Wright writes.....

[TrainMan2001]

8 hours ago, rowanj said:

Of course, there will always be folk, myself included, who will continue to build even if there is an equivalent RTR model simply for the pleasure of doing so, And as a modeller of BR(NE) I too need to build kits to fill gaps in the roster - RTR hasn't  filled them all yet.

To add to that a little, there are manufacturers who have made things RTR and got them wrong. As a rather extreme (and irrelevant to nearly everyone) example, Thomas has been made by both Hornby and Bachmann and neither got it right with their main range (00). There's also the Oxford Dean Goods and Hornby Stroudleys (yes, I know that was intentional).

 

Also, depending on where you look, kit wagons can be cheaper than RTR, and I actually built my first one ever today because of that. There are still incentives out there for kit and scratchbuilding.

[PMP]

9 hours ago, TrainMan2001 said:

To add to that a little, there are manufacturers who have made things RTR and got them wrong. As a rather extreme (and irrelevant to nearly everyone) example, Thomas has been made by both Hornby and Bachmann and neither got it right with their main range (00). 

There will be a very good reason for not making Thomas accurate. The licenses are issued for limited times, so if you made an accurate ‘ Thomas’ when the license deal ends you can no longer sell it. If you design your own model that captures close enough the character of the locomotive but clearly isn’t Thomas et al,  it allows you to sell those models in different liveries after a commercial brand deal has ended.

It’s worth noting there are plenty of kit errors out there over the years too!

[gr.king]

Perhaps for some, although RTR is not objectionable, having only the same models that lots of other people also have can be a bit boring, even if RTR items cover most of the stock that should actually be seen in the period of the model. Kit building then offers the chance of having something less "common", especially if the kit is adapted to produce something other than the manufacturer's original intention. Scratch building of course, if you have the time, the patience and have been able as well as willing to acquire/develop the skills, offers the possibility of having something so unusual or with such "minority appeal", or with such awkward construction, that even cottage-industry kit makers with lower tooling/manufacturing costs won't touch it.

[grahame]

16 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Perhaps for some, although RTR is not objectionable, having only the same models that lots of other people also have can be a bit boring, even if RTR items cover most of the stock that should actually be seen in the period of the model. Kit building then offers the chance of having something less "common", especially if the kit is adapted to produce something other than the manufacturer's original intention. Scratch building of course, if you have the time, the patience and have been able as well as willing to acquire/develop the skills, offers the possibility of having something so unusual or with such "minority appeal", or with such awkward construction, that even cottage-industry kit makers with lower tooling/manufacturing costs won't touch it.

 

There are some subjects (locos, wagons, coaches, and particularly multiple units) that are not available as RTR or kits, especially in the less popular scales, which are not minority appeal and are often essential requirements for a layout. In such circumstances it often necessary to heavily bash (RTR and kits) or scratch-build to acquire a representative roster. The alternative being to commission requirements.

 

 

[Ray Flintoft]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening David,

 

I think it's the braking systems which are different between the Gresley and Peppercorn (and Thompson) Pacifics. 

 

Which precluded the A1s from operating the non-stop because the corridor tenders were vacuum-braked only.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

You're quite right , Tony, the Gresley pacifics were vacuum braked for both loco. & train , whilst the Thompson & Peppercorn pacifics  were steam brake for the loco. & vacuum brakes for the train . I think the shot of no. 60117 was probably taken during April/May 1963 when she visited Doncaster for a casual light repair . She was finally scrapped at Clayton & Davie of Dunston .

             Regards ,

                        Ray .

[Chamby]

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

Perhaps for some, although RTR is not objectionable, having only the same models that lots of other people also have can be a bit boring, even if RTR items cover most of the stock that should actually be seen in the period of the model. Kit building then offers the chance of having something less "common", especially if the kit is adapted to produce something other than the manufacturer's original intention. Scratch building of course, if you have the time, the patience and have been able as well as willing to acquire/develop the skills, offers the possibility of having something so unusual or with such "minority appeal", or with such awkward construction, that even cottage-industry kit makers with lower tooling/manufacturing costs won't touch it.

