RTR vs Kits... Economics, Variety and Quality: a discussion.

[sem34090]

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

[hayfield]

Legend

 

I started off by buying plastic kits, and wooden ones. I am of a generation who made things out of card, balsa wood, sticky back plastic.

 

At first the models were awful, badly made and painted. My first whitemetal kits thankfully worked, but were in hind sight embarrassing. The first turnouts I built derailed locos !!

 

A couple of sayings

The man who never made mistakes, never made anything. Garry Player after playing an impossible shot heard someone say, that was a lucky shot, to which he replied the more I practice the luckier I get (he was the worlds best golfer at that time)

 

The thing not to do is to go out and buy an expensive kit to learn on. Buy something cheap which will not matter if you muck it up.

 

Go out and buy a couple of sheets of plasticard and make something very simple, then have a go at making another better

 

This took me 2 seconds to find

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KIT-BUILT-GWR-56XX-CLASS-0-6-2T-LOCO-in-GWR-Green-Livery-OO-Gauge-3-Rail/312085159569?hash=item48a9b99e91:g:9egAAOSw4qxapPTM

 

Its a GEM 56xx on a Triang Jinty chassis.

 

Job 1 Learn how to clean and service the chassis

 

Its whitemetal, and I guess stuck together and hand painted with enamel paint. Take the body off the chassis, give it a good spray with oven cleaner, put it into a plastic bag and leave for 24 hours. Wash the paint and glue off the next day.

 

Stick it back together with epoxy glue, take your time over several days, use filler in the gaps. make lamp irons from cut down staples etc. If you go wrong just do it again.

 

There are many other kits like this, just look for them

[hayfield]

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

 

You need to identify the chassis first, then design the body to go on it. The chassis could be either a RTR one or perhaps one of the etched kits, but if selling an item it must be usable and of reasonable quality

 

I am just painting a Modelu figure, which is absolutely stunning in 7 mm scale. On the other hand some of the test pieces I have seen make me wince

[Guy Rixon]

JSpencer above is clearly an accomplished builder and his comments above show the wealth of experience he has building kits to talk about 3ft curves 22 inches, opening up bearings etc. "What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails " This is exactly what puts me off building kits . I just don't have these skill sets . I think that possibly is also the case for lots of other people , they are put off by the complexities of assembling the chassis , and in my case the likelihood of not getting it wrong. Could this also be the reason there are lots of unfinished or unbuilt kits . We really wanted the loco , but when it came down to it we don't have the ability to make it? So again for me a kit would only become attractive if there is a reasonable chance of success . That means a Triang "CKD" approach to building the chassis , with plastic construction kit type body . If that was available I'd give it a go.

 

Hayfield asks why do we need plastic? I suspect Hayfield is also an accomplished builder, but for many of us the thought of brass, etchings and white metal is very daunting . Plastic on the other hand is something we are very comfortable with. I think this is what would distinguish a range of "Easy Build" kits to what is already out there.

 

 

Could you please explain "Triang CDK"? I vaguely remember some coach kits (air-con Mk2 stock, I think) by Triang but not the details.

[bike2steam]

 

Hayfield asks why do we need plastic -

Well with the media jumping on it's latest 'band-wagon' with the 'eco-hate' for plastic, before long we may have to do without it - you never know.

[Clive Mortimore]

What you are proposing does not fit with your mantra of 'cheap & reasonable cost'  

 

To be able to produce the items you suggest you'll be printing in FUD/FXD,  a basic loco body will be in excess of £50, and then you have to add wheels, gears, motor & chassis*, Handrails, Handrail knobs, couplings etc which will push the 'simple' kit to £150+ 

You might suggest WSF because it's cheaper, but I would say you need to design and print one in that material, then test print it first so that you can see just how poor it is before offering it out.

 

The only way you're going to see if this is worthwhile is to draw something you want, print it and see what it comes out like. If it's ok then you could offer it through Shapeways.  

 

I helped in a small way with some pre-grouping locos that several of us wanted, with 2 skilled 3D designers and a skilled etch designer among the 5 of us, it took at least 50-60+ hours for each design along with test prints before we were satisfied.  The cost of each print ( with separate chassis) was an average of £95 for a tank loco and £75 for a loco body + £50 for a tender.

