If you want "Real Modellers" you need the accessories

[Edwardian]

 

 

Estimating the sales potential of pre-group models hasn't yet become reliable, Bachmann got it very wrong one way with the SECR/Bluebell C Class, which soared to atmospheric prices on the secondary market and the other with the LSSCR E4 which evidently doesn't sell even at a 50% discount. So what aspect really shifts these models; pre-group or as-preserved?

 

 

 

There you go again, John, making this about RTR support of Pre-Grouping! 

 

On the point above, I wonder if this 'umber E4 does not sell well' idea is a bit of an urban myth.  All versions are still hanging around the major retailers and all versions are currently advertised at normal prices for those retailers, which are generally sub-RRP.  There are more heavily discounted items by far, e.g. Hornby BR and LNER J15s at £75 (presumably to make way for new versions) and, strangely, the relatively new first outing of Hornby's GW King.

 

 

 

there has been plenty of bleating about the forthcoming LSWR Gate-sets from Kernow Models representing the vehicles in SR and BR condition. 

 

 

 

As you know, I bleat every time a pre-Grouping subject is made without tooling options for the pre-Grouping period.  What can be accurately liveried pre-Grouping without a different tooling option is very, very limited and insufficient to support any given layout subject.  That is why sales of current RTR pre-Grouping models offer no evidence of the actual or potential appeal of earlier periods.  No one can really get started with RTR.

 

None of which really has that much to do with the accessories and kit market save to say that the RTR status quo makes it even more important that we have kits and accessories, but I see the virtue in them and in building models regardless of the era being modelled.

[Ian Simpson]

As so often, I agree with Edwardian on this one. The one difference is that I don't think all Shapeways items are over-priced; many are excellent value, but around 25% do seem to be ridiculously expensive when one considers the amount of design work and materials involved. But what really puts me off buying 3D components from the company is the poor print quality of many of the items and the limited range of British components available.  A couple of thoughts: 

 

(a) While I wouldn't normally join a club (the usual reasons: too anti-social, too time-poor, too cash-poor for that matter), I'd certainly cough up the subs for any group that would rent out their 3D printer or Silhouette cutter for its members to experiment and learn the basic techniques of 3D design. The problem with Shapeways seems to be that it takes too much of the process (especially the final printing) away from the individual modeller.

 

(b) What happens to all the old moulds and masters when a component finally goes off the market? I realise some just wear out, but I assume in many cases the customer demand or the producers's enthusiasm give way before the mould does. I've always thought it's a shame there's not some archive where old moulds that no longer have (or never did have) any commercial value can be donated for individual, not-for-profit use.

[Steamport Southport]

I've seen a few good resin kits, there was a 7mm GW syphon and the saddle of a GW saddle tank. Don't many of the JLTRT kits contain a good percentage of resin components? There are also some very good resin castings in military modelling.

 

Maybe it's just that I haven't come across many good ones then. Most of my experience with resin castings it has been very flash heavy. It was in the window area that needed a lot of cleaning up, Hence the replacement of the Keen sides with Comet etched ones. The rest of the models were fine with a bit of work.

 

I have mainly been put off by the numerous examples of expensive, misshapen blobs that you see on Ebay.

 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

There you go again, John, making this about RTR support of Pre-Grouping! 

 

On the point above, I wonder if this 'umber E4 does not sell well' idea is a bit of an urban myth.  All versions are still hanging around the major retailers and all versions are currently advertised at normal prices for those retailers, which are generally sub-RRP.  There are more heavily discounted items by far, e.g. Hornby BR and LNER J15s at £75 (presumably to make way for new versions) and, strangely, the relatively new first outing of Hornby's GW King.

 

 

 

As you know, I bleat every time a pre-Grouping subject is made without tooling options for the pre-Grouping period.  What can be accurately liveried pre-Grouping without a different tooling option is very, very limited and insufficient to support any given layout subject.  That is why sales of current RTR pre-Grouping models offer no evidence of the actual or potential appeal of earlier periods.  No one can really get started with RTR.

 

None of which really has that much to do with the accessories and kit market save to say that the RTR status quo makes it even more important that we have kits and accessories, but I see the virtue in them and in building models regardless of the era being modelled.

You can't get started in S-scale or 3mm via r-t-r either, but it doesn't stop people doing it.

