The future of loco kit building

[James]

Regarding wheels and dimensions over the outside rim, one can occasionally convert a 00 gauge bogie to P4 wheels where EM gauge wheels would be a tight fit or not fit in at all. This is due to P4 wheels being much slimmer than EM wheels that are often 00 wheels spaced out to EM.

 

Looking at Gibson wheels I have, the EM gauge wheelsets aren't as wide over the tyre faces as the similar P4 wheelset.

[Jol Wilkinson]

An industrial might actually be the best choice. Since there were no easy-to-build (i.e. inside cylinder) BR Standard locos, there is nothing that ran on the BR network which would have universal appeal. An industrial just might as could be used on many layouts.

 

 

Why not a "freelance " industrial? No need to decide on which prototype to choose. No research needed, to keep cost down.

 

Start off with a four coupled "No. 1" and then a six coupled "No. 2". Most 00 modellers would probably be happy to run such a loco, could do it in their own choice of livery.

 

Straight running plate (no splashers), resin boiler smokebox as in the LRM Jinty and Coal Tank so no boiler wrappers to fit, etched fold up tanks and bunker. For 00 only so a fold up chassis for correct aligment would suit. Motor mount included for Markits gears and designed to take one specific Mashima motor. Cast w/m fittings (as opposed to lost wax brass) to give the experience of that material. Markits/Romford wheels could be included (despite their cost) to take care of quartering.

 

Alternatively the wheels, motor gears could be ommitted to keep the optical price low, but as Markits bits are readily available that wouldn't be a problem. OR one of the kits could be designed to fit a readily available RTR chassis.

 

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

As regards kits, I would be in the market for a L&Y 3F & Tender bodyline kit to fit on the Bachmann MR 3F chassis. Doesnt matter to me whether its whitemetal, etched brass or resin.....Bodyline kits are a boon for those of us who find chassis building boring.

 

See, I new someone would start a wish list.

[billbedford]

Why not a "freelance " industrial? No need to decide on which prototype to choose. No research needed, to keep cost down.

 

You mean the way that Hornby do……….

[billbedford]

As regards kits, I would be in the market for a L&Y 3F & Tender bodyline kit to fit on the Bachmann MR 3F chassis. Doesnt matter to me whether its whitemetal, etched brass or resin.....Bodyline kits are a boon for those of us who find chassis building boring.

 

The first thing to do would be to check that a Bachmann mech would actually fit is side a L&Y body.

[Barry O]

just build a Judith Edge Kit!

 

One problem I have is - as a real life engineer (apologies I do have degree) I have spent 40 odd years matching materials to assembly techniques to designs. in the Model Railway Arena whenever we see a new "material" people go overboard with it -

some examples - early etched kits had everything etched ( including axlebox springs for tenders) - eventually a mix of etched and cast made the day

Lot of people diving into Resin - which has its own stability problems particularly when fresh from the mould - its ideal for some things but not for all

and 3D printing - used by NASA to make replacements tools in Space and by BAE Systems ti keep VC10s in the air - great idea but it may need a bit more thought (ie by suing it as a box to add etches/details to) for use

 

Some of the comments made so far show little understanding of design and DFX. I personally don't give a banana about what the back to back measurement on my loco wheels are ( Any kit with an etched chassis can cover every popular 4mm based guage) BUT I don't want to be force fed materials and errors in kits which are not really right for the job in hand.

 

I suppose what I am saying is - we have a lot of people who have expressed their opinion on the future of loco kit building - some have a lot of history of building ( and some development) of kits and scratchbuilt vehicle and have offered their experience and knowledge - we would all do well to listen and learn. Enough of the rant - What really for the future?

 

While ever there are items not available in RTR format there is a future. The kits nowadays are far better than some of those I have built over the years, We need to make better use of some of the modern materials to make kits more attractive and while the production costs for RTR continue to spiral upwards the cost of a kit is starting to be more attractive to some of us who want to develop our skills and who want something different.

 

No one has mentioned the 2mm and 3mm kits which are available - now putting a 2mm kit together must give people a real feeling of achievement knowing, for example , that there will probably never be a 2mm RTR NE dockside Bo-Bo Electric.

[Barry O]

Regarding wheels and dimensions over the outside rim, one can occasionally convert a 00 gauge bogie to P4 wheels where EM gauge wheels would be a tight fit or not fit in at all. This is due to P4 wheels being much slimmer than EM wheels that are often 00 wheels spaced out to EM.