 

 

* How to motorise a 3D design is commonly either not bothered with, or left completely to the purchaser, and yet making the thing go is probably the most fundamental thing a modeller wants. If you don't design a kit around some suggested power plant then it really isn't worth starting.

Hi Dave

 

When building a locomotive scratch or kit, how it is going to get from the fuddle yard to the station is the highest priority in the design/build process. No point in having a lovely body if you can't use it. Even MTK gave the modeller a bent bit of steel which to screw into the bottom of the loco body at one end and hang a Tri-ang power unit the other end.

[Guy Rixon]

My big problem with kits (one of my big problems, I have a few) is that everything is supposed to permanently glued or soldered in place. That means that I I mess up one bit, I mess up the whole thing and can't easily take it apart to try again. Even worse, if the kit designer messed it up for me, I might not find that out until I've fixed the part in place and can't get it off again.

 

Therefore, I have many half-finished kits where I'm putting off the next step for fear of spoiling the whole thing.

 

Kits with assemblies that bolt together help.

[sem34090]

Lots of useful advice there.

 

Firstly, the model will be designed in such a way that it can fit on the existing RTR Terrier Chassis. However, this has several flaws so I will also be designing a chassis to fit the model. This could, therefore, be used under the RTR body if so desired.

 

I noticed the GEM 5600 and am keeping an eye on it and others. I even found a few LBSCR locos which I hope won't go outside of my price range.

 

Given that my 3D printed terriers will be offered in different materials (to suit pocket, or desire for a smooth finish. I'd go for the cheapest myself, and work on it, but I understand that others wouldn't) that should help a range of modellers.

 

The chassis will be designed with the same fixing points as the RTR model, with screw holes incorporated into the body.

[Legend]

Could you please explain "Triang CDK"? I vaguely remember some coach kits (air-con Mk2 stock, I think) by Triang but not the details.

Yes sorry I got it wrong it should be Triang CKD, standing for Completely Knocked Down. Basically these were locomotives and coaches in the Triang range that were supplied in their component parts to be assembled . Per Pat Hammond, the guru of all things Triang, Triang- Hornby and Hornby they were introduced to reduce the cost of the hobby , so there is a parallel with today! There was the Princess class loco, supplied as chassis block, wheels axles , motor , bogies ,loco body all for self assembly. But why I keep referring to them is that they had a chassis that when put together would run very well just like the RTR version . My point being that were someone to supply a kit with these components and a plastic body kit then I think that would be the best of both worlds and maybe even encourage folks to transition from RTR to kits . It would be the easy next step.

[bike2steam]

Its whitemetal, and I guess stuck together and hand painted with enamel paint. Take the body off the chassis, give it a good spray with oven cleaner, put it into a plastic bag and leave for 24 hours. Wash the paint and glue off the next day.

 

Stick it back together with epoxy glue, take your time over several days, use filler in the gaps. make lamp irons from cut down staples etc. If you go wrong just do it again.

 

There are many other kits like this, just look for them

Or ya could, - sling it in a tin full of Nitromoors Craftsman paint-stripper, after an hour or so wash down, scrub bigger bits with an old toothbrush, clean up joining surfaces, then spray with Halford's Surface Cleaner, give it 15 minutes to dry. Solder bits together, or use super-glue (thin, industrial quality), when finished main body construction add details, fill gaps (if any), when the filler is dry spray with the surface cleaner again, wait for it to dry, spray Halford's acrylic grey-primer. Then after lunch, spray green ( whichever ya want !)  

[Guy Rixon]

Yes sorry I got it wrong it should be Triang CKD, standing for Completely Knocked Down. Basically these were locomotives and coaches in the Triang range that were supplied in their component parts to be assembled . Per Pat Hammond, the guru of all things Triang, Triang- Hornby and Hornby they were introduced to reduce the cost of the hobby , so there is a parallel with today! There was the Princess class loco, supplied as chassis block, wheels axles , motor , bogies ,loco body all for self assembly. But why I keep referring to them is that they had a chassis that when put together would run very well just like the RTR version . My point being that were someone to supply a kit with these components and a plastic body kit then I think that would be the best of both worlds and maybe even encourage folks to transition from RTR to kits . It would be the easy next step.

