The future of loco kit building

[mikemeg]

Kenton,

 

As a final comment, at least from this poster, it isn't the proportion of modellers who model to P4 or EM gauges, which is important (and of course that proportion is nowhere near 50%, probably < 10%) but the proportion of kit builders who model to P4 or EM gauges. Equally, the proportion of etching designers and producers who model to P4 or EM gauges (and that could well be much more than 10%) and who are capable of designing and producing kits.

 

And there are still extensive and expanding ranges of etched kits designed for the '00' modellers, so they are also pretty well served.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Joseph_Pestell]

Mike raises an interesting point which I would like to research a bit with you all (hopefully a reasonable cross-section of kit modellers - I don't know where else to find one).

 

The question is: Complete kits or separated kits?

 

I can see Metropolitan's point that it is much easier for the beginner to have everything in the box, especially now when there are so few retailers who stock the essentials such as wheels and gears (I was lucky enough to live within 1 mile of Hobbytime when I started modelling and have easy access to Hamblings and W&H).

 

But I can also see Mike's point that a significant part of the market has no use for some of those parts and don't want to pay for them.

 

If I had a range of these traditional kits, I think that I would split them up so that there were:

1) Body kit (plus tender if applicable);

2) Chassis frame kit (with different spacers available) including outside valve gear where applicable;

3) Wheels/axles;

4) Motor/gearbox.

 

But I would have a couple of kits in the range designed to be starter kits and sold complete. As "beginners" progressed they would still have the "one-stop shop" option of buying all the necessary bits together or just buy the bit they wanted and source other components elsewhere.

 

What do you think?

[Paul Cram]

Mike raises an interesting point which I would like to research a bit with you all (hopefully a reasonable cross-section of kit modellers - I don't know where else to find one).

 

The question is: Complete kits or separated kits?

 

I can see Metropolitan's point that it is much easier for the beginner to have everything in the box, especially now when there are so few retailers who stock the essentials such as wheels and gears (I was lucky enough to live within 1 mile of Hobbytime when I started modelling and have easy access to Hamblings and W&H).

 

But I can also see Mike's point that a significant part of the market has no use for some of those parts and don't want to pay for them.

 

If I had a range of these traditional kits, I think that I would split them up so that there were:

1) Body kit (plus tender if applicable);

2) Chassis frame kit (with different spacers available) including outside valve gear where applicable;

3) Wheels/axles;

4) Motor/gearbox.

 

But I would have a couple of kits in the range designed to be starter kits and sold complete. As "beginners" progressed they would still have the "one-stop shop" option of buying all the necessary bits together or just buy the bit they wanted and source other components elsewhere.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that presumes that beginners are going to start in OO. When I started in P4 i had only built a couple of OO wagons, although I had made kits of planes and ships. It was at that point I decided that if I was going to build kits I might as well go for as close to prototype as possible which meant P4. In those days (mid 70s) that was not the easy option. I'd not want to buy parts that I am not going to use. I did set out to standardise on Portescap motors but that is getting more difficult these days as my stock is dwindling. I think different people have different requirements and choice of motor, gearbox and wheels is best left to the individual.

 

(no matter how many times I read it before posting I still manage to miss the odd typo.)

[mikemeg]

Mike raises an interesting point which I would like to research a bit with you all (hopefully a reasonable cross-section of kit modellers - I don't know where else to find one).

 

The question is: Complete kits or separated kits?

 

I can see Metropolitan's point that it is much easier for the beginner to have everything in the box, especially now when there are so few retailers who stock the essentials such as wheels and gears (I was lucky enough to live within 1 mile of Hobbytime when I started modelling and have easy access to Hamblings and W&H).

 

But I can also see Mike's point that a significant part of the market has no use for some of those parts and don't want to pay for them.

 

If I had a range of these traditional kits, I think that I would split them up so that there were:

1) Body kit (plus tender if applicable);

2) Chassis frame kit (with different spacers available) including outside valve gear where applicable;

3) Wheels/axles;

4) Motor/gearbox.

 

But I would have a couple of kits in the range designed to be starter kits and sold complete. As "beginners" progressed they would still have the "one-stop shop" option of buying all the necessary bits together or just buy the bit they wanted and source other components elsewhere.

