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

[chris p bacon]

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 As the 3D print gets cheaper, and as potential chassis donors become outdated, the overall price will fall.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.

 

 

I don't agree that you have to have piles of money to build in Brass, you just have to be more careful choosing something to build if money is tight.

 

I would say that if you are comparing the prices of LRM products with 3D printing you're comparing a Bentley with a Ford Escort van from the 80's. The LRM kit will come with just about everything needed for a variant of the locomotive  and a quality chassis suitable for OO & P4  It would need wheels and motor but again the 3D needs a motor & chassis too. As you say you can use a RTR chassis but these aren't cheap nowadays and your model will need to be designed around the chassis so you'll have to invest in one before drawing.

 

If money is really tight then you draw and have printed what you want and fits within your budget, but John (Hayfield) is right, that as you're intending to offer these out for sale for profit (not a bad thing) then they need to be accurate and with some basic information of what the purchaser is getting and what they'd need to do to get it running. They don't have to be a 'Bentley' but they should be workable.

 

Above all else what you must get out of it is a sense of achievement and enjoyment. ....just beware of all the requests to change and resize that will take time but illicit no sales.

[Jol Wilkinson]

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.

 

Dispute what?

 

As for the cost of brass kits being outside your budget, how much do you and other 3D designers spend on a model before they get it to an acceptable level? Clearly, that will get over with time as people develop their knowledge of how to efficiently design 3D prints, but initially, several attempts to produce a reasonable 3D print may be needed. Other threads on RMweb provide evidence of that.

 

Will 3D costs reduce significantly over time. Only when new materials, print processes, printer designs are developed and who can forecast when that will happen. 

 

That you are happy to spend the time drawing up the CAD to produce a 3D printed model is entirely up to you. If you are satisfied with the surface finish and detail that a 3D print at your budget levels produces, that's great. However, don't confuse that with a kit that is sold commercially and has to match a standard that experienced modellers expect. And if you think LRM 4mm kits are expensive, take a look at some other sites such as Brassmasters.

 

And why, as donor chassis become outdated, will the overall price fall as you claim? Is that because you assume 3D printed chassis will have to be produced and will be less expensive? Why?

[sem34090]

Economics: I currently do not put a price on my time, as most models are for my own use, and add a markup of (generally) no more than £5.00 on any given item, usually no more than £2.00. At present, a print for a loco (through i.materialise, who I have found to be cheaper. They also force one to order a print before offering it for sale.) comes in at between £20 and £30, including VAT and £7.00 postage from Belgium.

 

Variety: Unlimited, within reason! I can manage anything, really, if I can access drawings and (preferably) a range of photographs to compare to said drawings and to allow for variations from the drawings. I should, soon, be able to manage all Stroudley and a good deal of Billinton and Marsh locos from the LBSCR, and some from other railways. Once I have a few out of the way I may look at filling in a couple of gaps left by the disappearance of GEM from the market, including the LBSCR B1 and maybe a couple of LNWR designs.

 

Quality: For myself, fine at the moment, though I appreciate for many it isn't. If one is willing or able to pay more then the quality increases, but looking at my G6 print, the only real concerns I have are caused by dodgy design on my part. WSF normally requires some degree of work, FUD less. Some will be happy with the current quality, others much less so. Some will appreciate that less work is required than some kits, but more than others. Others will rule out some materials completely on account of the surface finish. Whilst I am happy with it, I understand that others aren't and won't be. Hence why I intend to offer models in a variety of materials, to suit a persons personal preference and pocket, allowing one to find a happy compromise.

Edited March 19, 2018 by sem34090

[hayfield]

Here is a link to a loco kit, not either promoting it or criticising it but just using it as an example

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/UTQ5UN74Y/lner-class-f5-fitted-for-push-pull-working?optionId=56452423&li=marketplace

 

With chassis in WSF its £51 or in FUD £89. The description clearly states the size of wheels and gearbox its designed to use

Clearly there are additional parts required

 

Looking at comparable prices (all be it you have to build them) the higher detail model is a similar price to a London Road Models tank loco or a Southeastern Finecast tank loco, both of which with the exception of wheels motor and gears come complete with both instructions and historical detail. To be fair to the printed loco I would guess the builder would be familiar with the prototype, and is nearly a ready built model. The one comment I will make is that I would like to see a photo of the actual print rather than a CAD image

 

I must say a model where its nearly made is quite desirable and perhaps worth a premium price, but depends on its print quality. (I would be interested to see a model)

[PatB]

Incidentally, whilst I don't necessarily agree with the OP on all points, I do think he is to be commended for attempting to self teach a new skill. Whilst not the skills of sticking brass and white metal together, the design and production of 3D prints of model components is an entirely valid one. It's just a different approach to a problem we've all encountered, but applying the skills the individual feels most comfortable in developing.

