Wright writes.....

[Arthur]

 

Oh dear yes, I'd forgotten about those later innovations, plastic bolts and handrail knobs.....

[gr.king]

 

What's not been mentioned about K's is the plastic 8BA nuts and bolts supplied in later years (yes, white plastic!), and also plastic handrail knobs (DJH went down that ghastly route with regard to the latter for a time). I suppose because they offered a 'complete' kit (and advertised as such), it seemed a good idea at the time. 

 

Know one has mentioned the later 'flat-pack' presentations, either. The box was certainly useless for putting the completed loco in afterwards (assuming it were completed), and the cling-film fixing to the flat cardboard was a beggar to remove.

 

That's how my J3 kit came, purchased from Puffers in Pickering when it was still just about a shop for model makers. I do believe I even used the "best" of the selection of plastic handrail knobs and bolts.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, your thread seems to be going in an interesting direction concerning the pro and cons of different, usually ancient, kit manufacturers.  Keysers, for example, has come for a good deal of criticism, while others have come off relatively lightly (and, interestingly, it is those kit manufacturers that seem to have survived the rigors of time).

 

Before I retired, I accumulated a number of kits that have been set aside for the future.  Now, several years later, I have realized that some might have been a mistake as I have read that they are either difficult to build or the design was not well thought out.  Quality control on white metal castings seems to be a major factor.

 

My "stash" of kits include ones by Comet, DJH, Brassmasters and SE Finecast.  Of these, the SE Finecast Castle definitely belongs to the old school though with updated frames, etc.  As it is very similar to the ancient King I am rebuilding I know will enjoy that one!  The Comet Caprotti has been started and set aside - I seem to have made an error in that the steam pipes don't align correctly between smokebox and valve chest.  But Comet supplies good instructions and good support for replacing missing or damaged parts, etc.

 

I have looked into the box of the Brassmasters 4F kit and realize that in OO gauge the inside motion is going to be a bit tricky in what will be a very narrow space.  But the instructions that come with this kit are incredibly detailed which is a tremendous plus in my opinion.

 

Because of deteriorating nimbleness of fingers and eye sight I have been considering O Gauge and stumbled across this short but interesting thread:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99032-loco-kit-advice/

 

The recommendations for an O Gauge starter kit invariably seem to verge toward Jim McGeown's Connoisseur Models and this may well reflect his generosity in publishing detailed instructions on his website, not unlike Brassmasters and Comet.  As well as his candor - ref. the proposition on his home page "Who is Jim McGeown and is Connoisseur Models the sort of company I want to do business with?"  I have yet to contact the man and have no hidden interest in promoting his company.  Why is his attitude relatively uncommon in the kit building business?

 

I haven't mentioned DJH yet.  I know from Tony's videos that he likes the product and I have yet to form an opinion of my box of parts that will eventually become 46235 City of Birmingham in late 1950s garb.  But I don't think much of the message their website conveys - a kind of "take it or leave it " attitude with the prices always "Only £--- plus motor, gearbox and wheels".  And DJH supplies absolutely no instructions available until after you have parted with a good deal of money.

 

Am I missing something in making these observations?

You're missing nothing, in fact the points you make are spot on in my view. 

 

Referring to the kits you mention - Comet, DJH, Brassmasters and SE Finecast, may I give some personal observations, please?

 

I've built four Comet loco kits (maybe more) - an Ivatt 2-6-0, 'Royal Scot', Caprotti Black Five and an 8F (the last-mentioned, more of a Hornby make-over). All appeared as full reviews in the model press. The Ivatt was excellent and so was the 'Royal Scot' (apart from some rather dustbin-lid rivets on the latter's castings). The Caprotti presented more of a challenge - it was very difficult to mate the boiler and firebox angles/tapers correctly, such was the thickness of the castings. I also encountered great difficulty in getting enough clearance inside the splashers. All that said, it turned out all right (including my painting), as did the 8F. I've lost track of how many Comet chassis kits I've made. 

