Nu Cast kits

[Jol Wilkinson]

Most of this thread misses the point. The fact is that those of us who still build 4mm loco kits do it because they enjoy it. A good kit, to me, is one that I have enjoyed building be it whitemetal, brass, or kryptonite. Good instructions are 50% of the joy!

 

 

I think that hits the mark almost exactly (apart from when someone pays me to build a kit, and I just have to hope and pray that it's actually buildable!)

 

The Iain Rice philosophy - that one should 'build a model of such-and-such a locomotive using a Bloggs kit' rather than 'build a Bloggs kit of such-and-such a locomotive - seems to me to be spot on too.

 

The original posting said "Does anyone know who now manufactures the old K's/Nu Cast range of whitemetal kits? I need to get a safety valve cover for a LNER J72 and also some cab and backhead details, I think Nu Cast used to make one."

 

The thread developed into debate about the benefits of whitemetal against etched kits, etc.

 

I build kits to provide the period correct stock for a particular layout. If they go together easily, it's a bonus. After 40 years of kit building (and hopefully learning how to do it better with each one) I've found those materials and techniques that work better for me. Larry (Coachman) doesn't like assembling fireboxes from seperate parts, I don't like filling and filing whitemetal components to get a circular boiler.

 

John's (Metropolitan) reference to instructions raises an interesting point. What allowance should the designer/manufacturer make for the skill and expertise of the builder. Iain Rice's philosophy (referred to by John H) would require some knowledge of the prototype (and it's variants) that you are modelling, unless the instructions include all the historical data the instruction writer can lay his hands on. So how far does the kit go in including options you may not need and how far should the instructions go?

 

Some of the comments made throughout this thread would lead you to believe that the majority of kits aren't easy to build, don't use appropriate materials, etc. I think that is quite wrong, although there are still some "lemons" being sold. Regrettably, these are often cheaper and too often promoted by modellers as a good introduction to the pleasure of model making from kits, with disastrous results.

 

Jol

[Kenton]

The high cost of these kits [and of Markits wheels] has been mentioned, I rather suspect this is because with so few of us kit building the production costs have to be recovered on very low sales volumes.

 

I don't see this as a reason for the high variation in prices and quality for kits.

 

Low price does not equate to poor quality and certainly not proportionate.

 

I can think of at least two brass loco kit manufacturers who produces excellent kits with above average instructions where the kits are certainly cheap by comparison (I would prefer to say they are excellent value for money) Then there are others that that are also very good kits but seem comparatively expensive and even to the point of asking just what are you actually paying for. Then there other kits that are merely an expensive source of scrap brass and others for which the title "kit" really stretches the imagination.

 

I always think the sad thing is that there are many kits purchased, started and then given up by disillusioned modelers simply because the kit is so poor.

 

But for me it is the pleasure of building a kit that is probably the most important thing which probably explains why it must be at least 3 years since I last built a white metal monstrosity even though I know I have a dozen or so unbuilt still in the loft, I can always find a good etched kit to spend my time and money on.

[Metropolitan]

 

John's (Metropolitan) reference to instructions raises an interesting point. What allowance should the designer/manufacturer make for the skill and expertise of the builder. Iain Rice's philosophy (referred to by John H) would require some knowledge of the prototype (and it's variants) that you are modelling, unless the instructions include all the historical data the instruction writer can lay his hands on. So how far does the kit go in including options you may not need and how far should the instructions go?

 

 

Jol

 

IMHO if the loco kit market is to survive then manufacturers must cater only for amateur modellers of average skill. Not professional master craftsmen. That includes providing sufficient prototype info in the instructions to enable the builder to go about building his model without the need to buy a further £50 worth of books as is often suggested.

 

It is the fault of the so called 'professional builders', who have usurped this side of the hobby (and this forum) for many years by making out that it is a black art of incomparable difficulty, that loco kit building is in decline. Building a kit loco is easy as long as you are prepared for the result to be commensurate with your skill. So often we read that lcomotives must be built to a very high professional standard to be worthy. To me, the pleasure of building and sense of achievement is enough. Long may Nu-Cast kits continue to be produced even if the boilers do need a bit of filing down and my engines aren't tip top. I like 'em!

[Horsetan]

Jol

 

IMHO if the loco kit market is to survive then manufacturers must cater only for amateur modellers of average skill. Not professional master craftsmen.

 

So you presumably mean the likes of PDK kits are acceptable, and the likes of Brassmasters/Finney/ Mitchell were in fact wasting their time by pushing standards higher?

 

That includes providing sufficient prototype info in the instructions to enable the builder to go about building his model without the need to buy a further £50 worth of books as is often suggested.

