Why is their no budget range for the younger modeller to get into this hobby?

[F-UnitMad]

On 17/08/2020 at 19:03, Zomboid said:

Why not? I'm not aware of any baggage associated with either of them in the UK. I actually have a Rivarossi American passenger car, but I've never heard of Arnold.

 

Might be my age though!

Maybe not your age, maybe more you never looked at German N Gauge??!!

Arnold after all, more or less invented the standard N gauge coupler AFAIK,  such that I always saw it reffered to as the 'Arnold coupler'.

[eldomtom2]

22 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Earlier I suggested 1:32 on 16.5mm gauge - the scale provides lots of figures from toys, military/plastic modelling and potentially wargaming while the gauge is the same as 00.

1/32 is not the most popular scale for kits and for wargaming it is right out - if you want a system in scale with something like Warhammer you go for S (or for more accuracy the obscure German Z0).

[RJS1977]

19 minutes ago, Binky said:

 

People buy on the internet these days. If a manufacturer wanted to push a certain range of model railway sets they'd just have to make sure it gets an online presence (youtube, social media, perhaps some reviews on modelling websites, available on ebay, amazon etc) and if people are interested in railways/train sets and researching their interest online they will find them.

I see Argos and John Lewis list Hornby train sets, as do Aldi at the moment but I presume that's only for a few weeks of the year as is their modus operandi.

 

As I've often said before, one trick I think Hornby miss is that they don't slip a mini-catalogue with details of the Railroad range and some of the cheaper accessories into the box of the Argos/Lewis/Aldi sets, to encourage parents to keep buying beyond the train set,

[Binky]

19 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

As I've often said before, one trick I think Hornby miss is that they don't slip a mini-catalogue with details of the Railroad range and some of the cheaper accessories into the box of the Argos/Lewis/Aldi sets, to encourage parents to keep buying beyond the train set,

 

I see Hornby have a website with a forum, collectors club, kids section, blog etc. Do they slip a leaflet in advising people to check out their online community at least?

[009 micro modeller]

44 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

1/32 is not the most popular scale for kits and for wargaming it is right out - if you want a system in scale with something like Warhammer you go for S (or for more accuracy the obscure German Z0).

 

I didn’t say it was the most popular - just that it is an existing scale (along with the related 1:35). There are several model horse/farm-related figures in 1:32 scale. 0 scale (one or other of the variants) could also work but below that it might be too small for what I had in mind.

 

Out of interest, what is Z0 and has anyone ever made anything for it commercially?

[rob D2]

This old chestnut - how often do we do this ? Once a year ?

 

Either way I’m very priveledged to be part of the “ wealthy few “.

 

 

[DK123GWR]

10 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I didn’t say it was the most popular - just that it is an existing scale (along with the related 1:35). There are several model horse/farm-related figures in 1:32 scale. 0 scale (one or other of the variants) could also work but below that it might be too small for what I had in mind.

 

Out of interest, what is Z0 and has anyone ever made anything for it commercially?

According to a Google translation of a German Wikipedia article (this is the whole article):

The nominal size Z0 (Z0 = intermediate zero) denotes a model railway size on a scale of 1:60 and a track width of 24 mm. Z0 experienced its heyday from the late 1940s to the early 1950s when companies such as BECO (Brennecke & Co.), MALO (Bergmann & Co.) and Kirchner offered a large number of corresponding models. In the GDR, this nominal size was part of NORMAT (standardization and material).

[Talltim]

2 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

According to a Google translation of a German Wikipedia article (this is the whole article):

The nominal size Z0 (Z0 = intermediate zero) denotes a model railway size on a scale of 1:60 and a track width of 24 mm. Z0 experienced its heyday from the late 1940s to the early 1950s when companies such as BECO (Brennecke & Co.), MALO (Bergmann & Co.) and Kirchner offered a large number of corresponding models. In the GDR, this nominal size was part of NORMAT (standardization and material).

There was me thinking it was 1:220 using 32mm track, for modelling those obscure 7 metre gauge lines...

