The future of loco kit building

[Michael Delamar]

its probably going a bit deep, but I build them so I can admire them, if other people admire them thats nice too.

could be called showing off, but I dont think thats intentional on my part.

 

a friend said when Heljan announced the class 40 and knowing Ive built one said something like "everyone will have them now, running round the O gauge clubs in mint condition". thats when I thought about it. I wouldnt begrudge anyone else anything, thats a sort of jealous or snobbish attitude i feel.

but I do still feel exclusivity, desire to be different, showing off, whatever you call it (and I dont mean it in a bad way) could be one of the many reason for kitbuilding,

[Coach bogie]

I imagine it's rather disheartening if someone was to ask you about your 'detailed Bachmann dubdee' when it's a Bradwell model you've spent months on!

 

 

As others, it does not bother me at all. I model for me, not to impress others. Being a 16.5 kitbuilder, I am more likely to react when my P4 friends comment about by latest 'narrow gauge' model.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Donw]

I can remember when there was much of the same contention about scratch built / kit built and now we have reached a point where RTR is at the same sort of level. This is good in many ways but does make it harder to jump into kit building. In the old days you had a pretty good chance of your kit built loco being better than an RTR one these days a novice kit builder might struggle to match the latest RTR. For diesels a lot most are now available RTR even in 0 gauge which reduces the incentive to try kits. This is a pity because I find the more you put into amodel the more satisfying it is. Still there is a lot more to a layout than just the locos and stock so there is plenty on personal input needed.

Don

[Metropolitan]

[snip] .. Still there is a lot more to a layout than just the locos and stock so there is plenty on personal input needed.

Don

 

True. But the loco's and stock are the most important part of the whole? No stock and its just a model landscape. A bit like a Scalextric without any cars. Pointless.

 

A ring of track on a carpet with a superbly built Martin Finney loco running round it is a thing of beauty and interest. Take the loco off and what have you got? A ring of track on a carpet.

 

John A

[-missy-]

Hi John.

 

I think that is a very Black and White view on things. To me, the scenery plays just as important role as any rolling stock. I am really striving to achieve is something that looks as realistic as possible on my layout, the railway happens to be there too but its not the sole reason for building it. Pendon is the same. Model railways has such a broad spectrum of interests.

 

Missy

[Metropolitan]

Hi John.

 

I think that is a very Black and White view on things. To me, the scenery plays just as important role as any rolling stock. I am really striving to achieve is something that looks as realistic as possible on my layout, the railway happens to be there too but its not the sole reason for building it. Pendon is the same. Model railways has such a broad spectrum of interests.

 

Missy

 

An exhibition layout without any stock is a dead and lifeless thing. It only comes to life once the trains run.

[Pugsley]

An exhibition layout without any stock is a dead and lifeless thing. It only comes to life once the trains run.

Not necessarily. A good exhibition layout should still hold a viewer's attention even when nothing is running on it, IMO.

 

Edit - To develop the theme further, how much of real life train watching is spent looking around at your surroundings waiting for something to happen? Most of it. A good layout should be similar, with plenty to look at when there aren't any trains about.

[Kenton]

I'd be curious to know what proportion of whitemetal kits were glued together and what soldered.

 

I have never used araldite on any whitemetal kit. I just cannot see why I should ever have the need, let alone desire, to do so. Metal is so easy (for me) to solder.But I accept others cannot solder but still have the desire to put a kit together. I would advocate learning how to solder first, of course, but some may be just so desperate that glue is the only viable option.

 

As fr the problem of building chassis - yes I find it is often the most challenging part of a kit build. But not the getting a free running chassis, that is also easy as it comes down to following a few basic rules. (outlined above) The problem I have with chassis is getting it running. Fitting a suitable gearbox and motor, meshing the gears, fitting pickups and then getting them all running smoothly under power. I am yet to find a kit with instructions that adequately cover this. Even then when you have it all working it has to be completely dismantled again to fit something else, paint, or some other reason, like there is no space in the body for the recommended motor+gearbox combination.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi John.

 

I think that is a very Black and White view on things. To me, the scenery plays just as important role as any rolling stock. I am really striving to achieve is something that looks as realistic as possible on my layout, the railway happens to be there too but its not the sole reason for building it. Pendon is the same. Model railways has such a broad spectrum of interests.