 

PDK....oh, wait...no prototype info in their kits.... Oh dear.

 

It is the fault of the so called 'professional builders', who have usurped this side of the hobby (and this forum) for many years by making out that it is a black art of incomparable difficulty, that loco kit building is in decline.

 

Is it? I hardly noticed. With your incredible speed and rate of turnout, could you also be deemed a professional builder?

 

.....Long may Nu-Cast kits continue to be produced even if the boilers do need a bit of filing down and my engines aren't tip top. I like 'em!

 

That's fair enough....if you can find them!

[Kenton]

Careful chaps - we are nearly into the old Finescale argument here

 

John is right in part - the straightforward kits are perfect for the new to kit building and those perfectly content without all the super detailing that CAN be added with the likes of Finney/JLTRT/Mitchell and others. But there will be plenty who are capable of and desire more - that doesn't necessarily make them "professional" or even semi-pro.

 

But I have to agree that the lack of prototype info and often the amount of additional and often time consuming research that need to be undertaken, over and over again, by kit builders along with the pitiful instructions supplied still make many kits only really suitable for the experienced and some defy the description "kit" and should only be referred to as little more than scratch aids.

[mikemeg]

Jol

 

IMHO if the loco kit market is to survive then manufacturers must cater only for amateur modellers of average skill. Not professional master craftsmen. That includes providing sufficient prototype info in the instructions to enable the builder to go about building his model without the need to buy a further £50 worth of books as is often suggested.

 

It is the fault of the so called 'professional builders', who have usurped this side of the hobby (and this forum) for many years by making out that it is a black art of incomparable difficulty, that loco kit building is in decline. Building a kit loco is easy as long as you are prepared for the result to be commensurate with your skill. So often we read that lcomotives must be built to a very high professional standard to be worthy. To me, the pleasure of building and sense of achievement is enough. Long may Nu-Cast kits continue to be produced even if the boilers do need a bit of filing down and my engines aren't tip top. I like 'em!

 

I think this posting, though some of what is said may be valid, is a little too dogmatic. Sure if loco kit manufacturers are to sell their products in large enough quantity, then those kits should be capable of being built by modellers of average skill, though that poses the question 'what is average skill'.

 

In my limited experience, there are kits available for all levels of skill and I certainly would not denegrate the white metal kits, which are probably easier to build than etched kits. Equally, most of the more recent kits which I have built have included very detailed prototype information. Earlier kits may not have that detailed prototype data, so perhaps those manufacturers need to update their instruction sets.

 

Etched kits would not have been developed and produced if there were not a sizable body of model makers prepared to take on their building. Just as the r-t-r manufacturers have improved their products immeasurably, over the years, so the loco kit manufacturers have done the same. They had to in order to match the enormous improvements in the r-t-r offerings.

 

Speaking personally, I find enormous inspiration from the so called 'professional model builders' and, generally, they are prepared to pass on the benefit of their skill and experience and most of these folk will openly admit that they were not born with those skills; they acquired them through trial and error and through perseverence. It comes down to 'what does one aspire to?' and how much is one prepared to learn, to try and even to fail, before a standard which is personally acceptable, is reached.

 

So instead of spending £50 or more quid on books on the chosen prototype(s), spend a tenner on one of the many books on loco kit building, practice the techniques and you'll find, almost by magic, that your models are significantly better.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[jwealleans]

Can I just point out that no-one needs to spend £50 researching their chosen model.? Even in these austere times we still have the benefit of an outstanding Library service. It's never let me down.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Jol

 

IMHO if the loco kit market is to survive then manufacturers must cater only for amateur modellers of average skill. Not professional master craftsmen. That includes providing sufficient prototype info in the instructions to enable the builder to go about building his model without the need to buy a further £50 worth of books as is often suggested.

 

It is the fault of the so called 'professional builders', who have usurped this side of the hobby (and this forum) for many years by making out that it is a black art of incomparable difficulty, that loco kit building is in decline. Building a kit loco is easy as long as you are prepared for the result to be commensurate with your skill. So often we read that lcomotives must be built to a very high professional standard to be worthy. To me, the pleasure of building and sense of achievement is enough. Long may Nu-Cast kits continue to be produced even if the boilers do need a bit of filing down and my engines aren't tip top. I like 'em!

 

John,

 

the difficutly here is to define what average modellers and average skills are. Unless you can do that, then I can't tell what I have to take into consideration when designing a kit or writing the instructions. Should I say "solder A to B" or do I have to describe how to clean A and B with GF brush, how to apply the flux, where to put the tip of the iron, etc.? I am not trying to be clever in saying this, but simply to illustrate the difficulty in deciding how much information to provide.

