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

[Guy Rixon]

I think in this discussion of 3D material types, we’re in danger of overlooking where the real skill/intellectual property rests. To me, the barrier to entry here is understanding the software programme to produce a printable design. An important sub set of that design skill is to be able to recognise what parts need to be separate and how to design it to be fitted to a chassis. In many respects, that’s no different to designing an etched kit.

 

David

 

The software can certainly be a barrier to entry. I find almost all the cost-free software for 3D design unusable. All the ones that operate by pointing and dragging I find either too clumsy, or too imprecise, or too lacking in features. Presumably there are professional-grade packages that solve this problem, but I have no money for them.

 

What works, for me, is  a completely different family of software called "source CAD". In this, one builds a model, in either 2D or 3D, by writing a program in a specialised language and compiling it to a printable model. If I want a bar 2 scale inches in diameter and 2'6" (scale) long then I write a line of code that invokes that. If I want a 0.5mm hole though a buffer guide to take a turned buffer-tail, then I write a line that subtracts a 0.5mm cylinder from the buffer assembly. If I want an advanced feature, like a dome, then I write a module that makes that shape from the primitive shapes in the original software; and I get to re-use that module in other models.

 

My source-CAD package is OpenSCAD, with is both free of cost and offers the freedom to fiddle with the basic code if one wishes. Other brands are available, for money.

 

To use 3D source-CAD, one has to be mentally able to write computer programs, and also to do basic maths, notably geometry and trigonometry. I did the necessary brain-damage to learn coding early in my career, and I can puzzle out geometry given enough time and whisky. These hurdles overcome, source-CAD seems a much more biddable tool than the other approaches. If anybody wants details of this process, I can post them.

[Clearwater]

Thanks Guy - I’m certainly interested. Whilst I’ve never done design or formal computer programming, I can write complex excel formulae and would reckon my maths is strong enough. I’m also pretty handy in PowerPoint. I’ve never had need professionally to use CAD software. I’ve brought a couple of “autocad” for dummies style books which I can follow but I’m frankly not minded to shell out a few hundred quid on a licence for something I’d use occasionally. I’ve a few ideas of parts I’d like to make for either etching or 3D printing’

 

David

[PenrithBeacon]

I don't despise WSF, I just think it's the wrong material for the application.

 

Craigw has made some good points, and I can say that the WSF A5 in the picture has taken longer than if I had been building it from a brass/whitemetal kit and it has less detail. I'm very happy with the FUD version and when painted will be fine and certainly better than the WSF.

I have two kits in stock, one is FUD the other FXD. The FXD seems to me to require not much more prep than a white metal kit the FUD more so. WSF is not fit for purpose in railway modelling terms.

 

I get the impression, but I don't really know, that FXD is only available for smaller parts.

 

I suspect that most, perhaps all, 3D Print designers try to put in too much detail in their designs. I think the technique is very useful to provide an accurate base for a model, the detail should be added by the modeller perhaps using a variety of materials and sources.

 

There is good advice in many places on RMweb, I have given an excellent link in a post above. One of the items of advice in that link is the use of tools to scrape (not cut) the surface and then finish off with a fibre glass brush. I have bought both No9 and No15 scalpel blades for this. I'll give them a try in the coming weeks

Edited March 18, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[sem34090]

As I have said before, I am still learning, but my point is that what I produced is not only much, much cheaper, but is a much less risky investment for those like myself. Also, I cannot afford an etched kit, but I can afford one of my prints. I know the latter will, at least, resemble the prototype. It will need cleaning, but I don't need to roll a boiler (I know many are almost pre-rolled now) drill loads of holes or roll a cab roof. Or a bunker rear.

[chris p bacon]

You might be surprised at how cheaply you can get stuff etched. It does take a lot more thinking to design something like a locomotive though, I've just done a very small loco and it took at least 30 hours to draw*, I also made it up in plastic first so that I knew the relationship between parts worked.  

 

* Another modeller who needed some of the etches helped with the research and ran his eye over the artwork.

 

I note you mentioned 'much cheaper' again. You can't get cheaper than a sheet of plasticard and a plastic tube. 

[sem34090]

True...