 

What do you think?

 

Joseph,

 

Well perhaps the above wasn't my last posting. The problem with the above idea is that the inclusion of wheels and/or motor and gearbox would be a zero margin activity (for the kit supplier), unless the wheel, motor and gearbox suppliers were prepared to offer the kit supplier significant discounts.

 

In fact it would be worse than that, as the kit producer would have to stock, identify and pack the appropriate wheels, motors and gearboxes, all at their own cost, as part of a 'one stop shop' offering. Even then there are different choices of motor and gearboxes, which the would be builder might wish to use.

 

K's used to produce everything; you can debate the quality of some of it, but they did produce everything and, most importantly, they made a margin on everything. Alan Gibson might come close to your idea, as they also produce wheels but they don't produce motors.

 

That leaves just 1) and 2) above, which is pretty much where we are now.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to shoot your idea down; in principle it is a fine idea. But with the fragmentation and specialisation of the supply of various components (compensated by a much greater variety of each of those products), probably not now realisable.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Metropolitan]

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

 

Hi Jol

 

I of course fully understand and agree with all the points you make. I also realise that you have first hand experience and are in a much better position to comment than my blatherings!!

I'm just throwing ideas around. No doubt I'm talking nonsense but in view of the topic of this thread I do think it valid that we should discuss any constructive positive ideas which might secure a brighter future for those hero's who still produce kits by making kit building a mass market pastime. I also realise that I am in danger of failing to put my money where my mouth is by shouting and not doing!!!

 

However, it is sensible for any who actually wish to make money out of their business to listen to their customers. Fair enough, there is no need to do so if they are happy to do it for love or stay as a very small cottage industry. I for instance buy in the region of 25 new loco kits a year from manufacturers who I favour. Those that I don't do not get my custom.

 

In my posts I have tried to outline some of the factors that I consider would be more likely to attract new potential builders/customers into kitbuilding? Clearly something is wrong with the present state of the industry because kit producers are simply unable to compete with the RTR market both on price, convenience and the awful grim packaging and presentation that they seem to insist on using? My starting point is a positive one in that I am absolutely sure that many more people would gain far more pleasure from building an running their own loco rather than just opening an RTR box and plonking the loco on the track! Of course kitbuilding is never ever going to compare, sales wise, to RTR but I for one would like to see it grow.

 

Cheers

Met

[Metropolitan]

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

 

Hi Mike.

 

But I am not talking about an experienced and skilled kitbuilder like you. I am talking about trying to get the great mass of 00 layout owners who have a couple of loops of track in their garage to buy a kit. These masses are not "Modellers". They just like having a train set which they play with and tinker. Most will be running all sorts of stock from all the different companies. BR, Southern, LNER, GWR and LMS all making an appearance and often running together.. They never go to shows and they will not be members of RMweb. If the only demand nowadays is for ever more detailed models how do you explain the success of the Hornby Railroad range? I would think that these casual basic 00 people make up 90% of those with a layout of any kind.

[Coach bogie]

All the above have been tried by various manufacturers and all that was proven 'you cannot please all the people all of the time'.

 

As stated K's tried it and it was a major contribution (not the only factor) to their demise.

 

Early DJH came complete with motor, but this soon changed to modellers choice in motors. Even this does not please everyone as P4 modellers end up with Romfords they do not want.

 

When a manufacturer tries to 'scale up' this does not please everyone. I have not purchased kits direct from Gibson in the past as I end up paying for expensive wheels, I personally do not use (wheels you can remove will always win for me). I had to buy them from a supplier who was happy to remove the wheels and offer Romfords.

 

As long as suppliers such as Mainly Trains, who give excellent advice (tell Dave Cleal the kit and he will package the remainder of wheels motor etc) all the extras from one source, then I do not see any challenges to purchasing a kit/parts as separates.

 

Until such time as we all work to one set of standards/gauge etc (I can dream), the mix and match regime is here to stay.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[mikemeg]

Hi Mike.

