The future of loco kit building

[mikemeg]

One additional aspect is ability to haul trains. As an example, two friends were dancing with joy when Bachmann announced the Austerity 2-8-0. The smiles soon dropped when it arrived. It was pretty, well detailed etc but haulage wise, very poor. They now have DJH replacements, less detailed, but happliy hauling 30+ wagon trains.

 

Despite the Hornby Castle being an outstanding model, both mine have been sold on and replaced with SEF/Wills. Again less detailed but hauling ten kit built coaches, whereas the Hornby can only mange seven. I was about to replace my Bachmann 45xx, but out of curiosity as to why its hauling power was so poor, took the body apart, removed the 'weights' and replaced with roof lead formed to the same shape, and they both now haul acceptable length trains of kit built coaches.

 

Over the last ten years I have seen rtr crabs, ivatt moguls, standards etc all replaced with kit builds (many with my Dad or I building) as they cannot haul the trains the owners normally run, with owners happliy accepting lesser detail in return for greater performance.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

As a matter of interest, if you could have bought a chassis kit for the Hornby Castle and used a more powerful motor, different gearbox, would you have been tempted to 'rebuild' them using their original bodies, or would you still have replaced them? I wonder how the cost equation would square doing that (let's say £30 for the chassis kit) against a kit plus all of the extras needed?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[billbedford]

Many of the kit manufacturers have woken up to the fact they can make more a lot more money in 7mm (or other scales) than in 4mm. So those who are innovating and producing, such as Just Like the Real Thing, simply never come near 4mm stuff. And non-4mm is where you find a lot of those modellers who don't want the RTR manufacturers to do it all for them.

 

This misses an important point. The average sales for a 4mm loco kit is around 3 times that for a 7mm one. So while the list price of a 7mm kit may three time that of a 4mm one, the return on investment is about the same.

[Horsetan]

Kenton, your predictions of doom for the kit industry and builders are getting a bit wearing. Were you frightened by a kit as a child and are now trying to get revenge?....

 

No, but I don't think he leaves the house very often

[Coach bogie]

As a matter of interest, if you could have bought a chassis kit for the Hornby Castle and used a more powerful motor, different gearbox, would you have been tempted to 'rebuild' them using their original bodies, or would you still have replaced them? I wonder how the cost equation would square doing that (let's say £30 for the chassis kit) against a kit plus all of the extras needed?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

It is not so much the chassis but a combination of plastic body and alloy additions to the rtr chassis block. Unless there is a large side tank I can fill with weight (Bachmann 56xx with High Level chassis) I will go for a complete kit, expecially if it has a cast boiler. My Finney Stella, has a much detailed K's cast Dean Goods boiler firebox as there is no where to put any weight with his design of kit. As originally built, even with a tender sitting on the rear of the loco, haulage was poor. I had considered using a scale chassis under a Bachmann Pannier but as the body is wrong for a pre 46 engine, I elected to build a total kit rather than start cutting up bodies.

 

Not so much a question of cost. It is a one off cost and the engines should last a lifetime (unlike many rtr assigned to the bin in the last twenty years). A SEF Wills Castle would cost in the region of £150, Finney Stella £200 after I have purchased all the bits, but I have very few kit builds that have ever need any further major expenditure apart from expected wear. I often build something for friends in return for a complete kit, to fund the kits I want.

 

To get a model of the Bear, La France. kit building/kitbashing is the only option and once you have built a few, your speed/skills improve big time. Recently my wife and children were away for a weekend and without the interuptions, I was able to build, convert to Saint Martin and run from a Nucast Hall before they returned. Again Bachamann Hall sold on-nice model but has no chance of hauling eight BSL coaches as the Nucast can and is required to do so.

 

In some circumstances I do use rtr tenders in place of kit builds.I am not going to waste time building a tender if an rtr one will do the same job.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Kenton]

Kenton, your predictions of doom for the kit industry and builders are getting a bit wearing. Were you frightened by a kit as a child and are now trying to get revenge?

