Cooper craft - Cautionary notes for customers - Its fate and thoughts on an alternative

[Clearwater]

Some interesting comments above. Notably someone demonstrating a Chinese produced plastic LNER kit and also whether everything should be in the box. On the latter point, I'm inclined to think, airfix style, it should. However, some people are always going to want to "upgrade" it with components of their choice. Clearly , you can make a top spec kit then easily cost close to £100...

 

I look forward to seeing the Chinese kits in production!

 

David

[Steamport Southport]

I have been buying the Kirk LNER coaches in eBay when I can get them at a price I can afford they do crop up occasionally. I much prefer working in plastic then metal and I for one do miss the range... I much prefer building the coaches then opening a box.

 

Same here. Although the prices have been rising quite significantly over the last couple of years. The worst I saw was a corridor third going for over £40. That's apart from the NER hoppers that also go for ridiculous amounts.

 

 

Jason

[Coach bogie]

Some interesting comments above. Notably someone demonstrating a Chinese produced plastic LNER kit and also whether everything should be in the box. On the latter point, I'm inclined to think, airfix style, it should. However, some people are always going to want to "upgrade" it with components of their choice. Clearly , you can make a top spec kit then easily cost close to £100...

 

I look forward to seeing the Chinese kits in production!

 

David

 Which is what you currently have to pay for a top spec brass coach kit!

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Clearwater]

Which is what you currently have to pay for a top spec brass coach kit!

 

Mike Wiltshire

Indeed - from my memory of writing Mr Geen some cheques!

[Flyingscotsmanfan]

Same here. Although the prices have been rising quite significantly over the last couple of years. The worst I saw was a corridor third going for over £40. That's apart from the NER hoppers that also go for ridiculous amounts.

 

 

Jason

Two Resturant Triplets went for nearly £70 each last week... I was disappointed as that is one on my list and my max price was £60

 

As for NER hoppers the price of the Slaters kit second hand has put me off making up a decent rake of them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Some interesting comments above. Notably someone demonstrating a Chinese produced plastic LNER kit and also whether everything should be in the box. On the latter point, I'm inclined to think, airfix style, it should. However, some people are always going to want to "upgrade" it with components of their choice. Clearly , you can make a top spec kit then easily cost close to £100...

I look forward to seeing the Chinese kits in production!

David

I have just checked my post re LNER moulded bogies, which incorrectly said "bodies" and has now been corrected. Whether the bogies forecast the introduction of moulded bodies and complete kits I don't know at present.

 

Anyone expecting an Airfix type of low cost kit would probably be very disappointed. The designer of the bogie kit is better known for high quality, and hence expensive, products.

[Clearwater]

For the avoidance of doubt, I used"airfix" as short hand for "everything in the box" and not as a comment on target price

[Jol Wilkinson]

Regrettably, although Airfix produced some nice, larger scale kits they are probably mostly remembered by we older modellers for the plastic bagged rwo shilling variety.

 

While people are often willing to spend a lot on locos (RTR, kit and multiples thereof), rolling stock seems to be rather less important. Yet they are as important in creating a balanced picture of the real thing, unless you model a loco depot.

[Joseph_Pestell]

"Everything in the box" does lead to increased costs where small producers are involved. They have to buy in some components and that effectively means an extra margin has to be built in.

[Dunsignalling]

Regrettably, although Airfix produced some nice, larger scale kits they are probably mostly remembered by we older modellers for the plastic bagged rwo shilling variety.

 

While people are often willing to spend a lot on locos (RTR, kit and multiples thereof), rolling stock seems to be rather less important. Yet they are as important in creating a balanced picture of the real thing, unless you model a loco depot.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that a significant number of participants in our hobby have always been, first and foremost, locomotive collectors who consider carriages and wagons to be little more than "scenery".

 

In the field of r-t-r coaches this used to be uncomfortably close to the truth. However "out-of-the box excellence", in the form of Bachmann's BR Mk1 stock and, more recently, several ranges from Hornby, has done much to erode such attitudes.  

 

The downside to this is that many who would have previously taken up building coaches from kits, no longer feel a need to do so. If future coach kits are to succeed, they need to compare with current r-t-r standards on detail and price without being so complex to construct that the "Average Modeller" finds them off-putting. 