 

 

Here's my latest DJH kit under construction. Having just finished the EM version of this Kondike, this is the OO one destined for Grantham. What turns me towards DJH is the quality of the components and the ease of construction; the latter only if the chassis is rigid OO or EM. Since I wrote quite a few of the instruction sheets for DJH's loco kits, I can't comment on whether they're any good. All I'll say is that, though I write kit instructions, I never read them! 

 

DJH used to supply wheels (Romfords) in all their loco kits, but these have to be sourced independently now. I'll mention the website next time I speak to Stephen Widdows. 

 

I've used a few Brassmasters loco detailing kits and recently completed the Beames 0-8-4T in EM. The stuff seems to be all of very high-quality, clearly aimed at the more-accomplished modeller - those more likely to follow EM and/or P4. Taking the 0-8-4T, it's an example of 'design clever' (to plagiarise a recent use of the term) - too clever for me I'm afraid, though, by simplifying the chassis, I made it all right. Last week, I saw two Brassmasters 'Princess Royals' under construction - one in P4, one in EM. I looked at all the inside motion, the dozens of tiny etched parts (three pieces for each brake block/shoe alone) and thought - way beyond my capabilities. But, for the really-skilled, like Finney or Mitchell kits, they are superb. 

 

 

Here's my latest go at a SE Finecast loco kit - another J69. One or two were based at Grantham in 1958, so it's conceivable that they might have pottered down Stoke Bank from time to time. I saw examples in locations as far apart as Buckley (N. Wales) and Retford/Doncaster, so I had to have one. In many ways the body is a bit old-fashioned, being all white metal. The chassis, however, is state of the art 'basic' OO, being very accurately etched in nickel silver. Dave Ellis (the proprietor) will supply any of the castings/components from his range - a quite superb service. Some other manufacturers won't supply spares, unless you've damaged a part and send it back. 

 

As for Jim and Connoisseur Models - surely one of the most helpful proprietors in the business. A great guy, supplying a great range of kits - some now in 4mm. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

You're missing nothing, in fact the points you make are spot on in my view. 

 

Referring to the kits you mention - Comet, DJH, Brassmasters and SE Finecast, may I give some personal observations, please?

Tony, what an excellent riposte!  Quite made my morning.

 

Thank you, Paul

[St Enodoc]

K's have taken some stick-I am currently rebuilding and detailing a plastic Syphon kit-possibly the first specialist plastic kit on the market.  A very pleasant diversion, with bogies replaced with Dart Castings, new inner false roof to strengthen up the body, and now fitting various gubbins under the soleplate.  Not a bad model at all, in my opinion, and K's should have been commended for their offering.

The K's plastic rolling stock kits weren't bad for their day. A little sparse below the solebars, but the body mouldings were quite crisp. Over the years I've built a B Set, Siphon F, Low Siphon, 40' PBV and several of the four-wheeled wagons. I know some of them weren't strictly accurate representations of any particular prototype, but with a bit of detailing and fettling they still pass muster as 'layout models' today.

[stewartingram]

My first non-Airfix/Kitmaster kit was a Bec J17 whitemetal body kit to fit on the chassis of my Tri-ang diesel shunter which even my young eyes could see was totally unrealistic. I assembled it with Araldite and thought it looked OK except for the handrails which I never got right. I'm fairly sure I've still got it, I remember it could pull anything I put behind it.

 

Ed

I've still got a Bec J17 running, it will "do" as a "layout loco" until I find something better! I fitted a better ratio gear set in last year, but it still has its Triang wheels and runs well on Peco code 75.

 

Stewart

[The Stationmaster]

I think that's a fair assessment, Arthur. 

 

What's not been mentioned about K's is the plastic 8BA nuts and bolts supplied in later years (yes, white plastic!), and also plastic handrail knobs (DJH went down that ghastly route with regard to the latter for a time). I suppose because they offered a 'complete' kit (and advertised as such), it seemed a good idea at the time. 

