Wright writes.....

[Atso]

 

...I've said before (too many times?) that I'm finding the burgeoning and inexorable rise of RTR really quite boring now, and not just in OO. So many layouts in the press and at shows now seem to be stages for what the RTR boys can give us. I've also said that I have great admiration for those who alter things for themselves, but I do see a diminishing in folk actually making things for themselves - not a lone view if my conversations at Warley were typical.

 

How refreshing, then, to see some new-technology 2mm loco bodies presented for me to look at, in the form of a 3D-printed J6 and O4. Both were the work of Atso, and they were superb. I hope he posts images.

 

 

...Agreed on the 3D printed bodies, Steve brought them to Grantham to show us and they really are outstanding.

 

Tony and Jonathan,

 

I was great to meet and chat with you both on Saturday and thank you for your kind words regarding my N gauge efforts.

 

Tony, having seen some of your locos, the B17 and H16 in particular, I think that given the choice between a Hornby B17 and yours, I know which one I would want (and it doesn't come in a red box!). I'm still coming to terms with the weight of your models as well as the shock and horror when you just plonked them into my hands - I hate to think how much each of those would be worth when your time is factored in!

 

Jonathan, thanks for taking the time to explain some of your coach building methods; I'll be seeing what can be adapted for N gauge in the future!

 

The J6 has progressed since Saturday, in fact it's not multiplied! Handrails have been fitted and the locos have been progressing through the paint shop today. However, I must own up to a mistake on one, I'd fitted the handrails and given the model a coat of etch primer when I noticed that it was missing the handrail knobs immediately in front of the dome on the boiler. I've corrected this on the second J6 but cannot bring myself to try and take the boiler handrails off the first - it'll remain in this state for the foreseeable future. I've now got two more J6's being printed but these will be in BR condition with a shortened chimney, different washout plugs and the piston rod cover removed. These will eventually be making their way onto other layouts...

 

I've attached a photo of my progress and must apologies for the poor quality on my phone camera in artificial light. I'll try and get some better photos during the daytime tomorrow. The coin is a ten pence piece to give an idea of the size of these locomotives.

 

 

Having looked at the picture, I think that the loco in the foreground needs another coat of matt black before I varnish it ready for transfers.

 

Edited to include a better picture below...

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Atso

[iak]

R-T-R, Kit, scratch, printed.....

Its all raw material to me, I mean look at at tatties?

Boiled, baked , bashed, roasted, fryed etc... Still tatties in the end.

Taking a Hornby/Bachmann and rewheeling, repainting, tarting up and craping up is as much as putting a Parkside/Cambrian together or drooling/soldering up Newitt underframe or Masokits screw coupling.

Its all modelling to me.

The result is what matters, the means is merely a process to acheive the results you desire ....

Edited November 28, 2016 by iak

[Headstock]

Thanks Larry,

 

I don't know whether I'm denying myself the right to own a perfectly good Hornby B12. I do agree, however, that its wheels will probably be a better representation than standard Romfords. 61553, by the way, has Gibson wheels, which do have the right spoke-shape. A shame, then, that they wobble a bit. 

 

Am I hammering RTR? I said I think its boring; in the same way, when passing the stands of 'box shifters' at shows, I take no notice, much preferring those showing how things can be made.

 

That it's good cannot be denied but one model is just the same as another. To own an item, all one has to do is to have earned enough money to have bought it. I also agree that better RTR has probably attracted more people into the hobby, or back into the hobby. That said, RTR has kept its own sector buoyant but it's to the detriment of the kit side of things.

 

This theme keeps on recurring on this thread (because I won't let it go?), but I keep in close touch with the manufacturers of kits, very close with one or two. The tale is always the same - a diminishing market, fewer kits sold, fewer folk actually building them and (most of them) getting on in years. When I demonstrate at shows I'm demonstrating the techniques which I use to build my models. I don't demonstrate how to earn money, how to write a cheque, how to open a box or how to put something on the track. Does anyone do that at shows? Granted, at the Warley show I had a couple of RTR carriage conversions (major conversions) which, if nothing else, confirms my 'status' as a hypocrite.

