The future of loco kit building

[Clive Mortimore]

Sorry Peter

 

I am lost as to what you are saying.

 

It is not over complicating things, a pair of etche

 

 

It is not over complicating things, a set of etched cylinders will need 3 sets of slots to accomadate the 3 chassis widths.

 

Three slots in a single etch, that is two more lines to be drawn on the master.

 

If you use the sand boxes designed for P4 on oo they will dissapear out of site under the footplate.This goes for all things mount to the outside of the chassis.

 

Why, they should be in the same place, the running plate and boiler are not made smaller so why should the fittings be placed anywhere but where they are meant to go.

 

Then the footplate and splashers need to be altered or your oo wheels will be in open air.

 

You make it sound as if 00 is miles away from P4. Most real locos had quite wide splasers and in many cases a kit for a P4 loco will acept 00 wheels without altering the running plate (I have always understood the foot plate is where the crew stand).

 

It is not just a question of bending sand pipes. What would you do with things like the mounting brackets on the brake gear? you use the P4 ones the brakes would be on the flanges in oo.

 

The mounting brackets for the brakes should be the same size as the wheels are the same distance from the frames. A well designed chassis would take into account the need for differing width for pull rods for the brakes.

 

Then of coarse there are locos where the wheels in OO have to be further apart because of the flanges.

 

I think you will find that most 00 modellers no longer use Tri-ang steam roller wheels.

 

So we are all to be limited to inside cylinder locos and square boxes.

 

I find the term "square boxes" a little bit insulting. I am primary a diesel modeller who has sctratchbuilt more than 50 diesel locos over the years. My first scratch bulit shunter was an LMS jackshaft drive locomotive whos chassis runs very well. It was made from brass, with home made spacers and conecting and coupling rods.

 

As for making models there are compromises in all scales and gauges, just some are greater than others.

 

There is no simple way to make one kit do everything wanted without charging a fortune for it. I feel the best policy is to make the kit as close to the real thing as possible then let everyone who wants something different adapt it.

 

OK us lower mortals who model 00 and square boxes will have to become P4 modellers if we want to kit build if kit building has a future.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It's easy - providing the rigid positions are there with ethed guides around them that's rigid optimised. If the tabs arpund these are kept to the minimum required to maintain structural integrety then removing them is noe more difficult than any other etched component. Compensation parts can then be provided - there is skill required to fit beams without soldering it all up solid however.

 

And this we must remember - loco building requires skill, end of. Aquring the necessary skills may take time but careful work, research and practice will see results ultimately.

 

I'm sympathetic to what you are saying. In principle, we should all have the patience to build up our skills (I don't - especially when burned fingers are involved).

 

But in practice, if we want the hobby to continue, we need some of the kits to be easier/more basic so that beginners can hone those skills while, at the same time, getting something that they can be reasonably happy with while they move onto more complex stuff. Trying to "run before they can walk" is just likely to lead to many giving up at the first hurdle.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Somebody asked - a few pages back now - whether manufacturers were learning anything from this. I'm not a manufacturer at the moment but I might become one in the future when time allows from our main business. I have been involved in manufacture before but mostly of accessories rather than locos and rolling stock.

 

I have found this thread very useful. It has enabled me to reach the following conclusions:

 

If I am dealing with masters that were designed for OO, I will call it an OO kit. I would still supply chassis spacers for conversion to EM and P4 but make clear to purchasers that they might have some considerable work to do to adapt the bodywork.

 

Kits will be supplied in three parts: Body, chassis frames, wheels. So modellers can buy just the bits they need/want.

 

New body kits will be optimised for EM/P4 and labelled "4mm scale kit". Chassis frames will be available for both compensated/sprung and rigid with spacers available for OO. Wheelbase will be adhered to rigidly. If that means undersized tread diameter in OO to compensate for overlarge flanges, so be it. It's the better way to go because it does not distort the appearance of the loco body.