 

Suggesting that the kit makers all dumb down their kits to the level of this indefinable "average" individual could be considered comparable to proposing that we should all go back to the RTR standards of the 60's.

 

With regard to prototype information, the same applies. Lists of loco numbers and names, build and scrapping dates, etc. look impressive, but don't give the detailed "variant" information that is what really enables you to build a model of a particular prototype. I see nothing wrong in suggesting that the builder should consider having access to books, photos and articles describing the model he is building. After all, we are making models of real things, so information about the prototype, be it a loco, a carriage, a building, etc. should be just another part of out tool kit.

 

Writing instructions is time consuming, thankless and a good example of the 80/20 rule. The longer you spend on it, the higher the price of the kit. Finding the correct balance is the difficult bit.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

.....I've never read on here in any of its versions that a loco must be built to a particular standard to be worthy, perhaps Metro could provide us a link to such a thread....

 

What about his own?

[John_Hughes]

An interesting thread, though I suspect the mods have their eyes on some of the comments made!

 

At the end of the day there are very few kits that literally can't be made up at all, though there are certainly quite a few that are much closer to 'scratch-aids' than kits - and, provided that the buyer knows what they're getting, that's fair enough surely.

 

When I was a lad I built tons of loco kits and was immensely proud of what I'd done, and they let me have a far bigger stud than I could otherwise have had. But by my standards of today they were pretty poor stuff, as both my skills and my standards (and my knowledge!) have improved. Some of them are still around in a drawer somewhere....

 

To anyone contemplating building their first kit - be it whitemetal or etched - just give it a go, preferably after reading one of the very useful general books on the subject; Iain Rice has useful books on both kinds of kit, and I've certainly learned a few dodges from him over the years.

 

Take your time, enjoy what you're doing, and if (when!) you get stuck then ask for help on here, where there's tons of good and impartial advice freely available. And finally post some pictures of the finished model here so that we can properly congratulate you on a job well done! And that way you'll inspire someone else to have a go as well!

[Metropolitan]

John,

 

the difficulty here is to define what average modellers and average skills are. Unless you can do that, then I can't tell what I have to take into consideration when designing a kit or writing the instructions. Should I say "solder A to B" or do I have to describe how to clean A and B with GF brush, how to apply the flux, where to put the tip of the iron, etc.? I am not trying to be clever in saying this, but simply to illustrate the difficulty in deciding how much information to provide.

 

Suggesting that the kit makers all dumb down their kits to the level of this indefinable "average" individual could be considered comparable to proposing that we should all go back to the RTR standards of the 60's.

 

With regard to prototype information, the same applies. Lists of loco numbers and names, build and scrapping dates, etc. look impressive, but don't give the detailed "variant" information that is what really enables you to build a model of a particular prototype. I see nothing wrong in suggesting that the builder should consider having access to books, photos and articles describing the model he is building. After all, we are making models of real things, so information about the prototype, be it a loco, a carriage, a building, etc. should be just another part of out tool kit.

 

Writing instructions is time consuming, thankless and a good example of the 80/20 rule. The longer you spend on it, the higher the price of the kit. Finding the correct balance is the difficult bit.

 

Jol

 

 

 

Hi Jol

 

I suppose it's really down to how many kits you want to sell. The more information and drawings you pack into the intructions and the easier the kit is to build the more it is likely to appeal to beginners and those who build just for pleasure? Thus the greater the market and lower price?

 

It seems to me that kit manufacturers have just thrown in the towel and expect their new kits to only be bought only by pros and top modellers who need no more than an exploded diagram to build it. New kits sell in their tens rather than hundreds. I know folk who have bought kits, opened the box, looked in horror at the contents and phoned the nearest pro to build it for them!! In fact, if they had taken the plunge, they would find it simple enough and pleasurable. And 'pleasure' is the important word. A few pages of photocopied A4 stapled together in one corner just aint good enough in this day and age. A nicely printed colour booklet with plenty of prototype info and photo's would make all the difference. I accept it would add cost but I'd bet a pound it would increase sales of the kit!

 

I would like to see much more emphasis placed by manufacturers on encouraging more people of average skill to take up kit building on the basis that it is actually fun. The push for greater detail and ever harder construction has done no good to the industry at all. I do not believe that the decline is just down to the high quality of modern RTR. It is down to the failure of the industry to develop their market and their pandering to the so called professional or top builders who rely on the present dull status quo for their trade.