[DK123GWR]

7 minutes ago, Talltim said:

There was me thinking it was 1:220 using 32mm track, for modelling those obscure 7 metre gauge lines...

Here's an 8.2m gauge line.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, DK123GWR said:

Here's an 8.2m gauge line.

 

Is this the one you mean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lärchwandschrägaufzug

 

This one is even wider at 9m: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_ship_lift

Edited August 18, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[1E BoY]

Like the Playcraft range of the 1960s (see page 10) another inexpensive range appeared in 1973 produced by Lima aimed primarily at the toy train market vacated by Playcraft. It was HO scale and utilised the then standard European hook and loop coupling. 

 

The range initially included a 4F 0-6-0 and a Class 33 diesel locomotive. Coaches in the form of Mark 2b coaches were available from the start. Four British outline wagons followed (7-plank open, 12T ventilated van, GWR toad brake van and a BR 20T standard brake van). Three types of BR Mark 1 coaches also appeared. These items were supplemented with European outline products tailored for the British market (mainly by putting the names of British companies on them). They were undoubtedly cheap and cheerful.

 

However British railway modellers were not impressed and although they found the prices attractive, they disapproved of HO being adopted. To show its potential, The Model Railway Constructor ran an article where one of its contributors sliced up a Class 33 and inserted plasticard spacers to make it more acceptable to OO scale before repainting it. 

 

Lima was not the first manufacturer to fall foul of the British OO buying public and it would not be the last. Rivarossi and Fleischmann also found out later in the decade despite producing some stunning models albeit at European prices relative to their quality. 

 

The HO range only lasted four years due to Lima failing to attract the sales it required. Lima was faced with two choices, abandoning the British market or moving to OO scale - a route it quickly took. Some of these with improved mechanisms etc. form part of the Hornby Railroad range today.

 

It will take a brave manufacturer to produce the equivalent of cheap Playcraft or Lima in today's market even if they adopted OO Scale for it! 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by 1E BoY
Spelling error

[PatB]

On 17/08/2020 at 16:38, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Potentially. This is where the specifics of this idea become a bit more technical. Do you produce a generic chassis and then design kits with compromises specifically to fit that, or use a generic powered wagon in combination with more accurate models (as previously done with Airfix/Dapol kits)? Even for the second option it may be better to have a partly/fully assembled rolling chassis for the locos if the primary purpose is for them to run (remember that this might be somebody’s first loco, rather than something they make later on as is traditionally the case with the Airfix/Dapol kits, so skill levels could still be relatively low). This is again where a slightly impressionistic large scale narrow gauge range (but still using 16.5mm gauge track) might work better as there would be a greater range of reasonably realistic models that could be based around a basic 0-4-0 chassis, and it could be tied in nicely with wargaming and military models. My point about wood and card kits for younger or less experienced modellers would still apply alongside this though. I think either Dapol or Hornby (making use of the expertise/capabilities of the other companies they own) could be well-placed to do this, but for Hornby it seems to be too far away from what they currently see as the (especially young) beginner’s way into the hobby.

 

This is an interesting concept, although whether there's any mileage in it, I don't know. I'm sort of DIYing something similar at this very moment. I just dropped 60 quid on a Smallbrook 1:35 loco kit and a suitable Hornby chassis, and I've just spent a few hours turning out a laser cut card "kit" for a matching narrow gauge coach, designed to fit on the widely available Hornby 4-wheeler underframe. Here's a photo of a very rough, proof of concept, lash up of the coach. As someone with precisely zero successful card scratchbuilding experience, I assembled my "kit" in an hour, with no tools beyond a scalpel. It was easy, enjoyable and satisfying. Whilst I wouldn't sell this as a commercial kit in its current form, a little thought and an hour or two's further CAD work would turn it into something that anyone capable of assembling a plastic kit or painting a gaming figure could put together to an acceptable standard.

 

You may note that the scale chosen is a common wargaming one, meaning that figures and accessories can be had from outside the model railway world, although many would need civilianising.