 

No one has mentioned the later 'flat-pack' presentations, either. The box was certainly useless for putting the completed loco in afterwards (assuming it were completed), and the cling-film fixing to the flat cardboard was a beggar to remove. In one case, getting a valve gear fret out from it (with the cling film filling every slot and hole), I just set it on fire, reasoning I'd do less damage than trying to extricate it with a scalpel. 

 

Edited to change a hideous typo!

I have a K's 'flat pack' in my 'to do' pile - I got it cheap in someone or other's sale and it is of a basically unbuildable as intended by K's kit (the WR 15XX) although I have seen examples turned into excellent models but it remains a very long way down on my 'to do' list.  I sold on a couple of similarly packed wagon kits although in practice I found them (a long time ago) fairly simple to put together and run nicely using Peco bearings but they were so outlandishly heavy they simply weren't worth keeping and building.  And, perhaps strangely, I have never found real problems in building whitemetal wagon kits, the oldest I have - stashed away somewhere - is a glue assembled Wills GWR Shunters Truck which originally ran (badly) on Wrenn Universal track on a  3-rail layout but which was very happy on Peco Streamline after I converted to 2 rail.

 

Easy to forget that for all their problems whitemetal kits did give us something that nobody else could - engines and freight stock which could otherwise only be obtained by scratch building and that in some cases actually worked. 

[Tony Wright]

I have a K's 'flat pack' in my 'to do' pile - I got it cheap in someone or other's sale and it is of a basically unbuildable as intended by K's kit (the WR 15XX) although I have seen examples turned into excellent models but it remains a very long way down on my 'to do' list.  I sold on a couple of similarly packed wagon kits although in practice I found them (a long time ago) fairly simple to put together and run nicely using Peco bearings but they were so outlandishly heavy they simply weren't worth keeping and building.  And, perhaps strangely, I have never found real problems in building whitemetal wagon kits, the oldest I have - stashed away somewhere - is a glue assembled Wills GWR Shunters Truck which originally ran (badly) on Wrenn Universal track on a  3-rail layout but which was very happy on Peco Streamline after I converted to 2 rail.

 

Easy to forget that for all their problems whitemetal kits did give us something that nobody else could - engines and freight stock which could otherwise only be obtained by scratch building and that in some cases actually worked. 

Mike,

 

Your last statement definitely hit the spot as far as I'm concerned. As you say, despite their problems, white metal kits of the day gave us a huge range. And, as has been shown in these pages (getting on for 200 now!), they could be made to work; and work well.

 

 

Speaking of working well, friend Clem came round today, bringing with him the Little Engines O4/8 he's working on - in EM gauge. It has a very slight tight spot in one of the the rods, resulting in a slowing down in every revolution. This was evident on my straight DC controller. He then introduced a Pentroller, which sorted it out straight away, giving perfect running. I tried the Brassmasters 0-8-4T, which has no tight spot, and that worked no better on the Pentroller than on straight DC; in fact, it became ever so slightly noisy. Is this typical with feed-back types? 

 

I was mightily impressed with the Pentroller, but I'm less easy with the notion of sorting out a slight mechanical problem electronically. It just doesn't seem quite right to me. 

 

Satisfyingly, both the new OO locos seen earlier just bowled round Little Bytham - straight DC, no feed-back and definitely not DCC. So, with rigid chassis and no fancy electronics, smooth running is achievable, as I hope folk who've seen the layout will testify.

 

Returning to Clem and the O4/8. Both of us agree that the greatest pleasure in the hobby is making things for ourselves. As has been said so many times, that's what it's really about. Just like all the other folk who've used copious amounts of blood, sweat and tears making those old cast metal kits of yore! 

[coachmann]

Easy to forget that for all their problems whitemetal kits did give us something that nobody else could - engines and freight stock which could otherwise only be obtained by scratch building and that in some cases actually worked. 

I dont think those of us who started out in model railways 50 or more years ago could possibly forget those whitemetal kit days. They were all we had. In those days, pre-grouping and the Big four all-but ruled and kit manufacturers catered for our needs including those modelling Scottish railways. Who then would have thought that ready-to-run would take over the hobby one day. While in many ways it is a good thing because it allows everyone to own and run scale models, the very nature of RTR means the proprietary manufacturers have to have a big market for everything they produce, therefore It could be said the tail is wagging the dog these days. Scotland is the loser.

