The future of loco kit building

[t-b-g]

OK I'll add mine:

 

Best: The last kit I built without any complications or additional/fabricated parts.

 

Worst: The last kit I didn't build.

 

Some kits - and happily most modern ones go together just like a kit of parts should - and for that I am thankful.

 

AFAIC the rest cannot be called kits!

 

and although I can often find fault with most kits (usually in the instructions and build sequence) most "faults" can be resolved or worked around with the aid of experience.

 

It may sound a bit odd but although I enjoy building the really good quality kits that can be found, the ones that ultimately give me the most satisfaction are the real pigs. As you say, working around problems using experience, perhaps even a little skill and ingenuity, to make a really horrible kit into something that looks as it should is challenging and can be fun.

 

The ones that give the most satisfaction are the ones where somebody asks me "What did you build that from?" and when I tell them, they appreciate the work that has gone into it.

 

Somehow "I built that from a Judith Edge kit, it went together really easily." doesn't quite carry kudos of "It was Jidenco. It has new this that and the other, such and such was altered but in the end it worked out OK".

 

Perhaps it is just good to push yourself with a bit of a challenge now and then.

 

Tony 

[jwealleans]

 

it is just good to push yourself with a bit of a challenge now and then.

Fancy an MTK buffet car, Tony?

[t-b-g]

Fancy an MTK buffet car, Tony?

 

Too modern but thanks for the offer........

 

It can't be worse than the McGowan GCR Atlantic or the Jidenco Claughton. At least there can't be so many parts to alter/chuck away in a carriage.

 

Anybody got a photo of a completed MTK buffet car to prove that they have actually built one? 

[Barry O]

Do dmus count? .. if so is there anyone out there as daft as me as I have "built"  a few MTK (Modern Shrapnel Kits as was) dmus.. Derby Lightweight single car, Derby SR 3 car, Met cam 3 car, and, the daddy of them all .. a Trans Pennine unit including the griddle car  which Colin "made" from a  drawing by Mike Edge...

 

 

through castings away and start with lighter materials helps make the things run... new bogies etc help a lot, new floors also a help and then trying to the sides/ends fit....

 

BUT there was no alternative unless you scratchbuilt it!

 

Kit design has moved on a lot since then .. well in some places any way. My first ever kit built loco was a Wills Flatiron followed by a Nucast Q6  and they still work albeit the Q6 has had a battering over the years...

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Is it just me or is there a preponderance of LNER prototypes falling into the 'worst kit' category? What did the LNER (Gresley et al) do to make kit design so difficult?

There are many factors to consider but here are the most significant.

 

The probability of a kit being rated as poor will be (all other factors being equal) directly proportional to the volume of kits attempted. Since the dry side has the most attractive designs, but the worst RTR provision; I advance the hypothesis that proportionally the kit : modeller ratio is significantly higher among the dry side interest. The expected effects from these factors will be:

 

The more kits are attempted, the number found poor will increase in due proportion,

 

And because the prototypes are so lovely in all respects, the disappointment with any less than ideal kit build outcomes will be that much greater. 

[Horsetan]

....Terrier .. We could do with a really good modern kit for them, as the Hornby effort just doesn't cut the mustard. That might cut down my workload, though!

There is one (all etched), apparently available from Roxey Models under the Albion label, I think. It only came out last year, and is always on display on the show stand. Roxey don't seem very keen to publicise it, though, as their website and lists make no mention of it.

[Arthur]

Do dmus count? .. if so is there anyone out there as daft as me as I have "built" a few MTK (Modern Shrapnel Kits as was) dmus.. Derby Lightweight single car, Derby SR 3 car, Met cam 3 car, and, the daddy of them all .. a Trans Pennine unit including the griddle car which Colin "made" from a drawing by Mike Edge...

 

 

through castings away and start with lighter materials helps make the things run... new bogies etc help a lot, new floors also a help and then trying to the sides/ends fit....

 

BUT there was no alternative unless you scratchbuilt it!

 

 

That pretty much sums up MTK Barry. I built their Derby Lightweight 2 car, one of the single car parcel units and still have a full six car Trans Pennine unit awaiting my, er......ministrations.