 

Missy

 

Hi Missy

 

I agree with John within the context of this topic, it is about loco kits. Sure model railways to many are not only about the locomotives but due to many of us being ex trainspotters who did not always look at what was behind the locomotive, what it was running on or what colour the leaves on the trees were over the other side of the fence. We can very loco orientated. Yes we do need to pay attention to all aspects of the layout if that is what we wish to achieve. On how many layouts are the model people dressed in the appropriate clothes for the season and weather condition the modeller has set his layout in? Are they in styles of clothes that would be seen in the time period? I bet the locos are not even weathered to match the season and weather condition modelled, so no chance on the figures being right. Let us indulge ourselves in being able to trainspot the engines we wish to see without always worrying about what else is going on, well that was what would happen to me once I had shown my platform ticket as I passed through the barrier.

[N15class]

But what Missy said is totally relevent to this thread about the future of locomotive kit building.

With a large range of very high quality ready to run locomotives available, it gives more time for those who model railways to concentrate on the other stuff - That must have an impact on the future of kit building.

But it will look wrong if the layout is set beautiflly in 1920 LNWR with a Jubilee and a Duchess sitting on the the tracks is it a case of having the layout and waiting for the RTR loco and coaches to come?

 

To me if the locos and coaches are right the scene is set better than the other way around.

[Clive Mortimore]

But what Missy said is totally relevent to this thread about the future of locomotive kit building.

With a large range of very high quality ready to run locomotives available, it gives more time for those who model railways to concentrate on the other stuff - That must have an impact on the future of kit building.

 

Hi Mickey

 

Depends on the modeller. If the modeller is someone who enjoys making his own locos then surely he will continue with this aspect of the hobby. Why give up something you enjoy? If he was only making kits to fill the gaps in the classes he felt were nedded for his layout and now they are available then your statement is right.

 

One of the problems I have when viewing layouts at shows is the layout with the scratch and kit built locos normally has a more realistic setting than the one with the very high quality ready to run locomotives available. I am not sure if the logic that says no need to build locos anymore so more time can be spent on getting the layout details right, like a scale 65 yards between telegraph ploes....."What I need telegraph poles?", point rodding in the right place..."What is point rodding?"......road access to the goods shed..."Why do I need that?" or the correct uniforms for the railway staff. No they tend to wish to display they have the money to buy the latest offering form Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan or Dapol. I find model makers do tend to do quite a bit of research so they get things right, have a look at those who model 3mm and S scale.

[Kenton]

But what Missy said is totally relevent to this thread about the future of locomotive kit building.

With a large range of very high quality ready to run locomotives available, it gives more time for those who model railways to concentrate on the other stuff - That must have an impact on the future of kit building.

 

It does - but only for those who's principle enjoyment is to model railways - There are some of us who are simply more interested in the model and only give a passing thought to the railway. When I build a kit I don't have any interest whatsoever in what scene it will appear in if at all. If it ends up on a mantlepiece or in a glass case, or if it ends up running round in circles on a bare board, or if it ends up on some fantastically well represented fully signaled copy of the prototype is irrelevant to me and to the model I am building. Appreciating the model is actually quite different to appreciating the setting in which that model is presented.

[t-b-g]

I don't know anybody who builds kits nowadays because thay want to be seen as superior to somebody who runs RTR stuff.

 

There are a good number of reasons why people build kits. Modelling an obscure prototype is one. Some folk, myself included, choose to model something unusual for the very reason that we don't want to have to put our models next to the superb RTR recent issues. Having said that, Bachmann are now dipping their toes in my GCR waters!

 

Most people build kits because they want something that is available as a kit and because they enjoy doing it. There is no snobbery to it at all, just the extra sense of satisfation and achievement compared to opening a box. If all the GCR locos I ever wanted were available RTR I would still build kits and scratchbuild, simply because I enjoy it. Mine may not be as highly detailed as RTR ones and my livery and lining won't ever match the latest from the manufacturers but that really matters little to me.

 

Whether the finished model is as good as a RTR one is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If I go to an exhibition, I would much rather see a kit that somebody has had a go at doing themselves (better still a scratchbuild) than the contents of the Hornby/Bachmann catalogues on every layout. I can go to my model shop and see those any day.

