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

[Jol Wilkinson]

Yeah anyone can solder, but did anyone tell her the solder joints are on the underside of the PCB.

pcb.jpg

 

Sorry Jol I disagree. Having worked as an assembly inspector at Marconi's we had new members of staff who had to be found jobs they could do, which didn't involve soldering.

Marconi? Chelmsford? Essex? That says it all.

 

Is the photo from Marconi? PCB upside down, holding the hot end of the soldering iron, but fashionable safety glasses. Definitely looks like someone from Essex.

 

(Sorry Clive, couldn't resist, the TOWIE image is too strong).

 

Easy peasy, as long as we don't introduce different types of solder, different types of flux, different types or wattages of irons, different types of bit, tinning and bit tinning, bit cleaning..... .

Too complicated? No it's simple. like driving. Just follow the well understood "rules". If you don't things go wrong.

 

I only use one type of flux, four types of solder, one for w/m, two for brass and n/s (and then only one of those for 99% of work) and a flux cored one for electrical work, a 50w TCU with two different bit sizes (but used to have only a 25w Antex for many years, until I was given the TCU as a gift). I have a "brass pan scrubber" type tip cleaner (ask the wife) and several G/F brushes.

 

Over the years I learned that low power irons (15 or 18W) aren't any good for models but okay for electrical, that you don't need a TCU but it makes life easier, that the right solder is very important. All that information is readily available, in books, on forums, from suppliers, demonstrators, at seminars or workshops. 

 

Like others here, I have learned that it is possible to achieve something if you want to. Yes, you may need support, training, mentoring, guidance and motivation when things aren't going well, but if you don't believe you can do it when you start out (been there, done that) then you won't succeed.

 

Sorry, I can't solder properly, been trying for years.Can just about solder a wire connection, but not much else. I am prepared to accept that people are different and can do different things, so can't understand why others have trouble in that. But then, everyone is different so I find thinkng easier than others.

I will take on a challenge, in fact try stopping me, but I know when I can't do something. I have good manual skills, and unlike some people can move easily between 2d and 3d, so find designing 3D models quite easy. Some people can't read a map, or navigate, however much you try and show them. It is not lack of practice , just that different people have different abilities.

Algebra is a valid comparison. Tend to find with much maths, that it teaches you how to solve problems, and build systems. That is why exams always expect you to show the working, as getting to the answer is only a small part of the test. Not everyone understands that, but then not everyone can solve everyday problems.

 

In which case you are doing something wrong.

 

As for algebra if it does teach you to think in a structured, logical way.(may even help develop your "common sense"), you should be able to solder.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Jol Wilkinson

[Jol Wilkinson]

Not a red herring at all, algebra is fundamentally simple, merely a means of representing mathematical relationships using symbols and letters. All mathematics, science and engineering subjects depend upon using algebra. To study those subjects at higher levels does require a lot of application and learning but elementary algebra is something my two kiddies are already learning at primary school. I'm guessing an awful lot of non-engineers on this board are familiar with V=IR which is an algebraic way to represent Ohm's law. Applying Ohm's law to complex circuits gets progressively more complicated but V=IR (or I=V/R or R=V/I) is the building block of electrical engineering and simple enough for almost anybody to understand. Joining metals gets progressively more complex as you use different techniques and join different metals, no different to the relationships represented by algebra getting more complex. The chief metallurgist of one of the big six electrical companies I worked at was one of the only people that company would allow to make weld repairs on turbine blades, that was pretty challenging welding (well, making a weld that would pass the NDE and quality requirements for that application was demanding) but fundamentally it was just welding and just joining two metals together. People have different aptitudes and interests and what is simple and straightforward to one person may be anything but for others. That holds true for just about anything.

 

The welding comparison is interesting but not really valid. The person welding the turbine blade was carrying out a highly critical process. The skill for that was gained through training, knowledge and practise. The process used when soldering a kit together isn't as critical as you example, although made easier with the right tools, materials and understanding. Roger Sawyer teaches children parents and other "non modellers" -  as well as modellers - to solder bits of brass together on his demo stand at shows. Because he uses the correct materials, tools and process and makes it look simple, which it is.