 

So why do "real modellers" choose pre-grouping prototypes? Because it's the only way to do it, or because it sets them apart from the herd?

 

The inability to buy anything much r-t-r would certainly make one stick to real modelling, in the same way that adopting S-scale does.

 

If I were already doing either (or both) with any degree of success, would I even want an r-t-r manufacturer to start invading my territory?

 

John

[Talltim]

You can't get started in S-scale or 3mm via r-t-r either, but it doesn't stop people doing it.

 

So why do "real modellers" choose pre-grouping prototypes? Because it's the only way to do it, or because it sets them apart from the herd?

 

The inability to buy anything much r-t-r would certainly make one stick to real modelling, in the same way that adopting S-scale does.

 

If you were already doing either (or both) with any degree of success, would you even want an r-t-r manufacturer to start invading your territory?

 

John

I thought the thread wasn't about RTR at all, but about the availability of of other components?

[asmay2002]

Hornby et al are not stupid.

 

They're going broke.  The current formula of endless BR era stuff is clearly driving them to the wall.  I don't know what the correct solution is but what they're doing at the moment isn't it.

 

 

The pre-group lobby may have a good case but it's not a proven one and it's not them whose capital would be risked by delving into earlier periods.

 

Estimating the sales potential of pre-group models hasn't yet become reliable,

 

This is just an argument for never doing anything new at all in any sphere of life and inevitably leads to a spiral of decline (and sums up the decline of British industry in spades).  You can't prove something without trying it. Again there is no evidence that estimating demand is any more or less difficult for things painted in BR livery vs anything else.  Put quite simply absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.

[Dunsignalling]

I thought the thread wasn't about RTR at all, but about the availability of of other components?

The two aren't necessarily unrelated. I'm guessing that Edwardian wouldn't be hacking old Tri-ang GWR clerestories around if he could buy the same thing made to current standards. If he could do that, he wouldn't need the bogies. 

 

I have bought and continue to buy components, too, but mostly to convert or upgrade r-t-r models or kits rather that what might better be described as semi-scratchbuilding.

 

Ultimately, "real modelling" is about making things, if you can't buy the loco you want, you make it. If you can't buy the bits to make the loco you want, you make them. 

 

It's all a matter of degree.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

They're going broke.  The current formula of endless BR era stuff is clearly driving them to the wall.  I don't know what the correct solution is but what they're doing at the moment isn't it.

 

 

 

This is just an argument for never doing anything new at all in any sphere of life and inevitably leads to a spiral of decline (and sums up the decline of British industry in spades).  You can't prove something without trying it. Again there is no evidence that estimating demand is any more or less difficult for things painted in BR livery vs anything else.  Put quite simply absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.

Their "endless BR stuff" extracts up to a couple of grand a year from my pockets and a lot more from plenty of others - you have to build on what you already do and take it from there.

 

Even if Hornby are on the way out, and I don't consider that certain by any means, their persistence with BR era models won't even make the first page of any list of reasons.

 

Bachmann have already demonstrated how difficult it is to decide on production levels; one they needed to make twice as many of, one they could have got away with half. 

 

I've never been into pre-group modelling - in general I find it all too shiny and chocolate box. Whether the trade makes it or not is of little interest to me, any purchases will be minimal.

 

The converse is also true, if the trade stopped making what I want, I'd just cease spending - I already have enough in the cupboard to keep me going for more years than I have left. That comment is not, in any way morbid, you should see the cupboard.

 

John

[Steamport Southport]

Pedant mode on.

 

 

I would also like to point out that GWR 101 was an entirely new model made to replace the old Nellie model and not made to fit a previously available chassis. It was the CR 0-4-0ST that was stretched to fit this chassis. They also made an E2 and 2721 in pre groupling livery. That was four models out of a range of about twenty that had pre grouping livery. Maybe they didn't sell well enough to warrant any more being made. Both the CR 0-4-0ST and E2 were rereleased pretty quickly in later liveries.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/year_details.asp?yearid=17

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

I

 

Pedant mode on.