 

No kit will be issued/reissued until I have been able to build it (if I can, anyone can!) and take instruction photos through the process, which is much better but also cheaper and easier than exploded diagrams. The instruction sheet will be a thing of the past, replaced by a CD or memory stick containing as many prototype photos as I can muster.

 

Have I missed anything?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've already thought of one that I have missed.

 

A few kits in the range will be labelled: "suitable for the less-experienced modeller". All of these will be 0-6-0's and not 0-4-0. I am with CJF who pointed out that it was much harder to build an 0-4-0 as a first effort as quartering is more critical and some sort of compensation desirable.

[t-b-g]

The answer is either to make the frames narrower, so that there is more side play on the axles. Or more prototypically use check rails on the problem curves.

 

Looking up the allowed curve radius for LMS locos I find for most tender the minimum is 6 chains or 4.5 chains dead slow. This equates to about 5ft 2in or 3ft 11in. 3ft radius curve would be about three and a half chains at full size.

 

Extra sideplay is all very well but working with wheels in splashers in EM gauge doesn't allow too much sideplay.

 

When you model a real place, with compromises by way of curves that shouldn't be there at all, adding checkrails would only accentuate the fact that the curves are below prototypical radius.

 

The locos in question have very big overhangs at front and back and the limiting factor in getting them round the curve is that the cab hangs out so far that the connection to the tender holds the front end of the loco hard against the outside rail.

 

Building narrow sideframes with lots of sideplay, presumably making the splashers wider than scale, then adding checkrails seems much more complicated an answer than building the locos rigid in the first place.

 

The fact that we have had, in "silly half hour" at shows, double headed 9Fs (converted RTR and rigid) running round at a scale 70mph with 115 wagons behind (with the brake van just in front of the smokebox!) was enough proof to me that in certain situations, springing/compensating does more harm than good.

 

My solution is simple, practical and it works. The rigid locos run just as smoothly as the sprung ones. So I really can't think of any sensible reason to make lots of extra work for myself by investigating other solutions for a problem I have already solved. The sprung locos run with some route restrictions and the rigid loco can go anywhere. It is an acceptable compromise but that is very often what modelling is all about.

 

I have built sprung and compensated locos, just to see what difference it made. The answer is that any difference in the quality of the running is negligable to the point of not being able to say which was which on a working layout. So the only difference is in the extra time and effort spent for no noticable reward.

 

Again, I am not talking theory, or what should happen. I am talking from 30 plus years of exhibiting over a dozen different layouts plus operating others at home.

 

One last point, having been on real trains, which lurch a bit through points, why are we obsessed with building such realism out of our models?

[queensquare]

I've already thought of one that I have missed.

 

A few kits in the range will be labelled: "suitable for the less-experienced modeller". All of these will be 0-6-0's and not 0-4-0. I am with CJF who pointed out that it was much harder to build an 0-4-0 as a first effort as quartering is more critical and some sort of compensation desirable.

 

I don't understand this statement, why is the quartering on an 0-4-0 more critical than an 0-6-0. If the quartering is wrong then running will be adversely affected whether the the loco is an 0-4-0 or a 2-10-0.

 

Jerry

[billbedford]

Somebody asked - a few pages back now - whether manufacturers were learning anything from this. I'm not a manufacturer at the moment but I might become one in the future when time allows from our main business. I have been involved in manufacture before but mostly of accessories rather than locos and rolling stock.

 

I think the one thing that has become obvious in these discussions is that almost all the people who have been involved have had great difficulty describing anything that has not been produced in the past. So for my part I'm happy to carry on designing 'Kewl things that you've never known you've always wanted.'

[billbedford]

I have built sprung and compensated locos, just to see what difference it made. The answer is that any difference in the quality of the running is negligable to the point of not being able to say which was which on a working layout. So the only difference is in the extra time and effort spent for no noticable reward.

