The future of loco kit building

[t-b-g]

I don't agree that any kit should be able to go round a set track radius curve. A lot of locos look really silly on such curves and a number of RTR locos over the years have included compromises on dimensions to allow their use on such track.

 

I would much prefer a kit to be an accurate model with something on the box/instructions/website to say "not suitable for curves of less than xx radius" so people can choose not to buy it and end up disappointed.

[Clive Mortimore]

Part of the trouble with the future of kits is getting the right prototype so that modellers will buy it. Not being a manufacturer I would not have a clue what will sell and what would not. I can remember talking to Mike of Fox Transfers who said that he was always being told what would sell. He went on to say that there was one bloke who pestered him for some GWR transfers, when he was told no one else had asked for them he replied "well me and my mate want them". I was going to just post the below, but that would stop the guage/scale/track radius/wobbly bits war and start a wish list.

 

 

I cannot see any future in me buying kits until someone makes a LMS 350 hp 0-6-0 shunter. A class of 105 locomotives seen on three regions in liveries varying from LMS freight black to BR corprate blue. There are far too many differences to convert a RTR BR standard 350 hp before anyone says use a Hornby/Bachmann one. The NRM/Wild Swan book on these shows that research has already been done.

 

It would also be a good seller as the GWR/BR steam modllers would be able to use it as one of the "Swindon six". They were the same with brass number plates and British Railways written in GWR typeface.

[Michael Delamar]

just regards springing, Hornby's RTR steamers do have springing, the black 5 has a sprung rear axle and is driven off a solid centre driver.

it has 1 central spring and this fits over a plastic part that cups the axle,

 

my question is could this particular set up be used on say an etched chassis? obviously not on an axle that the motor is on so maybe not P4 as I think every axle has to be sprung? but would this be a better/simpler way than using other suspension methods on sprung etched chassis?

[Donw]

Lots of scratchbuilt and kitbuilt models use partial springing where the driven axle is unsprung but the others are. You usually need to adapt the kit slightly it helps if there are etchlines for the hornblock cutouts. However with quality motor gearbox combos you can hang the motor gearbox off the axle and spring that one too.

Don

[Metropolitan]

John, whilst I respect you as a forum member and as a loco builder, could you please stop knocking compensation/springing - its all getting a bit tiresome and adds nothing to the debate..

 

The reason I again raised the issue of compensation was entirely because IMHO it does indeed add to the debate about the future of loco kit building. I would suggest that to ensure a future for loco kit's and bring more people into the fold it is counterproductive to add layers of extra complication to the build. I consider that compensation is unnecessary and that kit instructions should emphasise this fact. A "good" kit has at it's heart simplicity. I have no problem, though, with those who wish to compensate, spring or do anything else they may wish to do. It's a hobby and there are no and should not be any set rules. I am not saying no one should spring or compensate a chassis should they so wish. I am simply saying that Compensation is an utterly unnecessary complication and it's only effect is to put people off building a chassis!!.

[TheGhostofNigelGresley]

We seem to be getting very wide of the OP question, which was about kit building and its life expectancy. Not the old saga of gauge wars.

 

As I posted earlier I would also be worried about the survival of the RTR market as cheap manufacturing comes to an end. So to me it is going to be the other way around.

 

I have been quietly reading this for a few weeks, but this post as prompted me to contribute - must be all that sunshine enabling clear thinking in Brazil. I've seen a concern expressed about where new kitbuilders are going to come from as the existing hobby base ages, especially those who were there in the 50's and 60's. I think there will always be new entrants, otherwise the Napoleonic era and the age of sail wouldn't be such popular topics for modelling, what concerns me far more is where will the future kitmakers come from ?

 

Maybe RTR will drop away, but in a few years time, will we have the people with the skills or the inclination to produce kit built alternatives or will their efforts all be directed towards designing the latest 'app' for their ipad ?

 

I do agree that rather than bickering amongst ourselves, effort would be better spent trying to engage the younger generation, perhaps with a simple entry level diesel or EMU, whilst there are still enough fogeys around to counsel and encourage.

[hayfield]

The reason I again raised the issue of compensation was entirely because IMHO it does indeed add to the debate about the future of loco kit building. I would suggest that to ensure a future for loco kit's and bring more people into the fold it is counterproductive to add layers of extra complication to the build. I consider that compensation is unnecessary and that kit instructions should emphasise this fact. A "good" kit has at it's heart simplicity. I have no problem, though, with those who wish to compensate, spring or do anything else they may wish to do. It's a hobby and there are no and should not be any set rules. I am not saying no one should spring or compensate a chassis should they so wish. I am simply saying that Compensation is an utterly unnecessary complication and it's only effect is to put people off building a chassis!!.

 

John

 

I totally agree with you,

 

Yes for the experienced builders compensation / springing is a super advantage to get better running from loco's especially on less than level track.

