Current steam loco kit construction

[Jeff Smith]

Is it my imagination or are white metal kits as popular as ever?

 

It seems to me that despite the relatively brief period of quality etched kits and the currently increasing availability of 3D prints the traditional white metal kits seem as available/popular as ever!

 

Is this my imagination based on what I want/choose to build or is this the case in general?  Thoughts please.

 

My stable over the last 30 odd years is 2 etched, 1 3D, 7 white metal and one plastic.

[dpgibbons]

I don't see many whitemetal kits in 7mm scale. It's a decent enough material if the kit manufacturer is skilled and the moulds are new, but frequently the quality and durability is poor. It won't be long before 3D printing rules the roost.

[burgundy]

The issue with 3D printed locos is that, without significant amounts of lead inside, they will blow away in a stiff breeze. I also replace any bearing surfaces with brass and tend to build a complete, new, compensated chassis.

Time will tell how a 3D resin model survives, with chunks of ballast randomly scattered around inside it.

There are some examples in the thread on Mr Craven's engines.

Best wishes 

Eric 

Edited January 18 by burgundy
Link included

[Jeff Smith]

I should have mentioned in my initial post that I model in 4mm and O-16.5 so similar sized locos.

[The Johnster]

The situation in the US may well be different, but here I would say that whitemetal loco kits are a busted flush, and only one manufacturer (Southeastern Models) is still in the game.  Whitemetal is not a good material for loco kits*, though it is easy to cast and work for the producers, and cheap.  Etched brass kits with resin preformed boiler units became popular in the 70s and 80s, but have had their day in the face of competition from an increasing range of high-quality low-price well detailed and good running locos from the RTR world. 

 

There are a few providers of etched brass foldup chassis kits, and these can be used to replace RTR mechs that have failed.  A problem is that some of them are designed for motors that are no longer obtainable that substitutes have not been produced for.  They are popular with those who convert RTR locos to EM or P4 gauges (as you probably know, the history of RTR provision in the UK is based on the early adoption of a compromised gauge/scale, 00, 16mm gauge 4mm/foot scale, a hangover from the days when motors could not be shoehorned into the smaller British bodyshells in H0 3.5mm/foot scale, and EM, eighteen millimetre, & P4, prototype scale 18.84mm with scale wheel and rail profiles, are remedial attempts to achieve better looking models and track, as is the niche British H0 scene), and are usually supplied with frame spacers to accommodate all three 4mm scales.  TTBOMK nobody is producing loco or chassis kits for British H0.

 

3D has some promise, but has been around a while and failed to live up to it yet.  It is a useful modelling tool for those who can afford a decent quality printer, but commercially is far too expensive and the quality is sometimes questionable.  At the root of the pricing issue is Shapeways, an organisation that seems to have been formed with the best intentions of creating a community of producers and customers to be put in touch with each other, but in Europe is based in Holland, with the result that, since the UK withdrew from the EU, means that 3D printed products, even those printed in the UK, are subject to import duty, pushing the prices up further.  A squiz through their online catalogue reveals an overburden of questionably realistic, poor quality generic, or improbable freelance models, and pointless duplication of items readily available at lower cost as current standard 'hi-fi' RTR, but which have to be fitted to a chassis, painted, detailed, and finished; can't see many people buying them!  3D can provide items for British H0, but does not seem to have resulted in any great increase in uptake of that genre.

 

3D may have a role in sourcing items not available by other means, but a well-detailed 3D coach bodyshell costs at least as much as a finished RTR coach to current standards of detail.  One would need such an item quite badly to buy the 3D bodyshell, which will need bogies, a chassis, underframe detail, a floor, internal detail, glazing, wheels, buffers, ballasting and drawgear, and couplings as well as painting and finishing; it is really a scrathbuild aid for a major project! 