 

I'll reiterate; I do admire those who alter RTR stuff for themselves. Someone questioned whether my comments were more towards steam-outline, but I think it's across the whole board. In many cases, RTR conversions are superior to kit-built equivalents. The same might be said for straight-from-the-box stuff. However, I do get a bit tired of seeing the same RTR locos running on layouts at shows and the same ones in the model press. On one occasion, jumping out of a front cover of a mag' was an RTR loco (running on a layout where much of the infrastructure and architecture must have been scratch-built) where nothing had been altered on it. It even had that ghastly snow-plough of a coupling attached to its front bogie. 

 

One cannot stop progress and the better RTR stuff has made the hobby so much more egalitarian. However, rather like today's more uniform real railway, I find it very hard to generate personal interest in it. 

 

My young Australian friend, Jesse, left today, having spent a most-enjoyable week with us (mutually-enjoyable). At 20, he's still very much RTR-dependent. But, for how long? Not that long if his enthusiasm and eagerness to learn are anything to go by. He's itching to start building kits and next year (I think he'll come back) I'll be showing him how. 

 

Finally, am I to assume that you use RTR, Larry? If so, does that extend to the carriages on your layout? Looking at recently (and photographing) examples of your work, I'd be surprised if you did. 

 

RTR is fantastic if you can't resist chopping them up into bits and then putting them back together again. Below is an old Mainline/Bachmann? Collette TK literally chopped in two and reformed to make the basis of the shorter composite. Much to my amusement, the resulting surgery placed the queen posts in the correct relation to one another. They were too far apart on the original, although it did have a better roof profile than the Comet kit. Apparently, Bachmann did produce a composite, but it was actually the third just rebranded!

 

I think that the Hornby B12 looks superb in the LNER green, I don't think I could be trusted with it, who knows what may become of such a thing in my possession. Your own effort is equally superb, it would be my preferred route if I really wanted such a locomotive.

 

I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you as regards boring exhibition layouts that rely on RTR. I didn't attend the Warley show, however, what I have seen on YouTube left me unable to distinguish some layouts from another. When I was researching and building stock for LSGC very little could be accommodated by RTR. If I was starting again, I can honestly say that not a lot has changed. Perhaps it is my penchant for mostly modeling an era before the invention of the MK1 and the 16-ton mineral wagon. What would railway modelers do without them?  Fortunately, there are still gems to be found, layouts where it is possible to have a conversation about modeling rather than products, that will always command my interest.

[Tony Wright]

R-T-R, Kit, scratch, printed.....

Its all raw material to me, I mean look at at tatties?

Boiled, baked , bashed, roasted, fryed etc... Still tatties in the end.

Taking a Hornby/Bachmann and rewheeling, repainting, tarting up and craping up is as much as putting a Parkside/Cambrian together or drooling/soldering up Newitt underframe or Masokits screw coupling.

Its all modelling to me.

The result is what matters, the means is merely a process to acheive the results you desire ....

I agree, as long as you do something personal with what you've got. 

 

I also agree it's the result that matters but what you haven't mentioned is 'satisfaction'. The satisfaction of having made a loco by yourself. Or, at least that's how I derive satisfaction in most of my personal modelling. Though this could be perceived as a 'bombshell', does just opening a brand new red/blue/red/blue box and putting the RTR object of your delight onto the track without having personally altered/detailed/improved it constitute modelling? 

[salmonpastures]

I agree, as long as you do something personal with what you've got. 

 

I also agree it's the result that matters but what you haven't mentioned is 'satisfaction'. The satisfaction of having made a loco by yourself. Or, at least that's how I derive satisfaction in most of my personal modelling. Though this could be perceived as a 'bombshell', does just opening a brand new red/blue/red/blue box and putting the RTR object of your delight onto the track without having personally altered/detailed/improved it constitute modelling? 

Thankfully we all get some satisfaction from doing things our own way.

I can also see exactly where Tony is coming from and having had the pleasure of seeing the end results at LB in the flesh his results speak for themselves.

