Wright writes.....

[Arthur]

Stevenson Carriages have taken over Millholme Models, although they aren't promoted very strongly.

 

Jol

So are these kits actually available?

[Jol Wilkinson]

So are these kits actually available?

Why not ask the proprietor of Stevenson Carriages?

 

Gleaned from the CLAG suppliers.text site (open to all) at http://www.clag.org.uk/russ/supplier.html

 

Stevenson Carriages

17 Brookfield Park

Mill Lane

Old Tupton

Chesterfield

Derbyshire

S42 6AF

e-mail: pbarker@btinternet.com

[jwealleans]

 

are these kits actually available?

I've seen a number of them on his stand at shows on the last 12-15 months.  I don't believe he's made the whole range available yet bu tthat is his intention.

 

He does apparently have a web address but the link he gave me didn't work.

[copleyhill007]

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

I started kit building in 1976 with 2 K's J50's and built my own chassis - they are still the two sweetest slow running engines on my Copley Hill layout (gradually being built). My kit building is not hot (just ask Tony W) but what immense satisfaction!

Dave W

[DougN]

I might have the following wrong but I once heard that the Dave Bradwell kit for the Austerity actually went up on the release of the RTR version. As some one who has built a number of kits the first being 24 years ago being a DJH Q7 and the latest being a Dave Bradwell Q6 the quality and ease of builting is better now then all those years ago with screw together DJH Chassis. I am sure they are strong under pinnings but the detail is not there compared to the new ones (kit or RTR). My suggestion to anyone entering the kit building fray is to start with a High Level kit. Being well thought out basically all there with great instructions. None of the ropey castings, missing parts or my worst "guess which part" ! no doubt Tony will say there are others who are equal to the starter kit and with a guiding light through the process it is so much easier. 

 

A list of good starter kits would be a great resource for those wanting to dip there toes into the art of kit building. 

[Arthur]

Why not ask the proprietor of Stevenson Carriages.......

 

 

I've seen a number of them on his stand at shows on the last 12-15 months.  I don't believe he's made the whole range available yet bu tthat is his intention.

 

 

Thanks chaps, I was just wondering. I've long ago built all the Millholme kits which were of interest to me, about six of them, so I won't bother him with an email just to satisfy my curiosity.

 

Still, useful to know that they may still be around. The Hughes Baltic tank is the one I did think 'maybe' about.....

[Tony Wright]

Interesting stuff about 'entry level' kits in metal , either locos, coaches or wagons. 

 

I'm nor sure what I'd recommend. 

 

 

 

Certainly not this; the beginnings of a Brassmasters L&NWR Beames 0-8-4T. I'm building this in EM Gauge for a mate in return for the cement train which runs on Little Bytham. It's designed at source to be sprung, something I see no need for if track is well made and laid. So, bearings in (which were way too wide - careful filing of the horn cheeks being necessary), check with the old dodge of 'reading' the shadows cast by one eighth rods, and solder everything solid. Only to find that not only were the milled bearings too wide to fit between the cheeks, but they were too wide to allow the wheels to fit; even though the kit is ostensibly designed for EM/P4 (and, yes, I did read the instructions about which way round to fit them). So, bad language, and file away at their outside faces. 

 

Because the rods are jointed to allow for springing, by the time I'd opened up the bearings to give no binding with each rotation, there's a lot of slop. Far more than I'd allow in a set of rigid rods. and, those rods are really flimsy at the crucial second and third axles - just one thickness of etch. It runs, very sweetly, but I don't like that slop. I might just make a new set of rigid rods. 

 

Clearly, it's a kit for the experienced, certainly not for the newcomer, and a lot of thought has gone into the design; by a clever bloke - far cleverer than I am. I'll see how I get on, and its build will be written up in BRM. To me, it's nowhere near as user-friendly as the PDK B16 and B12 I've just built, but they're simply OO Gauge.

 

For a beginner, why not try a SE Finecast J39? Start on the tender; no outside valve gear, a simple 0-6-0, and it'll be yours. Not yet another Bachmann RTR item, good though it might be.

