Wright writes.....

[Chimer]

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!

 

Of course you're never too old to learn - if you want to.  A few years ago I taught myself how to use Xtrckcad over a couple of evenings because I enjoy layout design and wanted to try this new (to me) technique).  I now think I'm pretty good at it although I am still learning new tricks and features.  And I've learnt lots of good practical modelling stuff from this very website - because I want to.   However .... (deep breath) ....

 

I do not want to learn how to build model railway engines or rolling stock and do not consider this makes me a bad or pathetically unambitious person!  Nor does it make it impossible for me to gain satisfaction from my attempts at railway modelling, sorting out my own layout design, baseboard, electrics and scenery (including card kits!) which just happen to use RTR stock.  So please, fellow RMWebbers, stop telling me (or the world in general) that anyone can do it if they try and nagging us to have a go - pretty please!  In return, I promise I will never suggest to anyone that their scratch- or kit-built efforts are not up to RTR standards, and that they should therefore stop trying.

 

Deal?

 

Chris

[Focalplane]

Of course you're never too old to learn - if you want to.  A few years ago I taught myself how to use Xtrckcad over a couple of evenings because I enjoy layout design and wanted to try this new (to me) technique).  I now think I'm pretty good at it although I am still learning new tricks and features.  And I've learnt lots of good practical modelling stuff from this very website - because I want to.   However .... (deep breath) ....

 

I do not want to learn how to build model railway engines or rolling stock and do not consider this makes me a bad or pathetically unambitious person!  Nor does it make it impossible for me to gain satisfaction from my attempts at railway modelling, sorting out my own layout design, baseboard, electrics and scenery (including card kits!) which just happen to use RTR stock.  So please, fellow RMWebbers, stop telling me (or the world in general) that anyone can do it if they try and nagging us to have a go - pretty please!  In return, I promise I will never suggest to anyone that their scratch- or kit-built efforts are not up to RTR standards, and that they should therefore stop trying.

 

Deal?

 

Chris

Chris, I don't think I was telling you or anyone else that you can do it and therefore have a go, just sharing with everyone that all things are possible and the costs involved do not have to be over the moon.  I do think that Wright writes is mostly about loco and layout building, though, and perhaps some of us may forget that not everyone has the same priorities in life.  Your ambitions are just as admirable as anyone else's because they are yours.

 

Question to Tony, do I have my apostrophes in the correct places in that last sentence?

[johnarcher]

I also do not intend to tell anyone to do anything, I just want to counteract phrases like 'precision miniature engineering', and say that  making such things (if you want to)  is not so dauntingly difficult or expensive as sometimes seems to be implied.

[Tony Wright]

Of course you're never too old to learn - if you want to.  A few years ago I taught myself how to use Xtrckcad over a couple of evenings because I enjoy layout design and wanted to try this new (to me) technique).  I now think I'm pretty good at it although I am still learning new tricks and features.  And I've learnt lots of good practical modelling stuff from this very website - because I want to.   However .... (deep breath) ....

 

I do not want to learn how to build model railway engines or rolling stock and do not consider this makes me a bad or pathetically unambitious person!  Nor does it make it impossible for me to gain satisfaction from my attempts at railway modelling, sorting out my own layout design, baseboard, electrics and scenery (including card kits!) which just happen to use RTR stock.  So please, fellow RMWebbers, stop telling me (or the world in general) that anyone can do it if they try and nagging us to have a go - pretty please!  In return, I promise I will never suggest to anyone that their scratch- or kit-built efforts are not up to RTR standards, and that they should therefore stop trying.

 

Deal?

 

Chris

Dear Chris,

 

If I thought for a moment that anything I (or anyone else might) post would imply that you're 'a bad or pathetically unambitious person', you would have my instant apology. 