 

It also depends upon your main modelling focus.  Is your model railway simply the environment through which your prized locomotives haul trains through, or conversely are the trains simply a moving component in your carefully modelled landscape?  If the latter, then modern RTR offerings will more than meet the modellers need.  Of course, it’s not an ‘either/or’ scenario, some like it all to be built to perfection.  But the ‘broad church’ that is often referred to, is why both RTR and kit construction will continue to have a place in our hobby.

 

One modeller I know sees his (superb) model railway as a way to showcase his hobby of architectural modelling: including a railway in the model townscape adds interest, but also gives him an exhibition outlet to both showcase his work and receive wider critical acclaim than he would otherwise get.

 

As we so often say, each to his own!

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

Perhaps for some, although RTR is not objectionable, having only the same models that lots of other people also have can be a bit boring, even if RTR items cover most of the stock that should actually be seen in the period of the model. Kit building then offers the chance of having something less "common", especially if the kit is adapted to produce something other than the manufacturer's original intention. Scratch building of course, if you have the time, the patience and have been able as well as willing to acquire/develop the skills, offers the possibility of having something so unusual or with such "minority appeal", or with such awkward construction, that even cottage-industry kit makers with lower tooling/manufacturing costs won't touch it.

Good afternoon Graeme,

 

The business of scratch-building (in my case locomotives) has been part of my modelling 'journey' for more years than I care to remember. It was necessary because the locos I wanted (at the time) were certainly not available RTR (not that I would have used them) or from kits. Examples include classes A1/1, A2/2, A2/3, B2, K1, O1 and so on. Interestingly, all but the O1 have been sold on and replaced by my building of kits.

 

What's also interesting is that I'd scratch-build a loco, only  to find (often not long after) that a kit would become available. Whereupon, I'd be told at a show that I'd been quick off the mark building such and such a kit (John Hughes at the Leeds Show not long after the DJH A1 was available). Or, and this is worse, I'd build a kit and an RTR equivalent would then become available. Then at a show I'd hear 'Is that the latest Hornbach loco you've got there?'. 

 

Whereas I've been more than happy to replace my previous scratch-built locos with better kits (the DJH A1, for instance), I've never replaced my kit-built locos with RTR ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Ray Flintoft said:

You're quite right , Tony, the Gresley pacifics were vacuum braked for both loco. & train , whilst the Thompson & Peppercorn pacifics  were steam brake for the loco. & vacuum brakes for the train . I think the shot of no. 60117 was probably taken during April/May 1963 when she visited Doncaster for a casual light repair . She was finally scrapped at Clayton & Davie of Dunston .

             Regards ,

                        Ray .

Thanks Ray,

 

Which probably means it is MALLARD behind.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I've just received the GWR collection; the one once belonging to a now-deceased modeller.

 

It's quite extensive, and I'll be going through it - mainly kit-built locos/carriages/wagons (of mixed quality), with several un-built GWR loco and rolling stock kits.

 

Oddly, there's also a complete nine-car LNER 'Coronation' train, made from Mailcoach kits. 

 

I'll be taking photographs before too long.

 

As always, 10% of any sales will go to DCRUK.

 

Watch this space. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Tony Wright

[Denbridge]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just received the GWR collection; the one once belonging to a now-deceased modeller.

 

It's quite extensive, and I'll be going through it - mainly kit-built locos/carriages/wagons (of mixed quality), with several un-built GWR loco and rolling stock kits.

 

Oddly, there's also a complete nine-car LNER 'Coronation' train, made from Mailcoach kits. 

 

I'll be taking photographs before too long.

 

As always, 10% of any sales will go to DCRUK.

 

Watch this space. 

Sounds very interesting. Timing could be better for me though unfortunately.

[Atso]

Interesting reading about RTR, kit built, scratch build, etc. I offer my own take on making something otherwise not available. It has been seen before but I've been tinkering with it to get better performance.

 

 

One of my N gauge C1 Atlantics having now been rebuilt with a sprung front bogie and new tender chassis. Both of these have been machined from brass and the bogie sports a turned kingpin and hand wound spring.

 

 

The split frame tender chassis late in its construction. The wire provides an electrical paths from this side of the chassis to the motor - the other is provided by one of the fixing screws.