 

Now whether such kits would have a wide enough appeal to make them worthwhile I don't know and don't intend to test. This is an exercise purely for my own enjoyment. However, given that the body, at least, involved maybe 6 hours of CAD work (that would come down for someone who wasn't learning the CAD package from a standing start), a couple of quid for even decent card, and 15 minutes of laser cutter time, I can't see a body kit, at least being prohibitively expensive. Let's see. I'll charge my time at AU$25 an hour (low, but not untypical for a cottage industry), so AU$150 for the CAD, spread over maybe 100 kits, so AU$1.50 each. 15 Minutes supervising the cutting (could be spent doing something else, but let's go with worst case), so AU$6.25 each. Say AU$2 for material, at the outside. Allow 50c for packaging. Bit of time packing ready for sale, writing and printing an A4 instruction sheet, and a few other odds and ends. I reckon I could turn out a body kit for AU$20 a pop and make a reasonable, cottage industry size margin on each one. Chassis might be an issue. The most economical method for small runs might be to buy up every Hornby 15' chassis in existence and supply 'em secondhand, at cost.

 

As for a loco, the sensible way to go would be a small diesel on a self contained chassis. A Tenshodo Spud or a Black Beetle would be obvious choices, but the Spud is 50 quid a go and doesn't (apparently) work terribly well, and the Beetle is significantly more expensive and rather light duty. Smallbrook thought the Bachmann Ernie 1 provided an answer, but a quick search suggests that they're now rather rare. Maybe we're stuck with the Hornby 0-4-0 inside cylinder chassis again.

 

Of course, for people who like building things at economical prices, in 00 Dapol have the market sewn up with their range of ex-Airfix rolling stock kits. Still excellent value after all these years. Even better now that they seem to come with real wheels and couplings.

Edited August 19, 2020 by PatB

[PatB]

12 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Just noticed Hornby R1230 actually labelled as a starter set, Railroad (ex-Lima) HST in current FGW green, two power cars, one coach, track, railing ramp and layout mat, controller. Ready to go and all in one box.

 

Hatton's price is £108 which, compared to most things on kids' Xmas/birthday lists these days, counts as peanuts.

 

Seems to align perfectly with the general tone of the aspirations laid out in this thread, and should sell like hot cakes.

 

If it fails to, I'd consider the Junior Starter set market to be past saving.

 

John

 

 

 

 

I suspect that's rather less money, in comparative terms, than the original Hornby or Lima HST sets were, back in 1977 or whenever. Possibly substantially so.

[DK123GWR]

12 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is this the one you mean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lärchwandschrägaufzug

 

This one is even wider at 9m: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_ship_lift

Oops...

[009 micro modeller]

5 hours ago, PatB said:

 

This is an interesting concept, although whether there's any mileage in it, I don't know. I'm sort of DIYing something similar at this very moment. I just dropped 60 quid on a Smallbrook 1:35 loco kit and a suitable Hornby chassis, and I've just spent a few hours turning out a laser cut card "kit" for a matching narrow gauge coach, designed to fit on the widely available Hornby 4-wheeler underframe. Here's a photo of a very rough, proof of concept, lash up of the coach. As someone with precisely zero successful card scratchbuilding experience, I assembled my "kit" in an hour, with no tools beyond a scalpel. It was easy, enjoyable and satisfying. Whilst I wouldn't sell this as a commercial kit in its current form, a little thought and an hour or two's further CAD work would turn it into something that anyone capable of assembling a plastic kit or painting a gaming figure could put together to an acceptable standard.

 

You may note that the scale chosen is a common wargaming one, meaning that figures and accessories can be had from outside the model railway world, although many would need civilianising.

