Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Right, almost right, nearly right, a bit wrong or just wrong, my PDK B12/3 is now complete. 

 

 

 

Studio-style shots, the lower one with rather more direct lighting, reveal it for what it is. A good kit built by me and painted by a top pro'. 

 

I actually compared it with Hornby's current D16/3 (the nearest available equivalent) and mine's provenance is very clear. There are a few out-of-kilter parts of my construction, my soldering has been less-than-perfect in several corners, there is evidence of my filing not being entirely consistent (the smokebox front's flat base) and that ejector pipe might be a bit too thick. Even Ian's superlative painting shows that it was hand-lined by a (very skilled) human being. 

 

In comparison, Hornby's D16/3 is far better-built (apart from a - probably-prototypical - wiggly handrail). There are no constructional blemishes, and the lining is without any evidence of a human's hand - it's absolutely perfect, apart from the too-fat boiler bands which no RTR manufacturer ever gets right! 

 

So, what's to say? I had an idea Hornby was looking at a revamped B12 when I built this kit earlier this year, but decided to build one anyway. Complete, it cost me over £220.00 for the components. I don't factor in the cost of my building time because I no longer build professionally, but Ian's painting has to be paid for (by cheque!) and that's over £150.00 at mates' rates (it should be, it's that good). If I did factor in my time (at 'sensible rates') this loco would be coming close to £800.00/£900.00 as a commission. What's Hornby's B12 going to be? £150.00 - £200.00, and that no doubt will cause outrage amongst those who expect perfection for less than it's really worth. 

 

But, this loco is 'mine' in a way no superior RTR loco will ever be. This is a dual creation, the other will be a possession. And, it's how one has an attitude to possessions that matters. I've mentioned that my older son restores classic cars. Compared to a factory-finished new car, they're a bit ropey. But I know which he likes the more. 

 

As intimated, just about every actual maker of models I spoke to at Warley, either as visitor, exhibitor or demonstrator had the same thing to say. RTR/RTP is so dominant nowadays that they're becoming less interested in the hobby. Not in their own creativity, but in what they see as the inexorable rise in uniformity. One, a dear old friend, and a most accomplished loco builder, said he doesn't bother going to his club any more. 'All they do is open the latest blue/red boxes, put whatever's inside on the track and run it round'. 'Or, even if it's been altered/modified/weathered, somebody else has done it for them'. That said, it's their choice I suppose. 

 

 

However Hornby's forthcoming B12 turns out, at least I have mine to run - on the service for which I built her - the Leicester. My apologies for the over-scale lamps (I'm ordering more of the proper ones from LMS) but she handles her ten bogies with ease. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

So why do I prefer the kit built one over the perfect RTR product? Dustin Hoffman was once asked, who was the most beautiful of all the Actresses he ever worked with and his reply was that the saw better looking people in the street every day.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Headstock

[bbishop]

 

 

Fiddle yards can be extremely interesting to spectators in their own right, but that's just what they are and should, if possible in my view, be not easily seen from the scenic section of the layout.  

Tony,

 

I made the decision, on Höchstädt, of leaving the fiddle yard on show.  There is a scenic block of the engine shed and a brick wall and this constrains the mark 1 human eyeball.  If the punter moves from in front of the layout to in front of the fiddle yard, then she or he is confronted by a series of information sheets, then the fiddle yard and then the fiddle yard operator. 

 

We actually find it easier for the fiddle yard operator to respond to questions than one of the layout operators.  The reason is that layout operators really want to keep the sequence flowing in order to retain the spectators' interest.  Because if one of the operators is distracted, then the sequence can grind to a halt and all the spectators bar one will drift away.  The presence of the information sheets seems to be an invitation for questions.  The fiddle yard is worked on more of a stop - start basis and it is easier for that operator to excuse him / herself for a minute to prepare the next cassette; the questioner will watch the activity and then the conversation will resume.

 

But it is "horses for courses".  What works on Höchstädt may not work on another layout.  And yes, whilst the mark 1 human eyeball will stop at the scenic break, his camera won't.  But then, if you are taking photographs then one should compose the shot rather than just continuously press the button.

