Wright writes.....

[jrg1]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good gravy Chamby,

 

Is that the broad church or we?

 

Having read through your litany of fear, I am left wondering how you ever managed to construct your own layout, without worrying yourself to death over the cost of tools, jigs and materials. I'm impressed that you manage to keep your mental health intact, coping with unfamiliar techniques and skills and god help us, the horror of different suppliers in an unfamiliar market place!

 

Get a grip dear Chamby, I think you may be a little too focused on some imaginary sweet spot over the finish line, seemingly oblivious that the journey is full of joy and wonder not fear. If cost is an issue, remember that when you compare it to the instant fix of buying objects, they quickly require another fix and another. The cost is not as great as you surmise, as you are paying for a long and bountiful journey not just the destination.
 

Putting together a brass or W/M kit for the first time with little or no guidance can be very off-putting for a novice.  I found Iain Rice's articles in the MR and Guy William's MRC book both godsends.

My initial attempts were not helped by the quality of some products available at the time.  A K's J72 with parts that did not fit at all, and a keyhole chassis that squeezed the bearings tight was a poor start.  Q Kits and Falcon Brass also come to mind as bad news.  However, many mistakes and dead ends later, being able to make a reasonable representation in miniature is very satisfying.  Mixing and matching to produce the rebuilt Raven A2 is my latest project-DJH kit, Nick Easton Etches, modified SE Finecast Boiler and scratch components for this P4 model.  

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As @Michael Edgesaid above, what people say they'll buy and what they actually buy, are often two very different things.  No doubt those who demand such-and-such a model have a long list of excuses why, once it's available, they no longer want one; it's 0.5mm too short, it's not the exact number they want, it needs to be half the price, etc., etc.

 

 

There are also those who'll shout for a particular kit and then whilst it's being developed hear that a particular RTR manufacturer will released one in 18 months time etc. etc. so keep their wallets in their pockets until then (the Clayton being an example here).

[Woodcock29]

My journey into kit building started when I was about 8 and found an unmade Airfix Presflo kit in Dad's wardrobe. I'm sure he wasn't impressed when he came home from work and saw what I'd been up to? I first started tinkering with w/m metal kits Dad had built before we left the UK in 1964. I think mainly I tried to get them (BEC J52 and BEC J17) to run better on their Triang chassis during my mid teens around 1970. I asked for and got a Wills N7 for my 16th birthday which was duly built and put on a Triang chassis.  I think a BEC J11 and D11 were next on their Triang chassis. The D11 eventually got Romford drivers (as did all the others) and a Buhler motor/Ultrascale gearbox and in fact was used about 2 years ago as a practice piece on which to learn how to do the red lining on an LNER black loco with bow pen and lining pen. Its still on the layout now but did undergo a fairly major rebuild back in the 80s.

 

My first go at building a chassis was on a Ks J72 (like John above), which Dad purchased on a holiday to Canberra in 1972.  It wasn't very successful and it wasn't until I realised that the frames didn't match that I was able to sort it out. One end axle slot went too high, so I had to solder a piece or brass across the top to line it up with the other two. I've still got it, but it hasn't seen the light of day for a long time. 

 

In my late teens I built a Ks C1 which I had great difficulty with because of lack of clearance around the bogie. I had to fit 12 mm bogie wheels and to bend the front of the main frames in - I was trying to get it to go around roughly 2 ft radius. I replaced the Ks Mk 1 motor with an MW005 I think. Next was a Bristol Models V2 where the chassis was simply two pieces of brass, spacers and front and rear pony trucks. There were no cylinders or valve gear and the body castings were very thick. I modified some old Triang Britannia cylinders and purchased a set of Ks P2 valve gear (in fact I got 3 sets, 1 for V2, 1 for a Wills K3 and a spare) - which I've still got!). It actually turned out quite well and I was very proud of it at the time with its brushed paint work, Kingsprint press on lining and lettering. Immediately after that I built the Wills K3 with a similar chassis from Bristol models rather than fitting the recommended but inappropriate Triang 2-6-2T chassis. At that stage I found out about using Holts Duplicolour car spray paint as primer and top coat - gosh what a difference that made for a black loco. A year or two later (1979-80) I built my first brass kit a Craftsman C12. That was the first soldered loco as all the w/m kits had been glued together! I still continued to glue w/m kits together continuing on with the NuCast Q6 and O2/2, DJH U1 (brass soldered but w/m glued), Ks P2, WSM J6....Probably for the next 10-15 years I improved steadily in my ability. I didn't get an air brush until 1987 and around the early 90s I starting to solder w/m together.