[hayfield]

As I have said before, I am still learning, but my point is that what I produced is not only much, much cheaper, but is a much less risky investment for those like myself. Also, I cannot afford an etched kit, but I can afford one of my prints. I know the latter will, at least, resemble the prototype. It will need cleaning, but I don't need to roll a boiler (I know many are almost pre-rolled now) drill loads of holes or roll a cab roof. Or a bunker rear.

 

I would be interested in seeing a like for like estimate for the costings of a comparable model using both methods if not all 3 methods, especially when things like sprung buffers and other small components which are required to finish off a kit

 

Next is the chassis, Wills use the Hornby Dublo R1 chassis which has a smaller wheelbase than the Jinty if we are talking about the SR G6. Looking at some locos in the FUD rather than WSK the cost escalates dramatically 

 

Next is should we expect all the body to be printed, or things like hand rails & knobs, lamp irons and buffers to be cast or additional parts ?

 

Most of all is the quality of printing, its all well and good to say that the body needs as much finishing as some whitemetal parts, but the parts prior to fitting are easily accessible, unlike a ready made model, especially when some detail is sunk  below a top layer

Edited March 18, 2018 by hayfield

[Buhar]

Resin cast loco bodies were offered by Dean Sidings until recently and still are by Golden Arrow.  These are just over £50 for a small tender loco designed (with the compromises sometimes required) to fit an RTR chassis (generally an older version).  These don't look too different in concept from the 3D printed "kit" you're working on.  Handrail knobs, wire and buffers need buying and fitting (drilling) plus there is likely to be some filling and finishing of the resin.  I've seen a few Golden Arrow models around but I don't recall seeing a finished Dean Sidings model (except on their exhibition stand).

 

When Wills and Gem were in their heyday, obtaining a the RTR chassis for their bodyline kits as a spare was easy, these days, while not impossible, it can be a significant outlay.  There are probably P4/EM modellers who might buy the loco and tender body from you but that's not a guarantee.

 

From what I read, the biggest stumbling block for entry into kit-building is concerns about producing a reliably running chassis.  For an inside cylindered prototype (built rigidly) and if supplied with etches wheels, motor and gearbox, that would be a few hours work for a professional builder.  I don't know if any of the professionals would contemplate providing that service and then the novice builder could do the body and tender (with the fettling to fit the chassis) and so develop their skills.

[dibber25]

I would think that most modellers who are skilled and experienced in kit-building will have acquired that skill and experience over time. I doubt that any of them came into the hobby able to assemble a top-notch working chassis with their first kit. Therefore, for anyone who wants to get into kit-building there must be an initial question as to how much they are willing/able to spend in order to develop that skill and experience. With good quality kits now costing as much as a ready-to-run model, you need to be really committed to the building aspect. It then becomes a vicious circle, because your satisfaction and the feeling of money well spent will be greatest if you produce a great-looking, smooth-running model from every kit you build, and without the experience and skill to start with, that cannot be guaranteed. The biggest incentive towards kit-building was the non-availability of a ready-to-run model of the prototype that you wanted. That incentive has been eroded away by the huge number of good RTR models. Now, the satisfaction of building is more likely to come from obscure prototypes, minority-interest eras, or scales/gauges not catered for by RTR. None of which has much to do with whatever direction Hornby might take in the future, beyond perhaps convincing them that their present programme of new releases is the right way to go. (CJL)

[coachmann]

I would think that most modellers who are skilled and experienced in kit-building will have acquired that skill and experience over time. I doubt that any of them came into the hobby able to assemble a top-notch working chassis with their first kit. 

Prepare to be shocked!  George Mellor (GEM) sold me a bottle of flux, low-melt solder a loco kit and told me to go buy 25watt and 45watt soldering irons.  I went home, built and painted the loco, showed him the result and from then on built his and several other kit manufacturers display & boxlid models. 

 

I do not for one minute think this is unique, as a pal of mine new to railway modelling soldered together an 0 gauge parcels van kit as his first model, went to an exhibition and came home with an 0 gauge kit for a LNWR 'Cauliflower'.  I said, "By hell you don't do things by halves!" He went on to form Northstar Design producing some of the finest 0 gauge loco kits.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if another old friend went through a similar process before starting Westward Models. One has to think positively.