 

Bill

Edited November 30, 2015 by bbishop

[Headstock]

Speaking of lamps, here's a close up of the ones on the front of Enterprise, they were made as 3d models by John Marsh

from our little group. They are being produced by LMS as white metal castings but these are the originals with the 3d printed

handles. The artwork  has also been completed for a set of LNER tail lamps for both brake vans and passenger trains,. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Headstock

[StephenB]

Tony

 

I particularly enjoyed your lecture on Sunday at the NEC on making the prototype fit the available space, in which you highlighted some of the shortcomings on Little Lytham, in particular the M&GNR part. The line may curve the wrong way and be a very tight curve, but the overall effect is still convincing.

 

I was struck by your one third rule - I had heard in relation to the depth/length of a layout, Iain Rice being a particular advocate of it, but not in relation to the train/layout length - applying that to my situation, my five coach expresses are just right. This is the situation on Bradfield Gloucester Square, where five coach expresses don't look too short!

 

I am also reminded of Barry Norman's book on layout design, where he devotes a section to selective compression - people should get hold of a copy, it makes for very good reading.

 

Stephen

[Craigw]

So why do I prefer the kit built one over the perfect RTR product? Dustin Hoffman was once asked, who was the most beautiful of all the Actresses he ever worked with and his reply was that the saw better looking people in the street every day.

 

The thing is, most of the RTR models are not perfect. Very good - yes indeed,. But a good number of the recent models I have looked at have anaemic tender springs and axleboxes, brake gear moulded with the tender sideframes, overscale splashers on the locos and a myriad of other niggles that stand out if you really want to look. If you want to live with those things that is fine, but if you try and correct them you will usually ruin the paint work which is certainly the stand out feature of much of the RTR.

 

So, as a P4 modeller (strike 1!) who models the mid 1920s (strike 2!) ia m quite content with the fact that there is very little in the way of RTR that has any use to me. I will continue to work through my collection of kits of various sorts and enjoy the process immensely. I may be slow, but I enjoy the journey.

 

Craig W

[Focalplane]

I enjoy the journey.

 

Craig W

 

I think it was Paul Theroux (among others) who wrote that the journey should be as exciting as the destination.  In his case the journey was more so.  For us, the finished product remains as evidence of the road taken.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tony,

 

I made the decision, on Höchstädt, of leaving the fiddle yard on show.  There is a scenic block of the engine shed and a brick wall and this constrains the mark 1 human eyeball.  If the punter moves from in front of the layout to in front of the fiddle yard, then she or he is confronted by a series of information sheets, then the fiddle yard and then the fiddle yard operator. 

 

We actually find it easier for the fiddle yard operator to respond to questions than one of the layout operators.  The reason is that layout operators really want to keep the sequence flowing in order to retain the spectators' interest.  Because if one of the operators is distracted, then the sequence can grind to a halt and all the spectators bar one will drift away.  The presence of the information sheets seems to be an invitation for questions.  The fiddle yard is worked on more of a stop - start basis and it is easier for that operator to excuse him / herself for a minute to prepare the next cassette; the questioner will watch the activity and then the conversation will resume.

 

But it is "horses for courses".  What works on Höchstädt may not work on another layout.  And yes, whilst the mark 1 human eyeball will stop at the scenic break, his camera won't.  But then, if you are taking photographs then one should compose the shot rather than just continuously press the button.

 

Bill

I recently took the decision to "box in" the fiddle yards on London Road, partly based upon a wish to focus the viewers attention on the scenic part of the layout. It also provided somewhere to put up some information sheets and detail photos.

 

We also try to have someone available at all times to answer questions, without disrupting the operators concentration. That's usually me as I am normally the only one available who knows most of the details of how the layout was built, etc.

 

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I particularly enjoyed your lecture on Sunday at the NEC on making the prototype fit the available space, in which you highlighted some of the shortcomings on Little Lytham, in particular the M&GNR part. The line may curve the wrong way and be a very tight curve, but the overall effect is still convincing.

 

I was struck by your one third rule - I had heard in relation to the depth/length of a layout, Iain Rice being a particular advocate of it, but not in relation to the train/layout length - applying that to my situation, my five coach expresses are just right. This is the situation on Bradfield Gloucester Square, where five coach expresses don't look too short!