 

What this essay is attempting to show is that generally for most people, I believe the art of building locos is a process that can take quite a long time to learn and develop. But it is a journey that I have found most enjoyable and in the past has been used to provide locos that were never likely to be available RTR. I always tried to add a bit of extra detail. Perhaps unlike a lot who build locos, I have never been phased by the need to build Walschaerts valve gear. In fact I started trying to improve the look of valve gear on my Triang A3s back in the early 70s and did in fact fit Ks Black 5 valve gear to the Triang Hornby Black 5 back in the mid 70s. 

 

l will continue to enjoy this journey as I have about another 40 locos stashed away to build - mostly of prototypes not likely to be made by RTR manufacturers, including some of South Australian prototypes which can be quite a challenge to build. Alongside this journey I have built hundreds of wagons, lots of coaches and kit-bashed quite a number of RTR locos. Railway modelling is for life! 

 

Andrew

 

[Tony Wright]

15 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony

 

My layout  has an approximate gradient of 1 in 100 on one side (as it is a 'looped eight' and has to climb over itself).

 

I have just hooked 14 mixed Hornby and Bachmann Mk1s, Colletts and Hawksworths onto a Hornby A3 - and she pulled them away on the uphill from a standing start. I had to really 'drive the loco' to avoid excessive slip, though

 

I don't think Hornby can take the can for not being able to haul 13 metal kit-built coaches. You wouldn't buy a VW Up if you were wanting to tow a caravan.  Horses for courses!

 

Brian

Good morning Brian,

 

I don't think I've ever suggested that any RTR loco should 'carry the can' for not being able to shift 13 all-metal carriages. As I said, my comment was as a result of smugness on my part when my kit-built equivalent could, and did - without a trace of slipping (probably unprototypical). 

 

If you'll have watched my recent Youtube presentation, I extol the pulling power of Hornby's locos (though none of them is on Bytham's heaviest trains). Indeed, I was recently 'put to shame' by an old friend's grandson who brought an RTR 9F along, a Bachmann EVENING STAR. We put it on a 40+ van train and it just a walked away with it. He asked to see how many wagons it might pull, so I coupled up another rake of vans, making a total of over 70. Though it slipped on starting, and for most of the circuit, it just about took the mammoth train. 'Will one of you 9Fs do that?' I was asked. 'I don't know, let's try'. Shame on me! I tried two of my DJH 9Fs, one built by me, the other by than none other than Roy Jackson. Neither would shift it; not without dramatic bouts of slipping, with the controller full-on. They were less-able to pull the train than the RTR equivalent. 

 

In my 'defence', since I've never bothered to test 'to the limit' the haulage power of any of my 9Fs (they all take 50+ wagons with ease), I had no idea they'd be beaten so comprehensively by a schoolboy's RTR loco. There's space for more weight inside them, of course, so next time! Honour was satisfied when I put on one of my DJH A1s, which took the rake without the slightest hint of slipping. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good gravy Chamby,

 

Is that the broad church or we?

 

Having read through your litany of fear, I am left wondering how you ever managed to construct your own layout, without worrying yourself to death over the cost of tools, jigs and materials. I'm impressed that you manage to keep your mental health intact, coping with unfamiliar techniques and skills and god help us, the horror of different suppliers in an unfamiliar market place!

 

Get a grip dear Chamby, I think you may be a little too focused on some imaginary sweet spot over the finish line, seemingly oblivious that the journey is full of joy and wonder not fear. If cost is an issue, remember that when you compare it to the instant fix of buying objects, they quickly require another fix and another. The cost is not as great as you surmise, as you are paying for a long and bountiful journey not just the destination.
 

 

Good morning @Headstock.  Yes I did lay it on rather thick, but the point seems to have hit the mark, given subsequent tales of ‘the journey’ that you rightly point out is what it is all about.  