 

Yes, it is still joining two bits of metal together although a quite different process, where welding is a rather more critical technique. So your story adds to the belief that soldering is difficult, when that ain't so.

[BlackRat]

Hi BlackRat

You are correct in that there are special situations that call for more esoteric solutions, but please don't perpetuate what amounts to the "black art" myth.

Jol et al are trying to get folk to give it a try and describing techniques that are sufficient to assemble a brass kit. At the most you need one iron,one bit, one flux and two types of solder with different melting points. One for the basic assembly and a lower melting point one for the later detail.

There's no black art, but over simplifying a method or technique can be as bad as over complicating it.

 

For example you'll get nowhere if you use an iron with insufficient power output ( i.e. Heat) for a job and you'll cause damage if you use to much.

 

There are plenty of useful tutorials on UTube etc and several useful books (Brewster is good).

 

You already comment on different melting points etc and for a novice this can be as confusing as using the wrong glue to glue plastic, and we all know how many different types of plastic are used in our hobby...........don't we?

 

Modelling is about cutting or joining, drilling or filling or removing or adding materials, it's finding a medium and techniques that best suit you as an individual.

 

You can apply that to any discipline, be it modelling, algebra or playing the bagpipes.

Edited March 21, 2018 by BlackRat

[johnarcher]

Sure, many people (eg me) simply can't run 100m in 10 seconds (or even a good few more), or sing with perfect pitch, but soldering is hardly that kind of thing.

Do brass, solder and flux mysteriously behave differently for some people?

 

If it doesn't work for you (ie basic joining of two bits of brass) then surely it is possible to analyse (ie think as in algebra) the process, and see which of those basic conditions for it to work isn't met. What actually happens if someone who has this supposed inborn inability to solder tries - solder won't flow, dry joint, what?

Edited March 21, 2018 by johnarcher

[Jol Wilkinson]

Definitely a fine looking locomotive which I am sure would fine its way a little further north on occasion. I will see what I can find!

 

Ian

 

Eighty were built and they were also used in the Birmingham and Manchester areas by the LNWR, more widely spread by the LMS. 16 lasted into BR days, by which time they were all north of Birmingham.

 

Mainly used for suburban services, their more rural counterpart was the 5' 6" 2-4-2 Radial Tank. I don't think that GEM/Lytchett Manor do a kit for this, but there was an whitemetal M&L kit (only now available s/h), and an Alan Gibson version which is still produced in limited batches on demand (I think it may be the same as the M&L one).  London Road Models do an etched nickel silver kit., as they do for the Watford Tank.

[Guy Rixon]

Easy peasy, as long as we don't introduce different types of solder, different types of flux, different types or wattages of irons, different types of bit, tinning and bit tinning, bit cleaning..... .

 

This. This is the root of the problem for beginners. Jol is quite correct that anybody (excepting perhaps those with acute disabilities) can learn to solder if they start with the right combination of equipment.

 

As an example, about 15 years ago I re-entered the hobby after a break and needed to solder again, having had some limited success in previous decades. Most of my equipment had been lost or broken in house moves. I ended up with a no-name 20W iron, 60/40 cored solder (because these things could be bought locally) and Carr's red flux (surviving from the previous work). Immediate failure: nothing could be soldered properly, leading to an immediate "I can't do it any more" feeling. After some some fiddling, I found out that the no-name iron was rubbish and mail-ordered an Antex XS25 with a range of bits. Joy: now I could build my kits of choice, which were then 2FS wagon chassis in nickel silver.

 

Fast forward a few years, and I'd started to build in 4mm scale as well, where the kits were brass. Immediate failure: the equipment that worked on little NS kits totally failed on big brass ones. Most of the joints in brass formed a powdery, white salt on the metal before the solder flowed. I got the "can't do it any more" felling and left off the 4mm work for a year or so. Then I found an old bottle of Carr's green flux in a draw and tried that. This fixed the white-powder problem, and I conclude that the red flux is not really compatible with brass, except perhaps at low temperatures; and I only had a fixed-temperature iron. It does seem to work with nickel silver.

