Wright writes.....

[jjb1970]

The observation that lousy kits put people off strikes a chord with me.  Some of the stuff (And expensive stuff as well) on the market in the seventies and eighties should have been the subject of investigation.  I have an etched kit ready for completion, and when checking the works drawing, the roof is entirely the wrong profile.  New cab side and end sheets need to be made up; another etched and cast kit appears to have all the WM components heavily microwaved.  Pity the beginner starting out who buys these.

My first experience of a train kit was courtesy of MTK and would have been more accurately described as assisted scratch build than as a kit. I’ve been an avid plastic kit builder of 1/35 military vehicles and figures and 1/72 aircraft since I was not much more than knee high and it is not a flattering comparison is you compare the standards of fit and finish, instructions and general production values of a typical plastic kit from any of the major aircraft and military suppliers (eg. Tamiya, Airfix, Dragon, Revell, Trumpeter, Academy etc) with some of what is produced for the model train market. There are good train kits, but there is also a lot of very badly produced tat IMO. When I’ve questioned this I’ve sometimes accused of not being a real modellers, that kits should require skill, that if I can’t build a kit (actually I can, I just don’t see why a kit shouldn’t go together easily enough) its my problem etc, all of which is essentially just rationalising the poor quality of some kits.

[coachmann]

Society often lays the present on the past and then fails to comprehend why the past was the way it was. If you consider 'today' is normal, it will one day come as a surprise to learn that 'your generation' was foolish, naive, cruel etc etc. My generation was told we lived in a violent society (strapping, caning, smacking, hanging, war-ing etc), a dangerous society (work environment, open platform buses, coal dust, chemicals, tobacco inhalation, household glues, paints, etc). Railway modelling has come in for the same bashing particularly with regard to kits, but this is to compare surviving kits with today's marvelous RTR.

 

It might surprise some people to learn there was no such thing as marvelous RTR when many of the kits first hit the shops. RTR was not even part of the railway modelling scene; RTR was still a toy, particularly the products of Triang and later Triang-Hornby. Kits were introduced for railway modellers and a number of really bad apple firms cashed in on this appetite for locos and rolling stock. I used to wonder how many of the etched kits had actually been test-built by the manufacturer and how many would actually be built by their buyers. Etched kits were produced from hand drawn artwork in pre-CAD days and while one individual's work was outstanding (it was only single-etch though and not the easiest to assemble), some producers work was pretty dire. Ill-fitting parts were rife in loco kits and some rolling stock kits. Coaches with knife-edge raised panelling that were almost impossible to line out at the painting stage or of varying widths. Bending lines that simply did not work and created unwanted creases. I suspect many of these very poor kits sold to people who were 'going to build them one day'. I'll bet these are now on Ebay!

 

A chap I worked closely with for over 30 years somehow got some of these etched locos and coaches built, but he knew not to send them to me for painting as I wouldn't touch them. I came across a reminder of those old kits hiding in the garage a few years ago and managed to turn out a reasonable GWR auto trailer after much swearing. It is currently awaiting stripping down for a fresh start using just the sides ~ One can always un-solder brass! If I talked about cast whitemetal kits, this post would be twice as long!

Edited September 1, 2016 by coachmann

[t-b-g]

There have been many poor kits offered for sale over the years. Many were designed, not by professional designers but by modellers and enthusiasts, like us.

 

Many a kit sells in tiny numbers and if the extra time and effort needed to do a test build, modify the design, do another test build and refine the kit until everything was perfect was factored into the price, none would have been sold.

 

So even as a beginner, in the 1970s, I always thought of kits as scratchbuilding with short cuts. If the parts fitted together (often after much fettling and modification), looked a bit like whatever they were supposed to be and the thing ran, that was about as much as I expected.

 

In these days of CAD and with the extra accuracy that can be gained in 3D printing a pattern for casting and suchlike, I would expect modern kits to be better but I know from my own experience that if a first version of a kit is "close enough" then some designers will put it on the market like that because the amount of time and effort to alter it before production would wipe out any potential financial return. Whenever you read in an instruction that a hole needs to be drilled or something may need "adjusting to fit" you know you are looking at a kit where the designer knew it wasn't quite right.

 

However bad a kit is, I have never come across one which couldn't ever be built to a reasonable standard, even if that meant replacing many parts with new ones. In every case, the kit was better than not having a kit at all.

 

I have said this before but the amount of satisfaction to be gained from turning a dreadful kit into a nice finished item is actually more than that of putting together a well fitting, easy to build kit. For me at least!