 

Now whether such kits would have a wide enough appeal to make them worthwhile I don't know and don't intend to test. This is an exercise purely for my own enjoyment. However, given that the body, at least, involved maybe 6 hours of CAD work (that would come down for someone who wasn't learning the CAD package from a standing start), a couple of quid for even decent card, and 15 minutes of laser cutter time, I can't see a body kit, at least being prohibitively expensive. Let's see. I'll charge my time at AU$25 an hour (low, but not untypical for a cottage industry), so AU$150 for the CAD, spread over maybe 100 kits, so AU$1.50 each. 15 Minutes supervising the cutting (could be spent doing something else, but let's go with worst case), so AU$6.25 each. Say AU$2 for material, at the outside. Allow 50c for packaging. Bit of time packing ready for sale, writing and printing an A4 instruction sheet, and a few other odds and ends. I reckon I could turn out a body kit for AU$20 a pop and make a reasonable, cottage industry size margin on each one. Chassis might be an issue. The most economical method for small runs might be to buy up every Hornby 15' chassis in existence and supply 'em secondhand, at cost.

 

As for a loco, the sensible way to go would be a small diesel on a self contained chassis. A Tenshodo Spud or a Black Beetle would be obvious choices, but the Spud is 50 quid a go and doesn't (apparently) work terribly well, and the Beetle is significantly more expensive and rather light duty. Smallbrook thought the Bachmann Ernie 1 provided an answer, but a quick search suggests that they're now rather rare. Maybe we're stuck with the Hornby 0-4-0 inside cylinder chassis again.

 

Of course, for people who like building things at economical prices, in 00 Dapol have the market sewn up with their range of ex-Airfix rolling stock kits. Still excellent value after all these years. Even better now that they seem to come with real wheels and couplings.

 

I suggested card and wood as materials because these would be easier for people familiar with craft activities but not railway modelling to work with, and would not require as many specialist tools. A secondary benefit would be the increased accessibility for younger children - there’s a reason why Woodcraft and card kits have a much lower recommended minimum age than even simple plastic kits, and the large scale suggested was for similar reasons. I note that based on the way you have costed it the cost could only really decrease over time. There are card building kits sold at visitor attractions and elsewhere for fairly low prices that can be assembled using only PVA and a knife or scissors.

 

As an aside, I think the coach looks very good. 

 

A related concept, mentioned earlier here is the idea of complete but unpainted rolling stock bodies. For this I would look at the way that model horse manufacturers do it - an existing one-piece plastic horse moulding is supplied, packaged with a small range of paints - acrylic and easily mixed to increase the range of colours. No construction is needed but details can be added, and the moulding is shared with a previously issued complete model. Costs can be quite a lot lower as no painting is done by the manufacturer, although I’m not sure this would necessarily be the case for model railway items. Finally, the finished model has just as much play value as its manufacturer-painted counterparts. Obviously there are already model railway manufacturers selling unpainted bodies but it seems that none are packaging and marketing them in this way.

Edited August 19, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[kevinlms]

On 18/08/2020 at 06:53, RJS1977 said:

However the main range item is fitted with an interior and lights (exterior and interior), full painted cab detail etc, separately fitted exterior detail parts etc. The 'budget' item is just an empty shell.

 

So instead of doing a run of 5,000 'main range' items, it's maybe 3,000 main range and 2,000 budget range.

 

At some point in the future, the extra details could possibly be released as 'add-ons' for people who bought the budget ones (as it was all they could afford at the time) and now want to upgrade.

Surely the way to a 'budget' range for beginners, is to make lots of them at a cheap price, not divide up the market?

 

Not that I see that the idea is any different to what Hornby currently do with their 'Railroad' range. Using old tooling that has long been paid off.

 

I guess what some are advocating, with replaceable parts, is like Action Man or Barbie Doll, where you could buy various outfits and accessories to fit the basic doll.

However that was never a cheap market, a premium market if anything!

[009 micro modeller]

6 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I guess what some are advocating, with replaceable parts, is like Action Man or Barbie Doll, where you could buy various outfits and accessories to fit the basic doll.

 

I am not exactly advocating this, but instead something part way between the construction kits produced for plastic modelling and the items produced by Smallbrook, with various materials to cater for different skill and price levels.