 

Your mention of ‘some imaginary sweet spot over the finish line’ is very percipient.  In my case it is epitomised by the desire for a Colwick based A5 (or two) that both runs sweetly and can hold its own well enough to complement, rather than detract from the standard I eventually achieve for the rest of my layout.  I have no idea yet how easy or difficult that particular kit will be to build, but all in good time!

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, polybear said:

 

There are also those who'll shout for a particular kit and then whilst it's being developed hear that a particular RTR manufacturer will released one in 18 months time etc. etc. so keep their wallets in their pockets until then (the Clayton being an example here).

Two and a half years in the case of the Clayton, announced just after we had started selling the kits as fast as we could pack them. We didn't sell another one until it was found that Heljan had taken realism a bit too far with their model - and sales have eventually reached respectable levels. We are now seeing exactly the same with our carefully researched Fell kit - no sales at all for some time now, the announcement of a forthcoming rtr model appearing just after ours went on sale.

[Tony Wright]

16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The L1 example raises a few interesting points. The Hornby model is a known quantity in a way no kit-built example can be unless by a builder of acknowledged competence, or it has been "gone over" by someone (like Tony) who knows his way around such models. This one is effectively a non-runner that needs at least half the price of a Hornby L1 invested in a new set of wheels by a purchaser who knows how to fit them and transfer the valve gear over from the (different) old ones. 

 

Tony has often mentioned that his kit-built locos are more relevant to him than a ready made example can ever be but one built by someone unknown to the purchaser can't have any more of a personal connection than a Hornby one.

 

Relatively few of us have access to the kind/quantity of stock or the size of layout that demands the performance that Tony requires. Hornby levels of power are sufficient for the majority; if they weren't, Hornby would have to increase them. Finally, how does the finish of the model compare with a Hornby one?

 

To summarise, a faulty kit-built model by an unknown builder that may (but probably doesn't) look as good as a Hornby one. When fixed, it may well pull more than the r-t-r equivalent, but that is unimportant if the Hornby one does "enough". 

 

John

Good morning John,

 

'Finally, how does the finish of the model compare with a Hornby one?'

 

An interesting question. Which deserves an interesting answer.................

 

 

Here's the L1 from the collection. 'Professionally-built' from an ABS kit (by whom?) and 'professionally-painted' (by whom?), it doesn't really work because its drivers have shifted on their axles. 

 

And, for comparison.....................

 

A Hornby RTR equivalent. Apart from the bunker-side numbers being to small, in my view this is better-finished than the kit-built one. 

 

This, of course, dates from less than a decade ago; the kit-built one from at least three times longer than that. 

 

And, even longer ago..................

 

 

I built this L1 from an East Coast Joint Models' kit (the precursor of the ABS one) in 1978, painting it (car spray) and lining it (Kemco) myself. The pony/bogie wheels were the 'scale' types of their day. I modified it to represent one of the contract-built locos, with utility front end and solid steps. 

 

 

Some little time ago it was brought to life by Tom Foster, who weathered it to perfection. 

 

Speaking of weathering, both the L1 from the collection and Hornby's would really benefit from weathering in my view.

 

 

As I have done (dry-brush) with this renumbered pair of Hornby L1s. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

It is tricky comparing the hobby now with the hobby of, shall we say, several decades ago.

 

Until Mainline upped the quality (in appearance if not in running) by a huge margin with their J72 and Standard 4-6-0, RTR models tended to be a bit basic and not all that accurate. Even a very basic kit like a Ks "Bodyline" J50 on a RTR mechanism gave people an easy entry into building kits and a novice could build something very easily that didn't suffer in comparison to the RTR offerings of the day. A decent kit could result in something superior to pretty much any RTR item of the time but even the superior kits were not that complicated and didn't have that many parts.

 

Nowadays, the overall standards have changed so much that a basic kit for a wrong wheelbased RTR mechanism wouldn't really be good enough any more.

 

I suppose the nearest equivalent to those "starter" kits is a 3D printed body or a one part resin moulded body designed to fit a RTR mechanism. Neither really helps anybody develop their skills in terms of soldering and assembling parts square and straight.

