Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Ever had one of those days? 

 

This morning, after a cock-up at the doctors with regard to the timing of my annual MOT test, I wasted over an hour waiting to see the nurse, having been told (60 minutes before) 'She'll only be five minutes'. 

 

Which meant my schedule for completing two locos was put back. 

 

 

Having finished the bodywork on the Model Loco 9F, I erected the motion yesterday evening and using what was left of this morning fitted it all in place. As usual, it was a bit of a fiddle, but it all eventually ran smoothly. I put it on a heavy train, it romped away, then stuttered, then stalled, then wouldn't restart again. I'd fitted a Portescap I had in stock (not new), and that's given up the ghost it would seem. It can be started again by pushing it under power, but the moment the current is turned off, that's it; it won't start again. Extensive testing (and violent oaths!) isolated the problem to the motor. Thus, having just finished off the chassis, off with most of the wheels again (even more blasphemous threats!!!) and part dismantling of the motion. 

 

I had in stock a Comet/Canon gearbox/motor combination, so made this up and fitted it. It's better than the Portescap (when it was running, that is). It's quieter and just as visually-smooth, as well as being exceptionally powerful. The combo is a Comet GB8/15 Two Stage 50:1 Gearbox and a Canon CA 1620. Fear not for the disappearance of Mashimas. We all now have a replacement available. 

 

 

 

 

All it needs now is to be painted. Having a spare Bachmann 1F (ER) tender certainly saved time. 

 

Is it worth building a 4mm 9F these days? Recent comments suggest not, and what I've fought with today could well put many off. 

 

 

Certainly, when you get out-of-the-box excellence like this from Bachmann, it does make me wonder why I still build my own locos. 

 

 

Especially when a little personal work has been done to a Bachmann 9F, in this case by David West. 

 

 

Not long after the Bachmann 9F came out, I 'personalised' one for inclusion in BRM. I added details, close-coupled the loco to tender and weathered it. 

 

 

 

I still have it, and it's run on Little Bytham, but I don't use it now because, when visitors come, I run what I've made. There's a much more interesting story to tell, of course; at least as far as I'm concerned. 

 

 

When visitors bring what they've made, they also have a much more interesting story to tell; to tell me. Ted Burt built this 9F from a DJH kit. One could argue that it's not as detailed as the RTR equivalent (no deflector stays) and the front numberplate is in the wrong font, but this, to me, is much more interesting than any RTR loco. 

 

Have I answered the question I posed? Probably, and I'll always prefer building than (just) buying. Tomorrow, three friends will visit to run trains and there'll be no RTR locos on show. Why not? I'm a builder and they're builders, so that's why. 

 

As for the idea of 'modelling universities' and such like, with the inexorable march of RTR stuff, will any courses be necessary I wonder? Perhaps super-detailing and weathering RTR locos, but not so much how to build them. True, I still have visitors who want to learn how to make locos (and have learned), but they're penny numbers in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Finally, I admit to hypocrisy by using an RTR tender.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[46256]

Tony how...refreshing is probably the wrong word...I'm trying , probably badly as ever to express a certain relief that even an experienced and respected modellers such as yourself has.... well one of those modelling sessions where we mess up .....wnen the modelling forces of the universe align against us....when we just need to turn off the power ..to the iron...rolling roads..running tracks..leave our modelling domain...sip gently on a chosen tipple and gird our lions to renter the fray renewed and refreshed. This is a great hobby even when I have been more perplexed by a non running chassis rather than a work issue!

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

As for the idea of 'modelling universities' and such like, with the inexorable march of RTR stuff, will any courses be necessary I wonder? 

 

Still the main stream always seem to forget .... for earlier periods and more eccentric choices RTR is simply not available .... so yes very much so!

[DougN]

mersey, have you had a look at the marine boilered W1 as this style of boiler is nice and bulbous and I guess could deliver the volume of steam to move the beast. Not being a mech engineer I have no idea if this would work. The only downside is it could end up being a very very ugly locomotive!

[Woodcock29]

Back to the subject of the Craftsman A5/1 - I did raise this after all.  I originally built one back in the early 1980s - probably my second brass kit after the Craftsman C12. I still have this model and as Tony W did I built it according to the instructions so it must have a bunker that is a bit too narrow. I have measured it as 30.50mm in width.