 

I also built a cast MTK EE type 4, mated to a Frankenstein chassis with bits from a Mainline Peak and a humongous 24v coreless motor bought from a surplus store. At 12v it just creeps along......

[Kenton]

 

Somehow "I built that from a Judith Edge kit, it went together really easily." doesn't quite carry kudos of "It was Jidenco. It has new this that and the other, such and such was altered but in the end it worked out OK".

 

As it may be said "Kudos" doesn't pay the bills.

 

I am afraid I get little satisfaction wasting my time on a useless kit - I get no pleasure at all out scratchbuilding.

 

I'd rather build 10 JE/HL/etc kits that I have confidence in finishing in a reasonably predictable time period and quality to any one a.n.other aide to scratch building that requires some unpredictable and imaginative working. It is different when you are perhaps building that very special one off for your own collection. Perhaps that is why there are requests to build 10 identical wagons! The problem with that extreme is the tedium and giving in to temptation to put to one side and open another, more interesting, box.

[hayfield]

Too modern but thanks for the offer........

 

It can't be worse than the McGowan GCR Atlantic or the Jidenco Claughton. At least there can't be so many parts to alter/chuck away in a carriage.

 

Anybody got a photo of a completed MTK buffet car to prove that they have actually built one? 

 

 

Did Keyser take that one over? or is it just that theirs is just as bad

[Barry O]

That pretty much sums up MTK Barry. I built their Derby Lightweight 2 car, one of the single car parcel units and still have a full six car Trans Pennine unit awaiting my, er......ministrations.

 

I also built a cast MTK EE type 4, mated to a Frankenstein chassis with bits from a Mainline Peak and a humongous 24v coreless motor bought from a surplus store. At 12v it just creeps along......

Arthur.. my commiserations.. I did look at a Type 4 bag of castings and went .. no thanks...

 

The TPU does eventually go together but the bent sides were bent and curved in the wrong places, the plastic ends were... strange.. the casting are used as weights and it now has a mix of dc kits and Hornby bogies (it did have some Ks bogies for a while but they were far too heavy....  bon chance.....

[Barry O]

Horsetan.. if you fancy a challenger there is a disassembled MTK Class 47 on Ebay at the moment

 

....go on ... you know you want to try and build one of these!

 

baz

[t-b-g]

 As it may be said "Kudos" doesn't pay the bills.

 

I am afraid I get little satisfaction wasting my time on a useless kit - I get no pleasure at all out scratchbuilding.

 

I'd rather build 10 JE/HL/etc kits that I have confidence in finishing in a reasonably predictable time period and quality to any one a.n.other aide to scratch building that requires some unpredictable and imaginative working. It is different when you are perhaps building that very special one off for your own collection. Perhaps that is why there are requests to build 10 identical wagons! The problem with that extreme is the tedium and giving in to temptation to put to one side and open another, more interesting, box.

 

I wouldn't waste my time (or clients) time building really poor kits for a living. I have done a few rakes of carriages or block trains of wagons for people and it gets tedious after one! Some folk advocate batch building as it is more efficient but the only way I can stave off the boredom is to finish one then start the next.

 

But if you really want a particular loco for yourself and there is a kit available, it is tempting even if you know in advance that it is a stinker. There is always the possibility that you can use a good number of parts and either alter or replace others and that kit will still be quicker and easier than scratchbuilding. Having said that, in the self satisfaction stakes, a good scratchbuild will always, for me, beat a good kit although I fully appreciate that not everybody enjoys such projects, I very much do!

 

The trick is in identifying kit deficiencies before you go too far. It is much easier to correct faults before you get to the stage of having to dismantle something. That is where some experience comes in handy.

 

Tony

[ArthurK]

Nu Cast Q6! Now there is a blast from the past. I had to have one but after I had built I realised just what a mess it was. The designers of that kit assumed that it was the Q5 with a larger boiler. How wrong they were. In fact the frames were extended by 12" (4mm) at the rear and the smokebox was 6" forward. That meant that the boiler was 18" short in full scale of 6mm on the model. After I found out about the errors I always referred to it as a Q5&1/2. I managed to get it to run well but it was retired early. I never did replace it.