 

Again, I am not talking theory, or what should happen. I am talking from 30 plus years of exhibiting over a dozen different layouts plus operating others at home.

 

It all sounds a bit like - 'It's my trainset and I'll defy the laws of physics if I want'

[billbedford]

You are just over complicating things. For 00 or EM the cylinders, sandboxes and motion brackets should be in the same place as they would for P4.

To have the outside edge of these components in the correct position they have to be deeper to compensate for the difference in frame width.

[Clive Mortimore]

To have the outside edge of these components in the correct position they have to be deeper to compensate for the difference in frame width.

 

That means a 00 model's body needs to be narrower than a P4 model In most cases the bits you are on about are suspended from the frame top therefore frame width has nothing to do with it.

 

OK us lower mortals who model 00 and square boxes will have to become P4 modellers if we want to kit build if kit building has a future.

[Clive Mortimore]

Thinking about past post, wasn't it a P4 modeller who moaned about DJH 00 models having their cylinders set tooooooooo far apart.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't understand this statement, why is the quartering on an 0-4-0 more critical than an 0-6-0. If the quartering is wrong then running will be adversely affected whether the the loco is an 0-4-0 or a 2-10-0.

 

Jerry

 

I have probably slightly misquoted CJF. And you are of course right with regards to quartering per se. The point about the 0-6-0 is that you have three crankpins on each side to verify that you have a straight line. That straight line can then easily be checked for parallel to the similar straight line on the other side. On an 0-4-0, with only two crankpins on each side, any fault in quartering is less easily spotted/remedied.

[Adrian]

To have the outside edge of these components in the correct position they have to be deeper to compensate for the difference in frame width.

 

That means a 00 model's body needs to be narrower than a P4 model In most cases the bits you are on about are suspended from the frame top therefore frame width has nothing to do with it.

 

Whilst frame width per se may have nothing to do with it, the consequences of the frame width can have an impact..

 

OK I model in 7mm but the same principles apply. I built a Jinty to Scale7 standards but as it was a finescale kit the sandbox castings were too wide. The narrow frames meant that the castings were quite wide to be visibly in the right place. However if fitted as supplied then they fouled on the coupling rods. The narrower tyre width means that the coupling rods are closer to the frames. So the castings had to be thinned down quite a bit to fit. So yes different castings are required in some cases to cater for the different gauges.

[queensquare]

I have probably slightly misquoted CJF. And you are of course right with regards to quartering per se. The point about the 0-6-0 is that you have three crankpins on each side to verify that you have a straight line. That straight line can then easily be checked for parallel to the similar straight line on the other side. On an 0-4-0, with only two crankpins on each side, any fault in quartering is less easily spotted/remedied.

 

Sorry but I still don't get it. Why is an 0-4-0 more difficult to check. I tend to quarter wheels a pair at a time, essentially a series of 0-4-0's. An 0-4-0 should only take a matter of minutes to quarter and as a beginners chassis should be easy.

Regarding the rigid/springing debate I would certainly introduce an element in an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 tank but more for pickup than ride quality - I never really have a problem with stuff staying on the track. With bigger locos, particularly tender locos, I tend not to bother as with pickups on every wheel I see it as not necessary That said, I work predominantly in 2FS though I have built numerous locos in 00, EM and O (none in P4).

 

Jerry

[Jol Wilkinson]

So where have we got to after 800 plus postings?

 

A number of strongly and robustly expressed opinions including the usual rigid versus compensated/argument, a view that “bodyline” kits are no longer sufficiently readily available, a need for “starter” kit, and sufficient contradiction to make it certain that as an entity, the consumer doesn’t know what he/she wants.

 

Some of the contributors have strong views about what a kit should or should not include, which they appear unlikely to reconsider. There appears to be a lack of understanding and misconceptions about kit production processes and economics, which makes some of the demands impractical or uneconomic. However, that is fairly typical of today's consumer environment.