 

I've also been intrigued by the parallel comments about telegraph poles on the Peterborough North thread. Since I'm in no position to commission such items, I'll stick with making my own, compromised though they might be. I think my guess at £600.00ish for all of mine to be made was a bit optimistic (I taught art, not maths!), and the one I've just finished is even more complex, with crossrails at different angles. Others are multi-angled, too, so I reckon a cool £1,000 might be necessary for 15 or more bespoke items with nearly 100 insulators present (several swan-necked) on many of them. I'm glad I'm not modelling Peterborough North! 

 

As for where are the Hornby models? I've just photographed this splendid 'King Arthur' (below) for BRM, and an equally splendid T9. These will appear soon in its pages. 

 

 

I've also photographed the Heljan Class 40 in O Gauge for BRM. If nothing else, it might earns its owner the title of 'the World's most perfectly ruptured man'! It looks fantastic and weighs a 'ton'. 

[micklner]

Is the King Arthur an actual for sale model?

 

Wheel colour compared to the body  is very poor, as is the Step lining looks like it has been painted freehand.  Luckily not my region !!.

[PGC]

Your photo's of the B12 are making my mouth wqter, Tony. I will definitely be buying one and building it, hopefully next year.

 

I'm aware that not every modeller models GER, but for those that do and want a simple starter kit, how about a South East Finecast J69. 0-6-0, a simple body and chassis that can build in to a brilliant model, and with a little bit of extra determination, can be detailed in to a very good model. I suspect there will also be similar kits for locos from other regions.

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Your photo's of the B12 are making my mouth wqter, Tony. I will definitely be buying one and building it, hopefully next year.

 

I'm aware that not every modeller models GER, but for those that do and want a simple starter kit, how about a South East Finecast J69. 0-6-0, a simple body and chassis that can build in to a brilliant model, and with a little bit of extra determination, can be detailed in to a very good model. I suspect there will also be similar kits for locos from other regions.

 

Phil

Thanks Phil,

 

 

Here's the B12 on the duty I built her for - the 'Leicester', heading westwards at Little Bytham Junction. She goes to Ian Rathbone for painting next month. I know I should do the job myself (having recently painted and lined a K1 and two C12s in BR mixed-traffic livery), but it's the spasher lining which would confound me. So, I become (at least in part) a chequebook modeller in such cases. I dislike that, because I'm always advocating that folk have a go at things for themselves, but I know my limitations. That said, unless I can contribute substantially in a practical way to the building of my railway, then it would not satisfy me. Me, I state, not necessarily anyone else.

 

As for the J69; good choice indeed. Just like the one I did in BRM recently.

 

Just to pick up on a comment about (slightly) different-coloured wheels on Hornby's King Arthur. Though I can't find it right now, there's a super three-quarter rear view of an LNER A3 in full colour in one of my books; and the wheels aren't quite the same colour as the body.

 

Finally, a shot of the two complex telegraph poles I've just made and installed on Little Bytham.

 

 

 

 

This is the jig in which they were made (it's also on the Peterborough North thread, because it's pertinent I think). It's on loan from Cliff Parsons of The Gresley Beat and was made (I think) by Mick Nicholson. One just chooses a brass/copper rod of suitable diameter, tins it, then solders on the cross-rails/insulators with low-melt. The castings were produced by Dan Pinnock of D&S models. It takes me about three hours to make the more complex poles, prime paint and weather them (I'm slow these days!). If I costed in my time currently (as an ex-professional model-maker), each complex pole would cost about £60.00 each. 

[Mallard60022]

Oh yummy.......poles. 

I think I shall open a * work shop/shop (*pronounced pole ish) and get rich by helping fellow modellers who have become distracted by huge poles/posts.

Those are excellent Mr W as is that B12; such an elegant engine IMO.

Phil 

[Tony Wright]

Having no doubt delighted folk by stating I wouldn't be posting quite so much, hypocrisy rules! It's all the talk about telegraph poles, both here and on Peterborough North. 

 

 

Speaking more of the poles, now that the first two of mine are made and installed the effect is quite noticeable compared with their not being there.