 

I am also reminded of Barry Norman's book on layout design, where he devotes a section to selective compression - people should get hold of a copy, it makes for very good reading.

 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

Many thanks.

 

I think all the lectures went well, only spoilt by the booming tannoy, which nobody could understand because it was so distorted!

 

I've heard the rule of thirds used in many ways. When I did amateur dramatics, it was always thought wise to have enough space to move into a scene, be in the scene and then be able to move out of the scene (dependent on what the scene was, of course). 

 

If a train fills the whole length of scenery on a layout then the train either looks too long or the layout looks too short. Of course, it's totally dependent on what you're modelling. Some sections of the real railways are very short (between bridges/tunnels, say, particularly in urban areas), but I doubt if a 4' layout length in 4mm scale would be very interesting. 

 

As I explained in my lecture, the main line depiction on Little Bytham is 15" short of what it should be. I live with that. As I also explained, Stoke Summit was some 60' short of what it should be, and Charwelton about 45'. To have modelled these to scale, even if possible, would have meant layout lengths of 90' and 80' respectively - disasters as show layouts! But neither of them were shorter than three times the length of the longest train, and that's the point. 

 

 

Here we have the Down 'Queen of Scots', loaded to ten cars (at different times or on different days it could be eight or nine). Each car is just under a foot long, as is the loco, giving an overall train length of around ten feet. Layout length 32' (though that includes the out of sight end curves), train length ten feet - room to move into the scene, be in the scene, and move off the scene without the train appearing too long. The adjacent goods train is a little longer, so that does rather 'break the rule of thirds', but at no point do the 40-odd wagons and loco fill the whole scene. 

 

Though the eye can be tricked slightly by breaking the overall scene up - station roofs, intermediate bridges, etc, as I've said before, I wouldn't contemplate modelling a prototypical ECML location in less than 30'. Otherwise, the longest trains seem too long and/or the curves at the ends are visibly far too tight. But that's my view. 

 

Tony.

[Tony Wright]

I think it was Paul Theroux (among others) who wrote that the journey should be as exciting as the destination.  In his case the journey was more so.  For us, the finished product remains as evidence of the road taken.

Paul,

 

Brilliant!

 

I take it you're a philosopher.

[coachmann]

One feature that, to me, lifts Hornby's locos are the driving wheels. This company doesn't go to the same amount of trouble on every loco it produces, but were it does it shows. Splendid wheel profiles that spring to mind are those on the Gresley A3, Collett 38XX, Castle, BR Crosti 2-10-0 and the forthcoming B12. It is a shame  more accurate driving wheels were not a feature of the new 'King', but there we are. I hope Hornby changes the bogie wheels on the B12. Tony W's B12 appears to have Markits bogie wheels, which with their large boss are nearer the mark. 

[glo41f]

"As intimated, just about every actual maker of models I spoke to at Warley, either as visitor, exhibitor or demonstrator had the same thing to say. RTR/RTP is so dominant nowadays that they're becoming less interested in the hobby. Not in their own creativity, but in what they see as the inexorable rise in uniformity. One, a dear old friend, and a most accomplished loco builder, said he doesn't bother going to his club any more. 'All they do is open the latest blue/red boxes, put whatever's inside on the track and run it round'. 'Or, even if it's been altered/modified/weathered, somebody else has done it for them'. That said, it's their choice I suppose. "

 

I feel that you have hit the spot Tony. Certainly this attitude is prevalent in the "old style" modellers that I know. I gave up with Model Railway Clubs (apart from one ) many years ago for just this reason. I do feel that is adversely affecting the hobby as a significant "reward" factor in that the "I made that" feeling has effectively been turned off. The only problems folk seem to have these days is usually down to poor assembly issues at the overseas factory. Some might aver that this is an overall improvement but this is not the case  my perhaps jaundiced view. In the same manner, these days all the magazines have are pictures of what has been delivered and speculation of what might be delivered with various 3d prints.. This  is in a marked contrast to those mags of yore which showed how this was done and the result. 

