Wright writes.....

[glo41f]

On the topic of rather poor "professionally" built models, I have had experience of this through acquaintances. One was a K3 which was a lot of money and it never worked nor indeed did it look much like a K3. The resulting dispute produced no winners. Another was a GW King which was not "square" and again worked with a jerky motion. The builder was quite unrepentant and insisted that it was an excellent rendition and again it ended in tears and a loss to my friend. The area is a  minefield and never was the phrase "caveat emptor" more appropriate.  Your price for an A4 TW seems rather low to my way of thinking.

 

Martin Long

 

 

[Staffordshire]

With respect to the cost of having a kit turned into a very realistic model of the real thing,  I feel I am a very lucky man.

 

    I have attached a photo of a Martin Finney  A4  and a Westward  West Country locos in 4mm, that a builder, who i now classify as a friend has built for me.

The photo depicts the two just before they were finally finished, coaling etc ....

 

   If I said the two together cost me less than £600 to have built, painted weathered, would you also call me lucky ??

 

  PS.   Please do not ask for the friends name, as I have a few more to be built !!

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

 

Tony - looking occasionally at "kit-built" locos on ebay, it is surprising how many come up for sale with no motors; they have clearly been built for display (spell-check on that word just came up as "dialysis"!) only. 

 

Perhaps they originally had a motor and gearbox, but never ran correctly (or at all) so the builder, or indeed a later recipient decided to rob them?

[richard i]

There was the one loco on e bay where the builder had spray painted it thickly from a rattle clan with chassis valve gear and wheels fitted. Was selling it because, “ it worked fine until painting, now a poor runner”......he seemed surprised. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, polybear said:

 

Perhaps they originally had a motor and gearbox, but never ran correctly (or at all) so the builder, or indeed a later recipient decided to rob them?

An interesting thought, Brian,

 

If a poorly-built loco has a decent motor/gearbox as well as a good wheelset, then, if the price is relatively low, it's worth scrapping the rest to acquire those items. Several awful locos I've had have been fitted with Portescaps - much sought-after. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Staffordshire said:

With respect to the cost of having a kit turned into a very realistic model of the real thing,  I feel I am a very lucky man.

 

    I have attached a photo of a Martin Finney  A4  and a Westward  West Country locos in 4mm, that a builder, who i now classify as a friend has built for me.

The photo depicts the two just before they were finally finished, coaling etc ....

 

   If I said the two together cost me less than £600 to have built, painted weathered, would you also call me lucky ??

 

  PS.   Please do not ask for the friends name, as I have a few more to be built !!

Very lucky, I'd say - assuming they run well. 

 

Presumably you bought the bits, otherwise your friend has paid you for the 'privilege' of building them! 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, glo41f said:

On the topic of rather poor "professionally" built models, I have had experience of this through acquaintances. One was a K3 which was a lot of money and it never worked nor indeed did it look much like a K3. The resulting dispute produced no winners. Another was a GW King which was not "square" and again worked with a jerky motion. The builder was quite unrepentant and insisted that it was an excellent rendition and again it ended in tears and a loss to my friend. The area is a  minefield and never was the phrase "caveat emptor" more appropriate.  Your price for an A4 TW seems rather low to my way of thinking.

 

Martin Long

 

 

I've only ever been involved in one 'dispute' over a loco I've made, Martin, 

 

The making of it was part of a barter, rather than a commission, but on completing my half of the deal (by building a loco), my ex-'friend' then rejected it on several grounds, one being that the tender (which was etched brass) 'rattled when going over pointwork!' I've probably mentioned this before, but the the loco in question (an Ivatt small Atlantic) romped effortlessly around Retford, hauling a ten-car Pullman set, and was 'admired' by several folk whose opinions I greatly respect. 

 

The guy provided the loco kit and I sourced the wheels/motor/gearbox, and built it, in EM Gauge. He was to provide a building for LB in return. 

 

  

 

It was built (though not painted) to exactly the same standard as this one, which I made for Grantham (in OO), seen here last year running on LB during the 1938 weekend. It's now owned by (a delighted) Jonathan Wealleans. 

 

I offered to provide the 'unhappy' building builder with a new kit and call it quits. He'd have none of this; he stripped the chassis and returned the wheels and motor/gearbox to me, and finished the building for his own layout. Despite my 'substandard' workmanship, he's kept the loco! Ever felt a chump over a deal? I did.