The approaching K1 on full minerals is to be fully-described in the new year in BRM, to coincide with its appearance in the flesh at the Doncaster show. I made it from a DMR kit, painted and lined it and Tom Foster weathered it to perfection. Some posts ago one commentator thought my use of  the word 'need' was not really appropriate with regard to my constructing locos. Is 'want' better? I'm certainly not going to build locos and stock I don't 'need' (other than for mates), so I'm puzzled why the description isn't appropriate. Though K1s weren't common between Peterborough and Grantham (even though lots of them could be found at Peterborough), the presence of one passing through Little Bytham is a 'must' for my plans. Because of that, at the moment I 'need' (or needed) to build one. Soon, that necessity won't be there. So, yet another metaphorical nail in a kit manufacturer's coffin (though I believe DMR kits are now off the market, anyway). And, no doubt, Hornby's forthcoming item will be brilliant. Mine, though, will still be 'mine', even though it might be inferior. Still, I can then turn my attention to other work on the layout.

 

 

 

Speaking of other work, here's Station Road with its scenic surrounds almost complete (thanks to Gilbert Barnatt, Rob Davey and Richard Wilson). I finished off the greenery on the side nearer the baseboard edge, and made the run of telegraph poles using the jig described earlier. As previously mentioned, these poles are on the wrong side of the road in the main - bellies can be incredibly destructive!

 

Anyway, back to coach-building, loco-building and more scenics. 

[johnarcher]

Some posts ago one commentator thought my use of  the word 'need' was not really appropriate with regard to my constructing locos. Is 'want' better? I'm certainly not going to build locos and stock I don't 'need' (other than for mates), so I'm puzzled why the description isn't appropriate. Though K1s weren't common between Peterborough and Grantham (even though lots of them could be found at Peterborough), the presence of one passing through Little Bytham is a 'must' for my plans. Because of that, at the moment I 'need' (or needed) to build one. 

I think it is my post you are referring to. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I certainly didn't mean that term was inappropriate for you, or generally, I was just expressing my own feeling that if I wanted a particular prototype in model form I wouldn't only build a kit if I 'needed' to because it wasn't available r-t-r, but would always prefer to build if possible anyway - it's just that's what I enjoy. It wasn't a matter of 'needing' the prototype, but whether making is first choice, or only if it's not available r-t-r.

I really agree with what you say about the built model being more 'yours', and would add more satisfying too.

I do apologise if it sounded like a criticism of what you said.

[Tony Wright]

I think it is my post you are referring to. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I certainly didn't mean that term was inappropriate for you, or generally, I was just expressing my own feeling that if I wanted a particular prototype in model form I wouldn't only build a kit if I 'needed' to because it wasn't available r-t-r, but would always prefer to build if possible anyway - it's just that's what I enjoy. It wasn't a matter of 'needing' the prototype, but whether making is first choice, or only if it's not available r-t-r.

I really agree with what you say about the built model being more 'yours', and would add more satisfying too.

I do apologise if it sounded like a criticism of what you said.

Thanks John,

 

It is my misinterpretation of your original post which has caused the 'confusion'.

 

And, we're both 100% behind the notion of building things for oneself. I think it is more satisfying, too; but only if the finished thing looks right and performs its tasks without fuss or failure.

 

I suppose it comes down again to an attitude to possessions. I recall Iain Rice explaining his thinking on this in MORILL (late lamented), many years ago, where he always encouraged folk to 'have a go' at making things for themselves, and showed them how to. If pretentious, this is what I am trying to do with my little one-to-ones at present (and what I used to do as a tutor at Missenden Abbey, Hobby Holidays and countless show demonstrations and magazine articles down the years). One can 'own' items of model railway equipment (or a whole railway) in the legal sense, and derive great pleasure from it. But, to me (and to you it would appear), the greatest satisfaction is in the personal creation of the model(s). Is it my perception that this is getting less and less prevalent in the hobby as time goes on?

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[johnarcher]

Good, I'm glad we are in agreement.

I think maybe making for oneself is less common than it was, or maybe just in 4mm standard gauge because of the strength of r-t-r in that area?