 

OK thanks, then we're thinking of the same thing.

 

The big deal with CKD, was that they were complete kits of finished parts. Clip or bolt them together. Taken  'em apart and do it again if that pleases. Nothing to form, file, or paint. Most railway kits are incomplete kits of semi-finished parts, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

PS: concerning prints, a WSF body is, for me, an unfinished part as I have to sand it flat. A FUD body might be a finished part if Shapeways print it rightly.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Guy Rixon

[sem34090]

WSF is not perfect, but I will always try and offer a model in it for those who, like myself, need stuff at lower prices.

 

I will be evaluating a model printed in polyamide (The 'proper' (?) name for WSF, and the one i.materialise use) tonight, but looking at a HO LBSCR D1 I can't see anything that requires sanding, really. The only problem is the ridged boiler, but that was a fault with the original design.

[Legend]

OK thanks, then we're thinking of the same thing.

 

The big deal with CKD, was that they were complete kits of finished parts. Clip or bolt them together. Taken  'em apart and do it again if that pleases. Nothing to form, file, or paint. Most railway kits are incomplete kits of semi-finished parts, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

PS: concerning prints, a WSF body is, for me, an unfinished part as I have to sand it flat. A FUD body might be a finished part if Shapeways print it rightly.

Yep I think that's the beauty of them, but I wouldn't reintroduce these as they were. However, as you say a chassis and drive train of finished parts and a plastic kit for body and tender upperworks , requiring painting would be the ideal combination.

 

RTR is fantastic bit now getting very expensive, both for the initial buy and even to consider modifying. Then there's kits , as you say incomplete kits of semi finished parts . Usually these are metal or brass, which is a complete turn off for me . A range of Easy Build kits perhaps with generic 0-6-0 or 4-4-0 chassis (finished parts to be assembled) with a plastic kit for superstructure is my ideal.

[chris p bacon]

I must admit to being a bit confused as to why you're looking to produce the items listed. I was under the impression it was as a semi commercial undertaking as the post below intimated.

Finally, I have a scheme forming in my mind...

 

I would like a few opinions on my next planned (after the current projects) 3D Printed kit idea. I intend to cover the LBSCR Classes A1 and A1x, in an economical and simple fashion. 

 

A series of basic bodies to cover the different boiler and cab/bunker variations.

<snip>

A few chassis to cover different variants (including 2-4-0)

 

In addition to this 'pick and mix' I would intend to offer a few 'standard' versions as complete loco shells. I will also attempt to design the model in such a way that it can either fit the existing Dapol/Hornby chassis (and maybe parts from the body, with its many inaccuracies and hybrid features) or a specially-designed scale chassis. This should allow any modeller to put together a model of any terrier at pretty well any stage of its life, the following should be able to be shown, amongst other versions and freelance versions:

Original A1, as built, any batch.

<snip>

The idea is to allow people of many different abilities and pockets to put together a series of accurate locos. This could range from simply purchasing a 'complete' shell, finishing it (I may yet offer colour-printing, I need to look into it more.) and fitting it to a Hornby/Dapol chassis, to working out an exact combination of parts required to represent a particular member of the class at a particular time and assembling the model onto it's own 'scale chassis'.

 

Of course, I intend to offer the models in a few other scales, and some of the bits may be done for 7mm to assist those working on detailing Dapol's model, but the main scales to be offered will be 3mm, 3.5mm, 4mm, 5.5mm and 10mm. I may also go down to 2mm, we'll see.

 

Criticism invited and welcomed!

 

Which was then repeated here.

 

This is the idea. I myself am no accomplished kitbuilder, and at present the prospect of fabricating a metal chassis that I must ensure won't short out is rather daunting. That's not to say I don't intend trying. My plan is to be able to offer a popular prototype accurately in 4mm, 3.5mm, 3mm, maybe 2mm, 5.5mm and 10mm for the first time. I will start with 4mm, as that is the scale I model in.