 

 

*If I were choosing a material for a loco kit, I would avoid anything that conducted electricity and would want a material that was rigid without being thick, as it is best to leave as much room as possible in the body cavity for DCC chips, speakers, lighting, and ballast as is feasible.  Whitemetal ticks none of those boxes, will deform and sag under it's own weight over time, and is not amenable to the casting of sharply defined detail.  I'm also less than enthusiastic about it's lead content, although it is commendably heavy as ballast.  While we're on the subject, I'm not a fan of etched brass either; detail can be very good, but the thickness and rigidity of the material is inadequate.  Brass plate of about 0.5mm thickness is needed for anything structural, and this is relatively difficult to work with.

[Jeff Smith]

Well I do live in the States but am British and model UK subjects - to my knowledge there are no full loco kits here, just some conversion items and boxcar kits.  It is an almost entirely RTR scene in HO, O, On30 and N.  There are some structure and lineside kits in plastic and laser cut wood.

 

In addition to SEF (I'm building one right now) Nu-Cast/Branchlines produce white metal kits.

 

Kits provide the means to have prototypes not covered by the RTR suppliers.  And nobody has claimed they are cheaper than RTR, but they give more satisfaction to many than just buying and opening a box!

 

However my question is are white metal and etched kits going away in favour of other materials?  ie resin, 3D, plastic, etc., not in favour of RTR - we are talking of two different types of modeller here.

[Steamport Southport]

Nucast, SE Finecast, Chivers, DJH, GEM (due to be reissued soon by John Day), Alan Gibson, Branchlines, Millholme, etc. still all make WM kits.

 

Etched Kits finished? Try telling that to Brassmaster, PDK, Judith Edge, High Level, CSP, Roxey, Gibson again, Comet, London Road, K2 Kits, etc.

 

Blacksmith are coming back, as are ABS. Falcon Brassworks/Jidenco are occasionally available via eBay.

 

Might have missed a few. But kit building has never been healthier!

 

 

PS. As for prices work out how much it costs for a white metal or brass 4-6-2 with Gibson wheels and High Level motor/gearbox compared to the current RRP for a Hornby one. The kits are becoming better value.

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 65. A3.html

 

£128 plus about £70 to £100 for the bits, against £250 for RTR.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Edited January 19 by Steamport Southport

[Barclay]

Brass over white metal every time for me. Now if only I could stop buying old K's kits on ebay!

As to the newer materials, not really interested. Some are badly compromised and there's not enough modelling in them anyway.

[Jol Wilkinson]

When I read The Johnsters posting I thought I was confused and this was the "Accentuate the negative - who's trying to kill the hobby?" topic.

 

Whilst there may be fewer modellers building models of locos, carriages etc., seduced by the easy availability of RTR, the kit building sector of the hobby is still strong as others have pointed out. The downside of RTR is a "commonality of modelling", whereas kits provide a much wider range of models for those who prefer to choose what they model, rather than be led by the manufacturers.

 

Etched kits, some supplemented by resin castings, currently provide the best  offerings. White metal casting, if well done can provide good models but - other than weight - are not comparable in terms of crips detail and finesse. 3D printing is still in its infancy and, like the early days of etching, some suppliers have yet to realise that it isn't perfect for everything. Mixed media kits, using the best materials for different parts, give the best results. The etch loco kit suppliers do that, with etches, resin, w/m, brass and n/s castings, etc.

 

So why do white metal kits remain popular? Because they are cheaper and simpler.

[Jeff Smith]

My loco building has predominantly been white metal but choice of materials has been dictated by what is available for the particular loco, coach or wagon I want to build.  My North London fleet consists of a w/m 0-6-0T, an etched 4-4-0T 51 Class and a 3D 4-4-0T 1-10 Class, because that was what was available to me at the time.  Each type of construction requires different treatment but I am happy with any.

[MJI]

5 kit locos

 

Main etched 2

Etched and resin 1

WM 1

Etched and WM 1

[Ian Rathbone]

It is a complete myth that British 00 gauge arose from the inability to fit motors into British outline H0 locos. This may have been true in the 1920s but, by the time the British scale was put into production by Hornby in the late 30s, motors could quite easily be made small enough to fit. No, the reason for choosing a larger scale for the bodies was to enable the fitting of outside valve gear. Hornby Dublo’s first two locos had no o/s valve gear but they were planning to introduce the ‘Duchess of Atholl’. H0 wheels measure 20.6 mm over the outside of the tyres. A typical width between cylinder centres of a British loco is 6’-8” which scales at 23.35 mm, which gives a width of 1.37 mm on each side to fit the valve gear. Three thicknesses of metal plus tolerance? It couldn’t be done, and still cannot. Continental locos with a wider loading gauge and lower platforms meant that model producers could ease the width over the cylinders to provide that space. 
 