 

Better, brighter packaging and full, well illustrated instructions would be a start. Inovation would be better! Just go into your local model aeroplane/boat shop and you will see what I mean.

 

PS. Why don't Model Shops sell loco kits anymore?

 

Cheers

[micklner]

Perhaps the problem is that not that many people actually make models these days ?? The world has been taken over by computer games etc and most people are not willing to spend the time or the money on modelling. RTR are expensive to most and kits if you add up the cost are very scary to most people!!

I am at a loss re the comments re proffesional builders on here. Judging from most of the threads on here there arent that many making locos either. The only ones I have seen are two?? There arent that many on the internet either which probably explains the waiting times being quoted by them??

[mikemeg]

Hi Jol

 

I suppose it's really down to how many kits you want to sell. The more information and drawings you pack into the intructions and the easier the kit is to build the more it is likely to appeal to beginners and those who build just for pleasure? Thus the greater the market and lower price?

 

It seems to me that kit manufacturers have just thrown in the towel and expect their new kits to only be bought only by pros and top modellers. New kits sell in their tens rather than hundreds. I know folk who have bought kits, opened the box, looked in horror at the contents and phoned the nearest pro to build it for them!! In fact, if they had taken the plunge, they would find it simple enough and pleasurable. And 'pleasure' is the important word.

 

I would like to see much more emphasis placed by manufacturers on encouraging more people of average skill to take up kit building. The push for greater detail and ever harder construction has done no good to the industry at all. I do not believe that the decline is just down to the high quality of modern RTR. Is is down to the failure of the industry to develop their market and their pandering to the so called professional or top builders who rely on the present dull status quo for their trade.

 

Better, brighter packaging and full, well illustrated instructions would be a start. Just go into your local model aeroplane/boat shop and you will see what I mean.

 

Cheers

 

John,

 

I know you addressed this posting to Jol but as someone who builds kits purely for pleasure then I find some of the above contradictory.

 

Firstly, the range of excellent r-t-r models now covers a far greater and ever expanding number of prototypes than ever before. I wonder how many folk will kit build a Peppercorn A1 or A2, with the wonderful Bachmann models available, even if they have to re-wheel or even build a new chassis for EM or P4. Even the old Bachmann B1 is still the best model of a B1 available. So, increasingly, the kit manufacturers must offer those prototypes not covered by the r-t-r suppliers which, inevitably, means offering the less well known and less prestgious prototypes.

 

Secondly there is a more recently created market, between r-t-r and kit or scratch build; the detailing and conversion kits which allow the excellent r-t-r models to be made even better. David Bradwell, Brassmasters, Comet, etc. provide such conversion kits for a host of prototypes. And, these kits offer the opportunity to practice and learn some of the techniques necessary without affecting the quality of the original model.

 

Thirdly building any white metal kit or etched kit from any of the suppliers largely involves the same techniques and skill sets. There are a large number of 'how to do it' books available which cover the basic techniques irrespective of whose kit is being built and these books can be had for a tenner or less. Choose the right book and that should be all that anyone needs to reach a reasonable level of proficiency - Iain Rice, Tim Shackleton or, if you really want to 'reach for the top' the inimitable Guy Williams.

 

Fourthly you refer, constantly, to the 'professional' and 'top' model builders for whom, you believe, an increasing number of kits are being targetted. These folk are few in number and build a huge variety of prototypes. Their numbers and variety of output simply wouldn't constitute a viable market, if that is the sole target of the suppliers.

 

Of course the kit manufacturers must continue to improve the level of detail and accuracy if they are to survive and stand comparison with the best of the r-t-r suppliers. Try building one of the old Jamieson kits, they were as challenging as any of the current range of kits; more challenging than most yet they were far less detailed.

 

I wonder how many modellers buy loco kits on impulse, lured by the brightly coloured packaging, and in the mistaken belief that with a couple of evenings work they can produce a working loco - answers on a postcard. Most modellers know or can very easily ascertain the level of expertise needed to build a loco kit and should then be able to make the decision as to whether or not they can do it.

 

Acquiring the skill set to do this isn't difficult but it does require an acknowledgement that there are skills, both practical and in terms of accuracy, which are essential prerequisites to doing it. One could equally say that we should all be able to paint pictures or play musical instruments simply by buying a seductively packaged box of paints or trombone.

 

There is an apocryphal story about Jack Nicklaus, the golfer. During an interview, when he was at the height of his career, he was asked what it was that that allowed him to be so 'lucky' in winning majors. His answer, probably misquoted here was 'Practice. You know the more I practice, the luckier I get!'

 

Apologies for the intervention and I am sure Jol will have more to offer.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Metropolitan]

John,

 

.