 

John

Edited January 30, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Pint of Adnams]

I have just checked my post re LNER moulded bogies, which incorrectly said "bodies" and has now been corrected. Whether the bogies forecast the introduction of moulded bodies and complete kits I don't know at present.

 

Anyone expecting an Airfix type of low cost kit would probably be very disappointed. The designer of the bogie kit is better known for high quality, and hence expensive, products.

There were several different types of LNER bogie, from the Leeds Forge Fox-pattern through to the unsuccessful Thompson, including several variations on the Gresley type and having differing wheelbases. So is it for just one type? And, given your location, is Kemilway springing into life again - hitherto known for high quality, highly detailed and expensive etched coach kits?

[chris p bacon]

There were several different types of LNER bogie, from the Leeds Forge Fox-pattern through to the unsuccessful Thompson, including several variations on the Gresley type and having differing wheelbases. So is it for just one type? And, given your location, is Kemilway springing into life again - hitherto known for high quality, highly detailed and expensive etched coach kits?

Kemilway, I'd forgotten about that one. 

 

Another one that takes the money and doesn't deliver, I know someone who has ordered about 4 months ago and received nothing, happy to take the money but no contact about whether the stock is there or not or even if you'll get your money back.

 

Springing into life......more like take it out and shoot it..

[Dunsignalling]

"Everything in the box" does lead to increased costs where small producers are involved. They have to buy in some components and that effectively means an extra margin has to be built in.

I don't think that necessarily has to be the case.

 

If one follows the example of Parkside Dundas wagon and npccs kits, they include almost everything needed to construct a vehicle that will prove acceptable (to most) as a "layout" model.

 

Things such as metal buffer heads and more complete/detailed brake-gear are easily substituted by those who consider them important and the real perfectionists just use the body mouldings in conjunction with etched underframe components.

 

Starting from the principles embodied in the Kirk products, future coach kits could match that standard by including prototype-specific, more comprehensive underframe parts in place of the very basic and generic mouldings provided in the past. Yes, an extra sprue or two will increase costs/prices but there should be no need involve outside suppliers.

 

John

Edited January 30, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Horsetan]

Kemilway, I'd forgotten about that one.

 

Another one that takes the money and doesn't deliver, I know someone who has ordered about 4 months ago and received nothing, happy to take the money but no contact about whether the stock is there or not or even if you'll get your money back.

 

Springing into life......more like take it out and shoot it..

Sadly, the only way of finding out is to take a drive to that industrial unit in Suffolk. There will probably be nobody about by the time you arrive.

[Roy Langridge]

It is an unfortunate fact of life that a significant number of participants in our hobby have always been, first and foremost, locomotive collectors who consider carriages and wagons to be little more than "scenery".

 

Or to look at it as glass half full, "fortunately there are a significant number of participants in our hobby have always been, first and foremost, locomotive collectors who make our purchases viable".

 

Without them many more models may not be cost effective.

Roy

[Edwardian]

I don't think that necessarily has to be the case.

 

If one follows the example of Parkside Dundas wagon and npccs kits, they include almost everything needed to construct a vehicle that will prove acceptable (to most) as a "layout" model.

 

Things such as metal buffer heads and more complete/detailed brake-gear are easily substituted by those who consider them important and the real perfectionists just use the body mouldings in conjunction with etched underframe components.

 

Starting from the principles embodied in the Kirk products, future coach kits could match that standard by including prototype-specific, more comprehensive underframe parts in place of the very basic and generic mouldings provided in the past. Yes, an extra sprue or two will increase costs/prices but there should be no need involve outside suppliers.

 

John

 

Anyone considering a new injection moulded coach, or wagon, kit range would do well to consider the above post.  John, I very much agree.

 

I would suggest that the 'everything you need (save glue and paints) in the box" approach is the way forward.  To that end I would also include transfers.

 

The kits will in that way be on a par with mass-market military and aviation kits that people are used to and with which they are comfortable, and one should aim for the same level of ease of assembly/complexity; if you can build an Airfix Spitfire, you can build a wagon kit, and if you can build a Lancaster you can build a coach kit.  The kit needs to be engineered for easy construction and correct fit. Instructions should also be as clear and as well-illustrated as Airfix's and there should be reasonably detailed notes on the prototype. 