 

I am not sure it does any good wishing that we could go back to the 1970s again. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of better RTR, a much wider range of RTR and a decline in the need to build kits. There was a time when if you wanted to model the ECML, you had a Hornby Dublo A4, a Triang Flying Scotsman, perhaps a Trix A2, then a Hornby Dublo N2 and that was about it. If you wanted to model the line with any degree of authenticity you needed to build kits. Now you can pretty much model it with RTR locos with just a tiny number of omissions and you have suitable substitutes for the missing classes.

 

So the need for kit built locos has certainly diminished and those who build them usually do so now because they want to and because they enjoy it rather than because they have to.

 

When I see a layout like Geoff Taylor's "Barmouth Junction", which is a superb example of a great layout with not a kit built loco in sight, I do wonder if the art of building locos is being held up as the "ultimate" in the hobby in a way that it no longer justifies.

 

For those that do want to learn but think some guidance is needed, there are many books and articles, you can join a club, go to shows to see demonstrators at work (well hopefully one day) or there are courses like the ones at Missenden Abbey and there are online video tutorials. The best message I was ever given was by a chap who once told me to have a go and "Don't be frit" (translation for those not from Yorkshire - "Don't be frightened"). The worst that can happen is that you make a mess and need to either sort it out, or you learn from it and try again.  

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, ScRSG said:

On the matter of unbuilt kits, here is one rescued from Tony's recent pile of disposals -

 

 

being tested on the rolling road. A trip to the weathering shop is next in line. As an aside to the job on weathering we are fortunate for locos that spent the majority of their lives in Scotland that we have soft water, so no real evidence of limescale deposits on these, just an overall coating of greyish grime.

As far as this particular kit is concerned the hardest job was to have the brake shoes fitted in such a way as to not short on the insulated wheels! Much trial and error and bad language ensued but hopefully now is all well (I hope!)

 

Chas

That's wonderful Chas,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

It just goes to show..................... For decades it's been lying in its 'bits' state in a box just gathering dust. Now, thanks to you, it's complete. 

 

I wonder if we'll see many others built from those kits I've posted off in the last month. I hope so, though do most un-built kits just go from one home to another?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, uax6 said:

I'm probably not one who should throw stones about kit building seeing I still produce bodges.... But I think one of the problems that I come across in the secondhand kits that I have acquired over time is the lack of prep-work before assembling the bits. 

If you don't put the leg work in before you start building, the end result you get tends to be a disappointment. I often find parts that haven't had the flash removed from the joining surfaces, or the etching tabs filed off. Poorly cast bits often require filling during sub-assembly stages, but often don't get it at all!

I still struggle with the chassis part of the builds, I'm not quite sure why, and as a consequence find building locos un-rewarding, but having said that, now I can solder w/metal kits together I get a bit more joy from them, but its always the chassis part that kills the build for me. Being left to work out for yourself why it doesn't run very well is should destroying, and often leads to the kit going back in the box for it think about its bad behaviour for several years!

Thankfully a recent visit to Sir didn't end up with me being totally embarrassed...

 

Andy G

Good morning Andy,

 

Most of those locos you brought along worked OK, and (if anything) just needed a tweak here and there. In fact, they worked a lot better than many kit-built locos which have run (or tried to) on Little Bytham. Which brings me, yet again, to the conclusion that the most difficult part of any loco kit-build is getting it to run 'properly'. 'Properly', of course, might be perceived as a 'flexible' definition. I've lost track of the number of times I've heard 'Any tight spots will disappear with running-in'. No they won't! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

Good Morning Tony,

 

It's academic for me, as all the numbers start with a six. That's something entirely outside my experience  (the majority of mine have numbers that start with a three, (in a proper manner). 

 

However, the question I was aiming to pose is why would anybody want a kit-based loco of unknown provenance unless it excelled over an available r-t-r equivalent in appearance or performance (and preferably both). Even then, I think its appeal would be stronger to someone with kit-building experience of their own, who will have the skills to rectify anything that does go wrong with it.

 

I've bought and fixed kit built models, and built a few myself, but only ones that I couldn't get r-t-r. In short, unlike you, I build or buy/fix from need, not because building locos is what floats my boat.   

 

I share the appreciation of others' workmanship, and that L1 looks very good indeed. It will be well worth the effort required to make it run again, but how does one cost the transaction? You touched on it when calculating what you would charge to sort it out for someone else (if you still did that sort of thing).