How often do you see a British outline H0 model with o/s valve gear? The only thing that is scale in H0 is the distance between the rails; everything else, for steam outline, is a compromise. This was certainly true of the Rivarossi Royal Scot.

 

British H0 is feasible for diesel or electric outline but not steam.

 

Ian R

 

[Jeff Smith]

I'm not sure where this element came from but P4 is tricky but do-able with outside valve gear!

 

OO wheels are too wide, the outside of P4 wheels are not much wider......

[Ian Rathbone]

9 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

I'm not sure where this element came from but P4 is tricky but do-able with outside valve gear!

 

OO wheels are too wide, the outside of P4 wheels are not much wider......

See The Johnster, 18th Jan.

[Jeff Smith]

Got it.  I guess the same applies in TT:120, I think this has been touched on in one of the threads.

[The Johnster]

I’m not trying to kill the hobby, honest, guv…

 

But it is a very different situation from that of the sixties and early 70s, when ‘serious’ layouts in magazines were stocked with locos almost entirely made from whitemetal kits; RTR was not even close to being good enough in terms of scale or detail.  K’s and Will’s (now Southeastern) were the main players, with Jamiesons (not the Irish Whisky)  being reckoned to be better quality but harder to build and more expensive.   
 

Kits of that era were nothing special when they are compared to current RTR.  Plenty turn up on the Bay, and are not bad, if they are well-built and finished, but rarely have any detail like brakes & rodding, pipework, springs,&c below the running plates.  Not many are claimed to be in running order and ‘spares or repair’ descriptions are common.  Some of the old Wills ‘Bodyline’ kits are designed for inappropriate chassis, the 94xx for the Triang ‘Jinty’ for example.  
 

There was a period in the 70s and 80s when better quality etched brass kits were

popular, but some features of these are less than desirable even compared to then concurrent RTR; components such as brake blocks and cab sides were too thin and flimsy, a problem I find with brass in general.  Better w/m in conjunction with brass or nickel silver fold up chassis became available; I had a Westward 64xx which could be made up as a 54xx or 74xx as well, and 64xx with either cab style, which was pretty successful.  It had good detail below the running plate, correct frame profile, and ran beautifully with, IIRC, an Anchorage motor, 40:1 Romford gearing in a foldup n/s gearbox, and Romford wheels.  But, compared with a Bachmann 64xx, not their most recent or best specified model, it wasn’t as well detailed, and had the motor sticking into the cab.  The Baccy doesn’t run quite as smoothly but is acceptable, and needs extra ballasting, but…

 

Kits are still valuable where they are the only way to procure locos not available from the ever expanding RTR biodiversity available.  Tbh, I can’t see the point of anyone building a Southeastern 94xx (for example) when producing a better model than the Bachmann is not a likely outcome and will cost you more.  Tony Wright reckons RTR pacifics on Little Bytham can’t handle the required 15 bogies at scale 90+ that his layout requires, and the extra heft of kitbuilds no doubt makes a difference here, but on my small BLT it is all a bit academic.  

[Hibelroad]

I have built and also failed to build a few white metal kits in the past, it’s rather a clunky material but does have its uses, DJH certainly produce some very fine castings in 7 mm kits which are made from an alloy similar to white metal. Etched brass is still the mainstay for kit building and I don’t see it being bettered any time soon. It’s true that it’s a bit compromised when laminated for motion parts or brake blocks, this is just the kit designer trying to produce a complete kit and such parts can be replaced with castings or home machined parts if desired. I have little experience of 3D printed parts but from what I have read they are far from a complete solution, the fact is that good models are constructed from several materials and each have their part to play when used  correctly. 