 

For me [who is nearer 70 than 60] I have to say "my modelling time"  is a factor I now consider more and more & so personally I have no problem putting a Bachmann D11, 04, J11 or Hornby A1 or D16 on the tracks for following reasons:

a, They are IMO truly wonderful models,,, and these days built to a standard I will NEVER achieve.

b, They very quickly & easily fill in pieces of the pictorial jigsaw that I am trying to create with my own layout. 

 

But Messrs Bachmann & Hornby I have to say as an "active exhibition layout owner" some of the bits you include in your lovely models either:

1, never get put on as they stop the loco working properly

2, simply disappear

3, get knocked off incredibly quickly,,, and I have spent far too long replacing the driving wheel pickups on a couple of them because again IMO the original designs are nowhere near up to the rigours of bouncing around in the back of a van 3 or 4 times a year on the way to a show.

 

However I also get an enormous amount of pleasure from either scratch building a loco or putting a kit together and this pleasure is multiplied 10 fold if somebody at a show either comments on them or even better recognises my efforts at scratchbuilding for what it is supposed to be.

 

Lucky me,,, my fingers usually do what my brain asks of them and I am well aware not everyone is as fortunate as myself,,,, so if they are modelling "in their own way" by using RTR product than for me it is a definite case of "gud on yer" as you are keeping the hobby alive to the benefit of all.

[Michael Delamar]

In 7mm scale, there are some absolutely beautiful diesel kits, produced by a certain company owned by a Mr. P. Waterman. Were I a lover of diesels, I would sell my soul for such a kit, even if it meant changing scale. Heck, they are so lovely that even I, a steam obsessive who thinks that anything post 1923 is dangerously modern, find myself seriously tempted.

 

 

Wanna buy it?

 

[Headstock]

Tony

        You mentioned modified r.t.r well this a about as far as I can go with modifying a Loco. Graeme's resin and etched parts to be added to what was a Hornby A3 Sandwich originally, to start creating  a A1/1 Great Northern .

      It will be pulling the completed Tender using a GBL Mallard body , much modified as well which was a good start started as it has the correct straight sides . It is fitted to a Hornby A4 chassis, why ?, simply because its much better than any kit version in looks , details etc and costs about £7 . 

 

IMG_1581.JPG

 

IMG_1582.JPG

 

Hi Mick,

 

I may be reading you wrong but I can't agree that the Hornby A4 chassis is better than any kit version especially regards looks and detail. I would say it was passable nothing more.

[westerner]

As someone whose fingers often find difficulty in obeying my brain I am very glad of the offerings of the 2 H's and B. I do try and alter them a bit. I suppose I get My satisfaction from building MY layout, all of it, baseboards, laying track( however inexpertly), making my buildings and scenery and then playing with my creation as many on RMweb do without building their own locos.

[micklner]

Hi Mick,

 

I may be reading you wrong but I can't agree that the Hornby A4 chassis is better than any kit version especially regards looks and detail. I would say it was passable nothing more.

  

 

    I was referring to the Tender chassis. GN Loco will be actually using a modified A3 version.

    While chassis are being mentioned . Hornby/Bachmann have a for me reasonable level of detail for the price, can pull a normal level of weight (for my needs) and work 99% of the time without any fuss. The current Hornby versions only weak spot is perhaps too fine/thin metal  in the super detail valve gear dept. You can always go for the chunkier Railroad version if needed. Currnt Bachmann tend to be a bit beefier. I do not include the dire split chassis efforts.

   Passable perhaps  is in the eye of the beholder.

   I have seen and suffered some total horrors of so called kit chassis's over the years trying to build them and then getting them to work can be "fun". Unless you want to go to the expense and possible aggravation? of building of something like a Finney chassis. I remember someone built one of his A4's on this forum a while back and when finished it wouldn't go around any sort of curve.  I will quite happily avoid that kind of aggravation and expense. 

    Of course the comments only relate to rtr chassis that can be used on other models as well as the ones they were designed for.