 

Being unduly down at the moment ( depressing time of year) I feel that the "have it all now" syndrome is bad for the hobby and will lead to its ultimate decline. ( My local hobby shop which deals mostly in radio control cars and planes reports exactly the same thing. The instant gratification element is very strong there and the joy of building your own plane has long since passed.)

 

I suppose that those of us of a certain age who saw the railways at their best (in modelling terms) can count ourselves fortunate that we had the hobby at its best times. Sad thought.

 

Martin Long

[Chimer]

Right, almost right, nearly right, a bit wrong or just wrong, my PDK B12/3 is now complete. 

 

B12 3 painted 01.jpg

 

B12 3 painted 02.jpg

 

Studio-style shots, the lower one with rather more direct lighting, reveal it for what it is. A good kit built by me and painted by a top pro'. 

 

I actually compared it with Hornby's current D16/3 (the nearest available equivalent) and mine's provenance is very clear. There are a few out-of-kilter parts of my construction, my soldering has been less-than-perfect in several corners, there is evidence of my filing not being entirely consistent (the smokebox front's flat base) and that ejector pipe might be a bit too thick. Even Ian's superlative painting shows that it was hand-lined by a (very skilled) human being. 

 

In comparison, Hornby's D16/3 is far better-built (apart from a - probably-prototypical - wiggly handrail). There are no constructional blemishes, and the lining is without any evidence of a human's hand - it's absolutely perfect, apart from the too-fat boiler bands which no RTR manufacturer ever gets right! 

 

So, what's to say? I had an idea Hornby was looking at a revamped B12 when I built this kit earlier this year, but decided to build one anyway. Complete, it cost me over £220.00 for the components. I don't factor in the cost of my building time because I no longer build professionally, but Ian's painting has to be paid for (by cheque!) and that's over £150.00 at mates' rates (it should be, it's that good). If I did factor in my time (at 'sensible rates') this loco would be coming close to £800.00/£900.00 as a commission. What's Hornby's B12 going to be? £150.00 - £200.00, and that no doubt will cause outrage amongst those who expect perfection for less than it's really worth. 

 

But, this loco is 'mine' in a way no superior RTR loco will ever be. This is a dual creation, the other will be a possession. And, it's how one has an attitude to possessions that matters. I've mentioned that my older son restores classic cars. Compared to a factory-finished new car, they're a bit ropey. But I know which he likes the more. 

 

As intimated, just about every actual maker of models I spoke to at Warley, either as visitor, exhibitor or demonstrator had the same thing to say. RTR/RTP is so dominant nowadays that they're becoming less interested in the hobby. Not in their own creativity, but in what they see as the inexorable rise in uniformity. One, a dear old friend, and a most accomplished loco builder, said he doesn't bother going to his club any more. 'All they do is open the latest blue/red boxes, put whatever's inside on the track and run it round'. 'Or, even if it's been altered/modified/weathered, somebody else has done it for them'. That said, it's their choice I suppose. 

 

B12 3 painted 03.jpg

 

However Hornby's forthcoming B12 turns out, at least I have mine to run - on the service for which I built her - the Leicester. My apologies for the over-scale lamps (I'm ordering more of the proper ones from LMS) but she handles her ten bogies with ease. 

 

Wrt para 1, I would suggest it's Tony right.

 

But wrt the rest, nobody could sensibly take exception to anything you say, but who is going to take up the hobby in the first place if their first loco costs them £220 for parts and requires them to use skills that they don't have and are not taught at school, and equipment they have not already got, or fork out another £700 to have it made up and painted professionally, which wouldn't then give them any more of the satisfaction of creation than opening the red or blue box in the first place?  No RTR, no new entrants.  And if you allow RTR to exist to bring people into the hobby, you can't reasonably expect the manufacturers not to make things people want to buy!

 

 

Back in the day, it was build your own or make do with Silver King, Duchess of Montrose or Bristol Castle (other manufacturers' ranges were available).  Now it isn't.  Why should this make people who actually enjoy precision miniature engineering (which I don't, because I haven't got, and don't want to develop, the skills) less interested in doing it?  Surely not just because the average punter at an exhibition can no longer tell the difference between their work and the RTR loco on the layout next door?

 

A pub footballer who scores an absolute cracker in the park on a Sunday morning doesn't become less interested in his game because more people watch Premier League matches ......