[Mallard60022]

I got by for years without using a soldering iron. I'm not sure it made me less of a modeller but learning to solder has opened up a good deal more modelling opportunities. I don't think that metal and solder is right for every application - card and plastic have an edge in some areas - but I'm now choosing brass and ns over plastic more often.

 

I've said this before but the poor quality of many kits is a root cause of many potential metal modellers giving up. Too easy as a novice to assume it's your failing rather than the kit that's to fault.

 

I started off with an Agenoria 1366 kit (O Gauge). Looked great in shiny ns on the stand and initial thoughts were good. I quickly discovered that parts didn't fit, were wrong for the prototype or just badly cast. Disheartened I put it to one side for two years, built a brake van and LSWR O2 from Connoisseur, wagons from WEP, and coach bogies from Slaters. Confidence, skills and tools were acquired. In the last month I've returned to the 1366. It's still s poor kit, lots of issues but I'm now better equipped to finish it off.

 

I picked it back up in this state:

 

tmp_1286-rps20160828_101720210450966.jpg

 

 

And I'm now here:

tmp_1286-rps20160807_1935491694542470.jpg

 

 

 

Spams, those pics are in the wrong order..................................................I've corrected them for you.................................

 

 

no, seriously, that is progress my friend. 

Phil

[LNER4479]

I know of nobody who's personally built his/her own model railway who cannot solder.

 

Ah yes, but...

 

There is a world of difference between soldering one end of a wire to a rail and t'other end to a terminal on a switch compared with putting together a complete etched brass kit.

 

The latter not only requires some skill in applying the combination of iron, flux and solder but also careful preparation in preparing the (often very small) parts and somehow holding together at right angles (or whatever) to achieve a neat and accurate joint. Not all parts fit together by slot and tab!

 

I would perhaps suggest therefore that there is a scale of competence upon which most modellers sit, from being able to do the basic 'wiring up' soldering to being able to put together a complex kit / scratchbuild using solder.

 

And whilst I'm on - I agree with Tony's conclusion above that there is a perverse satisfaction in being able to put together a poorly designed kit to produce a presentable result! Appreciate though that puts us in a minority...

[Willie Whizz]

The problem I found when making my first attempts back in the 80s was that having grown-up on good quality injection-moulded plastic aircraft and warship kits that were complete (even including appropriate transfers), generally accurate, and - most importantly - had decent instructions, what usually tumbled out of the box of any railway modelling kit in whitemetal or brass was a jumble of unidentfied (and often unidentifiable) parts with minimal instructions and few diagrams, plus an expectation you would source about a third of the necessary components from other (usually unspecified) suppliers anyway, vastly increasing the cost and complexity to the modeller.

 

It was therefore commonly a hugely disappointing and dispiriting experience for a beginner at the time, and although I did eventually manage to get some of them together and operational, it left a nasty taste in the mouth that lingers to this day.  I appreciate entirely that many of these kits were effectively the output of 'cottage industries' and some amounted to little more than glorified scratchbuilding aids - but no-one (least of all the semi-amateur manufacturers themselves) was telling us that at the time, and there was (and still is) no simple 'complexity rating' system on the boxes such as some model aircraft manufacturers have used perfectly successfully for many years; so how were you supposed to know till after you'd bought the thing? And if these people had the necessary and quite advanced skills to design and make the complex components of a locomotive or carriage kit, how come they didn't have the skills to draw some decent assembly diagrams or take photographs?  I don't accept the 'cost of time' argument'; compared with the time it must have taken to make the moulds or etches it would have been trivial, and besides, some of them claim to have been doing it as much 'for love' as for any serious expectation of making money.

 

Magazine reviews of kits were not common at that time and those there were were usually bland and inoffensive.  There were some few articles on how to build specific loco kits (as opposed to generic building guidance), but the excellent step-by-step illustrated style we know today was still years away and, importantly, the writers (vastly experienced modellers almost to a man) did not tell us how they built the kit 'as supplied' but how they radically modified and embellished it.  Deficiencies were not really commented on; they just said "I discarded the sprocket wangler supplied and replaced it with one from my spares box" - which, to a novice, was then and is now about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

I do entirely accept there's a certain real pride and satisfaction that can come from wrangling a poor set of components into something good; I just don't accept that we should regard having to do that as par for the course and if you don't like it or can't do it then maybe you're a wimp.  It is easy to blame the decline in kit-building on modern modellers' 'time poverty', the loss of some craft skills no longer taught in schools, and the availability of better R-T-R equipment, and to regret the demise of some of the kit manufacturers - but the fact is, if to the 'novice' or even 'average' modeller who make-up the bulk of the hobby, their products were often pretty awful even by the standards of 25-30 years ago and haven't been improved or upgraded since, who is to really blame?