 

But that is my hobby and my view of I want to do it. If somebody wants to build a layout and doesn't have the time/inclination/skills to build kits, it doesn't make me feel superior, just different. It may not be of interest to me, as my kitbuilt GCR locos may not be of interest to them but their approach is just as valid in this hobby. It certainly shouldn't make any difference to how much somebody enjoys their hobby as people are able to do that in many different ways, which has to be a good thing.

[t-b-g]

But it will look wrong if the layout is set beautiflly in 1920 LNWR with a Jubilee and a Duchess sitting on the the tracks is it a case of having the layout and waiting for the RTR loco and coaches to come?

 

To me if the locos and coaches are right the scene is set better than the other way around.

 

Funnily enough, we have exactly that combination on Narrow Road. It is mainly set at the grouping with most locos and stock in either LNWR livery or very early LMS colours. However, we have some glaring anomolies. Ken Hill, who is the co builder of the layout, wanted some models of locos that either he or his father (a former driver at Willesden shed) knew. So we have a streamlined pacific and a diesel shunter from the 1930s. The LMS Streamliner has an appropriate rake of carriages and the diesel lives in the goods yard and we are happy with them and that is all that matters. They are both, incidentally, kitbuilt!

 

Historically wrong? Of course it is. Hitting all the right emotional buttons? Very much so!

 

I used to be a bit too precious about such things. You know, the sort, "I can't run 60103 because my layout is set on 27th August 1957 and on that day she was stopped for a minor repair". Again, some people enjoy and thrive on such detail and good luck to them but it is not for me any longer. Even Roy Jackson has a couple of "funnies" on Retford, with the blue "Deltic" and the LNER B2 "City of Lincoln", neither of which were there anywhere near 1957. Yet they create more interest on the layout than many of the more "correct" items and most important of all, we like them!

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

I enjoy seeing where each modeller has chosen to place his/her emphasis, whether it is biased towards locos, scratchbuilding, architecture, scenic detail or any other aspect of a scene or layout. I mentally award my own points for the end result. Precision locos displayed in a case may be exact miniatures of the real thing but that wouldn't encourage me to travel/pay an entrance fee to see them.

 

Surely our hobby is richest with a diverse set of modellers, with a wide range of priorities, choosing from an extensive range of modelling items. Leaving everyone free to enjoy the creative result.

 

Dave

[James]

But the loco's and stock are the most important part of the whole?

 

Signalling is far more important.

[James]

I am yet to find a kit with instructions that adequately cover this.

 

Have you ever built a kit from High Level?

 

One of the problems I have when viewing layouts at shows is the layout with the scratch and kit built locos normally has a more realistic setting than the one with the very high quality ready to run locomotives available. I am not sure if the logic that says no need to build locos anymore so more time can be spent on getting the layout details right, like a scale 65 yards between telegraph ploes....."What I need telegraph poles?", point rodding in the right place..."What is point rodding?"......road access to the goods shed..."Why do I need that?" or the correct uniforms for the railway staff. No they tend to wish to display they have the money to buy the latest offering form Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan or Dapol. I find model makers do tend to do quite a bit of research so they get things right, have a look at those who model 3mm and S scale.

 

It's all about a state of mind, isn't it? If someone will put effort in one area to get it 'right' they are more likely to want to achieve similar result across the board - almost caring more about the standard achieved.

 

I think there is a logic to RTR saving time for other activities aside from stock, but only in some cases. The approach is this, I believe - a modeller, let's called him Dave, realises that his layout needs a couple of WD 2-8-0s, he thinks he could build a couple of DJH kits but then realises that the Bachmann model is rather nice and with a little work will be just what he wants and will save him a lot of time which he can use to work on other areas of his layout. Steve, however, walks into the model shop, sees a nice shiny new loco in a blue or a red box and thinks he'd like it. The results are quite different but I know people personally who could fall into either camp (and plenty who don't fit either!). Nothing wrong with either as it's their hobby.

 

Personally I find reading about the railway as a whole is truly fascinating and absorbing - doing so constantly makes me want to find out more and more. Working in functions which do not directly invovle the trains themselves (other than them going by and providing there's a red light on the back I don't have to wrry to much!) has led to me finding other areas just as fascinating as the locos which I love.