 

Whether the economics, print quality, mechanical aspects etc. stack up in the end, only time will tell. However the OP has, at least, rather than endlessly wishlisting rtr prototypes, set out to use his skills and resources to create himself the models he wants. I think that's great.

[chris p bacon]

Variety: Unlimited, within reason! I can manage anything, really, if I can access drawings. I should, soon, be able to manage all Stroudley and a good deal of Billinton and Marsh locos from the LBSCR, and some from other railways. Once I have a few out of the way I may look at filling in a couple of gaps left by the disappearance of GEM from the market, including the LBSCR B1 and maybe a couple of LNWR designs.

 

 

 

 

Now that, I do dispute.  Just having a drawing is not enough to design from. There were so many alterations during production as well as during a locomotives life that they simply cannot be relied upon. This is especially so of the Pre-grouping companies.

 

To produce just 3 locomotives we wanted, meant 5 of us trawling through countless photographs as well as visits to Kew and the NRM to view original source material. If the drawings you are referring to are the line drawings that used to be in RM or such like, they might be suitable for an idea but not for manufacture. 

[sem34090]

Jol raises some fair points there...

 

A couple of those have been answered above, but to answer the point about the cost of getting a model reprinted, if I get another print of the G6 done, that would still only be £40 total development cost, spread over a couple of months.

 

At the current rate of progress I would imagine that processes and materials are developing constantly.

 

I am not attempting to produce commercial models, yet, but I drew a comparison with an esteemed manufacturer of (what I believe to be) high quality kits at what is (as brass kits go) a low price. Part of my point, which I did (admittedly) not make explicit, is that even apparently 'low priced' brass kits are still well out of my reach, returning to the point that I can't break into building brass kits as I quite simply can't afford them. This isn't a case of 'It's available RTR, why build a kit', it's a case of the RTR being friendlier on my pocket, but now even RTR is outside my price range, so I have tried to develop my own solution. I appreciate that one can gain a far superior model from an LRM kit, and I hope to one day build a few, but an LRM model is very expensive, especially when you consider that my LSWR T3 will probably come in at less than £80 (including purchase of a Hornby Midland Compound at £45 to use for the chassis, though mine was significantly less than that.). Compare that to the brassmasters kit, at £170 (Excluding wheels, motor, gearbox and tender) and I think I can live with the WSF.

 

If you want to see the F5 built, check out one of Nile's threads, I think it's in the 'Build a Loco Challenge' section. The CDC models are generally pretty comprehensive kits, but if I remember rightly the owner (for it is an actual business - Street Level Models) put a significant mark-up on as he is a business and needs to make a profit. I think Nile has made use of numerous other WSF models, and indeed designs his own.

 

Thanks to Pat for that comment, as it highlights one reason why I started doing CAD. Rather than moan about RTR, and being unable to afford conventional kits, I decided to try and do it for myself. I'm not that great, but am getting better. I will confess to moaning about being unable to afford kits, but moaning doesn't generally get you anywhere. Learning a new skill and applying it does, be that a physical skill or a virtual skill. As time goes on I hope to pick up some of those physical skills.

 

I will now edit my post, as Dave is quite right, and a range of photographs are (generally) required. The only time this is untrue is when the prototype existed only before the advent of photography, or when it was only photographed once (as was the case, I believe with the Paget Locomotive on the Midland and possibly that company's Baldwin Moguls.)

[chris p bacon]

 a range of photographs are (generally) required. The only time this is untrue is when the prototype existed only before the advent of photography, or when it was only photographed once (as was the case, I believe with the Paget Locomotive on the Midland and possibly that company's Baldwin Moguls.)

 

 

The one I'm working on at present has one makers GA drawing and just 2 lithographs, no photo's at all......but then no one can argue and say it's wrong.

[Jol Wilkinson]

You continue to compare the cost of a personal project with commercially produced kits. The production process is immaterial if  you haven't included design cost, packing, instructions, etc. You quoted the cost of a Sparkshot 3D print in FUD loco at £55 - £60. I know of the designer and I don't think he includes any design costs either (although he could put some profit margin into the Shapeway's price, I believe).  So add the commercial expenses onto the 3D print price, add some items that may be required (retaining screws, bearings, coupling rods, etc.) and a small margin for your time and effort packing, posting, etc. and £90 seems like a reasonable price. Of course that's assuming you market the product at no cost, through RMweb. So you have saved £20 or so against a "traditional" kit. 

