The future of loco kit building

[MJI]

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.

 

 

I did an LPG how to - now that was quicker!

[MJI]

If I was going to build a 440 or 044 I would build it like a BoBo even though it is really a 2B or B2

[mikemeg]

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.

 

John,

 

You are part of a majority but I doubt that it is 99%. The Scalefour Society has a membership of around 1,700. If that were 1% of the modelling fraternity, that would make the total 1,700 x 100 or 170,000. And that precludes the EM community.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[edcayton]

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

 

I don't follow this logic Mike. Surely the essence of P4 is that the "track deviation" is minimised so springing should be LESS necessary? Given that the radii are likely to be larger, and that the turnout geometry is closer to prototype so check rails should do their job better.

Please note I am not knocking anything here, just curious.

 

Ed

[Metropolitan]

John,

 

You are part of a majority but I doubt that it is 99%. The Scalefour Society has a membership of around 1,700. If that were 1% of the modelling fraternity, that would make the total 1,700 x 100 or 170,000. And that precludes the EM community.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Hi Mike. I would say that 170,000 is far off the mark and must be an underestimate. My local model shop exists on only OO gauge and N gauge RTR and nothing else. Could Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol exist on such a small number? Perhaps the average 4mm modeller has no interest in EM or P4?

[edcayton]

Hi Mike. I would say that 170,000 is far off the mark and must be an underestimate. My local model shop exists on only OO gauge and N gauge RTR and nothing else. Could Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol exist on such a small number? Perhaps the average 4mm modeller has no interest in EM or P4?

 

To be fair, John, the "average modeller" probably has no interest in building kits (which indeed is a point you make), or possibly even RMWeb!

 

Ed

[Clive Mortimore]

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.

 

 

Does that help, any, John?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

As a diesel modeller I am a little lost with " With EM, where flange depth is reduced..." Many diesel EM modellers say that EMing a diesel today is easy, all you need to do is pull the wheels out to gauge. Today's RTR 00 diesel wheels are good enough for EM. Don't today's RTR steam locos have the same finer flanges as their diesel counter parts.

 

Clive

[Metropolitan]

To be fair, John, the "average modeller" probably has no interest in building kits (which indeed is a point you make), or possibly even RMWeb!

 

Ed

 

And it is no wonder when they are asked to struggle with CSB's, springs and compensation. Sorry to bang on about it but this is a thread about the future of loco kitbuilding.

[billbedford]

Hi Mike. I would say that 170,000 is far off the mark and must be an underestimate. My local model shop exists on only OO gauge and N gauge RTR and nothing else. Could Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol exist on such a small number? Perhaps the average 4mm modeller has no interest in EM or P4?

 

Well 1% was a guess and anything calculated from it is equally spurious.

[jjnewitt]

It would seem to me that the future of loco kitbuilding is fairly healthy from the number of people who have given their views over the past 36 pages. People will always want to build things particularly where there is no easy option, some people will even do so where there is. Given the number of unmade kits that must be stashed away in people's draws I'd say that there was enough to keep a large number of people busy for a long time with what has already been produced. The dramatic increase in the standard of RTR over the past 15 years means that people don't have to build kits to get a decent model anymore (providing it's avaliable of course) so the number of people who build kits will naturally decrease. It wont die out though, at least not while I'm around!

 

The future of loco kit manufacture is perhaps a bit more difficult to predict. Ultimately it will be down to a few individuals who get off their bums and produce them (mainly for their own needs) on a cottage industry basis, much as it is now. I can't see a return to the days of Nu-Cast etc and large ranges of whitemetal kits. It's been a long time since anyone produced something along those lines and if the demand was there someone would have done so. The pages of RMweb can be found individuals who produce their own kits, part kits, scratch aid etches, resin parts.... To me this is the future. 3D printing offers intriguing possibilties to produce parts but the technology isn't quite there yet nor is it ideal in my eyes to produce whole 3D printed bodies despite the fact that it can be done. Every technology has its strengths and weaknesses and perhaps the best path is mixed media kits. Nor do I think it matters overly what other people want in their little boxes (which there seems to have been an awful lot of opinion on) as the spec will be down to what the manufacturer wants, be that P4/EM only or 2mm finesacle or O, sprung, compensated etc. Why would people go to the extra expense or effort when it's unlikely that they'll recoup their costs, unless of course they are particularly philanthropic? If there was gold at the end of the kit manufacturing rainbow more people would be rushing after it, thankfully though for a lot it's not all about the money for which the rest of us can only be grateful!

[Andy Y]

Please wind back on potential 'gauge wars'.

[ArthurK]

Please wind back on potential 'gauge wars'.

 

I second that! All this discussion is leading nowhere. What it comes around to is that everyone will do what they think is right for them. Whatever the gauge and whatever degree of sophistication goes into the suspension matters not a jot. If some want to do that they will, it they don't then they won't!

 

To each his own.

 

ArthurK

[Paul Cram]

To be honest I am not bothered one way or the other whether people want to build loco kits or not. I am not interested in dumbing down kits to encourage them. There is far to much pandering to people who can't be bothered to learn how to do anything. If people want to come into the hobby fine, if they don't that is equally fine. If the rtr manufacturers stopped tomorrow I wouldn't be bothered. I have enough kits to keep me going and I'm sure more will be produced or appear on ebay. If they are difficuklt to build so be it, at least there is something to build. Likewise if people stop producng kits it's no big deal I'd just have to scratch build. I will continue to enjoy the hobby regardless of how many other people are involved. If new kits are produced I want them as close to the prototype as possible but then I am still only going to buy those that fall in me sphere of interest.

