Wright writes.....

[darren01]

Hi 

I have been making my telegraph poles using 3mm doweling  and the arms i got from MES, you get 12 arms for £1.50.

Darren01

[Ben Alder]

so for this chappy the advent of the digital camera actually made him improve his modelling.

 

Agree with you totally there- it was a spur that the eye couldn't ignore, and I used it a lot when building the last layout, taking WIP pics as I went- the amount of later corrections and mistakes it saved were numerous, ranging from the nit picking to serious, but helped avoid some of the things that proved  problematic shortcomings in the previous layout.

[Barry O]

Tony

The poles look fine to me..its your layout so if they are OK for you ..good!

 

Life is too short to be building highly detailed telegraph posts...of course people will disagree but they could build some as part of the bartering scheme?

 

Baz

[gr.king]

Why make them anyway? I gather they have poles to spare in Boston....

[Horsetan]

.... I gather they have poles to spare in Boston....

....I'd be tempted to give you a good old Polski Smak for a joke like that.

[Tony Wright]

Just an update on some of the comments if I may; my thanks, as usual, to all those who've posted.

 

The telegraph poles highlighted by Mr Duck look fantastic, but even with my ropey maths, by calculating the number of rails needed and working out the extra costs, I'd say the most complex poles (in Boston or anywhere!) would be between £50.00 and £70.00 each (one has 19 cross rails). All in all, then, well over £600.00 for telegraph poles! I think not, and I'll live with what I've made. 

 

As for my fears being allayed for a skill-loss in the hobby, it might well be that new skills will be required and that there is less of a need to make locos and rolling stock as the RTR stuff now is so good (I'm speaking of 4mm generally). Thus, things like 3D printing will become more widespread and introduce an exciting future. That is laudable, but will the future for the kit-builder be the purchase of a programme from a 'kit-manufacturer', the feeding of it into a printer and the watching of the results as it emerges? As I return to the hobby, almost without exception the chums I'm re-acquainting with tell the same tale. All of these are modellers; folk who actually make models, not those who just commission things or are content with RTR and RTP. And that tale is one of a drop-off in kit-building, the contraction of the businesses because of this and little or no investment in future developments. 'So what?', many might proclaim, and 'We've never had it so good'. I'm inclined to agree, but don't ask me to get too excited at layouts populated mainly by RTR locos and stock, no matter how good it might be at source or how nicely altered. I admit my hypocrisy on this point, and I'm happy to run several RTR locos and items of stock but, as I've said many times, the things I make for myself are so much more 'mine'. 

 

 

 

Things like this PDK B12/3 I've just completed (rather than waste time on the computer!). It's a good kit, captures the look of a B12 and is a very personal creation. Personal enough for me to be a little 'ashamed' of the blobby soldering in places, though this is highlighted by my 'cruel' photography (of which more later). But, how much longer will it be necessary to build a B12? It's surely on an RTR manufacturer's radar. And then everyone will have one (as long as they can afford it), and it'll probably be better than this. And thus, it'll be seen on layouts everywhere. Perhaps I really am a reactionary old f*rt! The blobs under the cab roof are beads of 'liquid gravity' by the way, invisible from normal viewing angles). 

 

As for the freeing up of time to devote to other aspects of the layout because there's less of an imperative to make stock any more, then that is great. Except that recently I've seen several layouts where RTP buildings abound. Good as these might be, they're no substitute for hand-crafted architecture in my opinion. But, that's the way the hobby appears to be going to me in many ways. Open a box, put the contents on or near the track and be happy. Good for you! And, if you can't make things yourself, commission items (more hypocrisy on my part, I admit). But, does all this make one a railway modeller? A facilitator without doubt, and the results can be inspirational in the latter case if commissioned well.

 

 

Three great blokes arrived today and operated LB. All of these are true modellers. They actually make things, often in the most inventive of ways. One brought things he's made, the other two what others had made.

 

 

Take this 'Austin Seven' for instance; built by Keith Pearce from a marriage between a Hornby 'Patriot' and an Airfix 4F!. He's as mad as Graeme King! But, he's on a very tight budget and has physical health issues. So, what an achievement. A guy who's had a real go, created something really personal and it ran superbly. So much more worthy (to me) than the latest RTR wonderment (no matter how much better it might be) or example of purchasing power. The exceptional load is the splendid work of the late Andrew Kinsella.