 

I think Paul Ashton's right in stating that this thread is primarily concerned with folk making things, principally locos and rolling stock. That's my main interest, so I suppose it's inevitable to some extent. If folk have no desire to make locos and rolling stock and enjoy the hobby in whatever way they wish, nobody has a right to dictate to them what they should or shouldn't do. But, if the inexorable rise of the widespread use of RTR means it's less interesting a hobby to me personally, then what else can I say? Especially as it has an inevitable impact on the availability of kits. In all progress there are 'winners' and 'losers'. RTR-users are definitely the winners in this case, and I suppose, as a fully signed-up member of the miserable old gits' club, I tend to moan. But that won't stop me exhorting others to have a go.

 

Miserable old gits are natural, even expert, hypocrites; I'm no exception! 

 

 

In my total poacher-turned-gamekeeper mode, this is Heljan's latest pre-production sample of its OO Gauge O2, in this case an O2/4 (ex-O2/3) in early-'50s BR guise. It looks good and it runs superbly. A tiny bit of those two qualities might be because of me; I've helped Heljan in the development of this model - writing reports, making suggestions, taking photographs and carrying out mechanical alterations. So, in complete hypocritical-mode, here I am helping in the production of an RTR model which will almost certainly 'kill off' any kit equivalents. I was asked to assist and I have done. But, deep down, could there be a sense of resentment that next year anyone can own one, or several of these fine models? I've got four O2s of all variants on my layout, all built from kits. There's an exclusivity in that, and that situation is being diminished day by day.  

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[corneliuslundie]

I enjoy reading this thread but building locos is not the be all and end all for me. I am working on the scenery for the current layout, scratch building the buildings; I am building wagon kits where they exist and I scratch build where they don't; and I am gradually turning some Trevor Charlton etched zinc coach sides into complete vehicles (I have been at it about seven years now but that is partly because I got to a certain stage when I was abroad and had to wait until my return for the remaining materials). I shall even have to build the one signal from scratch. Then there is the track laying (a mix of methods but not RTR), wiring, operating sequence etc etc.

 

For me a model railway needs all, these not just locos and carriages. That is one of the joys of the hobby, in that it takes us into so many areas of life. As I have commented elsewhere, the research needed to produce a complete model railway takes one into all sorts of areas, from sheep breeds to styles of clothes in country areas in 1910 and from the correct type of tree for the local geology to the likely goods traffic at the station being modelled. In fact the research can end up taking all the time if one is not careful. But does it matter? It is all railway modelling.

 

So thanks you to Tony for allowing so many people to express so many different views here, and for those who do so in such a civilised way. You have encouraged me to try new techniques (some I have managed, some not) and provided much interesting debate - as well as photos of so much magnificent modelling.

 

Jonathan

[micklner]

Tony

      I cannot see any need for resentment re the O2 , we should all be happy that the hobby is going forward and not dying. Surely it is good that a particular Loco is available for all no matter how it is produced.

 

     I agree it is a shame that building kits is believed to be becoming a dying art, but I don't think it as dramatic as that might sound. There are plenty of examples on this forum of people making complete kits , modifying rtr to make various variations of Locos and rolling stock and scratchbuilding as well. Kit building is far from over yet !!

[Headstock]

The chassis of that loco is perfect for anybody wanting to build an LNER P1 2-8-2.

 

Lovely engine there Tony.

Or a Garrat, if you buy two.

[Red Devil]

As a regular reader (and very occasional contributor) to this thread I really find the 'building things' debate quite interesting, I came back to modelling about 8 years ago having done nothing for years, my previous attempts ranging from a K's ROD as thirteenth birthday present (eventually a success 7 years later with Romfords and a Portescap) to a fair collection of kit built ex GCR and converted r-t-r stuff such as a K3 on V1/3 chassis which was  my first ever published article.

