Wright writes.....

[Woodcock29]

Hello Tony

I used the wrong word in my earlier post. I should have said 'timely' rather than 'interesting' as I had no intention to imply it was being repeated.  I actually like the repetition as it reminds me of some of the great models shown previously on this thread.

 

I also have two of the Bachmann D11/1s. The first of these I bought when 'Prince Albert' was a new model. I immediately stripped it down and provided a new tender - in that it was a modified Bachmann O4 tender with water pickup. The self trimming tender provided with 'Prince Albert' has been set aside to pair with a B7 in due course (initially the thoughts were this would be a modification of a spare unbuilt Ks B2 that I have, similar to my creation of 'Valour' but now it awaits Graham Nicholas'/Graeme King's etched/resin B7).

 

However, that D11/1 has not gone much further as its still in bits while I decide whether to make it a BR liveried 'Marne' or an LNER 'Marne'. I did get as far as adding real brass beading to the splashers. I've been waiting to see if Bachmann would bring out an LNER black, fully lined D11/1 but alas to date they've produced about every other variant of a D11/1 and then even a a lined black LNER D11/2! In the meantime I've bought a good secondhand renamed Bachmann LNER black 'Mons' from a mate but its not lined so will have to be lined by me when I become more competent. 'Marne' may well still appear in LNER black lined by me in due course as a BR version would hardly ever get run! 

 

Andrew

[The Johnster]

Add me to that wishlist page, though the poll is a very good way of communicating our desires to the manufacturers...

 

Modern standard RTR is so good that I would not contemplate kit or scratch building any loco, coach, or wagon that is available from the RTR manufacturers because I could not come even close to equalling it, and this has undoubtedly been the cause of the more or less complete demise of the loco kit trade.  Where this survives it is often in the form of chassis kits to upgrade RTR locos.  Significantly, coach kits are doing rather well, which is of course because the variety of RTR coaches, while improving all the time, has serious gaps in it for steam era layouts.  A Comet costs about the same to finish as a current RTR and is of a pretty good standard, so is a useful method of obtaining coaches that RTR cannot provide.

 

There are, I think, two points to bear in mind about this situation apropos locos.  One is that not all current RTR products are to the latest standards and can stand some improvement, and the other is that even current standard models, while they impress the bejaysus out of me, are not perfect.  Many do not have sufficient ballast weight for reliable pickup or decent haulage, and final drive gear ratios are still too low for really good slow running.  Moreover, plastic coal looks awful, as does anything on a GW loco that purports to be an etched brass number/name plate but is a print or transfer, and there is plenty of retrofit detail to add in the way of crew, fire irons, lamps etc.

 

So, there is a level of RTR modelling carried out by the likes of your faithful correspondent in which nothing is as it was when it came out of the box.  Locos are renumbered, details added, liveries and insignia changed, weathering applied, coach interiors detailed and painted, and wagons weathered, given loads or tarp covers, and the ends of the brake handles picked out in white.  My purpose is to create a realistic and credible appearance on the layout in which to operate a timetable as far as possible visually in accordance with the 1955 Rule Book.  In order to achieve this in relation to my period and location, the Tondu valley hinterland between 1948 and 58, I have the enormous benefit of being able to supply nearly all the locos, all of the goods and mineral vehicles, and some of the coaches from RTR catalogues.  They run well and reliably.

 

But that's not the whole story.  Non-gangwayed GW coaching stock, auto trailers other than the hybrid A28/30 ex-Airfix currently on offer from Hornby and the Baccy A38, and a kindly donated Wills 1854 pannier that needs a new chassis, all have to be eventually built from kits, and if I want to one day have a go at 3100, a Collett 31xx large prairie with a no.4 boiler and 5'3" driving wheels, I'm looking at a scratchbuild.  I have made a start on the coaching stock with a Comet flat ended non-gangwayed all third, a single coach of a Keyser plastic kit flatender B set, and made a ersatz bowender out of an ancient Airfix cut'n'shut B set, and worked up Triang shorty clerestories as a miner's workman's set, and a Hornby 2721, not the most fidelitous of RTR models.  This, like the aforementioned 1854, has skirts below the boiler and is quite crude by modern standards, though it's inaccurate generic chassis is recent production spec.  

 

Inroads into the auto trailer world consist of a whitemetal Keyser A31 worked up with plated toplights and a scratchbuilt interior, running on Stafford Road printed bogies; crude but effective; in fact Stafford Road bogies also feature beneath the K's B set coach and antediluvian Siphons, Lima G and Mainline H.