[ikcdab]

On 18/01/2024 at 09:01, burgundy said:

The issue with 3D printed locos is that, without significant amounts of lead inside, they will blow away in a stiff breeze. I also replace any bearing surfaces with brass and tend to build a complete, new, compensated chassis.

Time will tell how a 3D resin model survives, with chunks of ballast randomly scattered around inside it.

There are some examples in the thread on Mr Craven's engines.

Best wishes 

Eric 

May well be true, but it's the same for virtually all rtr models that are moulded in plastic.  You just need to add weight. Personally I think 3d printing is the way to go.

[ikcdab]

On 18/01/2024 at 21:12, The Johnster said:

The situation in the US may well be different, but here I would say that whitemetal loco kits are a busted flush, and only one manufacturer (Southeastern Models) is still in the game.  Whitemetal is not a good material for loco kits*, though it is easy to cast and work for the producers, and cheap.  Etched brass kits with resin preformed boiler units became popular in the 70s and 80s, but have had their day in the face of competition from an increasing range of high-quality low-price well detailed and good running locos from the RTR world. 

 

There are a few providers of etched brass foldup chassis kits, and these can be used to replace RTR mechs that have failed.  A problem is that some of them are designed for motors that are no longer obtainable that substitutes have not been produced for.  They are popular with those who convert RTR locos to EM or P4 gauges (as you probably know, the history of RTR provision in the UK is based on the early adoption of a compromised gauge/scale, 00, 16mm gauge 4mm/foot scale, a hangover from the days when motors could not be shoehorned into the smaller British bodyshells in H0 3.5mm/foot scale, and EM, eighteen millimetre, & P4, prototype scale 18.84mm with scale wheel and rail profiles, are remedial attempts to achieve better looking models and track, as is the niche British H0 scene), and are usually supplied with frame spacers to accommodate all three 4mm scales.  TTBOMK nobody is producing loco or chassis kits for British H0.

 

3D has some promise, but has been around a while and failed to live up to it yet.  It is a useful modelling tool for those who can afford a decent quality printer, but commercially is far too expensive and the quality is sometimes questionable.  At the root of the pricing issue is Shapeways, an organisation that seems to have been formed with the best intentions of creating a community of producers and customers to be put in touch with each other, but in Europe is based in Holland, with the result that, since the UK withdrew from the EU, means that 3D printed products, even those printed in the UK, are subject to import duty, pushing the prices up further.  A squiz through their online catalogue reveals an overburden of questionably realistic, poor quality generic, or improbable freelance models, and pointless duplication of items readily available at lower cost as current standard 'hi-fi' RTR, but which have to be fitted to a chassis, painted, detailed, and finished; can't see many people buying them!  3D can provide items for British H0, but does not seem to have resulted in any great increase in uptake of that genre.

 

3D may have a role in sourcing items not available by other means, but a well-detailed 3D coach bodyshell costs at least as much as a finished RTR coach to current standards of detail.  One would need such an item quite badly to buy the 3D bodyshell, which will need bogies, a chassis, underframe detail, a floor, internal detail, glazing, wheels, buffers, ballasting and drawgear, and couplings as well as painting and finishing; it is really a scrathbuild aid for a major project! 

 

 

*If I were choosing a material for a loco kit, I would avoid anything that conducted electricity and would want a material that was rigid without being thick, as it is best to leave as much room as possible in the body cavity for DCC chips, speakers, lighting, and ballast as is feasible.  Whitemetal ticks none of those boxes, will deform and sag under it's own weight over time, and is not amenable to the casting of sharply defined detail.  I'm also less than enthusiastic about it's lead content, although it is commendably heavy as ballast.  While we're on the subject, I'm not a fan of etched brass either; detail can be very good, but the thickness and rigidity of the material is inadequate.  Brass plate of about 0.5mm thickness is needed for anything structural, and this is relatively difficult to work with.

I think 3d printing is the way to go. For not much more than the cost of a couple of rtr locos you can have a really good resin setup.  Fusion360 is free for home use and is a very capable design package.  Once you have that then any models you want can be designed and printed at home. Certainly there is a learning curve, but also there is a curve when learning to build etched brass or whitemetal or scratchbuilding from brass. 