 

For the less competent builders a decent ridged easy to build chassis is an real advantage to enable them to have a working loco.

 

However to get those who will quite happily build a plastic wagon or coach, there needs to be even simpler loco kits available as an introduction to loco building. Ones which do not need soldering and are built around a RTR chassis. This is where the likes of K's and Wills bodyline kits came into their own. Cheap working chassis where you could build a body on top of it using the skills learnt building plastic kits.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I consider that compensation is unnecessary and that kit instructions should emphasise this fact. A "good" kit has at it's heart simplicity. I have no problem, though, with those who wish to compensate, spring or do anything else they may wish to do. It's a hobby and there are no and should not be any set rules. I am not saying no one should spring or compensate a chassis should they so wish. I am simply saying that Compensation is an utterly unnecessary complication and it's only effect is to put people off building a chassis!!.

 

John,

 

so all kit instructions should include the quote "Compensation is unneccessary according to Metropolitan", so don't ask why we included half etched hornblock cut-outs.

 

Then you claim that there should not be any set rules but you are expecting everyone to follow yours.

 

A "good" kit provides the builder with the options to readily adapt it to suit his/her needs/preferences. There are designers out there with that aim in mind.

 

Jol

[billbedford]

One way of making a simple frames kit complicated is to pander to those who insist, against all the evidence, that springing is too difficult.

[Coach bogie]

One way of making a simple frames kit complicated is to pander to those who insist, against all the evidence, that springing is too difficult.

 

Or to the many people, including me, that think compensation/springing is a pointless complication. On a recent visit to Retford, I witnessed hours of perfect running, no compensation, no springing

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Metropolitan]

John,

 

so all kit instructions should include the quote "Compensation is unneccessary according to Metropolitan", so don't ask why we included half etched hornblock cut-outs.

 

 

 

Jol

 

Hi Jol

 

Not quite; but how about something like this:

 

"This chassis has been designed to run perfectly when built rigid. Provision has been made for those who may wish to add compensation or springs."

[Joseph_Pestell]

An etched chassis is not the most expensive part of a kit to develop. Would it be too odd to suggest that a manufacturer could offer both options - rigid and compensated?

[coachmann]

Hi Jol

 

Not quite; but how about something like this:

 

"This chassis has been designed to run perfectly when built rigid. Provision has been made for those who may wish to add compensation or springs."

 

Not

Or, "This chassis has been designed to run perfectly when built rigid provided you took every care in laying your track perfectly, or you fit Bachmann or Hornby wheels, or you do not lay your settrack on Gran's carpet & Lino..!"

[coachmann]

The most 'orrible loco springing I ever came across was on BritRail's imported brass/silver/gold Jubilee's and Black Five's. They defied convention in having the centre axle rigid and the outer axles sprung - rocking horse fashion! A friend of mine did a roaring trade making the chassis rigid once they arrived on these shores so that the locos would actually run. The importer was a good friend of ours but I don't know who gave him the peculiar idea of springing.

 

David Jenkinson told me he avoided sprung chassis on his locos in later years. It's all very well if it is set up properly but I have lost count of the number of models I've come across with a cock-eyed stance on the track. I'm told by customers that springing is not strictly necessary on coaches built for P4 track so long as there is 3-point suspension. This is not to knock springing....I am merely giving it another slant. I've not built a loco kit since the 1980s, but rigid outer axles and floating middle axle to accomodate undulations in track and to aid current collection happen to suit me.

[jwealleans]

Would it be too odd to suggest that a manufacturer could offer both options - rigid and compensated?

 

Alan Gibson will do this on request. With most other etched chassis, if you want to compensate, there are guide lines to allow you to cut out for the hornblocks.

[Michael Edge]

The reason I again raised the issue of compensation was entirely because IMHO it does indeed add to the debate about the future of loco kit building. I would suggest that to ensure a future for loco kit's and bring more people into the fold it is counterproductive to add layers of extra complication to the build. I consider that compensation is unnecessary and that kit instructions should emphasise this fact. A "good" kit has at it's heart simplicity. I have no problem, though, with those who wish to compensate, spring or do anything else they may wish to do. It's a hobby and there are no and should not be any set rules. I am not saying no one should spring or compensate a chassis should they so wish. I am simply saying that Compensation is an utterly unnecessary complication and it's only effect is to put people off building a chassis!!.

 

All our kits can be built rigid, most of them now have an alternative (and very simple - no hornblocks involved) compensation option. The instructions suggest that beginners or the less confident should build them rigid. Is this OK or are we still doing something wrong?

Michael and Judith Edge

[Coach bogie]

All our kits can be built rigid, most of them now have an alternative (and very simple - no hornblocks involved) compensation option. The instructions suggest that beginners or the less confident should build them rigid. Is this OK or are we still doing something wrong?