 

That lot went towards the deposit for a new house after a divorce left me with custody of my clothes and our debts.   That probably explains my interest in a lot of what appears in this thread. God knows quite why I ended up modelling Leeds trams when I dipped my toe back in but that's what I ended up doing. Now some think they're hard done to if XYZ hasn't made their favourite loco in the required livery, I didn't even have the option of kits as quite simply they weren't available, so I pretty much ended up doing all my own stuff with a fair number of the required stock being produced by myself and a friend as 3d prints, quite simply it was an option that worked for us. A fellow RMweber who I've ended up very friendly with has produced a range of bespoke transfers so we can get it 'more right'. The simple reason for all this perverse endeavour is because we both like building things, I know my efforts aren't a patch on what could be produced but quite simply it won't ever be done, and again I have the enjoyment of building it and saying 'I built that'.

 

Neither of us are 'geriatric' in fact half of the interest is researching the stuff in the first place, so perhaps the era of the kit manufacturer may possibly drawing to a close due to less demand and ready to run duplication perhaps we are entering an era where more people can say 'I want that' and actually be able to produce it for themselves with small additional add on sales to others interested?

 

I know there are a fair few in the 'younger generations' who actually think that way, my next planned layout was a section of the Grimsby and District light railway with the Grimsby and Immingham tramway running alongside, to that end the CAD for three of the of G&I cars has been done and printed. I recently had an email conversation with a guy in this 20/30s about this, he fancied doing something similar,his comments? 'I want to build something that you don't see announced at Warley when you're halfway through it'. 

 

Anyway enough of my thoughts, a couple of pictures to show that for some 3d printing may be one way forward.....it's just another tool in the toolbox as far as I'm concerned.

 

A pair of Leeds Pivotal Cars, bodies 3d printed in plastic, trucksides 3d printed in wax then lost wax casting in brass, rest built from various bits and pieces, painted by me with bespoke Leeds adverts from Purpledoor of this parish.

 

 

Now back to a succession of east coast power please!

[coachmann]

.................here I am helping in the production of an RTR model which will almost certainly 'kill off' any kit equivalents. I was asked to assist and I have done. But, deep down, could there be a sense of resentment that next year anyone can own one, or several of these fine models? I've got four O2s of all variants on my layout, all built from kits. There's an exclusivity in that, and that situation is being diminished day by day.  

RTR is killing off kits and so your choices are diminishing together with exclusivity.  But fear not...... All is not gloom. You like kits so why not design your own set of parts for a loco that you particularly want to build. Find someone that can operate CAD and give them your ideas and scale drawings. It'll cost you over £300.00 including tool and an etched sheet, but this could be recovered by selling a few sheets to other loco builders. Chances are no RTR company will produce it if it happens to suit your area but is geographically restricted.

 

Another option is to have produced as etchings the decorative framing for a D16 (for example) for an exclusive 'conversion'. No doubt Gilbert would also want one so there you are....

Edited December 1, 2015 by coachmann

[Headstock]

As a regular reader (and very occasional contributor) to this thread I really find the 'building things' debate quite interesting, I came back to modelling about 8 years ago having done nothing for years, my previous attempts ranging from a K's ROD as thirteenth birthday present (eventually a success 7 years later with Romfords and a Portescap) to a fair collection of kit built ex GCR and converted r-t-r stuff such as a K3 on V1/3 chassis which was  my first ever published article.

 

That lot went towards the deposit for a new house after a divorce left me with custody of my clothes and our debts.   That probably explains my interest in a lot of what appears in this thread. God knows quite why I ended up modelling Leeds trams when I dipped my toe back in but that's what I ended up doing. Now some think they're hard done to if XYZ hasn't made their favourite loco in the required livery, I didn't even have the option of kits as quite simply they weren't available, so I pretty much ended up doing all my own stuff with a fair number of the required stock being produced by myself and a friend as 3d prints, quite simply it was an option that worked for us. A fellow RMweber who I've ended up very friendly with has produced a range of bespoke transfers so we can get it 'more right'. The simple reason for all this perverse endeavour is because we both like building things, I know my efforts aren't a patch on what could be produced but quite simply it won't ever be done, and again I have the enjoyment of building it and saying 'I built that'.