Edited June 10, 2015 by coachmann

[cctransuk]

 

 

What's not been mentioned about K's is the plastic 8BA nuts and bolts supplied in later years (yes, white plastic!)

 

Be fair, Tony - white nylon, and quite robust. I seem to recall that they were supplied in order to electrically isolate the motion or pick-ups - or both!

 

I can't concur with the widespread hilarity about K's kits which circulates today. For their day, they were our salvation when we wanted to graduate beyond Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang.

 

I have fond memories of a J70 (?) tram loco that was my very first loco kit build when I was still operating HD 3-rail. Clearances below the RTR motor bogie that powered it were practically non-existent, but a length of brass shim and a couple of drawing pin heads, united by my first attempt at soldering, and attached directly to the lower motor brush tag, produced a very reliable runner with amazing haulage powers. Quite what it was doing running alongside a Dublo Duchess, 8F, 4MT and N2 is best not enquired into. It eventually gained a 3-railed Brush Type 2 - in blue / white livery, as an a running mate!

 

However, I wander from the theme.

 

One of my all-time best runners is a K's Ivatt 2-6-2T. Apart from adding some better sprung buffers, I'm sure that it utilised all of the supplied components. I recall no excessive problems with what was, at the time, one of my early builds, and the result bears side-by-side comparison with the Bachmann model.

 

So - denigrate not the shade of Keyser; they were manna from heaven -  when we impoverished youths could afford them !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited June 10, 2015 by cctransuk

[APOLLO]

I still have my BEC TT gauge white metal locos, LMS 4F, Brush type 4, J50, J72 and a GEM King, all designed to fit various Tri-ang TT chassis. They were simple and easy to make and cheap also back in the late 60's. I don't run them now, no layout and they're all worn out anyway !!

 

http://www.ncb.ndo.co.uk/rail/3mm/Getting_started/cast_loco/index.html

 

I believe you can still get some of them from the 3mm scale society.

 

http://www.3smr.co.uk/locos.html

 

Back then the bees knees !!

 

Brit15

[Andy Reichert]

Mike,

 

Your last statement definitely hit the spot as far as I'm concerned. As you say, despite their problems, white metal kits of the day gave us a huge range. And, as has been shown in these pages (getting on for 200 now!), they could be made to work; and work well.

 

Clem 04 8.jpg

 

Speaking of working well, friend Clem came round today, bringing with him the Little Engines O4/8 he's working on - in EM gauge. It has a very slight tight spot in one of the the rods, resulting in a slowing down in every revolution. This was evident on my straight DC controller. He then introduced a Pentroller, which sorted it out straight away, giving perfect running. I tried the Brassmasters 0-8-4T, which has no tight spot, and that worked no better on the Pentroller than on straight DC; in fact, it became ever so slightly noisy. Is this typical with feed-back types? 

 

I was mightily impressed with the Pentroller, but I'm less easy with the notion of sorting out a slight mechanical problem electronically. It just doesn't seem quite right to me. 

 

Satisfyingly, both the new OO locos seen earlier just bowled round Little Bytham - straight DC, no feed-back and definitely not DCC. So, with rigid chassis and no fancy electronics, smooth running is achievable, as I hope folk who've seen the layout will testify.

 

Returning to Clem and the O4/8. Both of us agree that the greatest pleasure in the hobby is making things for ourselves. As has been said so many times, that's what it's really about. Just like all the other folk who've used copious amounts of blood, sweat and tears making those old cast metal kits of yore! 

 

I agree that mechanisms should be built to first run flawlessly on DC. In fact I consider it the pre-requiste before adding the likes of some electronics or DCC or the like to then be able to operate it more realistically.

 

Andy

[Focalplane]

I agree that mechanisms should be built to first run flawlessly on DC. In fact I consider it the pre-requiste before adding the likes of some electronics or DCC or the like to then be able to operate it more realistically.