 

The one thing that I have sympathy with is the view that “starter” kits would help those wishing to take the first step into loco kit building. What it should consist of, based upon the various opinions expressed, is not that easy to define. Who would produce that sort of kit? Various kit producers already have established their product “house style” and may not be able/willing to invest in such a project without some indication of the sales potential. DJH have had two “starter kits” in their range for some time, but the lack of new ones is perhaps indicative of a lack of interest.

 

However, it is the sort of project that a society or a commercial enterprise such as Warner’s could underwrite and promote. The 2mm and 3mm Societies support their members in this way; the S4Society recently produced a batch of P4 converted RTR diesel locos. Would the DOGA, representing the 00 modeller, be willing to undertake it? Alternatively, wouldn't it be a great opportunity for one of the mainstream magazines to commission “their” kit and run a number of articles on its design and construction?

[N15class]

Quote

 

 

 

Why, they should be in the same place, the running plate and boiler are not made smaller so why should the fittings be placed anywhere but where they are meant to go

I never said about changing fittings above the running plate, the slashers would need altering.

 

 

 

Quote

You make it sound as if 00 is miles away from P4. Most real locos had quite wide splasers and in many cases a kit for a P4 loco will acept 00 wheels without altering the running plate (I have always understood the foot plate is where the crew stand).

 

 

 

The mounting brackets for the brakes should be the same size as the wheels are the same distance from the frames. A well designed chassis would take into account the need for differing width for pull rods for the brakes.

 

 

So you are saying to me an item on a P4 chassis that needs to stick out 10mm from the chassis fitted to an oo gauge chassis will be in the right place? yes the difference to the out side of the wheels between em an oo is about the same, but the difference from the out side of the wheel to the outside of the chassis is different, so parts made to line up with the em wheels if used on oo will not fit. So the brake brackets etc would need to be different. the easy way to see is to draw overlays.

 

The chassis in oo is much narrower than it needs to be so you can get lots of side play. this is so it will go around very tight curves in em and P4 you build the chassis much closer to the wheel backs, as you do not subject them to going around such tight curves. This is what causes the most difference between the parts to be fitted to the chassis.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry but I still don't get it. Why is an 0-4-0 more difficult to check. I tend to quarter wheels a pair at a time, essentially a series of 0-4-0's. An 0-4-0 should only take a matter of minutes to quarter and as a beginners chassis should be easy.

Regarding the rigid/springing debate I would certainly introduce an element in an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 tank but more for pickup than ride quality - I never really have a problem with stuff staying on the track. With bigger locos, particularly tender locos, I tend not to bother as with pickups on every wheel I see it as not necessary That said, I work predominantly in 2FS though I have built numerous locos in 00, EM and O (none in P4).

 

Jerry

 

Not an easy thing to explain in writing. Never mind. Anyway, as I said, I would do the "beginners'" kits as 0-6-0.

 

I agree about pick-up being the main reason to always compensate an 0-4-0. Without, it can easily rock on the track, especially at pointwork, leaving only two wheels in contact with the rail and one of those on a electrically dead spot.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

Alternatively, wouldn't it be a great opportunity for one of the mainstream magazines to commission “their” kit and run a number of articles on its design and construction?

 

I feel a whole new thread coming on! Which loco should they choose? And in what material?

[Clive Mortimore]

 

 

 

Whilst frame width per se may have nothing to do with it, the consequences of the frame width can have an impact..

 

OK I model in 7mm but the same principles apply. I built a Jinty to Scale7 standards but as it was a finescale kit the sandbox castings were too wide. The narrow frames meant that the castings were quite wide to be visibly in the right place. However if fitted as supplied then they fouled on the coupling rods. The narrower tyre width means that the coupling rods are closer to the frames. So the castings had to be thinned down quite a bit to fit. So yes different castings are required in some cases to cater for the different gauges.