 

There are also several Dapol/Kitmaster, Ratio, and Parkside wagon kits.  None of this activity makes me a scale modeller or accomplished scratchbuilder, just another bodger doing his best, but I submit that I am not simply a box-opener.  I do a fair bit of 'proper' modelling, and enjoy it immensely, but I take huge pleasure in the realism and running of my RTR locos and stock.  'Orses fer courses; RTR for realistic and smooth running locos and stock, kits for stuff I can't get RTR, and scratching for stuff I can't get from kits.  As well as 3100,  I want a Diagram N auto trailer and unless Dapol apply a shrink ray to their very good 7mm ex Lionheart one, that's got to be scratch as well.

 

I'm 67 and my eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination is not what it was, and neither are my powers of concentration.  I have plenty of modelling to keep me going until I am finally withdrawn from service, and improved RTR, kits, and scratchbuilding all have a part to play in it!  RTR is essential; I couldn't have anything like the layout I want without it!!!

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Add me to that wishlist page, though the poll is a very good way of communicating our desires to the manufacturers...

 

Modern standard RTR is so good that I would not contemplate kit or scratch building any loco, coach, or wagon that is available from the RTR manufacturers because I could not come even close to equalling it, and this has undoubtedly been the cause of the more or less complete demise of the loco kit trade.  Where this survives it is often in the form of chassis kits to upgrade RTR locos.  Significantly, coach kits are doing rather well, which is of course because the variety of RTR coaches, while improving all the time, has serious gaps in it for steam era layouts.  A Comet costs about the same to finish as a current RTR and is of a pretty good standard, so is a useful method of obtaining coaches that RTR cannot provide.

 

There are, I think, two points to bear in mind about this situation apropos locos.  One is that not all current RTR products are to the latest standards and can stand some improvement, and the other is that even current standard models, while they impress the bejaysus out of me, are not perfect.  Many do not have sufficient ballast weight for reliable pickup or decent haulage, and final drive gear ratios are still too low for really good slow running.  Moreover, plastic coal looks awful, as does anything on a GW loco that purports to be an etched brass number/name plate but is a print or transfer, and there is plenty of retrofit detail to add in the way of crew, fire irons, lamps etc.

 

So, there is a level of RTR modelling carried out by the likes of your faithful correspondent in which nothing is as it was when it came out of the box.  Locos are renumbered, details added, liveries and insignia changed, weathering applied, coach interiors detailed and painted, and wagons weathered, given loads or tarp covers, and the ends of the brake handles picked out in white.  My purpose is to create a realistic and credible appearance on the layout in which to operate a timetable as far as possible visually in accordance with the 1955 Rule Book.  In order to achieve this in relation to my period and location, the Tondu valley hinterland between 1948 and 58, I have the enormous benefit of being able to supply nearly all the locos, all of the goods and mineral vehicles, and some of the coaches from RTR catalogues.  They run well and reliably.

 

But that's not the whole story.  Non-gangwayed GW coaching stock, auto trailers other than the hybrid A28/30 ex-Airfix currently on offer from Hornby and the Baccy A38, and a kindly donated Wills 1854 pannier that needs a new chassis, all have to be eventually built from kits, and if I want to one day have a go at 3100, a Collett 31xx large prairie with a no.4 boiler and 5'3" driving wheels, I'm looking at a scratchbuild.  I have made a start on the coaching stock with a Comet flat ended non-gangwayed all third, a single coach of a Keyser plastic kit flatender B set, and made a ersatz bowender out of an ancient Airfix cut'n'shut B set, and worked up Triang shorty clerestories as a miner's workman's set, and a Hornby 2721, not the most fidelitous of RTR models.  This, like the aforementioned 1854, has skirts below the boiler and is quite crude by modern standards, though it's inaccurate generic chassis is recent production spec.  

 

Inroads into the auto trailer world consist of a whitemetal Keyser A31 worked up with plated toplights and a scratchbuilt interior, running on Stafford Road printed bogies; crude but effective; in fact Stafford Road bogies also feature beneath the K's B set coach and antediluvian Siphons, Lima G and Mainline H.

 

There are also several Dapol/Kitmaster, Ratio, and Parkside wagon kits.  None of this activity makes me a scale modeller or accomplished scratchbuilder, just another bodger doing his best, but I submit that I am not simply a box-opener.  I do a fair bit of 'proper' modelling, and enjoy it immensely, but I take huge pleasure in the realism and running of my RTR locos and stock.  'Orses fer courses; RTR for realistic and smooth running locos and stock, kits for stuff I can't get RTR, and scratching for stuff I can't get from kits.  As well as 3100,  I want a Diagram N auto trailer and unless Dapol apply a shrink ray to their very good 7mm ex Lionheart one, that's got to be scratch as well.

