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

[BMacdermott]

I disagree Brian,

 

the key factor is acquiring skills, whether quickly or over time. RTR requires very little skill, but learning kit building skills requires more commitment. It is often the desire or the will to learn those skills that is often lacking, as I have found when talking to modellers at shows when helping one of the kit producers. Perhaps the culture of many clubs also doesn't lend it self to model making, as I know from personal experience.

 

However, I feel I am very much in a minority is supporting that aspect of model railways so will retire and nothing further to this thread.

 

Jol

 

Hello Jol

 

Have you read the whole posting? I did say that I have added 'Skills acquisition' to the kit positive side. It is a truism that time is a negative factor when measured against RTR.

 

Brian

[TEAMYAKIMA]

Forgive me for not reading every post in this thread - I gave up on page 3 - and so my point may have been made before.

 

I have been building my 26ft x 10ft exhibition layout in every spare moment for 7 years; my passenger trains are 16,15,13 and 12 coaches long and do (or in many cases will in the future) include fully detailed interiors. My 14 freight trains are all 15ft long. All my freight wagons are heavily weathered. All my structures are heavily modified kits - many with fully detailed interiors.

 

I work 40+ hours a week.

 

I have a wife and a social life.

 

As a 'lone wolf modeller' all I can say is "Thank God for RTR"

Edited March 10, 2018 by TEAMYAKIMA

[hayfield]

Forgive me for not reading every post in this thread - I gave up on page 3 - and so my point may have been made before.

 

I have been building my 26ft x 10ft exhibition layout in every spare moment for 7 years; my passenger trains are 16,15,13 and 12 coaches long and do (or in many cases will in the future) include fully detailed interiors. My 14 freight trains are all 15ft long. All my freight wagons are heavily weathered. All my structures are heavily modified kits - many with fully detailed interiors.

 

I work 40+ hours a week.

 

I have a wife and a social life.

 

All I can say is "Thank God for RTR"

 

There is no issue in wanting to use RTR models, it clearly suits the part of the hoby that both interests you and gives you pleasure

 

There are those of us who prefer the building side of the hobby

 

Then there are those who have or would like a foot in both camps

[TEAMYAKIMA]

There is no issue in wanting to use RTR models, it clearly suits the part of the hoby that both interests you and gives you pleasure

 

There are those of us who prefer the building side of the hobby

 

Then there are those who have or would like a foot in both camps

 

Absolutely, I totally agree. Horses for courses.

 

All I'm saying is that a layout of the size of mine would not be viable for a lone wolf modeller without RTR.

 

BTW as I model Chinese there aren't any kits anyway but to an extent that's not the point.

[hayfield]

Absolutely, I totally agree. Horses for courses.

 

All I'm saying is that a layout of the size of mine would not be viable for a lone wolf modeller without RTR.

 

 

 

Suggestion

 

Get some mates then 

 

Seriously, each to their own. Its a hobby to enjoy 

[jjb1970]

Noam Chomsky once famously pointed out that listening to radio call in shows provides ample evidence of the capacity of people to absorb huge amounts of information and to apply analytical skills to understand and use that data. Or in other words people aren't as stupid as some like to believe (it is becoming increasingly the normal to dismiss those with differing views as being stupid).

 

The same fundamental argument applies to learning skills. Take a look at some of the skills those around you have and which they have had to learn. People are perfectly able to learn and develop skills where there is a reason for doing so or if it is something they enjoy or want to do. Getting that hook to pull people in is key. Some plastic kit manufacturers are very good at that and provide routes into that hobby for newcomers and take product development very seriously. My two kids weren't born on ice skates but they both figure skate and the boy plays ice hockey. If the train kit producers don't want to provide hooks and routes into that part of the hobby then it may say more about the product than attitudes of potential consumers.

 

Again, if kit producers aren't bothered about attracting new blood or growing sales then none of this matters. The kit world can continue as is and the market will be dominated by RTR. But I do get irritated by arguments that it is just because people are too lazy to learn things or because of some sort of want it now culture. The problem isn't that most people won't learn new things, it is that most people seem to have better things to learn.

[coachmann]

Fifty-five years ago, this 'old hand' was actually a 'novice' building loco bodies to fit on RTR chassis and, at the time, I didn't consider there was any skill required in cutting out basic shapes from Slaters Plastikard. I described making Plastikard boilers in a 1960's 'Railway Modeller'. People really interested in building 'kits' out of plastic should look at this course of action, as they would merely be making their own parts before assembling them. Parts dont have to be lazer-cut.

Edited March 10, 2018 by coachmann

[Clive Mortimore]

Fifty-five years ago, this 'old hand' was actually a 'novice' building loco bodies to fit on RTR chassis and, at the time, I didn't consider there was any skill required in cutting out basic shapes from Slaters Plastikard. I described making Plastikard boilers in a 1960's 'Railway Modeller'. People really interested in building 'kits' out of plastic should look at this course of action, as they would merely be making their own parts before assembling them. Parts dont have to be lazer-cut.