 

 

 

Two more examples of Keith's work. The 4F is a modified Airfix item with scratch-built tender sides to represent the Fowler high-sided sort. 

 

As for the Turbomotive; I think it's a hacked-about Hornby 'Princess' body on a Hornby-Dublo 'Duchess' chassis with a Hornby 'Black Five' tender. Of course, under close photographic scrutiny (more later), they don't stand up too well, but what a poke in the eye for the moaners in my opinion. 'Can't do things', 'It's too expensive' and 'I have to get others to do things for me'. How often have you heard excuses like that? All Keith's stuff is bought second-hand, often non-running, and he just gets on with it. This is an approach to modelling I really admire.

 

 

Another example of Andrew Kinsella's work, in the form of this SE Finecast W1. Despite claims that it 'wouldn't haul anything', I gave it a tweak, adjusted the front bogie and off she romped with the 'Elizabethan'.

 

 

Does anyone know what this vehicle is please? It was brought along by the guys and was built by Dennis Burfott from his own sketches. He's now in his 90s and is still modelling. 

 

Finally, photography. What a boon the digital camera is, and what a great tool for exposing out-of-kilter modelling. In the days of film I always took step-by-step pictures, but before I could proceed further, it was boiling up chemicals, developing the film then printing off the negs. Now, everyone's a photographer and good on it, too. But don't be too surprised if under the lens your efforts aren't quite what you'd like. The camera is entirely dispassionate, clinical and brutal. If an item is wobbly, bendy, not straight, rough, blobby, leany or anything else, it's because it is. It's not parallax, lens aberration or any other excuse.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Tony Wright

[johnarcher]

 

As for my fears being allayed for a skill-loss in the hobby, it might well be that new skills will be required and that there is less of a need to make locos and rolling stock as the RTR stuff now is so good (I'm speaking of 4mm generally). Thus, things like 3D printing will become more widespread and introduce an exciting future. That is laudable, but will the future for the kit-builder be the purchase of a programme from a 'kit-manufacturer', the feeding of it into a printer and the watching of the results as it emerges? As I return to the hobby, almost without exception the chums I'm re-acquainting with tell the same tale. All of these are modellers; folk who actually make models, not those who just commission things or are content with RTR and RTP. And that tale is one of a drop-off in kit-building, the contraction of the businesses because of this and little or no investment in future developments. 'So what?', many might proclaim, and 'We've never had it so good'. I'm inclined to agree, but don't ask me to get too excited at layouts populated mainly by RTR locos and stock, no matter how good it might be at source or how nicely altered. I admit my hypocrisy on this point, and I'm happy to run several RTR locos and items of stock but, as I've said many times, the things I make for myself are so much more 'mine'. 

 

Things like this PDK B12/3 I've just completed (rather than waste time on the computer!). It's a good kit, captures the look of a B12 and is a very personal creation. Personal enough for me to be a little 'ashamed' of the blobby soldering in places, though this is highlighted by my 'cruel' photography (of which more later). But, how much longer will it be necessary to build a B12? It's surely on an RTR manufacturer's radar. And then everyone will have one (as long as they can afford it), and it'll probably be better than this. And thus, it'll be seen on layouts everywhere. Perhaps I really am a reactionary old f*rt! The blobs under the cab roof are beads of 'liquid gravity' by the way, invisible from normal viewing angles). 

 

 

I'd largely agree with that, this has been talked about elsewhere I know, but I would like to express my more-than agreement here too. I have considered going back to SG after being concerned with 00n3, but I have doubts about the scale I used before - 4mm, I can envisage, as you say, r-t-r being so preponderant that there is not the demand to support producers of kits and parts.

Where I would differ a bit is where you talk of the 'need' to build a B12, for me the whole point of modelling is the pleasure and challenge of making things - need doesn't come into it, I don't want anything r-t-r however good it is (and I don't deny that much of it can be good in many ways), it simply defeats the object. If I should return to 4mm GW I'll make a Mitchell 45xx kit, (I enjoy etched kits), however 'good' the r-t-r version may be. Sure I don't need to buy anything ready-made if I don't want to, but what if, as I said above, the market no longer supports the kits and bits?

