If you want "Real Modellers" you need the accessories

[Dazzler Fan]

+

 

I'm for 3D printing to get all the detail

 

Previously Castle highlighted the detail in the 3D GWR

Pollen E.

 

The Post 1930 made a right and left hand out of the

center two wagons, noted by the handle position of the

hand brakes in reference to the ends which were attached

in that rebuild.

 

3D allows for producing hidden detail too. Blowing up the

picture also shows the ratchet detail on the brakes.

 

The model was fully researched with Castle to get as close

as possible to the prototype.

 

 

[BlackRat]

Don't forget paint, transfers and couplings.

 

I went through my transfers box a few evenings ago, I stopped adding up when I got to over £300, frightening!

 

Shakey hand syndrome made me give up on 3 links, I sold a few hundred quids worth for about £30 not that long ago.

 

There was little or no interest in them!

 

Looking at the above (pre grouping) wagons, again we have to balance the volume of sales.

 

The rtr may sell in droves, whilst the BB version above may sell in the dozens, and costs etc still have to be recouped ....whoever is making the stuff.

[Dazzler Fan]

Don't forget paint, transfers and couplings.

 

I went through my transfers box a few evenings ago, I stopped adding up when I got to over £300, frightening!

 

 

 

It is my aim to provide a full package of the unique parts required.

 

Hazelwood Models OO GWR Pollen C now comes including Rub-On transfers for the 3 running sets.

- for light gray livery.

 

5 more Pollen E's and the seed corn will be there for rub-ons too.

 

Rub-ons for the lining, lettering, including front buffer of the SDJR 25a are in process.

 

Noel

[brianusa]

Over many years the hobby trends have ebbed and flowed.  Once you clear the train set away and discover the other world where enthusiasts actually like to carve up RTR models to make them more authentic and actually add extra bits and pieces to make them more realistic, the whole concept has changed.  This opened up a whole new model world where the Skaledales of this world were replaced by home made architectural gems that followed actual stations and associated buildings.  My OO Buckfastleigh started out with Superquick kits, Ratio signals, etc., which at the time looked OK to me until I saw others efforts that looked more like the real thing.  Sadly my modelling was never up to high standards and could never emulate such detail and authenticity, so a couple of layouts later, I gave up and returned to a tinplate layout; so easy that I should probably never of strayed from my Hornby oval on the floor!

 

There are probably a lot who are also not well endowed when it comes to fine modelling abilities and if we can't get beyond the 'train set' layout, they too may change scales or worse still, leave the hobby altogether.  So accessories, be they parts or actual models will always have a place in our hobby no matter what scale is preferred.  I find its hard to locate O scale items for use on my layout as a high percentage manufactured are OO only so perhaps not a 'real modeler', but I do need accessories and other items for my hobby.  The model train industry has realised these facts and improved beyond the expectations of a few years ago with models that rarely need any carving up or many bits added which may or may not improve them which may account for the title of this thread.

 

Brian.

[Dunsignalling]

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

 

Mark Saunders

That's our safety net, the lack of it tends to kick in (at least for me) when my extra two invisible thumbs become active and I'm best kept away from sharp things.

[Jeff Smith]

This is an interesting thread even if it has drifted somewhat off topic. I'm glad the 'you're not a modeller if you buy RTR' spectre hasn't surfaced.

 

I was quite surprised to see that most of Mike's Models lineside items are still available. I guess as long as the original steel masters are preserved new rubber moulds can be quite easily made.

[Edwardian]

This is an interesting thread even if it has drifted somewhat off topic. I'm glad the 'you're not a modeller if you buy RTR' spectre hasn't surfaced.

 

I was quite surprised to see that most of Mike's Models lineside items are still available. I guess as long as the original steel masters are preserved new rubber moulds can be quite easily made.

 

Well, if the layout you want is a 3 siding, 1 engine in steam, decayed Light Railway BLT, you can opt for a high-fidelity gauge/scale combination and hand-build everything yet still have reasonable expectations of a working layout within a reasonable space of time.

