any loco, having amassed as much research material and knowledge. On top of that the kit builder will know how the designer's mind works and that the intricate folds and transition from 2D frets to 3D model was designed.

 

Also an essential part of any kit these days is a test build (sometimes several) and if that test builder is worth his name it should be published - in detail not just in the highbrow limited pages of the magazine. Publishing a test build on (say RMWeb) what better advert could the designer have? What better set of instructions? Chance for others to ask questions add prototype information and research material, sources for those missing parts and many many photos illustrating every step in the build. Unlike the magazine article it does not have to be written in house style or pander to any editor's agenda. Just simple easy to follow well illustrated instructions by a kit builder not a kit designer (but with input from the designer to explain why or how things were done different from the norm, or that peculiar part on the fret with no number is actually for some other loco/kit/spare.

[Guest oldlugger]

I always judge a kit by reference to the standard of instructions that were provided with an Airfix kit. I also expect that with the passage of time they should be even better.

 

The problem with most instructions is the assumptions made.

 

The kit designer often assumes that the kit builder knows the prototype as intimately as he does and is passionate about that specific loco, that class, any loco, having amassed as much research material and knowledge. On top of that the kit builder will know how the designer's mind works and that the intricate folds and transition from 2D frets to 3D model was designed.

 

Also an essential part of any kit these days is a test build (sometimes several) and if that test builder is worth his name it should be published - in detail not just in the highbrow limited pages of the magazine. Publishing a test build on (say RMWeb) what better advert could the designer have? What better set of instructions? Chance for others to ask questions add prototype information and research material, sources for those missing parts and many many photos illustrating every step in the build. Unlike the magazine article it does not have to be written in house style or pander to any editor's agenda. Just simple easy to follow well illustrated instructions by a kit builder not a kit designer (but with input from the designer to explain why or how things were done different from the norm, or that peculiar part on the fret with no number is actually for some other loco/kit/spare.

 

Very true Kenton. Somewhere else in this thread someone mentioned Tamiya instructions as a comparison to loco kit ones. I know from experience that the former are very clear and nicely presented and don't assume that the builder knows the subject intimately. The loco kit I'm working on at the moment has the sort of instructions that you refer too and are not easy to follow at all; the exploded diagrams, especially the chassis, is hopeless. There were also quality control issues with this kit too, with bent brass frets around delicate parts; not good from one of the more sophisticated kit manufacturers.

 

Cheers

Simon

[Kenton]

P.S Does anyone know the wheel spacing of the 0-10-0 Lickey banker? I fancy building the DJH kit, but with a scratchbuilt chassis rather than the DJH offering.

Earlswood Nob

 

Don't know offhand but I'd guess the DJH chassis in the kit is a reasonable place to start from. Though I would expect compromises to have been made to get it to go round curves. Given other compromises that may have been made with the structure I would start from trying to improve the given chassis rather than totally scratch build one.

[Nigelcliffe]

I always judge a kit by reference to the standard of instructions that were provided with an Airfix kit. I also expect that with the passage of time they should be even better.....

 

 

Also an essential part of any kit these days is a test build (sometimes several)

 

I know a few people who've designed very good kits. They comment that the instructions take more than 50% of the time. So, those "super instructions" will double the development costs of a kit, which in turn, nearly doubles the price of the box of etches & castings (because those are actually trivially cheap to make once all the design work has been done). Perhaps it is worth it, a loco kit costing £250 for all the parts including a proper set of instructions (on a CD, because printing them all would be prohibitively expensive). But many baulk at the price, and expect it for £50.

 

Test builds, I agree they are essential. I've had numerous things which couldn't be built without modifiying a few parts (eg. not even etched away from the fret in a small area, so have to cut bits out by hand).

 

 

- Nigel

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But it was the same, or worse, twenty, forty and (probably, I don't know) sixty years ago and some of us survived without having resources like RMweb where we could request help from others.