 

I'm 67 and my eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination is not what it was, and neither are my powers of concentration.  I have plenty of modelling to keep me going until I am finally withdrawn from service, and improved RTR, kits, and scratchbuilding all have a part to play in it!  RTR is essential; I couldn't have anything like the layout I want without it!!!

'but I submit that I am not simply a box-opener. '

 

I'd submit that you are most definitely NOT simply a box-opener! 

 

It's been said many times that this great hobby of hours is a 'broad church', and should be able to accommodate all interests. And, at all levels.

 

That said, I think there is such a huge difference between what one might call the 'non-modeller' and the 'modeller' as to need the largest ecclesiastical building ever made to accommodate the two 'extremes'. Please don't think I'm making a judgement here; more of a 'critical' observation. 

 

Speaking as one who's photographed thousands of models from scores and scores of collections, I cannot understand the mentality of those who won't even open a box because it devalues what's inside! I've known some who won't even take the tissue paper packing off a Bachmann box. At one show, one guy I saw rejected the Bachmann model he was about to buy because the stall proprietor very kindly tore off the tissue paper so that he could see what was inside! What has that to do with 'modelling'? 

 

The two 'extremes' so to speak between those who make just about everything and those who collect are not mutually-exclusive, by the way. I've known some who make the most-exquisite models on one day, then collect vintage tinplate on the next. However, those who are just 'collectors' probably couldn't give two hoots whether what they're buying is an 'accurate' (and current RTR is generally very accurate) model or not. If they can't even see it, how would they know, anyway? 

 

Ironically, a decent (or even half decent) RTR model which is so much-improved in the manner you describe will be seen by the collector as being ruined and grossly-devalued, even though it ends up as a far more-accurate and realistic model than in original form. At one swapmeet I attended, one potential customer complained that the 'snowplough' couplings on Lima diesels a mate and I had for sale had been removed, so how could it pull his trains? A proper scale, screw-link shackle didn't cut the mustard at all! 'And, you've fitted etched nameplates over the printed originals!' A heinous crime indeed. 'And weathered it. No thank you!'

 

In a way, the excellence of current RTR has meant the loss of a lot of modelling opportunities. By that I mean, not many years ago no 'serious' modeller would leave an RTR item as it was when he/she ran it on his/her layout. Moulded-on handrails would be removed, etched items would be added, proper chassis made and gleaming, gloss finishes toned down immediately. Nasty wheels would go and the purchased item would be seen as no more than a starting point. I seem to recall (years ago now, to be fair) a magazine running an article on how to make a Tri-ang B12 into a B12! Ian Wilson has one which Iain Rice did. I'll borrow it and photograph it. Though much-improved, compared to the latest Hornby B12 it's a bit of a laugh. 

 

Talking with others on Tuesday, I think the perception is that fewer folk in the hobby are actually making things, or even being prepared to make things. Some don't seem to even be able to fit the add-on parts supplied with current RTR locos, frequently returning them busted or covered in glue. It's not their fault, of course! 

 

Finally, on the subject of wishlists. All I wish for is that there'll always be a supply of the likes of kits, etched frames, motors, gearboxes and wheels. Plus handrail knobs, detail fittings, buffers, etc, and raw materials. That's all. Not too much to wish for, I hope.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

On 16/10/2019 at 00:12, RThompson said:

Good evening Tony,

 

a rare bit of modelling and a chance to finish a project that has been ongoing for a very long time, yet there is plenty of other locos started after and finished before this one.

 

Originally it started as a Mercian LNWR G2a full kit given to me many years ago. The first Super D I built was from a brassmasters kits for a customer.

 

Unfortunately for some reason the loco body just didnt go together as planned so with Bachmann's RTR version, I managed to get hold of just the body.

 

It is powered by a very large Mashima flat can and High level gear box, built to 00 gauge.

 

Painting has finished and awaiting transfers as i've run out of early BR emblems on my HMRS transfer sheets without me realising.

 

The loco will become 49106 as depicted in a book I bought a few weeks ago on London's local railways as it will be ideal for cross London freight as there is a unidentified one in West Brompton yard on the west London railway.

 

An interesting project, Robert,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

I built a Mercian Super D many moons ago, but I don't recall any issues with the fit of parts..................

 

 

 

 

I built it in EM to run on Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside. This one has a round-topped firebox. Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[grahame]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Modern standard RTR is so good that I would not contemplate kit or scratch building any loco, coach, or wagon that is available from the RTR manufacturers because I could not come even close to equalling it, and this has undoubtedly been the cause of the more or less complete demise of the loco kit trade.  