 

Jerry (Queensquare) pointed out earlier that someone else has already paid for the time and skill expended by the original builder, if it's a professional job. Where an element of that is included in a resale price, it surely amounts to the current owner (or his heirs) recovering some of that rather than a direct valuation of it.  

 

There's nothing wrong with that in principle but it has to be tempered with a valuation of the time and skill (as well as the components) that the purchaser will necessarily invest in returning the model to usable condition. 

 

For a loco I couldn't get any other way, I would instinctively place a greater value on the builder's efforts than if I could buy a satisfactory r-t-r equivalent without incurring such expense. I may be right or wrong in drawing such a distinction, but it seems logical to me. 

 

John  

Edited July 25, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Good morning @Headstock.  Yes I did lay it on rather thick, but the point seems to have hit the mark, given subsequent tales of ‘the journey’ that you rightly point out is what it is all about.  

 

Your mention of ‘some imaginary sweet spot over the finish line’ is very percipient.  In my case it is epitomised by the desire for a Colwick based A5 (or two) that both runs sweetly and can hold its own well enough to complement, rather than detract from the standard I eventually achieve for the rest of my layout.  I have no idea yet how easy or difficult that particular kit will be to build, but all in good time!

 

Good morning Chamby,

 

I would like a Colwick A5 too! like this one at Upperton Road bridge, to the south of Leicester Central station. The working is the12.03 PM Leicester Rugby ordinary passenger train.

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=179466&search=69809

 

The two dia. 210 twins are built, the bridge and the goods yard and shed are built and the track is laid. The A5 awaits in the queue, I had better get my skates on before the layout is reduced to scrap!

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Headstock
missing p

[Bucoops]

10 hours ago, Bucoops said:

Good evening
 

One thought I have on newcomers to the hobby versus, shall we say, seasoned veterans. Over the decades the detail and quality of kits has improved drastically - in the 1970s or even earlier, kits weren't particularly detailed and frequently used a RTR chassis. I won't say it was EASIER to build kits then, but I think it fair to say they were less complex and it was acceptable to be of lower detail that would pass muster today (a common phrase for older kits is they were good for their time).

 

So someone who has been building kits for many years has not only built up that experience, but likely started with relatively less detailed kits and as advances were made, found it fairly straightforward to up their game with their builds as they already had the basics mastered.

 

A newcomer doesn't have that luxury and unless they build a few older kits and accept the lower detail and accuracy for practice then they have to hit the ground running as it were.

 

 

I don't like to quote myself but one thing occurred to me this morning that counters my thoughts a bit - some of the older kits were a steaming pile of **** that were utterly unbuildable. There's still the odd howler about but the accuracy of part fit (as opposed to prototype accuracy) has improved significantly over the years.

[Headstock]

An update on my Gypsum train hoppers.

 

Two Bradwell brass hoppers plus seven new Parkside kits and a third finished Bradwell hopper (not shown) will make ten for the front raft of wagons. As you may be able to see, the fitting of new axleboxes has commenced on the Parkside kits. The intention is to represent a couple of different axle box combos.

 

[Clem]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Chamby,

 

I would like a Colwick A5 too! like this one at Uperton Road bridge, to the south of Leicester Central station. The working is the12.03 PM Leicester Rugby ordinary passenger train.

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=179466&search=69809

 

The two dia. 210 twins are built, the bridge and the goods yard and shed are built and the track is laid. The A5 awaits in the queue, I had better get my skates on before the layout is reduced to scrap!

 

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. I sure you will have noticed this, but just in case, if you build the A5 in the photo, remember to use the round headed LNER buffers rather than the GC oval ones that the rest of the class had.

 

A quick question on a different subject if I may... What did you use for the cosmetic bogie sides on your 60' GC matchboard non-gangway carriage? I can't seem to source any at the moment.

 

Clem

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. I sure you will have noticed this, but just in case, if you build the A5 in the photo, remember to use the round headed LNER buffers rather than the GC oval ones that the rest of the class had.

 

A quick question on a different subject if I may... What did you use for the cosmetic bogie sides on your 60' GC matchboard non-gangway carriage? I can't seem to source any at the moment.