So I'm considering 3mm scale, in the hope it's a big enough market for kits to be produced but not so big as to tempt the r-t-r makers.

As I said this is just what I find attractive in the hobby, for me modelling is about making models not buying them, but I am really just expressing my own taste and not criticising all the people who feel differently (any more than expressing a preference for the GW is a criticism of those who prefer inferior other lines), I just hope one approach doesn't take over to the exclusion of the other. 

Personally when I think of the 4mm kit ranges that have vanished since I modelled SG in the 80's I'm not at all sure about 'we've never had it so good', 

[RhBBob]

Why make them anyway? I gather they have poles to spare in Boston....

 

Not forgetting Latvians, Lithuanians and many more upright persons ......

[Jol Wilkinson]

I'd largely agree with that, this has been talked about elsewhere I know, but I would like to express my more-than agreement here too. I have considered going back to SG after being concerned with 00n3, but I have doubts about the scale I used before - 4mm, I can envisage, as you say, r-t-r being so preponderant that there is not the demand to support producers of kits and parts.

Where I would differ a bit is where you talk of the 'need' to build a B12, for me the whole point of modelling is the pleasure and challenge of making things - need doesn't come into it, I don't want anything r-t-r however good it is (and I don't deny that much of it can be good in many ways), it simply defeats the object. If I should return to 4mm GW I'll make a Mitchell 45xx kit, (I enjoy etched kits), however 'good' the r-t-r version may be. Sure I don't need to buy anything ready-made if I don't want to, but what if, as I said above, the market no longer supports the kits and bits?

So I'm considering 3mm scale, in the hope it's a big enough market for kits to be produced but not so big as to tempt the r-t-r makers.

As I said this is just what I find attractive in the hobby, for me modelling is about making models not buying them, but I am really just expressing my own taste and not criticising all the people who feel differently (any more than expressing a preference for the GW is a criticism of those who prefer inferior other lines), I just hope one approach doesn't take over to the exclusion of the other. 

Personally when I think of the 4mm kit ranges that have vanished since I modelled SG in the 80's I'm not at all sure about 'we've never had it so good', 

John,

 

despite the loss (or potential loss) of some kit producers, I think that the situation in 4mm is probably much better at this time than it was thirty years ago. We have better track components, better quality kits (I don't mourn the loss of K's, Nucast and the like), wider ranges of models especially for the pre-grouping and big four railways. While not everything is covered it's far better than the choice available via RTR.

 

The picture will be different in ten or twenty years time when today's business owners have retired (or worse). But then the whole modelling scene may have changed. Get on the bandwagon while it is still rolling.

 

Jol

[coachmann]

The camera is entirely dispassionate, clinical and brutal. If an item is wobbly, bendy, not straight, rough, blobby, leany or anything else, it's because it is. It's not parallax, lens aberration or any other excuse.

Just like to add that those typically 18 - 55 cheapo zoom lenses, which are such a boon to model photography because of their close-focussing facility, suffer from chronic barrel distortion at extreme wide angle. One could not expect anything else at the price nor indeed in higher price ranges, but care has to be taken if ones beloved model buildings are not to look skewiff. This lens is in constant use around my layout. 

 

Thanks for posting photos of the B12. It looks great. I'm not too worried about buying RTR and RTP, the main thing being whatever suits my purpose or can be altered to give me the end product I am looking for. I actually get enjoyment out of modifying things and scratchbuilding the rest. But I would buy a RTR B12 so bring it on Bachy!   

Edited November 7, 2014 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Just like to add that those typically 18 - 55 cheapo zoom lenses, which are such a boon to model photography because of their close-focussing facility, suffer from chronic barrel distortion at extreme wide angle. One could not expect anything else at the price nor indeed in higher price ranges, but care has to be taken if ones beloved model buildings are not to look skewiff. This lens is in constant use around my layout. 

 

Thanks for posting photos of the B12. It looks great. I'm not too worried about buying RTR and RTP, the main thing being whatever suits my purpose or can be altered to give me the end product I am looking for. I actually get enjoyment out of modifying things and scratchbuilding the rest. But I would buy a RTR B12 so bring it on Bachy!   