 

Now interestingly the one I'm rebuilding has a bunker width of 31.58mm so its about 1.2mm wider so one question - is this the correct width? I don't have a drawing that specifies bunker width. The only drawing I have is Nick Campling's from the Feb 1973 RM and although this has a rear view it appears to me to be too narrow according the comments from contributors above. 

 

Interestingly the kit I'm rebuilding has a rivets on the smokebox wrapper whereas my original one didn't have this feature. This kit also included the boiler support bracket at the front of the tanks, this wasn't included in my original kit  The footplate is a bit different as well as the wide section beneath the tanks is actually shorter than on my original kit. So I'm wondering if Craftsman actually revamped the kit at some stage and if so did they actually widen the rear of the bunker? Of course the person that built the kit - which I think would have been quite some time ago - probably in the 80s may have made the modifications.

 

Andrew Emmett

[nerron]

Back to the subject of the Craftsman A5/1 - I did raise this after all.  I originally built one back in the early 1980s - probably my second brass kit after the Craftsman C12. I still have this model and as Tony W did I built it according to the instructions so it must have a bunker that is a bit too narrow. I have measured it as 30.50mm in width.

 

Now interestingly the one I'm rebuilding has a bunker width of 31.58mm so its about 1.2mm wider so one question - is this the correct width? I don't have a drawing that specifies bunker width. The only drawing I have is Nick Campling's from the Feb 1973 RM and although this has a rear view it appears to me to be too narrow according the comments from contributors above. 

 

Interestingly the kit I'm rebuilding has a rivets on the smokebox wrapper whereas my original one didn't have this feature. This kit also included the boiler support bracket at the front of the tanks, this wasn't included in my original kit  The footplate is a bit different as well as the wide section beneath the tanks is actually shorter than on my original kit. So I'm wondering if Craftsman actually revamped the kit at some stage and if so did they actually widen the rear of the bunker? Of course the person that built the kit - which I think would have been quite some time ago - probably in the 80s may have made the modifications.

 

Andrew Emmett

Andrew, some further information regarding the A5/1 kit. I built one about 5 years ago and have just got round to painting,lining and numbering it(as early BR 69830) .Like many I was ignorant of the problem with the bunker width,which in my case roughly measured is between 29.5mm and 30mm. However I have another one in the build queue and on investigating that I find the bunker width on the etch and the accompanying drawing is 31.5 and a tiny bit,probably as on yours 31.58. Moreover all the etches are in nickle silver not brass perhaps suggesting that at some point the error was picked up and corrected.Both kits were purchased on eBay so it is impossible to have even an educated guess as to their year of manufacture.One clue might be that the built one with the narrower bunker came in a box with a photo of the locomotive but the other does not have a photo. Hopefully when I complete the second I will one accurate A5/1.

[petrovich]

Ever had one of those days? 

 

This morning, after a cock-up at the doctors with regard to the timing of my annual MOT test, I wasted over an hour waiting to see the nurse, having been told (60 minutes before) 'She'll only be five minutes'. 

 

Which meant my schedule for completing two locos was put back. 

 

Model Loco 9F 05.jpg

 

Having finished the bodywork on the Model Loco 9F, I erected the motion yesterday evening and using what was left of this morning fitted it all in place. As usual, it was a bit of a fiddle, but it all eventually ran smoothly. I put it on a heavy train, it romped away, then stuttered, then stalled, then wouldn't restart again. I'd fitted a Portescap I had in stock (not new), and that's given up the ghost it would seem. It can be started again by pushing it under power, but the moment the current is turned off, that's it; it won't start again. Extensive testing (and violent oaths!) isolated the problem to the motor. Thus, having just finished off the chassis, off with most of the wheels again (even more blasphemous threats!!!) and part dismantling of the motion. 

 

I had in stock a Comet/Canon gearbox/motor combination, so made this up and fitted it. It's better than the Portescap (when it was running, that is). It's quieter and just as visually-smooth, as well as being exceptionally powerful. The combo is a Comet GB8/15 Two Stage 50:1 Gearbox and a Canon CA 1620. Fear not for the disappearance of Mashimas. We all now have a replacement available. 

 

 Model Loco 9F 06.jpg

 

Model Loco 9F 07.jpg

 

All it needs now is to be painted. Having a spare Bachmann 1F (ER) tender certainly saved time. 

 

Is it worth building a 4mm 9F these days? Recent comments suggest not, and what I've fought with today could well put many off. 

 

Iain Henderson 9F.jpg

 

Certainly, when you get out-of-the-box excellence like this from Bachmann, it does make me wonder why I still build my own locos. 