 

 

I would also like to point out that GWR 101 was an entirely new model made to replace the old Nellie model and not made to fit a previously available chassis. It was the CR 0-4-0ST that was stretched to fit this chassis. They also made an E2 and 2721 in pre groupling livery. That was four models out of a range of about twenty that had pre grouping livery. Maybe they didn't sell well enough to warrant any more being made. Both the CR 0-4-0ST and E2 were rereleased pretty quickly in later liveries.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/year_details.asp?yearid=17

 

 

Jason

I could have sworn the old Desmond/Smoky Joe came out long before the 101.

 

As you say, though, Hornby have done quite a few pre-group locos over the years but very little in the way of "proper" stock to match and no coherent 'follow-ups' either suggesting opportunistic re-use of existing chassis rather than a defined strategy.

 

Proper (and probably unique) equals the LBSC brake van to go with the E2 but definitely not the hybrid Caley/BR Mk1 coaches to go with 123 and even less, the diabolical 3-compartment four wheelers in any livery.

 

John

[The Stationmaster]

I thought the thread wasn't about RTR at all, but about the availability of of other components?

 

Like Dunsignalling there is a relationship.  In the past, as Coachmann often says. the r-t-r industry mainly produced toys rather than railway models - so we bought all sorts of bits and pieces to make them into something more railway like or otherwise improve them.  Thus there was a ready market for detailing items and detailing kits plus a market for kits due to non-availability of a particular engine or whatever via any other route.

 

Most of the businesses supplying thees thing were either small or simply hobbyists who decided to sell what they had produced for themselves and who gradually built up a range but whichever - the driving imperative for the wider market was the poor quality and lack of range in r-t-r items.  Effectively the higher standards of r-t-r have reduced that side of the market for such things because people are far less inclined to replace parts.  At the same time the originators of the 'one man band' business have aged and are seeking to retire so the range either disappears or i sold on to someone whose skills and capital or enthusiasm doesn't match the commitment etc of the originator - and the range declines and dies.

 

In their place new ideas and ranges appear - for example masses of good quality minor detail parts for diesels, which go completely off the radar for steam era modellers (although sometimes they are useful) often because the originators of the new ranges are younger and more interested in a more modern prototype.  And of course new methods also appear but the novelty of development and greater sophistication has to be paid for.

[Dazzler Fan]

*

 

I am trying, I am trying!

I have introduced Sheave Wheels with spoke nuts, GWR Coral A, Pollen C,

and Pollen E in all its variations. - it is expensive, and there is little support.

 

I see only crocodile tears.

 

The first 5 of the SDJR 25a Dazzler are out waiting on feedback. Putting that

exercise together has been difficult and expensive.

 

A popular Etched Brass kit maker once said to me that if they ever sold 2 of

an item in the same year, they would go out and celebrate on it. So far I have

managed to do better than that, but it falls short on seed corn for new models.

 

Noel

[Talltim]

I've never been into pre-group modelling - in general I find it all too shiny and chocolate box. Whether the trade makes it or not is of little interest to me, any purchases will be minimal.

There was just as much grime (if not more) in the pre-grouping era, although the top flight passenger trains were probably cleaner than the BR period. After all WW1 was pre grouping and that was definitely not twee

[Guy Rixon]

Surely it takes just as long to learn how to design a model in 3d CAD for printing using Shapeways as it does to learn how to use hand tools efficiently enough to produce something you can be satisfied with?

 

 

Not for me. It's taken decades to build up the craft skills and tool-set to build pre-grouping stock to standards that I can accept (not very high standards, even now). When I started with 3D CAD, I got my first useful print in about two weeks. That included trying half a dozen CAD tools, finding one that worked for me, learning the tool, cussing the design into existence, working out how to interact with Shapeways, and finally engaging wallet to get a test print. Furthermore, that print - ribbed buffer guides - was a component that I am unable to make with hand tools; I have tried in the past.

 

There's also the point that a CAD for, say, one kind of buffer, can be morphed into a different kind of buffer at a fraction of the original design time.

[JCL]

Shapeways items are over-priced; some are excellent value, but around 25-30% do seem to be ridiculously expensive when one considers the amount of design work and materials involved.

For the models I've put out on Shapeways, if I take into account only the hours spent designing even the smallest items, not even taking into account the cost of learning the software, what the material I'm printing in can and can't do, buying iterations to make sure it's right and the postage of them, the pro-rate computer cost, and a proportion of the broadband I'm making pennies an hour. I obviously don't do it for the money, I do it because I have the satisfaction of both making a model I can't get anywhere else, and giving other people the chance to do the same if they want. And because I find it all fascinating.