 

Clem

 

Good afternoon Clem,

 

I'm very well thanks. I must be some sort of loony, as I am rather enjoying my modelling without agitation or fear.

 

Re the A5 tank, the 12.03 PM was a regular working for a Colwick A5 tank. It will not be 69809, I have a loco in mind. 

 

Bogies for the 60' BT (7)?

 

 

I sourced complete 10' 6'' bogies from Shapeways. The price seems to have rocketed a bit but you also get buffers. Correction, side frames only. Darn, I will have to go get the carriage now and see what I did with the bogies.

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/HBD4XEKJK/gcr-barnum-fox-10-6-quot-bogie-side-frames-and-buffer

 

Update

 

Having checked the carriage, I scratch built the bogies and then added the side frames. I think MJT produce a fold up etch for a 10' 6'' bogie and were promising a GC set of side frames. They have probably got lost in the pandemic. My previous 10' 6'' bogies came from Dan Pinnock but I don't know what the current situation is with Dan.  

Edited July 25, 2021 by Headstock
update info.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Good Morning Tony,

 

It's academic for me, as all the numbers start with a six. That's something entirely outside my experience  (the majority of mine have numbers that start with a three, (in a proper manner). 

 

However, the question I was aiming to pose is why would anybody want a kit-based loco of unknown provenance unless it excelled over an available r-t-r equivalent in appearance or performance (and preferably both). Even then, I think its appeal would be stronger to someone with kit-building experience of their own, who will have the skills to rectify anything that does go wrong with it.

 

I've bought and fixed kit built models, and built a few myself, but only ones that I couldn't get r-t-r. In short, unlike you, I build or buy/fix from need, not because building locos is what floats my boat.   

 

I share the appreciation of others' workmanship, and that L1 looks very good indeed. It will be well worth the effort required to make it run again, but how does one cost the transaction? You touched on it when calculating what you would charge to sort it out for someone else (if you still did that sort of thing).

 

Jerry (Queensquare) pointed out earlier that someone else has already paid for the time and skill expended by the original builder, if it's a professional job. Where an element of that is included in a resale price, it surely amounts to the current owner (or his heirs) recovering some of that rather than a direct valuation of it.  

 

There's nothing wrong with that in principle but it has to be tempered with a valuation of the time and skill (as well as the components) that the purchaser will necessarily invest in returning the model to usable condition. 

 

For a loco I couldn't get any other way, I would instinctively place a greater value on the builder's efforts than if I could buy a satisfactory r-t-r equivalent without incurring such expense. I may be right or wrong in drawing such a distinction, but it seems logical to me. 

 

John  

Thanks John,

 

Even the best prices I've achieved from the sale of the widow's locos don't even get near 50% of what they must have cost originally (inflation down the years taken into account). In several cases, all I've recovered is the cost of the components, if that. For instance, the L1 you mention went for (only) £90.00! Were it a good runner, I'd have asked more. As I mentioned, were I to 'sort it out', for what I'd get for it, it just isn't worth it. 

 

Worth it for the guy who's buying it, however. His time can be costed as 'leisure', and, for the cost of a new set of drivers, he'll have a good running, unique loco.

 

Finally, with regard to that L1, I've been informed that Portescaps can go for around £100.00 on eBay (is this true?). If so, some might have been tempted to buy the loco, take out the (quiet) Portescap, junk the rest of it and happily pocket a tenner! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[D.Platt]

Afternoon Tony

I sold a Portescap motor that I had , it had been sat in my draw for years , never liked the whining noise, anyway it fetched £85 not a bad return on something I never would use .

So if I had wanted one of the locos you were selling, yes sell the Portescap , but replace with a high level gearbox , not throw the rest away , I know you said it jest !

l liked the WD that you kept , if you remember a few weeks back I converted one to the Doncaster version, you really should have one on your layout .

Dennie

[polybear]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Finally, with regard to that L1, I've been informed that Portescaps can go for around £100.00 on eBay (is this true?). If so, some might have been tempted to buy the loco, take out the (quiet) Portescap, junk the rest of it and happily pocket a tenner! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

More recently they seem to go for between £50 and £70

[Chas Levin]

18 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Not really of interest to the majority of posters on this bit of the forum but it was a Paris Lyon Mediterranean (PLM)  141C (2-8-2) produced from  jouef Pacific (donor body) and a 141 R - with spoked wheels (donor chassis).    REE have recently started to produce these as rtr but not as the original PLM version.  

