Wright writes.....

[grahame]

20 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

       Soldered up kits are more robust, but when you look at the lumpen whitemetal poorly detailed kits still out there, I can understand why plastic is far more popular.

 

I find it is possible to fettle and detail white metal kits, such as replacing moulded handrails with wire, to make them very acceptable, but that does require some modelling effort. 

 

For me there are two issues with soldering. Firstly in N/2mm (my chosen scale) parts are tiny and more difficult to handle and solder. And secondly I find that I end up with a whole range of material parts in just one model such as a white metal body, wire handrails, cast brass parts, 3D printed acrylic bits and styrene/plastic details which means much, most or all needs to be glued on/together.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by grahame

[grahame]

14 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Fortunately there are still many DMUs and EMUs from my modelling period that the RTR blokes seem to ignore in 4mm as well. Happy modelling. 

 

Modeling units is an interesting, colourful, varied and an essential genre for modelling the railways of longer than just the last half a century. It's a shame there isn't more. I guess those 'RTR blokes' (who often complain about prices) are more happy to shell out £120 for a loco than a lot more for a complete unit despite that they get a whole train.

;-)

 

 

 

[grahame]

12 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I remain convinced that the hobby is increasingly splitting into two sectors, buying RTR locos, stock, track, etc. and concentrating on the scenic modelling and operating aspect or enjoying all aspects of model making to put your own stamp on what you do/achieve. 

 

I think it's probably less polarized than that, certainly currently.

 

There are those who utilize RTR but will breath life on it (correcting, detailing, weathering, etc.,) and run it in conjunction with kit and scratch built stock and other models on a beautifully constructed scenic layout. Then there are those who buy and run RTR out of the box but also haven't bothered with any hand crafting of the scenics. And there are those of the other persuasion who scratch build rolling stock but run it on a layout with no scenics or just display it. Plus some bash RTR into completely different beasts to fit their requirements.

 

Although somewhat a cliché, the hobby is made up of a broad church of individuals who enjoy their hobby in a wide range of ways. And that is perfectly fine. RTR facilitates some of that choice although there is concern that it is driving out or marginalising the constructive element of the hobby.

 

 

 

[Denbridge]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I'm not holding my breath.

David White at Slaters told me, only just before Christmas, that they have sorted what was needed to release them again. It's a matter of sorting out box artwork and finding the time to do it all. Their 2019 flood didn't help matters. They have already released many of the wagons.

I played a small part in assisting with the return of these kits, so I too am looking forward to their release.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

Hmmmm ......... I'm not sure where I stand on kit v. RTR 'debate'. As a youngish teenager 55 years ago, I did tackle whitemetal kits, Ks and Wills, that were glued together and still are in one piece, as at the time I had absolutely no skills in simple soldering and the one time I did try, I melted the pieces concerned. My fault as I used the then new Weller 135w instant heat iron (that I still have and works) - but at a young age and no instructions (and no internet) it did rather put me off - and so glue was my first choice.

 

Insofar as painting was concerned, as my locos were all GWR, it was matt black from a rattle can and the green brush painted on. Lining was by 'Pressfix' transfers (where applicable - sometimes were not - I was only following the box photo, honest guv). A coat of matt varnish from a rattle can finished everything off - and I was so pleased with the end results.

 

HOWEVER, where everything came off the rails, so to speak, was the mechanism. Those body kits that sat on a RTR chassis, I had no issue, some I even changed the wheels to Romfords with insulated rims on both sides - and they worked - despite the axle centres being 'nearly but not quite' as per prototype. The problem arose where wheels other than Romfords were used and quartering was the issue, again there being no instructions and as a result three-legged-dog running ensured The other issue was poor meshing of gears despite using 40 and 60:1 ratios. This, I'm afraid, pushed me into the arms of RTR and I have so continued.