 

Going back to the heading of this topic, where are the benefits in economics and quality? More variety, as Chris P Bacon points out, doesn't come easy if you want a degree of accuracy. Again, if you are doing it commercially you have to work at that and that brings cost. If 3D is the answer to getting the RTR buyer into building "kits" for locos not otherwise available or only from the existing kit manufacturers, where are the benefits that provide an easy to assemble, finish, reliable model?

 

So comparing the cost of a 3D print model you design for yourself cannot be compared to a commercially available kit, yet you keep doing it to justify the apparent benefits of 3D printed items. 

 

​Perhaps you should re-title this topic "The benefits of designing your own 3D printed models on a non commercial basis"

[sem34090]

Precisely!

 

Anyway, I think this discussion should really continued in the thread linked to in my signature, as this has now turned into a debate over 3D printing.

[grahame]

I've had rather poor experiences of 3D printed models:

 

 

 

Consequently I'm rather sceptical of the media as it currently stands. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to have been much improvement over the last half dozen of so years, but I'm still hoping that there will come a time when . . . . . but at the moment it's not really for me.

 

G

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

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

Hi Bernard

 

Workshop practice, something I was taught when doing my apprenticeship and again when I was a gun fitter in REME. More to the point bench fitting. I cannot recall ever having a draw file in my tool box, so no wonder your undergraduates did not know how to use it.

 

I did have a 6 inch smooth flat file with a safety edge I used for draw filing. To draw file is an action not a tool. Draw filing is basically putting a polish on a piece of work, it can be the finial few cuts to get an accurate fit but normally it is a clean up action. You hold the file gently at 90 degrees to the bit of metal and lightly move the file side ways. The gentle cut slowly smooths off any rough cuts from normal filing and the finer the cuts the more of a smooth surface you get, and a smooth surface is shinier.

 

As for people not being equipped with skills following a university training, that is normal in many walks of life. After becoming a nurse I worked with many very intelligent colleges who could describe both verbally and in writing the action needed when a patient was passing melena. It takes time to develop the skill to reassure the patient, not to embarrass them and at the same time assess their condition once you get over the odor as you help wash and clean the person. And at the same time not to panic because you might have someone who is dying in front of you if you don't act fast.

 

Let's get of this band wagon about people not being taught the skills, if you need to do something or want to do something you will try and learn the skills needed. You either learn them or if you can't (and that happens in life) you remain unable to accomplish the thing you wish to do. Some people can model make, some people can kick a football and it goes where they want it to go.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Bernard Lamb]

Here is a link to a loco kit, not either promoting it or criticising it but just using it as an example

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/UTQ5UN74Y/lner-class-f5-fitted-for-push-pull-working?optionId=56452423&li=marketplace

 

With chassis in WSF its £51 or in FUD £89. The description clearly states the size of wheels and gearbox its designed to use

Clearly there are additional parts required

Truly amazing.

That would put me off for life.

It shows a total lack of knowledge of the use of the media and a total lack of knowledge of the standard required in a modern kit.

Detailed comments are a waste of time. But the lamp irons, clack valves, boiler bands and buffers would all have been better if left off and added by the builder with the use of separate parts. Design clever that is not.

If the creator could send me a sample and a cheque for £500 I will do a first of check and report, even though I have retired from normally offering such services.

Bernard, who has done a double check on the date to see if he has missed the best part of a fortnight.

[Grovenor]

 

It shows a total lack of knowledge of the use of the media and a total lack of knowledge of the standard required in a modern kit.

Detailed comments are a waste of time. But the lamp irons, clack valves, boiler bands and buffers would all have been better if left off and added by the builder with the use of separate parts.

I rather suspect there are potential customers who do not enjoy adding all those fiddly details themselves. What you don't like others may be very happy with.

Regards

[chris p bacon]

I rather suspect there are potential customers who do not enjoy adding all those fiddly details themselves. What you don't like others may be very happy with.

Regards

 

That is very true, but by adding all the detail you are unable to finish the model to a satisfactory finish.

 

Chicken and egg.

[sem34090]

I point you here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99937-kitbuild-challenge-entry-lner-f5-2-4-2t/?hl=nile

And if that isn't a respectable model I don't know what is.

 

Built from the very same kit, I believe, or certainly for one of his other ones. Incidentally, if you have any concerns I suggest you put a PM in to 'L49' on here.