 

Andy

Andy, I could not agree more with this statement.  I am completely sold on DCC as well as the opportunity to add sound, but when it comes to basic motor running in, the good old DC controller I have (MRC Railpower 400 Tech II complete with 110 volt plug and needing a 110/220v converter) comes into its own.

 

I did once own an early British Back EMF device with slide controls but it disappeared* when I lived in Houston.  It worked well, but obviously could not offer the variety of options that DCC does.

 

Perhaps it's the American influence on my life as I welcome DCC as a step forward.  My wife says that life in the UK has become difficult after spending time in the States and enjoying the positive "can do attitude" to just about everything and anything.  I fully understand her feeling this way.

 

I respect Tony and others for their approach to DC/DCC but would hope that they see the light one day!

 

* When you are constantly on the move, things do tend to disappear.  Don't ask me how, they just do.  These days I envy those who never strayed far from the place they were born.

[Tony Wright]

Be fair, Tony - white nylon, and quite robust. I seem to recall that they were supplied in order to electrically isolate the motion or pick-ups - or both!

 

I can't concur with the widespread hilarity about K's kits which circulates today. For their day, they were our salvation when we wanted to graduate beyond Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang.

 

I have fond memories of a J70 (?) tram loco that was my very first loco kit build when I was still operating HD 3-rail. Clearances below the RTR motor bogie that powered it were practically non-existent, but a length of brass shim and a couple of drawing pin heads, united by my first attempt at soldering, and attached directly to the lower motor brush tag, produced a very reliable runner with amazing haulage powers. Quite what it was doing running alongside a Dublo Duchess, 8F, 4MT and N2 is best not enquired into. It eventually gained a 3-railed Brush Type 2 - in blue / white livery, as an a running mate!

 

However, I wander from the theme.

 

One of my all-time best runners is a K's Ivatt 2-6-2T. Apart from adding some better sprung buffers, I'm sure that it utilised all of the supplied components. I recall no excessive problems with what was, at the time, one of my early builds, and the result bears side-by-side comparison with the Bachmann model.

 

So - denigrate not the shade of Keyser; they were manna from heaven -  when we impoverished youths could afford them !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

I never used the K's plastic nuts and bolts so can't comment on whether they were robust or not. I don't think they were for insulation purposes, either. From my recollection, K's pick-ups were in a kind of plastic 'sandwich'. Anyway, all K's wheels were insulated at source because of their plastic centres, so why the need to insulate further?

 

It's never been my intention to denigrate K's kits. I take my hat off to those, like you, who've made them work and work well, using all the mechanical components supplied in the kit. I never did, though I tried - I could never get any of the wheelsets to run true (both those pre-quartered and, especially, the 'D' ones), nor get the sweet running I insisted on from a motor. Looking back (my memory fades), I built at least two RODs, a 97XX, a P2, a Black Five, 'Jubilee', 28XX, 14XX, plus a few others which I forget. After my failures with the ROD and 97XX, I just chucked the motors, gears and wheels away, or gave them away. Because K's flanges were finer than the contemporary Romfords, I had to turn down the latter's flanges to fit them in the K's frames for the P2. 

 

So, in a nutshell, my experience with K's loco kits were that the wheels were never concentric, the Mk.1 and Mk.2 motors were noisy and 'coggy' (and eventually fell apart) and that the gears were not well-made. The later, HP2M motors (some complete with a gearbox) I found awful and prone to just burn out. The frames, though basic, were fine and the body castings excellent for their day. Guys, like you, who made the K's mechanics work, are definitely in a minority in my experience.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Andy, I could not agree more with this statement.  I am completely sold on DCC as well as the opportunity to add sound, but when it comes to basic motor running in, the good old DC controller I have (MRC Railpower 400 Tech II complete with 110 volt plug and needing a 110/220v converter) comes into its own.

 

I did once own an early British Back EMF device with slide controls but it disappeared* when I lived in Houston.  It worked well, but obviously could not offer the variety of options that DCC does.