 

Perhaps you're doing yourself a mis-service there. I often hear that objection to making things trotted out, but there are no 'rules or regulations' to say that you have to match the finish of RTR rolling stock. And there is no reason why you cannot improve through practice and reach whatever standard you aspire to. It is quite possible to match, or even exceed commercial finish standards - many seem to. Plus the pleasure and pride derived from having made a model oneself, whatever it's standard, is immense and surely outweighs that from purchasing and unwrapping. And, of course, you’ll have something bespoke for your layout that probably very few others have.

 

Yes, the attitude and lack of willingness to model has contributed to the demise of kits but there are other factors such as aging proprietors of sole traders (and even in some circumstances their unfortunate death) and perhaps even aging modellers. However, certainly in N/2mm, there are very few of the manufacturers that once produced loco white metal kits around even though many of their products are still not available as RTR. I can see that it appears modelling and making things is very much being boxed in to a corner and marginalised by the box openers and RTR manufacturers but it does seem that a shame that both sections of the hobby can't happily co-exist and flourish. Although maybe they do a little on this thread.

[Clive Mortimore]

10 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Perhaps you're doing yourself a mis-service there. I often hear that objection to making things trotted out, but there are no 'rules or regulations' to say that you have to match the finish of RTR rolling stock. And there is no reason why you cannot improve through practice and reach whatever standard you aspire to. It is quite possible to match, or even exceed commercial finish standards - many seem to. Plus the pleasure and pride derived from having made a model oneself, whatever it's standard, is immense and surely outweighs that from purchasing and unwrapping. And, of course, you’ll have something bespoke for your layout that probably very few others have.

 

Yes, the attitude and lack of willingness to model has contributed to the demise of kits but there are other factors such as aging proprietors of sole traders (and even in some circumstances their unfortunate death) and perhaps even aging modellers. However, certainly in N/2mm, there are very few of the manufacturers that once produced loco white metal kits around even though many of their products are still not available as RTR. I can see that it appears modelling and making things is very much being boxed in to a corner and marginalised by the box openers and RTR manufacturers but it does seem that a shame that both sections of the hobby can't happily co-exist and flourish. Although maybe they do a little on this thread.

Hi Grahame

 

They do on my train set, I am happy to run my plastic card models, kits , old part detailed RTR conversions and new super detailed RTR together. If I want a class 31 on the front of the 8.28 from Grimsby then it is the first one off the depot (out the Brush 2 box) that hauls it irrespective of it origin.

[Tony Teague]

Whilst the number of models available as kits may be declining as the major manufacturers produce RTR models of ever more obscure prototypes, my view is that there is still plenty to go at for the kit manufacturer.

My own goal, set some years ago, is to have on my layout, one or more model of every class of locomotive that the Southern Railway had on the books at nationalisation - and I calculated then that there were just under one hundred (96) classes to go at.

Despite recent announcements and in-roads, and perhaps surprisingly, only ~24 of these types is 'available' RTR, and even then, some quite recent models were only in the catalogue for short periods - so one could not go out today and order these 24 different types new and off the shelf.

Not all of the remaining classes are available as kits either, and to fulfill my goal - and I am not quite there yet - I have found that 3D printing has been a god-send, alongside commissioning etches and new kits.

After lessons from our illustrious leader I have built some of the kits myself, along with chassis for 3D printed bodies, and in a number of cases I have both RTR and kit-built examples of certain classes.

The Southern Railway may well have had a wider range of older locos still in stock in 1948, but there were also many classes long since withdrawn, plus the BR standards were yet to come, so my personal feeling is that there is still a very long way to go before we need to worry about whether there is a role for kit manufacturers to fill - and I have only talked about locomotives!

 

Tony

[grahame]

5 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

They do on my train set, I am happy to run my plastic card models, kits , old part detailed RTR conversions and new super detailed RTR together. If I want a class 31 on the front of the 8.28 from Grimsby then it is the first one off the depot (out the Brush 2 box) that hauls it irrespective of it origin. 

 

It's a shame than many others don't or can't take your relaxed and enlightened attitude to modelling and prefer to use any potential mismatch of standards as an excuse for not attempting to make something. If people really want something then how about making the effort to build it - bashed from something RTR, kit-built or scratch-built - rather than just wishing. You rarely get judged on them and most are usually impressed.

 

There are no RTR SR/BR EMUs in N/2mm (except the Farish 4CEP but the manufacturer made a mistake in producing the un-refurbished version which had less sales potential - operating period, routes, liveries, etc.,) so I had to bash them (including CEP, BEP, EPB, HAP, VEP, CIG and a 442) for my layouts. There is no way that they are to the high standards, detail and fidelity of current RTR but they have stood me in good stead and have even been exhibited along with the layout. Certainly many people asked how they were made and seemed impressed.