Edited March 18, 2018 by coachmann

[dibber25]

Prepare to be shocked!  George Mellor (GEM) sold me a bottle of flux, low-melt solder a loco kit and told me to go buy 25watt and 45watt soldering irons.  I went home, built and painted the loco, showed him the result and from then on built his and several other kit manufacturers display & boxlid models. 

 

I do not for one minute think this is unique, as a pal of mine new to railway modelling soldered together an 0 gauge parcels van kit as his first model, went to an exhibition and came home with an 0 gauge kit for a LNWR 'Cauliflower'.  I said, "By hell you don't do things by halves!" He went on to form Northstar Design producing some of the finest 0 gauge loco kits.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if another old friend went through a similar process before starting Westward Models. One has to think positively.

 

I sit corrected. Perhaps I started with the wrong kits. (CJL)

[coachmann]

I sit corrected. Perhaps I started with the wrong kits. (CJL)

There were some howlers. George omitted to mention a rasp, a necessity with some whitemetal boilers....

[Bernard Lamb]

Prepare to be shocked!  George Mellor (GEM) sold me a bottle of flux, low-melt solder a loco kit and told me to go buy 25watt and 45watt soldering irons.  I went home, built and painted the loco, showed him the result and from then on built his and several other kit manufacturers display & boxlid models. 

 

 

 

But at that time most people would have had a basic knowledge of workshop practice and methods from school.

The last time I was involved with engineering undergraduates many of them were unable to use a draw file.

Bernard

[dibber25]

There were some howlers. George omitted to mention a rasp, a necessity with some whitemetal boilers....

 

Who remembers the K's boilers with the two 'halves' that weren't quite halves? It used to be necessary to leave an eighth of an inch gap on the under side of the boiler and then fill and file the top seam which was inevitably a poor fit. (CJL)

[railroadbill]

Got a not-finished yet Ks Princess where I did get the boiler pretty well circular. (!)  Also a Nucast A2/1 where I had to give up on getting the 2 oval halves of the smokebox to meet properly and just couldn't bend them circular so I replaced it with a length of brass tubing. That wasn't quite sufficient diameter so I wrapped some plasticard round it and araldited it on...  what a bodge up!

 

Wills (now SE Finecast) and Millholme seemed better casters.

[sem34090]

The trouble with costing in things like sprung buffers (sorry to go back a few posts) is that not everyone deems them as a requirement! I for one don't, and they are essentially pointless unless one is using three-links or a very close coupling.

 

At the end of the day, I'm learning a basic CAD software in order to be able to get prints done of items I want. If someone else wants one, or wants me to do something in particular, then that's fantastic!

[Jeff Smith]

It isn't about whether it is easier than building an etched kit, it is the work involved in getting a comparable finish to other kit "types" and the claim that 3D printing necessarily makes things easier.

 

3D printing was originally called "Rapid Prototyping" by most exponents and providers. It is still promoted as that on many of the 3D print companies that an internet search will turn up. The surface finish is often less critical in those uses and therefore the motivation to provide surface finishes of the level I would want seems to be something of a dream. Different print techniques do produce them, as the Modelu products show, but that process doesn't seem to support products of the size of loco bodies. 

 

"Refinishing" a relatively complex item, such as a loco body, panelled carriage side or planked wagon with strapping is not easy if you want a "scale" surface finish while retaining the raised detail. Using primer will start to mask the detail as well, so applying primers (especially automotive High Build primers) and rubbing down will reduce the crispness of finish, compared to an etched or plastic injection product

 

Are you are being seduced by the "on trend" use of 3D printing and the relevance of cost? The former is a bit like photo etching when it first became popular in railway modelling, when some designers designed etched components that weren't suited to the technique. Multi material and process kits give better result and are more attractive to those interested in a finely finished models. Cost is importance but perhaps value for money is what you should consider. Would I buy a 3D loco kit that was at a lower cost than an etched one, when the overall finish that I could achieve was likely to be to a lower standard? No. Would I buy a 3D box van body with a "rough" finish that still needs an underframe and costs more money than a w/m version (even though I don't really like w/m kits anyway) that cost less. Again no.