Sam's trains has a series when he learns to design and print stock and locos, starting from the simplest mickey-mouse stuff through to a fairly sophisticated LNWR loco. Well worth looking at.

A lot of railway modelling skills have changed, and if you can develop tech skills, it opens up a whole new range of things. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

I think 3d printing is the way to go. For not much more than the cost of a couple of rtr locos you can have a really good resin setup.  Fusion360 is free for home use and is a very capable design package.  Once you have that then any models you want can be designed and printed at home. Certainly there is a learning curve, but also there is a curve when learning to build etched brass or whitemetal or scratchbuilding from brass. 

Sam's trains has a series when he learns to design and print stock and locos, starting from the simplest mickey-mouse stuff through to a fairly sophisticated LNWR loco. Well worth looking at.

A lot of railway modelling skills have changed, and if you can develop tech skills, it opens up a whole new range of things. 

 

3D printing has some of the same drawbacks as white metal. It needs to be thicker than the prototype for adequate strength, which is evident on visible edges, leaves less clearance for wheelsets (especially in EM and P4), isn't suitable for some parts such as handrails, coupling rod, valve gear, etc.

 

It should be seen as another material to compliment existing proven items. So an etched chassis, etched or cast nickel silver valve gear components, plastic or metal moulded wheels with steel or n/s tyres, etc. remain more appropriate. 3D filament printing is quick and clean but doesn't always provide an acceptable surface finish. SLA resin provides much better detail and finish but is a relatively slow process and currently requires time cleaning up both the models and the workspace. 

 

3D printing is a great additional tool for the modeller, but it isn't the answer to everything.

[Steamport Southport]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I’m not trying to kill the hobby, honest, guv…

 

But it is a very different situation from that of the sixties and early 70s, when ‘serious’ layouts in magazines were stocked with locos almost entirely made from whitemetal kits; RTR was not even close to being good enough in terms of scale or detail.  K’s and Will’s (now Southeastern) were the main players, with Jamiesons (not the Irish Whisky)  being reckoned to be better quality but harder to build and more expensive.   
 

Kits of that era were nothing special when they are compared to current RTR.  Plenty turn up on the Bay, and are not bad, if they are well-built and finished, but rarely have any detail like brakes & rodding, pipework, springs,&c below the running plates.  Not many are claimed to be in running order and ‘spares or repair’ descriptions are common.  Some of the old Wills ‘Bodyline’ kits are designed for inappropriate chassis, the 94xx for the Triang ‘Jinty’ for example.  
 

There was a period in the 70s and 80s when better quality etched brass kits were

popular, but some features of these are less than desirable even compared to then concurrent RTR; components such as brake blocks and cab sides were too thin and flimsy, a problem I find with brass in general.  Better w/m in conjunction with brass or nickel silver fold up chassis became available; I had a Westward 64xx which could be made up as a 54xx or 74xx as well, and 64xx with either cab style, which was pretty successful.  It had good detail below the running plate, correct frame profile, and ran beautifully with, IIRC, an Anchorage motor, 40:1 Romford gearing in a foldup n/s gearbox, and Romford wheels.  But, compared with a Bachmann 64xx, not their most recent or best specified model, it wasn’t as well detailed, and had the motor sticking into the cab.  The Baccy doesn’t run quite as smoothly but is acceptable, and needs extra ballasting, but…

 

Kits are still valuable where they are the only way to procure locos not available from the ever expanding RTR biodiversity available.  Tbh, I can’t see the point of anyone building a Southeastern 94xx (for example) when producing a better model than the Bachmann is not a likely outcome and will cost you more.  Tony Wright reckons RTR pacifics on Little Bytham can’t handle the required 15 bogies at scale 90+ that his layout requires, and the extra heft of kitbuilds no doubt makes a difference here, but on my small BLT it is all a bit academic.  

 

Quote

I can’t see the point of anyone building a Southeastern 94xx (for example) when producing a better model than the Bachmann is not a likely outcome and will cost you more.