Edited August 19, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[kevinlms]

On 18/08/2020 at 08:42, The Johnster said:

Forget niche markets, you can't make money with them, that's why they're niche markets.  Cheap lo-fi trains for youngsters are a niche market.

 

How about coming at if from a different tack, the plastic construction kit guys,  Tamiya, Italieri, Revell, and a load of others I don't know about because I'm not into aircraft and tanks.  If they produced one or two locomotives as plastic construction kits to start with, complete with motors, gearboxes, and pickups, so that relatively unskilled modellers could kit built them, it would introduce the idea to people who model aircraft, tanks, battleships and such.  They already do railway guns; i built a big German Tamiya one that had a narrow gauge railway aboard it for shifting the shells around for a friend many years ago.  For this reason, the Kriegslok presents itself as the first port of call, but a few of the world's more common locos would get the idea up and running; P8s, Mary diesels (known as Stalin's Revenge in Poland), EMD stuff.  Rolling stock would follow, perhaps generic at first. and perhaps with a tendency towards military prototypes.

 

These firms, if their interest can be aroused, would come at the game with a different perspective, and might rethink power from the track based control systems for rechargeable batteries and NFC for example.  They might, speak it not in Gath, even produce UK outline models with a correct track gauge, be it to 1:87 scale or P4 gauge.  There is a lot of duplication in this market; Titanic, Bismark, T34, Panzer IV, USS Enterprise Star Trek and CVN, but this means that you have a genuine choice of Titanics or whatever, price reflecting scale and realism, and ease of construction, catering for several levels of competence simultaneously in a way which the model railway trade doesn't.  A Hornby Large Prairie and a Dapol large prairie are going to be be a pretty close call, but if they were motorisable plastic kits (that ran properly not like Kitmaster/Airfix; I mean with metal motion and plenty of ballast), and one was a bit basic and the other wasn't, there would be a proper level of customer choice, rather than a rather pointless choice between brands.

The difference between model trains and planes, tanks, cars and lots of other types of kits, is that people expect model trains to MOVE and tow wagons and coaches. That is a key difference that sets model trains from static kits that the others are.

 

By the time you mess about providing a reasonable quality chassis (unlike the ones made for Airfix/Kitmaster, as you pointed out), to fit under your body kit, you may as well have provided it!

There is nothing new on this approach, Tri-ang tried with their CKD 'kits', which proved to be a poor market for them. Obviously customers expected them to be cheaper, as the buyer was doing the assembly work. But it didn't work out like that, because despite them being easy to assemble, Tri-ang still had to deal with buyers, who lost parts and generally couldn't put them together.

 

Tri-ang, Hornby Railways and others have NEVER gone down this path again, because it is simply a poor investment. It's proven to be cheaper to sell complete models. These can be split up by 3rd party people to sell if they wish, which has occurred for decades.

 

No point re-inventing the wheel, if the wheel is too hard for a small percentage to deal with. Even if 2-5% have problems, your profit margin will be toast!

[kevinlms]

16 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

As I've often said before, one trick I think Hornby miss is that they don't slip a mini-catalogue with details of the Railroad range and some of the cheaper accessories into the box of the Argos/Lewis/Aldi sets, to encourage parents to keep buying beyond the train set,

If a business doesn't promote itself, who do they expect to do so?

All it needs is a 2 page colour document and links for more information on the website.

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, PatB said:

 

Of course, for people who like building things at economical prices, in 00 Dapol have the market sewn up with their range of ex-Airfix rolling stock kits. Still excellent value after all these years. Even better now that they seem to come with real wheels and couplings.

A key thing is that if the deal was so good, why has the range not been expanded for nearly 50 years? That says a lot, whereas better kits have been produced by many makers, such as Ratio, Parkside Dundas and lots of others.