Edited November 28, 2016 by micklner

[mullie]

I've also noticed the strange anomaly of the layout where the track, buildings and setting have obviously been well researched and executed but all the stock and I do mean all has come straight from a box with no work done on it. Therefore, to my eyes the layout jars because the stock doesn't blend into the whole. I could appreciate it if some of the stock was weathered as it could then be seen as a work in progress but the way these layouts looked and some I did see more than once this was normal.

 

For my own part I deliberately moved my layout back to the 1948-55 period because I wanted to do something different, at the moment I'm bashing things to get some approximations of what would have been seen in Cambridgeshire around that time and when the garage warms up again I will be tackling my first chassis and I have some etched wagon kits to try. Increasingly it is the building of things which I enjoy though a lot of my stock is rtr but never straight out of the box. Everything gets treated from locos, not all of which are weathered yet to people and packing cases, nothing is simply placed on the layout or at the very least I come back to it later, sometimes it might be a year or two because of work commitments, eventually everything is blended in.

 

I would describe my layout as an 'artists impression' I simply don't know enough at this stage to get things right but I shall enjoy learning and making. The following wagons are a real dogs dinner, mainly Bachmann but one open is an old Mainline model I've had since I was 13, has been experimented on multiple times and now runs with a new chassis. I have a soft spot for it. Other wagons are a mix of modified rtr and kits as is the coaching stock. All opens run with removable loads.

 

 

I built the ground signals, they work but don't have any sort of mechanism to operate them.

 

Martyn

[thegreenhowards]

Glad you all seem to have had a good time at Warley and I hope everyone got back safely.  I must confess that I have tried twice to get there and failed dismally on both occasions so now do not even attempt it!  I must say that in my humble opinion Copenhagen Fields must be the most stunning exhibition layout currently on the circuit. Everything looks "right" and is a testament to the team at the MRC who have been building it for more that 25 years. Such dedication is amazing. 

 

You 4mm types must be delighted with the Hornby announcements. Will thete be a B12 on the M&GN route through LB?

 

Martin Long

It was my first time at Warley and I was really impressed by the number of quality big layouts. Grantham was the pick - I spent an hour hooked and then had to drag myself away to see the rest of the show! But Billingham, The Summit, Calvercar town, Bleach Green were also stunning. Now being controversial, I agree Copenhagen Fields looks magnificent, but I find the operating exceedingly dull as they only seem to run a couple of trains round such that it repeats every five mins or so. It may work for the short attention span of the general public, but it soon got boring for me!

 

The number of traders was also impressive and I spent far too much money!

 

Andy

[bgman]

I wasn't certain whether I should post my early period broad Gauge loco build "effort " here but gelled on by my brief conversation with TW at Whoorley ( yes I know it's mis-spelt ) on Saturday afternoon I've decided to throw it into the Kit build/ scratch build or RTR fray.

 

It represents ( to my eyes ) a Bristol & Exeter 4-4-0 locomotive painted to show it on its last legs.

At the time of building it there were no kits on the market and I decided to "bite the bullet" and try scratch building my first loco, chassis and all.

I must admit it gave me many head scratching moments but overall a great satisfaction, being approx. 85-90% home made with very few professional tools. There are many things I would change should I decided to scratch build another today, but it also provided me with the courage, so to speak, to do the cut and shut modelling employed by many of us on the RTR models available on today's market.

I must say I have my feet planted in both camps as far as kit/ scratch or RTR is concerned but with the seemingly demise of the odd locos some may require from kit manufacturers or the Big Boys RTR it may just be worth giving it a go if you feel able to.

 

 

 

The photographs were taken following a re-hash on the workbench when I'd decided to take out the cordless motor and replace it with a separate motor and gearbox to haul more wagons.

 

Grahame

p.s. Thanks for the tip on the Great Bear chassis Tony !

[asmay2002]

It is difficult to see what application a class of Bulleid 2-8-2s would have had on the Southern, when the less powerful Pacifics were perfectly adequate, and in fact over represented.  As Coachman reminded us, the permanent way was in need of upgrading, and as a commercial proposition for the region's traffic, what was the point?  