 

I had an exchange of emails with someone designing in brass a kit for a loco I'd just brought out, and we agreed that the people who are likely to buy my model are different to those likely to buy his. I think it's horses for courses. I am as likely to finish a brass kit as I am to run a triathlon, but I have the utmost respect for the people who find those two pastimes enjoyable.

[Horsetan]

.... Backwoods Fr Double Fairlie ....

 

The Fr Kit contains brass etchings, castings, wheels, motor and all parts needed to get a mechanically working locomotive....

 

Is Pete still producing his OO9 and OOn3 kits? I thought I had seen mention in this Forum that he had stopped production, but that the website hadn't been updated.

[Nearholmer]

My impression, from attending ExpoNG and the odd GOG event, is that this problem afflicts their realms less, possibly because there isn't so much r-t-r available to soak-up 'modelling pennies' or to 'warp' everything in particular directions.

 

But, problem it is, even in 16mm/ft, which was entirely the province of scratch and kit builders until pretty recently. One large cottage (an old school actually) has ceased production, depriving modellers of ready access to a vast range of useful things.

 

Perhaps we need an "unused bits amnesty", 'cos I'd wager that 50%+ of the output of all the cottages is currently stashed in cupboards! hoarded against the vanishingly small probability that every single one of us will finish all the jobs that we have abandoned before we started them.

 

Someone above said that money and skill were the only two available cures; the latter has to come with a large dollop of time, in order to be useful, and it have an inkling that changing circumstances have reduced the amount of available time for many people.

 

K

[BG John]

The lack of parts discussed in this topic, and the lack of historic/pre-grouping models in another topic (but creeping in here too!), has got me thinking. There have been various comments about why the RTR manufacturers won't produce things for what are perceived as risky or minority interests, and why the suppliers of small components are disappearing, and they are understandable. So whatever we may say, the situation isn't going to change any time soon.

 

While skills required for Silhouette and laser cutting, 3D printing etc., are difficult and time consuming to grasp, and some people may never acquire the inclination or skills to do it, they have huge potential. Like Edwardian, I'm working through Mike Trice's coach build (it's pre-grouping, so I couldn't ignore it!), but I've got to a stage where I'm a bit stuck with it. I'll get there eventually, but it's encouraged me to have a go at a simpler project, so I'm currently working on a wagon. It's a skill I need to develop if I'm to achieve my long term modelling ambitions, as there's no way I'll ever have the money to buy kits, or even 3D prints, of what I'll need, so I need to learn to make most of it for myself, and do it fairly quickly and efficiently. But there are lots of smaller parts I would buy, if they were available, and if I knew how to get hold of them. And some of them are very elusive, only being available by sending stamps for a catalogue, or being able to turn up at one of the exhibitions where the seller has a stand, especially as they don't seem to get out of England much.

 

So what's the answer, or at least a potential answer? We could do it ourselves, through collaboration between those who have skills in various areas. That's what's so great about modern technology, as the software is available cheaply or free, and it's easy to transfer files and data around. So how about setting up an Open Source project for unusual and historic modellers? Researchers could provide information, draughtsmen who can use CAD could produce drawings of the prototype, and those with the product design skills could produce cutting and 3D printing files from the drawings. The end product could be made freely available on a Creative Commons (or similar) licence, so it's forever in the public domain. Anyone with the necessary hardware could download it and cut/print it themselves, and they could modify and adapt the designs to produce different or better models, and upload the results to share. Small businesses can get in on the act by charging for "adding value" like producing parts for sale, producing bespoke changes to the designs, or even producing RTR models from them. Pretty much as open source software works. This is something that wouldn't have been possible for the last wave of small producers, but it is now. There are probably people out there who have no interest in the subject (yet!), but who would love to get involved in some of the techie stuff, so it could be a way to bring in new modellers, talent and ideas.

 

If as many of us as possible contribute what we can, we can all help each other, and just maybe the RTR manufacturers may start to see there's a market for something different, because we've created it. I'm sure many people, in time, could contribute something, even if it's not very good. With the values behind open source, anyone would be free to improve on the design and upload it, and lots of people would gradually learn from other people's work. If we want a train of wagons or coaches for a particular railway, we may then be able to pick them from a variety of different designers, or groups of designers, and make our own changes if we can, ask if someone else would do it, or pay someone to do it if not.