 

[Chamby]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I do a fair bit of 'proper' modelling, and enjoy it immensely, but I take huge pleasure in the realism and running of my RTR locos and stock.  'Orses fer courses; RTR for realistic and smooth running locos and stock, kits for stuff I can't get RTR, and scratching for stuff I can't get from kits.  

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The two 'extremes' so to speak between those who make just about everything and those who collect are not mutually-exclusive, by the way.

 

I couldn’t agree more.  I think one’s mindset on this is derived from what you are actually modelling.  If you are modelling a railway then the locomotives and stock are components of this, and arriving at an accurate final product is the main goal.  So RTR in this context is fine, if it provides what you need:  the destination is more important than the journey, so to speak.  However if you are primarily a locomotive or rolling stock modeller for whom the model railway itself is more of a stage set for the main characters, then you will see the modelling journey as being at least as important as arriving at the end product. 

 

I suggest that this distinction probably drives one’s basic attitude towards RTR.  

 

Time is also a big factor.  As someone who has embarked upon my ‘big model railway project’ at retirement, I can only build a substantial and prototypical accurate model railway in the available time if I take advantage of all the available RTR.  To build something akin to LB with its humongous kit-built roster would take a lifetime, which unfortunately I don’t have.  So do we model how we do out of necessity?  In part, yes.  But we all share the same respect for observation, attention to detail and modelling skills, and can appreciate the end result whatever our own philosophy.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

 

I couldn’t agree more.  I think one’s mindset on this is derived from what you are actually modelling.  If you are modelling a railway then the locomotives and stock are components of this, and arriving at an accurate final product is the main goal.  So RTR in this context is fine, if it provides what you need:  the destination is more important than the journey, so to speak.  However if you are primarily a locomotive or rolling stock modeller for whom the model railway itself is more of a stage set for the main characters, then you will see the modelling journey as being at least as important as arriving at the end product. 

 

I suggest that this distinction probably drives one’s basic attitude towards RTR.  

 

Time is also a big factor.  As someone who has embarked upon my ‘big model railway project’ at retirement, I can only build a substantial and prototypical accurate model railway in the available time if I take advantage of all the available RTR.  To build something akin to LB with its humongous kit-built roster would take a lifetime, which unfortunately I don’t have.  So do we model how we do out of necessity?  In part, yes.  But we all share the same respect for observation, attention to detail and modelling skills, and can appreciate the end result whatever our own philosophy.

Sound words, Phil,

 

Many thanks.

 

'To build something akin to LB with its humongous kit-built roster would take a lifetime,'

 

It has; well, getting on for 50 years now...........................  And counting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[MJI]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It was a pleasure to meet you, too, Chris,

 

Though 'heroes' and 'villains' are often one and the same, depending on your point of view. 

 

It's impossible not to come across as pompous when I say 'Why would I need a wishlist or poll of RTR items?' 

 

As I said yesterday, I was told (by two members of staff) that the likes of an article on building a DJH 'Princess Coronation' was 'no longer BRM material - too high-brow as it were'. It probably came across as a criticism (which Andy jumped on), but I was not able to complete what I wanted to say. This was that magazines have to exist in an extremely competitive market, and, if articles the like of which I've written no longer appeal to BRM's readers, then that's a fact. Such 'complex' articles are unlikely to increase copy sales, it would seem. Other magazine editors might appear to take the same view (though not Steve Flint). The principal reason is, of course, that there is now a wonderful RTR 'Semi' from Hornby. At under £200.00 complete, it's less than half the cost of all the kit components. What's the term (which I dislike, by the way), a no-brainer? 

 

Thus, not only has excellent RTR impacted on what one sees at shows and online but also with regard to articles in mags. Because there's no 'need' nowadays to build the likes of a 'Princess Coronation', then an article on building one is no longer 'needed' itself. 

 

All the above said, Debbie Wood (BRM's new manager) is keen to get more 'constructional' articles in BRM of the type I can supply. I have several in the pipeline. Time will tell if they flop, fail or succeed. 

 

As for Thompson's Pacifics RTR, there's no way I'd wish for one (or any) of those. They're by far the most-popular locos I'm asked to build!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

 

 

I stopped buying one of the main magazines as it was all been there done that.

 

I want to read a mix of stuff, at the moment RM is the best read of the major 3.

[MJI]

18 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Like a decent Mark I Diag 24 RB for a start...  Clearly they are very peripheral, as there were only 128 of them across all regions in loads of liveries from 1960 to the 1990s, and with few external changes making tooling a bit less difficult than it otherwise might be. And no, they are not the same as an RU.