[coachmann]

No matter who produces a kit for sale to the public, I consider it is beholding to that person to produce something that is fit for purpose. I worked in conjunction with a good few kit manufacturers at one time. Castings were test-built (I did some of this) before a model was painted and photographed for the box lids and publicity (again that was my contribution). It was unthinkable that a kit should be foisted on the public without being tested, and yet the unthinkable apparently happened in the 1980's when etched brass kits really took off. 

 

Kits were made for modellers and the assumption was that modellers could solder and had a good sense of humour!!! People tempted to buy old kits today should bare this in mind, after all, those who built things on an almost daily basis for a living used to think twice before accepting commissions to build some of them. Only bags of experience tells you when to alter etchings to make construction simpler. I did just this with a XXXX coach kit a few years ago, but failed to spot things were going awry because of the built-in fold factors. Subsequently, the wheel flanges touched the floor and yet the coach still stood much higher than every other coach on the layout.

[EHertsGER]

This may impede the rhythm of the current conversation, but I enjoyed this and felt I should share. If only it was this easy...

 

http://digg.com/video/reseau-ferre-france-commercial

 

Best,

Marcus

Edited September 1, 2016 by EHertsGER

[Clive Mortimore]

Ah yes, but...

 

There is a world of difference between soldering one end of a wire to a rail and t'other end to a terminal on a switch compared with putting together a complete etched brass kit.

 

The latter not only requires some skill in applying the combination of iron, flux and solder but also careful preparation in preparing the (often very small) parts and somehow holding together at right angles (or whatever) to achieve a neat and accurate joint. Not all parts fit together by slot and tab!

 

I would perhaps suggest therefore that there is a scale of competence upon which most modellers sit, from being able to do the basic 'wiring up' soldering to being able to put together a complex kit / scratchbuild using solder.

 

And whilst I'm on - I agree with Tony's conclusion above that there is a perverse satisfaction in being able to put together a poorly designed kit to produce a presentable result! Appreciate though that puts us in a minority...

Hi Grahame

 

Having been an assembly inspector for Marconi's I would conclude that while many modellers get layouts working not many can solder a wire to a terminal properly. I have seen to many layouts where the soldering had it been presented to me would have been sent straight back to the guy who made it. Happily I look at them and smile, as long as their layout performs then there is no problem.

[jrg1]

"However bad a kit is, I have never come across one which couldn't ever be built to a reasonable standard, even if that meant replacing many parts with new ones. In every case, the kit was better than not having a kit at all".

Well, quite.  However, when I buy a kit, I do like to think that very little will have to be replaced, reworked or repaired before use.  I do like to assume the kit has no forgotten fold lines, and I do not need to exercise my Olfa cutter to gouge them in; I do like to think the castings will be accurate, and I will not have to give my lathe and fabrication skills a workout; I do like to assume that the kit manufacturer has a nodding acquaintance with the official drawing and possibly a few photographs of the subject; plus the kit has been test built before marketing-and not with superglue either; and the materials used are appropriate for the application-cast footplates in this day and age are reason enough to deter me.  I do not mind upgrading with sprung, turned buffers and brass detailing to improve the finished product, and do not mind replacing resin boilers for the same reason as TW.  I do mind opening a box and seeing junk.

I am currently building a metal locomotive via cross-kitting.  Not cheap, but to achieve the result I want, the entire WM footplate assembly will be junked-it is in a number of built up components, and just looks like margarine metal.  I have given up, and scratch-building the footplate, valancing, splashers and smokebox saddle will be the way to go.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Some observations if I may, as someone who is both a model make and kit builder and and formerly a part time kit designer and writer of instructions. Over the years I have built - and occasionally failed to complete - kits from a number of producers. Some were regarded as "class leading" at the time, others were b. awful, some gave me a lifelong dislike of white metal kits. The experiences all "informed" my approach to kit building and hence design but that is not to say everyone would go about things the same way.

 

While there is no excuse for poor quality kits, we should recognise that the "market" in which the small supplier kit builders operate is very small. So balancing price with kit "sophistication" is not easy and does sometimes lead to short cuts. Comparing the likes of Tamiya, Revell, etc. with the UK kit suppliers is not realistic.