 

A few years after that I was trying some assemblies involving a much greater mass of metal, and found that nothing worked any more. I couldn't heat the thing up enough to make good joints, even with the 25W iron. This blocked me for some time as I then had too little money for the recommended soldering stations. Eventually, I found a low-end one I could afford in Maplins, and now joints with high thermal inertia are possible. Also, step soldering became a lot easier.

 

It's trivially easy for a beginner to stuff themselves up with wrong equipment. There is now much more good advice on-line - some of it in this thread - but it is not consistent or comprehensive, and some of it is downright contradictory.

[jjb1970]

Most (I'll refrain from saying all) basic skills and knowledge, whether practical or academic, can be learned. This process can be helped significantly if:

 

• People receive proper education and/or training (eg. vocational or academic education, on the job training), yes you can be self taught but unless you work at the most elementary level then education and training do make a big difference
• People apply themselves (i.e. if you don't use learning you'll lose it, and to get really good at almost anything requires hard work and application)
• It is something people enjoy, or see a direct benefit from making the effort, that doesn't really help technically but it does help people to make the effort and to keep going through the tough bits

Making kits in a sense is no different from any other skill. Soldering is just a technique for joining metals, it's not the be all and end all of making a kit and it is not the only way to join metals (there are very good adhesives used to bond metals). If people want to learn to solder they can learn, however I'd agree with Black Rat that over simplifying any skill is just as incorrect as trying to build a mystique around it. I'd argue the thing that puts people off far more than soldering is painting and finishing. Soldering includes silver soldering and is essentially the same process as brazing.

 

All of which is true for just about anything, including algebra, welding etc.

[chris p bacon]

I learnt to solder when I was 12, apparently I shouldn't have been able to as I hadn't learnt the skills of a wizard.

[johnarcher]

To be clear re my posts here - I'm not necessarily denying that there are some people who really can't solder even at the basic level needed to join two pieces of brass together, probably with some cleaning-up needed afterwards, even with the right equipment, suitable guidance and some practice. I can't think why they couldn't, mind.

 

I am sure that, if there are such people, they are pretty rare, an exception. (I gather from Clive's post that the people who had to be found other work at Marconi's were not the majority.)

What I am disputing are the occasional statements one sees that suggest that the ability to solder things together is the rarity, that it is a particularly difficult skill - a 'black art' as said above.

 

Because that could deter people who could do it, who might then make, and enjoy making, kits.

[Clive Mortimore]

And if the iron was actually on her fingers would be on fire !!

 

Again missing Jol's point. The actual basic process of soldering two pieces of metal together is a simple task, which agreed has to be learnt but still is simple. You can go further on and learn more advanced techniques, but Jol is referring to a basic task, not a skill. Skills come in for more advanced applications. To be quite frank most of those who fail, do so because they do not have either the correct tools and or materials, plus failed to swat up on the process (read instructions)

 

I had to take out and repair my sliding doors to the garden in my old house, the instructions were thrown away 20 years before. I just looked at a couple of You View downloads to remind me how they fit together, then worked in reverse

Hi John

 

Well spotted.

 

I agree that getting two bits of metal hot and applying a low melting alloy to the joint is quite easy, silver soldering, and braising were two things I was taught. Even better if you can use the same material as in welding. Aluminum welding is quite an art, but I use to do it. When I went for my interview at Marconi's, Bill my future boss asked "Can you solder". I honestly answered "No but I could weld". "Oh good you have an understanding". Some people cannot grasp the concept of getting enough heat to the join when soldering, braising or welding , others it is the opposite, they want to apply too much heat.

 

I also agree that most people can solder if they are taught properly and have chance to practice. There will always be those who despite their best attempts will never grasp the concept of the right amount of heat.