 

 

 

So, a Dapol Hall chassis, Dapol Britannia driving wheels, Farish bogie/cartazzi wheels and Peco tender wheels, a mix of 3D printing, scratch building and modifying RTR to get a loco not otherwise available in my chosen scale. Better still, it now runs a lot better and can haul loads in excess of anything my layout will ever require it to pull. All that's left to do is investigate why it loco is sitting a smidge lopsided (hence the slightly high loco footplate compared to the tender. That's going to be tomorrows job.

 

12 (ish) years after starting my journey to make this class of locomotive, I think I've finally cracked it.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Graeme,

 

The business of scratch-building (in my case locomotives) has been part of my modelling 'journey' for more years than I care to remember. It was necessary because the locos I wanted (at the time) were certainly not available RTR (not that I would have used them) or from kits. Examples include classes A1/1, A2/2, A2/3, B2, K1, O1 and so on. Interestingly, all but the O1 have been sold on and replaced by my building of kits.

 

What's also interesting is that I'd scratch-build a loco, only  to find (often not long after) that a kit would become available. Whereupon, I'd be told at a show that I'd been quick off the mark building such and such a kit (John Hughes at the Leeds Show not long after the DJH A1 was available). Or, and this is worse, I'd build a kit and an RTR equivalent would then become available. Then at a show I'd hear 'Is that the latest Hornbach loco you've got there?'. 

 

Whereas I've been more than happy to replace my previous scratch-built locos with better kits (the DJH A1, for instance), I've never replaced my kit-built locos with RTR ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It is interesting how we "value" such things differently.

 

To me, the few that I have scratchbuilt are the ones I value most and they would be the last that I would part with.

 

If I have a personal attachment to a loco built from a kit, then the relationship with a scratchbuilt one is even closer.

 

Not that my scratchbuilds are likely to ever be available RTR but I have had people ask if my kit built J11 in GCR livery is the Bachmann one. Rather than annoying, I see it as a compliment. If I have built and painted one that could be mistaken for the rather lovely Bachmann version, then I have done something right. At the other end of the spectrum, somebody once asked me if my GCR period Q4 was scratchbuilt. When I answered that it was a much altered Millholme kit, the chap raised an eyebrow and said that he hadn't recognised it as such. I allowed myself a brief moment of smug self satisfaction that all the hard work had paid off.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

It is interesting how we "value" such things differently.

 

To me, the few that I have scratchbuilt are the ones I value most and they would be the last that I would part with.

 

If I have a personal attachment to a loco built from a kit, then the relationship with a scratchbuilt one is even closer.

 

Not that my scratchbuilds are likely to ever be available RTR but I have had people ask if my kit built J11 in GCR livery is the Bachmann one. Rather than annoying, I see it as a compliment. If I have built and painted one that could be mistaken for the rather lovely Bachmann version, then I have done something right. At the other end of the spectrum, somebody once asked me if my GCR period Q4 was scratchbuilt. When I answered that it was a much altered Millholme kit, the chap raised an eyebrow and said that he hadn't recognised it as such. I allowed myself a brief moment of smug self satisfaction that all the hard work had paid off.

It is Tony,

 

I don't think I've ever been 'attached' to anything I've ever made. Though I always fall well short, I always strive to do the best I can in, say, building a loco. My early scratch-built locos were rather crude and very basic (all have appeared in the model press and in my books down the years), but, at the time, they were the 'best' I could achieve. Then, along came a decent kit for the same, so I grabbed the opportunity to make a better model. Selling the scratch-built ones on recovered some of the costs and delighted several folk who now own them (or did). Thus, I'm happy and they're happy. What's not to like? 

 

I've also done it with kits - lumpen Cornard B17s and Austerities have made way for much better kit alternatives, as have the likes of Wills A2s and (even more lumpen) Millholme Thompson Pacifics. 

 

Perhaps I should take it as a compliment when folk think what I've built is actually RTR. Not much of one, however, if they believe that the RTR equivalents will pull the same load!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Well, I've started examining the GWR collection............

 

Here are the first three I've attended to.

 

 

This is a Far East brass 45XX, painted by I know not whom.

 

It runs well, and I'm asking £85.00 for it. 

 

 

A Jamieson Hall (sadly, its nameplates are missing, but they're easily replaced). To begin with it was a bit of a dud, but some Wright TLC, changing the wiring so it now runs the right way, and she's not too bad. I'm asking £60.00 for this.