 

Firstly, the range of excellent r-t-r models now covers a far greater and ever expanding number of prototypes than ever before. I wonder how many folk will kit build a Peppercorn A1 or A2, with the wonderful Bachmann models available, even if they have to re-wheel or even build a new chassis for EM or P4. Even the old Bachmann B1 is still the best model of a B1 available. So, increasingly, the kit manufacturers must offer those prototypes not covered by the r-t-r suppliers which, inevitably, means offering the less well known and less prestgious prototypes.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

(This thread seems to be off course so apologies to the OP! It's an interesting discussion though..)

 

I counter your argument by saying that if whole layouts were available, factory built and high quality off the shelf, what would be the point of building anything at all??

 

The point of building a loco to me , as mentioned above, is purely for the pleasure of building a working model loco. Just as folk, presumably, get pleasure from building their own layout without feeling the need to engage a professional layout builder. All I need to do it is a small table, a few hand tools and my radio! I am sure there are very many more people who would enjoy it too if only they could be persuaded to try. My suggestions above are intended as ideas on how this can be accomplished. I worry that the decline is terminal and that in a few years time my simple pastime will have disappeared through apathy, lousy presentation and overcomplication!! Take, for instance, the nonsense of compensating an 00/EM chassis. There is simply no need. In fact I would go as far as to say that a well built rigid chassis runs better! But most modern kit instructions imply that you are sadly lacking if you opt for a rigid chassis and encourage you to fiddle with beams, springs and goodness knows what!!

 

Regards

 

PS: My daughter works in Marketing and Design with a top London firm. When I show her an unbuilt loco kit she simply just cannot understand the lack of proper modern presentation. When I say to her that the kitmakers can't afford to do more because they will only sell a few kits her answer is "No wonder!" The point being that while an old codger like me is quite happy with the way things are quite obviously others aren't because kits don't sell well. There must be a reason.

[mikemeg]

John,

 

I won't prolong this debate but will add one final comment. Your opinions are your opinions and, as such, I respect them. This modelling is a broad chuch and covers all level of skills and abilities.

 

I can only speak personally but I derive immense pleasure from building things; more pleasure than I derive from actually running or operating them. I also derive immense pleasure from the constant pursuit of improvement - the next model must be better than the last. I don't know whether I am a below average, average or above average modeller; others will determine that.

 

When I set out to build the signal models, I had never made one before, so I bought a book or two, written by the best there is. This set the objective, for me, of producing signal models at least as good as and ideally better than anything I had so far seen. Only others can judge whether that was achieved. The pleasure was in that relentless pursuit; it still is.

 

Now I am concentrating on locomotives and have seen some of the output of the 'professionals' and 'top modellers'. That is the target. So how do they do it, what do they do, how do they approach it, what tools do I need commensurate with not having or wanting a lathe or a workshop but on my kitchen table, same as you. So begins another pursuit.

 

So it's not really about skill or ability but more about aspiration, determination and perseverence.

 

Would I commission someone else to build Hessle Haven if I could and could afford to? No but I would seek to make it as well as the professional who I might commission. But then that is my nature and we are all different.

 

You mention compensation or springing of chassis' on model locos and I remember reading that Guy Williams, who was no mean model loco builder, fought shy of such elaboration. Can't most kits still be built using top hat bearings soldered directly into the mainframes omitting the springing or compensation, if that is the builder's preference? Surely this is an example of the kit designers and manufacturers catering for the differing levels of skill and ability.

 

From my experience of building locos for 'OO' though I haven't done it for many years, I'd agree with you about rigid chassis', especially as none of the r-t-r suppliers have seen the necessity. Building for EM and especially P4 with their much slimmer wheels and finer flanges is a different proposition unless one can build perfect track. It is the adoption of these gauges which has prompted the kit suppliers to supply springing and compensating arrangements to increase the market appeal of their products, rather than any desire to add complication for complication's sake.

 

This RMweb is a wonderful facility and one we all value but there is no reason why the debates should always remain 'benign'. Just as long as no one forgets that this is a hobby and we should remain respectful of every view.

 

So thanks for your time; best of luck with your modelling.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Kenton]

Writing instructions is time consuming, thankless and a good example of the 80/20 rule. The longer you spend on it, the higher the price of the kit. Finding the correct balance is the difficult bit.

I have a constant beef about instructions and often find myself refering to this as a problem with kits.

 

Time consuming I would agree. But I disagree strongly with the notion that good instructions result in an expensive kit. I coul name a number fo kits where the instructions are near complete though not necessarily beyond improvement yet the cost of the loco kit is relatively cheap. I could also name a few where the kit is basically very good yet the instructions assume considerable knowledge of the prototype and and experience in kit building - neither of which is provided in the kit.