 

There is also some apparent contradiction in the belief that a low cost 3D "kit" will be attractive to a significant number of modellers. Many people claim that are not interested in building their own models because they can't match RTR finish. Aren't you starting with one hand behind your back if the model needs "re-finishing" before "finishing"?

 

Please keep doing what you are doing. Hopefully 3D printing will produce models that are comparable on price with a finish that matches etched brass one day, but I think that is still some way off. No doubt although there will be those who will rush to tell me otherwise but no one can provide evidence of what the future will bring and when. 

 

And would I get the satisfaction out of building a 3D printed kit? I don't think I would. I have built resin cast models from 3D patterns, so relatively easy (but not much more than a Slaters or Ratio wagon kit), but don't get as much satisfaction as from building an etched loco or coach. So for those of us where making the a model is a large part of the hobby, 3D printing doesn't hold a great deal of attraction. I expect it is a bit like that for you, where designing and producing a model is very satisfying, probably more so than buying someone else's product and building it.

 

Finally, don't get the idea that I am against new manufacturing technologies. I learned to design etched kits some years ago. I have designed laser kit items for my layout. However, the processes, materials and finishes have to be relevant and appropriate to the desired end result. Ever built a laser cut plywood model with etched planking details of a horse drawn van and in "getting rid"  of the grain, you also fill the planking detail?

 

Jol

I agree with a lot of the points made above and by others. If you look at post #66 of this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111744-mike-trices-shapeways-shop-gnr-6-wheel-carriages-now-available/page-3 you will see Mike Trice's approach which is basically to print a sprue of parts. I'm sure this is cheaper as the total layers are less but admit to knowing very little about 3D printing so might be way off on this....However many people have expressed their confidence in building a plastic kit so might feel good about tackling a printed plastic kit. Advantages to this could be, easier to smooth individual parts prior to assembly, ability to make changes to perhaps convert to another version, better sense of having 'built' something rather than just cleaned up a complete print, existing white metal kits or masters could be 3D scanned and then printed, maybe others I haven't thought about.

 

Regarding complete printed chassis I think this is potentially a great thing. Those I have seen pictures of look very robust but being a P4 modeller I would like to see some consideration given to suspension systems. True a competent modeller could work with some of the existing offerings, but a clever design could take account of slots for vertical axle movement and cutouts in the spacers for rocking beams etc. Another thing to think about is whether a brass bearing is really needed as the nylon material should already be a good bearing material with a steel axle.

 

I also agree with a point made earlier about adding to much printed detail. Buffers, pipework, handrails, smokebox darts, lamp irons, etc should be added afterwards. Hand rails for example can get in the way of lining so must be added after.

 

The major problem for budget priced kits is the cost of wheels, motor and gearbox. K's kits included all these but most people think they were rubbish and replaced them anyway. Mashima motors are good but expensive (£20+) but production has ceased so alternatives will be needed soon - perhaps some business minded person can find a budget priced alternative, I'm sure Hornby and Bachmann get them for a few pounds each. Likewise wheels. Gibson are the cheapest and are good with a great range of sizes but need careful handling. The last ones I received had to have the centres superglued into the rims. Also careful axle mounting and quartering is required. These will still set you back about £6 an axle so £18 plus crankpins for an 0-6-0.

[PatB]

Like one or two others I'm really not convinced of the "noone gets taught hand skills at school any more argument". Whilst I did both woodwork and metalwork at school, just scraping O Level Metalwork, I can't recall learning anything remotely useful in either, at least partly because I'm one of those people who finds it almost impossible to work with an audience. However, I do indulge, to a variety of standards, in making/fixing/designing "stuff". Pretty much all the skills I've brought to bear have been learned by lots of reading/looking at pictures/trawling the Internet and then, perhaps most importantly, picking up/obtaining the appropriate tools and raw materials (often not very much actually needed to have a practice attempt) and having a go at it.