 

There's lots of further thought needed, and I'm sure issues around copyright will cause problems, but if THEY won't do it, maybe WE can.

[Edge]

Is Pete still producing his OO9 and OOn3 kits? I thought I had seen mention in this Forum that he had stopped production, but that the website hadn't been updated.

I'll be honest I have no idea about that. I chose that model for my example as Backwoods is almost universally accepted as the 009 benchmark and the fairlie is a roughly comparable model

[Dunsignalling]

My impression, from attending ExpoNG and the odd GOG event, is that this problem afflicts their realms less, possibly because there isn't so much r-t-r available to soak-up 'modelling pennies' or to 'warp' everything in particular directions.

 

But, problem it is, even in 16mm/ft, which was entirely the province of scratch and kit builders until pretty recently. One large cottage (an old school actually) has ceased production, depriving modellers of ready access to a vast range of useful things.

 

Perhaps we need an "unused bits amnesty", 'cos I'd wager that 50%+ of the output of all the cottages is currently stashed in cupboards! hoarded against the vanishingly small probability that every single one of us will finish all the jobs that we have abandoned before we started them.

 

Someone above said that money and skill were the only two available cures; the latter has to come with a large dollop of time, in order to be useful, and it have an inkling that changing circumstances have reduced the amount of available time for many people.

 

K

Skill, money and time - the modeller's eternal triangle.

 

Decrease the available input of any of them and you inevitably need more of one or both the others.

 

Unfortunately, it's something that we really are stuck with.

 

John

[coachmann]

"If you want real modellers you need the accessories" made me smile. Roughly translated it means real modellers need things making for them! Joking aside, it must be said that model enthusiasts do not help their case when they say that white metal, etched brass or 3D isn't to their standard or is too expensive. Many of the old kits and fittings were good enough for us and were available because we bought them!  

 

I can speak from experience of being on both sides of the proverbial counter. The reason so many things are not available today is because the market has changed. Quite simply, the railway modellers of old started from one place and today's modellers have started from another place. If you want to move beyond what RTR offers you, forget whatever it was that removed your initiative; get stuck in and learn some skills just as we did. 

[Quarryscapes]

 

 

Don't even mention resin. Terrible stuff. I still haven't seen anything convincing cast in resin. Even my Kean Pullmans that are the best items that I've seen cast in resin ended up with etched sides.

 

 

 

A while ago I would have agreed with this, but having built Bill Bedford's 3D Print mastered resin cast kits (with 3D printed details), I'm a convert:

 

LNWR in Pen Llŷn by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

LNWR in Pen Llŷn by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

(The etched running gear bits were replaced with items from my own range, the buffer heads on the van are MJT replacements for Bill's because I lost the pack!, the wheels are Wizard Models). 

 

In general I like 3D printed better than I like whitemetal - but there is an issue. People get too carried away with making stuff in one piece with 3DP simply because they can, but as we know there are limitations to the technology and in many cases these can be alleviated by making models in several parts to make the best use of more than one material or just the build orientation of a printer. 

 

As to 'real modelling' is there such a thing? A model whittled from a solid lump of oak over 20 years into a P4 Gresley pacific is every bit a model as a Hornby RTR one, the process to arrive at it is largely irrelevant except as personal preference to the person wishing to make the model.

 

I like making things, but I know my limits, and thanks to CAD really I have a heck of a lot in my display case I just would not have otherwise - 3D printed bodies on etched chassis to my design and lettered with transfers of my design. All from the very same keypad I'm now typing this on, assembled 3 feet to my right into their final form having been worked on in the Netherlands, Scotland and the home counties on the way. 

[Mark Saunders]

Skill, money and time -

 

John

There is a fourth element "inclination" as sometimes I have the other three but the fourth is lacking!

 

Mark Saunders

[J C Fenton]

 

A while ago I would have agreed with this, but having built Bill Bedford's 3D Print mastered resin cast kits (with 3D printed details), I'm a convert:

 

LNWR in Pen Llŷn by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

LNWR in Pen Llŷn by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

(The etched running gear bits were replaced with items from my own range, the buffer heads on the van are MJT replacements for Bill's because I lost the pack!, the wheels are Wizard Models). 