Thanks Larry,

 

I should have qualified my comments about distortion with wide-angle lenses. Yes, you can get the pin-cushion effect, peripheral distortion or diverging verticals. That's why I use a Nikon 55mm Micro for a large part of my photography. It focuses to within an inch of the subject, thence to infinity, and stops down to F32. It gives no distortion.

 

I was thinking more where someone takes a shot of, say, a whole train, then attempts to excuse the fact that vehicles appear wobbly, to lean, to be at different angles from each other or ride at different heights; because the lens distorts these things and makes them look like they do. It's because they are really like that in the main - examples of less-than-perfect modelling (believe me, I know because of my own wobbly modelling). Lens distortion at the edges won't account for distortion in the centre. What's the next excuse for some poor modelling? Reciprocity failure?

 

But I'm not a student of the science of optics, and, because I once earned my living (in part) as a professional photographer, all my photographic equipment is high-quality, and costly!

 

And, I'm in (almost) complete agreement with Jol. That's why I DO mourn the loss of some of the earlier loco kits. Why? Because build 'em, get 'em to run and look reasonable, and no future model loco-building should present any fears. They were a wonderful, if steep, learning curve. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

Although the quality of kits has, in most cases, improved, so has their complexity and the level of skill needed to tackle them.

 

When I started building kits, I began with the Ks "Bodyline" J50, which fitted on a RTR chassis and it seemed to have about 6 or 7 parts. Even the driver and fireman were part of the cast sides!

 

As a 12 year old, I could make a job of it and get it to go. It wasn't perfect but it was a very good first step.

 

There is nothing I am aware of that is equivalent to that nowadays and I am not aware that there is an easy progression into kitbuilding locos any more.

 

I moved on to make whitemetal kits with chassis, then later on to etched kits and then tried scratchbuilding. At the time it was because I wanted particular locos and they just weren't available RTR.

 

If the locos I wanted had been available RTR I wouldn't have spent my valuable time building them just for fun. I would have bought the RTR loco and built something else that wasn't available.

 

If everything I wanted had available as good quality RTR, I would never have got into building locos for myself but I would still have built model railways, possibly concentrating on carriages/wagons/scenery etc.

 

So my hobby would have been just as enjoyable but quite different.

 

We have reached a stage where RTR productions are announced by the dozen and the number of new kits being released is tiny and I pretty much agree that in a few years, kit building will be a thing of the past because the market place will not support the manufacture, which will have to be of obscure stuff because the RTR people will have done all the common locos.

 

It will be a sad day but I have enough old kits stashed away to keep me happy.

 

I have said this before but in kit building, getting a poor quality, ancient kit and making it look good actually gives me more satisfaction than building a well designed, accurate kit. But I fully accept that is a very personal and slightly odd approach!  

 

Tony

Edited November 7, 2014 by t-b-g

[davidw]

With what seems an ever increasing cost of RTR - I wonder if a point will come where to build your own is cheaper. I know we're not there yet - but could it happen?

[t-b-g]

With what seems an ever increasing cost of RTR - I wonder if a point will come where to build your own is cheaper. I know we're not there yet - but could it happen?

 

Kit prices seem to be rising just as quickly as RTR ones.

 

If you want cheap, scratchbuilding is not only the cheapest but also, to me at least, the most satisfying.

 

There will come a time when 3D printing technology can deliver the right quality at a sensible price and I wonder how long it will be before the first 3D printed RTR model will be on the market and how much it will cost. But I see that as more of a RTR thing than a kit one.

 

I can't see the point of 3D printing lots of bits for somebody to stuck together when you can print a complete loco body in one piece.

 

Tony

[Taz]

 

If the locos I wanted had been available RTR I wouldn't have spent my valuable time building them just for fun. I would have bought the RTR loco and built something else that wasn't available.

 

If everything I wanted had available as good quality RTR, I would never have got into building locos for myself but I would still have built model railways, possibly concentrating on carriages/wagons/scenery etc.

 

 

 

Tony

 

This statement hits the nail on the head for me. Modellers will always want to model, but if you can get a perfectly good xxx loco RTR then why build it when you can use that time to model something not yet available?