Edited March 19, 2018 by sem34090

[chris p bacon]

I point you here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99937-kitbuild-challenge-entry-lner-f5-2-4-2t/?hl=nile

And if that isn't a respectable model I don't know what is.

 

Built from the very same kit, I believe, or certainly for one of his other ones. Incidentally, if you have any concerns I suggest you put a PM in to 'L49' on here.

 

 

I don't think I'd be happy with the finish but if the owner is then that's fine.  For me the boiler bands are way oversize and probably a scale 3",  If I were to be interested it would be the FUD version (£95) for a better finish.

 

Of course what you have to add is that the 3D print was £55.00 and he's then added.

 

Markits wheels

Bearings

Hornby Coupling rods with Gibson bushes.

Brass safety valves 

Brass wire/pipe detail

Brass vacuum pipes.

Motor

High level gearbox

Branchlines brake gear and wire.

 

That lot probably totals another £50, so what you are looking at is a £100+ model.

 

The issue with WSF is that the basic body is either rubbed away or filled with paint to get the smooth sides to replicate metal, and it just doesn't work.

Edited March 19, 2018 by chris p bacon

[Guy Rixon]

I don't think I'd be happy with the finish but if the owner is then that's fine.  For me the boiler bands are way oversize and probably a scale 3",  If I were to be interested it would be the FUD version (£95) for a better finish.

 

Of course what you have to add is that the 3D print was £55.00 and he's then added.

 

Markits wheels

Bearings

Hornby Coupling rods with Gibson bushes.

Brass safety valves 

Brass wire/pipe detail

Brass vacuum pipes.

Motor

High level gearbox

Branchlines brake gear and wire.

 

That lot probably totals another £50, so what you are looking at is a £100+ model.

 

The issue with WSF is that the basic body is either rubbed away or filled with paint to get the smooth sides to replicate metal, and it just doesn't work.

 

 

If it were a £75 etched kit the builder would still need to supply ~£25 of wheels, motor and gears, so the situation is comparable.

 

I think with WSF the design rule has to be "don't bother with detail" to make the sanding and smoothing easier. No clacks, no pumps, even boiler bands are iffy. Also, no panelled coaches, as they are the very devil to sand down.

 

If I were to model a loco for printing, I'd consider doing it in two prints: one in WSF to get the basic shape cheaply and one in FUD or FXD for the details. The detail sprue would add about £6 to £10 (plus designer's margin) to the overall cost if ordered with the body print. I'm assuming that details that plug into a WSF structure can be secured by adhesive.

[bike2steam]

Now there's a loco class to bring back memories, having grown up in the Ongar area in the 50's & 60's, and a member of the Ongar MRC in the mid/late 70's along with the likes of a certain (late) Stephen Poole, and Len Wheal (former Railway Modeller photographer).

Edited March 19, 2018 by bike2steam

[chris p bacon]

If it were a £75 etched kit the builder would still need to supply ~£25 of wheels, motor and gears, so the situation is comparable.

 

I think with WSF the design rule has to be "don't bother with detail" to make the sanding and smoothing easier. No clacks, no pumps, even boiler bands are iffy. Also, no panelled coaches, as they are the very devil to sand down.

 

If I were to model a loco for printing, I'd consider doing it in two prints: one in WSF to get the basic shape cheaply and one in FUD or FXD for the details. The detail sprue would add about £6 to £10 (plus designer's margin) to the overall cost if ordered with the body print. I'm assuming that details that plug into a WSF structure can be secured by adhesive.

 

 

The cost would certainly be comparable Guy, but there would be a distinct difference in the finish with an etched kit.

 

I agree that detail should be in FUD/FXD,  my own experience of WSF is that it does not take adhesives well (if at all sometimes) so this preference for WSF as a material for bodies is (I think) a backward step based upon the rush to the bottom on cost.

 

Your idea of a basic body and sprue of detail is something that has been done and works well although it was all in FUD. The purchaser does have the option of using metal details if preferred and a good finish to the body.

[hayfield]

I've had rather poor experiences of 3D printed models:

 

3D ex1.jpg

 

3D ex2.jpg

 

Consequently I'm rather sceptical of the media as it currently stands. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to have been much improvement over the last half dozen of so years, but I'm still hoping that there will come a time when . . . . . but at the moment it's not really for me.

 

G

 

These are my greatest fears with 3D printing, especially when bought from a CAD image, which I guess bears little resemblance to the finished article

I point you here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99937-kitbuild-challenge-entry-lner-f5-2-4-2t/?hl=nile

And if that isn't a respectable model I don't know what is.