 

I take some solace in the fact that his own layout, though architecturally-impressive, is really awful as a depiction of a railway. The trackplan is nonsense, the running is dire, no signals work and no train carries lamps. It was described in the model press as 'stunning'. Hardly what I'd call it, but there you go. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Teague]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Does anyone else have 'horror stories' with regard to models they've had made? 

 

 

Tony - here is my tale of woe!

 

A long time back, I bought an old, second-hand Jidenco kit for an LSWR T6 and sent it to an alleged "professional" kit builder who advertised monthly in a well known magazine. He will remain nameless, but after a considerable wait and being asked to pay prior to delivery, it turned out that his work was quite appalling - the lining was wiggly, various parts are not straight, the loco had no weight in it, the central driving wheels were the only ones it picked up through and they didn't touch the track because the front bogie was set too high, etc etc!

 

 

Needless to say I could not get my money back so all of this taught me a valuable lesson, nevertheless, I kept the model as a sharp reminder that not everyone who advertises a service is capable of delivering on what they say; last year I mentioned all of this on my own RMWeb thread and said that I was thinking of crushing the model with a sledge hammer!

 

To my surprise another RMWebber, and excellent builder of locos, David Taylor (DLT) offered instead to have a look at it for me, and after questioning his sanity, I agreed and sent it to him.

His immediate summary was:

Poor kit design!

It's got odd driving wheels!  Same diameter but different crank-throw (about .5mm)  Unfortunately they were mismatched on both sides, so it was never going to run.

The connecting rods are too long, so the crossheads are jamming against the cylinders, preventing full rotation of the wheels.

Slidebars on one side are not parallel, getting closer together towards the cylinder, causing the crosshead to jam between them.

There's precious little room between the slidebars each side for the bogie to swing.

There's about 2mm sideplay on every axle.

One of the pickup plates has come adrift.

 

His subsequent story of what it took to re-build the loco is here:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/2359-dlts-sr-locos-n15x-finishing-for-jack/page/53/&tab=comments#comment-3360113

 

Thanks to his dedication I now have a fully functional and sweet-running loco - so the difference between one 'professional' and another can be light-years!

 

Tony

[Northmoor]

Too many mistake "professional" to mean "competent", when of course it only means the person is paid to do it.  Virtually all of the outstanding modellers on RMWeb, are complete amateurs.

 

I can't claim to be professional or competent, only enthusiastic.

[Tony Wright]

I think the term 'professional' has been mentioned before.

 

All it mean is that someone is paid to do a job; though it suggests 'high-quality', that's no guarantee. 

 

Finally, note to self.................

 

Never, never, never take on a job that's been started by a friend! Why do I never learn? The body of the L1 I mentioned the other day had been built, and the chassis started. 'Will you finish the chassis, please?' said another friend. 'It's for his birthday'. 

 

The chassis-build was awful - not square, rubbish soldering and the bearings taken out too much. After a day of really vociferous swearing, it now runs, though the motion is yet to be fitted. Why solder the cylinders in place before the wheels are on? 

 

A Romford 'Bulldog' was supplied as the motor. 'The chassis is designed around this type' I was told. Yes, it is, but that was near-40 years ago! 'Sending the motor to a museum', I've installed a decent-sized can. Or thought I had. Except it then wouldn't fit into the body. No matter, just file away the inside of the firebox, or so I thought. Except the whole ar$ey thing has been glued together!!!!!!!!!! It came apart. Not only that, it's been primed, so to re-solder the bits together I've had to almost strip the wretched thing. 

 

What should have been a 'relatively' simple job is now taking hours. Hours and hours of frustration because best practice has not been followed. Will I tell my friend when he comes to collect it this week? You're damned right!

 

All my friends out there (and I'm privileged to have so many), please take note now of what I'm about to say. It's pointless your asking will you look at a loco someone else has built because it doesn't run properly, or will you finish what I've started? Other than promises already made (to Tony Teague, for instance) , the answer is a most emphatic NO!!!!!!!!

Edited May 12, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Barry Ten]

I'm currently trying to sort out a problem with a loco inflicted by a ham-fisted idiot who should never been let near a soldering iron.

 

(Anyone else wish they had an "undo last step" button on their workbench?)

 

Al

[chris p bacon]

8 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I'm currently trying to sort out a problem with a loco inflicted by a ham-fisted idiot who should never been let near a soldering iron.