 

But I not talking about an experienced and skilled kitbuilder like you. Am am talking about trying to get the great mass of 00 layout owners who have a couple of loops of track in their garage to buy a kit. These masses are not "Modellers". They just like having a train set which they play with and tinker. Most will be running all sorts of stock from all the different companies. BR, Southern, LNER, GWR and LMS all making an appearance and often running together.. They never go to shows and they will not be members of RMweb. If the only demand nowadays is for ever more detailed models how do you explain the success of the Hornby Railroad range? I would think that these casual basic 00 people make up 90% of those with a layout of any kind.

 

John,

 

Thanks for the compliments. In fact I agree with you on much of what you say, above, and that is that there are very few, if any, entry level kits. When we were kids there were those Kitmaster/Airfix kits. Ok, by today's standards they weren't very good but for a few shillings one could buy something to make, thereby learning some of the basic skills and developing the love of building something. Mind you, motorising them was a different kettle of fish. Then we had the K's and Wills white metal kits, again which would lead us further down the road of building something.

 

But this was when the r-t-r trade offered nowhere near the variety, or quality, which it now offers. Interestingly, I see, as you see, this same 'starter' philosophy now in the r-t-r market, with the Railroad range, as the r-t-r offerings become more detailed, more sophisticated and, above all, more expensive.

 

So perhaps what you are advocating is someone introducing a 'Railroad' range of loco kits, which might work? I think the problem comes back to the gratification thing, which is a cultural issue and one which mitigates against any acitvity which can't deliver immediately. You love building things; that's clear. But as you say, most of those who indulge in this hobby are not 'modellers' they may not even be enthusiasts, though I wouldn't decry them for that.

 

So the question is one of 'are there enough of these folks who will buy, and build, a starter kit - a kit which might not be bought by the more experienced or dedicated kit builders - in preference to buying another Railroad range loco'?

 

Cheers and regards

 

Mike

[Paul Cram]

I think we also need to consider a wider perspective than just locos. I build wagon and coach kits as well, infact most of what I build are wagons and coaches. I don't think I have a single ready to run wagon and I only have a couple of the recent Hornby Gresley suburbans awaiting rewheeling. The loss of D&S kits was a major blow to me although I still have a few in stock.

[billbedford]

However, it is sensible for any who actually wish to make money out of their business to listen to their customers. Fair enough, there is no need to do so if they are happy to do it for love or stay as a very small cottage industry. I for instance buy in the region of 25 new loco kits a year from manufacturers who I favour. Those that I don't do not get my custom.

 

How many of these kits do you build?

[jwealleans]

How many of these kits do you build?

 

At the rate John goes, all of them and then some.

[Horsetan]

How many of these kits do you build?

 

Maybe you should let him try one of your chassis kits, but without the instruction sheet. Let's see how long he takes.....

[Metropolitan]

How many of these kits do you build?

 

I build all of them Bill. I do not posses even one unbuilt kit except several K's vacuum packed kits which I like to collect. The A3 pictured above is well underway. As I type two kits from DMR are winging their way to me and both will be built before the end of November. In my book, if a loco takes more than 40 hours to build it's a badly designed kit.

 

@ Paul Cram. I agree with you. It is not only loco's that come in kit form. In fact for some reason which I do not understand the 4mm wagon/coach kit side of things seems to be a lot healthier than the loco kit side? I was interested to learn (although I haven't seen one yet) that Dapol have introduced a range of pre-painted coach kits and that these are priced well below the price of a standard RTR coach.

[hayfield]

John,

 

Thanks for the compliments. In fact I agree with you on much of what you say, above, and that is that there are very few, if any, entry level kits. When we were kids there were those Kitmaster/Airfix kits. Ok, by today's standards they weren't very good but for a few shillings one could buy something to make, thereby learning some of the basic skills and developing the love of building something. Mind you, motorising them was a different kettle of fish. Then we had the K's and Wills white metal kits, again which would lead us further down the road of building something.

 

But this was when the r-t-r trade offered nowhere near the variety, or quality, which it now offers. Interestingly, I see, as you see, this same 'starter' philosophy now in the r-t-r market, with the Railroad range, as the r-t-r offerings become more detailed, more sophisticated and, above all, more expensive.