 

And Gresley vestibuled (ie gangwayed) stock that is at least approximately the correct shape. And some GWR or LNER dining cars, and a decent LMS one.

 

Not forgetting DMUs - still waiting for a 104, 120 (or 119) and 116, amongst others. 

 

Not everyone has the time, skill or money to build them (or have them built) anywhere near as well as a good RTR model would be. 

 

Biggest issue with Mark1s is that different suppliers look strange together.

 

I still like the old Mainline RB.

 

DMUs I gave up waiting for RTR.

[Barry Ten]

I'm not sure if this has been picked up on, apologies if it has, but Modelmaster is bringing out some completely new loco kits in 2020. Granted they'll be resin bodied, which won't be to everyone's taste, but they'll have fully etched chassis so perhaps of interest?

 

https://modelmaster.uk/876-modelmaster-resin-bodied-loco-kits-Dapol-kits-accessories

[St Enodoc]

58 minutes ago, MJI said:

I still like the old Mainline RB.

Me too.

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

I couldn’t agree more.  I think one’s mindset on this is derived from what you are actually modelling.  If you are modelling a railway then the locomotives and stock are components of this, and arriving at an accurate final product is the main goal.  So RTR in this context is fine, if it provides what you need:  the destination is more important than the journey, so to speak.  However if you are primarily a locomotive or rolling stock modeller for whom the model railway itself is more of a stage set for the main characters, then you will see the modelling journey as being at least as important as arriving at the end product. 

 

I suggest that this distinction probably drives one’s basic attitude towards RTR.  

 

Time is also a big factor.  As someone who has embarked upon my ‘big model railway project’ at retirement, I can only build a substantial and prototypical accurate model railway in the available time if I take advantage of all the available RTR.  To build something akin to LB with its humongous kit-built roster would take a lifetime, which unfortunately I don’t have.  So do we model how we do out of necessity?  In part, yes.  But we all share the same respect for observation, attention to detail and modelling skills, and can appreciate the end result whatever our own philosophy.

Hi Phil

 

I consider myself both an operator and a model maker, to me both go hand in hand. My aim over the next 7 3/4 years is to have a well running layout where the stock, sparks and track all work together, almost there. A fully scenic layout which looks plausible as it isn't a real place, still in its embryonic stage . Working signals, some do. Stock to be appropriate for location and time period, so some modelling is required, on going. Most of all having fun getting there.  

[James Fitzjames]

Another side to the RTR v Kit debate is the manner in which RTR products are released. 'Fast or last' now seems to be the order of the day. I understand fully manufacturers not wishing to be left with stock they can't sell, but there always now seems to be an imperative to order or pre-order some RTR item, which eats into budgets otherwise available for kits.

 

For example, I need several members of a particular loco class only available as a, hard to source, kit. My plan was to buy one kit a month to facilitate this, but, one kit into this plan, a required RTR release meant that my money had to go there instead, for fear of 'missing the boat'.

 

I should add that I am having to start again from absolute scratch, so the option to kitbuild everything is not one I can entertain realistically.

Edited October 18, 2019 by James Fitzjames
Clarity

[Jol Wilkinson]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Add me to that wishlist page, though the poll is a very good way of communicating our desires to the manufacturers...

 

Modern standard RTR is so good that I would not contemplate kit or scratch building any loco, coach, or wagon that is available from the RTR manufacturers because I could not come even close to equalling it, and this has undoubtedly been the cause of the more or less complete demise of the loco kit trade.  Where this survives it is often in the form of chassis kits to upgrade RTR locos.  Significantly, coach kits are doing rather well, which is of course because the variety of RTR coaches, while improving all the time, has serious gaps in it for steam era layouts.  A Comet costs about the same to finish as a current RTR and is of a pretty good standard, so is a useful method of obtaining coaches that RTR cannot provide.

 

 

I suppose it depends what you model as to your view on the state of the "kit" trade, but I think that believe that statement is pretty wide of the mark. 

 

With the exception of some of the older white metal kit manufactures, many ranges have been available for a long time and continue to be so. There have been some casualties but many continue to introduce new or improved kits. However, their customers increasingly come from a sector of the market who are more interested in creating models to suit their own modelling preferences, than building their layouts simply around what the RTR manufacturers produce.

 

Undoubtedly, visiting the majority of shows in the UK or reading the mainstream magazines would give the impression that  buying, rather than making your own models, is what the hobby is about today. On the other hand, visiting one of the "scale" society shows, the ExpoEMs, S4ums, GOG shows would shown the opposite side of the coin with few if any RTR retailers present but a wide selection of kits and bits producers  on hand. 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

I don't think it's so much kit/scratchbuilding v RTR. Ignoring collectors as they are different and have always existed.