 

As for algebra, I never had a problem understanding it. When I was school our Maths teacher sat us so it was a girl and a boy at each desk. I had Lorraine sat next to me, she was lovely, but me being a shy 15 year old was in a sheer panic every maths lesson. Not the maths but Lorraine. Anyhow one day we were doing algebra, she gave me a massive thump, I looked up at her. "Can you slow down I can't copy as fast as you are working them out." I started to enjoy maths after that.

[bike2steam]

 

It's trivially easy for a beginner to stuff themselves up with wrong equipment. There is now much more good advice on-line - some of it in this thread - but it is not consistent or comprehensive, and some of it is downright contradictory.

 

Aint that the truth, when ever a beginner talks about starting off with Carr's stuff I always suggest they get a copy of their handbook to guide them thro' the complexities of the choice of stuff they offer.

[PenrithBeacon]

Not a red herring at all, algebra is fundamentally

...

Cr@p, utter cr@p

[sem34090]

Well, I will say that I have managed to solder a 7mmNGA kit together (For an FR slate wagon), and am rather pleased with the result! Didn't take all that long either. I was given it last night up at club by someone who also lent me some flux and other equipment. I am quite grateful that I was given a temperature-controlled iron at Christmas in response to my desire to have one!

[coachmann]

Half a Century on and Plastikard is still a very useful modelling medium...'Model Railway Constructor' magazine, October 1966.  I probably penned the article the year before while living in Oldham......I feel old!

 

 

Browsing through this old mag, there is an article on the Wenlock Edge Railway by C & RJ Leigh....I thought it was Chris Leigh (damn dyslexia).

 

Seven Mills by M E M Lloyd was a fine 0 gauge layout with a GWR signal box that very much resembles one I was given as a gift.

 

David Jenkinson had Part 2 of an article on LMS loco liveries (pre-dating his books).

 

Plus an article on Narrow Gauge Modelling in Plastikard.

 

LWG

Edited March 21, 2018 by coachmann

[dibber25]

Half a Century on and Plastikard is still a very useful modelling medium...'Model Railway Constructor' magazine, October 1966.  I probably penned the article the year before while living in Oldham......I feel old!

 

WEB Constructor coaches A.jpgWEB Constructor coaches B.jpg

 

Browsing through this old mag, there is an article on the Wenlock Edge Railway by C & RJ Leigh....I thought it was Chris Leigh (damn dyslexia).

 

Seven Mills by M E M Lloyd was a fine 0 gauge layout with a GWR signal box that very much resembles one I was given as a gift.

 

David Jenkinson had Part 2 of an article on LMS loco liveries (pre-dating his books).

 

Plus an article on Narrow Gauge Modelling in Plastikard.

 

LWG

 

Yep, me and my late brother. (CJL)

[Steamport Southport]

​Now that's a technique I've tried and failed at back in the day. Building coaches from Plastikard.

 

I certainly admire the efforts of those that have achieved decent results, particularly when it comes to panelled stock. I tried building an Ironclad using drawings from MRC, seemed an easier option and it was a total disaster. Windows not even being the same size being one of the problems. Even where I did get it right, it looked wrong.

 

I might have another attempt at some point though. I've even got the Jenkinson book somewhere.

 

 

 

Jason

[BlackRat]

Just as an aside, I have just checked and I have at least 7...... yup 7 different glues and adhesives, just for gluing 'plastic'!

 

So even putting together a 'simple plastic' kit these days......ain't so simple anymore!

[Jeff Smith]

The problem with etched, white metal and resin coach kits for me is the glazing. It's so much easier to attach clear styrene to styrene sides.

[johnarcher]

Half a Century on and Plastikard is still a very useful modelling medium...'Model Railway Constructor' magazine, October 1966.  I probably penned the article the year before while living in Oldham......I feel old!

 

WEB Constructor coaches A.jpgWEB Constructor coaches B.jpg

 

Browsing through this old mag, there is an article on the Wenlock Edge Railway by C & RJ Leigh....I thought it was Chris Leigh (damn dyslexia).

