The future of loco kit building

[Nearholmer]

Resisting the temptation to start humming the Dambusters March and go swooping around the room with arms extended, while making Merlin-engine noises .......

 

That "need for object vs desire for experience" point is very well made.

 

Availability of workbench-time comes into it too., though.

 

I'm currently in a very "workbench-time poor" phase of life, so put what time I can deploy into building the layout, and have gone r-t-r for trains. I've had phases in the past when I had oodles of workbench-time, and then I was kit and scratch building away like crazy. I look forward to creating brass filings and sawdust again one day.

 

In short, the desire for the kit/scratch building experience isn't always matched by the opportunity.

 

Kevin

[DougN]

Kevin have to agree with you there. I have problems that I can't get near the work tray ( mobile work bench) due to family, work, and all. The other boring stuff that has to go with life! I seem to find the 10 minutes at 9.50 at night and as I have a early start most mornings means I have to go to bed 10minutes later! So I have not got anything done in ages.

[sharris]

Now that has hit it on the head for me; kitbuilding vs. scratchbuilding sometimes depends on the model you want, so you go after it as a kit that gives you the result you need or just build it yourself as it is a prototype you actually need for a project, so it is driven by the prototype.

 

 

I think it's not always a 'versus' situation as one turns, quite often, at least partially, into the other. Currently I'm working on an LNWR signal box from the London Road Models kit. I'm sure I could have built it as intended, with John Redrup's assurances that it could be shortened quite easily, and showed me his gallery of alternative configurations. What I'd forgotten though was that the toilet in the prototype was at the other end of the box from the kit, and that the steps were in 2 stages (stage 1 to the platform, stage 2 to ground level behind the platform).

 

The end result was that while I started with the kit, virtually no part of it was used as intended (step 1: throw away the instructions!), so it kind of turned out to be a collection of materials rearranged as needed for my prototype, plus scratch built steps, end-panel overlays, etc.

 

Having not built a brass kit in quite a few years, I intended using this to re-learn some kit-building skills - I think I'm learning quite a lot in the process, but not necessarily how to build a kit!

[EHertsGER]

I think it's not always a 'versus' situation as one turns, quite often, at least partially, into the other. Currently I'm working on an LNWR signal box from the London Road Models kit. I'm sure I could have built it as intended, with John Redrup's assurances that it could be shortened quite easily, and showed me his gallery of alternative configurations. What I'd forgotten though was that the toilet in the prototype was at the other end of the box from the kit, and that the steps were in 2 stages (stage 1 to the platform, stage 2 to ground level behind the platform).

 

The end result was that while I started with the kit, virtually no part of it was used as intended (step 1: throw away the instructions!), so it kind of turned out to be a collection of materials rearranged as needed for my prototype, plus scratch built steps, end-panel overlays, etc.

 

Having not built a brass kit in quite a few years, I intended using this to re-learn some kit-building skills - I think I'm learning quite a lot in the process, but not necessarily how to build a kit!

Indeed..much of my experience in building said 'object' (as I have 'list' of locomotives - and rolling stock - needed for a project) has revolved around the desire for the 'object' to be a faithful rendition of the prototype in miniature. A recent project, by way of example, was (another) Gibson J15 (I model in P4 so no Hornby for me) which started out as the others did - with some extra bits here and there.

 

So by now we are building a kit, sure, but more as a scratch aid, perhaps. Then came the tender; 65464 was one of those you can't model from the kit, so I needed to fabricate 'D' shaped cut-out tender frames. Then came the need for LT tripcock gear, so that was fabricated too.

 

My point, then, is that, in comparison to the 'Airfix' days we most likely all share, a 'kit' is not really a 'kit' in our eyes any more. I believe the 'Airfix' kits were intended as just that - assemble and paint. Now there are builders of plastic kits out there who will have a fit at that assertion, but I am aiming at the intent, not the reality, for one trip to the IPMS shows or web sites will show me to be very wrong. However, back to the intent; are those that masquerade as 'kits' really kits? Or are they, to coin a phrase, 'scratch aids', abeit very comprehensive ones, given a more market-accessible description that conjures up the concept of 'all in one box' akin to our Airfix experience and so makes the product more saleable. Misleading, perhaps? But do we mind?

 

I feel from my experience (man with low voice saying a lot of incomprehensible legalese very fast at this point) that a 'kit' is a self contained entity (minus paint, glue) that can be assembled exactly as the instructions stipulate as is the case with Airfix, whereas our 'kits' are a starting point for more that will take us to our chosen subject with a bit of extra work.

 

"Ah, yes but," say the plastic kit wizards of the IPMS, "so are those Airfix boxes the start of our brilliant creations..." And they would be right too.

 

So perhaps 'kit' is just the name for the collection of parts that is the starting point for what we are aiming for (and I refer to the 'object' as opposed to the 'experience', above at this point). So, to its purpose; if we are to 'assemble and paint' it, it is a 'kit' building process, but if we are to build a model, it is just a starting point for 'locomotive building' insofar as we are aiming at a model of a prototype, perhaps?

 

My kit building experience (same legal bloke in the background) has been to bypass the sheets of metal and wild time with a fretsaw and move on to assembly mixed with fabrication, modification and additional parts. Recent projects (same J15) have led to the chassis, wheels, gearbox and so on being discarded in favor of preferred components or scratchbuilding (chassis, tender frames).

 

This has brought me to the point that the next one will most likely be a scratchbuilt one (the sixth of six) now I am no longer afraid of plans and blank sheets of metal.

 

The above has disregarded the availability of RTR models (as being unavailable or not 'right' for me - witness lack of Hornby J15 in my collection) or limited time. So, for those with time, ability and need, the 'kit' is a shortcut to the process of locomotive building that encompasses both kitbuilding and scratchbuilding, perhaps.

 

So, to an example for discussion; LNER D49 'Hunt' class 201 Braham Moor. Lovely kit from PDF with everything I need (usual omissions such as wheels, gears, motor accepted) but the tender is almost there, but not quite right. I need the flared side GS tender, so I will fabricate the flare in the course of building - maybe new sides, maybe just flares - haven't decided yet. Kit building or not?

 

To me 'kit building' and locomotive building are two different processes intertwined in our hobby to the point of little difference between the two. The value of the former is to shortcut some of the fabrication as we head to the latter, but in doing so provides us with an ease of access and confidence to acheive the latter through skill development and - dare I say it - enjoyment of our hobby. Oh, and a spiffy locomotive at the end of it too...

 

As to the 'future'; I think with many RTR models achieving superlative standards we, as modellers, will continue to demand kits that are capable of sitting alongside those models but not by being easier to build (though that helps) but by being more accurate and so on. Additionally, I think the market has weeded out the unbuildable (fun discussions of such things elsewhere on this site!) and the grotesque to the point that we expect to be able to produce, say, a J15 that will stand alongside the Hornby one. It should be no surprise, though, that kits are going to be expensive - 'Finney' prices if you like, but comparable to RTR prices. I think the surviving kit makers, or the new generation thereof (Brassmasters, High Level Kits locomotives, Justin Newitt's wagons, for example) are driving us towards improving our skills and keeping our hobby vibrant, whether we choose to open the box, assemble and paint (and there are those out there that can be completed as fine models by doing just that (SE Finecast, Mitchell, Finney according to skill etc)) or attack the parts with a view to using them as a starting point.

 

In summary I think we all just miss the Saturday morning Airfix experience, regardless of the need for the 'object' in question! How get there is down to how we appraoch such enjoyment. Now, if you will excuse me I have some glue to get out of the tablecloth before I get caught...

 

Best,

Marcus