 

Would I try a kit loco now at my age? I don't know - at least on this thread I have picked up a tip regarding quartering so that may be less of an issue. Painting? I have an airbrush now, but really need to brush up (see what I did there?) my skills. I do have some very old Airfix kits and some recent Parkside ones, to build and paint - I suppose restart small and work up. But an expensive loco kit - probably not.

 

My two pen'orth worth.

 

Here's my very first whitemetal kit loco - an ex-TVR U1. Everything that was not supposed to be done, was done:

Lining that shouldn't be there, RTR mechanism so the axle spacing is incorrect, mechanism protruding into the cab and brush painted. However, I DID put lamp irons on (though two have gone walk-abouts) and I did have lamps - even all those years ago. Nonetheless, I was chuffed, and the only only one in school that did my own kit locos (takes a bow). (PS - ignore the figure - son-in-law who didn't have a clue decided to 'help' in setting up the mini scene .)

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Thanks for showing us this, Philip,

 

I think it's charming. 

 

I no longer own the first metal loco kit I made (nor the first 20 or so!), a BEC J11, sitting on top of a re-wheeled (with Romfords) Tri-ang 'Jinty' chassis. Who has it now, I have no idea, but it was awful - glued together, wrong chimney (GC, but numbered as BR-owned), wrong smokebox door fastening, wrong safety valves and coal rail tender. All I did was use what came in the kit's box, but it was getting on for 50 years ago! 

 

At 45 years old, this is the oldest loco I've built which I still own.......

 

 

A K's ROD, but not K's wheels or motor - oh no, I knew even then not to use such awful stuff. It's got Romford wheels and I've now replaced the original five-pole XO4 clone with a modern motor/gearbox. And, guess what? It's soldered together.

 

I'm afraid (because it doesn't have lamp brackets - the shame!), the lamps are just glued in place.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[MJI]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Modeling units is an interesting, colourful, varied and an essential genre for modelling the railways of longer than just the last half a century. It's a shame there isn't more. I guess those 'RTR blokes' (who often complain about prices) are more happy to shell out £120 for a loco than a lot more for a complete unit despite that they get a whole train.

;-)

 

 

 

 

I am planning on a few more DMUs

1 x Swindon 120 - from what,  still to be decided.

1 x MetCam 101 - need to find some cheap Limas to modify.

1 x 103 DMBS - will use old Hornby 110 shells

 

For another idea

1 x GRCW single car (122) from a Lima shell with DC cab fronts and MJI cast domes.

1 x GWR twin car 33 & 38 I think it is, no idea on source yet

1 x 3 car Swindon pre 126s WR version, again no idea but I could see brass being used.

 

Still have a 116, 117, 119 in the shops, the 117 is a revisit as the DMS dismantled itself

 

8 x 3 car DMUs for one layout so far. 6 decided carriage rakes (so far).

[Philou]

@Tony Wright Thank you for your kind words - it does have a certain charm. Unlike you, I do have ALL my locos and stock right back to the day (and so the family story goes) that I was born and my father rushed out and bought 'my' first train set - in 1950.

 

Here it is with a later addition bought about 6 years later (looks terrible now!). I think it's masquerading as an LNER loco and stock:

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why do folk glue metal loco kits together?

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

[Erichill16]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

When I bought my first white metal kit, I’d be in about 11 or 12 years old and my parents probably didn’t trust me with a soldering iron. I got it from Beatties and I would imagine they sold araldite etc but not low melt solder and flux. I think I’ve still got it somewhere ................

happy modelling 

regards Robert

Edited March 4, 2020 by Erichill16
Typo

[grahame]

13 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

 

Some modern etched metal kits still suggest gluing. I guess the advent and availability of cyanoacrylate (super-glue) makes it convenient. And apparently it is used in some product, including car, manufacturing.

 

 

[Steven B]

And aircraft - not just a recent building technique either; De Havilland Mosquito was glued together.

 

A well chosen adhesive used properly should do a better job than a poorly formed solder joint.

 

 

Steven B.