 

What utter tosh! Where? Although I might be critical of some of the kit manufacturer's, particularly the older, out of step, pre CAD survivors - I have been anything but supportive in my comments of the better ones. Personal attacks only show you for what you are, this has been a very civil topic up to now with a surprisingly well balanced discussion. It does not require you (or me) to drag in personalised insults or old vendettas.

[Earlswood Nob]

Morning all

Coach Bogie raises the point about lack of power in RTR models. One of the advantages of white metal kits is their weight. I purchased an old Kays O4 a while ago for a good price. It still had the Kays Mk1 motor and was wired the wrong way round, so I use it to test my chassis performance. It will push everything back including a Litte Engines A7 with a Portescap motor and a Little Engines T1 with a Mashima 1428 and 108:1 gearbox. However, it does require a lot more amps than any other motor. Even my little Kays Y8 which is fitted with a Mashima 1015 and 108:1 will shunt five coaches easily. I have converted a Mainline J72 to a J71 by Mainly Trains conversion kit and am trying to get enough lead in it to perform well, but haven't succeeded yet.

As the old saying goes; "You pays the money and make your choices"

Earlswood Nob

[GC Jack]

I expect I am being daft here so can someone explain?

 

I have built a finescale 4mm kit primarily designed for P4 etc. in 00. I used thinner chassis spacers and altered a few clearances.

 

Is this now impossible in new kits designed for fine scale only?

 

Jack

[LNWR lives on]

Time to chuck my 2p worth in

 

I think kit building has suffered as in conjunction with the vast improvements in RTR products, but will it ever die out, no, because no matter how much the RTR manufactureres tighten their grip and improve further they will never be able to model every single loco or variant that exsisted from every company, nor will they be able to do this to a level that satisfies every railway modeller. Look at the Bachmann G2a for example, available in every livery except its original LNWR livery because the value wasnt there for them. The against this thought is that eventually the very old companies will be modelled less and less as the older generations pass and the youth model the diesels etc they can see today

 

You also have to consider the term Railway MODELLING, some people hold true to this and want to model everything, kits and scratchbuilding allow this portion of the market to do this

 

Ill get my coat..................now wheres that MAJ coach I was having a fight with........

[S.A.C Martin]

Regarding loco haulage - I have added liquid lead to all of my Bachmann A1s, above the driving wheels and fore of the motor (all replaced with the same standard Mashima motor). They will now happily pull anything asked of them, and that has included rakes of brass coaches.

 

There seems to be a desire to undermine all RTR as unable to pull realistic looking loads. I can say categorically that with minimal alteration and addition of weight, many of my RTR Pacifics are fully capable of pulling trains of nine to eleven coaches without fuss.

 

The question is not whether they have any haulage capacity; it's a question of what they are designed to pull.

 

My heaviest rakes of RTR coaches are a nine coach set of Gresley Teaks (Hornby) or an eleven coach rake of Crimson/Cream Bachmann Mk1s. I don't believe the majority of RTR locomotives are designed to pull much heavier than that, and why should they be when they are designed to supplement the coaching stock sold with them, in most if not all cases?

[N15class]

Many of the kit manufacturers have woken up to the fact they can make more a lot more money in 7mm (or other scales) than in 4mm. So those who are innovating and producing, such as Just Like the Real Thing, simply never come near 4mm stuff. And non-4mm is where you find a lot of those modellers who don't want the RTR manufacturers to do it all for them.

 

Chris

I thought Pete Waterman started JLRT to get bits for his own model railway.

[Coach bogie]

 

There seems to be a desire to undermine all RTR as unable to pull realistic looking loads. I can say categorically that with minimal alteration and addition of weight, many of my RTR Pacifics are fully capable of pulling trains of nine to eleven coaches without fuss.

 

The question is not whether they have any haulage capacity; it's a question of what they are designed to pull.

 

 

I am pleased you have been successful with your pacifics. With smaller GWR locos I have failed miserably.