 

But, if you want something even slightly more ambitious, you do take on quite a task once you step outside RTR supported "Mono-Period" modelling.  At least, this is so given the relatively modest time many of us have to lavish on layout building.

 

Very often I am told that, if I want to model, say, pre-Grouping, I should expect to build everything myself.  Insofar as I have been able to identify the modelling interests of those who say this, invariably they are of the Transition Era generation and who benefit most comprehensively from RTR support. Thus, the lecture is dispensed from the very modellers who can contemplate a 2-track mainline plus branch line layout with all or, at least a high proportion, of the stock coming out of a box.  They may have the necessary skills to build their own stock, and may build a portion of it.  Doubtless they detail, weather and improve their RTR stock.  Nevertheless, they have been saved years of work stock building!   

 

I think this leaves sneering at box-shakers a pretty bankrupt activity. It also leaves the "pre-Groupers don't need/want/deserve RTR support" complaint bankrupt too. Who would not be happy to run a ready-made Umber E4 or a rake of Lake Birdcages which are easily as good or better than anything you could build, and which will allow you to spend your time building more Brighton or SE stock to go with them?

 

By the same token, if faced with building a large portion of one's stock, who would not embrace the availability of cast, printed or etched parts, in order to allow the building of stock to be more time efficient? Who would eschew well-conceived kits?

 

As has been pointed out, the time investment in mastering design software of a number of types is significant.  For my own part, I am going to keep trying as I am sure that, once mastered, these skills will be able to produce results relatively quickly, but I have to say that at the moment I am finding the need to master these technologies is a significant discouragement and delay.  But that's my issue to overcome.

 

I am also coming to the conclusion that I will have to revise my expectation of the prices of components.  I think I will see if I can produce Triang clerestory body conversions to a standard that justifies the cost of the bogies.

 

I accept that there is an element of impatience at the idea that everything is done for you.  Some expensive accessories, particularly of the scenic variety produced by ingenious Continental manufacturers, strike me this way.  "Surely you could make your own ...." I find myself thinking.  These products are, for me, like Marks and Spencer's pre-grated cheese.  But, I am wrong in that.  If you can afford these products and it saves you time, allowing you more time to make other things or to run your railway, why not buy them?  Modelling is fundamentally about the way we combine the elements for a convincing, operationally interesting and attractive whole.   

 

I put "real modellers" in quotation marks in the topic title.  We are all real modellers and there is far too much snobbery, private and public, about other people's efforts and the way they decide to approach their hobby. They who shake the box also model.  They who would buy kits and components designed, produced and sold by others, are also modellers.

 

We just need to make sure that the choice and variety to model outside the scope of RTR support, survives and prospers.

[Nearholmer]

Edwardian

 

I was re-reading the 1961 RM "Peter Denny Special" last night, and my overall conclusion is that the real solution is to become a parish priest and rural diocesan dean (he was doing both jobs) in late 1950s Cornwall. This, it would appear, was a sure and certain route to having sufficient free time to build possibly the greatest ever layout in 'The English School', using raw materials and a hand-drill!

 

It clearly helps to have The Almighty on your side!

 

Kevin

 

(The hand-drill particularly inspired me: a dirt cheap thing little from Woolworths, in an equally dirt-cheap upright stand, which is what he used to drill loco main-frames with.)

[Dunsignalling]

 

Very often I am told that, if I want to model, say, pre-Grouping, I should expect to build everything myself.  Insofar as I have been able to identify the modelling interests of those who say this, invariably they are of the Transition Era generation and who benefit most comprehensively from RTR support. Thus, the lecture is dispensed from the very modellers who can contemplate a 2-track mainline plus branch line layout with all or, at least a high proportion, of the stock coming out of a box.  They may have the necessary skills to build their own stock, and may build a portion of it.  Doubtless they detail, weather and improve their RTR stock.  Nevertheless, they have been saved years of work stock building!   

 

I think this leaves sneering at box-shakers a pretty bankrupt activity. It also leaves the "pre-Groupers don't need/want/deserve RTR support" complaint bankrupt too. Who would not be happy to run a ready-made Umber E4 or a rake of Lake Birdcages which are easily as good or better than anything you could build, and which will allow you to spend your time building more Brighton or SE stock to go with them?