[Willie Whizz]

Tony

 

I particularly enjoyed your lecture on Sunday at the NEC on making the prototype fit the available space, in which you highlighted some of the shortcomings on Little Lytham, in particular the M&GNR part. The line may curve the wrong way and be a very tight curve, but the overall effect is still convincing.

 

I was struck by your one third rule - I had heard in relation to the depth/length of a layout, Iain Rice being a particular advocate of it, but not in relation to the train/layout length - applying that to my situation, my five coach expresses are just right. This is the situation on Bradfield Gloucester Square, where five coach expresses don't look too short!

 

I am also reminded of Barry Norman's book on layout design, where he devotes a section to selective compression - people should get hold of a copy, it makes for very good reading.

 

Stephen

 

My intention is to model a section of main-line railway and I would dearly love to run scale-length (or thereabouts) expresses.  Sadly I don't have the space or time (even though recently retired), nor - let's be honest - the money to create something 25-30 feet long by 10-12 feet wide.

 

"So model something that was smaller and more compact in real life", you may say.  Well, I could, but I seriously doubt it would catch and hold my attention in the same way.  I'm probably only now going to get one shot at recreating my long-lost youth while I still can ...

 

So I shall have to get around it, I think, by using a working assumption that BR (ER) persisted with the LNER's former practice of splitting and merging "portions" of express trains right through to the end of the 1950s.

 

In a sense that will be a form of 'selective compression' too - but in my own head as much as on the track.  In the end, we can only do that which is within our realistic compass to achieve; otherwise (as in my own case for the last couple of decades) the desire becomes so big that somehow we never quite manage to make a start on the reality.

 

Which in the end I suppose is a high-flying way of saying that, faut de mieux, 'Rule 1' will have to be applied ...

[johnarcher]

Wrt para 1, I would suggest it's Tony right.

 

But wrt the rest, nobody could sensibly take exception to anything you say, but who is going to take up the hobby in the first place if their first loco costs them £220 for parts and requires them to use skills that they don't have and are not taught at school, and equipment they have not already got, or fork out another £700 to have it made up and painted professionally, which wouldn't then give them any more of the satisfaction of creation than opening the red or blue box in the first place?  No RTR, no new entrants.  And if you allow RTR to exist to bring people into the hobby, you can't reasonably expect the manufacturers not to make things people want to buy!

 

 

Back in the day, it was build your own or make do with Silver King, Duchess of Montrose or Bristol Castle (other manufacturers' ranges were available).  Now it isn't.  Why should this make people who actually enjoy precision miniature engineering (which I don't, because I haven't got, and don't want to develop, the skills) less interested in doing it?  Surely not just because the average punter at an exhibition can no longer tell the difference between their work and the RTR loco on the layout next door?

 

A pub footballer who scores an absolute cracker in the park on a Sunday morning doesn't become less interested in his game because more people watch Premier League matches ......

Just two points. Firstly the older modellers, building models and regretting how things are going were once new entrants, with limited RTR in those days. I was. So I'm not so sure about 'no rtr, no new entrants'.

They learned the skills and acquired the tools gradually. Let's not overestimate the obstacles, you can certainly put something together for less than £220, and there need not be much precision engineering involved (certainly not in my case), using a file and a soldering iron doesn't need a long apprenticeship, more like a bit of explanation and an hour's practice.

You're right though, as you say you can't expect the manufacturers not to meet the demand.

Your last paragraphs are also true of course (that's why I am about to make a loco that I could buy rtr from a kit), but what if so many people watch and so few play that you can no longer buy balls or boots to play yourself? As has been suggested often here, with falling demand kit and component ranges disappear.

Edited December 1, 2015 by johnarcher

[Tony Wright]

Wrt para 1, I would suggest it's Tony right.

 

But wrt the rest, nobody could sensibly take exception to anything you say, but who is going to take up the hobby in the first place if their first loco costs them £220 for parts and requires them to use skills that they don't have and are not taught at school, and equipment they have not already got, or fork out another £700 to have it made up and painted professionally, which wouldn't then give them any more of the satisfaction of creation than opening the red or blue box in the first place?  No RTR, no new entrants.  And if you allow RTR to exist to bring people into the hobby, you can't reasonably expect the manufacturers not to make things people want to buy!