 

David West 9F.jpg

 

Especially when a little personal work has been done to a Bachmann 9F, in this case by David West. 

 

9F 01 Bachmann.jpg

 

Not long after the Bachmann 9F came out, I 'personalised' one for inclusion in BRM. I added details, close-coupled the loco to tender and weathered it. 

 

 modified Bachmann 9F 02.jpg

 

I still have it, and it's run on Little Bytham, but I don't use it now because, when visitors come, I run what I've made. There's a much more interesting story to tell, of course; at least as far as I'm concerned. 

 

9F.jpg

 

When visitors bring what they've made, they also have a much more interesting story to tell; to tell me. Ted Burt built this 9F from a DJH kit. One could argue that it's not as detailed as the RTR equivalent (no deflector stays) and the front numberplate is in the wrong font, but this, to me, is much more interesting than any RTR loco. 

 

Have I answered the question I posed? Probably, and I'll always prefer building than (just) buying. Tomorrow, three friends will visit to run trains and there'll be no RTR locos on show. Why not? I'm a builder and they're builders, so that's why. 

 

As for the idea of 'modelling universities' and such like, with the inexorable march of RTR stuff, will any courses be necessary I wonder? Perhaps super-detailing and weathering RTR locos, but not so much how to build them. True, I still have visitors who want to learn how to make locos (and have learned), but they're penny numbers in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Finally, I admit to hypocrisy by using an RTR tender.  

All 

 

For those of you who have the requisite skills I think you would be surprised how many fellow enthusiasts would take up an offer to build a kit alongside you and have the facility to ask questions, not available watching a DVD, at a reasonable day rate. I for one would pay the equivalent of my day rate ( not cheap ) and travel far to the Northern Wastelands of this fine island to sit opposite a Tony Wright or equivalent and watch a build and return for further instructions on additions and weathering over additional weeks.

 

Apologies for going off subject, by the way the standard of builds in this thread is exceptional please keep this going, mind you at 800 plus pages it will not stop easily, for which I for one will be grateful.

 

Regards

 

Peter

Edited November 18, 2017 by petrovich

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

 

Is it worth building a 4mm 9F these days? Recent comments suggest not, and what I've fought with today could well put many off. 

 

 

 

Certainly, when you get out-of-the-box excellence like this from Bachmann, it does make me wonder why I still build my own locos.

 

 

 

When visitors bring what they've made, they also have a much more interesting story to tell; to tell me. Ted Burt built this 9F from a DJH kit. One could argue that it's not as detailed as the RTR equivalent (no deflector stays) and the front numberplate is in the wrong font, but this, to me, is much mo11re interesting than any RTR loco. 

 

Have I answered the question I posed? Probably, and I'll always prefer building than (just) buying. Tomorrow, three friends will visit to run trains and there'll be no RTR locos on show. Why not? I'm a builder and they're builders, so that's why. 

 

As for the idea of 'modelling universities' and such like, with the inexorable march of RTR stuff, will any courses be necessary I wonder? Perhaps super-detailing and weathering RTR locos, but not so much how to build them. True, I still have visitors who want to learn how to make locos (and have learned), but they're penny numbers in the grand scheme of things. 

 

 

Whilst it is of course down to the personal foibles of each individual modeller, but, is not the advantage of excellent RTR models such as the 9F, that it allows the time you could have spent building a, not much better if at all, DJH kit to be spent building a kit that isn't available RTR?

 

Mike.

[BlackRat]

Tony.....,,maybe not to build them but.......to troubleshoot when things go wrong.

 

Mind you.......this is usually based on experience.......of taking things apart, putting them back together or........building something in the first place.

 

With gaming so popular.....,,many adults now, who have grown up in the gaming age have never dealt with Lego, Meccano or god forbid.....a construction kit!

 

With plugs fitted as standard now, even wiring one up is beyond some scope.

 

So maybe it would be useful for that, as well as detailing and weathering?

[Tony Wright]

Back to the subject of the Craftsman A5/1 - I did raise this after all.  I originally built one back in the early 1980s - probably my second brass kit after the Craftsman C12. I still have this model and as Tony W did I built it according to the instructions so it must have a bunker that is a bit too narrow. I have measured it as 30.50mm in width.

 

Now interestingly the one I'm rebuilding has a bunker width of 31.58mm so its about 1.2mm wider so one question - is this the correct width? I don't have a drawing that specifies bunker width. The only drawing I have is Nick Campling's from the Feb 1973 RM and although this has a rear view it appears to me to be too narrow according the comments from contributors above. 