 

Neither of us are 'geriatric' in fact half of the interest is researching the stuff in the first place, so perhaps the era of the kit manufacturer may possibly drawing to a close due to less demand and ready to run duplication perhaps we are entering an era where more people can say 'I want that' and actually be able to produce it for themselves with small additional add on sales to others interested?

 

I know there are a fair few in the 'younger generations' who actually think that way, my next planned layout was a section of the Grimsby and District light railway with the Grimsby and Immingham tramway running alongside, to that end the CAD for three of the of G&I cars has been done and printed. I recently had an email conversation with a guy in this 20/30s about this, he fancied doing something similar,his comments? 'I want to build something that you don't see announced at Warley when you're halfway through it'. 

 

Anyway enough of my thoughts, a couple of pictures to show that for some 3d printing may be one way forward.....it's just another tool in the toolbox as far as I'm concerned.

 

A pair of Leeds Pivotal Cars, bodies 3d printed in plastic, trucksides 3d printed in wax then lost wax casting in brass, rest built from various bits and pieces, painted by me with bespoke Leeds adverts from Purpledoor of this parish.

 

pivs.jpg

 

Now back to a succession of east coast power please!

Superb and a very evocative scene.  May I ask what street is depicted?

[Red Devil]

Superb and a very evocative scene.  May I ask what street is depicted?

 

Grime Street, my layout is set in Hunslet circa 1948-1954, it's a figment of my imagination based on what I could reproduce.

 

There's a fair bit more about it on my blog and a recently shot bit of video here. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/172/entry-16810-some-video-of-grime-street-taken-this-last-weekend-at-peterborough/

[46256]

Picking up on one point of many in the recent stream of correspondence...Buntisland...what a model..superb display..knowledgable guides....a pure joy...on another note trying to convince my former train spotting friends that I can "cop" Bahamas having only seen its cab...really enjoyed Warley this year, and meeting Messrs Wright and King ( even more so Meredith) was the icing on the cake

[Headstock]

I have just watched your video, it is ace. The whole thing looks like a film set, most definetly Hunslet/Holbeck. The weathering on the buildings is spot on, one of my

personal gripes is when you see suty buildings portraid with clean morter as if the whole town have been freshley repointed. That put a real smile on my face, thanks.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

Picking up on one point of many in the recent stream of correspondence...Buntisland...what a model..superb display..knowledgable guides....a pure joy...on another note trying to convince my former train spotting friends that I can "cop" Bahamas having only seen its cab...really enjoyed Warley this year, and meeting Messrs Wright and King ( even more so Meredith) was the icing on the cake

It was a pleasure to meet you again at Warley.

 

But who is Meredith? 

[gr.king]

The chassis of that loco is perfect for anybody wanting to build an LNER P1 2-8-2.

 

Not quite, I would suggest. Bigger wheels are needed all round to suit a P1, and the motor-gearbox driving onto the second coupled axle would be less logical and more of an eyesore on the P1 than it is on the O2. The P1 must have empty space beneath the whole boiler barrel and be visibly "open" between the frames in order to be a good model.

 

Of course, should anybody at a future date wish to acquire the eagerly awaited 02./2 version of this model, only as a means of getting the chassis, then I'll gladly take the body and tender off their hands for construction of a model of the O2's 2-cylinder ancestor.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

      I cannot see any need for resentment re the O2 , we should all be happy that the hobby is going forward and not dying. Surely it is good that a particular Loco is available for all no matter how it is produced.

 

     I agree it is a shame that building kits is believed to be becoming a dying art, but I don't think it as dramatic as that might sound. There are plenty of examples on this forum of people making complete kits , modifying rtr to make various variations of Locos and rolling stock and scratchbuilding as well. Kit building is far from over yet !!

Mick,

 

Perhaps, because you're not a grumpy old git like me, then you have no sense of resentment. 