 

 

Back in the day, it was build your own or make do with Silver King, Duchess of Montrose or Bristol Castle (other manufacturers' ranges were available).  Now it isn't.  Why should this make people who actually enjoy precision miniature engineering (which I don't, because I haven't got, and don't want to develop, the skills) less interested in doing it?  Surely not just because the average punter at an exhibition can no longer tell the difference between their work and the RTR loco on the layout next door?

 

A pub footballer who scores an absolute cracker in the park on a Sunday morning doesn't become less interested in his game because more people watch Premier League matches ......

I wouldn't disagree with anything you say. And, may I say, a most well presented counter view? 

 

 

But, speaking personally, the rise of RTR doesn't make me less interested in making my own models; in fact, it makes me even more interested. Why, because when visitors come to see my model railway, I always run the locomotives I've made. Not to boast, I hope, but because they're discussion-pieces. How was that made? How did you do that? How come that'll haul 15 bogies with ease? And so on and so on. What's there to discuss in comparison if the model has been ready-made in a far-off factory? Yes, it could be altered/modified/detailed (and I've written on many occasions how to do this) but how it runs has nothing to do with me. And, what if someone else has done any alterations for the owner? What can he/she contribute in terms of explaining how it was done? This is a principal point to me. When visitors arrive and bring their models which they've made to run, I'm much more interested in how they've done their own work, and this includes modified RTR (Westerner is a prime example of personal creativity in that respect). Why would I be interested in their purchasing power alone?  

 

As for exhibitions. I agree, at several I've been to in the last year, I find I lose interest quite rapidly. Not in the hobby overall but at what I see on the mainstream layouts in general. Why is the likes of Burntisland such a joy to me? Because it's full of locos and stock which have been built - and built well. All have a personal story to tell. At some other shows over the last 12 months, layouts (particularly in OO) seem to be operated exclusively by out-of-the-box stuff, on occasions not even altered. Why should that interest me? If I've paid my entrance fee to see something I can see for nothing in a model shop window, would it surprise anyone to find that I've lost interest? 

 

You're dead right in stating that RTR brings people into the hobby, especially as it's so good. That can't be wrong, and I can't argue to the contrary. But, the rise of RTR is fundamentally changing the hobby. I know everything changes; it was ever thus, but if, as a part of that change, it means the 'loss' of kit-building, it's then not the overall creative hobby which first enthralled me. I regret that loss.

 

Finally, I couldn't agree more with regard to final paragraph. I used to play football, but mainly cricket. Of course I was enthusiastic about my own performances, and I'm very proud of the umpteen pots I won for my bowling down the years. However, though I never became disinterested in cricket (even though I no longer participate), nobody ever paid to see me play. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Just two points. Firstly the older modellers, building models and regretting how things are going were once new entrants, with limited RTR in those days. I was. So I'm not so sure about 'no rtr, no new entrants'.

They learned the skills and acquired the tools gradually. Let's not overestimate the obstacles, you can certainly put something together for less than £220, and there need not be much precision engineering involved (certainly not in my case), using a file and a soldering iron doesn't need a long apprenticeship, more like a bit of explanation and an hour's practice.

You're right though, as you say you can't expect the manufacturers not to meet the demand.

Your last paragraphs are also true of course (that's why I am about to make a loco that I could buy rtr from a kit), but what if so many people watch and so few play that you can no longer buy balls or boots to play yourself? As has been suggested often here, with falling demand kit and component ranges disappear.

I wish I'd written the above.

 

Far more succinct. 

[Clearwater]

I'd be interested to know what views would have been posted had this debate been happening 30/40/50 years ago, ie before the introduction of the brass etched kits (I'm afraid I don't know when they started being made).   I'm willing to bet that as these were introduced there were people bemoaning the loss of proper scratchbuilding skiills of starting with a piece of metal, shaping it yourself etc etc.  Times always changes.  Equally, as technology continues to develop, and as noted kits themselves must once have been at the cutting edge of what could be done, modellers will use those advances and the skill set required to produce items for their layouts.  To pick an example, someone posted a picture on RMWeb of some lamps produced with a 3D printer.  To me, it's real modelling and skill to take a prototype item, translate it into a design and instructions for the printer to get an accurate lamp out of it.  Whilst that's different to bending metal and soldering, it's no less of an achievement and should be celebrated as top quality modelling. 