I agree a self-made model is only really satisfying if it looks good and works well (though one usually has to produce a few that don't live up to that in order to get the practice to make some that do), but I would prefer to make even if there were a flawless r-t-r version of the same prototype (if there is such a thing).

 

I'm glad that's cleared up

[coachmann]

Surely a hobby is first and foremost about choices. If folk are building far less these days, perhaps they feel they do not need to or perhaps do not want to anymore. I go along 100% with encouraging people to do some things for themselves but, while we might tempt a few people into extending themselves, individuals will make their own choices at the end of the day. When I joined RMweb, I presumed we were all builders of things but that was down to my own naivety and isolation in the trade. It is a fair bet that a far larger segment of the model railway community exists happily buying and looking forward to their next RTR. That is their hobby............ I for one am almost happy to be infected.! 

 

So we have builders and collectors, then there are the people who pay professionals. Amongst them are builders(!)  who spend weeks on a model and have no wish to ruin it at the last hurdle by a poor paint job. As you yourself know, professionals play a valid and vital part in the model railway world. Quite why the term 'chequebook modelling' is cast at people who use their services is a mystery when it is never used against the masses who pay for their RTR acquisitions. A strong case for putting it in Room 101 then.....  

Edited November 10, 2014 by coachmann

[Arthur]

Spot on Larry. If you buy a kit, wheels and motor does that make you a cheque book modeller? Potentially, where would it end, we all buy some ready made things, it's just a question of degree.

 

With limitless time we could all build everything from scratch and still build the WCML in it's entirety. In reality, we juggle time/space/skill and muddle through, hopefully, someway to our overriding goals. Money, or the ability to 'barter' skills, can get us there more quickly.

 

It's still about choices and compromise. What's important to me, what compromises can I 'live' with, what tasks give me pleasure, what tasks would I rather give to others (either because I don't enjoy them or because others will do a better job)?

 

To me, if you buy everything RTR, plonk it on a board and run it as it is, well, that's a train set. Once you start modyifying things, weathering, building kits, making things, you're a modeller no matter what you do with your chequebook.

 

So, no hair shirtism and yes, consign the phrase chequebook modeller to room 101.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Arthur

[Tony Wright]

Surely a hobby is first and foremost about choices. If folk are building far less these days, perhaps they feel they do not need to or perhaps do not want to anymore. I go along 100% with encouraging people to do some things for themselves but, while we might tempt a few people into extending themselves, individuals will make their own choices at the end of the day. When I joined RMweb, I presumed we were all builders of things but that was down to my own naivety and isolation in the trade. It is a fair bet that a far larger segment of the model railway community exists happily buying and looking forward to their next RTR. That is their hobby............ I for one am almost happy to be infected.! 

 

So we have builders and collectors, then there are the people who pay professionals. Amongst them are builders(!)  who spend weeks on a model and have no wish to ruin it at the last hurdle by a poor paint job. As you yourself know, professionals play a valid and vital part in the model railway world. Quite why the term 'chequebook modelling' is cast at people who use their services is a mystery when it is never used against the masses who pay for their RTR acquisitions. A strong case for putting it in Room 101 then.....  

I'm in complete agreement there, Larry.

 

Perhaps the term 'chequebook modeller' is sometimes used in a derogatory manner, though that's how I buy many of the services I need. But, it's still my choice that I prefer to make most things for myself (or horse-trade), but I pass work on to professionals where I feel inadequate and unable to produce the results I seek. Painting, your specialism, for instance. 

 

Maybe those who feel 'stigmatised' by the term should turn it round and rejoice in the ability to be able to do it. It's their money, and they can do with it as they please.

 

But, as Arthur quite rightly says, one must actually do some personal modelling to be classed as running more than just a 'train set'. 

 

The term is best ditched, as Eric Blair might well agree. 

[St Enodoc]

I'm in complete agreement there, Larry.

 

Perhaps the term 'chequebook modeller' is sometimes used in a derogatory manner, though that's how I buy many of the services I need. But, it's still my choice that I prefer to make most things for myself (or horse-trade), but I pass work on to professionals where I feel inadequate and unable to produce the results I seek. Painting, your specialism, for instance. 