 

So perhaps what you are advocating is someone introducing a 'Railroad' range of loco kits, which might work? I think the problem comes back to the gratification thing, which is a cultural issue and one which mitigates against any acitvity which can't deliver immediately. You love building things; that's clear. But as you say, most of those who indulge in this hobby are not 'modellers' they may not even be enthusiasts, though I wouldn't decry them for that.

 

So the question is one of 'are there enough of these folks who will buy, and build, a starter kit - a kit which might not be bought by the more experienced or dedicated kit builders - in preference to buying another Railroad range loco'?

 

Cheers and regards

 

Mike

 

Mike

 

Plastic kits are still available, dont Dapol sell the old Airfix range still?, if not plenty on Ebay

 

As for entry level kits,

 

Southeastern Finecast still sell bodyline kits designed to fit either Hornby/Triang of Hornby Dublo chassis, plenty again s/h on Ebay, also have the option of etched (odd one or two wuth cast ) chassis available

 

There are cast resin loco body suppliers that use more modern chassis.

 

I think that the model press only want to show the super kits being built on their pages and the suppliers failing to make modellers aware that these easier kits are available

[Horsetan]

...for some reason which I do not understand the 4mm wagon/coach kit side of things seems to be a lot healthier than the loco kit side?

 

Builders tend not to have to worry about motor or gears on these.....

 

I was interested to learn (although I haven't seen one yet) that Dapol have introduced a range of pre-painted coach kits and that these are priced well below the price of a standard RTR coach.

 

I have seen them. They are basically RTR coaches in dismantled form, just like the old Triang CKD kits of the, er, 1960s/70s.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Joseph,

 

Well perhaps the above wasn't my last posting. The problem with the above idea is that the inclusion of wheels and/or motor and gearbox would be a zero margin activity (for the kit supplier), unless the wheel, motor and gearbox suppliers were prepared to offer the kit supplier significant discounts.

 

In fact it would be worse than that, as the kit producer would have to stock, identify and pack the appropriate wheels, motors and gearboxes, all at their own cost, as part of a 'one stop shop' offering. Even then there are different choices of motor and gearboxes, which the would be builder might wish to use.

 

K's used to produce everything; you can debate the quality of some of it, but they did produce everything and, most importantly, they made a margin on everything. Alan Gibson might come close to your idea, as they also produce wheels but they don't produce motors.

 

That leaves just 1) and 2) above, which is pretty much where we are now.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to shoot your idea down; in principle it is a fine idea. But with the fragmentation and specialisation of the supply of various components (compensated by a much greater variety of each of those products), probably not now realisable.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Motors/gears are not too difficult. A kit manufacturer can buy those at a decent discount and sell at a profit to cover the costs that you rightly mention.

 

But you are right about the wheels. That's why I posted further back in the thread that wheels are the difficult bit.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Builders tend not to have to worry about motor or gears on these.....

 

 

 

I have seen them. They are basically RTR coaches in dismantled form, just like the old Triang CKD kits of the, er, 1960s/70s.

 

Those have not received much publicity. I have not even seen them listed in adverts.

 

It's a good idea. For those that like to detail interiors, why have the bother of getting the thing apart? And if cheaper, so much the better. Triang CKD were never that much cheaper other than the saving in purchase tax (which shows my age in that I can clearly remember it but also in that I can't remember what the rate was - some obscure fraction in those pre-decimal days).

[Guest maxthemapman]

I guess I am not a young modeller any more, but I used to be, and was 'fooled' into attempting kits many times. It was pretty sorry stuff as I recall, not least because so many of the kits were not fit for purpose. For people who build kits to attempt to model something not available rtr, they do not necessarily relish the challenge of tunrning a bag of rubbish into something that will vaguely work and look right.

 

London tram

 

Really nasty, front and sides were designed to be impossible to glue together, and in the unlikely event that this was achieved, to have no structural integrity whatsoever. Upstairs seat moulding did not fit. Twin motors supplied, operated at different speeds making derailment inevitable, especially with the high centre of gravity.