  Bulleid did not intend to build Pacifics.  He wanted to build 2-8-2s but was forced into building 4-6-2s instead by the SR's Chief Civil Engineer.  They would have done the jobs the 4-6-2s did.

[Grafarman]

Wanna buy it?

 

IMG_1947.JPG

 

'Ow much...?   Seriously....it looks awesome...

[Headstock]

    I was referring to the Tender chassis. GN Loco will be actually using a modified A3 version.

    While chassis are being mentioned . Hornby/Bachmann have a for me reasonable level of detail for the price, can pull a normal level of weight (for my needs) and work 99% of the time without any fuss. The current Hornby versions only weak spot is perhaps too fine/thin metal  in the super detail valve gear dept. You can always go for the chunkier Railroad version if needed. Bachmann tend to be a bit beefier.

   Passable perhaps  is in the eye of the beholder.

   I have seen and suffered some total horrors of so called kit chassis's over the years trying to build them and then getting them to work can be "fun". Unless you want to go to the expense and possible aggravation? of building of something like a Finney chassis. I remember someone built one of his A4's on this forum a while back and when finished it wouldn't go around any sort of curve.  I will quite happily avoid that kind of aggravation and expense. 

 

Thanks for the clarification Mick, I thought I had got it wrong. I think that the valve gear looks a bit tinny but not the worst. The same gear looks horrible on the A3, possibly because of the position of the motion bracket? I'm working on the fitting of Comet valve gear to my cheap purchase A3. The amounts of slop in the Hornby chassis will require a bit of adjustment to get everything working. One thing I do find a little odd visually is that the chassis just ends short of the front driving wheels and then starts again beyond the cylinders. That will require a little work.

 

I've dismantled one of the tenders off the A3 to find out why they all ride so high. Having measured all round in comparison to the GA I'm pretty certain that the frames sit too high on the wheels in relation the position of the axle boxes. This can be corrected by cutting through the webbing and lowering the whole thing by about 1 mil. The brake pull rods are then the correct height off the deck, the platforms between loco and tender line up and the top of the tender sits where it should in relation to the cab. Alternatively, it would probably be just as quick to knock up a spare Crownline chassis. As it is brass it is much finer than the Hornby one, sits at the correct height and will be more free running. It will also require painting so not much time saved.

 

I will look forwards to seeing your A1/1, your approach produces a far better result than the old Crownline model. I think the brass  Crownline tender just edges the modern Hornby ones but of course, it requires more work.and I am loathed to discard anything that can be corrected.

[rowanj]

I hesitate to challenge or even contribute to the views of the celebrated and experienced modellers who post on this forum, but a couple of observations occur.

 

At the last Newcastle Show, many/most of the layouts were excellent, with a good mix of kit/scratch-built stock, including locos and rolling stock. However, with a couple of notable exceptions, traders were limited to RTR boxes, Wheels- no chance, Phospher bronze pick-up wire - forget it. I hunted for Parkside wagon kits, and found 1 trader with a small supply.

 

Without RTR, there would be no hobby as we know it. The current range is beyond belief for any modellers who entered the hobby in the 60's and 70's, and it would be churlish not to be grateful for what is available rather than be carping for what is not. My main bug-bear is the cost of "butchery" particularly of locos(though coaches and wagons are not cheap either) . Gone are the days of picking up cheap chassis or loco bodies where an error was not financially catastrophic.

 

But Tony is correct. there is no substitute for the pleasure of building a loco and seeing it running. I still recall how thrilled I was with BEC J11 and J17 kits on Triang chassis, especially when I fitted Romford wheels. Nowadays, however, I see little value in trying to build a kit which replicates a modern RTR.

 

So what do I do? I look for kits which don't exist in RTR and have a go. I'm now onto my third etched kit - a PDK B16/3 - having completed a B16 and ArthurK J77. I suspect all these are well down any potential list for an RTR release. Are my versions up to RTR standard re. build, paintwork etc.? Of course not. Do they match the quality of work of many of the posters here? No Do they run well? Yes. Do they look O.K. from normal viewing distance? Yes. Did I enjoy making them ? You bet.