 

Many of the kits on the market today were designed 20/30/40 years ago. It is often not economically viable to do a complete redesign, although improving some components, e.g. supplying lost wax brass castings instead of whitemetal, providing  turned, sprung buffers,etc. is easy and not much more costly.  The artwork originals were often hand drawn - which could produce excellent kits - but nowadays these often are no longer in existence (although the tooling is) - so a complete CAD redesign is required. So that actually means starting from scratch and for a small business the time/effort may be better spent on designing/introducing a new kit.

 

Instructions are a bl**dy nightmare. At what level do you pitch them, what skills, experience and tools can you assume the reader has, how many drawings do you produce? Can you include numbered parts on the etch or does that become impractical owing due changes following test builds. I have my own approach to instructions but whatever I do, some clever sod will tell me he knows a better way to do it.

 

In 4mm in particular the need to satisfy three different gauge standards means compromise and often prevents the designer from using the best "solution".

 

Difficulty rating - who sets the standard? One person's difficult is another's easy. I believe that, for the beginner at least, the best way is to contact the supplier (preferably face to face at a show) and discuss what you want, what experience and skills you have, etc. I have spent many hours advising newcomers to kitbuilding that the particular model they have taken a fancy to may not be the best to start on. Unfortunately the best "starter" kits are simple tank locos which are often not what people are attracted to. As for persuading someone to start on a simple etched van kit, when they have  really got the hots for a Midland Spinner or something equally esoteric, that isn't easy.

 

Please don't tar all kit producers with the same brush. Some have produced - and continue to do so - kits that aren't easy to assemble and frankly should be withdrawn. Some still produce kits of reasonable quality that would benefit from redesign but that may not be financially viable. Some ranges have kits of varying "quality" older hand drawn artwork and designed around the motors, wheels etc. that were the "norm" 30 years ago, but also include modern designs by model makers who have drawn on their own own experiences. 

 

Many of today's kit producers got into it because they wanted something that didn't exist  -  or what was available wasn't good enough - and that may not be the best reason for setting up a business. For sure there isn't a lot of money in it and for proof of that just look around the exhibitors car park at any of the major shows.

 

Whichever way you look at it - glass half empty or half full - we have a wide range of kits that enable those who want to model something beyond what is available from the RTR manufacturers. No, it ain't always easy but what would fun would life be without a bit of a challenge?

 

Jol

[t-b-g]

"However bad a kit is, I have never come across one which couldn't ever be built to a reasonable standard, even if that meant replacing many parts with new ones. In every case, the kit was better than not having a kit at all".

Well, quite.  However, when I buy a kit, I do like to think that very little will have to be replaced, reworked or repaired before use.  I do like to assume the kit has no forgotten fold lines, and I do not need to exercise my Olfa cutter to gouge them in; I do like to think the castings will be accurate, and I will not have to give my lathe and fabrication skills a workout; I do like to assume that the kit manufacturer has a nodding acquaintance with the official drawing and possibly a few photographs of the subject; plus the kit has been test built before marketing-and not with superglue either; and the materials used are appropriate for the application-cast footplates in this day and age are reason enough to deter me.  I do not mind upgrading with sprung, turned buffers and brass detailing to improve the finished product, and do not mind replacing resin boilers for the same reason as TW.  I do mind opening a box and seeing junk.

I am currently building a metal locomotive via cross-kitting.  Not cheap, but to achieve the result I want, the entire WM footplate assembly will be junked-it is in a number of built up components, and just looks like margarine metal.  I have given up, and scratch-building the footplate, valancing, splashers and smokebox saddle will be the way to go.

 

That is just what I mean. By building a new footplate etc. you will end up with a model which is firstly, unique, secondly more accurate than it would have been if you used the kit parts and thirdly, should give you are far greater sense of satisfaction than if you had just been able to use the kit bits straight out of the box.

 

A good friend of mine once told me that the difference between a modeller and a good modeller is that a modeller would have used the parts provided and made do with them. A good modeller will check to see if the parts are any good and do something about it if they are not. 

[Manxman1831]

A small aside - for those of you following my Princess Anne build/bash.  Today saw me trying the painted-up model around my parents trainset and making a few alterations to the delightful Hornby tender chassis.  Delightful in the sarcastic sense - between the clips for holding the wheelsets, the moulded brakes and the retaining plate, poor new Princess Anne was carting around the equivalent of five old Triang coaches with the amount of rolling resistance being generated.  A ten minute session with my dad looking at the chassis, and myself looking at if the body was causing any interference, we had a better tender.