 

I do run some rtr especially if I can perform a quick fix alteration to what I atually want (see next months Railway Modeller). I do own a Bachmann 'Tornado' for one of my 'funny' train days. It can just about mange eight Bachamnn mk 1's. My nine old loves it but manges to knock off alot of the fine detail. I gave in and bought him th new Hornby Railroad version for a fraction of the super detailed Bachmann price. The haulage is vastly superior with my lad able to put up to thirteen behind it. I am not knocking all rtr but I have failed to understand why Hornby locos have superior haulage compared to Bachmann when they are made in the same factory.

 

I have worked hard all my life to get a bigger layout in a double garage, to run scale length trains. It has taken unitl my 50's to achieve my goal and I will not accept a Bachmann Hall struggling with six kit build coaches when I can have a full legth nine or ten coach train with a Nucast Hall up front that shows no sign of effort in pulling the trains I want.

 

A SEF/Wills King hauls a ten coach train of BSL 1929 stock with ease but a Hornby King (which I still have) will not even shift it.

 

Sometimes it is the reverse situation. My Hornby Lord of the Isles, hauls six Triang clerestories with no issues. My M&L Dean single could just about pull itself along.

 

As my previous post, I kit build for the haulage. I was taught to make it work first and look pretty afterwards, which is my approach to kit building.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[S.A.C Martin]

I do own a Bachmann 'Tornado' for one of my 'funny' train days. It can just about mange eight Bachamnn mk 1's. My nine old loves it but manges to knock off alot of the fine detail. I gave in and bought him th new Hornby Railroad version for a fraction of the super detailed Bachmann price. The haulage is vastly superior with my lad able to put up to thirteen behind it. I am not knocking all rtr but I have failed to understand why Hornby locos have superior haulage compared to Bachmann when they are made in the same factory.

 

That's odd because I have found in my experience that the Bachmann A1 is a superior hauler to the Hornby Tornado (which is still a terrific model - the flywheel makes a seriously smooth running locomotive). I think the diecast chassis employed for the Hornby A1 may be why it is better than your Bachmann Tornado without alteration. I must now check both of my Tornado's for curiosity's sake!

 

I have worked hard all my life to get a bigger layout in a double garage, to run scale length trains. It has taken unitl my 50's to achieve my goal and I will not accept a Bachmann Hall struggling with six kit build coaches when I can have a full legth nine or ten coach train with a Nucast Hall up front that shows no sign of effort in pulling the trains I want.

 

A SEF/Wills King hauls a ten coach train of BSL 1929 stock with ease but a Hornby King (which I still have) will not even shift it.

 

Sometimes it is the reverse situation. My Hornby Lord of the Isles, hauls six Triang clerestories with no issues. My M&L Dean single could just about pull itself along.

 

As my previous post, I kit build for the haulage. I was taught to make it work first and look pretty afterwards, which is my approach to kit building.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Thanks for those further thoughts Mike. Food for thought. I had always thought that the GWR 4-6-0s would be better in some respects as the weight should be over all of their driving wheels - are they not so easily modified for weight as the Pacifics?

 

I will say this - having owned a Hornby King once - it's one of the most gutless models I have ever come across!

[billbedford]

One additional aspect is ability to haul trains. As an example, two friends were dancing with joy when Bachmann announced the Austerity 2-8-0. The smiles soon dropped when it arrived. It was pretty, well detailed etc but haulage wise, very poor.

 

I presume, then, that you are not using free-running pinpoint axles and bearings.

[Jol Wilkinson]

What utter tosh! Where? Although I might be critical of some of the kit manufacturer's, particularly the older, out of step, pre CAD survivors - I have been anything but supportive in my comments of the better ones.

 

I haven't felt that to be the case from several of your postings on this topic.

 

Personal attacks only show you for what you are, this has been a very civil topic up to now with a surprisingly well balanced discussion. It does not require you (or me) to drag in personalised insults or old vendettas.

 

So generalised attacks about kit suppliers and designers are okay?