 

Seven Mills by M E M Lloyd was a fine 0 gauge layout with a GWR signal box that very much resembles one I was given as a gift.

 

David Jenkinson had Part 2 of an article on LMS loco liveries (pre-dating his books).

 

Plus an article on Narrow Gauge Modelling in Plastikard.

 

LWG

Now I see it I remember the article. I remember using the method for scribing door vents, it worked too, so thanks. Not on anything very impressive I fear, I was only 15 at the time.

It still makes me feel old too though.

[Jol Wilkinson]

The problem with etched, white metal and resin coach kits for me is the glazing. It's so much easier to attach clear styrene to styrene sides.

 

I find Hypo Cement useful for glazing, Dries transparent and any excess can be removed before it dries with a cocktail stick or after using white spirit to soften it. There is also "canopy glue" or one of the liquid glazing products.

[Steamport Southport]

Now I see it I remember the article. I remember using the method for scribing door vents, it worked too, so thanks. Not on anything very impressive I fear, I was only 15 at the time.

It still makes me feel old too though.

 

I wasn't even born.

 

But I grew up with magazines from that era and I now have most of the magazines from the "Big Three" from about 1960 until the mid 1980s when MRC and MRN/MR/YMR went. I spend more time reading them than the latest issues of the current magazines.

 

It's surprising how much is still relevant.

 

 

 

Jason

[bike2steam]

I wasn't even born.

 

But I grew up with magazines from that era and I now have most of the magazines from the "Big Three" from about 1960 until the mid 1980s when MRC and MRN/MR/YMR went. I spend more time reading them than the latest issues of the current magazines.

 

It's surprising how much is still relevant.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Yep, and MRC was always the best of those 4 mentioned, but it was the RM in the late 50's/early 60's that stoked my interest.

[EHertsGER]

And neither can YOU have it both ways. 

 

You can't expect a manufacturer to do his job for the love of it - loads of hours work that will never be paid for just so you can have a cheaper kit.

 

Then demand that they put lots and lots more of those unpaid hours into the product to bring it up to Tamiya quality. 

 

Essentially, we get what we are willing to pay for. If someone releases a model for the love of it, they will do as much as they want because they aren't fussed about the number of sales. You can expect what you like, but unless you are paying for the time, you have to accept what you are given. You have the right not to buy after all. If they are running a serious business then things should get fixed. If doing it as an extension of a hobby, they will probably deicide it's not worth the trouble and the kit will (like so many) vanish from sale.

 

A good example of this is the MTK range. The first shots were usually pretty good as the maker wanted the model for himself. Further runs tended to be less good. I've got a parcels railcar which clips together, the part fit is that good. OK, the instructions are limited but it's a simple enough prototype that looking at photos, something I'd do even if reams of paper had been provided, will suffice.  I paid £17 for this kit second hand after a quick look in the box, for that money I'll take a bit of a risk. 

 

Another example is the DJH Beginners kit for a Barclay. That has superb instructions and is designed for very easy assembly. Price £180, but then DJH are doing this as a business.

 

A third option is the "Scratch aid" concept (also called a "Semi kit" in the model boat world) where a set of parts are sold with little or no instructions and the certain knowledge that the builder has to source other bits themselves. Builders can then decide if the parts are worth the money in the full knowledge that work will be required. For many prototypes, this can make a big difference. I built a Worsely Works 3mm scale steam railcar years ago. Price £18 and for that, I got sides, ends (one of which needed modification) and no castings or motorising parts. I could have complained that I wanted something as easy to build as an Airfix Spitfire, but since total sales over several years have barely scraped into double figures, the makers would have taken it off the market rather than thrown loads more time and money at it. I judged that etches sides that took cared of the panelling were better than no sides.