 

It shows that we have a wonderfully diverse hobby.

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

As a former BR traction instructor I cannot help noticing that many modellers know proportionally more about locos because they have been the main focus of their interest. Anyone interested in replicating the real railway in miniature (such as in a layout) should be prepared to invest sufficient time in non-loco aspects to ensure that this bias isn't reflected in their overall presentation e.g. basic errors in signalling, prototypical operation etc.

 

Dave

[Metropolitan]

As a former BR traction instructor I cannot help noticing that many modellers know proportionally more about locos because they have been the main focus of their interest. Anyone interested in replicating the real railway in miniature (such as in a layout) should be prepared to invest sufficient time in non-loco aspects to ensure that this bias isn't reflected in their overall presentation e.g.basic errors in signalling, prototypical operation etc.

 

Dave

 

 

Dave.

 

I think 99% of modellers with a roundy roundy somewhere or other ignore their signals and just run their trains. I do for one.

 

Regards

John A

[Kenton]

Have you ever built a kit from High Level?

 

Not had the pleasure of a whole one yet but will opt for the gearbox+motor combination when I can, but even with Chris's help sometimes they are difficult to shoe horn in. Although he does his best it is obviously difficult unless he has had experience with the actual kit to know in advance (and generally like I guess most kit builders we do the chassis first) which combination to use. Even with his gearbox and motor there is still the sometime perplexing issue of which axle and how to get pickups to function reliably. It is little surprise that most new to kit building give up.

 

Of course his gearbox+motor combinations are only for 4mm kits.

 

Instructions like those supplied for the current one on the bench do not even go beyond stating the 1833 can and a supplied "gearbox" (no actual gears supplied) and a rough side on diagram to indicate which axle to run on. Wrong, unless you want the flywheel in the cab but absolutely no mention of how to get power from the wheels to the motor and how to mesh the gears. Not so bad when you have done a few (learning each time from mistakes) but hadly encouraging the beginner who may not have even looked inside a RTR or seen a gearbox operationally.

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

Thats fine John but should you display your layout to the public then any marvellously built or detailed locos may not command the attention that the builder/detailer would wish.

 

Dave

[Ravenser]

It does - but only for those who's principle enjoyment is to model railways - There are some of us who are simply more interested in the model and only give a passing thought to the railway. When I build a kit I don't have any interest whatsoever in what scene it will appear in if at all. If it ends up on a mantlepiece or in a glass case, or if it ends up running round in circles on a bare board, or if it ends up on some fantastically well represented fully signaled copy of the prototype is irrelevant to me and to the model I am building. Appreciating the model is actually quite different to appreciating the setting in which that model is presented.

 

This is a key point : there are different personal temperaments , and approaches to the hobby. They are all valid and all have their place - all contribute to the hobby in different ways. It isn't the case that A's approach is wrong and needs correcting and Bs is right go to the top of the class.

 

Kenton's stated the essential "stock builder philosophy" very well: those folk who like building stock and have little interest in having a layout or even running their stock. Metropolitan comes close to saying the same thing though I would rearrange his words a little:

 

A superbly built Martin Finney loco running round a ring of track on a carpet is a thing of beauty and interest. Take the loco off and what have you got? A ring of track on a carpet.

 

 

(I don't think a ring of track on a carpet is a ever a thing of beauty and interest, though the loco on it may well be )

 

I would imagine that those people who feel like that will naturally gravitate into the ranks of the serial loco kit builder, and they will form a significant proportion of committed kitbuilders. You do find a very strong "loco focus" in D+E modelling - indeed it's been commented on before by others - but it takes a rather different form - the heavy duty RTR hack to produce the "definitive" absolutely correct diesel loco. Frequently without a layout or prospect of a layout to run it on

 

I admit my mind doesn't work like this: I look at some nice RTR or an interesting kit, and immediately the voice in the head cries "yes - but what would you run it on??" And if answer comes there none , then I walk away. This happens every time I stand in front of the display of built up kits on the LRM stand. Wonderful models of fascinating subjects : "yes - but what would you ever run it on??" What would I do with a Problem 2-2-2 or a McConnell Bloomer?? Never in a million years am I going to build a 19th century LNWR layout. If I'm going to spend all that time and money building a sophisticated kit I don't want to waste it all because I've no use for the model when I've finished it and it simply gets packed away in a box and forgotten . That feels very little different from buying a kit and abandoning it part built. The model is truly finished when it's weathered, fitted with couplings , released to traffic and is successfully being used. Otherwise there's that nagging sense of frustration, incompletion, futility and failure - heading up a dead end