 

Maybe those who feel 'stigmatised' by the term should turn it round and rejoice in the ability to be able to do it. It's their money, and they can do with it as they please.

 

But, as Arthur quite rightly says, one must actually do some personal modelling to be classed as running more than just a 'train set'. 

 

The term is best ditched, as Eric Blair might well agree. 

Why are so many folk obsessed about the percieved need to make (rather than buy) locos and rolling stock to be a "real" modeller? Are you a "better" modeller if you build your locos and stock then run them on proprietary track, or if you run RTR stock on handbuilt track? Why does it matter? Paraphrasing Roy Jackson, it doesn't matter how big or complicated it is, it's still a train set.

[johnarcher]

I don't think I said anything about other people being obliged to make things, just expressed my own preferences and my own feeling that any modelling hobby is about personal input, making things. That's why it's different from collecting.  (for me - I said nothing about anyone else. )

 

As Arthur said it's a matter of degree, hardly anyone makes everything, but the more skill expended (anywhere along the scale from mild weathering of r-t-r to complete scratch-building), the more personal and interesting I find the result.

I haven't, and wouldn't, used terms like 'better modeller' or 'cheque-book modeller'.

 

We all do what we prefer.

It is about choices, some of this discussion started with thoughts that if r-t-r takes over too much there is no scope for producers of kits and parts etc, and that would be a pity as it would actually reduce choice.

Edited November 10, 2014 by johnarcher

[PGC]

It's my money, I'll spend it how I want, and if other people don't like me spending my money on professional services, I hope they don't work in a professional service that I might want, such as car mechanic, because they won't get my money for being so stuck up about how I spend my money!!!!!!!!

 

Rant over, but it does feel good!

 

Phil

 

Edit PS - I both pay people to build models and I build them myself, depending on what time and money I have available.

Edited November 10, 2014 by PGC

[johnarcher]

It's my money, I'll spend it how I want, and if other people don't like me spending my money on professional services, I hope they don't work in a professional service that I might want, such as car mechanic, because they won't get my money for being so stuck up about how I spend my money!!!!!!!!

 

Rant over, but it does feel good!

 

Phil

 

Edit PS - I both pay people to build models and I build them myself, depending on what time and money I have available.

Looking back I can't see anywhere where anyone has said anything about what you choose to do with your money, so that's all right then.

[Tony Wright]

Looking recently, things seem to have got a bit 'heated'. 

 

I think it's entirely right that folk should be able to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they like. I don't believe anyone said that was not the case.

 

It's just that Johnarcher (and I, and many others I believe) advocate the making of models personally. Not because they'll be 'better' (certainly not in my case), but because it brings us greater satisfaction. If others choose to buy RTR or RTP, or have things made for them, it doesn't mean they'll derive any less satisfaction, nor should they. But, as has been said many times, it's a matter of personal choice and nobody has the right to dictate to others one way or the other (or in my case, a mixture of doing a lot for myself but being entirely reliant on others in certain circumstances).  

 

As mentioned, having been a tutor at dozens of model railway events and a demonstrator at hundreds of shows, folk (I think) came to visit me see what I was making/modifying. Obviously, not just me but at, say, the Wigan shows of yore, Peter Leyland, Geoff Kent, the Lime Street blokes, Ken Ball, Tony Sissons and all his electronic mates, plus many others. Visitors came to see layouts folk had made and the modelling demonstrations, though trade stands are vital, too. Would they have been satisfied if I'd put on my display just proof of my purchasing power (when loads of identical examples were on trade stands) or had masses of models I'd commissioned, not made by me? I doubt if I'd have been invited back!

 

It was very gratifying at the recent Peterborough show to have many modellers asking me questions about the models I'd brought along, some still under construction. My comments about them would surely have had little personal value if all I'd been able to say was 'I've just bought that' or 'I've just had all these made for me'. 

 

But, as has been said with great validity by many already, it is a matter of choice. My choice is personal to me, and should not be taken as an implied criticism of what anyone else chooses to do. 

[Mallard60022]

Let's move forward and discuss model railways and not get distracted by personality traits.

Thanks

Mad duck at 36E 

[coachmann]

I used to envy your length but now I envy your width.....