Michael and Judith Edge

 

Having built three of yours, in my opinion you have got it just right and long may you continue to do so.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Michael Delamar]

also think it can depend on what your loco is intended for.

 

if your building pacifics that race around the layout all the time then suspension may not be as much of an issue than if you are building small dockyard loco's which have to stop start and run slow where pickup is an issue and the eye is staring at it crawling over pointwork.

[Metropolitan]

All our kits can be built rigid, most of them now have an alternative (and very simple - no hornblocks involved) compensation option. The instructions suggest that beginners or the less confident should build them rigid. Is this OK or are we still doing something wrong?

Michael and Judith Edge

 

The problem with small brass shunters is getting enough weight into them to do useful work. That's the real problem. Compensation wont help much in this respect. I accept that it may provide better conductivity in 0-4-0's for those with terrible track.

 

Out of interest: Do you supply weights in your kits?

 

Best Regards

John A

[James]

I accept that it may provide better conductivity in 0-4-0's for those with terrible track.

 

Even on a layout with decent track, a rigid 0-4-0 will never be quite as smooth as a compensated one. I had two RHS tanks built from High Level kits, the first was rigid and ran OK, but the second I tried compensation and the difference (on the same layout) was significant.

 

I'm not sure why you're seemingly anti-compensation or anti-bounciness - rigid chassis work very well in 00 and EM were the track is to a decent standard will run well, but in P4 were tolerances are small, it helps things. Remember that with any form of non-rigid set up the movement on a wheel is never needs to be more than about half a mil' anyway. Comments about poor track are a little unfair as it would take much for a twist fault to cause trouble for a large rigid loco with fine flanges.

[Metropolitan]

Even on a layout with decent track, a rigid 0-4-0 will never be quite as smooth as a compensated one. I had two RHS tanks built from High Level kits, the first was rigid and ran OK, but the second I tried compensation and the difference (on the same layout) was significant.

 

I'm not sure why you're seemingly anti-compensation or anti-bounciness - rigid chassis work very well in 00 and EM were the track is to a decent standard will run well, but in P4 were tolerances are small, it helps things. Remember that with any form of non-rigid set up the movement on a wheel is never needs to be more than about half a mil' anyway. Comments about poor track are a little unfair as it would take much for a twist fault to cause trouble for a large rigid loco with fine flanges.

 

P4/EM are insignificant with regard to the future of Loco kitbuilding. Not that I have anything but admiration for those who model in P4 and I enjoy my involvement with the Scale but the total membership of the Scalefour Society is just 1800 people. The future of Loco kits is with OO Gauge or kitbuilding will die.

[James]

P4 is insignificant with regard to the future of Loco kitbuilding. Not that I have anything but admiration for those who model in P4 and I enjoy my involvement with the Scale but the total membership of the Scalefour Society is just 1800 people. The future of Loco kits is with OO Gauge or kitbuilding will die.

 

I think kit building will remain and diversify - modelling the North Eastern there's nothing RTR we can use for mainline use. Even the RTR J72 is one of the later ones which appeared towards the end of the NER's life. So we must build from kit or from scratch. From what I can see there's a healthy interest in these periods as people become interest in them as a purely historical thing - none of my area group is modelling pre-group to re-live it!

 

So in areas like this in four mil' (regardless of gauge), the future is very much based around kits, and not just for locos but for coaches and wagons too. It will be very much a niche market but I'm sure it will remain.

[billbedford]

P4/EM are insignificant with regard to the future of Loco kitbuilding. Not that I have anything but admiration for those who model in P4 and I enjoy my involvement with the Scale but the total membership of the Scalefour Society is just 1800 people.

 

What is your evidence that more than 1800 people build 4mm kits?

[Michael Edge]

P4/EM are insignificant with regard to the future of Loco kitbuilding. Not that I have anything but admiration for those who model in P4 and I enjoy my involvement with the Scale but the total membership of the Scalefour Society is just 1800 people. The future of Loco kits is with OO Gauge or kitbuilding will die.

As I pointed out earlier, EM and P4 are far from insignificant to our business. We also supply 3mm, 2mm, 1:87, S scale, 10mm and 1:160 - we make a profit on all of them, it's not for us to tell the customer what scale/gauge they want, we just supply what they ask for.

We don't supply weights with our kits and I can't think of many that ever did include them.

Michael and Judith Edge

[Stanley Melrose]

As I pointed out earlier, EM and P4 are far from insignificant to our business. We also supply 3mm, 2mm, 1:87, S scale, 10mm and 1:160 - we make a profit on all of them, it's not for us to tell the customer what scale/gauge they want, we just supply what they ask for.

We don't supply weights with our kits and I can't think of many that ever did include them.

Michael and Judith Edge

 

Game,set and match to Michael and Judith methinks!

 

Stan