 

ArthurK

[Barry O]

Arthur

 

it (the Q6) was one of Bill Stotts' early offerings. While i kno wits wrong it stil trundles along and, as a kit, wasn't difficult to build... one day I may just build a new one... but no time soon...

[Horsetan]

Horsetan.. if you fancy a challenger there is a disassembled MTK Class 47 on Ebay at the moment

 

....go on ... you know you want to try and build one of these!...

Mad I may be....

 

 

.....but not that mad.

[John_Hughes]

There is one (all etched), apparently available from Roxey Models under the Albion label, I think. It only came out last year, and is always on display on the show stand. Roxey don't seem very keen to publicise it, though, as their website and lists make no mention of it.

 

Thanks very much. that sounds promising and I'll have to keep an eye open for it.

 

I can't say I've ever seen their stand at a show, though; where do they go?

[Horsetan]

St. Albans, RailEx Aylesbury, ExpoEM, Scaleforum, are just four of the shows I've seen them at.

[Talltim]

 

There is always the possibility that you can use a good number of parts and either alter or replace others and that kit will still be quicker and easier than scratchbuilding. Having said that, in the self satisfaction stakes, a good scratchbuild will always, for me, beat a good kit although I fully appreciate that not everybody enjoys such projects, I very much do!

With some kits, I get the impression that they pretty much are a good scratchbuild that comes with a box to keep the bits in.

[Kenton]

 

Nu Cast Q6! Now there is a blast from the past. I had to have one but after I had built I realised just what a mess it was. The designers of that kit assumed that it was the Q5 with a larger boiler. How wrong they were. In fact the frames were extended by 12" (4mm) at the rear and the smokebox was 6" forward. That meant that the boiler was 18" short in full scale of 6mm on the model. After I found out about the errors I always referred to it as a Q5&1/2. I managed to get it to run well but it was retired early. I never did replace it.

 

ArthurK

But shouldn't we distinguish here between kits that are wrong due to a few mm errors from the prototype and those that simply cannot be built into a working model. I almost don't care about the mis-count of rivets, or the fact the frames are too short especially as I understand certain compromises sometimes need to be made - like the distance between the frames . But a kit that doesn't build into anything remotely like a locomotive or where parts simply do not fit together just is a complete waste of effort.

 

It has to be said that I think most of these faults (especially in etched kit design) can be traced back to hand drawn masters where the slip of the pen or the 11" ruler held sway. Today's kits designed with CAD and more scientific etching processes are much better containing less errors.

 

 

 

I can't say I've ever seen their stand at a show, though; where do they go?

Almost every show, of size, in the South / South East plus a few others website: http://www.roxeymouldings.co.uk/ they can be relied on for stocks of Slaters wheels, Phoenix paint, motors, among other bits and bobs, in addition to quite a range of kits.

[Craigw]

  But shouldn't we distinguish here between kits that are wrong due to a few mm errors from the prototype and those that simply cannot be built into a working model. I almost don't care about the mis-count of rivets, or the fact the frames are too short especially as I understand certain compromises sometimes need to be made - like the distance between the frames . But a kit that doesn't build into anything remotely like a locomotive or where parts simply do not fit together just is a complete waste of effort.

 

It has to be said that I think most of these faults (especially in etched kit design) can be traced back to hand drawn masters where the slip of the pen or the 11" ruler held sway. Today's kits designed with CAD and more scientific etching processes are much better containing less errors.

 

 

I would consider that both types of kits are equally bad personally. A kit that simply cannot be built would be thrown against a wall or into a dark corner very quickly thank you. But the other type are just as frustrating. I do a lot of research into the real thing before I build a model and after looking at things a while I usually have a pretty finely tuned radar. I am with Arthur, there is nothing more frustrating than something you have expended blood, sweat and tears over that still does not look right or alternately have replaced so much of that you might as well not have used the dratted kit in the first place.

 

Both bad kits, but for different reasons.

 

Craig W

[Kenton]

 

 

Both bad kits, but for different reasons.