 

Interestingly the kit I'm rebuilding has a rivets on the smokebox wrapper whereas my original one didn't have this feature. This kit also included the boiler support bracket at the front of the tanks, this wasn't included in my original kit  The footplate is a bit different as well as the wide section beneath the tanks is actually shorter than on my original kit. So I'm wondering if Craftsman actually revamped the kit at some stage and if so did they actually widen the rear of the bunker? Of course the person that built the kit - which I think would have been quite some time ago - probably in the 80s may have made the modifications.

 

Andrew Emmett

Thanks Andrew,

 

I have no idea whether the Craftsman A5 kit was revised at some time during its history. From what you (and others) have intimated, it could well have been. 

 

What is obvious is the one I built (which was when the kit was brought out; when?) and the one Tony Geary built (which I now have) were originals - with the too-narrow bunker. Of course, Tony altered his. Mine was built in blissful ignorance. 

 

I saw them at Manchester London Road, so had to have a model of one. They ran alongside other ex-GCR tanks (4-4-2Ts) and Thompson L1s, out to exotic destinations as far as Macclesfield. Guide Bridge was always worth a visit. At the turn of the century I had occasion to pass through Guide Bridge again. I couldn't believe the desolation which greeted my eyes! 

[Tony Wright]

Still the main stream always seem to forget .... for earlier periods and more eccentric choices RTR is simply not available .... so yes very much so!

Tim,

 

If there are to be courses on, say, loco-building, before too long they'll be in scratch-building in my view. Why? Because all the most popular locos will be available RTR, at least in OO, and any kits available will only be for less-popular and esoteric prototypes. Since, by definition, that means there'll be fewer sales of such 'oddities', then kit manufacturers won't bother investing in new products.

 

In the last decade of the last century, it was my privilege to be looked upon as a reviewer of (mainly of 4mm) loco kits. In one month in 1998, five new kits landed on my doorstep - two from DJH, one from Crownline/PDK, one from DMR and one from SE Finecast - with the request that I build each one, report accordingly and, if possible, get a review published (this almost always happened). Editors would also ask me to build kits for them and report for their mags. In the case of DJH, I'd also write the instructions. 

 

Where are the new loco kits today? It's well over a decade since DJH introduced a new OO kit, DMR produces no new ones, PDK has been suggesting a P1 for over two years and Dave Ellis of SE Finecast has produced some re-vamps of old Nu-Cast kits. The J6 (from the same stable) is still beyond the horizon. 

 

Some (London Road, for instance) must have thought their kits were 'bullet proof', the range being (almost) exclusively pre-Grouping. Then, along comes RTR stuff like L&Y 2-4-2Ts and L&NWR Coal Tanks. What's next RTR I wonder? 

 

The likes of BRM used to have a loco kit review in (probably) ten of its yearly issues (some 'notorious'). From what I received in response, they seemed popular. 

 

Things change, and one can't stop progress. I have to say (very selfishly, perhaps), there are times when I couldn't give a stuff. I'll explain (I ought to). In my workshop, I have more kits to build than ever I'll have years left to finish them. I have a size-able stock of motors/gearboxes/wheels, plus loads of stock/raw materials. I couldn't give a fig about RTR at times (though I'll acquire a couple of Hornby's Mk. 1 BSOs when they're available, saving me the time in making them). So, I'll pull up the metaphorical drawbridge and become entirely self-indulgent in my retirement; perhaps. 

 

Being serious (difficult for me), I still get a 'buzz' demonstrating loco/stock-building techniques at shows and tutoring on a one-to-one basis here. Not only that, it's a joy to welcome so many marvellous friends to run LB. All that would cease, should I become more 'hermit-like', but I do get a bit tired of some current comments made across the media. These usually refer to 'wish-lists' and 'demands' for this or that to be produced. Even when it is, it's wrong, in the wrong livery for 'their' period or too expensive. 

 

Cynical? Me? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Poggy1165]

I had sooner have skills that I shall never need, than lack skills that I shall need.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

I need some advice please.

 

A few months ago I made a hypothetical garratt loco based on a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2 wheel arrangement.

 

A picture is available to view on page 76 of the imaginary locomotives thread.

 

I used commercially available parts I already had, 2 Hornby 9F chassis + a 9F boiler and cab.