 

The problem with the designer writing instructions is that they do not have any incentive to make them useful. If they designed the kit for their interest then what is the point of bothering with instructions, if they design with the aim of selling as many as possible then (usually) they still have no ability and simply want to get on to the next kit - designing is their skill set.

 

As someone who has designed a number of loco and other kits for which I also wrote the instructions, I find that rather demeaning.

 

Kits have become overly complicated, almost too fine a detail, yet ignoring the basics. Take just one small area, forming a box. Why are kits still supplying all sides to be soldered together instead of a fold-up single part? Then we have the whole to tab or not to tab debate.

 

Your wording again implies a blanket critiscism.

 

The over complexity of springing and compensation has put off many a kit builder and take a good look at the vast majority of kits even these days it is badly handled in the design and instructions. Compensation in the form of 3-point wobbly wagons is often "built in" but how many kits make springing an easily doable or understandable task - even on wagons. Even more discouragement in taking that enormous step to move everything you have to a different gauge.

 

"the vast majority of kits" once again implies most designers/manufacturers.

 

However, to a manufacturer who needs to make a profit, to develop a business then ignoring the masses of common modellers makes no business sense and for the potential return is worth that extra effort in design and asking/paying other builders to test build and prepare a topic following the build.

 

Who ignores the masses of common modellers? You don't name any particular manufacturer and therefore again imply it could be anybody or everybody. I know of several that this could apply to, but that is the business model that they have chosen. Whether you and I think it's daft doesn't matter, it's what they have chosen to do. However, it's not how most kit suppliers operate and to imply otherwise is wrong. However, that's a generalisation and so probably not valid.

 

The approach used over the years by most designers of designing, test building and writing the instructions themselves has worked well and helped keep costs down. Sales of most etched kits are very low, compared to RTR product levels. Adding cost (and complication) in the development stage has to be minimised where sensible if the final product cost is to kept as low as possible. I know where your suggested approach has been tried, but hasn't provided any tangible benefits.

 

Oldlogger's OP asked "So what's the state of play and how do you think the future will unfold, kit wise?". However, it seemed to develop for some people into an opportunity to have a go about the kit manufacturers in general.

 

Jol

[Metropolitan]

Back on Topic: The future of loco Kitbuilding.

 

 

Here is a seriously good and well designed, easy to build OO kit. I do not know how old it is but would guess 1970's?? It is packaged quite well although little thought has been given to making the packaging look attractive. Again it's a guess but I would think that hundreds of these have been sold.

 

 

 

 

The kit includes a Romfords wheelset and has been designed for an Anchoridge motor.

 

Having built one of these before I can vouch for the fact that it builds into a perfectly usable and robust model that looks near enough like a Peppercorn A2.

 

However, although it is still available it has not been updated to modern satndards in order to attract a new customer base.

 

The initial investment cost of producing the kit must have been repaid many times and yet it is for sale, without wheels or motor, at a cost which prohibits new sales.

 

In order to revive sales in this old kit I would like to see amoungst other things:

 

- Turned Sprung Buffers and all the small whitemetal fiitings replaced with brass ones.

- Plastic moulded Brakes

- Plastic exterior pipework

- A revised frame that does not have the horrible provision for the Anchoridge.

- A Markits Wheelset

- A ready made gearbox and modern motor.

 

All so easy to do.

 

And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

[N15class]

Back on Topic: The future of loco Kitbuilding.

 

 

Here is a seriously good and well designed, easy to build OO kit. I do not know how old it is but would guess 1970's?? It is packaged quite well although little thought has been given to making the packaging look attractive. Again it's a guess but I would think that hundreds of these have been sold.

 

 

 

 

The kit includes a Romfords wheelset and has been designed for an Anchoridge motor.

 

Having built one of these before I can vouch for the fact that it builds into a perfectly usable and robust model that looks near enough like a Peppercorn A2.

 

However, although it is still available it has not been updated to modern satndards in order to attract a new customer base.