 

Southern electric

 

Looked nothing like the original, even when assembled as per instructions. Made Hornby 4-VEP look fantastic. Trailing bogies difficult to assemble because holes and fixing lugs not aligned. Motorisation involved sawing the cast sides off a Hornby four-wheel chassis.

 

MTK Southern electric

 

Straight back to the shop. Trading standards should have shut them down.

 

Tube train kit.

 

Chassis longer then body, only solution was strangely slanted cab front. Didn't really matter. With all the lead weights from the motorising kit glued into place, the Tenshodo motor bogie was completely unable to move the thing.

 

Another southern electric

 

This one made of plastic, a much more forgiving material, and nice to have real doors on the sides instead of imaginary ones (the reason why I never went near some kits fro other manufacturers even though they had a reputation for being easy to assemble). By the time the underframe components etc. had been purchased, the total outlay was three times the price of the original kit.

 

Yet another southern electric

 

This one advertised to convert the previous one to a different type. With all the work necessary, it would have been easier to have scratchbuilt using individual grains of sand.

 

Southern DEMU

 

Actually, it should have been an EMU, but the box contained a random assortment of parts, the majority of which were DEMU ones. Plastic kit, should have been easy to assemble except that the parts were so modular that everything needed to be cut to pieces before being put back together. Body side mouldings had all the finesse and accuracy of the Triang EMU, thus defeating one of the advantages of a plastic kit.

 

Underground train, surface stock

 

Resin body, crude detail, so bent out of shape that it would have put a banana to shame. Retailer should have stomped on it, not shipped it.

 

So that's it I'm afraid. nothing, repeat nothing will ever tempt me to attempt a kit ever again. I prefer to express my creative skills in scenery.

[Coach bogie]

Been there. I appreciate exactly what you are saying. I built a 6 car Trans Pennine for a friend in return for a Wills County. I think he got the better of the deal!

 

MTK were the only game in town for many years and got away with it as there was no alternative. But what a sense of achievement when you 'alter' the contents and build a working model of something few others have. I built the GWR parcels car from the MTK. What a job, but it has special place on my layout and I have only ever seen one other made up.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Castle]

Hi All,

 

Perhaps what we need is a sort of Airfix style tops to fit RTR chassis that particularly fill gaps in the RTR market. Look at the 1361project that I am doing on my Little Didcot thread. The Electrotren chassis (having chatted with Stastionmaster Mike on this) at least to 1361, 1392 and the 1366 classes. All holes in the RTR market that are unlikely to get an RTR version and engines that people:

 

A Would find useful. Look at the profusion of small shunting layouts...

B Would like to own - particularly the 1366, which seems to crop up on any number of wish lists.

 

The only issue with that is being dependant on another manufacturers product for the chassis but perhaps then you could offer a chassis kit that would go with the body kit as the next step up and that would protect any manufacturer incase the chosen chassis goes out of production. This method would lessen the initial investment for the manufacturer and enable a type of staged production. If the body and chassis combination was such that the kit chassis would fit the body even after the rtr chassis had been fitted then the modeller would have lots of options and be able to progress through not only the skill levels but also enable future developments into things such as EM or P4. There must be lots of classes that this would apply to...

 

Just a thought...

 

All the best,

 

Castle

[Metropolitan]

I guess I am not a young modeller any more, but I used to be, and was 'fooled' into attempting kits many times. It was pretty sorry stuff as I recall, not least because so many of the kits were not fit for purpose. For people who build kits to attempt to model something not available rtr, they do not necessarily relish the challenge of tunrning a bag of rubbish into something that will vaguely work and look right.

 

London tram

 

Really nasty, front and sides were designed to be impossible to glue together, and in the unlikely event that this was achieved, to have no structural integrity whatsoever. Upstairs seat moulding did not fit. Twin motors supplied, operated at different speeds making derailment inevitable, especially with the high centre of gravity.

 

Southern electric

 

Looked nothing like the original, even when assembled as per instructions. Made Hornby 4-VEP look fantastic. Trailing bogies difficult to assemble because holes and fixing lugs not aligned. Motorisation involved sawing the cast sides off a Hornby four-wheel chassis.

 

MTK Southern electric

 

Straight back to the shop. Trading standards should have shut them down.