 

On a final note there is always compensation if springing is too difficult. I've never had a problem with that.

[Hippo]

The future of kit building is bright, the future of kit building is industrial

 

http://www.rtmodels.co.uk/rt_models_016.htm

 

The above link is for RT models Manning Wardle released in the last year.

 

http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/catalogue/judithedge

 

and Judith Edge, who has some great kits

 

Owen

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Incidentally another well known personality has revealed himself to be into building loco kits. It's Lord Winston. Although is are a Japanese make of live steam. I suppose being a qualified neurosurgeon would be a help.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fccb07a4-100c-11e1-a468-00144feabdc0.html

[N15class]

I am still sure that kts will still be around for many a year. I am sure there will be enough modellers around who enjoy assembling something themselves. You see that on here there are blocks and threads from many people building all sorts of different models not just locos.

I fore see the RTR market becoming very expensive within a few years. It is happening a little now.

[Donw]

I have a coal fired boiler kit which consist of the boiler, axle pump water tanks smokebox etc which is intended to convert an Accucraft Edrig to Coal firing. However I only bought the Edrig chassis so I will have to create my own body for it. That should be fun the kit bit takes the difficult part of making the boiler but allows plenty of chance for me to put my stamp on it. A bit different to the usual sort of kit.

Don

[t-b-g]

If I was going to build a 440 or 044 I would build it like a BoBo even though it is really a 2B or B2

 

Spot on with that!

 

I can quote two examples. The London Road G5 kit (NER 0-4-4T) which my good friend Malcolm Crawley designed. The driving wheels are in twin pivoting beams and the weight at the back rides on the bogie (which I recall also has pivotting sides). Probably the best riding vehicle on a railway is a bogie carriage and those kits build up just like a carriage where only one bogie turns.

 

It may have been the first ever loco kit which had compulsory beam suspension, unless anybody knows otherwise!

 

I have seen one pull 50 wagons with no problem.

 

Not a kit but a scratchbuilt example is the LD&ECR 0-4-4T built by Peter Denny for Buckingham. On that one, it really is on two bogies and the driving wheel section can pivot in the body too. Each bogie is rigid. If you do a two pivotting bogie system, you also reduce the rear overhang to a minimum on curves. With that loco, you can shunt carriages bunker first around reverse curves of about 3' radius with no buffer locking. The man was a genius!

 

In both cases, a proportion of any weight added (unless it is behind the bogie pivot) goes on the driving wheels. The LD&ECR is packed with lead and almost needs two hands to pick it up! OK, a slight exaggeration but it is heavy. the trains on Buckingham were not that long but I must try it out on a big trainset one day to see what it will pull.

[benachie]

t-b-g,

"unless anybody knows otherwise"

Not quite so sophisticated but the basis of this type of 4-4-0 or 0-4-4 suspension goes back at least as far as an article by Horton in the July 1964 RM. (See my build of a GNSR D40 in "Featured Content".) I'm not sure if the Horton article pre-dates Denny. Anyway, I completely agree about the success of the method.

(There is also an extended discussion of 0-4-4T problems in MRJ No.3.)

Alan

[Will L]

... unless anybody knows otherwise!

 

The Mallard D16 kit does something similar. That's a very early etched kit, must Have brought mine in the 70's. Its a good kit even by present standards and its quite close to being top of the next to be built pile.

 

There must be some relevance to this topic in that.

 

Will

[Horsetan]

IIRC In MRJ 58 Chris Pendlenton mentions he has a a rigid V2 which somehow managed to stay on the track!

 

That was in MRJ 4 and 6. I think he has built a new chassis for it since then.

[t-b-g]

t-b-g,

"unless anybody knows otherwise"

Not quite so sophisticated but the basis of this type of 4-4-0 or 0-4-4 suspension goes back at least as far as an article by Horton in the July 1964 RM. (See my build of a GNSR D40 in "Featured Content".) I'm not sure if the Horton article pre-dates Denny. Anyway, I completely agree about the success of the method.

(There is also an extended discussion of 0-4-4T problems in MRJ No.3.)

Alan

 

I remember that article well. Not that I am old enough....... I just like looking through old magazines.

 

That one will predate the Denny loco by about 10 years. As Peter had all the issues of Railway Modeller, he would have been aware of it when he built his.

 

The LD&ECR was one of his last loco builds and is only about 40 years old. I can't remember and don't have easy access to a copy now but does the driving wheel bogie on the Horton loco twist from side to side as well as pivot fore and aft?

 

I wasn't aware of the Mallard models D16 construction details and Malcolm hadn't seen one either. He always felt quite proud of having "invented" the arrangement but it just goes to show that there is nothing much in model railways that wasn't done first many years ago!

 

Thanks for reminding me of that one,

 

Tony

[Donw]

The Mallard D16 kit does something similar. That's a very early etched kit, must Have brought mine in the 70's. Its a good kit even by present standards and its quite close to being top of the next to be built pile.

 

There must be some relevance to this topic in that.

 

Will

Thats because Fred is a Great Eastern man. I think his son used to edit the GER soc mag.

Don

[Weaselfish]

The future's clear for any LMS fan who wants a go and is at the Warley NEC exhibition tomorrow. Mercian Models have an 00 Austin 7 0-8-0 kit (I think it's Nu-Cast) with motor, wheels and gears for £75.00 on their stand. It was still there when I left at about 4.45pm today.

[Barry O]

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.

strange I fixed two locos today which were shorting/missing their contacts due to excessive play -and fouls on splashers - and I was doing a weathering demo(!)

 

So we won't be seeing an RTR Raven Atlantic or R at some time in the near future as the real things had wheels which did foul the splashers on occasion!