 

Perhaps it's the American influence on my life as I welcome DCC as a step forward.  My wife says that life in the UK has become difficult after spending time in the States and enjoying the positive "can do attitude" to just about everything and anything.  I fully understand her feeling this way.

 

I respect Tony and others for their approach to DC/DCC but would hope that they see the light one day!

 

* When you are constantly on the move, things do tend to disappear.  Don't ask me how, they just do.  These days I envy those who never strayed far from the place they were born.

Paul,

 

I don't want to start another bout of enmity with regard to DC v DCC, but what 'light' am I expected to see with DCC? 

 

I get as near-perfect running as I insist on with straight DC. I do not need to park locos anywhere on my layout - where they do need to stand they can be isolated by a simple on/off switch controlling a section. When I have a stray short-circuit (very rare), everything doesn't shut down. When the problem is sorted, I do not need to re-programme any loco. My locos only move when power is given to them - they don't take off by themselves without warning. With over 150 steam-outline locos (mostly built from metal kits), I don't need to break my bank by buying all those decoders. Any available space in my locos is filled with ballast as necessary. I've never been convinced by digital steam sound, and at exhibitions where diesel sound is employed I find it quite wearing. My running schedule takes in the 14 hours between 6.00 am and 8.00 pm, in the high summer of 1958, so there's no need for lights.

 

How could I improve things by employing DCC? A personal view, of course.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Focalplane]

Tony, I do see your point, particularly the number of locos and the existing investment in track work can make he changeover very expensive and so on. I discovered DCC while in the States where lighting and whistle sounds add a great deal of atmosphere to the operation of a locomotive. Sound actually helps one understand the reality of driving a steam locomotive rather than simply switching it on and off with a rheostat. My Fire and Drive experience on the GWSR ten years ago also had a lot to do with my adding sound to select locos. I feel I am there, in the cab!

 

Just the way I see things! Paul

[bbishop]

Guys,

 

Please can we avoid the analogue v digital arguments.

 

Tony has built up a collection of locomotives that work perfectly as analogue - and has constructed a layout on which to run them.

 

I have chosen the digital path for two reasons. Firstly the electrics are simple for my exhibition layout, just four busbars running the length of the layout. Secondly, I enjoy the sound and lighting effects achievable with DCC. And several friends have adopted DCC for their exhibition layouts, permitting the exchange of locomotives. But all the locomotives are built to operate in DCC, yes they are run in as analogue, but are chipped once they are "sweet".

 

However, I help to operate a large P4 layout (Southwark Bridge) and it would be just impossible to run it with DCC.

 

So, horses for courses, and let's all get on together.

 

Bill

[Clem]

Mike,

 

Your last statement definitely hit the spot as far as I'm concerned. As you say, despite their problems, white metal kits of the day gave us a huge range. And, as has been shown in these pages (getting on for 200 now!), they could be made to work; and work well.

 

Clem 04 8.jpg

 

Speaking of working well, friend Clem came round today, bringing with him the Little Engines O4/8 he's working on - in EM gauge. It has a very slight tight spot in one of the the rods, resulting in a slowing down in every revolution. This was evident on my straight DC controller. He then introduced a Pentroller, which sorted it out straight away, giving perfect running. I tried the Brassmasters 0-8-4T, which has no tight spot, and that worked no better on the Pentroller than on straight DC; in fact, it became ever so slightly noisy. Is this typical with feed-back types? 

 

I was mightily impressed with the Pentroller, but I'm less easy with the notion of sorting out a slight mechanical problem electronically. It just doesn't seem quite right to me. 

 

Satisfyingly, both the new OO locos seen earlier just bowled round Little Bytham - straight DC, no feed-back and definitely not DCC. So, with rigid chassis and no fancy electronics, smooth running is achievable, as I hope folk who've seen the layout will testify.

 

Returning to Clem and the O4/8. Both of us agree that the greatest pleasure in the hobby is making things for ourselves. As has been said so many times, that's what it's really about. Just like all the other folk who've used copious amounts of blood, sweat and tears making those old cast metal kits of yore! 