 

As mentioned above, as far as the 4mm models go, there is a definite hierachy:

 

- Components to allow detailing of the inaccurate RTR body. This would allow for, say, the creation of a rough representation of the LSWR Reboilered loco, through the use of a new chimney and dome.

- Replacement accurate body onto which the chassis and handrails, detailing components, etc from the RTR offering are fixed. This merely fixes the basic shape issues, and would allow (say) and IOW bunker and cast chimney to be fitted.

- A selection of components to fit a basic 'base' body. This would allow the purchaser to essentially customise their loco to almost all of the variations enacted on the Terriers over time. This would account for variations in bunker, coal rails, dome, safety valve, smokebox, boiler, chimney, etc... This would still fit RTR chassis.

- All of the above to fit 3D Printed 00, EM or P4 Chassis, the latter possibly with Hornblocks. I need to investigate this further. Rods will most likely be 3D Printed from bronze-infused steel, though I have yet to test this.

 

We are unlikely/never going to see all of these variations on an RTR model (especially ones like the dumb buffers fitted to those used on the construction of the GCR London Extension.) so I figured it was worth a go!

 

This will be a summer project...

 

But in this post it is more a case of what you're after for yourself.

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

 

Can you define what you think 'low cost' is, as I might be thinking in different terms to yourself.

 

Your best bet is to design something you want and then see what happens and to start from a very low detail base. You also say you're are looking to offer a chassis whilst not having built one before.  I'd get some success and failures under your belt on that score first as you'll need to put a lot of work into designing one and getting it to work well across modellers varying abilities.  This will also take you well into the territory of mixed media kits where price will certainly not be 'cheap'

 

 

Lots of useful advice there.

 

Firstly, the model will be designed in such a way that it can fit on the existing RTR Terrier Chassis. However, this has several flaws so I will also be designing a chassis to fit the model. This could, therefore, be used under the RTR body if so desired.

 

Given that my 3D printed terriers will be offered in different materials (to suit pocket, or desire for a smooth finish. I'd go for the cheapest myself, and work on it, but I understand that others wouldn't) that should help a range of modellers.

 

The chassis will be designed with the same fixing points as the RTR model, with screw holes incorporated into the body.

 

 

 

My own view is that if I went to the effort of designing a kit/parts to replicate a prototype in the most accurate way, I would do it once, and to the highest standard rather than the cheapest.

 

None of what you are proposing is 'cheap' (in my view) but I would still strive for better standards, just across a smaller number of models.

[Jol Wilkinson]

OK thanks, then we're thinking of the same thing.

 

The big deal with CKD, was that they were complete kits of finished parts. Clip or bolt them together. Taken  'em apart and do it again if that pleases. Nothing to form, file, or paint. Most railway  kits are incomplete kits of semi-finished parts, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

Guy, 

 

I think they were PKD (Partly Knocked Down) based upon my motor industry experience.

 

CKD is where all the parts are unassembled and was usually used for expert markets. Assembly, finishing, painting, etc. was at a different location to the production of the parts. Sometimes a number of items are sourced local to the final assembly plant. 

 

PKD  is where complete assemblies are used (body shells, drive trains, seats, facias) and final assembly is carried out at the destination factory (which may also do the final paint application, etc.). That's also how "kit"  cars used be supplied, but to get around purchase tax at the time.

 

So I believe the Triang kits were PKD, with the major components such as the motor or chassis ready assembled and the body painted.

 

CKD is how you would describe todays loco, coach and wagon kits. 3D printing changes that only in supplying some parts "ready assembled" but still leaves some machining, assembly, finishing and painting and some outsourcing unless the "kit" manufacturer supplies the equivalent of the PKD kit.

as well as out sourcing of some items.

 

As paint finish and lining is often quoted as a major reason why some people don't take up or try kit building, would a kit with poorly finished 3D printed components appeal? The dilemma seems that it is expensive to get a acceptably smooth finish at a low price, thus defeating one of the claimed benefits for this process. I have seen very few large (bodyshell size) parts that I would consider to have an acceptable finish. Even those that have been sprayed and rubbed down with several hours work don't look right, from those I have seen displayed on RMweb.