 

I would take the Ratio kits as the basic pattern for coaches, though I would do a couple of things differently.  I would have hand/grab rails separate, not moulded on, and I would discard plastic wheels and buffers in favour of metal.  I would avoid the fiddly multi-media nature of the Slaters kits; you won't get people to take up plastic rolling stock kits building if you confront them with etched brass bogie frames. That defeats much of the point of using the medium of plastic.  I would include transfers, as I say.

 

This will allow a perfectly good and accurate model to be made by the 'average enthusiast' at reasonable cost and within a reasonable time. 

 

Of course, as you suggest, you can go to the Nth degree to customise or super-detail the kit. People do so to an RTR locomotive, or, a plastic aircraft kit. The coach or wagon kit need be no different. Some aircraft modellers use a small fortune in after-market components that, together, probably cost several times the value of the kit.  There is aleays room for the dedicated modeller to go further if and when he wants.

 

The rest of us have something that will sit more happily behind our E4 0-6-2T, GN Atlantic, Improved Director, GW City, Adams Radial, M7, N7 etc, etc than the necessarily limited range of RTR coaches.  

[Jol Wilkinson]

There were several different types of LNER bogie, from the Leeds Forge Fox-pattern through to the unsuccessful Thompson, including several variations on the Gresley type and having differing wheelbases. So is it for just one type? And, given your location, is Kemilway springing into life again - hitherto known for high quality, highly detailed and expensive etched coach kits?

It would be inappropriate of me to confirm who the designer may or may not be at this time.

 

In the meanwhile, mine's a pint of Broadside, thanks

[Coach bogie]

Anyone considering a new injection moulded coach, or wagon, kit range would do well to consider the above post.  John, I very much agree.

 

I would suggest that the 'everything you need (save glue and paints) in the box" approach is the way forward.  To that end I would also include transfers.

 

The kits will in that way be on a par with mass-market military and aviation kits that people are used to and with which they are comfortable, and one should aim for the same level of ease of assembly/complexity; if you can build an Airfix Spitfire, you can build a wagon kit, and if you can build a Lancaster you can build a coach kit.  The kit needs to be engineered for easy construction and correct fit. Instructions should also be as clear and as well-illustrated as Airfix's and there should be reasonably detailed notes on the prototype. 

 

I would take the Ratio kits as the basic pattern for coaches, though I would do a couple of things differently.  I would have hand/grab rails separate, not moulded on, and I would discard plastic wheels and buffers in favour of metal.  I would avoid the fiddly multi-media nature of the Slaters kits; you won't get people to take up plastic rolling stock kits building if you confront them with etched brass bogie frames. That defeats much of the point of using the medium of plastic.  I would include transfers, as I say.

 

This will allow a perfectly good and accurate model to be made by the 'average enthusiast' at reasonable cost and within a reasonable time. 

 

Of course, as you suggest, you can go to the Nth degree to customise or super-detail the kit. People do so to an RTR locomotive, or, a plastic aircraft kit. The coach or wagon kit need be no different. Some aircraft modellers use a small fortune in after-market components that, together, probably cost several times the value of the kit.  There is aleays room for the dedicated modeller to go further if and when he wants.

 

The rest of us have something that will sit more happily behind our E4 0-6-2T, GN Atlantic, Improved Director, GW City, Adams Radial, M7, N7 etc, etc than the necessarily limited range of RTR coaches.  

This was the original concept of the Slater's kits.Then suddenly an all plastic kit was not enough.

 

The challenge is the 'one size fits all' issue and in an attempt to pacify the superscsale modellers,the spec was raised with compensated bogies, rather than plastic etc had to be included. Although 'everyone' wants them now, it was not the case when they came out. The compensated bogies were only popular with those who insist compensation is a must, which put off the rest of use who have no interest, or like me, believe compensation is pointless on such a short wheelbase. One of mine is running on Mailcoach/Kirk American plastic bogies - they are fine and no one has noticed. The other reason for lack of sales is the duplication with the Blacksmith/Mallard diagrams. There are various tales around as to how this happened, but sales were not as high as the could have been and the idea of producing further diagrams using the same standard base underframe was not extended.

 

Mine were bought at well under half price as my local model shop tried to clear stocks, because 'everyone' did not want them.