 

The flip side of this is that buying a model may result in building a layout. I was once looking through some Alphagraphix card kits, decided that it would be possible to make up the lighht rail units as working models , there was a book on Croydon Tramlink on the bookstall, and by the time I'd left the show I was committed to building a Croydon Tramlink layout with two kits and a reference work in my bag. That layout stalled about 2/3rds built, in large part because I couldn't get a built up Croydon tram round any kind of curve , and scrap and start again with a new card kit and a new approach was called for. But I did build a working Manchester Metrolink unit , even if it didn't like the reverse curve into one siding. Similarly acquiring a Hornby-Lima NSWGR diesel implies the possibility of Currawong Heights, a small terminus in the foothills of the Blue Mountains. Some LCC tram kits implies a project to build a London tramway layout.

 

From this perspective , building a layout implies "a license to acquire/build relevant models". And they don't usually happen without it.

 

I'm not suggesting this is the "right" approach: merely that different peoiple want different things from the hobby , and both approaches are valid for thosethey suit. "Whatever floats your boat"

[Kenton]

Kenton's stated the essential "stock builder philosophy" very well: those folk who like building stock and have little interest in having a layout or even running their stock. Metropolitan comes close to saying the same thing though I would rearrange his words a little:

 

Not quite. I have interest in building layouts as well but to me they are quite different objectives. I do not build kits to run on any particular layout yet on the other hand a particular layout might require a kit to be built for it. If I were to build an exact layout of a prototype location then it would likely be in P4 with every detail that Ii could make true to the period (including signal infrastructure, etc) but most of my layouts are "essence of" or "inspirations of" the prototype and for those I only include what interests me. If that meant running out of period stock, or having inappropriate running. I generally care not as it IS my train set. On the other side kit building is a different pastime - it is purely that - building the kit, they all end up unfinished in many folks eyes as generally the painting is left to others to finish, I'm not particularly skillful with the airbrush and probably a little colour blind (especially when it comes to BR blue). Building a kit is usually a steady progression from etch to finished unpainted article usually of acceptable standard, building a layout is a slow progression of lurches from intense interest to near loathing with only bits that are worth any merit. A layout frequently ends when the trains run - my train set.

 

But I accept that others have different priorities for their hobby. Always admiring those who can build a layout in the time it takes me to build a loco, even if the layout consists of RTR and RTP in abundance.

[coachmann]

For me, trains and location had equal billing. I went to Greenfield to watch the trains but when it changed I merely tried to capture a year in its life in a time-capsule. A few variants of RTR Stanier coaches and Gresleys nowhere near covers the types that routinely passed through Greenfield in my chosen period. But when I can buy most but not all of the locos I require off the shelf, it shows how far RTR has come since kit days.

 

If I were into producing loco kits, I would be making 0-6-0 tender locos to fit on RTR chassis. There are enough folk out there used to building brass & whitemetal kits to make relatively small-run ventures worthwhile.

 

By the way loco kits did not initially fill gaps in RTR. There was no gap, as RTR had nothing to offer. Most kits to begin with made use of RTR chassis and gave relatively innexperienced builders the chance to own locos that were closer to scale. No one said folk had to enjoy building them.......Kits are merely a means to and end......Like laying track and a hundred-and-one other modelling tasks, but then I'm speaking from the point of view of running trains....my ultimate goal.

[Jol Wilkinson]

What would I do with a Problem 2-2-2 or a McConnell Bloomer?? Never in a million years am I going to build a 19th century LNWR layout.

 

Does it matter and why not?

 

The quality of the latest RTR (and RTP) are cited as a major reason for people not building models from kits. They often buy something because they like it and irrespective of the era, railway or location they would be seen at. Why can't you use the same justification for buying a kit?

 

In fact I have met some people that do that and I have occasionally given in to the temptation to buy a kit because it looks interesting to build or is of an unusual/interesting prototype, even if it doesn't fit my requirements for the layout. Mind you I draw the line at anything GWR.

 

Jol