Just a quick post to confirm your last statement, Tony... And to say how much I enjoyed my visit to Little Bytham today. I've seen a part built Klondyke and part built J69 running on LB today  - both running as sweetly as anything I've seen - both destined for Grantham... What a treat they're in for! Also one of Tony's O4/3s (Little Engines) was run. I don't know whether it's due to the weight, but whitemetal (and well ballasted etched) kits do seem to somehow reflect the mass they represent better that most RTR locos... or is it just my imagination?

 

Clem

Edited June 10, 2015 by Clem

[S.A.C Martin]

My apologies for the late reply Tony. I had thought I had posted a reply but perhaps it has been caught up in the ether.

 

Splendid work Simon, and thoroughly 'up my street' with regard to folk making/adapting models for themselves. The Hornby Railroad range makes an excellent starting point for super-detailing projects - turning the products, as you have shown, into most acceptable locos. So, without, I hope, perceived as being patronising, a hearty 'Well Done!'. Please bring them round for a run on LB before too long. 

 

Regarding my book, I'm astonished now how much it's out of date, especially with regard to the RTR stuff. Another N Gauge A3 and A4 have appeared in the last five years, and there are the numerous manifestations regarding the Bachmann A2 now. There are also the multitude of Graeme King adaptations now available. But, I'm glad you like it. It sold well enough, but not well enough for a revisit, despite Irwell's superb job of designing and printing it. They regard it one of the 'prettiest' books they've ever published.

 

As an aside, I've just completed my latest prototype book with Irwell - describing the green to blue transition on BR on the ECML, to be published later this year. Most of the green-period pictures were taken by Andrew Forsyth, and all the blue ones by me. Since my first one sold really well, there is optimism over this, with more in the pipeline projected. I've also promised one for Strathwood, so I'll have to get on with that. I suppose it's down to a diminishing market for BR steam-era publications - books bought by those who remember the time. Irwell's principal market is that era, but anyone who can remember it really well is now getting on or no longer has a memory! I started trainspotting just after the BR Modernisation Plan was announced, so the writing was on the wall for steam before I even got going - and I'll be 70 next year! By the way, there are more of my urchin ramblings in the current BRILL. 

 

So, publishers have to investigate a younger market. The oldest pictures I took in the forthcoming book are now 50 years old, and the majority 35-40 years old. Andrew's pictures date from the late-'50s onwards. Anyone remembering the blue period well must be now in their 50s - a market still very much alive, or we hope so. 

 

But, the main reason for responding was to congratulate you on your model-making. 

 

Thank you kindly Tony, that means a lot to me. I shall certainly try and come up this summer now that I am mobile with my own vehicle again.

 

Personally speaking Tony, regarding the book, though it needs an update as you say, I find it's the modelling which is of interest, not the RTR subject matter. What you've done to the RTR models and the kits is far more interesting than just the record of the RTR models available. I think my favourite of your models in there is the hybrid Lord Farringdon Bachmann/SE Finecast A4 model, purely because it really looks the part despite coming from humble beginnings. It's what I've tried to emulate with my A4s albeit you'll be glad to know I've changed the shade of blue I am using!

 

 

[Phil Brighton]

Hello all,

 

Tony has very kindly invited me up to Little Bytham and I am planning to bring the DJH C1 I am building. I must admit I am not wildly impressed with the haulage capability so far, which surprises me as its pretty heavy and I struggle to get quiet running. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it gets on and if I can get it painted and lined by next week!

 

As far a DJH kits go I have enjoyed the fact that its got quite a significant amount of brass parts as it has given me more confidence with this material and will hopefully lead to trying out a full brass kit.

 

[AndyID]

Re. DCC v DC, it's very much a case of "whatever floats your boat". Personally, I'd like to see a hybrid system that incorporates some of the features of both systems, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen unless I get moving and do it myself

[cctransuk]

Thanks John,

 

I never used the K's plastic nuts and bolts so can't comment on whether they were robust or not. I don't think they were for insulation purposes, either. From my recollection, K's pick-ups were in a kind of plastic 'sandwich'. Anyway, all K's wheels were insulated at source because of their plastic centres, so why the need to insulate further?