 

I have, for quite some time. I'll explain; years ago I first started scratch-building and within literally weeks a kit of some kind of another had been announced for the same prototype. I used up my complete dictionary of profanity scratch-building a K1, then immediately a resin body appeared (from Preston?). I didn't care until someone at show stated 'you've been quick off the mark finishing that (I think, Jaycraft) loco'. I spluttered in indignation. Thus, it carried on - even with the likes of the A1/1. 

 

Then, I built kits, only to discover as I built my kits RTR manufacturers started making exactly the same things. Again more spluttering as spectators at shows thought that's what they were. 

 

Kit-building becoming a dying art? If those model-makers I speak to personally are to be believed, then it is. Ask the kit-manufacturers the same question and they'll say (in the main) the same thing. Of course it's not dead, yet. But it's nowhere near as necessary (and thus popular) as it once was.

 

I'm glad that folk on this forum are posting examples of their work - and if it's their personal work, so much the better as far as I'm concerned, whatever its origins.  

 

Speaking of origins, kit or scratch-building is the only means of getting a 4mm B16 of any kind. 

 

 

 

I built this from a PDK kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. There is 'clamouring' amongst the 'I wants' for a B16 RTR. No doubt, one will become available in time and down will go another kit. Forgive me if I won't be celebrating! 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[jwealleans]

None of the buttons seemed to suit, so I'll say it. What an utterly beautiful loco.

[johnarcher]

I enjoy reading this thread but building locos is not the be all and end all for me. I am working on the scenery for the current layout, scratch building the buildings; I am building wagon kits where they exist and I scratch build where they don't; and I am gradually turning some Trevor Charlton etched zinc coach sides into complete vehicles (I have been at it about seven years now but that is partly because I got to a certain stage when I was abroad and had to wait until my return for the remaining materials). I shall even have to build the one signal from scratch. Then there is the track laying (a mix of methods but not RTR), wiring, operating sequence etc etc.

 

For me a model railway needs all, these not just locos and carriages. That is one of the joys of the hobby, in that it takes us into so many areas of life. As I have commented elsewhere, the research needed to produce a complete model railway takes one into all sorts of areas, from sheep breeds to styles of clothes in country areas in 1910 and from the correct type of tree for the local geology to the likely goods traffic at the station being modelled. In fact the research can end up taking all the time if one is not careful. But does it matter? It is all railway modelling.

 

So thanks you to Tony for allowing so many people to express so many different views here, and for those who do so in such a civilised way. You have encouraged me to try new techniques (some I have managed, some not) and provided much interesting debate - as well as photos of so much magnificent modelling.

 

Jonathan

You're dead right about the spread of interests. I personally was coming back into the hobby after some years (Irish 00n3 before that), heading back GW way - Cornwall is home. However I looked again at the Pendon 'Cottage Modelling' book and the real wood frame in the rectory (I think it is). Now I've always been interested in wood craft (a couple of model frigates, two lutes, several hundred lomgbows) so now I'm looking at Herefordshire branches and studying books on old timber frame buildings and the joinery techniques in them. You never know where this interest might lead you.

Edited December 1, 2015 by johnarcher

[micklner]

Perhaps, because you're not a grumpy old git like me, then you have no sense of resentment. 

 

I have, for quite some time. I'll explain; years ago I first started scratch-building and within literally weeks a kit of some kind of another had been announced for the same prototype. I used up my complete dictionary of profanity scratch-building a K1, then immediately a resin body appeared (from Preston?). I didn't care until someone at show stated 'you've been quick off the mark finishing that (I think, Jaycraft) loco'. I spluttered in indignation. Thus, it carried on - even with the likes of the A1/1. 

 

Then, I built kits, only to discover as I built my kits RTR manufacturers started making exactly the same things. Again more spluttering as spectators at shows thought that's what they were. 

 

Kit-building becoming a dying art? If those model-makers I speak to personally are to be believed, then it is. Ask the kit-manufacturers the same question and they'll say (in the main) the same thing. Of course it's not dead, yet. But it's nowhere near as necessary (and thus popular) as it once was.