 

By the same token, if faced with building a large portion of one's stock, who would not embrace the availability of cast, printed or etched parts, in order to allow the building of stock to be more time efficient? Who would eschew well-conceived kits?

 

As has been pointed out, the time investment in mastering design software of a number of types is significant.  For my own part, I am going to keep trying as I am sure that, once mastered, these skills will be able to produce results relatively quickly, but I have to say that at the moment I am finding the need to master these technologies is a significant discouragement and delay.  But that's my issue to overcome.

 

I am also coming to the conclusion that I will have to revise my expectation of the prices of components.  I think I will see if I can produce Triang clerestory body conversions to a standard that justifies the cost of the bogies.

 

I accept that there is an element of impatience at the idea that everything is done for you.  Some expensive accessories, particularly of the scenic variety produced by ingenious Continental manufacturers, strike me this way.  "Surely you could make your own ...." I find myself thinking.  These products are, for me, like Marks and Spencer's pre-grated cheese.  But, I am wrong in that.  If you can afford these products and it saves you time, allowing you more time to make other things or to run your railway, why not buy them?  Modelling is fundamentally about the way we combine the elements for a convincing, operationally interesting and attractive whole.   

 

I put "real modellers" in quotation marks in the topic title.  We are all real modellers and there is far too much snobbery, private and public, about other people's efforts and the way they decide to approach their hobby. They who shake the box also model.  They who would buy kits and components designed, produced and sold by others, are also modellers.

 

We just need to make sure that the choice and variety to model outside the scope of RTR support, survives and prospers.

Edwardian,

 

I think this is very much a chicken or egg situation. The idea that, as a pre-group modeller, you have to build nearly everything for yourself, isn't written in stone but, at least for now, it seems to be a fact of life.  

 

Both our dominant r-t-r manufacturers have made occasional forays into pre-group models but the lack of much in the way of follow-ups suggests that, for one reason or another, they haven't been inspired to push deeper into pre-1923 territory. Only they will know why and the only way to encourage them is to buy what they do make, even if it only comes close to what you really want.

 

I've been in this hobby long enough to remember when SR and BR(S) models in r-t-r form were just as scarce as pre-grouping ones. For many years I consciously bought at least one of any new SR model on the basis that one flop might put our cause back to square one. It seems likely I was not alone because, whilst Bachmann have never (until recently) been more than lukewarm, Hornby came on-side in a very big way following the success of their rebuilt MN, much to their benefit and ours.

 

In my case, this has backfired a bit on Bachmann because, with Hornby providing so much of what I wanted (and quite a bit I had never dared to dream of) covering my preferred bit of the Southern, I have been forced to break my long-term resolution and prioritize my spending, largely to the detriment of Bachmann ex-LBSCR and ex-SECR introductions.

 

What the pre-group scene needs is a breakthrough r-t-r model equivalent to the Hornby MN which actually got people modelling the Southern Region in greater numbers than before.

 

How you work out what it is to be is an altogether thornier problem. There is so much to choose from and there isn't an obvious category with the wide appeal covered by Hornby's long-standing reputation for "Big, Green and Named" locos. Bachmann's GN Atlantic was a great model, but it seems to have largely "preached to the converted", attracting mainly those already in possession of loads of Gresley Pacifics.

 

The breadth of r-t-r coverage of the latter steam and transitional eras is an incentive for most of us to do extend what we already do rather than being pulled in a new direction. I have been inspired by the Ixion Hudswell Clark and Dapol Terrier to plan a 7mm scale semi-freelance light railway with everything else scratch or kit-built. However, I doubt that equivalent models in 4mm scale would have seduced me in the same way, so I'm not much help! 

 

So, what is different enough but with sufficiently wide appeal to make that breakthrough?  Something from a large but hitherto ignored railway, maybe; how about a LNWR Claughton?