 

I recognise that description of myself 

[Chamby]

11 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Tony - here is my tale of woe!

 

A long time back, I bought an old, second-hand Jidenco kit for an LSWR T6.....

 

His immediate summary was:

Poor kit design!

It's got odd driving wheels!  Same diameter but different crank-throw (about .5mm)  Unfortunately they were mismatched on both sides, so it was never going to run.

The connecting rods are too long, so the crossheads are jamming against the cylinders, preventing full rotation of the wheels.

Slidebars on one side are not parallel, getting closer together towards the cylinder, causing the crosshead to jam between them.

There's precious little room between the slidebars each side for the bogie to swing.

There's about 2mm sideplay on every axle.

One of the pickup plates has come adrift.

 

His subsequent story of what it took to re-build the loco is here:  .......

 

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Too many mistake "professional" to mean "competent", when of course it only means the person is paid to do it.  Virtually all of the outstanding modellers on RMWeb, are complete amateurs.

 

I can't claim to be professional or competent, only enthusiastic.

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

........   The chassis-build was awful - not square, rubbish soldering and the bearings taken out too much. After a day of really vociferous swearing, it now runs, though the motion is yet to be fitted. Why solder the cylinders in place before the wheels are on? 

 

........   What should have been a 'relatively' simple job is now taking hours. Hours and hours of frustration because best practice has not been followed. 

 

........

 

9 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I'm currently trying to sort out a problem with a loco inflicted by a ham-fisted idiot who should never been let near a soldering iron.

 

(Anyone else wish they had an "undo last step" button on their workbench?)

 

Al

 

16 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I recognise that description of myself 

 

*gulp*  

 

The ‘build your own’ argument versus RTR is taking quite a battering today!

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I'm currently trying to sort out a problem with a loco inflicted by a ham-fisted idiot who should never been let near a soldering iron.

 

(Anyone else wish they had an "undo last step" button on their workbench?)

 

Al

Good morning Al,

 

I was told (by more than one kit-manufacturer) that no more than 10% of loco kits are ever finished to satisfaction. By 'satisfaction', I'd say accurate in appearance and excellent runners. 

 

I'm beginning to think that it might be a lot less than that. I wonder why?

 

1. Poor kits at source?

2. Bad design or over-complicated kits?

3. Incompatible materials?

4. Aspiration of the builder being too high?

5. Lack of skill/experience on the part of the builder?

6. Lack of perseverance on the part of the builder?

7. Fear of failure?

8. Wrong hobby taken up?

9. Loco too big for a layout (too tight curves)?

10. An RTR equivalent shows up, so why bother finishing a kit?

11. A lack of being 'bloody-minded' on the part of the builder?

 

There are probably many more reasons. 

 

One thing I have noticed is that those who fail, very often blame the kit for that failure, when they really should look at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in my list above. If the cap fits...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

 

 

 

*gulp*  

 

The ‘build your own’ argument versus RTR is taking quite a battering today!

 

Nobody ever said it was going to by easy, Phil,

 

However, when a modeller does succeed, wow! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Teague]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

All my friends out there (and I'm privileged to have so many), please take note now of what I'm about to say. It's pointless your asking will you look at a loco someone else has built because it doesn't run properly, or will you finish what I've started? Other than promises already made (to Tony Teague, for instance) , the answer is a most emphatic NO!!!!!!!!

 

That's very kind Tony, but even I won't expect miracles!

Tony

[Clive Mortimore]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

All my friends out there (and I'm privileged to have so many), please take note now of what I'm about to say. It's pointless your asking will you look at a loco someone else has built because it doesn't run properly, or will you finish what I've started? Other than promises already made (to Tony Teague, for instance) , the answer is a most emphatic NO!!!!!!!!

Not even if we were to say pretty please.

 

 

 

 

 

Ducking quickly as to avoid the board rubber whizzing towards me.

[Clive Mortimore]

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Al,

 

I was told (by more than one kit-manufacturer) that no more than 10% of loco kits are ever finished to satisfaction. By 'satisfaction', I'd say accurate in appearance and excellent runners. 

 

I'm beginning to think that it might be a lot less than that. I wonder why?