 

I'm glad that folk on this forum are posting examples of their work - and if it's their personal work, so much the better as far as I'm concerned, whatever its origins.  

 

Speaking of origins, unless one attempts kit or scratch-building, this is the only means of getting a 4mm B16 of any kind. 

 

B16 1 painted 01.jpg

 

B16 1 painted 02.jpg

 

I built this from a PDK kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. There is 'clamouring' amongst the 'I wants' for a B16 RTR. No doubt, one will become available in time and down will go another kit. Forgive me if I won't be celebrating! 

      I think you might need to amend slightly as DJH do a god awful version of a old fashion/standard as well as the lovely PDK version  above.

 

     All of the DJH kits I have  built  ( A2 best of them,D20, Raven A2) sadly come under that  general description and they are very good evidence of how kits and rtr of that era were of a similar standard or in the case of rtr even worse quality. I am surprised they are still selling (if people are buying them?) kits without any updates since they were first on the market. People then didn't expect kits to be any better than slab sided frames ,poor castings and detail e.g no brakes , oval boilers and powered by XO4 motors and gears set by placing a cigeratte paper between them to get a hoped for correct spacing.

     I haven't picked out DJH as the old Nucast, K's and other brand kits were as hard to build or even worse.  At least the A2 and the Raven A2  had etched chassis and Tenders the fit of many parts were still however interesting  !. You then compare with newer kits such as Bradwell and Finney and  High Level Gearboxes and similar and there are light years between them and the older offerings.

     Sadly a newcomer who happens to buy the wrong kit at great expense then finds its a type that is a earlier offering of quality/standard may not ever bother again when they compare to the standard of the latest rtr and can anyone blame them for making such a decision.

     Unless you know the kit market there is nowhere that I am aware of where the current available kits are actually given independent reviews as what they are , quality of the kit , whats in the box , ease of building and what the actual final cost might be. Perhaps a pinned thread on this Forum may help future newcomers to kit building could/should be created . If kits are to survive then they need more publicity and in some cases marked improvement . 

 

We live in modern times, there will always be changes good and/or bad this relates to all hobbies as everything else that people do in this world. 

 

From another old git 

[Tony Wright]

      I think you might need to amend slightly as DJH do a god awful version of a old fashion/standard as well as the lovely PDK version  above.

 

     All of the DJH kits I have  built  ( A2 best of them,D20, Raven A2) sadly come under that  general description and they are very good evidence of how kits and rtr of that era were of a similar standard or in the case of rtr even worse quality. I am surprised they are still selling (if people are buying them?) kits without any updates since they were first on the market. People then didn't expect kits to be any better than slab sided frames ,poor castings and detail e.g no brakes , oval boilers and powered by XO4 motors and gears set by placing a cigeratte paper between them to get a hoped for correct spacing.

     I haven't picked out DJH as the old Nucast, K's and other brand kits were as hard to build or even worse.  At least the A2 and the Raven A2  had etched chassis and Tenders the fit of many parts were still however interesting  !. You then compare with newer kits such as Bradwell and Finney and  High Level Gearboxes and similar and there are light years between them and the older offerings.

     Sadly a newcomer who happens to buy the wrong kit at great expense then finds its a type that is a earlier offering of quality/standard may not ever bother again when they compare to the standard of the latest rtr and can anyone blame them for making such a decision.

     Unless you know the kit market there is nowhere that I am aware of where the current available kits are actually given independent reviews as what they are , quality of the kit , whats in the box , ease of building and what the actual final cost might be. Perhaps a pinned thread on this Forum may help future newcomers to kit building could/should be created . If kits are to survive then they need more publicity and in some cases marked improvement . 

 

We live in modern times, there will always be changes good and/or bad this relates to all hobbies as everything else that people do in this world. 

 

From another old git 

Thanks Mick,

 

Duly amended.

 

I wasn't sure whether the old DJH kit was still available, and I suppose I should have mentioned as well the Steve Barnfield one of yore. The DJH one was certainly old-school, with its basic chassis and boiler of the wrong proportions. 