 

You have embarked on a difficult course and whether you ever can persuade the r-t-r trade to make substantial inroads into pre-group subjects is debateable. However, I would not encourage you to change to something easier any more than I would or should have switched to modelling the GWR because I couldn't get what I wanted!

 

As for the on-topic thrust of this thread, Stationmaster made a very good point that many of the aftermarket parts originated from a desire/need to improve r-t-r models that, these days, require far less improving.

 

Regards

 

John

[Jeff Smith]

I have been dabbling with On30 here in the US for a few years and although I accept that this is of less interest to the majority of mainstream HO model train enthusiasts, there are relatively few cottage industry type suppliers considering the size of the country. On30 is of course US O scale so there is some spin off from SG O scale, ie laser-cut building kits, figures, etc.

 

From what I can tell, in any scale, there are no loco kits, very few motors, no steam loco wheels, no chassis kits. There are rolling stock wheels and bogies, box car kits, conversion kits, transfers, etc. I believe you can buy rail, ties and spikes but few people build their own track.

 

Is the US scene where the British scene is heading?

[Poggy1165]

I'm convinced there are enough 'awkward squaders' around to make some sort of co-operative venture viable. But it's the organisation of it that's the difficult bit. Generally speaking, the line societies and the HMRS are struggling for volunteers. To set up a whole new 'blue sky' venture would be challenging indeed. Especially as you'd probably end up with 200 participants and 201 desired projects.

[Nearholmer]

Jeff,

 

Frightening thought!

 

I subscribed to the leading US general railway modelling mag for a decade, and the leading US NG modelling mag for three decades, and while the NG guys have interests that span a wide range of periods, and are very into pre-WW1 stuff, historical research of surrounding matters etc, the standard gauge guys rarely seem to go back before WW2.

 

I don't recall a single standard gauge, main line, as opposed to funky short-line, layout set before 1930, and only a handful set before c1950.

 

Kevin

[Dunsignalling]

I have been dabbling with On30 here in the US for a few years and although I accept that this is of less interest to the majority of mainstream HO model train enthusiasts, there are relatively few cottage industry type suppliers considering the size of the country. On30 is of course US O scale so there is some spin off from SG O scale, ie laser-cut building kits, figures, etc.

 

From what I can tell, in any scale, there are no loco kits, very few motors, no steam loco wheels, no chassis kits. There are rolling stock wheels and bogies, box car kits, conversion kits, transfers, etc. I believe you can buy rail, ties and spikes but few people build their own track.

 

Is the US scene where the British scene is heading?

I don't think American On30 is necessarily comparable with British 4mm scale. It is a relatively recent introduction in r-t-r form, that arrived at a time when kits in all scales were suffering something of a decline, generally attributed to improving r-t-r quality. Was there much in the way of On30 activity before the advent of the r-t-r ranges?

 

As you say, there is no shortage of conversion and detailing items for On30. It is the decline in the availability of such items for British 4mm scale that is causing some concern over here.

 

My own view is that we may just be experiencing a lot of changes as a result of several suppliers who began around the same time deciding to retire at around the same time. We are unlikely to see all their wares disappear forever but neither will there be a seamless transition to new providers.

 

I am not especially noted for my optimism but consider that, in a year or two, everything will probably settle down at a new level that better reflects the needs of the hobby as it is today rather than how it was fifteen or twenty years ago.  

 

Is the US scene where the British scene is heading? Doubtful, simply because the two are not developing from similar starting points.

 

John

[Jeff Smith]

I didn't actually say there was no shortage of conversion and detailing items just for On30 - my comment was meant in general, mostly HO in fact.  I'm not sure of the history of On30 but prior to the Bachmann range it was, I suspect, rather like O-16.5, ie using RTR HO chassis with scratch-built or heavily bashed HO bodies on RTL HO track.

 

The point I was trying to make was that for such a large market as the US and Canada undoubtedly is, there is little in the way of items and components - it seems to be a very RTR environment.  I needed a 1/48th 1920/30s car for my layout - my choice was limited to a range of Ford Model T white metal kits from one manufacturer.