From my personal perspective there is very little I need in the way of locos that aren't produced RTR. Modelling 50/60s WR I thought the only loco I would have to build myself would be a 1361 but now even that is to be produced RTR. I still want a 47XX and if that isn't available by the time I am ready (I'm sure this will be announced in the next couple of years RTR) I will have a go at building one. In the meantime I am presented with prototype coach rakes made up of dozens, if not hundreds, of subtly different designs which will never all be covered RTR (with the exception of MK1 and Hawksworths) so this is where I choose to devote my modelling time.

 

 

With what seems an ever increasing cost of RTR - I wonder if a point will come where to build your own is cheaper. I know we're not there yet - but could it happen?

 

I think that is a valid point. I know it's not loco building, but I have a stash of Parkside kits that now have, or will have equivalent RTR items which I will still one day build and not buy the RTR version. This is likely to become more common with Wagons as I think in many cases the kit is already the cheaper option (I don't factor in my time as the build is part of the enjoyment)

We are nearly there with coaches. As the latest RTR approaches £50 the difference in cost with an etched kit is diminishing.

I still think we have a way to go before the same can be said of locos though.

[Arthur]

Some good points in your post #2946 Tony. One aspect which had not occurred to me before was the dearth of simple, cheap, whitemetal kits to act as entry level projects for newcomers to kit building.

 

I cut my teeth on a K's Coal Tank (all glued) followed by a GEM LNWR 0-8-0 (loco glued, tender soldered) and that was me off into the world of kit building. Whatever your company or regional interest, there were probably a few simple kits you could choose from.

 

So that's a thought provoking comment and, yes, what would the newcomer start with today I wonder?

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tony (t-b-g),

 

their are still several cast w/m kit manufacturers producing kits, some of which don't seem to have changed much, if at all, over the years.  Gem and SEF come immediately to mind (Wills/SEF were always better in my view). Stevenson Carriages have taken over Millholme Models, although they aren't promoted very strongly.

 

The equivalent of the bodyline kit seems to be the resin cast model such as Golden Arrow, which while not a kit in the same way, do provide an entry into diy modelling.

 

I believe that the low (in some cases very low) price of RTR OO models has depressed (in several ways) the kit market and it's pricing. AS RTR gets more expensive, so kit prices may start to rise somewhat. With the odd exception there don't seem to be any particularly wealthy kit manufacturers so who would blame them for getting a slightly better return for their work.

 

Jol

[coachmann]

We are nearly there with coaches. As the latest RTR approaches £50 the difference in cost with an etched kit is diminishing.

£50.00 may get you a kit or a RTR coach but it doesn't end there with a kit. Add the cost of solder, paint, transfers, glazing, glue, corridor connections, wheels and probably 3 days of time. How do you cost your time let along your building and painting skills? From my perspective a good RTR coach is a snip at £50.00 and I've bought a few in preference to building and painting the etchings I've got in stock.

Edited November 7, 2014 by coachmann

[Taz]

Coach, agree with you completely (although with a Comet kit you did get everything except wheel, paint and solder) and I specifically mentioned excluding my time (as I enjoy it). Paint, solder and transfers can be an expensive up front cost but they can be spread over many builds.

I don't necessarily think a £50 coach is expensive but the price differential with a kit (materials only) is rapidly dwindling.

Like you, if a RTR option was available I probably wouldn't choose to build a kit. However, all the different coach types I would like will never be covered RTR. Where we might differ is if I had the kit in stock I would probably build it instead.

 

It was only a year or two ago that I set my max ceiling for buying Bachmann Mk1s at £20 (often new as well as second hand) and I wasn't struggling to find examples.

[sp1]

Coach, agree with you completely (although with a Comet kit you did get everything except wheel, paint and solder) and I specifically mentioned excluding my time (as I enjoy it). Paint, solder and transfers can be an expensive up front cost but they can be spread over many builds.

I don't necessarily think a £50 coach is expensive but the price differential with a kit (materials only) is rapidly dwindling.

Like you, if a RTR option was available I probably wouldn't choose to build a kit. However, all the different coach types I would like will never be covered RTR. Where we might differ is if I had the kit in stock I would probably build it instead.