 

You are correct in saying that the correct balance is very difficult.

 

I sometimes cannot see the point of explaining how to clean up a part or a description of how to solder - this really has no place in the instructions of a particular kit unless it is different than the general basic knowledge of all kit building.

 

However an instruction that says something like solder the xyz valve to the leading edge of the back qwe whotsit is total gobbledegook unless you have intimate knowledge of what that part looks like and how it is positioned on the prototype. A diagram and simple part numbering can make life easier and make the kit into a really good kit. The additional information that the same part is only provided for locos numbered 123-456 in the series and with those built after 1920 also provides the kit builder with the basic information required.

 

It does not cost more to provide this because the kit designer had to establish this research before providing the part in the first place.

 

I accept that some kit designers do not have the artistic skills to produce good drawings but this should not be a reason for their omission especially these days where every kit should be a product CAD and the annotated drawing is a simple step forward.

 

If the instructions are to verbose then it is easy for the experienced kit builder to ignore them. Some kits that I have built several times over I ignore completely as I can remember all the tricks and foibles of that kit - but first time through, often with an unfamiliar kit and unfamiliar prototype all I need needs to be in that box - I do not want a delay while I wait or have to research something I may have little interest in.

 

Of course these days there is nearly no excuse for not photographing the test build (or sending a sample for a "semi-pro" build) and then publishing that complete instructions on the web or better still in a forum where future builders can add to and compare notes ... And I don't mean just a photo of the contents followed by the completed model.

 

 

The big problem I have in being critical of NuCast kits and their like is that it is all to easy to forget just how old they are. It is simply daft to make the comparison with a kit developed or reworked in today's market. The technology has changed. NuCast et al were state of the art in their day, but these days they are old and tired in every sense. Kit builders have moved on in their expectations even some of us who used to happily build these beasts because they were good for the time or the only show on the road. These days I would have to be desperate, there are just plenty of well designed modern kits out there to keep me busy.

[bertiedog]

There appears to be an element of 'chip on shoulder' about pro builders, however, that is your opinion and is respected as such.

 

The market pandering to the "so-called professional" (your words) is the ammusing part. If only!!! We had to make do with what was in the box........ Producers didnt differenciate between customers!

 

I had the job of assembling all the K's kits for a continental collector, who insisted that all the original K's parts were used, wobbly gears, wobbly steel tyred wheels, bent frames, all these had to be corrected from the parts. They did run, but would have been better with a gearbox, Pittman motor, and lathe turned Hamblings wheels. A typical build would be the Kirtley 060 outside framed, which could be got running with the parts, but if I had my way they were built with the original chassis parts,(corrected), a tender mounted motor on rubber mountings, 7pole ball raced with flywheel, drive shaft under footplate with 2:1 gears, a solid boiler, with an under-slung gearbox in the firebox. The bottom of the frames had a cover added to keep dust out.

 

All cast strip and cast edge detail would be removed, like boiler bands etc and replaced with brass strip, also the footplate edges with brass or nickel strip. A brass backhead would be knocked up, with as many details as the customer would pay for!

 

All piping replaced with copper wire, brass wire for backhead as appropriate. Full brake gear on the loco and tender, with correct feed pipes in flexible plastic between the loco and tender. Brass lamp brackets and lamps, and a brass dome and chimney, with brass safety valves.

 

An etched surface, (home produced), working fall plate would be fitted, and sprung buffers fitted, with scale screw link couplings. The etched plate was made with a bow pen with enamel paint, ruling a cross hatched pattern and popped in ferric chloride, result......instant chequer plate. Same method for "wood" floors for footplates.

 

Brass name and number plates....hand lettering or Letraset, again etch in ferric chloride, I rarely bought plates, as the ones needed were not made more often than not, or not in production.

 

The wheels would be Hamblings, with stainless steel tyres, lathe turned on the axles, but in fact if the press was used you could get good results anyway.

 

The cranks would be filed from scrap, and new split rods fitted to correct thickness, early K's rods were stamped, and later thin etched, neither correct.

 

Little of this could not be done at home to super detail the kit, and get decent running. most were sprung as well, as I always found it was better, although the weight of a cast kits overcomes some of the un-sprung problems.

 

I rarely fitted pickups, especially on tender locos, tanks had split frames, using simple perspex or tufnol frame spacers, and split axles. Split frame gives totally trouble free running, but not the way that Bachmann and the Chinese makers do it.