[TrevorP1]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

I remember back in the 70s there was a suggestion that car filler eg Isopon or P38 could be used. To my eternal shame I tried that....  

[Philou]

Ah filler ........ I think at my time, it was woodfiller - yes, really. It did work. Let it 'go off' and some light sanding and it was good to go. A coat of grey car body primer spray, rinse and repeat until it looked good, or at least 'good enough'. That's what is helping hold my U1, above, together. I have to say that after 55 years, it's still there, whereas the lamp-irons that were glued using two-part epoxy, have not fared quite so well.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[rowanj]

Re-numbered RTR meets "lumpen" whitemetal kits of which neither are still available.. The B1 is original Bachmann and still runs well and quietly(ish) on its' split chassis. The T1 (little Engines) was largely soldered. The G5 (NuCast) was largely glued. Both have had a fair bit of detail added to what came with the kits.

Neither were particularly difficult to build,  more modern and better detailed etched kits of the prototypes are available, and an RTR G5 is on the drawing board. I build etched kits, and most these days are superbly designed and detailed. I submit, however, that they are generally more difficult to build than a whitemetal kit, they MUST be soldered, and therefore are not an easy entry to loco building compared, say, to Tony's (and my) introduction via a BEC J11. So, unless you really want to build one, as opposed to just having one, how many modellers would choose to build LRM's excellent G5 rather than wait for the RTR one. and other than SEF and DJH, where do you go now for whitemetal kits? Only the second-hand market?

If one runs anything remotely true to a prototype, even allowing some flexibility in date/era, you still need kits to make the motive power and rolling stock realistic. Surely the proof of this is the "Wishlist", which spells out what folk want for their layout rom RTR. In many cases, a kit is available, or can be produced via "cut and shut" or whatever.

Why folk can't/won't build models have been discussed here ad nauseum. Skiils aren't being taught, kits are expensive and often hard to get hold of, other hobbies, often IT based have taken preference, and folk returning to the hobby in middle age didn't learn about kitbuilding, and moreover, don't remember the days of steam, Deltics or whatever, and don't take the same inspiration from the modern railway as I did as a teen. Of course, there are exceptions , but I still think this is the rule. So the excellence of modern RTR is just the ticket - it LOOKS right, even when it isn', and usually runs much better than it used to. How many , Tony, really care whether the GC chimney is correct? I didn't know, when I built the J11 in 1972, and i'm still here to tell the tale.

So I can do enough, to my own adequate but far from excellent standard, to get a reasonably accurate prototype photo. But I fear I am in a steadily decreasing minority in that I actually want to do so.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, micklner said:

I only have Heljan O2 and most of the sprues are long gone for that one  ( I wonder why , a very fragile loco!! )

You've answered your own question and highlighted a perennial problem with spares; the ones most likely to be out of stock are the ones for which demand is highest.  If a loco is fragile, then replacement parts are in high demand because of it's fragility, and if it is robust, then the spares sit on warehouse shelves for years without anyone ordering, and of course warehouse shelves are in warehouses, which have to be paid for.  The issue basically comes down to the modern limited production runs enforced on RTR companies by their limited Chinese factory slots that have to be booked in advance, a system that has served us well for several decades now and given us cheap, high quality, reliable, detailed, and well finished models (all right, not so cheap any more but why shouldn't Chinese workers be paid properly?)

 

Back in the old days, when Hornby Dublo or Triang were producing the same models for 3 or 4 decades in a continuous production line with no set limit to the numbers produced, spares were really just the stock of components that had to be carried to assemble the model in a British factory, and you could order any number you wanted of anything.  Local shops would carry a small stock of the most popular items such as carbon brushes.  Nowadays motors are so cheap they are replaceable when the brushes wear out; the times, as Bob said, they are a'changin' or to be more accurate have changed...