Ah, but it wasn't the same. In secondary education we automatically had metalwork (including forgework, hot rivetting, brazing, panel beating, turning and miling) and technical drawing. Because the academic course I was expected to follow abandoned all 'practical' subjects after turning 14 (year 9 now) so I could have 12 'O' levels worth of subjects pumped in, Pa got the TD teacher (who was a personal friend) to push myself and several other interested boys through the O level TD syllabus before we reached 14. Invaluable in later life. Today's kids just don't get that quality of education...

 

Now I am not the greatest guy with my hands, but with that start several white metal and brass kits were got running before I was out of my teens. Friends were aeromodelling, making electronic gear, karting, you name it. The hobby interest spectrum then was so much more hands on.

[philbax]

Lickey Banker

Front of buffer to 1st driver 9' 5 & 3/8"

Wheel spacing all at 5' 2&3/4"

Driving Wheel diameter 4' 7&1/2"

source

Fowler locomotives by Brian Harsnape

[Kenton]

I know a few people who've designed very good kits. They comment that the instructions take more than 50% of the time. So, those "super instructions" will double the development costs of a kit, which in turn, nearly doubles the price of the box of etches & castings (because those are actually trivially cheap to make once all the design work has been done). Perhaps it is worth it, a loco kit costing £250 for all the parts including a proper set of instructions (on a CD, because printing them all would be prohibitively expensive). But many baulk at the price, and expect it for £50.

 

But this is missing a trick. Many kit builders on RMWeb for example have topics illustrating the kit build. A simple url reference to that is all that would be required (as well as some of the CAD images and an annotated exploded CAD drawing perhaps - nothing that the designer shouldn't already have at hand). The cost of a test build is negligible as it is essential, and even if the test build is done by the designer (many designers design something they want anyway) the time taken is built in to the design process.

 

I do think that the instructions are improving and with some of the better kits are of a reasonable standard - it is just that they do seem to be missing that valuable (and virtually free) resource out there to gather input and build sales.

 

I am much more likely to buy a kit that I can see builds than one which I need to take on trust of the designer or a few words in a magazine from someone who is less than likely to be critical when they need to be and praiseworthy where it is genuinely deserved.

[Kenton]

In secondary education we automatically had metalwork (including forgework, hot rivetting, brazing, panel beating, turning and miling) and technical drawing.

 

Not all of us! I had the joys of Greek, Latin, and Politics (all fortunately also dropped for more academically useful subjects).

 

I was taught soldering by my father at about that age because I wanted to learn (and I guess he could pass it on) I have never been taught any of those other useful skills (which is probably why I'm useless at scratchbuilding and carpentry). Art was seen as a subject for "dunces" in my school (by teachers as well as pupils) and that probably accounts for why I can't distinguish the subtlety in colours required to make a scene look real.

 

The education system has a lot to answer for.

[coachmann]

When I entered the model railway trade, manufacturing was in the hands of 'old gentlemen' who had been trading since before the war and whitemetal kits were a comparatively new innovation. Each had his own ideas on what a kit should be like but all followed a well-trodden path of test-building their kits and making alterations before launching them on a hungry public. When etchings first hit the market some years later they were really an aid to scratchbuilding, but what followed was an explosion of 'tat' that was guranteed to break the will of even the most proficient builder! Many bore the hallmark of firms that had never studied the prototype, had never test-built their etchings and so were in no position to write inteligent instructions, and had made no allowances in their artwork for rounded corners or scale drawing deficiencies.

 

Whitemetal kits too can never be perfect due to uneven shrinkage, burning and poor moulds made by folk who do not understand the process. These are the things to be aware off today when buying old kits.

[Jack P]

Ah, but it wasn't the same. In secondary education we automatically had metalwork (including forgework, hot rivetting, brazing, panel beating, turning and miling) and technical drawing. Because the academic course I was expected to follow abandoned all 'practical' subjects after turning 14 (year 9 now) so I could have 12 'O' levels worth of subjects pumped in, Pa got the TD teacher (who was a personal friend) to push myself and several other interested boys through the O level TD syllabus before we reached 14. Invaluable in later life. Today's kids just don't get that quality of education...