 

So the kit was treated as a source of parts, with additions up to museum standard, which a well assembled K's cast kit could easily achieve.

 

Instructions on all kits are still a bit suspect, people should check with Airfix type instructions, succinct, and accurate in the old days. I don't think it was always safe to supply "prototype details", it would have given the game away that kit makers had very little to go on at times. I have seen cast kits made entirely from details in the MRN drawings, nothing more!

 

A poorly made kit will always be just that, poor and totally non satisfying to the owner, and any pro-assembler would, and did, help out with problems customer had, K' in particular were good at demonstrations at the MRC shows.

 

A lurch occurred with kits as Stabilit fast epoxy and IS Superglue became available in the late 1960's, it caused ruptions with cast kits, that were never intended to be assembled with anything but solder. I spent hours stripping customers efforts with glues and correcting the mess caused. In fact, of course, I was using the glues myself for fine details!!

[Penlan]

...and sometimes I feel the kit designer hasn't had an innocent third party build their kit before putting it on the market, reporting back any problems.

 

It's easy to build a kit you've designed yourself (or it should be), but then you know all the bits etc.,

 

This comment isn't directed at anybody on here, just 50+ years of building kits, especially in the early etched era.

[mikemeg]

Hi Mike

 

(This thread seems to be off course so apologies to the OP!

 

Regards

 

No, I'll really take issue with you here. This thread has provoked some really interesting and useful discussion; not least from some of the professional model builders and suppliers. That can't be bad!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[mikemeg]

Perhaps not directly pertinent to Nu-Cast kits but touching on the issue of skills and ability, the following may be of interest.

 

About three years ago, when I lived in a town in Hertfordshire, not far from the WCML, I decided to buy a new soldering iron. The one I had, which was about as good at soldering as I was - cr--p - was on its last bit and was due to go to the scrapyard. So where to buy a new one?

 

Now in our town we had one of those wonderful old hardware shops - not a DIY shop - which sold everything, including soldering irons. One of the proprietors of this emporium was an old Yorkshireman, the living embodiment of Arkwright of 'Open All Hours' - brown coat, collar and tie and shiny brown boots - whose bounden duty, over the many years of his proprietorship of this establishment, was to 'delight (or perhaps defeat) the customer', this in his own fashion.

 

So, eager to patronise the local business, rather than troll off to B&Q or one of the other suppliers, I sought out a suitable new soldering iron in the display in the shop. And they had one; variable temperature, a variety of different sized bits all in the one package.

 

I approached said proprietor with the broad indication that I was after a soldering iron.

 

'Does tha know owt much abaht solderin' he politely enquired.

 

'Well not a lot,' I replied.

 

'So tha'll need somethin basic, then,' he offered by way of sales advice, anxious to talk down the value of the transaction.

 

'Well I was thinking of something a little more sophisticated - variable temperature, assortment of bits' I replied, anxious to further qualify the requirement and even talk up the transaction value.

 

'Won't this one fit that bill?' I asked.

 

'Aye, it might' he replied as he moved and manoeuvered to close the sale.

 

'But it'll be wasted on thee.' he added as he rescued defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

There you go. I bought it, I still have it, I'm still trying to aspire to its capabilities.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Horsetan]

^^

Tring?

[mikemeg]

^^

Tring?

 

You're close, very close!

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hi Jol

 

I suppose it's really down to how many kits you want to sell. The more information and drawings you pack into the intructions and the easier the kit is to build the more it is likely to appeal to beginners and those who build just for pleasure? Thus the greater the market and lower price?

 

It seems to me that kit manufacturers have just thrown in the towel and expect their new kits to only be bought only by pros and top modellers who need no more than an exploded diagram to build it. New kits sell in their tens rather than hundreds. I know folk who have bought kits, opened the box, looked in horror at the contents and phoned the nearest pro to build it for them!! In fact, if they had taken the plunge, they would find it simple enough and pleasurable. And 'pleasure' is the important word. A few pages of photocopied A4 stapled together in one corner just aint good enough in this day and age. A nicely printed colour booklet with plenty of prototype info and photo's would make all the difference. I accept it would add cost but I'd bet a pound it would increase sales of the kit!

 

I would like to see much more emphasis placed by manufacturers on encouraging more people of average skill to take up kit building on the basis that it is actually fun. The push for greater detail and ever harder construction has done no good to the industry at all. I do not believe that the decline is just down to the high quality of modern RTR. It is down to the failure of the industry to develop their market and their pandering to the so called professional or top builders who rely on the present dull status quo for their trade.

 

Better, brighter packaging and full, well illustrated instructions would be a start. Inovation would be better! Just go into your local model aeroplane/boat shop and you will see what I mean.