 

As regards kits, I would be in the market for a L&Y 3F & Tender bodyline kit to fit on the Bachmann MR 3F chassis. Doesnt matter to me whether its whitemetal, etched brass or resin.....Bodyline kits are a boon for those of us who find chassis building boring.

Coach - the Craftsman and MPD kits are a doddle - the chassis doesn't take long at all - have you tried one?

[Poggy1165]

Surely there is no inherent virtue in springing or compensation? You do it if you need it to to keep your stuff on the track. Otherwise not. Some people choose to do it because they think it makes vehicles run smoothly through crossings.

 

I have no dog in this fight. I work in bog standard 0 Gauge (not S7) where 99% of the time stuff stays on the track because of the sheer mass of the vehicle plus the effect of somewhat overscale flanges. And where any roughness through crossings is largely due to the sloppy nature of the track standards, assuming one keeps to 32mm gauge and the GOG recommended clearances.

[Metropolitan]

Nearly every kit I have built has frames so narrow that they need washers anyway. I have built several and used P4 frame spacers supplied for an EM loco and still had to use washers. The problem with increasing side play allowing wheels to catch on splashers still applies though.

 

No. Not if the kit has been properly designed for OO. Every RTR has oodles of driver sideplay and, as far as I know, the wheels do not foul the splashers. Sideplay is a very good thing.

[mikemeg]

With all due respect to the numerous posters on this thread, hasn't the thread diverged, a little, from the original question? We seem now to have moved into the realms of 'how to build kits and which kits to build' rather than the broader discussion around the future of kit building.

 

Anyway, this kit builder has just begun a kit which no-one has built before and still has to check, ascertain and affirm that he can build it.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[coachmann]

The first thing to do would be to check that a Bachmann mech would actually fit is side a L&Y body.

So have you?

[Buckjumper]

Back to the OP, the future of kit building: #1 son (aged 9) is slowly making his way through an etched kit for am 0-4-0T loco, and building it to S7 standards. Yes the soldering is blobby which means dad has to make heavy use of scrapers, solder braid and the glass fibre pencil after he's gone to bed. Yes he needs a helping hand with the more detailed parts, and yes it's a very protracted build because he's distracted by computer games, football, bikes and his other creative hobbies of drawing, painting and building lego.

 

The loco is fully sprung, and I can tell you that there was a lot less whinging about it than seen in parts of this thread but I concede he did need a helping hand with marking out and sawing the cutouts for the hornguides as he's just not got that kind of dexterity yet...and my supply of piercing saw blades was diminishing pretty quickly.

 

Is his interest a phase because it's dad's job? That's certainly a possibility, though there is a chance I may be witnessing the beginning of a life-long hobby. However, if he does walk away from it as he enters his teenage years then maybe the enjoyment he gets out of it now will lie like a dormant seed inside, and perhaps one day something will trigger that seed to germinate and flourish again.

 

In the meantime, most of my modelling friends are in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and most are kit and/or scratchbuilders working in true-to-prototype gauges in different scales, many of them combining their computer skills to produce their own etches and 3D printed parts. So for now I see the future of kitbuilding secure in them until the younger generation come through bringing with then whatever technology is in the ascendency in 2030: Nanobots to help kit building? Holographic little people? VR cab controls so you can *be* the driver? Singularity so that you can put your feet up and watch the railway simply run itself....as long as the self-aware little people don't revolt over poor pay and fire the CME...

[coachmann]

Coach - the Craftsman and MPD kits are a doddle - the chassis doesn't take long at all - have you tried one?

The quick answer is no. My loco chassis building days more or less ended in the late 1970s as it is just something I do not enjoy doing. I'll look up the kits you mentioned in case one of the firms does a L&Y 3F.

 

Wasn't wish-listing incidentally, just pointing out that for some of us bodyline kits could be the future

[Pugsley]

but I concede he did need a helping hand with marking out and sawing the cutouts for the hornguides as he's just not got that kind of dexterity yet...and my supply of piercing saw blades was diminishing pretty quickly.

I've got over 20 years on him, and I still have the same problem!

[Will L]

Couldn't agree more. An ounce of practical common sense is worth a ton of theory in my book. I can look at some stuff produced for model railways and wonder if we don't sometimes go a bit OTT. Massively complex calculations of spring positions, lengths etc

 

Sounds much worse than it actually is. Some of us have done the thinking/calculating so the rest of you don't have to. Actually much of the apparent complexity comes from trying to explain things in detail. Most things look complicated when you try that.