 

Personally I feel there will always be a place for both aftermarket detailing kits for rtr stock and kits to build models that would not otherwise be commercial.  However, where rtr can achieve strong results and deal with the historic problems of rtr, ie inaccurate detail, poor pulling power etc, kits in those areas will fades.  Equally, I think kits will continue to flourish particularly in the rolling stock arena.  Given the range of coaches used and the economics of 'mass' production, there are always going to be types of coaches that are not produced in RTR format and hence a demand from modellers to build them.  Looking at the large layouts on RMWeb, its coach kits that are used first to supplement RTR products. 

 

As a comparative youngster, my nervousness is that when I reach an age when I can spend more time developing my model of a lifetime, the range of RTR etc will have declined.  Also, I want to take advantage of the knowledge here and try and learn the skills required to tackle something more complex.  Equally, whilst I'm aware I could commission people to build what I want, I want to be able to have the satisfaction of doing it myself on occasions.  Reading this and other threads, notably coachman's, I've been inspired to take the plunge and try a brass kit.  Warley has seen me purchase a Langley building which comes in brass format and a Comet Coach.  I'll probably start a thread to show how I'm getting on. 

 

Worth also noting that the internet has enabled like minded souls to gather in a way that would have been thought impossible 25 years ago nevermind 50 years ago.  I very much see RMWEb as a virtual model rail club.  People may not go to a local society as there's no-one who shares their exact interest but forum like this create exactly the same environment albeit in a virtual world.  In that regard, my experience to date on here has been very positive that when you post a question, people are extremely willing to help and make suggestions as to how you can improve what you're doing

 

David

[Chimer]

Just two points. Firstly the older modellers, building models and regretting how things are going were once new entrants, with limited RTR in those days. I was. So I'm not so sure about 'no rtr, no new entrants'.

They learned the skills and acquired the tools gradually. Let's not overestimate the obstacles, you can certainly put something together for less than £220, and there need not be much precision engineering involved (certainly not in my case), using a file and a soldering iron doesn't need a long apprenticeship, more like a bit of explanation and an hour's practice.

You're right though, as you say you can't expect the manufacturers not to meet the demand.

Your last paragraphs are also true of course (that's why I am about to make a loco that I could buy rtr from a kit), but what if so many people watch and so few play that you can no longer buy balls or boots to play yourself? As has been suggested often here, with falling demand kit and component ranges disappear.

 

Limited RTR indeed, but certainly enough to get started and discover the (fatal?) attraction.  And even, no especially, if you personally didn't start that way, I'm betting you'd been introduced to working with hand tools at school or by your dad (although school woodwork didn't do any good for me, for whom "precision" was about 1/4", one reason why I remain happily a slave to RTR, and my dad's tool of choice was a chequebook).  Most unlikely a potential new entrant today will have even seen a file or soldering iron ....

[Headstock]

The thing is, most of the RTR models are not perfect. Very good - yes indeed,. But a good number of the recent models I have looked at have anaemic tender springs and axleboxes, brake gear moulded with the tender sideframes, overscale splashers on the locos and a myriad of other niggles that stand out if you really want to look. If you want to live with those things that is fine, but if you try and correct them you will usually ruin the paint work which is certainly the stand out feature of much of the RTR.

 

So, as a P4 modeller (strike 1!) who models the mid 1920s (strike 2!) ia m quite content with the fact that there is very little in the way of RTR that has any use to me. I will continue to work through my collection of kits of various sorts and enjoy the process immensely. I may be slow, but I enjoy the journey.