 

The initial investment cost of producing the kit must have been repaid many times and yet it is for sale, without wheels or motor, at a cost which prohibits new sales.

 

In order to revive sales in this old kit I would like to see amoungst other things:

 

- Turned Sprung Buffers and all the small whitemetal fiitings replaced with brass ones.

- Plastic moulded Brakes

- Plastic exterior pipework

- A revised frame that does not have the horrible provision for the Anchoridge.

- A Markits Wheelset

- A ready made gearbox and modern motor.

 

All so easy to do.

 

And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

So to remake all the masters, redraw the etches, produce really expensive injection moldings, add more expensive wheels Put in a ready made gearbox and motor, All for just a £130 to sell how many? Maybe 100 over the next 25 years, only to have someone in ten years say it ought to resin,or 3D printed.

 

Edited for bad typing

[Coach bogie]

I presume, then, that you are not using free-running pinpoint axles and bearings.

 

You presume wrong! All kit built run Romford coach wheels in pin point bearings.

[billbedford]

And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

 

I wish I'd had a pound for every time a customer had told me that something was 'bound to sell hundreds'

[Horsetan]

.....And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

 

Have you tried running a business based on this premise?

[Metropolitan]

Have you tried running a business based on this premise?

 

All my working life I have run businesses for which price and competition are life or death.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Back on Topic: The future of loco Kitbuilding.

 

 

Here is a seriously good and well designed, easy to build OO kit. I do not know how old it is but would guess 1970's?? It is packaged quite well although little thought has been given to making the packaging look attractive. Again it's a guess but I would think that hundreds of these have been sold.

 

The kit includes a Romfords wheelset and has been designed for an Anchoridge motor.

 

Having built one of these before I can vouch for the fact that it builds into a perfectly usable and robust model that looks near enough like a Peppercorn A2.

 

However, although it is still available it has not been updated to modern satndards in order to attract a new customer base.

 

The initial investment cost of producing the kit must have been repaid many times and yet it is for sale, without wheels or motor, at a cost which prohibits new sales.

 

In order to revive sales in this old kit I would like to see amoungst other things:

 

- Turned Sprung Buffers and all the small whitemetal fiitings replaced with brass ones.

- Plastic moulded Brakes

- Plastic exterior pipework

- A revised frame that does not have the horrible provision for the Anchoridge.

- A Markits Wheelset

- A ready made gearbox and modern motor.

 

All so easy to do.

 

And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

 

John,

 

the bought in parts (Markits wheels, motor, motor mount, gears and AG buffers) would cost about £92.00. A pre-assembled gearbox would add to that.

 

That would leave £38 for the etches, castings and mouldings. Even if you replaced the plastic mouldings with etched parts, etc. that is not probably not even enough to buy/make the parts. Development/pattern/tool cost will be reduced per kit is you could sell hundreds, but the actual unit production costs remain much the same, irrespective of how many you make. There are, AFAIK, no volume terms available from the etchers, investment casters, etc. at these volumes.

 

I don't think any of us actually know at what price point a kit of this complexity (as opposed to a six coupled diesel shunter) becomes attractive enough to get the non-kit builder interested. I would think that a lower priced item, that is not particularly specific to a period/location/railway company might be a better bet.

 

We also have to remember that the investment in the kit is not all the new builder may have to spend. There will be some tools and equipment that he/she may have to buy which will make the first foray into kit building look rather expensive.

 

And, as I know from experience, forecasting sales for a particular kit is not a precise science.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

All my working life I have run businesses for which price and competition are life or death.

 

Good. Then you'll be able to produce '70s-style loco kits priced at that level.

 

What are you waiting for?

[Clive Mortimore]

I wish I'd had a pound for every time a customer had told me that something was 'bound to sell hundreds'

 

"Well me and my mate will have one"....they always have a mate who models the same stuff they do.

 

Kit sales have never been massive volumes. Many years ago I discussed the potential of making resin diesel loco bodies (before Silver Fox came on the sceen) with a kit producer and he said that to see a return would take a long time no matter how good the product was. We are very lucky that there are those who are willing to wait for that return.