 

I bet that 99.9% of people never bother with such things

 

Depends who you include in your 99.9 present. All Railway modellers, probably true. Of those who have a go a loco building, not so much. I would accept a significant majority.

 

and the 0.1% of people who do bother don't see any difference because they did!

 

Now there you would be dead wrong. CSB placement isn't intuitive I'm afraid and it won't work well if you get it significantly wrong. Hence the need to work them out properly. That said one of the selling points of the system is that it is robust, in that an an accuracy of about 0.5mm in CBS placement will work just fine making good performing from a properly specified chassis more or less certain, which it isn't with other springing systems. That is assuming you can build a chassis with working hornblock (for the lack of a better name) which I accept not everybody can or in 00/EM needs to do.

 

 

Surely there is no inherent virtue in springing or compensation? You do it if you need it to to keep your stuff on the track. Otherwise not. Some people choose to do it because they think it makes vehicles run smoothly through crossings.

 

What would be an "inherent virtue". Actually some compensated and all fully sprung loco's do run more smoothly through crossings, but that may not matter if your happy with the lurching gate that may model loco's exhibit. However one also may want to consider improved pick-up on chassis with few wheels and better adhesion because weight is evenly distributed over all driving wheels.

 

And doing it just because you can shouldn't be totally ruled out either.

 

Will

[JeffP]

I agree wholeheartedly with the point about stuff being hard to describe how to do it.

 

In my other persona, I spend quite a lot of time on a car website, where my help is often sought.

 

I have spent AGES typing up "How to's" from fitting, and wiring extra lights, to fitting HID projectors to removing and refitting doorcards.

 

Often, the "How to" takes longer to type than actually to do.

[billbedford]

So have you?

 

I have now…...

 

Because the 'A' has a much smaller boiler than a 3F (4'2" against 5') you are going to have problems. AFAICS the top outer edge of the boiler more or less aligns with the top surface of the motor. There may also be problems around the firebox at the footplate level. The only way I can see of making a 'A' class with the 3F chassis is to use a Craftsman kit for the boiler and cab and make sure there is plenty of insulation on the inside of the boiler. OTOH the Wainwright 'C' chassis might be a better fit, but I doubt if Bachmann will be able to lower the motor enough to give clearance for an 'A' boiler.

[coachmann]

Thanks for taking the trouble Bill. Two heads are better than one as they say..............I laid the 3F chassis against a 4mm drawing and did wonder about the round top firebox corners hitting the motor. Looks like the L&Y Belpaire version would have to be the one.....No problem for me as these were also allocated to Lees, though I never fired one. Someone used to produce a whitemetal kit for this variant (Westward Models?).

[t-b-g]

Some interesting points there Will.

 

I can't argue that doing something just because you can (and because you want to!) is probably as good a reason as there is and that approach has led to many advancements in model railways (and life in general).

 

I have seen some excellent running with sprung locos but I have also seen some excellent running (lurch free!!) from rigid locos too.

 

As an experiment, a friend of mine built two locos from identical kits. One was build rigid, the other sprung. The sprung one is ever so slightly quieter through crossings. You can't see the difference but you can just hear it. The rigid one would pull a 12 carriage train without additional weight but the sprung one sat there with its wheels spinning until a large amount of weight was added.

 

This is not he first time I have come across this, particularly in locos with carrying wheels. I reckon that any system which transfers weight off the driving wheels onto carrying wheels reduces adhesion, rather than improving it.

 

Tony

[Will L]

As an experiment, a friend of mine built two locos from identical kits. One was build rigid, the other sprung. The sprung one is ever so slightly quieter through crossings. You can't see the difference but you can just hear it. The rigid one would pull a 12 carriage train without additional weight but the sprung one sat there with its wheels spinning until a large amount of weight was added.

 

This is not he first time I have come across this, particularly in locos with carrying wheels. I reckon that any system which transfers weight off the driving wheels onto carrying wheels reduces adhesion, rather than improving it.