 

Back to the trainset, and a quick run showed a definite improvement on an 8-coach train (6 Bachmann Bulleids, Bachmann Mk 1 restaurant car and a Comet Tavern car).  Ever the comedian, my dad decided to see what effect putting a kit-built tender would have.  A lap with the Hornby tender was coming in at 15.42 seconds.  A lap with a whitemetal GCR standard tender was 15.12 seconds.  Before alterations the Hornby tender was leading to a laptime of 16.93 seconds.  A bit of a difference.  A bigger challenge was set by substituting the Bulleid set for a set of Comet LMS coaches.  These are MUCH heavier, but freer running.  Started off with a 6-coach test (5 bogies plus a 12-wheeler), and the laptime was again 15.12 seconds.

 

At this stage, I decided to oil the rubbing surfaces on the tender, whilst another 2 Comet coaches were added.  Laptime now at 15.32 seconds, with a bit of slip at start-off.  I asked for another coach to be added out of sheer devilment.  Now Princess Anne was starting to struggle at start-off, but laptime only went up to 15.96 seconds.

 

Bear in mind that these times are the worst that the loco managed during running at 80% controller setting.  Comparison runs were made with a Hornby loco-drive Patriot (renumbered and renamed to be Isle of Man 5511) and a kitbuilt large Claughton.  Isle of Man ran around with a laptime of 14.53 seconds (a scale 100mph on the trainset), while the portescap-powered Claughton went around in 16.14 seconds.

 

My point?  How many others of us have been disappointed with the performance of loco-drive engines, and wondered if the tender was to blame?

[Stanley Melrose]

I started soldering before I knew it was difficult and still wonder why folk erect a mental barrier.  JFDI!  Mind you, it took me a good while to get CA glues to work . . . .

 

Stan

[jjb1970]

If I buy two He111 kits to bash into a model of the He111Z then I have bought those kits with the purpose of using them to make something else. If I bought the He111 kit to make into an He111 I'd expect the kit to build into a model of the He111, for the parts to fit together, for the shape to be right, dimensionally correct and with usable instructions. If I had to spend hours fettling the parts, decypher all but meaningless instructions and found myself pretty much doing more than I'd have needed to if I'd just scratchbuilt the thing then I'd consider it to be a rubbish kit and wouldn't revisit that supplier. To me there is really no excuse for a kit not to have good fit of parts. Instructions can be made usable without too much effort, I've spent most of my working life using engineering drawings and visualising complex shapes from drawings as well as building plastic kits but I've seen instructions for model railway kits that were meaningless to me. This may sound blunt and heartless, but if I buy a kit it is not my concern if it has been produced by an enthusiastic amateur having a go, it is a product that I've bought and I'd expect it to meet a certain standard of quality. If it has been poorly produced then it is just a poor product. To do otherwise is just rationalising poor production standards and making excuses for a poor product.

[Willie Whizz]

.....

 

Difficulty rating - who sets the standard? One person's difficult is another's easy. I believe that, for the beginner at least, the best way is to contact the supplier (preferably face to face at a show) and discuss what you want, what experience and skills you have, etc.

 

.....

 

In the world of plastic model aircraft, the manufacturers commonly do their own 'standard-setting' for building the model as it comes out of the box, and I don't get the impression there are that many complaints, which suggests they are largely honest and don't fudge it.  What you have suggested here amounts to the same thing, but not everybody could/can buy face-to-face from the original manufacturer, so why can't it be printed on the packaging and specified in the adverts and websites (which latter could have a short explanation of the system)?

 

Having done a little of this type of 'complexity rating' in the course of my job some years ago, what I can say is that, within sensible limits, the fewer the number of 'levels' involved, the better; and the optimum number of levels will be an 'even' figure, not 'odd'.  Four sounds about right to me, with Level 1 being 'suitable for an inexperienced modeller' and Level 4 being 'advanced skills required to complete; not suitable for inexperienced modellers'.  That way, if a novice really wants to try their hand at a Level 4 kit, nobody will refuse to sell it to them, but if they can't successfully assemble the thing, they can't say they weren't warned!

Edited September 1, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[Tony Wright]

Some little time ago, a loco kit-manufacturer told me that, in his estimation, at least 90% of loco kits in 4mm (not just his) are never finished. That tells me three things; either the kits are so poor as to be un-buildable as supplied or the folk tackling them don't have the requisite skills; or, a combination of both. 