 

1. Poor kits at source?

2. Bad design or over-complicated kits?

3. Incompatible materials?

4. Aspiration of the builder being too high?

5. Lack of skill/experience on the part of the builder?

6. Lack of perseverance on the part of the builder?

7. Fear of failure?

8. Wrong hobby taken up?

9. Loco too big for a layout (too tight curves)?

10. An RTR equivalent shows up, so why bother finishing a kit?

11. A lack of being 'bloody-minded' on the part of the builder?

 

There are probably many more reasons. 

 

One thing I have noticed is that those who fail, very often blame the kit for that failure, when they really should look at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in my list above. If the cap fits...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

12, Lazy

13, Easily distracted

14, Too many projects on the go at one time.

 

Well you have seen my pile of part built stuff.

[Guy Rixon]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Al,

 

I was told (by more than one kit-manufacturer) that no more than 10% of loco kits are ever finished to satisfaction. By 'satisfaction', I'd say accurate in appearance and excellent runners. 

 

I'm beginning to think that it might be a lot less than that. I wonder why?

 

1. Poor kits at source?

2. Bad design or over-complicated kits?

3. Incompatible materials?

4. Aspiration of the builder being too high?

5. Lack of skill/experience on the part of the builder?

6. Lack of perseverance on the part of the builder?

7. Fear of failure?

8. Wrong hobby taken up?

9. Loco too big for a layout (too tight curves)?

10. An RTR equivalent shows up, so why bother finishing a kit?

11. A lack of being 'bloody-minded' on the part of the builder?

 

There are probably many more reasons. 

 

One thing I have noticed is that those who fail, very often blame the kit for that failure, when they really should look at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in my list above. If the cap fits...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Item 5 is interesting. Which kits would be best to gain the experience with low demands on the builder?

 

Item 7 would be less of a problem, I feel, if the materials were cheaper and more consistently available. 

[jwealleans]

There are starter brass kits for wagons available and coach kits aren't much more expensive than RTR these days if you want to work on your soldering on something less expensive.

 

SEF sell their whitemetal loco kits separately from the chassis if you want to practice whitemetal soldering without the worry of not being able to produce a working chassis.

 

There aren't any better brass kits than Arthur Kimber's if you want to move to a complete loco - he offers a J71 and J72 which are straightforward 0-6-0 tanks.  The fit of parts is good enough that they hold together with the tabs without even being soldered. 

 

With one of the chassis jigs available, producing a smooth running chassis has never been easier - a jig is not essential, but it doesn't half speed up the process.

 

High Level gearboxes are very easy to assemble and get running sweetly and quietly. 

 

I don't think anyone would say it's for everyone - we all have things we can and can't do (I can't plaster walls or fit carpets, so now I don't even try.).  If you want whatever loco it is that the Chinese aren't making yet, though, it's in your hands to do something about it.

[Tony Wright]

42 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

That's very kind Tony, but even I won't expect miracles!

Tony

Not that kind, Tony,

 

It's what good friends do for each other (and your donations have been more-than-generous).

 

In fairness to what you've brought, most are just minor tweaks, not major completions or rebuilds. 

 

It makes me wonder what folk are 'satisfied' with (not you). The number of times I've seen locos built (by both enthusiastic amateurs and professionals) which appear to satisfy their builders/owners, and I wouldn't give them house-room. 'It'll run-in' in time' is a frequent 'wish' among the hopeful as their creation stumbles along. 'The gears will quieten down in time' is another (only after you've gone deaf is my thought!). 

 

Of course, one should never take away the feeling of having built something for oneself, and that should be encouraged, but only with a bit of truth in an assessment. I consider my many 'pupils' to have fantastic resolve as I tear, yet again, into what they've brought me, but I've never been a kind teacher. Resolve enough to keep on coming back, proving me 'wrong' time after time. Good on them, for they show perseverance of the highest order - Westy and the Green Howards spring to mind. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I've only had one 'failure', but he had no resolve and no perseverance and I wasn't a good enough teacher! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, jwealleans said:

There are starter brass kits for wagons available and coach kits aren't much more expensive than RTR these days if you want to work on your soldering on something less expensive.

 

SEF sell their whitemetal loco kits separately from the chassis if you want to practice whitemetal soldering without the worry of not being able to produce a working chassis.

 

There aren't any better brass kits than Arthur Kimber's if you want to move to a complete loco - he offers a J71 and J72 which are straightforward 0-6-0 tanks.  The fit of parts is good enough that they hold together with the tabs without even being soldered. 