 

Fact is the cost of the tooling for the ex Airfix/Kitmaster rolling stock kits has been written off years ago and just a bit of maintenance. I've heard that some of the tooling is getting rather worn and the quality dropping off.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The difference between model trains and planes, tanks, cars and lots of other types of kits, is that people expect model trains to MOVE and tow wagons and coaches. That is a key difference that sets model trains from static kits that the others are.

 

By the time you mess about providing a reasonable quality chassis (unlike the ones made for Airfix/Kitmaster, as you pointed out), to fit under your body kit, you may as well have provided it!

There is nothing new on this approach, Tri-ang tried with their CKD 'kits', which proved to be a poor market for them. Obviously customers expected them to be cheaper, as the buyer was doing the assembly work. But it didn't work out like that, because despite them being easy to assemble, Tri-ang still had to deal with buyers, who lost parts and generally couldn't put them together.

 

Tri-ang, Hornby Railways and others have NEVER gone down this path again, because it is simply a poor investment. It's proven to be cheaper to sell complete models. These can be split up by 3rd party people to sell if they wish, which has occurred for decades.

 

No point re-inventing the wheel, if the wheel is too hard for a small percentage to deal with. Even if 2-5% have problems, your profit margin will be toast!

 

In the slightly different idea that I suggested I didn’t actually say it would be cheaper than equivalent RTR for beginners, I said it could cost about the same but would give them access to something more creative and potentially enjoyable. I notice the market for model aircraft kits, for instance, seems to be larger than that for assembled plastic or diecast display models of similar subjects, suggesting that it is the creative side (actually making the kit) that interests people. In railway modelling this is often assumed to be something that comes later, after experience with RTR, and for the beginner kit building can at least appear to be too expensive and specialised.

 

 I’m not sure people necessarily expect model trains to be moving models, just that if they were static they would really be part of a slightly different hobby (static plastic modelling rather than model railways). This is an example; it’s 1:35 and I believe 41mm gauge, so clearly the manufacturer has produced it for static use and hasn’t concerned themselves with compatibility with working model railways.

 

 If I’ve understood correctly, where me and @The Johnster differ slightly is on the question of whether to make the chassis as a kit that can be easily constructed by a beginner, or provide an RTR chassis onto which the rest of the kit is built. I appreciate that the first option would possibly allow a larger range of prototypes to be represented accurately, but I also have a feeling that chassis-building may be a step too far for beginners. It may even be cheaper to produce an RTR chassis than to create a kit which is sufficiently foolproof in its design, especially if the RTR chassis is shared between several kits à la Smallbrook. Ultimately, the combination of plastic kit body on RTR chassis is one that requires the same skills demanded by static plastic kit building, and would presumably be targeted at a similar market/audience.

['CHARD]

24 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 I notice the market for model aircraft kits, for instance, seems to be larger than that for assembled plastic or diecast display models of similar subjects, suggesting that it is the creative side (actually making the kit) that interests people. 

 

 

Or is that perhaps the market of good intentions? 

 

I wonder what % of kits purchased are actually assembled.

[009 micro modeller]

5 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Or is that perhaps the market of good intentions? 

 

I wonder what % of kits purchased are actually assembled.

 

But even so, there are collectible fully-assembled aircraft models, but they don’t seem to be produced in such large numbers.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Fact is the cost of the tooling for the ex Airfix/Kitmaster rolling stock kits has been written off years ago and just a bit of maintenance. I've heard that some of the tooling is getting rather worn and the quality dropping off.

I've made up 2 of these kits in recent years, a meat van and an Interfrigo ferry van, and found no evidence at all of the tooling being degraded.  Soft polystyrene plastic is unlikely to have much impact on a steel mould even after many years of use; all that is needed surely is to clean the mould after each production run being careful not to damage it.  Rough cleaning is more likely to cause problems than extended use.