Craig W

So you do not build any kits in OO or EM? and never build a kit where the motor protrudes into the cab or is visible between the frames?

 

Perhaps as has been said before I construct kits - I do not do scratchbuilding in any form. If the kit is wrong it still gets built that way. I'm not here to research every prototype I build in any detail (most are not interesting to me) I just concentrate on building the kit.

[Craigw]

 

 

So you do not build any kits in OO or EM? and never build a kit where the motor protrudes into the cab or is visible between the frames?

 

Perhaps as has been said before I construct kits - I do not do scratchbuilding in any form. If the kit is wrong it still gets built that way. I'm not here to research every prototype I build in any detail (most are not interesting to me) I just concentrate on building the kit.

 

 

As do not derive an income from building kits, no I do not build kits in OO or EM. I model to P4 standards, though I fail to see what that has to do with a kit being impossible to build or grossly inaccurate.

 

You do not research models because you derive an income from building kits. I had two Martin Finney kits built for me and I told the builder exactly what loco I wanted - supplying wheels and nameplates that I wanted used.

 

But, if a kit does not represent what it purports to be then it is not a good kit either. Your primary concern is build ability because you get paid to do that task. Someone who is building for themselves will be concerned about how the kit builds but also accuracy.

 

Craig W

[Kenton]

 

As do not derive an income from building kits, no I do not build kits in OO or EM. I model to P4 standards, though I fail to see what that has to do with a kit being impossible to build or grossly inaccurate.

 

The greatest thing about P4 - no compromise. There are a lot of kits out there designed for OO or EM where compromise is required (the classic positioning of splashers and motion to "fit" the narrower gauge.

 

 

I had two Martin Finney kits built for me and I told the builder exactly what loco I wanted - supplying wheels and nameplates that I wanted used.

You did the research, supplied all the missing bits - so the builder didn't have to. I would add that the Mitchell kits are le creme de la creme. So in P4 I doubt if there was much deviation.

 

 

But, if a kit does not represent what it purports to be then it is not a good kit either. Your primary concern is build ability because you get paid to do that task. Someone who is building for themselves will be concerned about how the kit builds but also accuracy.

Craig W

I wasn't arguing about them being "good" if failing to be exact prototype. Just less worse than a kit that cannot be built into anything without extensive scratchbuilding.

 

It is amazing just how many folk just want a kit built simply because they do not feel confident enough to do it themselves or as often seems to happen, have bought the latest kit at a show then opened the box and realised just how much is in there. Not all modellers, in fact I believe very few, want a particular loco as seen on a particular day. Perhaps RMWeb has a preponderance of those modellers but many are simply satisfied with getting a particular model out of the box and 2 dimensions into something that they can roll or power down their piece of track.

 

[hayfield]

Hi

 

Stop talking about bad kits, it will put folk off from kit building. Lets have some good stories, that way there may be a future in kit bulding and some may be encouraged to take the plunge.

 

Lets have the easiest kit to build or the most enjoyable or the best please

[ArthurK]

  But shouldn't we distinguish here between kits that are wrong due to a few mm errors from the prototype and those that simply cannot be built into a working model. I almost don't care about the mis-count of rivets, or the fact the frames are too short especially as I understand certain compromises sometimes need to be made - like the distance between the frames . But a kit that doesn't build into anything remotely like a locomotive or where parts simply do not fit together just is a complete waste of effort.

 

It has to be said that I think most of these faults (especially in etched kit design) can be traced back to hand drawn masters where the slip of the pen or the 11" ruler held sway. Today's kits designed with CAD and more scientific etching processes are much better containing less errors.

 

 

  Almost every show, of size, in the South / South East plus a few others website: http://www.roxeymouldings.co.uk/ they can be relied on for stocks of Slaters wheels, Phoenix paint, motors, among other bits and bobs, in addition to quite a range of ki

 

 

Sorry I must protest! Six millimetres is NOT a few. If an RTR manufacture produced a model with one of the major dimensions which was 18" full scale in  error there would be howls of protest from the modelling commiunity. Why should we accept it because it's a kit! Yes the Nu Cast Q6 could be built and made to run but modellers today expect more than that.

 

ArthurK