 

Now I am not the greatest guy with my hands, but with that start several white metal and brass kits were got running before I was out of my teens. Friends were aeromodelling, making electronic gear, karting, you name it. The hobby interest spectrum then was so much more hands on.

 

This depresses me. IMMENSELY. I learnt none of this at school, and no-one built anything cool like go-karts or model warplanes, But if you wanted to see someone with a level 60 paladin, there would be no queue.

 

Wish i'd been born 30 years earlier.

[S.A.C Martin]

Without wishing to turn this political in any way, I wonder what the majority of users reading this thread expect of the education system. Having seen first hand and even helped in the preparation of lessons, marking and similar (my long term girlfriend is in her first year of teaching), and what is actually taught at most schools from Year 7 to sixth form, the emphasis on the academic rather than the skills has been significant for a number of years, two decades or more.

 

It all stems from the belief that everyone should go to school, do their A levels, get to university and get a degree - which is fine as an ideal, but in practice there are kids who are incredibly talented with their hands - making and mending, and building who are missing out on a lifetime's worth of satisfying work in a profession.

 

One of the things I will never forget at school was the amount of dismissive, nonconstructive commentary some teachers gave on a friend of mine's chosen path in life - he wanted to be a plumber. He was exceptionally good with his hands, and built a vast amount of projects in D&T some of us could only dream of - that includes metalwork. He was also rather academic but simply wanted to earn money and do it with a known talent.

 

Why was that knocked back? The focus was all, and still is, on academia. To say everyone has the right to try for it is fine - but it's no longer a case of having the right to try for it, it's at the expense of the necessary professions this country needs to be developing through insisting that everyone must do it regardless of their talents. I think to continuously tell kids today that degrees and academia are the only way to get anywhere in life is part of the problem. More apprenticeships in the professions required.

 

Regarding kit-building - I'm going to be controversial when I say that I hope much of the traditional style kits start to die out in the next few decades, in favour of kits which actually fit together correctly and work to begin with without the hassle of vast amounts of fettering and even total rebuilding. The difference in cost, time and energy in building a kit A2/3 in comparison to rebuilding a Bachmann A2 into an A2/3 using Graeme King's resin components is absolutely vast - and the results are infinitely better too.

 

I don't buy the idea that we should support cottage industries which steadfastly refuse to offer the levels of service, instructions and components that are seen elsewhere. It's 2012 and in many cases, you still can't buy everything in one place (motors, gearbox plus the actual kit) and that's not good enough by far. That's before I get onto the usually non-existent instructions, and whether or not these components are always available unless bought off a certain auction site for stupid amounts.

 

It's increasingly cost against time against effort for many people; so the quality of kits and how they are put together must improve if kit building is to survive as the dominant force. Otherwise I think many people are just going to say "forget it" and buy another RTR A4 pacific or similar instead.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Very true Kenton. Somewhere else in this thread someone mentioned Tamiya instructions as a comparison to loco kit ones. I know from experience that the former are very clear and nicely presented and don't assume that the builder knows the subject intimately. The loco kit I'm working on at the moment has the sort of instructions that you refer too and are not easy to follow at all; the exploded diagrams, especially the chassis, is hopeless. There were also quality control issues with this kit too, with bent brass frets around delicate parts; not good from one of the more sophisticated kit manufacturers.

 

Cheers

Simon

 

Over thirty years ago I owned and ran a model shop specialising in RC models. Tamiya had very good instructions, including actual size drawings of the nuts and bolts used in each particular location. Even then, we had customers who were unable to assemble a Tamiya RC kit and the "we'll build it for you" service was quite popular.

 

Boat and aircraft kits from Robbe and Graupner had a different approach, with a full size set of plans, text instructions on that "cheap" paper (popular with the German white goods manufacturers) and a small booklet on glossy paper for the photographs. Although we build RC boats to commission, usually for purchasers that had zero model making experience, most buyers built their own kits and were happy with the instructions.

 

Those Tamiya buyers that couldn't complete the model had usually started from a zero experience/skill base and even the comprehensive instructions couldn't overcome their lack of ability/ confidence. The boat builder were invariably more experienced and didn't embark on those kits as a first attempt.