 

I think it's possibly been the demise of those somewhere in the middle. Those who would alter a RTR model to their needs by using detailing parts or could just about build a K's kit to a reasonable standard. Could build a set of Ratio or Kirk coaches, and paint and decal them using Humbrol and HMRS transfers, even if it is only a simplified livery.

 

Virtually what Railway Modeller used to dub The Average Modeller.

 

They still exist, but why bother building a set of Ratio GWR four wheelers if you can buy a freelance carriage in the pre grouping livery you want?

 

 

 

Jason

[johnarcher]

24 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I suppose it depends what you model as to your view on the state of the "kit" trade, but I think that believe that statement is pretty wide of the mark. 

 

With the exception of some of the older white metal kit manufactures, many ranges have been available for a long time and continue to be so. There have been some casualties but many continue to introduce new or improved kits. However, their customers increasingly come from a sector of the market who are more interested in creating models to suit their own modelling preferences, than building their layouts simply around what the RTR manufacturers produce.

 

Undoubtedly, visiting the majority of shows in the UK or reading the mainstream magazines would give the impression that  buying, rather than making your own models, is what the hobby is about today. On the other hand, visiting one of the "scale" society shows, the ExpoEMs, S4ums, GOG shows would shown the opposite side of the coin with few if any RTR retailers present but a wide selection of kits and bits producers  on hand. 

 

 

I agree in a way Jol, with regard to quality kits are pretty healthy - Finney, High Level and, of course, London Road,the best kits now are surely better than we've had before. Just need Mitchell ones back.

And sometimes old ones return improved, like Nucast partners. Certainly a long way from demise.

It's just annoying when you want a kit for a particular prototype that's a long way from obscure, could even be called popular (48xx, Beattie well tank?), there used to be kits but not now, presumably because of RTR coverage?

 

A very personal view I suppose, but having had other interests over the years now, with probably limited time for modelling left (see earlier post) my thoughts go back to the area where I had my happiest years - mid-Cornwall, and to me that means Bodmin and Wadebridge, but no well tank kit any more.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by johnarcher

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/10/2019 at 12:24, St Enodoc said:

Thanks Tony. The photo angle must have fooled me into thinking that most of the metal was in front of the leading driver.

If Tony will hopefully excuse my late arrival regarding this subject my near broadside photo hopefully shows the position of the metal casting more usefully and both of these views (including the flash gun being used before fully recharging) seem to indicate that the metal casting is carried down below footplate level although it is unclear if that would be the case in production when the motor will drive on the leading coupled axle.  The designer sounded well aware of the weight distribution situation in a 4-4-0 and has taken that into account in his design.

 

 

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'd submit that you are most definitely NOT simply a box-opener! 

Such a validation from a proper modeller (note proper without my usual parentheses) such as yourself has made my day; thank you!

 

I'd also submit that people who don't even open the box are not part of the hobby; collecting is a different hobby altogether, one which I can't comprehend either.  They don't even know if the model is complete or if it works!  But it is a significant part of sales for the RTR manufacturers, and may drive livery variations and re-toolings to a greater extent than we'd like to admit, which increases the biodiversity of models available to the likes of me who take 'em out of the box and mess about with them, devaluing them but I never sell them on because I can't be bothered with the faff of 'Bay.  People who do sell 'em on are good for me because I buy models on 'Bay, but mostly 'Buy It Now' because I can't be bothered with time-sucking auctions unless the item is particularly rare or desirable to me (I got a K's flat ended Collett B set coach to work up this way).

 

 

[john new]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

I don't think it's so much kit/scratchbuilding v RTR. Ignoring collectors as they are different and have always existed.

 

I think it's possibly been the demise of those somewhere in the middle. Those who would alter a RTR model to their needs by using detailing parts or could just about build a K's kit to a reasonable standard. Could build a set of Ratio or Kirk coaches, and paint and decal them using Humbrol and HMRS transfers, even if it is only a simplified livery.

 

Virtually what Railway Modeller used to dub The Average Modeller.

 

They still exist, but why bother building a set of Ratio GWR four wheelers if you can buy a freelance carriage in the pre grouping livery you want?

 

 

 

Jason

 

Fully concur with this view about loss of the middle ground, especially the loss of the looks fairly close and would fit an r-t-r chassis market for kits. It leaves a wide gap to jump from start point modelling to advanced level.

 

As viewers of my own layout thread will see I made a quick and dirty storage box for my NCE controller this afternoon. There are, I'm sure umpteen options to buy something in but apart from the glue sticks used and the power to heat up the glue gun this was 100% free material. (A recycled book delivery folder) The key factor, the make of itself was an enjoyable way to pass the time creatively this afternoon.