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

I can vouch for that; they told you to solder or glue with epoxy resin.  I had several glued with 'poxy, which lasted well enough but eventually succumbed to chassis issues and/or modern RTR replacement.  I still have the whitemetal bodies of a Nu-Cast Taff A and a Rhymney R which I poxied together in the 80s and am considering completing the A at least at some time in the future; there are other projects that are taking priority.  These locos are solidly constructed and tolerably well detailed, proving that gluing does work, though I used the poxy because I am not a good solderer and would have preferred solder; a matter of lack of confidence.  Philou gave me an old Wills 1854 that he said he'd acquired rather than built himself which I'm going to build a new Southeastern chassis for as the original is past redemption (the body is soldered, well made and square, so the model has some potential), and several Comet coaches are on the shopping list, so my kit building days are not over yet!

 

But I'd abandon all of these plans if modern quality RTR became available.  And I'd replace my K's whitemetal A31 auto trailers in a heartbeat as well, likewise my Ratio 4-wheelers. 

 

I am much more confident soldering brass or nickel silver components together than whitemetal.  TBH, I have never rated whitemetal as a particularly good material for kits, though I realise it suits the cottage industry nature of kit manufacturers who have to cast parts.  It is too soft, too thick, and too difficult to work with without damaging it in general.  An advantage it does have, though, is weight.  Plastic bodied RTR has never IMHO been heavy enough to provide good traction or pickup, and this is as true now as it ever was, and even though my trains are short BLT types I still as a matter of course cram as much ballast into locos as possible, because it improves the electrical pickup of rigid chassis even on well laid track, and because I like the feeling of 'heft' it conveys.  

 

I take Tony's point that even well ballasted RTR locos are not up to hauling scale length trains at decent scale speeds on his layout, which is flat, but it doesn't bother me personally.  It is a valid comment to make about RTR locos, though; not much point in locos that are to scale, well detailed and finished, and run well with light loads if they cannot smoothly start a realistic train and work it up to a decent top speed, and for an ECML layout that means a scale 100mph.  RTR is simply not built to take that sort of treatment, but I'd argue that it should be capable of the performance of the prototype with a reasonable degree of mechanical reliability.  Problems are, I suspect, likely to arise with nylon or plastic gear components, and slipping because of overloading is not good for quartering or wheel bearings; the truth is that RTR is not robust or powerful enough to do heavy main line work at realistic speeds.  No wonder Tony prefers kits! 

[Headstock]

For the last twenty years I have modelled the GC's London extension, around Leicester in the late 1940s. What I model stock wise, is dictated by the express, ordinary passenger and freight trains plus their motive power running in that period. Over the twenty years, RTR has managed to produce about twenty percent of the stock required (of a decent standard) for such a project. Given another eighty years I suppose the RTR bods could produce it all. I doubt it, wish lists are extremely inefficient way for getting what you need for a model railway as opposed to what you want, or at least what other people want. I have found kit building to be a Highley efficient way of getting what you need over those twenty years. Ultimately, working for what you need has been a more satisfying experience than being given what you want.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Headstock
clarification

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I can vouch for that; they told you to solder or glue with epoxy resin.  I had several glued with 'poxy, which lasted well enough but eventually succumbed to chassis issues and/or modern RTR replacement.  I still have the whitemetal bodies of a Nu-Cast Taff A and a Rhymney R which I poxied together in the 80s and am considering completing the A at least at some time in the future; there are other projects that are taking priority.  These locos are solidly constructed and tolerably well detailed, proving that gluing does work, though I used the poxy because I am not a good solderer and would have preferred solder; a matter of lack of confidence.  Philou gave me an old Wills 1854 that he said he'd acquired rather than built himself which I'm going to build a new Southeastern chassis for as the original is past redemption (the body is soldered, well made and square, so the model has some potential), and several Comet coaches are on the shopping list, so my kit building days are not over yet!

 

But I'd abandon all of these plans if modern quality RTR became available.  And I'd replace my K's whitemetal A31 auto trailers in a heartbeat as well, likewise my Ratio 4-wheelers. 