 

Building kits is certainly a learning process. I do worry that, while its important to make the best attempt one can, some folk may be put off by a need to match the excellence I see in many posters work, or by the current crop of RTR releases. Many can't achieve that standard, but that's no reason why a perfectly adequate finished product cannot be achieved with patience and practice. My work is average at best, but , hey, it's only a hobby.

Edited November 28, 2016 by rowanj

[LNER4479]

I wonder what a rebuilt merchant navy class loco eould have looked like as a 2-8-2 or 4-8-2, probably a very powerful beast.

 

A bit like this, perhaps?

(edit: just read the word 'rebuilt' in your post. Ah, well - I'll leave the post as it is...)

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

As someone whose fingers often find difficulty in obeying my brain I am very glad of the offerings of the 2 H's and B. I do try and alter them a bit. I suppose I get My satisfaction from building MY layout, all of it, baseboards, laying track( however inexpertly), making my buildings and scenery and then playing with my creation as many on RMweb do without building their own locos.

Alan,

 

I'e said before that I have a great deal of respect for the kind of things you do with your locos and rolling stock, having personally seen them, noted how well they run and had the pleasure of taking pictures of them. 

 

Because of my lococentricity (is there such a word?) I, perhaps, concentrate on the motive power side of things too much. That said, having built my own locos for over 40 years now, I'm rather stuck in my ways. 

 

I also agree entirely with SAD in what he says (though I didn't know I'm older than him) and each has the right to enjoy the hobby in his/her own way; as I do. 

 

However, to reiterate, I do get bored with seeing the same (RTR) locos and rolling stock on different layouts at shows and in the press, particularly if nothing has been done to them. The most absurd example of this was seeing two identical Bachmann locos almost side by side on a layout, completely unaltered, straight from the box, probably bought a few minutes before and just plonked down. When I asked about this, I was politely told that each belonged to different club members and both were exercising their democratic right to run what they liked, it being a club layout.

 

If people exploit what the RTR boys give us (as I do with Bachmann Mk.1s - altered, of course) so much to the good. If nothing else, it frees up modelling time for other things. However, in my view it has to be personal work. I struggle to find the sense of satisfaction in a user getting someone else to do the modifications/alterations/improvements to an RTR model, other than the fact that they own it. They've bought it, handed it over to someone else to 'make better' and then paid for the work. As a friend said with regard to this situation 'each to their own'. I realise that a high-value, say, loco can be ruined in inexpert hands but surely every modeller should at least try things for themselves - by practising on a second-hand, 'cheap' thing?

 

I'm delighted how wide-ranging in views this thread is. The different opinions and stances are extremely interesting and stimulating. Please, all out there, keep it up. 

 

One final note. Atso commented on the B17 I'd built which was on display at Warley, and how (I assume) he preferred it to a Hornby RTR example. It won't be displayed unpainted again, but at one show a punter, on examining it, stated 'Hornby makes one of those'. Though I didn't say it, my thoughts were 'so what!' Which is probably what many think when I recommend making things by/for oneself. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I wasn't certain whether I should post my early period broad Gauge loco build "effort " here but gelled on by my brief conversation with TW at Whoorley ( yes I know it's mis-spelt ) on Saturday afternoon I've decided to throw it into the Kit build/ scratch build or RTR fray.

 

It represents ( to my eyes ) a Bristol & Exeter 4-4-0 locomotive painted to show it on its last legs.

At the time of building it there were no kits on the market and I decided to "bite the bullet" and try scratch building my first loco, chassis and all.

I must admit it gave me many head scratching moments but overall a great satisfaction, being approx. 85-90% home made with very few professional tools. There are many things I would change should I decided to scratch build another today, but it also provided me with the courage, so to speak, to do the cut and shut modelling employed by many of us on the RTR models available on today's market.

I must say I have my feet planted in both camps as far as kit/ scratch or RTR is concerned but with the seemingly demise of the odd locos some may require from kit manufacturers or the Big Boys RTR it may just be worth giving it a go if you feel able to.