Oh nice, thanks for explaining. No, perhaps not typical ECML fare as usually found on this thread, but certainly of interest to me, as I also model some European stock, mainly Swiss but also French and German...

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, Iain.d said:

The previous page or two on building of models seems to be one of those ever returning topics to this thread.  I think what many have written is so close to my own thought's and experience.  I got this DJH S&D 7F for my birthday in 1984. My father was very reluctant to buy it for me and was quite verbally derisive. While the idea of starting off with something less complicated is great advice its not something I was interested in listening to then, and to be honest I wouldn’t take it today either.  In for a penny in for a pound…

 

 

I’m not also convinced that there’s a link to the ability to make models and practical skills no longer being taught in school; I made a shoe horn from brass in metalwork and a 3 legged stool in woodwork. I don’t think either played a part in my ability to make this. To me, successful modelling (define that how you want…) is more a state of mind with some ‘in built’ practical ability. And there certainly has to be the ‘want’ to do it.

 

That said, I do feel some good basic tools and some guidance are key. The 7F was completed, quite badly, with little more than the tools from our car’s tool kit – and it showed! I tried to solder it using electrical solder and was a bit disappointed when I melted the back of the tender while trying to secure it to one of the sides; I’d never heard of low melt solder! I remember reaming the axle holes in the chassis with a flat bladed screwdriver, to accept the bearings. Seven went in no problem, the eighth needed help from a pair of pliers and a hammer, it ended up being squashed! I couldn’t work out how the supplied bearing pins for the valve gear were supposed to be secured, so the valve gear was assembled with cut down dress making pins and evostick. As for trying to get the motor and chassis to run…. But with perseverance and a little practical ability and some clumsy ingenuity, I was able to get the loco chassis to run freely (yes, even with one bearing missing), I managed to fit some wiper pick ups to it and acquired an Airfix tender drive from a 4F. I painted in black and numbered it using Letraset transfers – HMRS Gill Sans BR numbers – I didn’t even know they existed or if I known about them, where I could get them from. The build took me about 3 months of trying; but when my father saw it running, he was speechless.

 

Roll on 7 years, and for me, I think it was the two Ian Rice books on loco construction that made the difference, well, that and access to a great model shop (Harburn Hobbies in Edinburgh) and having a job that allowed me to have some modelling pocket money. I was able to undo most of my mistakes and rebuild the loco, its been soldered together, DJH supplied me a new valve gear fret but it still has a tender drive (though ‘upgraded’ to a Hornby Ringfield motor), it is still very much an out of the box build and has lots of errors but I really don’t mind, it was the journey of making it that matters.

 

 

I think its important not to give up at the first hurdle, very few things in life are easy. My second build was an Airfix BR Class 4 utilising a Comet chassis and the third this Airfix BR 9F again using a Comet chassis and Romford wheels. It runs well, has a Mashima motor and gearbox in the firebox, etched smoke deflectors and so on – no crew or lamps yet mind!

 

 

I have had big gaps in my modelling journey; due to life and circumstance I packed up my modelling stuff in 1993, I did manage a little bit in 1998/9 but only really returned to it in 2015. In those intervening years I have been fortunate enough to purchase many kits including locos, carriages, wagons, signalling and the like. I have maybe 30 loco kits to do. None of them will be built in the same manner as the 7F was, but I would hope that each is an improvement on the previous.

 

And there’s no chance of me, ever, being a ‘name’ in the hobby!!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Good evening Iain,

 

I had meant to respond to your post earlier, but the thread moves so fast...................

 

I like the 9F. I'm reminded of the one below because of it........................