 

Of course the end result is more GMRC scratch-build challenge than a precision job: obviously I could have taken a lot more time over it with precision measuring and cutting but this was all that was needed to do the job.

Edited October 17, 2019 by john new

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

.... but why bother building a set of Ratio GWR four wheelers if you can buy a freelance carriage in the pre grouping livery you want?

 

It depends if the 'average modeller' wanted the finished model to look anything like the prototype that he / she had in mind. Freelance will always look 'odd', because it resembles nothing that ever existed.

 

Using your Ratio four wheeler example; all GWR coaches had a very distinctive style, which no amount of chocolate and cream (or crimson) paint can ever recreate using a freelance model.

 

Sorry, but in my experience, the 'average modeller' knows exactly what the railway that he / she is reproducing should look like.

 

Whatever - if, a year or so after these models are released, the bargain bins are full of them, we'll know that the 'average modeller' is more discerning than some give credit for !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited October 17, 2019 by cctransuk

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Perhaps you're doing yourself a mis-service there. I often hear that objection to making things trotted out, but there are no 'rules or regulations' to say that you have to match the finish of RTR rolling stock. And there is no reason why you cannot improve through practice and reach whatever standard you aspire to. It is quite possible to match, or even exceed commercial finish standards - many seem to. Plus the pleasure and pride derived from having made a model oneself, whatever it's standard, is immense and surely outweighs that from purchasing and unwrapping. And, of course, you’ll have something bespoke for your layout that probably very few others have.

 

Yes, the attitude and lack of willingness to model has contributed to the demise of kits but there are other factors such as aging proprietors of sole traders (and even in some circumstances their unfortunate death) and perhaps even aging modellers. However, certainly in N/2mm, there are very few of the manufacturers that once produced loco white metal kits around even though many of their products are still not available as RTR. I can see that it appears modelling and making things is very much being boxed in to a corner and marginalised by the box openers and RTR manufacturers but it does seem that a shame that both sections of the hobby can't happily co-exist and flourish. Although maybe they do a little on this thread.

Thank you, but I think you rate my abilities higher than I do.  Back in the day when my eyesight was better and hands steadier, I could successfully build a whitemetal loco kit with an etched nickel silver chassis, and did.  I intend to give the 1854 a new Southeastern chassis and it'll be interesting to see how I cope with that, but I'm keeping my pennies aside for an RTR Bachmann 94xx now just...  I struggled a bit with my recent Comet coach and this level of skill seems to be about my 'ruling gradient'.  

 

Boxed into a corner perhaps, but there will, I reckon, always be enough folk who are either dissatisfied with the standard of RTR/RTP or (like myself) in need of items not available in that form to keep that aspect of the hobby alive and kicking in it's corner.  It'll be a bit niche, perhaps, but maybe it always was.  There are said to be more railway modellers now than ever, but the box openers who regard themselves as modellers because their possessions are to scale and well detailed, and the collectors, probably represent most of the growth; modelling that looks like that is much more accessible than t'were when I were a lad.  The actual figures are not easy to isolate from the morass; back in the day you might have got an idea from magazine circulation figures but so much has moved online to forums, which is what brings us here, of course.

 

I had a break from the hobby after a divorce and unsettled period of about a quarter century and returned to be fold some 3 years back.  I suffered a bit of a culture shock at my first exhibition; where were all the trade stands selling stuff I can't get in the shops, the turned or cast buffers, tank fillers, etched brass bits'n'bobs to improve my RTR?  This used to be my main reason for going to the big shows!  They're still there, but of course they've moved online.  The other big culture shock was the disappearance of so many loco kit suppliers; my memory was that it was heading in the direction of almost anything irrespective of how obscure being available as a etched brass kit, expensive and sometimes more in the nature of a scratchbuilding aid, but at least available.  All as the snows of yesteryear...

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

I don't think it's so much kit/scratchbuilding v RTR. Ignoring collectors as they are different and have always existed.

 

I think it's possibly been the demise of those somewhere in the middle. Those who would alter a RTR model to their needs by using detailing parts or could just about build a K's kit to a reasonable standard. Could build a set of Ratio or Kirk coaches, and paint and decal them using Humbrol and HMRS transfers, even if it is only a simplified livery.

 

Virtually what Railway Modeller used to dub The Average Modeller.

 

They still exist, but why bother building a set of Ratio GWR four wheelers if you can buy a freelance carriage in the pre grouping livery you want?

 

 

 

Jason

Because the Ratio 4 wheelers are still the best approximation of GW Dean era 4-wheelers available if you want Dean era 4 wheelers; I do for a miner's workman's.  And the freelance 4-wheelers are a couple years away and more expensive.