 

There is a drop in quality over the kits I built as a child in the 60s, but it is in the composition of the plastic, which is much poorer in the modern kits.  Profit on them must be pretty marginal and it is not surprising that Dapol have compromised to keep a lid on costs.  The kits both made up square and true, and while I do not use the Interfrigo because of its scale issues, which stand out in a rake of vehicles, the meat van is in traffic and gives no trouble at all.  I'd say that in terms of scale, detail (I did not use the oversize door hinges), and ease of build it is as good as a Parkside and much less faffy than a Ratio kit.  Ratio seem to regard difficult construction with small, extremely fragile parts that have to be replaced with metal anyway, as a desirable quality; I choose not to agree and avoid them unless there is no alternative.  

 

I build kits mostly where there is no RTR to modern standards available, and have a growing fleet of Parksides, including 16ton minerals that Bachmann do not make.  But I would not buy a Parkside BR standard van, for instance, as there are very good RTR ones available to a better standard of build and finish than I can achieve with a Parkside kit.  The Parky kit is half the price of the Bachmann RTR, but I think the RTR is worth the extra (fortunately, I do not have the sort of layout that requires 60 van trains), but I can see that the Parkside range is highly suitable for modellers working to a budget.  

 

Which sort of brings us back to plastic kit manufacturers of non-railway models, and the concept of the working plastic kit locomotive.  Ratio had a go at this many years ago with a Midland 2-4-0, attractive little thing but you don't see many nowadays on layouts or 'Bay; apparently quality was not the kit's strongest suit.  This does not mean that a plastic kit locomotive sold as a complete kit of decent quality with motor, wheels, and gears, and with metal motion for steam, could not be brought to market at a significantly lower price than an RTR equivalent; perhaps around £60-70.  Build would be within the capacity of anyone who can put together an Airfix Spitfire, the 1/72 one, though it would take a bit longer; I would expect a newbie to sucessfully put one together and have it running in about a week of evening sessions.  Wheelsets should be provided ready assembled and quartered.

 

There are those that will point out that selling a kit complete with wheels, gears, and motor denies the builder the choice of wheels, gears, and motors, and the 'complete with' loco kit does not have a good reputation in the hobby.  Whitemetal kits are not considered up to the mark these days, and they aren't, the 'complete with' option here being Keyser's, which are not considered particularly good, so some prejudice against the concept remains amongst modellers of my generation; we cut our modelling teeth with them and the experience was less than universally edifying...  But one still has one's choice of wheels, gears, and motors by simply not using the ones supplied with the kit, and there is no reason why a plastic loco kit that is reasonably robust and runs well could not be produced with the parts on two or three sprues, a major production cost saving that could be reflected both in profit per unit sold and lower market prices.

 

An issue might be resale value; many railway modellers consider this when they buy their models (I don't, my default is to work to the principle that any model I buy is instantly worthless for resale, and I never sell models on, though sometimes I swap or give them away to good homes).  'Bay prices for built kits are often very low unless the provenance is that the kit had been constructed by a known 'name', but unbuilt kits still in the packaging with all parts present retain value; I would expect my proposed plastic loco kits to follow this pattern.  I understand this; I know how well I can build and finish a kit, and I know how well some of my chums can, but the rest of you might be even worse bodgers than me for all I know...

 

There are similarities to Triang and Trix CKD, which were shake the box easy (I had a Trix CKD Western when I was 12 and was concerned that I'd done it wrong when it only took just over an hour to make), but these kits were expensive for what they were and the saving was because supplying the models unassembled meant that the purchase tax, the equivalent of VAT in those days, did not apply to them.  There was no saving to the manufacturer in production costs, no sprues of multiple parts on one tooling, and they were not really 'construction kits' in that sense; CKD stood for Completely Knocked Down, which was a reasonable description of what they were.  When made up, they were much more robust than a plastic construction kit as well.

 

My view is that there is potential for plastic construction locomotive kits of the type I have described, they'd have to be an improvement on the Ratio Midland 2-4-0, to be a factor in attracting new blood into the hobby.  

[MyRule1]

43 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

the question of whether to make the chassis as a kit that can be easily constructed by a beginner

Does anyone remember, or have an example of, the plastic Modern Traction Kits universal steam loco chassis. I brought one in the mid 70's and recall I failed to get it to run.