And the beauty of making your own kit of parts if you mess up there is no one else to blame. But oddly I find when making things out of plastic card they fit together well and are the right size. Something many kits do not aspire to.

[Mad McCann]

Noam Chomsky once famously pointed out that listening to radio call in shows provides ample evidence of the capacity of people to absorb huge amounts of information and to apply analytical skills to understand and use that data. Or in other words people aren't as stupid as some like to believe (it is becoming increasingly the normal to dismiss those with differing views as being stupid).

 

 

 

He should have listened to 'Call Kaye' before he wrote that...  

 

 

In all seriousness though, your point about willingness to learn is a valid one. It's more a question of where someone's personal priorities lie and if you're looking for a bit of escapism and enjoyment in your life, it doesn't automatically follow that you're going to get that enjoyment from trying to get some approximately shaped bits of metal or alloy honed into something resembling a locomotive. 

You might at that time, gain more solace from learning the banjo or creating scale telegraph poles from scrap balsa.

 

 

D4.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Mad McCann

[jjb1970]

I should have added that Chomsky was talking about sport radio, it does amaze me how sports fans can regurgitate statistics and facts going back decades and develop pretty impressive arguments about tactics and game play. Another example is education, people see a direct benefit from studying and so apply themselves to mastering their chosen subject in order to pass their exams or graduate. To be honest I hated welding and it is one aspect of working at sea I've never missed. But, when I was at sea I worked on ships where I had to become pretty good at welding thin gauge aluminium tubes and some pretty exotic steel alloys, both of which were a pig to weld and had to be done by TIG welding to get good results. Despite it not being my cup of tea I did develop the skill but didn't enjoy it.

[Phil Parker]

Then let the "half a day" be eaten, and chalk it up along with the other R & D costs of producing your kit in the first place, if you are even keeping track.

 

We keep being told as an excuse that many smaller kit producers don't seriously operate as a business, but do it 'for love' or whatever.  Can't have it both ways, Phil.  If it has already taken them many weeks to reaearch, design and produce then what's another day spent producing useable instructions, in the great scheme of things?

 

But why should they do it for love? You are presumably happy never to be paid for your work, but if we want a product to improve and a range to expand, the only way that happens is if either the person is rich enough to do it for fun, or they can make it as a business.

 

You accuse me of "wanting to have it both ways" - I take exception to that. I think everyone should be paid a fair days wage for a fair days work. To say that someone developing a kit should just do another half day so we customers can save a few quid is plain wrong.

[sem34090]

I hate to say it, but there are two conflicting arguments here.

 

You have the likes of Jol who, to some, appears to have been excusing poor kit quality and lack of instructions because the manufacturers are often running their businesses as 'a labour of love'.

 

Then you have the likes of Phil who, to some, appears to be saying that the quality of kit instructions is poor because the manufacturers need to make their money, and time is money.

 

As the earlier poster put it, you can't have it both ways! You can't excuse poor quality by essentially saying 'they do it because they want to and money doesn't matter' only to then excuse the lack of improvement by saying that they need that money. 

 

It may be so that it is only fair that they get paid, and I'll go with that, but you cannot have it both ways.

[hayfield]

I hate to say it, but there are two conflicting arguments here.

 

You have the likes of Jol who, to some, appears to have been excusing poor kit quality and lack of instructions because the manufacturers are often running their businesses as 'a labour of love'.

 

Then you have the likes of Phil who, to some, appears to be saying that the quality of kit instructions is poor because the manufacturers need to make their money, and time is money.

 

As the earlier poster put it, you can't have it both ways! You can't excuse poor quality by essentially saying 'they do it because they want to and money doesn't matter' only to then excuse the lack of improvement by saying that they need that money. 

 

It may be so that it is only fair that they get paid, and I'll go with that, but you cannot have it both ways.

 

 

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, Jol actually stated when writing instructions for a new kit the difficulty is who detailed to make the instructions, this being in written form as  his point was that the costs involved in making a fully illustrated set of instructions would make the kits unaffordable

 

Plastic kits are being held up as a standard to achieve, Airfix instructions are/were very basic. And if bigger how many would bother to read them. I recently built a 0 gauge motor mount without referring to the instructions, guess what I got it wrong!!

[grahame]

I can, however, remember the worst - an MTK Class 73. The instructions consisted of one side of a sheet of paper with a hand drawn (scribbled) diagram of the parts and the written instruction "Have good photos for best detail"

I once purchased an N gauge MTK class 73 kit. It must have had the same instructions as yours, assuming that was an OO/4mm version.