 

An interesting point; as I understand things that have developed here, one thread has been to examine the kit-maker and RTR producers' motivation to launch a product. I also recall from some time ago a discussion elsewhere on this site around an RTR F4/5 that went nowhere. The reason it went nowhere was not lack of enthusiam, but the complexities of specifying exactly what would be built. The variations of that class are so many - let's start with which boiler was on which loco and when; 33 or 34 and so on, and that is the easy part - that any manufacturer would be investing thousands more than for a 'simple' product just to please everyone.

 

Kit makers and RTR are both be faced with long break-even cycles. That is the universal 'truth' if you like. Perhaps the way forward is for 'cottage industries' to produce 'bits'; Markits for the universal stuff, Gibson for GER loco fittings, Geen for GWR 'bits' and so on. Then any aspiring kit maker only need focus on the etches (back to the days of Jamieson, but a whole lot easier!) for which we, as modellers, source the right bits for our project, leaving aside unwanted variants and parts by just not buying them.

 

Lower investment for kit makers, niche markets for cottage industries, endless choice for modellers - to say nothing of JIT cash flow when buying bits!

 

I wonder if this isue is a legacy of us all growing up with Airfix kits; when we hear the word 'kit' we expect a complete set of parts and instructions. Not unreasonable for a 'generic' model, but modelling a locomotive is more than that. So, rather than providing all the choices in the world in a box being a disincentive to a maker to invest in producing a complex kit, why not give us all the choices in the world by not doing so. To be able to do that we as a hobby should perhaps start thinking about an approach that is not an 'Airfix kit'.

 

By way of example, my next F4/5 'kit' project will be a Falcon body, my own (See Rumney Models) chassis and whatever bits I need from Gibson and not the Gibson kit, good though it is. Too many bits to throw away.

 

Just a thought...

Best,

Marcus

[johnarcher]

Kit makers and RTR are both be faced with long break-even cycles. That is the universal 'truth' if you like. Perhaps the way forward is for 'cottage industries' to produce 'bits'; Markits for the universal stuff, Gibson for GER loco fittings, Geen for GWR 'bits' and so on. Then any aspiring kit maker only need focus on the etches (back to the days of Jamieson, but a whole lot easier!) for which we, as modellers, source the right bits for our project, leaving aside unwanted variants and parts by just not buying them.

 

Lower investment for kit makers, niche markets for cottage industries, endless choice for modellers - to say nothing of JIT cash flow when buying bits!

 

I wonder if this isue is a legacy of us all growing up with Airfix kits; when we hear the word 'kit' we expect a complete set of parts and instructions. Not unreasonable for a 'generic' model, but modelling a locomotive is more than that. So, rather than providing all the choices in the world in a box being a disincentive to a maker to invest in producing a complex kit, why not give us all the choices in the world by not doing so. To be able to do that we as a hobby should perhaps start thinking about an approach that is not an 'Airfix kit'.

 

By way of example, my next F4/5 'kit' project will be a Falcon body, my own (See Rumney Models) chassis and whatever bits I need from Gibson and not the Gibson kit, good though it is. Too many bits to throw away.

 

Just a thought...

Best,

Marcus

I daresay that method does have advantages, I've used some Worsley stuff myself of that kind. Isn't there one problem though - the viability of the kit does depend on the other 'bits' makers staying in business, if one disappears (as with David Geen retiring at the moment) then crucial elements of the total 'kit' may no longer be there?

[EHertsGER]

I daresay that method does have advantages, I've used some Worsley stuff myself of that kind. Isn't there one problem though - the viability of the kit does depend on the other 'bits' makers staying in business, if one disappears (as with David Geen retiring at the moment) then crucial elements of the total 'kit' may no longer be there?

Agreed - and there is nothing I can do about it! Witness Exactoscale wheels vanishing all of a sudden, just as Hornby produced the J15 and Oxford Rail about to produce the N7 - not even kits, but RTR of a quality that invites conversion to P4/EM and (J15) selling well. Both use the same wheel, which was the only one available that was the right size. A ready market lost for whatever reason (not worth exploring here) but a loss - and risk for the future of being repeated again.