 

Clearly putting weight on carrying wheels does decrease the amount available for adhesion, and where the ride of the loco isn't significantly affected by just letting bogies and pony trucks go along for the ride, that is exactly what I would tend to do too. Even if, as I model in P4, such pony trucks/bogies must be weighted enough to keep them on the track. However if the running qualities of a Triang M7 are not good enough for you, you have to do something. (A Triang M7 is a SR 0-4-4 tank, which runs like what it actually is, a small wheel base 0-4-0 with a very long overhang at one end.) So my C12 4-4-2 tank has some body weight on the bogie, but not on the pony truck, and that will shift your 12 coaches I promise!

 

It is also entirely true that just sticking springs under a loco is no guarantee of performance. The problem with sprung chassis, before the days of CSBs, was the difficulty in ensuring you had the weight devided equally across the driving wheels. Failure to do so can lead to, among other things, a very light footed loco. I used to think sprung locos were not a good idea, at least for me, precisely because of these difficulties.

 

The advent of CSB's has changed all that, its true you can't just guess the design, but in the long run I think we will see taking the guess work out of suspension design as a strength not a weakness. Once you've got your head around the subject, you can ensure you get equal weight on each driving wheel, maximising adhesion, and, should you decide you do want weight on the carrying wheels, you can decide how much (as a % of the total loco weight) and build the loco so that's what you get.

 

OK I know many of you will be happy to carry on as before, but you are forever condemned to being surprised by which loco will pull and which ones wont.

 

Will

[Metropolitan]

Clearly putting weight on carrying wheels does decrease the amount available for adhesion, and where the ride of the loco isn't significantly affected by just letting bogies and pony trucks go along for the ride, that is exactly what I would tend to do too. Even if, as I model in P4, such pony trucks/bogies must be weighted enough to keep them on the track. However if the running qualities of a Triang M7 are not good enough for you, you have to do something. (A Triang M7 is a SR 0-4-4 tank, which runs like what it actually is, a small wheel base 0-4-0 with a very long overhang at one end.) So my C12 4-4-2 tank has some body weight on the bogie, but not on the pony truck, and that will shift your 12 coaches I promise!

 

It is also entirely true that just sticking springs under a loco is no guarantee of performance. The problem with sprung chassis, before the days of CSBs, was the difficulty in ensuring you had the weight devided equally across the driving wheels. Failure to do so can lead to, among other things, a very light footed loco. I used to think sprung locos were not a good idea, at least for me, precisely because of these difficulties.

 

The advent of CSB's has changed all that, its true you can't just guess the design, but in the long run I think we will see taking the guess work out of suspension design as a strength not a weakness. Once you've got your head around the subject, you can ensure you get equal weight on each driving wheel, maximising adhesion, and, should you decide you do want weight on the carrying wheels, you can decide how much (as a % of the total loco weight) and build the loco so that's what you get.

 

OK I know many of you will be happy to carry on as before, but you are forever condemned to being surprised by which loco will pull and which ones wont.

 

Will

 

 

 

Oh no! Please no!! I suppose it had to happen though. CSB's were bound to rear their ugly head. Of all the worst jokes inflicted on the GKP (general kitbuilding public) Continuous Springy Beams have to be the worst ever. Try some lead weights instead. Believe me they are better than this fiddling rubbish. There seems to be some kind of competition to design the hardest to build and most useless suspension system ever.

 

I would like to know how it can be, seriously; if standard compensation and/or springs are so good and have solved all ills why is there a need for CSB's? Could it be that the whole subject of suspension does not work with 4mm loco's? I despair sometimes. I really do.

[N15class]

Oh no! Please no!! I suppose it had to happen though. CSB's were bound to rear their ugly head. Of all the worst jokes inflicted on the GKP (general kitbuilding public) Continuous Springy Beams have to be the worst ever. Try some lead weights instead. Believe me they are better than this fiddling rubbish. There seems to be some kind of competition to design the hardest to build and most useless suspension system ever.

 

I would like to know how it can be, seriously; if standard compensation and/or springs are so good and have solved all ills why is there a need for CSB's? Could it be that the whole subject of suspension does not work with 4mm loco's? I despair sometimes. I really do.

A properly made chassis using CSB, individual springing and compensation, works well. Just the same way that a properly made rigid chassis will. A poorly designed or built chassis will run badly no matter what you have put into it.

From my own experience I have had no trouble with compensation or springing in 4mm. I would have tried CSB, but gave up the smaller scale before it was well known.

We all know that you dislike like anything but rigid chassis's. But there is no need to keep repeating your mantra that anything else is stupid and is not to be built. I do not build rigid if I can help it, but I would never dream of telling you that the modelling you do wrong just because it does not fit in with what I do.