 

G

[Ravenser]

Regardless of cost, any kit should have a good set of instructions, with or without step-by-step photographs. One of the things which has destroyed the kit market and given the hobby over to ready-to-run to such a large extent, is the poor nature of instructions in kits. In more than 50 years in this hobby I can't think of any locomotive kit that I've built or seen, that had adequate, good quality instructions. I can, however, remember the worst - an MTK Class 73. The instructions consisted of one side of a sheet of paper with a hand drawn (scribbled) diagram of the parts and the written instruction "Have good photos for best detail". The problem with most kits was that they were one-man band cottage industry products. The guy who designed and manufactured them, knew how they went together but he wasn't necessarily good at explaining it to others, and unfortunately the better kits often required above average skill levels to build them. (CJL)

 

A strong challenger is recorded here.

 

http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11110

 

Unfortunately the photo of the actual sheet has been lost with the passage of time, but my recollection is that it said:

 

1 . Assemble parts 1-99

2. Assemble parts 100-115.

3. Paint the model

Edited March 11, 2018 by Ravenser

[PatB]

I'm more than happy to pay a manufacturer fairly for their time. I'm a cottage industry manufacturer myself so it would be a bit hypocritical of me not to. However, to be paid, they need to be producing something I want to buy in the first place. For many people, part of what they want might very well be instructions to a reasonable standard.

[Jeff Smith]

I can fully understand someone who gets pleasure from operating a layout going down the RTR route as it is cheaper in many ways than kit or scratch building and provides instant gratification.

 

Having progressed from OO to P4 and built a few kits of locos of interest to me and not available RTR I decided to build a US On30 layout using Bachmann RTR rolling stock. Buying it was easy and at reasonable prices but I found I got very little pleasure from it and the layout was boring to operate. I have now reverted to kit building in O-16.5 and expect to build a Glyn Valley layout more as an operating diorama than a complex to operate layout. I have to give a plug here for Branchlines that provides excellent service, especially for me as an overseas buyer, and provides complete kits using a variety of suppliers. I had great fun building a GWR Flower class loco from the Dapol City of Truro plastic kit and the Branchlines chassis and body detailing kit. The instructions by the way are excellent.

 

The bottom line here is that I am a builder not an operator so RTR gives me no pleasure except as the odd conversion ie Bachmann GWR 57xx to P4 LT Pannier.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Jeff Smith

[JSpencer]

Fifty-five years ago, this 'old hand' was actually a 'novice' building loco bodies to fit on RTR chassis and, at the time, I didn't consider there was any skill required in cutting out basic shapes from Slaters Plastikard. I described making Plastikard boilers in a 1960's 'Railway Modeller'. People really interested in building 'kits' out of plastic should look at this course of action, as they would merely be making their own parts before assembling them. Parts dont have to be lazer-cut.

In the 1930's, a friend of mine who was a young lad back then, enjoyed making models of ships from tin cans. Role onto the 1990s, he found model figures to populate OO coaches too expensive, so he sculpted then made moulds and cast his own from lead. His first loco kit was an etched brass P2, built and painted lovely. These days, if my son goes near a tin can, my wife's screams her head off for fear of cutting his fingers!

[BMacdermott]

Hello Jeff

 

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum to you by the sound of things - and I say that not in the 'you vs me' context, rather that we all derive pleasure from our models in our own way.

 

My layout is heavily based on operation and can purport to be a number of different places within the bounds of modelling licence and they include Oxford and Exeter Central. Just mentioning those names will give a clue to many that I like the variety and complexity of main line operation with plenty of attaching and detaching, shunting, carriage and engine rostering etc. This is all based on many years of research and studying WTTs and Carriage Working Notices as well as having some personal memories backed up with speaking to railwaymen of the 1950/1960s steam era.

 

As noted elsewhere, the time I can spend on my railway is unpredictable - maybe 10 minutes here then two hours there followed by another 40 minutes sometime later. My 'system' allows me to pick up where I left off with no apparent break in proceedings. Seamless.

 

Hence, my appreciation of RTR but with a smattering of kit-built wagons.

 

Brian

Edited March 11, 2018 by BMacdermott

[jjb1970]

The modelling material which is very under rated is card. Railway modellers tend to look at card as a material for buildings but it can be used for much more than that. Marine modelling in particular, there are plenty of superb ship models either made of card or which make heavy use of card.

[Mad McCann]

One guy I read of a few years back built a large scale Duchess from card!

 

D4

[TheSignalEngineer]

One guy I read of a few years back built a large scale Duchess from card!

 

D4

Back in the Hornby Dublo days I built a freelance 'Mock GWR' 0-6-0 tender loco using a Kitmaster City of Truro, plaster of Paris and varnished card running on a the chassis from a Gaiety pannier tank which had been rebuilt on an R1 chassis I had converted to 3-rail. The latter, incidentally, is still running nearly 60 years on.