 

Craig W

I completely agree, I should have put perfect in inverted commas, I was really refering more to the finish rather then anything else. To my eyes, as a working artist, RTR intrinsically looks phony, like an airbrushed super model.  This is where I disagree with Tony, the finish on his B12 looks like a real steam locomotive, RTR locomotives do not, thus his 'product' looks better. Coachman makes a valid point about the wheels on some RTR locomotives, using the Hornby A3 as an example but nobody ever comments on the atrocious valve gear, with a radius rod that slopes down hill from the exccentric, which in itself is rarely in the correct position.  The radius rod on the same companies B17 dosn't even seem to attach to the rest of the valve gear. If you look at RTR Gresley carriages, they are actualy very poor models, I once described them as a triumph of detail and finish over accuracy and how are you supposed to form anything like an authentic rake without a brake third, build one?. I am not trying to slag off RTR or decry the people who use it exclusively, I use it but it is not, either in finish ,detail or running capabilities intrinsically superior to to kit building.

 

I often think a good place to start by improving a RTR collection and try a bit of kit building is with the humble general merchandise wagon, as built by the big four, their predecessors and British railways. If you exclude coal wagons, then three out of every four items of freight stock was of this type but you will not see them on an exclusively RTR layout. The LMS built around 70,000 to one diagram, there where more general merchandise wagons then the entire freight stock of the Southern railway. Forget about RTR warflats and Consett iron ore hoppers have ago at a humble open goods wagon kit, they are cheap, easy to build and reflect the reality of the real railway.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Headstock

[johnarcher]

Limited RTR indeed, but certainly enough to get started and discover the (fatal?) attraction.  And even, no especially, if you personally didn't start that way, I'm betting you'd been introduced to working with hand tools at school or by your dad (although school woodwork didn't do any good for me, for whom "precision" was about 1/4", one reason why I remain happily a slave to RTR, and my dad's tool of choice was a chequebook).  Most unlikely a potential new entrant today will have even seen a file or soldering iron ....

Actually I wasn't, there was very little handcraft at school, my dad died when I was 7, so at one point in my '30's I sat down with a new soldering iron (had never used one) and Iain Rice's etched kit book and learned.

Edited December 1, 2015 by johnarcher

[johnarcher]

I'd be interested to know what views would have been posted had this debate been happening 30/40/50 years ago, ie before the introduction of the brass etched kits (I'm afraid I don't know when they started being made).   I'm willing to bet that as these were introduced there were people bemoaning the loss of proper scratchbuilding skiills of starting with a piece of metal, shaping it yourself etc etc.  Times always changes.  Equally, as technology continues to develop, and as noted kits themselves must once have been at the cutting edge of what could be done, modellers will use those advances and the skill set required to produce items for their layouts.  To pick an example, someone posted a picture on RMWeb of some lamps produced with a 3D printer.  To me, it's real modelling and skill to take a prototype item, translate it into a design and instructions for the printer to get an accurate lamp out of it.  Whilst that's different to bending metal and soldering, it's no less of an achievement and should be celebrated as top quality modelling. 

 

I agree absolutely about the 3D lamp, there are new ways of making things. Scratch building, etched or cast kit, 3D design is all making, new skills.

[Chimer]

Actually I wasn't, there was very little handcraft at school, my dad died when I was 7, so at one point in my '30's I sat down with a new soldering iron (had never used one) and Iain Rice's etched kit book and learned.

 

In that case - much respect!!

[Focalplane]

I don't believe you are ever too old to start learning something new.  Technology thrills the inner nerd in me.  And I agree that you can start out with just a few basic tools.  I even did a lot of my early loco building in a tent on a farm in Westmorland, not far from Shap.  No electricity to solder with but plenty of filing and fitting of white metal kits made by Wills and Keysers.  As well as painting them by oil lamp.  Then back to Southampton and some soldering.  Next field season, repeat the same with a new model.  The cost was certainly low for me as I remember thinking that it was less expensive to fettle away than walk down to the pub for a couple of beers. . . . .  except for the evening the hill above me was struck my lightning and I needed those pints to recover!

[Headstock]

 

.

 

So I shall have to get around it, I think, by using a working assumption that BR (ER) persisted with the LNER's former practice of splitting and merging "portions" of express trains right through to the end of the 1950s.

 

How about modeling the Bradford portion of the Yorkshire Pullman

 

Which in the end I suppose is a high-flying way of saying that, faut de mieux, 'Rule 1' will have to be applied ...

 

Right locomotive, right train, right location?