[billbedford]

Oh no! Please no!! I suppose it had to happen though. CSB's were bound to rear their ugly head. Of all the worst jokes inflicted on the GKP (general kitbuilding public) Continuous Springy Beams have to be the worst ever. Try some lead weights instead. Believe me they are better than this fiddling rubbish. There seems to be some kind of competition to design the hardest to build and most useless suspension system ever.

 

I would like to know how it can be, seriously; if standard compensation and/or springs are so good and have solved all ills why is there a need for CSB's? Could it be that the whole subject of suspension does not work with 4mm loco's? I despair sometimes. I really do.

 

Is this the ghost of C. J. Freezer?

[buffalo]

...I would like to know how it can be, seriously; if standard compensation and/or springs are so good and have solved all ills...

They aren't necessarily, and they haven't.

...why is there a need for CSB's?

Because they work as expected and, as Will said, they take the guesswork out of springing.

...I despair sometimes. I really do.

So do I.

 

Nick

[mikemeg]

This debate/argument misses the differences between 00, EM and P4. In 00 flanges are deeper, r-t-r models and many kit built models rely on some slop in the bearings to ensure that all wheels are on the track at the same time. Even with a fairly uneven track, an 00 model locomotive, so configured, will both stay on the track and remain in electrical contact. With EM, where flange depth is reduced, then springing may or may not be necessary.

 

For P4, where flange depth is very much reduced, to the point where wheels will de-rail on uneven track simply because the track deviation is equal to or greater than the flange depth, it is therefore necessary to force the wheels into contact with the track, not just for electrical integrity but for roadholding.

 

This can't be done via play in the bearings if other tolerances are nearer scale, preventing the use of bearing slop. It must be done by some form of forcing of the wheels onto the track. Springing, of one form or another is the best way to achieve this forcing action. Individual springing of axles was the way in which this was done, much as the prototype employs. The disadvantages of individual springing are that it is fiddly; each axle must be individually fitted and then adjusted and it depends on each spring exerting the same force, at least on four driving wheels. This is not easy to achieve; in fact it's bloody difficult.

 

A better solution is to use a material which has a consistent spring force and which can be adjusted to alter that spring force in a predictable way. CSB's by virtue of their being a single spring spanning all of the driving wheels on one side of a loco, achieve just that. They can also be used very effectively on locomotive tenders.

 

I will wholeheartedly agree that springing or use of CSB's in 00 is probably unnecessary. In EM it is probably debateable as to its value, but in P4, if not essential, it is certainly advisable.

 

Does that help, any, John?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Metropolitan]

This debate/argument misses the differences between 00, EM and P4. In 00 flanges are deeper, r-t-r models and many kit built models rely on some slop in the bearings to ensure that all wheels are on the track at the same time. Even with a fairly uneven track, an 00 model locomotive, so configured, will both stay on the track and remain in electrical contact. With EM, where flange depth is reduced, then springing may or may not be necessary.

 

For P4, where flange depth is very much reduced, to the point where wheels will de-rail on uneven track simply because the track deviation is equal to or greater than the flange depth, it is therefore necessary to force the wheels into contact with the track, not just for electrical integrity but for roadholding.

 

This can't be done via play in the bearings if other tolerances are nearer scale, preventing the use of bearing slop. It must be done by some form of forcing of the wheels onto the track. Springing, of one form or another is the best way to achieve this forcing action. Individual springing of axles was the way in which this was done, much as the prototype employs. The disadvantages of individual springing are that it is fiddly; each axle must be individually fitted and then adjusted and it depends on each spring exerting the same force, at least on four driving wheels. This is not easy to achieve; in fact it's bloody difficult.

 

A better solution is to use a material which has a consistent spring force and which can be adjusted to alter that spring force in a predictable way. CSB's by virtue of their being a single spring spanning all of the driving wheels on one side of a loco, achieve just that. They can also be used very effectively on locomotive tenders.

 

I will wholeheartedly agree that springing or use of CSB's in 00 is probably unnecessary. In EM it is probably debateable as to its value, but in P4, if not essential, it is certainly advisable.

 

Does that help, any, John?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Hi Mike. Yes that helps Mike and is a comprehensive explanation. Thank you. I speak only as an OO Gauge modeller. And as such I think I am part of 99% of the 4mm modelling scene in this country.