 

It's never been my intention to denigrate K's kits. I take my hat off to those, like you, who've made them work and work well, using all the mechanical components supplied in the kit. I never did, though I tried - I could never get any of the wheelsets to run true (both those pre-quartered and, especially, the 'D' ones), nor get the sweet running I insisted on from a motor. Looking back (my memory fades), I built at least two RODs, a 97XX, a P2, a Black Five, 'Jubilee', 28XX, 14XX, plus a few others which I forget. After my failures with the ROD and 97XX, I just chucked the motors, gears and wheels away, or gave them away. Because K's flanges were finer than the contemporary Romfords, I had to turn down the latter's flanges to fit them in the K's frames for the P2. 

 

So, in a nutshell, my experience with K's loco kits were that the wheels were never concentric, the Mk.1 and Mk.2 motors were noisy and 'coggy' (and eventually fell apart) and that the gears were not well-made. The later, HP2M motors (some complete with a gearbox) I found awful and prone to just burn out. The frames, though basic, were fine and the body castings excellent for their day. Guys, like you, who made the K's mechanics work, are definitely in a minority in my experience.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Tony,

 

The "denigrate" was not aimed at you - but the very mention of K's kits in a thread always seems to bring out the 'knockers' !!

 

I suspect that those who are most vociferous in this respect bought K's kits, S/H, relatively recently, and were unprepared for the amount of 'engineering' that we, as routine, put into our loco builds when the kits were originally released.

 

JMHO, anyway.

 

Regards from sunny Crete - which is totally devoid of railways,

John Isherwood.

[gr.king]

Tony has very kindly invited me up to Little Bytham and I am planning to bring the DJH C1 I am building. I must admit I am not wildly impressed with the haulage capability so far, which surprises me as its pretty heavy and I struggle to get quiet running. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it gets on and if I can get it painted and lined by next week!

 

 

Img_0770.jpg

 

Blimey! An LNER green paint job in a week? Spare time only or do you have "24-7" to throw at it?

 

I'm sure that maximised and balanced added lead will sort out the haulage ability to a level that will satisfy almost anybody. No doubt Tony will have some pointers if needed.

[jwealleans]

Ks kits are still a worthwhile exercise if you update with modern components, which I'm sure is what would have been done were the range being introduced now (and is probably what will happen as the new owners get to grips). I bought this for twenty quid on the second hand stand at Wakefield a few years ago, mostly built in EM with the original chassis and an open frame motor (not K's). Replacement Comet chassis and rods, W & T wheels and a Mashima/High Level drivetrain and the result is well worth the effort.

 

 

What made me especially pleased was that, if Robert Forsythe's book is accurate and this is the original box, the kit is older than me. I drew a great deal of satisfaction from completing it all that time after it left the factory.

 

Phil, when you say 'not wildly impressed', what will it pull? My unweighted one manages 6 brass MJT carriages, but as Graeme has pointed out there is scope for quite a bit of lead in the body.

Edited October 26, 2018 by jwealleans

[Phil Brighton]

Blimey! An LNER green paint job in a week? Spare time only or do you have "24-7" to throw at it?

 

I'm sure that maximised and balanced added lead will sort out the haulage ability to a level that will satisfy almost anybody. No doubt Tony will have some pointers if needed.

Spare time only (I shouldn't be writing this now!) and even that is lacking as I have to work half the weekend. So far so good the Precision Paints green is lovely and covers really well.

 

Phil, when you say 'not wildly impressed', what will it pull? My unweighted one manages 6 brass MJT carriages, but as Graeme has pointed out there is scope for quite a bit of lead in the body.

I just kind of just lazily assumed it would outpull the ready to run stuff as it weighs more but I guess its as much about balance as anything. It struggled with 8 plastic Kirk coaches which the RTR models streak away with.