 

John, I don't really know what you meant by similar starting points, unless you are comparing the choice of prototypes.  The US railroads tended to purchase somewhat standardized designs from a handful of manufacturers whereas in Britain there were many railway companies building to their own designs leading to a great variety much of which could support a kit but not a RTR item.  This is surely where the cottage industries flourished.  Could it be that an etch or steel master exists for a good portion of our railway heritage and they just require preserving and being re-introduced by willing parties.....?

[Andy Hayter]

I'm convinced there are enough 'awkward squaders' around to make some sort of co-operative venture viable. But it's the organisation of it that's the difficult bit. Generally speaking, the line societies and the HMRS are struggling for volunteers. To set up a whole new 'blue sky' venture would be challenging indeed. Especially as you'd probably end up with 200 participants and 201 desired projects.

 

Are you trying to suggest that the other 199 have no idea at all what products they want? 

[Talltim]

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

An example from the period, but another continent. Pre-grouping heavy industry

http://www.shorpy.com/node/21155?size=_original#caption

[grahame]

 

Don't even mention resin. Terrible stuff. I still haven't seen anything convincing cast in resin.

Hmmm, I don't agree with that summary. I guess you haven't looked at much or far.

 

Resin is just another media that has its uses. Like 3D printing, it's not a panacea for all modelling applications, but when used appropriately is more than adequate and can be very convincing. Certainly a lot better than terrible.

 

G.

[grahame]

 

I'm for 3D printing to get all the detail

 

 

 

Snag is that with 3D printing you often get detail that you don't want in the form of stratification ridges that are damn difficult to get rid of:

 

 

 

G.

[Nearholmer]

I've got a "downer" on resin too, and I think it seems from the fact that so many resin kits are very poorly mastered, and/or "slumped".

 

By "slumped", I don't mean warped, which some are, but which can be sorted, but that the, presumably rubber, mould has clearly not been supported properly, so that the parts are slightly distorted. I've got a coach kit half-finished, and parked in vexation (near Tesco) for these reasons.

 

That having been said, I'm hoarding a very nice resin kit of a station building, waiting for they day when I have time to do it justice, so, they aren't all bad.

 

K

 

PS: that looks like a full size 4-SUB, or is it a tin-HAL, made from Lego!

[Paul Cram]

As a modeller of both pre group NER and late 30s LNER I can say that I am not bothered whether the RTR manufacturers produce anything. I have bought a couple of Hornby Gresley suburban coaches and whilst they are probably better models then my Kirks I prefer the Kirks and will probably sell the Horny ones. I have no intention of buying a RTR Q6 but will probably buy a kit one at some point in the future. I can still acquire NER coaches from Danny. The resin kits aren't that expensive when you consider they come with etched underframes. The slaters kits cost as much by the time I have replaced the underframes with etched components. At the moment I don't have any difficultuy obtaining the components I need fo model the periods I do. perhaps I am just lucky.

[grahame]

PS: that looks like a full size 4-SUB, or is it a tin-HAL, made from Lego!

 

 

Nope, it's a 3D printed 1:148 scale tin-hal.

 

And trying to get rid of the ridges was nigh-on impossible. When you try to file anything smooth there is a high risk of damaging adjacent detail. I ended up replacing the buffers, draw hook, jumper cables, horns, etc.,:

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't particularly want to recommend 3D printing until the quality improves and the prices get more competitive.

 

G.

[Dunsignalling]

I didn't actually say there was no shortage of conversion and detailing items just for On30 - my comment was meant in general, mostly HO in fact.  I'm not sure of the history of On30 but prior to the Bachmann range it was, I suspect, rather like O-16.5, ie using RTR HO chassis with scratch-built or heavily bashed HO bodies on RTL HO track.

 

The point I was trying to make was that for such a large market as the US and Canada undoubtedly is, there is little in the way of items and components - it seems to be a very RTR environment.  I needed a 1/48th 1920/30s car for my layout - my choice was limited to a range of Ford Model T white metal kits from one manufacturer.