 

By this method I've learned to fix cars and motorcycles (and by extension other mechanical items), indulge in both basic and aircraft standard joinery, lay bricks and paving and such, do reinforced concrete work, weld (badly), design (and drive) sidecar outfits, do plumbing and wiring (no longer legal for me to do, sadly), soft and hard soldering, building plastic, whitemetal (yeeuch!) and etched brass kits, laminate fibreglass with both polyester and epoxy resins, lathe and milling machine work etc. etc. etc. That's someone with ten thumbs and a largely non-technical family background.

 

And I've done it all on the cheap and without producing all that much irredeemable scrap. Indeed it must have been cheap because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford to do it. It's just been a question of thinking "I fancy being able to do that, I think I'll have a go". Of course, the corollary to this is that my interests are so wide and my attention span so short that I never finish anything or hone my skills to a high level in any particular area .

 

One advantage I have had is that I've generally stumbled over books, magazine/internet articles and such which have said, with some authority, "Yes, you can do this", and I've chosen to believe them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I would think that most modellers who are skilled and experienced in kit-building will have acquired that skill and experience over time. I doubt that any of them came into the hobby able to assemble a top-notch working chassis with their first kit. Therefore, for anyone who wants to get into kit-building there must be an initial question as to how much they are willing/able to spend in order to develop that skill and experience. With good quality kits now costing as much as a ready-to-run model, you need to be really committed to the building aspect. It then becomes a vicious circle, because your satisfaction and the feeling of money well spent will be greatest if you produce a great-looking, smooth-running model from every kit you build, and without the experience and skill to start with, that cannot be guaranteed. The biggest incentive towards kit-building was the non-availability of a ready-to-run model of the prototype that you wanted. That incentive has been eroded away by the huge number of good RTR models. Now, the satisfaction of building is more likely to come from obscure prototypes, minority-interest eras, or scales/gauges not catered for by RTR. None of which has much to do with whatever direction Hornby might take in the future, beyond perhaps convincing them that their present programme of new releases is the right way to go. (CJL)

 

Chris, 

 

aren't all skills developed over time? Did you learn to walk or talk, read or write, etc. in one day?

 

People learn and acquire skills because they need or want to. Having a guide/mentor/teacher helps overcome difficulties, speed up the process and provide motivation.

 

What is increasingly lacking, as you point out, is the desire. More and more, people just want to buy their models already complete in a box. However, the downside is that layouts become increasingly homogenised, while the satisfaction and enjoyment that can come from creating your own models is not appreciated, understood or is dismissed as of no value.

 

Jol

[jjb1970]

The last time I was involved with engineering undergraduates many of them were unable to use a draw file.

Quite, and I'm guessing a lot of people that can use a file are unable to do the maths and analytical work required to graduate or study engineering at university/higher learning level.

[sem34090]

I dispute this.

 

There is much satisfaction to still be gained from building a layout, and I take much of that myself, but the bottom line is that you have to have piles of money if you want to be able to build, certainly brass, kits! 

 

Looking on LRM's webpage, I can only (really) look at saving up for a chassis kit or perhaps a 4w coach kit as far as stock goes. I would love an LBSCR B4, but for me (at £129) it is, at best, a highly risky investment, and (at present) an unfeasible one. It is a lot cheaper for me to do up the CAD (I have drawings arriving today) and get a print done. Even in FUD (Based on Sparkshot's pricing) 4-4-0 should work out at no more than around £55 - £60, half what the LRM Brass Kit costs. Now, of course, the 3D print may not work out that cheap, but with my being happy with WSF a 4-4-0 could work out at around £30 - £40. I could, possibly (I need to measure this) use a 2P chassis, which I have seen examples of at £30< and one has a running loco for £60 or thereabouts. Not cheap, not by a long stretch, but getting there. As the 3D print gets cheaper, and as potential chassis donors become outdated, the overall price will fall. Few people seem able to accept that, at the moment, even £30 - £40 would be a huge stretch to my budget and as such nothing is 'cheap'. It is very well pointing me to ebay, and I am grateful, but what starts off as a £0.99 kit soon turns into a >£20 one. For that price I can have a 3D print ordered and delivered from Belgium.