 

I think anyone that believes they can produce a commercially acceptable kit, at a price low enough to significantly undercut RTR, which can be well finished by somebody with little or no experience and make enough profit make their effort worthwhile, is sadly misguided at this time. Until 3D prints with a surface finish at a low enough cost becomes available, then I would still regard 3D as best used to produce masters for resin or other casting techniques. There the high cost of a high quality finish print can be amortised over a production run. Several kit producers are already doing that with mixed media kits, where the most suitable material for the components application is used. 

 

Jol

[Legend]

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

[hayfield]

Getting back to the topic

 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I enjoy a bit of sourcing models at the best possible cost, which means doing a bit of ducking and diving in buying things

 

If you look at a modern kit I guess for a tank loco you may pay upwards of £90, add a set of wheels £20 to £40 motor £25 and a decent gearbox £15 so before paint and transfers you are looking at £150.00

 

I try to keep to a modest budget so as I said just keep your eyes open for a deal or two. I have found a mixed lot of parts which cost me £31, I aim to keep the mashima motor, with a 2 stage gearbox and a set of 4'7" Gibson drivers, I am hoping that I can resell the balance of parts not needed in this lot to recoup my outlay. Net result a free motor wheels and gears. I have several kits which I normally look to buy in the region of £30 waiting for a set of wheels, gears and motor. The chances are for about £40 I have a loco kit to build which if bought new would set me back £150.

 

Not just eBay but look at shows model shops etc. Whilst not something which happens instantly not only do I get the joy of building something, but the fun of sourcing the parts at decent prices

[sem34090]

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

I understand, however that others place quality above price in their list of priorities, and whilst this is a personal project that has come into being due to my wanting an accurate A1 for my circa-1900 period, I wanted to try and cater for others who want accurate terriers for other periods. Naturally, this means that the A1 will happen first, as that is what I want.

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

[chris p bacon]

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I now understand.

 

In my view £40 is unachievable with it more likely to be £60+ as a minimum. The body if done in WSF may not cost much (+P&P) but all the detail that would have to be added to the basic body would increase the cost.

A quick question that I've highlighted in bold (this never gets answered) but how do you propose fixing the FUD to the WSF ?

 

 Don't be put off trying something, just take small steps without thinking too far ahead, and work to the limitations of the material.

[sem34090]

I have answered in my thread.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-down_kit

 

PKD seems to have been replaced by SKD. but the definitions are much  the same.

 

As the wheels were attached on the Triang kit, then that further reinforces the PKD or SKD definition.

 

Either way it doesn't really matter. Providing what is effectively a RTR model in partially assembled form seems to be the aim, to save cost and reduce the selling price, but that hasn't attracted the major manufacturers. Perhaps the saving is insufficient to be considered worthwhile. Perhaps they consider their customers wouldn't be able to manage to assemble them satisfactorily. After all they must have some idea from returns that are fixed in the UK service departments and sold as Warranty Returns, as to what the buyer can't readily fix for themselves, so giving an indication of the buyers' skill and confidence levels. While the factory staff can be trained to do the assembly jobs efficiently and quickly, including the black art of soldering, the RTR manufacturers can't set up a customer training programme or make buyers undergo a skills assessment.

[Jeff Smith]

The whole chassis aspect is what really puts the price up. RTR manufacturers use cheap wheels and motors bought by the thousands at knock down prices that individuals cannot possibly match. The chassis are usually lumps of machined metal with slots for the axles and enough slop to keep most of the wheels on the track. This, together with the relatively large OO flanges works for the majority of the time for OO. I realize the OP still wishes to work in OO and honestly think that an existing commercially available chassis would be hard to match, certainly in price and probably performance too.

[BMacdermott]

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

Hello Legend

 

For the benefit of readers of this thread, I can add a little more information from Pat's book (The Story of Rovex, Vol 1, 1950-1965).

 

Pat says that the CKD series was introduced somewhat as a last minute decision and to compete with the Kitmaster range. The 1962 catalogue made no mention of the kits but they had been added to the price list by May. Initial offerings were the Princess Elizabeth loco and Maroon Mk1 Sleeping Cars. Those - and the later Compos, Brake Seconds, Buffets and Full Brakes - were supplied as two coaches in one kit. They were apparently designed to be cheaply assembled in the first place, so there wasn't much saving to be had, although the public, of course, expected them to be cheaper. The compromise was two coaches in a kit. 