 

I am much more confident soldering brass or nickel silver components together than whitemetal.  TBH, I have never rated whitemetal as a particularly good material for kits, though I realise it suits the cottage industry nature of kit manufacturers who have to cast parts.  It is too soft, too thick, and too difficult to work with without damaging it in general.  An advantage it does have, though, is weight.  Plastic bodied RTR has never IMHO been heavy enough to provide good traction or pickup, and this is as true now as it ever was, and even though my trains are short BLT types I still as a matter of course cram as much ballast into locos as possible, because it improves the electrical pickup of rigid chassis even on well laid track, and because I like the feeling of 'heft' it conveys.  

 

I take Tony's point that even well ballasted RTR locos are not up to hauling scale length trains at decent scale speeds on his layout, which is flat, but it doesn't bother me personally.  It is a valid comment to make about RTR locos, though; not much point in locos that are to scale, well detailed and finished, and run well with light loads if they cannot smoothly start a realistic train and work it up to a decent top speed, and for an ECML layout that means a scale 100mph.  RTR is simply not built to take that sort of treatment, but I'd argue that it should be capable of the performance of the prototype with a reasonable degree of mechanical reliability.  Problems are, I suspect, likely to arise with nylon or plastic gear components, and slipping because of overloading is not good for quartering or wheel bearings; the truth is that RTR is not robust or powerful enough to do heavy main line work at realistic speeds.  No wonder Tony prefers kits! 

Thanks Johnster,

 

 'An advantage it does have, though, is weight.'

 

I've cherry-picked this quote because white metal locos are inherently heavy and, thus capable of shifting very heavy loads. 

 

However, if a clot (me) forgets to set a road correctly and a heavy, kit-built loco ploughs (at high speed) into the back of a plastic train, then that weight helps in scattering that plastic train all over the place - as happened today. 

 

Three dear friends visited today and we ran the railway, though not the sequence. All worked fine (except me and a Bachmann Deltic which just died - it doesn't normally run, but was requested), but the finale was as described above, when 60117, hauling 11 modified Pullman cars (brass sides/white metal bogies/etc) ran into the rear of the six-car 'Master Cutler' (just modified Hornby cars) at pace. I await the photographs on here with interest! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[thegreenhowards]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

the lamps are just glued in place.

 

 

 

Not soldered?!

Edited March 4, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

I take Tony's point that even well ballasted RTR locos are not up to hauling scale length trains at decent scale speeds on his layout, which is flat, but it doesn't bother me personally.  It is a valid comment to make about RTR locos, though; not much point in locos that are to scale, well detailed and finished, and run well with light loads if they cannot smoothly start a realistic train and work it up to a decent top speed, and for an ECML layout that means a scale 100mph.  RTR is simply not built to take that sort of treatment, but I'd argue that it should be capable of the performance of the prototype with a reasonable degree of mechanical reliability.  Problems are, I suspect, likely to arise with nylon or plastic gear components, and slipping because of overloading is not good for quartering or wheel bearings; the truth is that RTR is not robust or powerful enough to do heavy main line work at realistic speeds.  No wonder Tony prefers kits! 

In my experience modern RTR Pacifics are perfectly capable of hauling 12-14 coach RTR trains at a scale 100MPH, especially with a bit of added lead. I regularly do this with Hornby A3s and A4s and Bachmann A1s and A2s. I also run 50 wagon goods trains with Bachmann 9Fs or Heljan O2s. Admittedly there might be a bit of wheel slip on starting...but that's prototypical isn't it? This is more true of the more recent production runs in the last 5 or so years than the earlier models (Bachmann's A1 Aberdonian is particularly weak). I think this is a pretty impressive achievement by the RTR manufacturers given that it will be rare for the locos to be asked to do this. They're certainly a lot better for haulage power than the X04 type versions of my childhood.

 

The problem arises when the RTR loco is asked to pull heavy kit built coaches like the beauties which grace Little Bytham. Then the extra weight of a kit built loco is really important.