 

I've mentioned this before but the only two kits which entirely defeated me were a pair of Jidenco Claughtons - one large-boilered, one small-boilered. When I say 'defeated', I'd better explain. Both were given to me to build on commission. Both had been started, and the same mistakes perpetuated on both - awful soldering, ghastly metal-shaping; just the start of a mess. I examined them, undid what I could, then noticed that there was no aperture in the footplate to take a motor; not only that, not even the wheels. I explained to my commissioner that by the time I'd undone all the poor work, scratch-built a substantial amount of replacement parts and finally got them to go, the cost (an estimate) would be x. What! And it ended there. Whether the locos were ever built, I have no idea.

 

I hope commentators remember the case of the infamous Pro-Scale review in BRM, where (for the first time?) a reviewer (me) actually told the truth about how the kit could not be built successfully by just using the parts supplied. Much had to be modified, parts substituted or scratch-built. The result - a range of kits was taken (temporarily) off the market, though I was not sued, despite threats from a couple of directions. 

 

My take on the kit situation, for what it's worth is this. Without them, I could never have built all the locos (and stock) I've needed for my various ECML projects. Forget today's RTR, I'm talking of going back over 40 years. So, I say bless 'em. Despite their various 'drawbacks', how else could I have built examples of every RA9 ECML steam-outline motive power? I even built Millholme A2/2s and A2/3s, but, though they were finished, they looked so awful that they were sold on (to those who didn't know?)

 

I've put together kits of some questionable quality; the likes of MTK, Magna Models, WSM, Cornard, McGowan, Bristol Models and others, but they were made, and they all ran. Of course, I junked white metal chassis and motion parts, but it was almost an 'I'm not going to be beaten' mentality needed at times. Dare I say, in, perhaps a slightly perverse way, that all these oddities were a perfect 'learning curve' for honing and developing any skills? 

 

Which brings me on to the key factor in my view; that being acquiring the necessary skills.Fortunately, I acquired enough constructional skills to be able to earn part of my living from building loco kits on commission for over 20 years (and I'm back doing it again). In the same way that I'll never be able to play a musical instrument or play cricket for England, some will never be able to acquire the skills. They might try, but fail. I must say it's a bit thick at times when such 'failures' start then blaming the kit. Last year, a bloke regaled me about a certain kit being absolute sh*te. I looked at his work - what a mess; soldering by Mr Blobby, nothing true in its construction and all the steel axles gone rusty because of inadequate cleaning up. No wonder it was awful, and completely unfair.

 

Current RTR has enabled far more modellers than ever to present excellent model railways, particularly with regard to locos and stock. Good for them, I say. If it means the 'death' of many kits, so be it, but those who actually build kits (and there are some splendid ones out there) will be much the poorer in my view. Yes, it's so much more egalitarian than it ever used to be; that's progress. Fortunately, unless I live longer than Methuselah, I've got more than enough to keep me going. And, they'll be soldered together!   

[billbedford]

In the world of plastic model aircraft, the manufacturers commonly do their own 'standard-setting' for building the model as it comes out of the box, and I don't get the impression there are that many complaints, which suggests they are largely honest and don't fudge it.  What you have suggested here amounts to the same thing, but not everybody could/can buy face-to-face from the original manufacturer, so why can't it be printed on the packaging and specified in the adverts and websites (which latter could have a short explanation of the system)?

 

Having done a little of this type of 'complexity rating' in the course of my job some years ago, what I can say is that, within sensible limits, the fewer the number of 'levels' involved, the better; and the optimum number of levels will be an 'even' figure, not 'odd'.  Four sounds about right to me, with Level 1 being 'suitable for an inexperienced modeller' and Level 4 being 'advanced skills required to complete; not suitable for inexperienced modellers'.  That way, if a novice really wants to try their hand at a Level 4 kit, nobody will refuse to sell it to them, but if they can't successfully assemble the thing, they can't say they weren't warned!

 

 

 

After all that palaver, just how many extra kits do you think I'd be able to sell?

Edited September 1, 2016 by billbedford

[jrg1]

That is just what I mean. By building a new footplate etc. you will end up with a model which is firstly, unique, secondly more accurate than it would have been if you used the kit parts and thirdly, should give you are far greater sense of satisfaction than if you had just been able to use the kit bits straight out of the box.

 

A good friend of mine once told me that the difference between a modeller and a good modeller is that a modeller would have used the parts provided and made do with them. A good modeller will check to see if the parts are any good and do something about it if they are not. 