 

 

A venerable K's Dean Goods. Amazingly, apart from the typical K's motor whirr, it doesn't run badly. It's lost a buffer, but will anyone take pity on it for £35.00?

 

I've cleaned/oiled/adjusted pick-ups on all of this trio, and I'll be doing the same to several more tomorrow.

 

I know none of the builders'/painters' names, though I doubt if any are 'professionals'. 

 

Anyone interested in any of these, please PM me. 

 

 

 

 

[Chamby]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Well, I've started examining the GWR collection............

 

Here are the first three I've attended to.

 

 

This is a Far East brass 45XX, painted by I know not whom.

 

It runs well, and I'm asking £85.00 for it. 

 

 

A Jamieson Hall (sadly, its nameplates are missing, but they're easily replaced). To begin with it was a bit of a dud, but some Wright TLC, changing the wiring so it now runs the right way, and she's not too bad. I'm asking £60.00 for this.

 

 

A venerable K's Dean Goods. Amazingly, apart from the typical K's motor whirr, it doesn't run badly. It's lost a buffer, but will anyone take pity on it for £35.00?

 

I've cleaned/oiled/adjusted pick-ups on all of this trio, and I'll be doing the same to several more tomorrow.

 

I know none of the builders'/painters' names, though I doubt if any are 'professionals'. 

 

Anyone interested in any of these, please PM me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

I too am currently disposing of a GWR collection, on behalf of a widow of a former enthusiast, but in my case the collection is all RTR.  

 

This collection also has a 45xx, Hall and Dean goods.  Plus a Star, County (both 4-6-0 and 4-4-0 types), large prairie, 42xx, 4700 2-8-0, King, Grange, Castle, a couple of panniers and a saddle tank.  There can’t be many GWR prototypes that have not been produced by the manufacturers now?

[Jesse Sim]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

, I'd build a kit and an RTR equivalent would then become available. Then at a show I'd hear 'Is that the latest Hornbach loco you've got there?'. 

 

 

Although not loco’s but I’ve had a few people comment on wagons I’ve built asking if they are a new RTR offering…. 
 

Is that classed as a compliment? 

[Jesse Sim]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just received the GWR collection; the one once belonging to a now-deceased modeller.

 

It's quite extensive, and I'll be going through it - mainly kit-built locos/carriages/wagons (of mixed quality), with several un-built GWR loco and rolling stock kits.

 

Oddly, there's also a complete nine-car LNER 'Coronation' train, made from Mailcoach kits. 

 

I'll be taking photographs before too long.

 

As always, 10% of any sales will go to DCRUK.

 

Watch this space. 

Would you accept one pound a week for 10 years? 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It is Tony,

 

I don't think I've ever been 'attached' to anything I've ever made. Though I always fall well short, I always strive to do the best I can in, say, building a loco. My early scratch-built locos were rather crude and very basic (all have appeared in the model press and in my books down the years), but, at the time, they were the 'best' I could achieve. Then, along came a decent kit for the same, so I grabbed the opportunity to make a better model. Selling the scratch-built ones on recovered some of the costs and delighted several folk who now own them (or did). Thus, I'm happy and they're happy. What's not to like? 

 

I've also done it with kits - lumpen Cornard B17s and Austerities have made way for much better kit alternatives, as have the likes of Wills A2s and (even more lumpen) Millholme Thompson Pacifics. 

 

Perhaps I should take it as a compliment when folk think what I've built is actually RTR. Not much of one, however, if they believe that the RTR equivalents will pull the same load!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Maybe that is a consequence of your high levels of production over the years. If I was knocking locos out at the rate you do, then I might feel the same way too. I rarely build more than one of a type of loco, so each one is "my first" of that class. If I have built as many J11s as you have A1s, I don't think subsequent ones would have the same emotional pull on me. They would be "just another one off the production line". Mine take many months, sometimes years, to complete and I regard each one as part of my path through the hobby. When I look at them, they bring back memories of the people I was working with at the time and the layouts they were built for. 

 

When I build models for others, that is quite different and I am happy that they will be giving somebody else pleasure. I don't like the idea of parting with ones I have built for myself, no matter how long ago they were done or how much I have learned since I built them.