 

John, I don't really know what you meant by similar starting points, unless you are comparing the choice of prototypes.  The US railroads tended to purchase somewhat standardized designs from a handful of manufacturers whereas in Britain there were many railway companies building to their own designs leading to a great variety much of which could support a kit but not a RTR item.  This is surely where the cottage industries flourished.  Could it be that an etch or steel master exists for a good portion of our railway heritage and they just require preserving and being re-introduced by willing parties.....?

I was really trying to compare the modelling aspect rather than make any prototype contrasts.

 

What I was driving at, perhaps rather ineptly, was that British 4mm scale has been richly provided for by an extensive network of "cottage industry" suppliers that developed over several decades. My comparison was aimed at On30, which, not having deep r-t-r roots, would not, initially, have attracted the same kind of aftermarket support. Having visited N/g shows in this country, it is evident that such conversion and detailing components are nowadays quite abundant. 

 

I have little experience of US HO but would expect the aftermarket parts situation in that scene to have been much more like that in British 4mm.

 

In both nations, there has been considerable decline in this kind of provision. Speaking to friends who do model US prototypes, it sounds like the fall off over there has been more severe than we have so far experienced.

 

Even if ranges do get taken over, not every item will be retained or revived. Any new owner will have his own ideas as to what remains relevant as other developments will have overtaken some products. Hypothetical examples spring to mind as to what might happen if the old range of Crownline loco detailing kits were to be revived. That for the Bachmann Lord Nelson would still be useful but, amongst others, the one for the old Tri-ang-Hornby M7 will have been rendered obsolete by the advent of the much more accurate and detailed new Hornby M7.

 

John  

[Nearholmer]

But, US NG modelling, at least modelling the Colorado three-footers in 0n3 and H0n3, was accessory-rich, and 'craftsman kit' rich long-ago, on the back of imported brass locos as the r-t-r component. When I started reading NG&SLG, in about 1979, I was utterly wowed by the range and quality of accessories available to US narrow gaugers.

 

On30 as a popular format is a real "Johnny come lately", having had only a tiny few adherents until Bachmann hit the market, and it was able to capitalise on a lot of stuff that, hitherto, was mainly of interest to 0n3 fans.

 

And, reading NG&SLG nowadays, I'm still wowed by the range and quality of accessories.

 

But, oh boy, am I not impressed by the range of accessories now displayed in MR for the delectation of H0 standard gauge modellers; as you say, it seems to have shrunk, not grown.

 

Kevin

[Loconuts]

I am afraid you are wrong there Nearholmer, 0n30 is not the "Johnny come lately" in the States. It has been around for some time but has come to the forefront since Bachmann launched their range of RTR stuff.

 

This range was developed by the late Lee Riley who had been a 0n30 modeler since the 1960's.

 

Precision Scale Castings launched the Mountain Model Import range a few years ago which was a great success. I obtained figures from PSC over the number of models manufactured in each batch and the result surprised me. They made 5000 models in each batch of which 2000 were 0n3 and the remainder were 0n30 as it was more popular modeling medium.

 

Manufacturers of small parts and accessories are still going in the States but they do not advertise in the Model Railroader. Have a look in O Scale Resource which can be found on the web. True some manufacturers have gone due to the downturn after 2008

 

As for HO modeling as far as I can see, this is dictated as to what the manufacturers want to produce. That is why the majority of HO layouts are set in the 1970's to the 1990's period and this is what is happening to the British scene. Our manufacturers are only going to produce pre-nationalised steam locos if it is preserved so therefore it is impossible to portray a realistic model of the pre- nationalised railway. Why is this, well the manufacturers like to scan the prototype and not spend money on doing R&D. Economics of manufacturing to supply those cheap models.

 

I do not hear those modelers who do not rely on the RTR  scene complaining, they just get on with it enjoying their hobby. My advice is have a hunt around, you will be surprised as to what is still around. Many of the small component manufacturers do not advertise in the mainstream mags but only in the specialist ones.

 

Loconuts

[Andy Hayter]

For the resin detractors, I suggest you look at Bill Bedford's Mousa GNR Howden coaches.  A better bit of moulding I have never come across.