 

To me, this confirms that the instructions will never be a" one size fits all" solution. Having designed kits and written the instructions for them, it is always difficult to know what level of information to include,as it all adds to the cost. A very experienced and good coach builder recently said to me that he regarded instructions as a real problem as they either had too much or too little detail.

 

How much prototype information should be included? If you a making a model of a specific railway/period, then is it reasonable to assume that you will have done some research on it and have information to hand? How much skill can you assume the builder has? Do you need to explain soldering, painting and lining, etc. in detail?

 

It is also my experience that some modellers regard themselves as experts on how to write instructions although they wouldn't regard themselves as qualified to design a kit.

 

Jol

[Clive Mortimore]

Instructions....what you look at when things do not go right.

[John_Hughes]

I did the usual couple of years of craft stuff at secondary school, and abandoned it - like so many others here - to follow academic subjects like Latin, French and German (and thank the Lord I did all of those, for Latin as Boris has reminded us allows one to read almost any Romance language). But I didn't care - I was absolutely cr*p at all those hand skills anyway.

 

When I - much later - decided that I needed to take these missed subjects seriously in order to build decent models, I was helped by (1) 'Smokey' Bourne's articles on machine work in the old MRN, (2) some brilliant construction articles in some of the US magazines back in the 70s, and (3) fellow club members who held my hand and gave good advice.

 

So now I can build, in several hours of concentrated work, a kit that back when I was 18 I could have finished off in an afternoon! But now at least it works!

[coachmann]

In a way John Hughes hits the nail on the head. What we are taught in school isnt an end in itself and education doesn't come to an abrupt end at sixteen. In my day 'History' was all about which king followed which king and Cromwell was a baddie, so I learned about social history and politics myself. We did metalwork in school but it didnt include loco kit building. I brushed up on lots of things in art school but painting and lining model locos wasn't in the curriculum. It's all about opening up the mind. Mrs coachmann instintively throwns handfulls of goodies into a pot, sets the oven timer and we get perfect meals every evening. Throw a washing machine at her and she handles the settings as if born to the task.... Yet the kids call her Nannacannatext 'cos she can't text on her mobile and TV zappers are foreign objects!

[Jol Wilkinson]

Regarding kit-building - I'm going to be controversial when I say that I hope much of the traditional style kits start to die out in the next few decades, in favour of kits which actually fit together correctly and work to begin with without the hassle of vast amounts of fettering and even total rebuilding. The difference in cost, time and energy in building a kit A2/3 in comparison to rebuilding a Bachmann A2 into an A2/3 using Graeme King's resin components is absolutely vast - and the results are infinitely better too.

 

I don't buy the idea that we should support cottage industries which steadfastly refuse to offer the levels of service, instructions and components that are seen elsewhere. It's 2012 and in many cases, you still can't buy everything in one place (motors, gearbox plus the actual kit) and that's not good enough by far. That's before I get onto the usually non-existent instructions, and whether or not these components are always available unless bought off a certain auction site for stupid amounts.

 

It's increasingly cost against time against effort for many people; so the quality of kits and how they are put together must improve if kit building is to survive as the dominant force. Otherwise I think many people are just going to say "forget it" and buy another RTR A4 pacific or similar instead.

 

This implies that all kits are of poor quality. Whilst there are those that fit that description, usually the older generation of w/m and some of the early etched kits, I regard that as wrong and misleading. As someone that has designed a number of etched kits in the last ten years, I also find it rather insulting.

 

We've already discussed the reasons why some items are excluded from kits. I have been building 4mm kits for over 25 years to P4 standards which makes the availability of some items more restricted, but have never found it a problem to get what I wanted. It may take a little longer or require a little more effort, but I have the benefit of choosing what I want.

 

As Coachman wrote earlier, carrying stocks of those parts to add to a kit places a financial burden on the kit manufacturer, even where he can get a trade discount. However, it's the choice of 4mm gauges that is the biggest factor, as what is in the box won't be right for everone. I used to help out on the Puffers of Kenton exhibitions sales stand many years ago, when DJH included Romford 00 wheels in their kits (vacuum packed in sets). In about one third of sales the customer didn't want them, preferring something better looking or suited to another gauge.