 

From memory, I have only ever disposed of one loco that I have built for myself and I know the chap it went to butchered it by trying to convert it to something else and ended up ruining it. So I regretted letting that one go even though it was a GWR loco and no use to me now. A Ks Dean Goods it was and my first attempt at building a loco and a mechanism. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Although not loco’s but I’ve had a few people comment on wagons I’ve built asking if they are a new RTR offering…. 
 

Is that classed as a compliment? 

 

Good evening  Jesse,

 

RTR manufactures have a pretty poor record when it comes to wagons, even new ones can be totally fictitious. Two thirds of those on sale in the current big manufactures catalogues are grade one turkeys. A dubious compliment I suppose.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Headstock
space

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Although not loco’s but I’ve had a few people comment on wagons I’ve built asking if they are a new RTR offering…. 
 

Is that classed as a compliment? 

Depends whether they are comparing it with something like the superb Hornby SR cattle wagon or the diabolical LMS equivalent from Bachmann.

 

John

[Iain.d]

I’ve been working on this LMS D1810 Restaurant First Open from Comet/Wizard.  Progress has been slow but this week I have advanced a little further.  As a 68 ft Period II vehicle the sides are devoid of features; I have added door hinges and door bumps, door vents will be added after painting. The Stones Ventilators are beautifully fine brass etches from Rumney Models.

 

 

I started to solder them from the back but struggled to get them level, so after the first couple I ended up doing them from the front with the tiniest amount of solder I could. I think the tidying up is smooth enough for the solder not to show under the paint.

 

The main components:

 

And soldered up as the basic body:

 

There’s still a fair way to go with lots of detail to add and an interior to build.  I’ll also make the roof removable so will solder in a couple transverse strengtheners to the body, between the windows and close to cant rail level – on previous builds I have soldered them in to lie just touching the underside of the roof. I’ll fix bolts in from the roof, hiding them with a vent or something like that.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Tony,

 

I too am currently disposing of a GWR collection, on behalf of a widow of a former enthusiast, but in my case the collection is all RTR.  

 

This collection also has a 45xx, Hall and Dean goods.  Plus a Star, County (both 4-6-0 and 4-4-0 types), large prairie, 42xx, 4700 2-8-0, King, Grange, Castle, a couple of panniers and a saddle tank.  There can’t be many GWR prototypes that have not been produced by the manufacturers now?

Good morning Phil,

 

The best of luck with your finding new homes for the GWR items you have ('disposing' sounds rather negative in my view). 

 

So far nobody's come in for the trio of locos I've put on - just a question. Still, it's very early days and there are lots more to feature. Could it be that most readers of WW don't follow the GWR? We'll see. 

 

What's evident, having briefly looked at most of the locos, is that they're not in the same class (pun intended) as the recent LNER collections I've sold (with one exception, a Star, which I think I've already found a home for). These are what I might call 'journeyman' models, mainly built from older kits; generally well-built (at an amateur level, if that's not too disparaging) and tolerably well-painted, but definitely not top drawer. Because of this, I'll be pricing them accordingly (mostly well-less than £100.00 each). I know this sounds rather 'sad', but I've got to be realistic. Their true 'worth' has been the pleasure the late owner has derived from them; either through their making or having them to run, or both. 

 

I hope any new owners will derive pleasure from them, too. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Would you accept one pound a week for 10 years? 

I assume for the 'Coronation', Jesse?

 

I'll take its picture today, and you can see what it looks like. Ironically, you might be very near the price, though not the timescale!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[TrevorP1]

55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

So far nobody's come in for the trio of locos I've put on - just a question. Still, it's very early days and there are lots more to feature. Could it be that most readers of WW don't follow the GWR? We'll see. 

 

 

No promises Tony but I'll be keeping a close eye on the GWR models, especially the rolling stock.

 

The items from past interests I'm selling these days have taught me to be quite selective in purchasing new kits or RTR. However, I'm 'lining up to weaken' especially as it's in an excellent cause. Presumably everything is in GW livery so the ease of changing that to the late '50s/early '60s has to be factored in.  I keep looking at the Hall but I have four already... 

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Chamby said:

There can’t be many GWR prototypes that have not been produced by the manufacturers now?

A 2021 pannier would be nice. Perhaps I should start my Nu-Cast kit to give the manufacturers a gee-up.