 

The separate handrails will always be an area for disagreement. Not everyone wants separate door and grab handles. I do not see many Bachmann Mark 1 coaches with replacement parts.

 

Metal buffers - again I do not see plastic buffers hindering the sales of Kirk Gresley's when you can find them.

 

Transfers - include but which livery/era etc. Do you cover all increasing the costs etc.There was a time when POWsides produced bespoke decals for Parkside kits and that worked for may of us. You had to buy them separately, put the cost up somewhat, but it did not matter - convenience over cost!

 

In my opinion, produce an all plastic kit (metal wheels not an issue as parkside)  and if the modeller wants to replace parts with metal fittings, let them, but is it work risking putting off the, as Raliway Modeller puts it, the 'average' modeller? The concept has worked for Kirk and Ratio. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Again does 'one size fits all'?

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Pint of Adnams]

Not forgetting the question of what type of coupling(s) to make provision for... especially important when considering close formations of coaching stock.

[Dunsignalling]

Or to look at it as glass half full, "fortunately there are a significant number of participants in our hobby have always been, first and foremost, locomotive collectors who make our purchases viable".

 

Without them many more models may not be cost effective.

Roy

Where locomotive models are concerned, I concur, but it held back the availability of prototypical coaches for an awful long time. That was definitely a "glass half empty" in my book.

 

Even the Tri-ang Mk1 range of the 1960s, which were pretty decent models for the time, never included the corridor second that was necessary to represent a prototypical formation of a train exceeding three coaches in length. 

 

My own glass half full would contain enough decent coaches to go with the locos we buy and have already bought. I would be quite happy to see new locos being introduced less frequently but accompanied by compatible rolling stock.

 

In fact, I suspect that such a policy has, to some extent, been followed by Hornby for some time, reducing their exposure to potential risks that might arise from needing to release too many "niche" locos in quick succession. 

 

John

Edited January 30, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Pint of Adnams]

In the meanwhile, mine's a pint of Broadside, thanks

I'm an 'Old Ale' in winter and 'Ghost Ship' otherwise man myself. If you can find me in the 'Lord Nelson' in Southwold I'd be happy to oblige

[Clearwater]

I think the point of the "everything in the box " is two fold.

1) you build it as the designer intended

2) you are not reliant on then needing to call Joe at "Obscure parts for the discerning modeller" to ask for a vacuum cylinder but the problem is he isn't on email, and certainly not an Internet ready shop, and only answers the phone in the U.K. Between 4pm and 6pm. Unless the racing's on etc (I exaggerate to make the point). And even when you've found Joe, you also need to get hold of Fred for his shell vents, Bob who does the best in carriage mirrors etc. If you want the absolute best, then you'll do that. If you're "average", you'll probably not bother.

 

When I order, I like the convenience of web shopping and to get everything I need from one source. It's also more efficient from a postal perspective.

 

David

[Edwardian]

This was the original concept of the Slater's kits.Then suddenly an all plastic kit was not enough.

 

The challenge is the 'one size fits all' issue and in an attempt to pacify the superscsale modellers,the spec was raised with compensated bogies, rather than plastic etc had to be included. Although 'everyone' wants them now, it was not the case when they came out. The compensated bogies were only popular with those who insist compensation is a must, which put off the rest of use who have no interest, or like me, believe compensation is pointless on such a short wheelbase. One of mine is running on Mailcoach/Kirk American plastic bogies - they are fine and no one has noticed. The other reason for lack of sales is the duplication with the Blacksmith/Mallard diagrams. There are various tales around as to how this happened, but sales were not as high as the could have been and the idea of producing further diagrams using the same standard base underframe was not extended.

 

Mine were bought at well under half price as my local model shop tried to clear stocks, because 'everyone' did not want them.

 

The separate handrails will always be an area for disagreement. Not everyone wants separate door and grab handles. I do not see many Bachmann Mark 1 coaches with replacement parts.

 

Metal buffers - again I do not see plastic buffers hindering the sales of Kirk Gresley's when you can find them.

 

Transfers - include but which livery/era etc. Do you cover all increasing the costs etc.There was a time when POWsides produced bespoke decals for Parkside kits and that worked for may of us. You had to buy them separately, put the cost up somewhat, but it did not matter - convenience over cost!