 

 

This is actually an original Kitmaster EVENING STAR body. It's running on a Crownline set of frames, with, like yours, a Mashima motor/gearbox in the firebox (perhaps not quite so well-disguised). It, too, has etched brass deflectors (Jackson Evans, I think). It's the work of our elder son Tom, completed 25 years ago when he was 15. Not wanting him to bleed to death, I removed the moulded-on handrails and helped him with the valve gear (I showed him how to build one side, and he did the other). The tender is a Dave Alexander BR 1F cast metal body running on the original Kitmaster frames, which were bushed to take all-metal wheels. The weathering is his work. I think it's fine as a 'layout loco', and it still runs really sweetly and powerfully, having done many miles on Stoke Summit and Charwelton, and now Little Bytham. It's on indefinite loan. 

 

It makes an interesting comparison with a DJH one...................

 

 

I acquired this from Robert Carroll, in a direct swop with the next one I'll show. The builder is unknown, but it was painted in satin black by Larry Goddard. I've detailed it slightly and Geoff Haynes has weathered it. The tender body-shape isn't as accurate for a 1F as the Dave Alexander one (the cut-out at the rear is too deep). 

 

 

Here's the swop one - a Bachmann 9F which I've detailed and further weathered. From recent evidence, this will pull more than the DJH ones, it has the right number of spokes in its drivers (the other two have too many), its tender is accurate for a 1F and it's more 'forgiving' of Robert's pointwork (the DJH one, because of limited sideplay, tended to stick, though it's fine on LB). 

 

And finally, the Bachmann 9F I still retain...............

 

 

I've detailed this as well, and weathered it lightly. 

 

I think the Bachmann 9Fs are superb models. I wonder what Hornby's forthcoming one will be like in comparison. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[john new]

On 24/07/2021 at 09:45, john new said:

The avoidance for me is locos and possibly some rolling stock kits in brass. I make stuff in other materials quite happily and have used brass in other instances including a scratch built traverser a few years back. The desire for fidelity has added complexity.

 

The sporting analogy is these kit designs need someone with International player equivalent levels of skill to build but are mostly bought by modellers of much lower ability. Buying a Man Utd top won’t make you more than a Sunday league player. What Tony’s posts about bad running showed to me was that many kits nowadays require an elite level skill set to build and most of us haven’t got it hence so many of the items going through his hands recently don’t run properly.

 

 

A possibly interesting update on modelling/crafting skills and things we have learnt over time. When I wrote the above I was in hospital, now home I got back to the decorating job (abandoned last week due to that unexpected admission) by finishing off a light duties task to ease myself back in. I picked up my small craft knife and the curtain hanging bracket a previous owner had smeared with paint around the base. A little bit of whittling later and it is good enough to go back with the paint removed from the original varnished item and the repair unnoticeable. A little bit of cash saved from not having to replace the whole set and some excellent crafting therapy to boot.

 

Whittling is a skill I suppose I first learnt as a kid knife-sharpening pencils and mangling sticks in the woods etc. It never crossed my mind I couldn't still do it. Why mention it? Today's kids would never use a pen-knife to sharpen pencils and going out carrying a knife could easily get them locked up! 

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by john new
Missing note.

[uax6]

Ah but you are now into another kettle of fish.... Parenting.....

When I was a kid I was allowed all sorts of freedoms and dangerous tools to hurt myself with. At 10 I used to get on the bus on my own and go to a secondhand book shop 20 miles away... 

I have a daughter who is 13, and I'm quite happy for her to do lots of things, but SWMBO quite often overules me by saying its not safe. We live in a small village in the middle of know-where, I can't think of a safer place.... If she hurts herself doing something, then she can learn from whatever caused it and know not to do it again.

 

But we are fairly slack, I know other parents who wouldn't dream of their children having the freedom that our's has,

which means that they have very little experience of the big bad world, without parental supervision... Thats where things like brownies and guides come in I suppose. 

 

And because of this 'we can't let them do that they'll hurt themselves / be abducted/etc' attitude, most of todays youth have no real idea about the world.

 

Andy G 

[chris p bacon]

44 minutes ago, uax6 said:

Ah but you are now into another kettle of fish.... Parenting.....

 

I have a daughter who is 13

 

As you like driving your Moggy Minor Van I'm sure you're the parent she doesn't want to be seen dead with..

[uax6]

Actually we use the saloon for the school run, and apart from the rear doors not opening wide enough for her (Kids used to be smaller in the '60's I guess) she doesn't moan about it at all...

 

Whether she wants to be seen with me is still open to debate mind...

 

Andy G