 

You hope that traditional style (whatever that means) kits start to die out in the next few decades, well they may well do so as the manufactures/builders retire/die off. Personally I would rather see the RTR manufacturers go bust, bringing the end of wish lists, frothing, etc. and making "modelling" mean model making, rather than buying the result of another persons efforts.

 

Jol

[S.A.C Martin]

Just to iterate; my previous comments were aimed at the purveyors and designers of kits of obvious poor quality. I do accept, and support many kit manufacturers who provide decent products and quality service.

 

This implies that all kits are of poor quality. Whilst there are those that fit that description, usually the older generation of w/m and some of the early etched kits, I regard that as wrong and misleading. As someone that has designed a number of etched kits in the last ten years, I also find it rather insulting.

 

It's not a statement personal to you; merely my observations of how many kits are bought and sold, and on occasion built.

 

We've already discussed the reasons why some items are excluded from kits. I have been building 4mm kits for over 25 years to P4 standards which makes the availability of some items more restricted, but have never found it a problem to get what I wanted. It may take a little longer or require a little more effort, but I have the benefit of choosing what I want.

 

As Coachman wrote earlier, carrying stocks of those parts to add to a kit places a financial burden on the kit manufacturer, even where he can get a trade discount. However, it's the choice of 4mm gauges that is the biggest factor, as what is in the box won't be right for everone. I used to help out on the Puffers of Kenton exhibitions sales stand many years ago, when DJH included Romford 00 wheels in their kits (vacuum packed in sets). In about one third of sales the customer didn't want them, preferring something better looking or suited to another gauge.

 

That is a fair point Jol; but as was pointed out earlier, many of those kits are now becoming exceedingly expensive and beyond the reach of many modellers to source all of said components and time with which to build such kits. The cost of building, say, an A2/3 from a kit involves at least four different suppliers and the best part of £300 (not including man hours). To build one from an RTR A2 with resin components can cost a little under £140 (again not including man hours). In both cases you get an A2/3, but which is the path of least resistance?

 

You hope that traditional style (whatever that means) kits start to die out in the next few decades, well they may well do so as the manufactures/builders retire/die off. Personally I would rather see the RTR manufacturers go bust, bringing the end of wish lists, frothing, etc. and making "modelling" mean model making, rather than buying the result of another persons efforts.

 

Jol

 

I think you are taking my comments a little too personally Jol. My view is that the cottage industries that don't adapt to the changing world, and particularly in the service and component sales, should die out. If they cannot provide kits of a decent quality with written instructions, why should they survive alongside those who provide a better service?

 

My comments do not mean "kill off all cottage industries in railway modelling" - merely those who do not provide the highest quality kits and service to their customers. Like most services in the world; survival of the fittest.

 

I might add, there are some cottage industries who work very successfully utilizing components from RTR sources to create new models. This is the sort of innovation and development we should see more of from said cottage industries in order to for them to survive. Adaptation and evolving rather than remaining the same ad infinitum.

[Kenton]

How much prototype information should be included? If you a making a model of a specific railway/period, then is it reasonable to assume that you will have done some research on it and have information to hand? How much skill can you assume the builder has? Do you need to explain soldering, painting and lining, etc. in detail?

 

It is also my experience that some modellers regard themselves as experts on how to write instructions although they wouldn't regard themselves as qualified to design a kit.

 

Almost always too much detail - we all have the ability to ignore it if we believe we know it all already.

 

The problem with the designer writing instructions is that they do not have any incentive to make them useful. If they designed the kit for their interest then what is the point of bothering with instructions, if they design with the aim of selling as many as possible then (usually) they still have no ability and simply want to get on to the next kit - designing is their skill set.

 

Many kit builder have not the slightest interest in the prototype - or at least they have no time for or resource to research it. All they are interested in is building the kit as complete as it has been provided. Anyway why bother re-inventing the wheel, I have as a kit builder, to assume that the designer has already done extensive research and not simply guessed everything. What is so difficult with presenting that material, even in the form of references to other readily available sources. I hate references to unobtainable reference books or personal collections that are never available to the kit builder.