 

With one of the chassis jigs available, producing a smooth running chassis has never been easier - a jig is not essential, but it doesn't half speed up the process.

 

High Level gearboxes are very easy to assemble and get running sweetly and quietly. 

 

I don't think anyone would say it's for everyone - we all have things we can and can't do (I can't plaster walls or fit carpets, so now I don't even try.).  If you want whatever loco it is that the Chinese aren't making yet, though, it's in your hands to do something about it.

What a perfect post, Jonathan,

 

Many thanks. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Mallard60022]

55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Al,

 

I was told (by more than one kit-manufacturer) that no more than 10% of loco kits are ever finished to satisfaction. By 'satisfaction', I'd say accurate in appearance and excellent runners. 

 

I'm beginning to think that it might be a lot less than that. I wonder why?

 

1. Poor kits at source?

2. Bad design or over-complicated kits?

3. Incompatible materials?

4. Aspiration of the builder being too high?

5. Lack of skill/experience on the part of the builder?

6. Lack of perseverance on the part of the builder?

7. Fear of failure?

8. Wrong hobby taken up?

9. Loco too big for a layout (too tight curves)?

10. An RTR equivalent shows up, so why bother finishing a kit?

11. A lack of being 'bloody-minded' on the part of the builder?

 

There are probably many more reasons. 

 

One thing I have noticed is that those who fail, very often blame the kit for that failure, when they really should look at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in my list above. If the cap fits...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

I think there is a case here Tony for placing a 'Header' to your list:

Has built , (successfully?), several Kitmaster/Airfix locomotive kits ……………………………. and thinks that it isn't that much more difficult to build a 'proper job' locomotive from metal, as glue is suggested as a material that can put it together.

The 'law of average ability' applies in that some will proceed quite well and maybe learn by mistakes and others will find that the 'promotional information' for a kit is cobblers and they just get overwhelmed and if they have had little failure in their lives then that comes as a huge shock and the kit goes out of site, only to appear many years later on an auction site and is bought by some idiot like me! There will, of course, be some who continue happily and look at the thing and fail to see it is a dog's breakfast. 

I suppose this is how, in a nutshell, taking on an activity can proceed, and does not apply just to model railways. I am thinking back to 'activities' I have gone into with some enthusiasm and then realised I had made a big mistake; Ballroom Dancing being one, however, in many ways, I do not really regret that.

I'm still at it! Lawn Bowls is my latest experiment!!!!!!! Sir Francis may well be twitching in his tomb this very moment

W. Raleigh.

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

Item 5 is interesting. Which kits would be best to gain the experience with low demands on the builder?

 

Item 7 would be less of a problem, I feel, if the materials were cheaper and more consistently available. 

Good morning Guy,

 

As Jonathan Wealleans has so eloquently observed, SE Finecast kits are excellent 'starters'. Begin with an 0-6-0 tender loco, and start with the tender. The kits usually have alternative bits and pieces, and there's always spare brass on the frets, so practise your soldering on these. Don't glue! 

 

Dave Ellis at SEF is the most-helpful guy I know. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I think there is a case here Tony for placing a 'Header' to your list:

Has built , (successfully?), several Kitmaster/Airfix locomotive kits ……………………………. and thinks that it isn't that much more difficult to build a 'proper job' locomotive from metal, as glue is suggested as a material that can put it together.

The 'law of average ability' applies in that some will proceed quite well and maybe learn by mistakes and others will find that the 'promotional information' for a kit is cobblers and they just get overwhelmed and if they have had little failure in their lives then that comes as a huge shock and the kit goes out of site, only to appear many years later on an auction site and is bought by some idiot like me! There will, of course, be some who continue happily and look at the thing and fail to see it is a dog's breakfast. 

I suppose this is how, in a nutshell, taking on an activity can proceed, and does not apply just to model railways. I am thinking back to 'activities' I have gone into with some enthusiasm and then realised I had made a big mistake; Ballroom Dancing being one, however, in many ways, I do not really regret that.

I'm still at it! Lawn Bowls is my latest experiment!!!!!!! Sir Francis may well be twitching in his tomb this very moment

W. Raleigh.

Wonderful stuff, Phil,

 

My main regret in taking something up? Golf!

 

Matched completely in my giving up the wretched activity, with absolutely no regrets at all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.