 

I have to say the more modern DJH kits I've built (post the A1) have all been excellent products. But then I would say that, especially as I had a hand in the research, development and test-building of the A2/2 and A2/3 kits, as well as writing the instructions for the former. I also did the test-building and wrote the instructions for the Brighton Atlantic. Significantly, DJH has not introduced a new 4mm loco kit for over a decade. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Willie Whizz]

.....     Sadly a newcomer who happens to buy the wrong kit at great expense then finds its a type that is a earlier offering of quality/standard may not ever bother again when they compare to the standard of the latest rtr and can anyone blame them for making such a decision.

 

     Unless you know the kit market there is nowhere that I am aware of where the current available kits are actually given independent reviews as what they are , quality of the kit , whats in the box , ease of building and what the actual final cost might be. Perhaps a pinned thread on this Forum may help future newcomers to kit building could/should be created . If kits are to survive then they need more publicity and in some cases marked improvement . 

 

..... 

 

 

 

Motion seconded.

 

Every respect to those who "can" and "do", and yes I'm intending to have a crack soon - but (based on Tony's figures a few posts back) is it any surprise that so many people these days are at the very least hesitant to spend £200+ on a kit and "bits" and several hundred £s-worth of 'own time' and risk it turning out as a dud if not a disaster, not least because the instructions are rubbish and the kit itself barely buildable without the experience and skill and prototype knowledge to modify it?

[Headstock]

Motion seconded.

 

Every respect to those who "can" and "do", and yes I'm intending to have a crack soon - but (based on Tony's figures a few posts back) is it any surprise that so many people these days are at the very least hesitant to spend £200+ on a kit and "bits" and several hundred £s-worth of 'own time' and risk it turning out as a dud if not a disaster, not least because the instructions are rubbish and the kit itself barely buildable without the experience and skill and prototype knowledge to modify it?

What do you fancy having a go at?

[jrg1]

I bought a DJH Raven A2 and although the locomotive frames were etched with suitable spacers, I was surprised to see that the footplating consisted of slabs of whitemetal-and built, it looks like a slab of whitemetal, with an air of lack-of-squareness. heavyness and just-not-right about it-and that after much fettling and fitting.  Years out of date-it should have been etched.  The remedy will be to fabricate the assembly from NS.  As I have replaced the wheels for P4-I had to buy the kit complete, and also replaced the boiler for an SE A3, plus made various parts anyway, I feel I should have simply scratched it, and just bought the tender.  An expensive exercise.   

[Headstock]

The raven A2 is a very old kit, so I would expect it to be some what more dificult to get the results you want, have you got the chassis running yet?. The DJH gear boxes are excellent and the chassis wheels ect should go together fine.

If this is your first kit build then it can be a pretty steep learning curve and that sometimes can cost money but don't give up.  I think a forum like this can provide plenty of advice to set you on the right direction. About two weeks ago I

had my first atempt at painting a Thompson carriage in teak, I wasn't to happy with the results so I striped it back. what a waist of time and paint I thought but realy it was sort off pay as you learn because Iv'e worked out in my head

how to do it right next time

Edited December 1, 2015 by Headstock

[micklner]

The raven A2 is a very old kit, so I would expect it to be some what more dificult to get the results you want, have you got the chassis running yet?. The DJH gear boxes are excellent and the chassis wheels ect should go together fine.

If this is your first kit build then it can be a pretty steep learning curve and that sometimes can cost money but don't give up.  I think a forum like this can provide pplenty of advice to set you on the right direction.

 

The hardest bit on mine was getting the cab roof to fit square to the Cab and the Cab sides to the Boiler , nothing was even closed to correct shape. Luckily I had read of a previous build as was aware of that area before iI started. Mine runs fine with a High Level box . She is has such a long wheelbase it doesn't like curves, no wonder they were called Skittle Alleys at the time.