Thanks for the comments, Tony, but it can be difficult checking the parts living in Australia, and relying on reviews from the UK-in the seventies especially, I found that reviews were sometimes slanted too far in favour of the manufacturer-eg, coyly stating that some work was required with the connecting rods to ensure smooth running was a red flag for me.  I am enjoying overcoming the problems presented in the build, and finding solutions, but I do feel sometimes that the manufacturer is trying to defeat me; also if the parts are substandard, why is the kit on the market?

[Jol Wilkinson]

In the world of plastic model aircraft, the manufacturers commonly do their own 'standard-setting' for building the model as it comes out of the box, and I don't get the impression there are that many complaints, which suggests they are largely honest and don't fudge it.  What you have suggested here amounts to the same thing, but not everybody could/can buy face-to-face from the original manufacturer, so why can't it be printed on the packaging and specified in the adverts and websites (which latter could have a short explanation of the system)?

 

Having done a little of this type of 'complexity rating' in the course of my job some years ago, what I can say is that, within sensible limits, the fewer the number of 'levels' involved, the better; and the optimum number of levels will be an 'even' figure, not 'odd'.  Four sounds about right to me, with Level 1 being 'suitable for an inexperienced modeller' and Level 4 being 'advanced skills required to complete; not suitable for inexperienced modellers'.  That way, if a novice really wants to try their hand at a Level 4 kit, nobody will refuse to sell it to them, but if they can't successfully assemble the thing, they can't say they weren't warned!

Willie,

 

although it is many years since I built plastic model aircraft (or cars, but I've still got a kit for a Peugeot 905 Le Mans car somewhere) I think that while plastic wagon kits may be comparable, model loco kits are rather different. Moulded plastic parts need removing from a sprue and a small amount of cleaning up, but no forming. Modern adhesives, glue and solvents are also easy to use on plastic, with a little care. So the assembly skills required are, I suggest, much easier to acquire than putting together an w/m or etched kit ad it is probably easier to break them down into categories.

 

In 4mm, Finney, Malcolm Mitchell, High Level and some Brassmasters kits are quoted as the "best" kits, yet I know modellers who have found them overly complex and difficult to build. So while everything apparently fits properly, they aren't necessarily suited to a beginner or even moderately experienced builder.

 

What is the inexperienced modeller? You have at least to be able to solder (see some posts above), use a file to clean up castings, curve some simple parts, fold etched parts accurately. Now none of that is especially difficult but  I don't know how manufacturers can consistently grade their products to match the varying level of skills, nor how modellers would categorise themselves. You would need a fairly comprehensive definition to make it work. Not only what skills has a person learned, but what tools does he have or need?

 

London Road Models produce a small "Beginners Guide" booklet and also recommend the excellent WSP books by Iain Rice and others to anyone considering taking up etched kit building. Perhaps a range of inexpensive and readily available (and I don't think the WSP books are expensive in real terms) might provide a better way. Regrettably there isn't a national small suppliers "chamber of commerce" to oversee and promote such things.

 

Jol

[RBAGE]

Tony,

 

I believe that a large proportion of the reported 90% of kits that will remain unbuilt is a result of modellers being over ambitious in the estimation of the time that they can or will make available for kit building.

There are probably more kits unstarted than there are half built models where the modeller has hit a brick wall. My cupboard is full of unstarted kits which I haven't got a hope of completing before I quit this mortal coil.

 

On unbuildable kits. I'm impressed but not surprised you managed to finish the Millholme A2/3. I have to report that it finished me.

The Proscale P2 was another that got the better of me. What on earth are you supposed to do with those big lumps of brass which are described as cylinders if your plan is to solder throughout. They sucked up so much heat I thought I might start a chain reaction that would consume the whole neighbourhood.

 

Bob

[richard i]

Some little time ago, a loco kit-manufacturer told me that, in his estimation, at least 90% of loco kits in 4mm (not just his) are never finished. That tells me three things; either the kits are so poor as to be un-buildable as supplied or the folk tackling them don't have the requisite skills; or, a combination of both. 

 

I've mentioned this before but the only two kits which entirely defeated me were a pair of Jidenco Claughtons - one large-boilered, one small-boilered. When I say 'defeated', I'd better explain. Both were given to me to build on commission. Both had been started, and the same mistakes perpetuated on both - awful soldering, ghastly metal-shaping; just the start of a mess. I examined them, undid what I could, then noticed that there was no aperture in the footplate to take a motor; not only that, not even the wheels. I explained to my commissioner that by the time I'd undone all the poor work, scratch-built a substantial amount of replacement parts and finally got them to go, the cost (an estimate) would be x. What! And it ended there. Whether the locos were ever built, I have no idea.