 

Tube train kit.

 

Chassis longer then body, only solution was strangely slanted cab front. Didn't really matter. With all the lead weights from the motorising kit glued into place, the Tenshodo motor bogie was completely unable to move the thing.

 

Another southern electric

 

This one made of plastic, a much more forgiving material, and nice to have real doors on the sides instead of imaginary ones (the reason why I never went near some kits fro other manufacturers even though they had a reputation for being easy to assemble). By the time the underframe components etc. had been purchased, the total outlay was three times the price of the original kit.

 

Yet another southern electric

 

This one advertised to convert the previous one to a different type. With all the work necessary, it would have been easier to have scratchbuilt using individual grains of sand.

 

Southern DEMU

 

Actually, it should have been an EMU, but the box contained a random assortment of parts, the majority of which were DEMU ones. Plastic kit, should have been easy to assemble except that the parts were so modular that everything needed to be cut to pieces before being put back together. Body side mouldings had all the finesse and accuracy of the Triang EMU, thus defeating one of the advantages of a plastic kit.

 

Underground train, surface stock

 

Resin body, crude detail, so bent out of shape that it would have put a banana to shame. Retailer should have stomped on it, not shipped it.

 

So that's it I'm afraid. nothing, repeat nothing will ever tempt me to attempt a kit ever again. I prefer to express my creative skills in scenery.

 

 

This! ^

 

Take note!

[mikemeg]

I build all of them Bill. I do not posses even one unbuilt kit except several K's vacuum packed kits which I like to collect. The A3 pictured above is well underway. As I type two kits from DMR are winging their way to me and both will be built before the end of November. In my book, if a loco takes more than 40 hours to build it's a badly designed kit.

 

John,

 

That is truly amazing; both none unbuilt and your turn round time. I can't touch forty hours. Even the etched J73, which I finished earlier this month, took over fifty hours to build and that had no tender. The simplest build I have done this year - P4'ing a Bachmann A1 - will probably have taken 30 hours if I include the body detailing and the various painting jobs; wheels, frames, etc. though not touching the basic body livery other than some weathering.

 

For a tender loco, let's say an 0-8-0 or 4-6-0, I would plan on at least 60 hours and possibly as much as 100 hours.

 

All power to you, John.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hi Jol

 

I of course fully understand and agree with all the points you make. I also realise that you have first hand experience and are in a much better position to comment than my blatherings!!

I'm just throwing ideas around. No doubt I'm talking nonsense but in view of the topic of this thread I do think it valid that we should discuss any constructive positive ideas which might secure a brighter future for those hero's who still produce kits by making kit building a mass market pastime. I also realise that I am in danger of failing to put my money where my mouth is by shouting and not doing!!!

 

However, it is sensible for any who actually wish to make money out of their business to listen to their customers. Fair enough, there is no need to do so if they are happy to do it for love or stay as a very small cottage industry. I for instance buy in the region of 25 new loco kits a year from manufacturers who I favour. Those that I don't do not get my custom.

 

In my posts I have tried to outline some of the factors that I consider would be more likely to attract new potential builders/customers into kitbuilding? Clearly something is wrong with the present state of the industry because kit producers are simply unable to compete with the RTR market both on price, convenience and the awful grim packaging and presentation that they seem to insist on using? My starting point is a positive one in that I am absolutely sure that many more people would gain far more pleasure from building an running their own loco rather than just opening an RTR box and plonking the loco on the track! Of course kitbuilding is never ever going to compare, sales wise, to RTR but I for one would like to see it grow.

 

Cheers

Met

 

Hi John,

 

unfortunately few people build models at the speed you do.

 

The price comparison between RTR and kits doesn't indicate that something is wrong with the industry, but that the way they are produced and where, has become different. Going back in time, RTR largely meant Hornby Dublo or Triang, both produced in the UK. The same applied to Hornby (Margate) and Airfix. So the cost of wages, etc. was the same for a RTR manufacturer and the kit manufacturer.

 

When RTR production went to China, all that changed and the competition for the 00 market held prices down, supported by "pile em high" retailing.