[hayfield]

The trouble with costing in things like sprung buffers (sorry to go back a few posts) is that not everyone deems them as a requirement! I for one don't, and they are essentially pointless unless one is using three-links or a very close coupling.

 

At the end of the day, I'm learning a basic CAD software in order to be able to get prints done of items I want. If someone else wants one, or wants me to do something in particular, then that's fantastic!

 

 

Its not just the likes of sprung buffers, and their inclusion for some is not they are to be used for sprung buffer operation but for their looks. Perhaps a better example is lamp irons or hand rail knobs.

 

If you are designing for yourself, however as soon as you intend to profit by selling to others its a totally different ball game, the buyer's should be completely aware the quality of the item they are receiving, simple facts like the chassis it is designed to use, does it fit, is it the correct wheelbase, where to get scale plans from (if not provided). Other things like the longevity of the axle holes if sold with a chassis etc

 

Don't get me wrong, I think this medium has a lot going for it, but if I am going to spend £50 on a body, or £90 on a body and chassis I must be assured of several things. To be quite honest I am drawn more to composite kits where the correct material is used for each item.

 

I asked several questions to the post you replied to, sadly the reply was to one of them 

 

Edit

 

The title of the thread is 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I am as a potential customer interested in both the economics and quality part of the item if I am going to buy

Edited March 19, 2018 by hayfield

[bike2steam]

The last time I was involved with engineering undergraduates many of them were unable to use a draw file.

Bernard

 

Where I did my Technical Apprenticeship ( Rubery Owens, Darlaston ) we would occasionally get in 'undergraduates', they would arrive thinking they knew it all, they soon found out the truth, a good source of amusement.

[hayfield]

Where I did my Technical Apprenticeship ( Rubery Owens, Darlaston ) we would occasionally get in 'undergraduates', they would arrive thinking they knew it all, they soon found out the truth, a good source of amusement.

 I have come across few new starters at work on the graduate intake program, surprising how their attitude and confidence changes after s few weeks when the real world takes hold. 

[Phil Parker]

I dispute this.

 

There is much satisfaction to still be gained from building a layout, and I take much of that myself, but the bottom line is that you have to have piles of money if you want to be able to build, certainly brass, kits! 

 

Looking on LRM's webpage, I can only (really) look at saving up for a chassis kit or perhaps a 4w coach kit as far as stock goes. I would love an LBSCR B4, but for me (at £129) it is, at best, a highly risky investment, and (at present) an unfeasible one. It is a lot cheaper for me to do up the CAD (I have drawings arriving today) and get a print done. Even in FUD (Based on Sparkshot's pricing) 4-4-0 should work out at no more than around £55 - £60, half what the LRM Brass Kit costs. Now, of course, the 3D print may not work out that cheap, but with my being happy with WSF a 4-4-0 could work out at around £30 - £40. I could, possibly (I need to measure this) use a 2P chassis, which I have seen examples of at £30£20 one. For that price I can have a 3D print ordered and delivered from Belgium.

 

Essentially, you want every thing very cheap. That's fine, but you keep criticising existing kit ranges (and as an aside, treat the word "kit" as a generic term as though all kits are the same) for wishing to charge what they think is a reasonable amount.

 

Your "kit" is cheap because you are happy to work for free drawing up the CADs and finishing off the surface (a far worse job IMHO than other building). When you sell your products, you seem happy to ignore the time you put into the research and development. From your previous posts, I'd guess that after the tax man has had his bit, you'll be lucky to earn 1 hour of minimum wage per loco body sold. Again, that's fine for you, but why should everyone else be expected to work for free?

 

As for sprung buffers, I agree they aren't necessary, but what about handrails? Smokebox dart? Cab fittings even? Your body will still need these and that's going to stick another few quid on the final bill. If you are comparing prices, at least compare the prices when ALL the bits to make a model. 

 

Being horribly short of cash isn't a situation I'm unfamiliar with. When a very young modeller, £30 would have been half a years modelling budget if I was lucky. Instead, I made stuff myself: http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/my-first-scratchbuilt-locomotive.html in OO and lots of 16mm stuff because you could use cardboard and wood. That's not much different from what you are doing, except you are "scratchbuilding" with a computer and 3D printer.