 

I hope commentators remember the case of the infamous Pro-Scale review in BRM, where (for the first time?) a reviewer (me) actually told the truth about how the kit could not be built successfully by just using the parts supplied. Much had to be modified, parts substituted or scratch-built. The result - a range of kits was taken (temporarily) off the market, though I was not sued, despite threats from a couple of directions. 

 

My take on the kit situation, for what it's worth is this. Without them, I could never have built all the locos (and stock) I've needed for my various ECML projects. Forget today's RTR, I'm talking of going back over 40 years. So, I say bless 'em. Despite their various 'drawbacks', how else could I have built examples of every RA9 ECML steam-outline motive power? I even built Millholme A2/2s and A2/3s, but, though they were finished, they looked so awful that they were sold on (to those who didn't know?)

 

I've put together kits of some questionable quality; the likes of MTK, Magna Models, WSM, Cornard, McGowan, Bristol Models and others, but they were made, and they all ran. Of course, I junked white metal chassis and motion parts, but it was almost an 'I'm not going to be beaten' mentality needed at times. Dare I say, in, perhaps a slightly perverse way, that all these oddities were a perfect 'learning curve' for honing and developing any skills? 

 

Which brings me on to the key factor in my view; that being acquiring the necessary skills.Fortunately, I acquired enough constructional skills to be able to earn part of my living from building loco kits on commission for over 20 years (and I'm back doing it again). In the same way that I'll never be able to play a musical instrument or play cricket for England, some will never be able to acquire the skills. They might try, but fail. I must say it's a bit thick at times when such 'failures' start then blaming the kit. Last year, a bloke regaled me about a certain kit being absolute sh*te. I looked at his work - what a mess; soldering by Mr Blobby, nothing true in its construction and all the steel axles gone rusty because of inadequate cleaning up. No wonder it was awful, and completely unfair.

 

Current RTR has enabled far more modellers than ever to present excellent model railways, particularly with regard to locos and stock. Good for them, I say. If it means the 'death' of many kits, so be it, but those who actually build kits (and there are some splendid ones out there) will be much the poorer in my view. Yes, it's so much more egalitarian than it ever used to be; that's progress. Fortunately, unless I live longer than Methuselah, I've got more than enough to keep me going. And, they'll be soldered together!

 

Lack of skill, poor kit, or not built due to lack of time. Both due to busy lives, but also because modellers buy kits at a faster rate than they can realistically build them. I know I have though I am trying my best to get through them.

Richard

[RBAGE]

At the other end of the scale, my most satisfying build was a Dave Bradwell K1.

Not because I had to hand craft three quarters of the components but because the kit was so well design, produced and instructed that the whole experience elevated and the end result surprised me on what I had achieved.

That's what a quality kit can do.

Bob

[C.A.T.Ford]

After all that palaver, just how many extra kits do you think I'd be able to sell?

Bill

     As many as you can sell,  a difficulty rating will neither improve nor destroy your kits (my conflat Ls draw attention at shows, much more so since I weighted the containers to give the springs a working load). Having said that people will always buy what they think they want and regard a kit even if it has a difficulty rating as being an Airfix Spitfire.

 

Unfortunately model railway kits started  either before or at the same time as the Airfix kits and with the insistence of the time, that weight equaled haulage went for White metal, a somewhat imprecise casting material but heavy and so obeying the rule.

Some casters improved, others didn't but in the early days we became used to hack and slash and fill. This style seemed to follow us onwards, if you couldn't do a kit it was you not us!( I notice TW has not mentioned a try at a Q kits cast kit, I've seen one it's challenging on the wrong side of challenging!).

 

We have developed a culture which seems to say if you cannot do an imprecise kit with piss poor instructions you are less of a modeller than someone with years of experience of same.

 

Well sorry people! You will never have a correctly balanced loco stud (in my experience) unless you build kits, and if you need to build a kit then you should be able to do that kit if you are forewarned of some of the pitfalls and you have good instructions.

 

Oh and Bill I still think you're wrong over Ironclad windows!

 

CAT

[jrg1]

Tony, I remember the Pro-Scale review that you did, and the uproar afterwards.  You did the hobby a great service by telling the truth, and saved me money and time, as I was about to order their kits.