 

Built from the very same kit, I believe, or certainly for one of his other ones. Incidentally, if you have any concerns I suggest you put a PM in to 'L49' on here.

 

Thanks for the photo, far better than shapeways CAD example. However I would want to compare the finished item with a comparable item built in more traditional methods. For me the WSF materials finish is too course, however if the quality using FUD is as good as the finish from Modelu products I would be more than happy. The thing is customer expectations must be met with the finished article. But as I said top marks if a FUD example comes up to expectations

 

I do agree with Chris b Bacon that certain parts would be enhanced if a simple etch kit was available (coupling rods, brake rigging lamp irons etc)

 

Seeing the chassis with both brass wheel bearings and gearbox again gives me confidence that the method works and has longevity, this must be the way in the future, but is the quality available yet? 

[hayfield]

If it were a £75 etched kit the builder would still need to supply ~£25 of wheels, motor and gears, so the situation is comparable.

 

I think with WSF the design rule has to be "don't bother with detail" to make the sanding and smoothing easier. No clacks, no pumps, even boiler bands are iffy. Also, no panelled coaches, as they are the very devil to sand down.

 

If I were to model a loco for printing, I'd consider doing it in two prints: one in WSF to get the basic shape cheaply and one in FUD or FXD for the details. The detail sprue would add about £6 to £10 (plus designer's margin) to the overall cost if ordered with the body print. I'm assuming that details that plug into a WSF structure can be secured by adhesive.

 

 

I think in one way you have hit the nail on the head, leave the detail parts off to be added later, as for having to sand the item flat for most a non starter, far better to spend the bit extra and not have to spend time sanding. In fact how can you sand corners especially where curves meet flat areas

 

Forgive me for not being up to speed on this but, can I buy a 3D printed item up to the standard of Modelu products. ie ready to paint (after adding details like hand rails)

[JSpencer]

With 3D printing in plastic, either crude and cheap or very fine heads are required which then takes a month of sunday's to print (therefore expensive). I am sure finer heads to remove all this beading will appear.

 

The problem is - right now - this is a plastic print process linked to the laws of thermodynamics which means you can heat and cool the plastic only at certain rates. Very fine layers will require finer heads. To retain some speed, multiple heads will be needed (this opens up possibilities of multiple colours too - though mixing primary colours to get another final one would require melting and mixing the plastics -quite a challenge). Multiple heads might reduce the time to put a layer, you still still have many more layers to build up.

 

The current plastic only types are probably reaching those limits of thermodynamics but - like 2D paper printers - new concepts could drive the tech in a new direction. The ESA is already working on a multiple material type printer to eventually print off satellites - probably a good 30 to 50 years away. 

[Guy Rixon]

With 3D printing in plastic, either crude and cheap or very fine heads are required which then takes a month of sunday's to print (therefore expensive). I am sure finer heads to remove all this beading will appear.

 

The problem is - right now - this is a plastic print process linked to the laws of thermodynamics which means you can heat and cool the plastic only at certain rates. Very fine layers will require finer heads. To retain some speed, multiple heads will be needed (this opens up possibilities of multiple colours too - though mixing primary colours to get another final one would require melting and mixing the plastics -quite a challenge). Multiple heads might reduce the time to put a layer, you still still have many more layers to build up.

 

The current plastic only types are probably reaching those limits of thermodynamics but - like 2D paper printers - new concepts could drive the tech in a new direction. The ESA is already working on a multiple material type printer to eventually print off satellites - probably a good 30 to 50 years away. 

 

Bear in mind that FUD and FXD are UV-cured resin, not extruded plastic. I'm not sure that heating and cooling limitations apply.

[JSpencer]

Bear in mind that FUD and FXD are UV-cured resin, not extruded plastic. I'm not sure that heating and cooling limitations apply.

 

You will have hardening limitations (setting times) instead. They can make the jets smaller and multiple, the good news, being a liquid, they could evantually mix to make colours too.

 

But thinner jets will mean increased number of layers so the process is still slow.

 

When we can 3D print in carbon nanotubes, then we'll hit a revolution since this material is extremely strong, can be made to conduct or not and act as its own motor, integrated circuit etc. Fine detail will be immense and the end result so tough, you could shoot a gun at your model, it'll fly around the room and still remain intact. Print off moving figures too!

But we are perhaps 100-200 years from that.

Edited March 19, 2018 by JSpencer