[micklner]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

You've answered your own question and highlighted a perennial problem with spares; the ones most likely to be out of stock are the ones for which demand is highest.  If a loco is fragile, then replacement parts are in high demand because of it's fragility, and if it is robust, then the spares sit on warehouse shelves for years without anyone ordering, and of course warehouse shelves are in warehouses, which have to be paid for.  The issue basically comes down to the modern limited production runs enforced on RTR companies by their limited Chinese factory slots that have to be booked in advance, a system that has served us well for several decades now and given us cheap, high quality, reliable, detailed, and well finished models (all right, not so cheap any more but why shouldn't Chinese workers be paid properly?)

 

Back in the old days, when Hornby Dublo or Triang were producing the same models for 3 or 4 decades in a continuous production line with no set limit to the numbers produced, spares were really just the stock of components that had to be carried to assemble the model in a British factory, and you could order any number you wanted of anything.  Local shops would carry a small stock of the most popular items such as carbon brushes.  Nowadays motors are so cheap they are replaceable when the brushes wear out; the times, as Bob said, they are a'changin' or to be more accurate have changed...

I might add one of the reasons the Heljan O2 spares disappear quickly, are because all of the body parts were available when released . People were buying them to convert other Locos as well , as well as for the numerous repairs to the "fragile" O2 . I have used other words for the O2 that was the only polite one !!

[Tony Wright]

57 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Not soldered?!

It was already painted........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Because back in the 60s and 70s that's what the instructions told you to do.

Not just in the ‘60s and ‘70s. I’ve just built up some exquisite Severn Models etches for office furniture. The instruction go into quite some detail about how to glue them together which is completely insane for stuff this small. There is one sentence at the bottom which states “If you have experience of soldering, the models can also be assembled using this method”. It’s not surprising that people don’t solder when they’re actively discouraged in this way.

 

Here are the bits of furniture at etch primer stage. They have some wonderful detail like box files for the table top and protractor  for the draughtman’s easel.

 

 

[PupCam]

Well what an excellent day!  

 

The entire Mimram Modellers group (both fully paid up and honourary members) had the honour of a day excursion to Little Bytham.   What a superb layout it is, a beautiful rendition of times past on the ECML.    Three words really do sum it up when you see it in the flesh, consistently high standards.  

Some layouts have beautiful stock running on a "trainset board", others have beautiful scenery with track barely better than Hornby Dublo 3 Rail (no offence intended to 3 rail collectors!), some have exquisite trackwork in an unbelievable environment and in each case something jarrs.   As you all know, not so LB;  the topography is entirely believable (easily checked on the way to the pub for lunch), sublime trackwork,  beautiful architectural modelling, realistic and reliable stock (with the possible exception of the odd Deltic), historically accurate situation and operation etc etc.   

 

Unfortunately  Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate have had to be called in to investigate a serious accident when an Up Express ran into the rear of a stationary Pullman train held just north of the M&GN bridge.   The derailed Pullman cars fouled the adjacent line derailing a number of wagons.   Initial indications are that the signalling systems were operating correctly and human error was the likely cause.  It is too early to say whether any railway staff will be prosecuted.  

Anyway, many thanks to Tony and Mo for the invitation and their hospitality for a thouroughly enjoyable day.   We look forward to our next visit!

 

Alan

Edited March 4, 2020 by PupCam
Added photographic evidence

[Theakerr]

It is a fair comment that most RTR, if not all will not haul 12/14 kit built coaches although it will be interesting to see what the metal bodied Hornby 100 anniversary Duchess does.  However as mentioned before, when weight is properly added most RTR Pacifics can haul 14/16 RTR coaches and my Bachmann B1s on new chassis will pull 12 RTR coaches.  When I say properly added, it is my experience (limited) that most folks just add weight without understanding that if the weight is not properly distributed it will have little effect and may actually reduce hauling capacity.