[mikemeg]

Back on Topic: The future of loco Kitbuilding.

 

 

Here is a seriously good and well designed, easy to build OO kit. I do not know how old it is but would guess 1970's?? It is packaged quite well although little thought has been given to making the packaging look attractive. Again it's a guess but I would think that hundreds of these have been sold.

 

Having built one of these before I can vouch for the fact that it builds into a perfectly usable and robust model that looks near enough like a Peppercorn A2.

 

And a price of £130 for all of the above at which I would say hundreds would sell.

 

The hobby is no longer satisfied with 'approximations'; with something 'that looks near enough like a Peppercorn A2' to use the quoted example. And Bachmann now produce something which looks exactly like a Peppercorn A2, at a price which undercuts the price of this 1970's 'near miss' of a kit. If one really does want to build an A2 from a kit, then PDK produce etched kits for the various A2 variants. Would yet another kit for the A2 succeed against this competition?

 

Look at the postings, on here, from kit designers and producers. All of them are saying that these claims of volume sales 'in their hundreds or thousands' are simply not achieveable; they have never been achievable, even in the halcyon days of kit building.

 

I'm a kit and scratch builder and, quite frankly, would not pay £130 for the 'collection of parts' shown in the photograph in an earlier posting, even if they were updated. If I'm going to build an A2 from a kit, then it has to produce a result markedly better than the r-t-r A2 body. It has to have provision for a fully sprung chassis, scale thickness motion, lost wax not white metal castings, full rivet detail (though I won't count em) etc. and that lot isn't going to be supplied at a price point of £130. And as I don't model to '00' gauge then any wheels, supplied with the kit, would be useless and would have to be replaced, adding yet more to my costs, though not the cost of the kit.

 

Even then I'd be tempted to use a chassis conversion kit or even scratch build a new chassis for the r-t-r body; it's that good. As someone else has said, the 4 mm market, if not dominated by the r-t-r suppliers, is now very largely conditioned by them.

 

The real essence of your criticism seems to be that in the pursuit of prototypical accuracy and to satisfy the 'wishes' of the EM and P4 modellers, the 'easy to build' characteristics of kits have been sacrificed, which to some extent is probably true. The change from white metal to etched brass and nickel silver, as the basic materials, may have been the most significant factor in this, requiring the builder to solder rather than to glue.

 

But the standard for prototypical accuracy, even with its compromises for '00', is being set by the r-t-r suppliers. It is that standard which kit designers and suppliers must use as their yardstick and as that gets better and better, so the kit designers and suppliers must respond.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Paul Cram]

So torture is OK

 

A 4mm kit is a 4mm kit the gauge (chassis) you select to run it on is a different matter.

 

Fortunately (perhaps not, depending on your point of view) The vast majority of modellers in 4mm remain as users of OO. That might be reluctantly, as OO remains to be what is supported by the vast majority of the RTR loco, stock and most importantly track suppliers.

 

Also it is not about just frame spacers. The over complexity of springing and compensation has put off many a kit builder and take a good look at the vast majority of kits even these days it is badly handled in the design and instructions. Compensation in the form of 3-point wobbly wagons is often "built in" but how many kits make springing an easily doable or understandable task - even on wagons. Even more discouragement in taking that enormous step to move everything you have to a different gauge.

 

I have no problem with the P4 modellers wanting to represent a higher proportion of modellers than they do, it is just the way they seem to think that they already account for over 50% of modellers.

 

In 4mm the kit chassis should designed for the majority OO, and the P4 remain as an option or even a separate set of etches and instructions.

 

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. If I get around to designing a chassis kit then it will be P4 with spacers for 00 as I model in P4 and it will be primarily for my use.. I think a lot of the chassis are produced for the same reason. OO modellers are well served by RTR if they need to upgrade a chassis then they will need to adapt the P4 offering. I am not interested in supplying the mass market.