 

I hope there is as I've got three of the things!

 

Don't forget we aren't using old RTR chassis anymore they have excellent etched chassis. I don't think any current kit builders are plonking kit bodies on RTR chassis anymore. Totally pointless.

 

SEF already make an accurate 94XX chassis, as do High Level.

 

I also don't think they cost more. £90 for the 94XX kit with etched chassis ISTR. Gibson wheels £7.50 a pair and HL motor/gearbox (about £25 to £30) and you'll be less than current Bachmann RRP.

 

If you look for bargains on eBay like I did then the costs will be well cheaper than RRP.

 

 

Sorry, but it seems that your views of kits stem from experience of the 1970s!

 

Most kits have been redesigned or revamped since then. They don't have lumps of whitemetal or slabs of brass for chassis anymore, and K's wheels and motors that burn out after half an hour are well gone.

 

 

 

Jason

[Willie Whizz]

49 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

Don't forget we aren't using old RTR chassis anymore they have excellent etched chassis. I don't think any current kit builders are plonking kit bodies on RTR chassis anymore. Totally pointless.

 

For those of us lacking the confidence or unable to acquire the skills despite effort and practice to build good working loco chassis, the ability to use a RTR chassis that gave a plausible approximation to the ‘real thing’ (ie would look all right at the proverbial “two foot viewing distance” even if not quite passing close scrutiny at six inches by an expert on the prototype) would be a godsend, not pointless at all. 

I’m not advocating completely implausible arrangements like the ancient one you mention where the kit itself was deliberately compromised; but how many of us would honestly notice a millimetre or two in the wheel spacing or one less wheel spoke unless we “knew” already or had been alerted to look?

 

Unfortunately as the practice has almost died-out, as you say, there is little information available these days as to which such chassis are suitable to go under which kit bodies. 

[Jeff Smith]

I think we are discussing two overlapping groups of modellers here.  The RTR group just want loco X to run on the layout and are to some degree prepared to wait until someone produces it; kit building not being their interest.  There is a subset who are not prepared to wait and will build a kit, or have one built for them.  Then there are the people whose pleasure is largely generated by building kits or converting RTR models, or even building from scratch.....

[burgundy]

9 hours ago, ikcdab said:

May well be true, but it's the same for virtually all rtr models that are moulded in plastic.  You just need to add weight. Personally I think 3d printing is the way to go.

At the risk of elaborating on my previous point, 3D printing has a lot going for it, but still has some question marks and can still need quite a lot of work. 

Take the loco above as an example. The basic print is by @Killian keane, who has done all the design and printing and I am very grateful for a lovely piece of work.

 

The Pros - It is unlikely that Rapido, Hornby and Co will get round to some of Mr Craven's one offs for a very long time, so this is a very useful shortcut. It may even appeal to one or two modellers who simply want a pretty, generic, single driver tank engine. 

 

The Cons - It comes with a printed chassis, but can you really rely on resin as a material for bearings on a working model? At the very least, I would ream out the holes and use brass bearings. With a single driver, it is quite important to make sure that the driving axle is in firm contact with the rails, so I don't think that you can trust to a rigid chassis. Worst case, the designer may have produced a scale chassis, which does not quite match the available wheel diameters, so that the driving wheels spin gently in fresh air. You therefore end up throwing away the printed chassis and making a compensated one from brass.  Then, to give any reasonable adhesion, you need to pack lead in wherever possible - all the while trying to balance it up, so that the weight rests on the driving axle. Do we really know how stable the resin will be over any length of time and how it will react to lumps of lead, unevenly distributed around the body?

 

Having said all that, the print is a very tempting short cut, that has allowed me to produce a loco that would otherwise have had to be scratch built. It still took a lot of work and, as others have pointed out, the material has its limitations in requiring edges to be of reasonable thickness.

 

Would I go for other 3D prints of prototypes that I wanted? Probably.

Did it save time? Probably, but not as much as you might hope! 

Will it last as well as a metal loco? Time will tell. 