 

PS. Why don't Model Shops sell loco kits anymore?

 

Cheers

 

 

John,

 

the kit "market" doesn't behave like most market models (please excuse the pun) in my experience. It’s certainly not like the RTR market where people rush out to buy the latest release in its shiny box (you have only to look at the frothing that goes on in some RMWeb forums to appreciate this).

 

Most model makers have a specific interest in a prototype railway, period, location or w.h.y. So they are unlikely to buy a kit unless it fits into their particular requirements. Model boat and aircraft models, especially the R/C enthusiast, are less likely to have such specific interests, so the packaging does have a greater impact. So, in the model railway market, frankly it doesn't matter how glossy the box is, how wonderfully presented the instructions are, impulse purchases are likely to be very small volume.

 

You seem to have a particular dislike of the development in kit design that's happened over the last twenty years or so. On the one hand you accuse the manufacturers of failing to understand their market, and think that they are only interested in developing kits for a talented few. However, others have criticised the quality (not the complexity) of many of the kits on the market today.

 

You ask why model shops don’t sell kits these days. What would they stock? There are probably well in excess of 300 4mm loco kits alone kits available (no doubt someone will provide a more definitive number). Even in their heyday (the 60’s and 70’s) the good model shops could only carry a small selection of what was then available. In 4mm, the quality of the latest releases and the discount wars between the large mail order and online retailers has created a low price environment in which the kit manufacturer has to operate (it doesn’t appear to apply to the same degree in 7mm).

 

Most kit manufacturers are small businesses, run by retired modellers or on a part time basis. Some, like SEF or DJH are the exception to this, but they are still not large companies. They don’t have the resources to develop the market as you seem to think they should. There is nothing in the UK like the NMRA to provide guidance on standards or promote the hobby centrally. In 4mm the EMGS and S4 Society have to adopt that role and there is a limit to what they can do.

 

So, before you criticise the kit manufacturers for what they do – or do not do – take some time to understand the environment in which they operate and take the time to talk to them.

 

I look forward to seeing you at Scaleforum, I think you know where to find me.

 

Jol

[JeremyC]

...and sometimes I feel the kit designer hasn't had an innocent third party build their kit before putting it on the market, reporting back any problems.

 

It's easy to build a kit you've designed yourself (or it should be), but then you know all the bits etc.,

 

This comment isn't directed at anybody on here, just 50+ years of building kits, especially in the early etched era.

 

I certainly agree with that. Part of my job involves occasionally having to write emergency operating procedures for ship's machinery. I've always found the only way to get it right is to not have them tested by an engineer, but by someone from another department.

 

In my opinion you should be able to build a generic example of the prototype from the kit using only the instructions; so they should clearly show the location and identification of all parts. If there are gross differences I would expect them to note things like 'this part was only fitted after Nationalisation' or 'this chimney was only fitted with that dome', but I don't expect them to be detailed to the point of [or provide the parts for] 'this part only on loco xx between 1951 and 1953 or similar, for that I think it quite acceptable to have to do my own research. I’d rather have a poorly printed sheet with the details than a glossy brochure that’s all presentation and I’ve seen some expensive pieces of machinery that suffer from the latter. One piece of information that was missing from a kit I recently built was any suggestion of a suitable motor / gearbox. Experienced modellers have there own preferences, but some guidance is required for others.

 

To my mind the old Airfix instructions were very good and using the correct names for parts must have helped the knowledge of the prototype for many people.

 

I think one reason less people kit build is that we have, as a country, moved away from having an industrial background where a large proportion of the population had practical ‘hands on’ workshop skills. Having said that I know many excellent modellers who do not have such skills, though it may be indicative that a couple of us at our club with them spend a lot of time diagnosing and fixing running problems on other member’s models.

 

I would say to anyone, if you fancy trying kit building have a go! The first efforts might not be good, but you might find you like it. I would say a good standard is one you’re happy with; to quote Tony Wright ‘If it floats your boat’.

 

I certainly don’t think any less of modellers who don’t kit built, their interests may be different to mine; my own philosophy is often buy RTR if available, it releases time to build those models that won’t become available from Bachmann or Hornby.

 

Jeremy

[Jol Wilkinson]

...and sometimes I feel the kit designer hasn't had an innocent third party build their kit before putting it on the market, reporting back any problems.

 

It's easy to build a kit you've designed yourself (or it should be), but then you know all the bits etc.,

 

This comment isn't directed at anybody on here, just 50+ years of building kits, especially in the early etched era.

 

Are you volunteering?

 

Jol