 

In my opinion, produce an all plastic kit (metal wheels not an issue as parkside)  and if the modeller wants to replace parts with metal fittings, let them, but is it work risking putting off the, as Raliway Modeller puts it, the 'average' modeller? The concept has worked for Kirk and Ratio. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Again does 'one size fits all'?

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Buffers, optional, I suppose, to include metal.

 

Transfers can go one of two ways either sell the coach as, e.g. a Midland Coach with just Midland transfers (but with alternative running numbers), or as a LMS etc, which apes the way Airfix sell aircraft as version specific determined by the transfers included.  Alternatively you have a single, comprehensive, transfer sheet.  At least there are a couple of options in determining the most cost-effective answer.

 

I think that universality of appeal dictates the Ratio plastic bogie sprue option.  Certainly so far as OO is concerned, the answer to the compensation issue is to lay track properly, which, frankly, most can manage to do.  The standard Peco FB ranges if laid with a modicum of care will not require compensation, and nowadays there are several OO/finescale ready-to-lay bullhead options those who wish.

 

Perhaps compensation is a necessity for P4 and a luxury for others, and this seems to place it in the minority category of refining a kit with after market accessories.  Nothing against compensation, but it is not a fit with John Dunsignalling's "layout" coach that anyone can build.

[Dunsignalling]

This was the original concept of the Slater's kits.Then suddenly an all plastic kit was not enough.

 

The challenge is the 'one size fits all' issue and in an attempt to pacify the superscsale modellers,the spec was raised with compensated bogies, rather than plastic etc had to be included. Although 'everyone' wants them now, it was not the case when they came out. The compensated bogies were only popular with those who insist compensation is a must, which put off the rest of use who have no interest, or like me, believe compensation is pointless on such a short wheelbase. One of mine is running on Mailcoach/Kirk American plastic bogies - they are fine and no one has noticed. The other reason for lack of sales is the duplication with the Blacksmith/Mallard diagrams. There are various tales around as to how this happened, but sales were not as high as the could have been and the idea of producing further diagrams using the same standard base underframe was not extended.

 

Mine were bought at well under half price as my local model shop tried to clear stocks, because 'everyone' did not want them.

 

The separate handrails will always be an area for disagreement. Not everyone wants separate door and grab handles. I do not see many Bachmann Mark 1 coaches with replacement parts.

 

Metal buffers - again I do not see plastic buffers hindering the sales of Kirk Gresley's when you can find them.

 

Transfers - include but which livery/era etc. Do you cover all increasing the costs etc.There was a time when POWsides produced bespoke decals for Parkside kits and that worked for may of us. You had to buy them separately, put the cost up somewhat, but it did not matter - convenience over cost!

 

In my opinion, produce an all plastic kit (metal wheels not an issue as parkside)  and if the modeller wants to replace parts with metal fittings, let them, but is it work risking putting off the, as Raliway Modeller puts it, the 'average' modeller? The concept has worked for Kirk and Ratio. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Again does 'one size fits all'?

 

Mike Wiltshire

I agree that the provision of multi-media compensated bogies should be left to the builder - in any case, it should only need to be the "innards" to which the plastic sides from the kit can be attached.

 

The problem I had with the Kirk kits (though it didn't put me off buying them) was the sparse and generic nature of the underframe detail. Others might be OK with it, but I found it completely "under-done" and the likes of MJT and Comet reaped the benefit of selling me what wasn't in the kits.

 

As for metal buffers, that's really an issue of appearance on coaches where they tend to look a lot better than the kit parts. However, I had rakes where one packet was shared between the outer ends for economy and I never felt inclined to revisit the rest in times of greater prosperity!  I began adding metal buffers, or at least the heads, to wagon kits as soon as I cottoned on that it was much easier to do so at the building stage rather than waiting until (one of) the plastic heads got knocked off!

 

John

Edited January 30, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[kandc_au]

Edwardian,

I like the concept BUT foresee issues.

As sure as you use Toms buffers, someone is going to complain that they prefer Dick's buffers and someone else will prefer Harry's.

At least if they are done in plastic modellers can then use what they prefer, or build as supplied.

The same for all the other bits and pieces.

Personally I like wire handrails, but the majority I suspect will be quite happy with moulded ones etc, etc.

If it isn't complicated it will sell well, and "modellers" will get the enjoyment of detailing to their personal requirements.

 

Khris