 

The loco was forty five shillings - a saving of fifteen shillings and five pence. The Sleepers were seventeen shillings and sixpence - a saving of four shillings and four pence.

 

Although the loco was available from 1962 to 1970, the coaches - and the EM2 electric loco - were more confined to the period 1962/3 to 1965/6. (A B12, a Hymek, a Crane Wagon and three Blue-Grey coaches were added later, but no details are given apart from those coaches being supplied as singles.)

 

Not surprisingly, the Princess was the most popular. They made 6,600 in the first year dropping to around 4,000 a year thereafter. 

 

It came in about 60 parts although many of those items were screws or washers etc. The motor was, in effect, 'ready made' as was the loco body and tender body.

 

By comparison, Bachmann's A1 Tornado consists of 334 parts - the loco and tender bodies alone accounting for 120 parts. Their Mk2a TSO coach comprises 90 parts. (Source: Bachmann catalogues.)

 

Brian

[Legend]

Hello Legend

 

For the benefit of readers of this thread, I can add a little more information from Pat's book (The Story of Rovex, Vol 1, 1950-1965).

 

Pat says that the CKD series was introduced somewhat as a last minute decision and to compete with the Kitmaster range. The 1962 catalogue made no mention of the kits but they had been added to the price list by May. Initial offerings were the Princess Elizabeth loco and Maroon Mk1 Sleeping Cars. Those - and the later Compos, Brake Seconds, Buffets and Full Brakes - were supplied as two coaches in one kit. They were apparently designed to be cheaply assembled in the first place, so there wasn't much saving to be had, although the public, of course, expected them to be cheaper. The compromise was two coaches in a kit. 

 

The loco was forty five shillings - a saving of fifteen shillings and five pence. The Sleepers were seventeen shillings and sixpence - a saving of four shillings and four pence.

 

Although the loco was available from 1962 to 1970, the coaches - and the EM2 electric loco - were more confined to the period 1962/3 to 1965/6. (A B12, a Hymek, a Crane Wagon and three Blue-Grey coaches were added later, but no details are given apart from those coaches being supplied as singles.)

 

Not surprisingly, the Princess was the most popular. They made 6,600 in the first year dropping to around 4,000 a year thereafter. 

 

It came in about 60 parts although many of those items were screws or washers etc. The motor was, in effect, 'ready made' as was the loco body and tender body.

 

By comparison, Bachmann's A1 Tornado consists of 334 parts - the loco and tender bodies alone accounting for 120 parts. Their Mk2a TSO coach comprises 90 parts. (Source: Bachmann catalogues.)

 

Brian

Thanks Brian . Yes these are great books . I hope Pat will do a 4th edition , covering the period to date that would be fascinating!

 

But coming back to kits , I do think its the metalwork involved in getting a chassis to run well that puts people off . Something that either has all component parts that can fit together easily or are already assembled, with plastic Airfix/Revell/ Tamiya style body kits might reinvigorate the market. Sorry but just as Nintendos and X boxes have killed the trainset market , lack of skill sets and time has killed the old kit market. The world has moved on from the days of Ks, Wills, Gem, Nu-Cast etc

 

I know the catalogue illustrations which appeared at the time Bachmann greatly increased their prices . The implication being that look you have to pay all this money because it takes so much time to assemble all of this . Do we really need 90 parts for a Mk2a to look good?

Edited March 15, 2018 by Legend

[hayfield]

 lack of skill sets and time has killed the old kit market. The world has moved on from the days of Ks, Wills, Gem, Nu-Cast etc

 

 

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you but Wills are in the safe hands of Southeastern Finecast, GEM with Lychett Models. Branchlines and Southeastern Finecast have started the Nucast partnership which also includes the Keyser models and some items are being reintroduced

 

Look at eBay sales and loads of kits and kit-built models change hands, the rarer for quite a few pennies. Skill sets are not taught in schools today or for some time, but that has not stopped many from learning how to build them