 

image.jpeg

 

image.jpeg

 

The photographs were taken following a re-hash on the workbench when I'd decided to take out the cordless motor and replace it with a separate motor and gearbox to haul more wagons.

 

Grahame

p.s. Thanks for the tip on the Great Bear chassis Tony !

 

I like that very much.

[Tony Wright]

I hesitate to challenge or even contribute to the views of the celebrated and experienced modellers who post on this forum, but a couple of observations occur.

 

At the last Newcastle Show, many/most of the layouts were excellent, with a good mix of kit/scratch-built stock, including locos and rolling stock. However, with a couple of notable exceptions, traders were limited to RTR boxes, Wheels- no chance, Phospher bronze pick-up wire - forget it. I hunted for Parkside wagon kits, and found 1 trader with a small supply.

 

Without RTR, there would be no hobby as we know it. The current range is beyond belief for any modellers who entered the hobby in the 60's and 70's, and it would be churlish not to be grateful for what is available rather than be carping for what is not. My main bug-bear is the cost of "butchery" particularly of locos(though coaches and wagons are not cheap either) . Gone are the days of picking up cheap chassis or loco bodies where an error was not financially catastrophic.

 

But Tony is correct. there is no substitute for the pleasure of building a loco and seeing it running. I still recall how thrilled I was with BEC J11 and J17 kits on Triang chassis, especially when I fitted Romford wheels. Nowadays, however, I see little value in trying to build a kit which replicates a modern RTR.

 

So what do I do? I look for kits which don't exist in RTR and have a go. I'm now onto my third etched kit - a PDK B16/3 - having completed a B16 and ArthurK J77. I suspect all these are well down any potential list for an RTR release. Are my versions up to RTR standard re. build, paintwork etc.? Of course not. Do they match the quality of work of many of the posters here? No Do they run well? Yes. Do they look O.K. from normal viewing distance? Yes. Did I enjoy making them ? You bet.

 

Building kits is certainly a learning process. I do worry that, while its important to make the best attempt one can, some folk may be put off by a need to match the excellence I see in many posters work, or by the current crop of RTR releases. Many can't achieve that standard, but that's no reason why a perfectly adequate finished product cannot be achieved with patience and practice. My work is average at best, but , hey, it's only a hobby.

Is there a 'respond' button which indicates that posts such as this should be highlighted, read by all and believed (excepting that I'm ever correct)? 

 

If not, there should be!

[micklner]

Thanks for the clarification Mick, I thought I had got it wrong. I think that the valve gear looks a bit tinny but not the worst. The same gear looks horrible on the A3, possibly because of the position of the motion bracket? I'm working on the fitting of Comet valve gear to my cheap purchase A3. The amounts of slop in the Hornby chassis will require a bit of adjustment to get everything working. One thing I do find a little odd visually is that the chassis just ends short of the front driving wheels and then starts again beyond the cylinders. That will require a little work.

 

I've dismantled one of the tenders off the A3 to find out why they all ride so high. Having measured all round in comparison to the GA I'm pretty certain that the frames sit too high on the wheels in relation the position of the axle boxes. This can be corrected by cutting through the webbing and lowering the whole thing by about 1 mil. The brake pull rods are then the correct height off the deck, the platforms between loco and tender line up and the top of the tender sits where it should in relation to the cab. Alternatively, it would probably be just as quick to knock up a spare Crownline chassis. As it is brass it is much finer than the Hornby one, sits at the correct height and will be more free running. It will also require painting so not much time saved.

 

I will look forwards to seeing your A1/1, your approach produces a far better result than the old Crownline model. I think the brass  Crownline tender just edges the modern Hornby ones but of course, it requires more work.and I am loathed to discard anything that can be corrected.

 

Please show what you do to the Hornby tender.

As to Crownline the only problem is there is nowhere to buy them , I have never seen any on ebay or elsewhere for a longtime. Hopefully they aren't anything like the PDK version ?,  I wasn't impressed when I built one , poor etches for the whole Tender inc the chassis. Same if not worse for the Loco (A1/1).