 

Hi Adrian

 

If it was a scale model then the sandboxes would be the right size irrespective of it being O or S7. Making things too big for appearance in one gauge and then building the model in another one is not a problem with the kit. If it was sold as buildable in both gauges then yes it is a problem.

 

Different castings are not required, may be a packing piece should someone want over width sandboxes for appearance sake.

[billbedford]

If it was a scale model the frames would be the correct distance apart and there wouldn't be a problem.

[Clive Mortimore]

I never said about changing fittings above the running plate, the slashers would need altering.

 

Please give an example of a class of loco if were to be made in 00 would need its splashers altering?

 

So you are saying to me an item on a P4 chassis that needs to stick out 10mm from the chassis fitted to an oo gauge chassis will be in the right place? yes the difference to the out side of the wheels between em an oo is about the same, but the difference from the out side of the wheel to the outside of the chassis is different, so parts made to line up with the em wheels if used on oo will not fit. So the brake brackets etc would need to be different. the easy way to see is to draw overlays.

 

The chassis in oo is much narrower than it needs to be so you can get lots of side play. this is so it will go around very tight curves in em and P4 you build the chassis much closer to the wheel backs, as you do not subject them to going around such tight curves. This is what causes the most difference between the parts to be fitted to the chassis.

 

Let’s see your drawings. My experience with kits is the fulcrum that the upper part of the brake is fitted to is normally a length of wire. You solder the brake to the wire in line with the wheel. As I stated before it is the pull rods on the lower end that will need varying width etches.

 

Not all 00 modellers need to have a lot of side play as they do not use very tight curves. In fact I know P4 modellers who use tighter curves than I would. So please stop this P4 snobbery.

 

If there is going to be a future for 4mm loco kits then manufacturers are going to have to cater for the different gauges used. If not they will possibly lose sales to those who model in the other gauges.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I feel a whole new thread coming on! Which loco should they choose? And in what material?

 

Joseph,

 

that's the last thing we need, another bl**dy wishlist. We've already seen that many of the contributors to this thread can't agee on anything.

 

It needs one or more enthusiastic individuals to take up the challenge. That's how most of the "small suppliers" that provide the kits of all varieties got started, usually because they wanted something that wasn't already available and were willing to make the effort to get it.

 

Jol

[N15class]

Please give an example of a class of loco if were to be made in 00 would need its splashers altering?

 

 

 

Let’s see your drawings. My experience with kits is the fulcrum that the upper part of the brake is fitted to is normally a length of wire. You solder the brake to the wire in line with the wheel. As I stated before it is the pull rods on the lower end that will need varying width etches.

 

Not all 00 modellers need to have a lot of side play as they do not use very tight curves. In fact I know P4 modellers who use tighter curves than I would. So please stop this P4 snobbery.

 

If there is going to be a future for 4mm loco kits then manufacturers are going to have to cater for the different gauges used. If not they will possibly lose sales to those who model in the other gauges.

I have no P4 snobbery I have never built in that gauge, but I have had to cut down sandboxes from oo to em. I also have had to remake splasher covers for locos to cover the flanges on oo wheels.

Yes you may well use wire as a fulcrum but modern kits tend to have brackets rather than a piece of wire. Which are not interchangable.

I now mostly model in 7mm and there are the same problems with the frame set up. Which is why when MOK made the 2-6-4 they made 2 kits with different castings etc because one will not do for the other.

[N15class]

 

 

Different castings are not required, may be a packing piece should someone want over width sandboxes for appearance sake.

 

If it is made for oo it is too wide for P4 if it is made for P4 it is too narrow for oo. Simples!!

[Clive Mortimore]

If it is made for oo it is too wide for P4 if it is made for P4 it is too narrow for oo. Simples!!

 

And if it is a scale 9 inches wide it is right.

 

Dimension form GA drawing as published in LMS locomotive Profiles, No14 The Standard Class 3 Freight Tank Engines, Hunt, Essey and Jennison, Wild Swan Publications, 2010.