[TheSignalEngineer]

One guy I read of a few years back built a large scale Duchess from card!

 

D4

I've seen some rather nice 4mm scale card built rolling stock at the show in Poynton, Brian Foster I think it was.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I hate to say it, but there are two conflicting arguments here.

 

You have the likes of Jol who, to some, appears to have been excusing poor kit quality and lack of instructions because the manufacturers are often running their businesses as 'a labour of love'.

 

Then you have the likes of Phil who, to some, appears to be saying that the quality of kit instructions is poor because the manufacturers need to make their money, and time is money.

 

As the earlier poster put it, you can't have it both ways! You can't excuse poor quality by essentially saying 'they do it because they want to and money doesn't matter' only to then excuse the lack of improvement by saying that they need that money. 

 

It may be so that it is only fair that they get paid, and I'll go with that, but you cannot have it both ways.

 

I hadn't intended to add anything to this thread but cannot let that go unanswered.

 

I am not excusing poor kit quality or instructions, but was trying to explain why they may not meet the standards provided by large scale manufacturers, operating in different markets and which a number of those on this thread expect. Clearly some readers didn't understand that, while others seemed to prefer not to.

 

The way in which the smaller suppliers kit "industry" has developed in the UK railway modelling market over twenty or thirty years and the economic model in which it operates is clearly not understood (or ignored) by many here. It has a loyal customer base, usually modellers who started their model making some years ago and they have "grown up together". So what they supply is understood and accepted by many as the means to creating the model railway they want. It may not be for you, much as collecting RTR is not for me.

 

However, there are some who don't consider that is good enough, want something cheaper, simpler and more readily accessible. Amazon delivery, Airfix prices, Tamiya Instructions, etc. The majority of the small kit suppliers can't provide that. If they could, they would, why not? And if it was going to be viable why hasn't one of the major manufacturers, either from the model railway sector or a plastic kit manufacturer with experience of low cost production, done it?  True, that may provide an easier/better way into building models from kits, but you can do that by starting with plastic wagon kits and going on from there.

 

Sadly what this topic and others like it give the impression that the small suppliers don't care, can't be bothered, that building kits is too difficult, skill are too difficult to learn, etc. That is far from the truth, although the changes in the retail environment, peoples' demands, the "want it now" and "it is somebody else's fault" cultures and so on, have created a different level of consumer expectation. Whether that is reasonable or not depends on your point of view. 

 

I shall now go back to the workshop to spend some more time working on five P4 wagons I am building from kits. Two came with no instructions, but the manufacturer thinks you need don't any. He is unique in my experience.

[Coach bogie]

From my position, i build kits to get the variety of stock that, a few years ago, was unimaginable from the rtr boys. Many people think, I enjoy building kits; well not particularly, I have just developed my skills and am now quite good at it. I still continue because it is highly unlikely the rtr businesses will produce what I  need  want for the trainset. I will stick my neck out and say the two vehicle below will never appear in rtr. They were both a common sight in the1930's and are well photographed in trains so to represent the trains with as near appropriate formations as possible.

 

 

The choices were, pay someone to build (I don't not earn enough for that luxury), or build my own (and I work more than 40 hours a week, have children and household responsibilities). Most of my modelling is late at night when everyone has gone to bed and I get a couple of hours in. It is amazing what how much you can accomplish with uninterrupted time. I have had a very productive couple of weeks due to three days of snow and work being closed.

I have many coaches yet to build as rtr will never cover all the diagrams required to match photos from the 30's, especially the 70 footers (12 wheel 70 foot Dreadnought sleeper Hornby??????)

 

What has changed is loco kit building. With the rate of new releases, I have little requirements to build the Kings, Stars, Halls etc that fill the shelf. Only where a heavy train has to be hauled does a kit get built now. For example, I have a long fitted perishables train from Weymouth to London in the great scheme of things. A new Hornby Hall just sits and spins. I already have a Wills/SEF Hall that sets off without a slip, and is untroubled with 35+ wagons behind it, unbanked up my incline. I prefer to have two engines per diagram and there is a half built Nucast in this lot that will take up the challenge. Luckily I had built a fair number of Kings, Castles, saints, stars etc to haul the heavier kit built trains and the newer rtr haul shorter trains.I doubt if some of this collection will ever get built and I have already sold on the Finney's with only the 3232 remaining-again unlikely to appear in rtr.

 

Some people have mentioned detail/finish. On my line only the local trains actually stop, so when the others are storming around at 60mph, the detail and finish is less important. Can you really see the fine detail on stock and engines at Pendon Vale as the expresses go by (and there is now modified rtr being used at Pendon)?

 

Is kit building finished? I was at David Geen's yesterday and he has had orders for over 200 kits this year alone.

 

I do not think kit building is finished just yet.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited March 11, 2018 by Coach bogie