 

It was only a year or two ago that I set my max ceiling for buying Bachmann Mk1s at £20 (often new as well as second hand) and I wasn't struggling to find examples.

And I don't suppose you have tried to buy Bachmann GWR collett coaches on eBay - I think I am going to have to find deeper pockets : and they only do a very few variants!

[johnarcher]

Just to catch up with a few recent posts. I would agree that the quality of kits etc is better now (nothing like Mitchell, High Level etc then), but would also agree that the basic (K's etc) kits did make a useful first step. It's a long way from a plastic van kit to a Mitchell locomotive, intermediate stages probably encouraged people to make the journey.

I suspect it is a sign that in 4mm, where r-t-r is so strong, there now don't appear (I may be wrong, I haven't searched that much) to be kits for such basics as a Terrier or a 48xx, and that as some have said, this may get (from my point of view) worse.

I suppose I just have a basic difference of outlook from those who say if there is a good r-t-r version why make a kit? Because I don't just want to have a model of so-and-so and a kit is a less convenient way to get one than r-t-r, I want to make one. Each to his own.

So, if the kits were gone the r-t-r would be no replacement - it would be a case of scratch-building or change scale, if a less popular scale still had kits.

Edited November 7, 2014 by johnarcher

[Taz]

Is a basic loco kit the only way to build up your skill level though?

 

For example you can cut your teeth on white metal wagon kits. Etched brass can be covered by wagon kits again or coach kits.

 

You can get experience on chassis kits to upgrade RTR.

 

Then, when you are ready you can combine it all together on a more complicated loco kit.

 

This is the path I'm taking and I don't feel I'm being held back by the lack of the modern equivalent to Ks.loco kits.

[johnarcher]

Is a basic loco kit the only way to build up your skill level though?

 

For example you can cut your teeth on white metal wagon kits. Etched brass can be covered by wagon kits again or coach kits.

 

You can get experience on chassis kits to upgrade RTR.

 

Then, when you are ready you can combine it all together on a more complicated loco kit.

 

This is the path I'm taking and I don't feel I'm being held back by the lack of the modern equivalent to Ks.loco kits.

I'm sure you're right, and if your saying so encourages others to pursue the same route there might be enough demand to keep a fair selection of kits going.

More power to your kit-building elbow (that sounds wrong, you can't build much with your elbow, but you know what I mean).

As someone said some old kits like Will (SE) are still going, though they do usually seem to have etched chassis now, which is a good intermediate step.

Edited November 7, 2014 by johnarcher

[t-b-g]

Tony (t-b-g),

 

their are still several cast w/m kit manufacturers producing kits, some of which don't seem to have changed much, if at all, over the years.  Gem and SEF come immediately to mind (Wills/SEF were always better in my view). Stevenson Carriages have taken over Millholme Models, although they aren't promoted very strongly.

 

The equivalent of the bodyline kit seems to be the resin cast model such as Golden Arrow, which while not a kit in the same way, do provide an entry into diy modelling.

 

I believe that the low (in some cases very low) price of RTR OO models has depressed (in several ways) the kit market and it's pricing. AS RTR gets more expensive, so kit prices may start to rise somewhat. With the odd exception there don't seem to be any particularly wealthy kit manufacturers so who would blame them for getting a slightly better return for their work.

 

Jol

 

I agree that some pre-historic fairly basic kits are still out there if you look hard enough.

 

What has changed is that 40 plus years ago you could buy a basic whitemetal kit, stick it together in a short while, put a reasonable coat of paint on it and it could run wheel to wheel with the then current RTR offerings without being embarrassing.

 

My "bodyline" J50 was at least as good a model as my Hornby Dublo A4 but it wouldn't look as though it belongs on the same layout as a newest Hornby version.

 

I think that might just be enough to put me off building one if I was starting out now. 

 

Tony

[coachmann]

It depends on how accurate the basic kit is. If its an okay model when built, the rest is up to the individual how much detail he adds. Mind you, I used to consider the cotswold L&Y 2-4-2T's were alright until I saw the detail on the running plate of a Bachmann 2-4-2T. That is why I try to use as much of a current RTR loco as I can when doing a conversion job.