[westerner]

Alan,

 

 

However, to reiterate, I do get bored with seeing the same (RTR) locos and rolling stock on different layouts at shows and in the press, particularly if nothing has been done to them. The most absurd example of this was seeing two identical Bachmann locos almost side by side on a layout, completely unaltered, straight from the box, probably bought a few minutes before and just plonked down. When I asked about this, I was politely told that each belonged to different club members and both were exercising their democratic right to run what they liked, it being a club layout.

 

If people exploit what the RTR boys give us (as I do with Bachmann Mk.1s - altered, of course) so much to the good. If nothing else, it frees up modelling time for other things. However, in my view it has to be personal work. I struggle to find the sense of satisfaction in a user getting someone else to do the modifications/alterations/improvements to an RTR model, other than the fact that they own it. They've bought it, handed it over to someone else to 'make better' and then paid for the work. As a friend said with regard to this situation 'each to their own'. I realise that a high-value, say, loco can be ruined in inexpert hands but surely every modeller should at least try things for themselves - by practising on a second-hand, 'cheap' thing?

 

Tony,

I feel I must agree with these two paragraphs, nothing annoys me more than seeing untouched RTR locos on a layout at an exhibition. As you say we all have old stock that can be used for practising such things as weathering. Simple things like weathering the underframe of coaches and possibly re painting the rooves is something surely all of us can do reasonably successfully.  I also get the same feeling when I see a layout with very tight curves at each end when a little thought could have provided transition curves or the curves could have been hidden. You've hidden them well and I seem to remember Keir Hardie of Wibbdenshaw fame saying that he would always hide the curves back to the fiddleyard. On Wencombe and Kingsbridge I have used transition curves of 8ft down to 3ft radius to get back to my fiddle yard. I suspect apart from the loco building side of things we have quite a bit in common. As someone much more famous than me once said "Lets us look for the things we have in common rather than our differences" and where we do have differences let us enjoy our multifaceted hobby in our own way.

 

Many thanks for your kind comments about the stock I have brought to Little Bytham. I love watching YOUR locos thunder or creep depending on the train around your layout and on one memorable occasion racing and beating one of my westerns.

 

[jrg1]

Not much room for the con rod over the leading axle but at least the chain driven miniature valve gear wouldn't take up too much space. No need for in accurate conjugated valve gear in Bulleid's vision - although the chain driven gear had it's own problems...

Bulleid apparently forgot that the timing chain would wear lengthen-throwing out the valve events.  Things appear crowded at the front end-some three cylinder locomotives had a cranked front axle just to clear the inside connecting rod.  i still wonder where a machine of this size would have had a commercial application on the Southern.

[Headstock]

Please show what you do to the Hornby tender.

As to Crownline the only problem is there is nowhere to buy them , I have never seen any on ebay or elsewhere for a longtime. Hopefully they aren't anything like the PDK version ?,  I wasn't impressed when I built one , poor etches for the whole Tender inc the chassis. Same if not worse for the Loco (A1/1).

 

Hi mick,

 

It's a shame about Crownline. Not everything was fantastic but some of their later etched kits were pretty good. The work you and others are doing with resin parts and RTR is pretty impressive, it certainly fills a gap and takes advantage of what is available. I have never built a PDK kit so I couldn't comment on them, I would like to have a bash at their B16/1 but from what you are saying it sounds a bit duff. I have three final carriages to build for LSGC and then it's back to some loco building, having examined the boiler castings for my 04/8 I think they are pretty poor, more scratch building required. As a result, it is likely the A3 experiment will jump the queue, plastic and brass certainly have more appeal than white metal poisoning. I have many of the parts required but some need to be sourced or made from scratch.

where do you get your superheater covers from?

[MJI]

Last Warley cost me a lot of money, chatting with Tony Wright and Mike Edge pushed me into building a loco kit properly, exploding teeth put back the actual purchase until a few weeks ago, but Warley 2015 was motor wheels, buffers ect.

 

I do not think I would have started without chatting to those two.

 

And I am a cut and splice merchant as well.

 

I have too many hobbies, but at least when I retire I will not be bored!!