 

In general I like 3D printed better than I like whitemetal - but there is an issue. People get too carried away with making stuff in one piece with 3DP simply because they can, but as we know there are limitations to the technology and in many cases these can be alleviated by making models in several parts to make the best use of more than one material or just the build orientation of a printer. 

 

As to 'real modelling' is there such a thing? A model whittled from a solid lump of oak over 20 years into a P4 Gresley pacific is every bit a model as a Hornby RTR one, the process to arrive at it is largely irrelevant except as personal preference to the person wishing to make the model.

 

I like making things, but I know my limits, and thanks to CAD really I have a heck of a lot in my display case I just would not have otherwise - 3D printed bodies on etched chassis to my design and lettered with transfers of my design. All from the very same keypad I'm now typing this on, assembled 3 feet to my right into their final form having been worked on in the Netherlands, Scotland and the home counties on the way. 

 

I love that box van. A brilliant build of a brilliant kit but it's £22.50!  Probably excluding the wheels.  Compared with an RTR wagon of Bachmann "Blue Riband" standard or a Slater's MR box van, available for £7.70 (if you believe a certain website, which is the greatest work of fiction since the Hitler Diaries), you start to see Edwardian's point about vanishing products!

 

I am a potential pre-Grouper and a potential Grouper (that means I would model GER as well as ex-GER LNER by choice), but, honestly, there was never that much GE available and a lot of that has gone.  It doesn't matter whether you want GE or ex-GER, not much scope for coaches unless you design them yourself.

[Edwardian]

 

While skills required for Silhouette and laser cutting, 3D printing etc., are difficult and time consuming to grasp, and some people may never acquire the inclination or skills to do it, they have huge potential. Like Edwardian, I'm working through Mike Trice's coach build (it's pre-grouping, so I couldn't ignore it!), but I've got to a stage where I'm a bit stuck with it. I'll get there eventually, but it's encouraged me to have a go at a simpler project, so I'm currently working on a wagon. It's a skill I need to develop if I'm to achieve my long term modelling ambitions, as there's no way I'll ever have the money to buy kits, or even 3D prints, of what I'll need, so I need to learn to make most of it for myself, and do it fairly quickly and efficiently. But there are lots of smaller parts I would buy, if they were available, and if I knew how to get hold of them. And some of them are very elusive, only being available by sending stamps for a catalogue, or being able to turn up at one of the exhibitions where the seller has a stand, especially as they don't seem to get out of England much.

 

 

 

More or less precisely my position.

 

 

So what's the answer, or at least a potential answer? We could do it ourselves, through collaboration between those who have skills in various areas. That's what's so great about modern technology, as the software is available cheaply or free, and it's easy to transfer files and data around. So how about setting up an Open Source project for unusual and historic modellers? Researchers could provide information, draughtsmen who can use CAD could produce drawings of the prototype, and those with the product design skills could produce cutting and 3D printing files from the drawings. The end product could be made freely available on a Creative Commons (or similar) licence, so it's forever in the public domain. Anyone with the necessary hardware could download it and cut/print it themselves, and they could modify and adapt the designs to produce different or better models, and upload the results to share. Small businesses can get in on the act by charging for "adding value" like producing parts for sale, producing bespoke changes to the designs, or even producing RTR models from them. Pretty much as open source software works. This is something that wouldn't have been possible for the last wave of small producers, but it is now. There are probably people out there who have no interest in the subject (yet!), but who would love to get involved in some of the techie stuff, so it could be a way to bring in new modellers, talent and ideas.

 

If as many of us as possible contribute what we can, we can all help each other, and just maybe the RTR manufacturers may start to see there's a market for something different, because we've created it. I'm sure many people, in time, could contribute something, even if it's not very good. With the values behind open source, anyone would be free to improve on the design and upload it, and lots of people would gradually learn from other people's work. If we want a train of wagons or coaches for a particular railway, we may then be able to pick them from a variety of different designers, or groups of designers, and make our own changes if we can, ask if someone else would do it, or pay someone to do it if not.

 

There's lots of further thought needed, and I'm sure issues around copyright will cause problems, but if THEY won't do it, maybe WE can.

 

Brilliant.

 

OK, as you say, making it happen is not going to be straightforward.

 

But , I think you have the answer.  

 

(we just need to make sure everything is EM and in 1905 condition)