 

Best wishes 

Eric 

 

[The Johnster]

I think 3D has a great future in the hobby, especially for those who can afford and manage to successfully use decent quality printers.  Not just for large items like loco bodyshells but for smaller stuff like rail chairs that can be cheaply produced en masse even if the entire production run takes a long time; you can go away and do something else while the printer is running, but it's probably wise to do something else in the same room so that you can keep an eye on things...   There is of course a skillset to develop and a learning curve to climb; the skills needed to create models are indeed changing.

 

But the method has IMHO largely failed so far to live up to it's initial promise.  There was talk about a community of designers sharing their product online for people to print out at home, which has happened but not to a massive extent.  There is no quality control, by which I mean that a trawl through Shapeways' website will reveal some dreadful (from a modellers pov) items which are much on a par with the sort of thing Hornby produce for starter sets, Smokey Joe and his pals, which are to be fair not really intended for use by serious modellers but you have to wade through a lot of this stuff to find good models. 

 

Taking as an example, and in the realm of good quality models, Rue D'Etropal of this very site as ever is markets some great stuff through SW.  This is to my mind exactly what the format can excel at, odd prototypes that will likely never be available from RTR or kit manufacturers.  There is a large range of coaching stock, first and second generation dmus and emus, some GW auto trailers and Steam Railmotors, and attention paid to obscure light railways and Bermuda Railways.  Who models Bermuda Railways?  Well, even if there are only a handful of people worldwide, they can access stuff here!  Garstang & Knott End?  North Sunderland?  Fill yer boots!

 

But it isn't cheap.  I'm fairly certain Simon isn't cruising the Med on his motor yacht on the proceeds, and is charging fair prices, but even producing for yourself on your own printer costs time which must be priced realistically; it costs what it costs.  For example, he does a GW Diagram U auto-trailer, which as the 1/76ths option costs £59 in vinyl or £72 in 'versatile plastic', which is presumbably the better option in terms of strength and detail definition.  To compare, I've pre-ordered a 4mm Dapol Diagram N from Rails, on offer at £68, so the same sort of ball park.  But the Dapol N will be a finished model, which I can take out of it's box and run on the layout (I won't, it'll get at least a wash of weathering to take the new off first), while Simon's is a bare bodyshell.  The ventilators, panelling and bolection mouldings are printed in, as is a bell and the bufferbeams with buffers, but it's a scratch aid.  To build a Diagram U based on it would need a floor, interior, cab fittings, glazing, bogies, an underframe, wheels, and couplings, some of which involves scratch building.  I'd want to replace the printed bell with a retrofit as well.  Costing in your modelling time, and the paint & transfers, I'd say you are looking at around £150 to finish the thing to layout running standard.

 

I've some 3D printed items on Cwmdimbath, and am fairly satisfied with some of them,  Bogies from Stafford Road Works, who also sell through SW, various small detail bits & bobs, and a Cordon, can't offhand recall where from but it was a CKD type kit.  Finish is not brilliant on the Stafford Road stuff but bogie crud hides a multitude of sin and they run perfectly (not to mention being available with NEM pockets).  The Cordon is 'ok as a layout model', but does not really stand close inspection, print lines being visible.   

 

My current view is that, given a choice between current-standard RTR and a 3D print, it's RTR by an Irish mile.  Even given a choice between a kit and a 3D print, it's at least an Irish half-mile.  But my policy is that if I want a model that is only available in scratch-aid 3D print form, that's the way I'll go, irrespective of cost.  Ultimately I'll even scratch-build, and am considering this for a gangwayed pair of TVR auto-trailers. The answer might be to obtain a printer and do my own stuff, but I'd be very much at the bottom of the learning curve and realistically cannot afford a printed that would produce stuff of a satisfactory standard.  I would be very nervous about committing money to a secondhand printer! 

 

When domestic 3D printers were first introduced, ISTR that it was suggested that they would be available for use in public libraries or stationers suppliers at a small cost, much like paper printers are.  That idea seems to have been quietly abandoned, which is a pity!  Perhaps clubs could buy them for members' use; that would persuade me back into the club world...

Edited January 28 by The Johnster