 

And yes you are right about the last statement. I reckon I could make a reasonable topic on a particular kit build, probably know how a kit should go together (even with poor instructions) but haven't a clue or the time to design a kit - I'm too busy trying to build them.

[halfwit]

The cost of building, say, an A2/3 from a kit involves at least four different suppliers and the best part of £300 (not including man hours). To build one from an RTR A2 with resin components can cost a little under £140 (again not including man hours). In both cases you get an A2/3, but which is the path of least resistance?

 

Sometimes its not about the end result, but the journey to get there.

Give me a kit over a RTR conversion anyday.

 

(Actually thinking of selling off my little remaining RTR to fund more kit buying...)

[S.A.C Martin]

Sometimes its not about the end result, but the journey to get there.

Give me a kit over a RTR conversion anyday.

 

(Actually thinking of selling off my little remaining RTR to fund more kit buying...)

 

Fair play to you. But if the ultimate aim is to always get the most accurate model of X prototype, I'm afraid in some cases RTR conversions come out closer to the real thing in many respects. I know this having watched several members of this forum over the years use their ingenuity to produce some truly stellar results from whatever they had to hand, combined with RTR components.

 

It's all well and good stating "it's the journey" but the question posed was the future of loco kit building. We've already accepted and made clear in this thread that future generations of railway modellers aren't necessarily going to have the same skill sets that many of (dare I say it!) the older generations have on here that allow for loco kit building in the forms it previously existed.

 

You can't have it both ways; either the kit manufacturers adapt their products to a changing world, or they die off through lack of custom because the skill sets and mind sets for those kits simply aren't there anymore.

 

When I think of the learning curve that basic Airfix kits produce, building up one's skills and confidence from a basic Spitfire kit, up to the large and detailed Lancaster Bomber; there's no comparison to the deep end that future locomotive kit builders are forced to jump in. An "all or nothing" approach from the hobby.

[jwealleans]

When I think of the learning curve that basic Airfix kits produce, building up one's skills and confidence from a basic Spitfire kit, up to the large and detailed Lancaster Bomber; there's no comparison to the deep end that future locomotive kit builders are forced to jump in. An "all or nothing" approach from the hobby.

 

Well there's a gap in the market. Ten years ago the excellent Pocket Money range from Jim McGeown gave you a very good way in, with clear instructions and some very useful general kit building hints. The man was a victim of his own success and finally dropped them to concentrate on 7mm. If you can get one - they fetch daft prices on Ebay - there's no better starting point.

[Castle]

Hi All,

 

There are youngsters out there that want to learn how to do this kind of stuff. I have two friends at Didcot who are also mad keen on model making and railways and spend the occasional Sunday at my place tinkering on my workbench after a look round the local train fair. This Sunday we will mostly be making Parkside Pythons!* We have done things like detailing locos in the past and will no doubt do other things in the future. Being Didcot volunteers, they are into the GWR as much as me and this helps a bit I suppose!

 

One of them now wants to buy his first brass loco kit but freely admits that he wouldn't have done so had he not had me to show him how to do it. So there we have it in a nutshell perhaps, the fact that the younger and / or less experienced don't have a guiding hand in the form of a parent, other family member, friend, etc to show them how to do these things. When you consider that the cost of even the simple 0-4-0 that my friend wants is over £100 then the financial aspect has to knock your confidence. Even the average etched coach costs north of £40 which is quite a bit of money to throw away if you go really wrong. If we want this section of the hobby to continue then we need to not only pass on our enthusiasm but our knowledge too. A kit is nothing but a poor ornament if you can't assemble it. Perhaps there is some market in loco and rolling stock building classes? I am not a member of a model club but I imagine that this would be the ideal venue for this sort of thing to take place or it could give another dimension to the ailing local model shop sector?

 

This is also why Andy Y has done us all such a massive favour in founding this website!

 

All the best,

 

Castle

 

* With due respect to that mighty institution, The Fast Show!