 

Kit manufacturer however remained rooted in the UK, dependant on the cost of the local economy. Sales were already at much lower volumes than RTR, so techniques such as photo etching or w/m casting provided low volume production and flexibility, albeit at a price not competetive with high volume injection moulding and very cheap labour. Some items dissapeared from UK production and have been replaced by imported items, such as motors. Even these aren't cheap to buy in. A Mashima motor for a kit costs £14 - 25, depending on version/supplier. Looking at Hattons prices for Bachman 0-6-0s, you can get one for around £70 - 80, so the low cost of volume production clearly gives an advantage that the kit industry can't compete with.

 

Probably the only way to get kit prices down to RTR level requires a totally different approach to kit design. Something like the Ratio MR 2-4-0 or 4-4-0 with an up to date etched chassis might fit the concept, but the cost of the tooling against the possible sales volume, together with the cost of locally sourced wheels and imported motors would probably put the price up to much.

 

I think that there are also further barriers. The oft referred to quality of current RTR model finish is probably beyond what many people can replicate. Unless the "low cost easy build kit" provides a loco that the builder is desperate to have, but can't get RTR, then it's unlikey he'll have a go. The plethora of wish lists, polls and frothing that goes on around RTR product indicates to me that there are many out there who don't want to consider kit building as a route to get the models that they want.

 

The skills to build a kit can be learned. It's the will to make it if you can't buy it, that is lacking. Until having a small unique selection of handbuilt models rather than a collection of RTR models is seen as more constructive, more worthwhile, more satisfying, then things will probably continue much as they are today.

 

The concept of a model railway is, for many, defined by what they see in the mainstream media, manufacturer catalogues, retailers adverts and websites, shows and the local club. If I were to go to the Warley NEC/York or Warners shows, I would probably get a quite different vision from attending Scaleforum/expoEM. Perhaps we need to get the magazines promoting the idea that kit building is a very worthwhile aspect of the hobby and within everyones reach if they want to give it a go. "Kit building is cool, on trend, where it's at, etc.". Yet somehow I think that commercial considerations will dictate that their content remains much the same.

 

Jol

[Kenton]

I think different people have different requirements and choice of motor, gearbox and wheels is best left to the individual.

 

Even though I'm in defense of the majority (as OO kit builders), and despite I would like to support the "all-in-one" kit approach, I have to agree with you. The business issue of carrying stock of these items (even in just OO) simply does not make any sense given the small number of kit sales that these designers seem interested in.

 

I also see the point of view of the purist P4 kit designer who is essentially designing for himself. Why should he be interested in the majority of the OO market, why should he make provision? No reason whatsoever.

 

But lets get away from this rather unpleasant notion that those who choose to model in OO can take RTR or lump it because someone seems to have the idea that the majority of kit builders are P4 (or EM at a push). I still believe that the vast majority of kits that get built (4mm) are in OO simply because the vast majority have OO track to run it on.

Most I have spoken to, who have progressed on to P4 started by building the track, then only when successful, converted a suitable diesel and then considered building a P4 kit (or having one built).

[mikemeg]

But lets get away from this rather unpleasant notion that those who choose to model in OO can take RTR or lump it because someone seems to have the idea that the majority of kit builders are P4 (or EM at a push). I still believe that the vast majority of kits that get built (4mm) are in OO simply because the vast majority have OO track to run it on.

Most I have spoken to, who have progressed on to P4 started by building the track, then only when successful, converted a suitable diesel and then considered building a P4 kit (or having one built).

 

Those who choose to model in 00 have the best possible scenario. They have all of the r-t-r models available to them, straight out of the box if they wish, and they have huge ranges of kits available to them i.e. DMR, PDK, Wills, etc. All of the rolling stock kits are also available to them. You should pity the poor EM and P4 modellers who can't just get their hands on this r-t-r excellence unless they change the wheels, as a minimum. Where's the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean' smiley when I need it?

 

In my own case, coming into P4 was an option simply because when I restarted in the hobby, I had nothing - all of my previous models I had disposed of - so I had the choice. I think your premise as to how many modellers do arrive at P4 is probably not far from the truth, though.

 

Cheers

 

Mike