 

I have recently been informed by rmweb members that the 9f boiler would have been insufficient to provide enough pressure for the loco to actually haul a train.

 

I have been contemplating changing the boiler for something that would make it more akin to a beyer garratt boiler.

 

I had thought of using a spare Gresley A1/A3 loco body for the boiler but I am struggling to decide whether the Gresley body would be suitable or what other options there are for a garratt boiler to fit on the rear of 2 Hornby 9f chassis. I realise a garratt boiler is supposed to sit about 1/3 of the distance on each chassis but the drive configuration of a Hornby 9f means I cannot set it up that way.

I don't think I can offer much in the way of advice, largely because I'm not entirely sure why anyone would build 'imaginary' locomotives. One does see outlines of suggested prototypes, but one would think they're not taken further because of too many problems (though the 'Super-Deltic' would really have been something). 

 

As for Garratts, it's my understanding that the boiler is always much, much bigger (because it has to provide steam for two locos) than anything which could be accommodated on a single set of frames. Look at both the LMS and LNER Garratts - their boilers are far too big to sit on top of a single set of frames. 

 

If you want to take your project further, might I suggest scratch-building a boiler for it? Anything off a single loco (even an A3) wouldn't provide enough 'steam'.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Whilst it is of course down to the personal foibles of each individual modeller, but, is not the advantage of excellent RTR models such as the 9F, that it allows the time you could have spent building a, not much better if at all, DJH kit to be spent building a kit that isn't available RTR?

 

Mike.

Mike,

 

I think you're right in that my kit-built 9F will not be 'better' than the Bachmann equivalent. However, and using your term of 'personal foibles' to justify it, that's not the point. 

 

We all get 'satisfaction' from this great hobby in different ways. Some are just happy to use RTR, some can't do things for themselves so pay others to do things for them, some choose the most obscure prototypes just to be different, some work entirely alone (the most noble in my view) and others work in groups, pooling resources. I'm in the last-mentioned category. 

 

The point about my building my own locos comes down to several factors. These include, I can, I enjoy it (despite yesterday) and they are unique. They are my personal creations, not just possessions. It could be argued that many (most?) kit-built locos are nowhere near as good as an RTR equivalent, but so what? As has been said many times, there is no greater feeling (to me, at least) than being able to say 'I made that', however humble. Those who just buy products or pay for services can never say that, so will never get the satisfaction. 

 

That's why folk ask me to help them in their loco/stock building.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[asmay2002]

Hi Tony

 

I need some advice please.

 

A few months ago I made a hypothetical garratt loco based on a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2 wheel arrangement.

 

A picture is available to view on page 76 of the imaginary locomotives thread.

 

I used commercially available parts I already had, 2 Hornby 9F chassis + a 9F boiler and cab.

 

I have recently been informed by rmweb members that the 9f boiler would have been insufficient to provide enough pressure for the loco to actually haul a train.

 

I have been contemplating changing the boiler for something that would make it more akin to a beyer garratt boiler.

 

I had thought of using a spare Gresley A1/A3 loco body for the boiler but I am struggling to decide whether the Gresley body would be suitable or what other options there are for a garratt boiler to fit on the rear of 2 Hornby 9f chassis. I realise a garratt boiler is supposed to sit about 1/3 of the distance on each chassis but the drive configuration of a Hornby 9f means I cannot set it up that way.

The point about a Garratt boiler is that you don't have to stretch it out to fit over the driving wheels of a conventional loco.  This means it can be much closer to ideal steam raising proportions and will be shorter and fatter than a conventional boiler.  Tapered boilers of any sort were never used on Garratts.  Fairly early on in Garratt development it was found that a trailing pair of unpowered wheels or a bogie helped avoid wear and tear on the rear coupled axles.  Many late Garratts were double 4-8-2 or 4-8-4 for this reason.

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

Where are the new loco kits today? It's well over a decade since DJH introduced a new OO kit, DMR produces no new ones, PDK has been suggesting a P1 for over two years and Dave Ellis of SE Finecast has produced some re-vamps of old Nu-Cast kits. The J6 (from the same stable) is still beyond the horizon. 

 

Some (London Road, for instance) must have thought their kits were 'bullet proof', the range being (almost) exclusively pre-Grouping. Then, along comes RTR stuff like L&Y 2-4-2Ts and L&NWR Coal Tanks. What's next RTR I wonder? 

 

Tony,

 

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

 

Interestingly on the kit front I think the signs are encouraging, I hear on the grapevine that at least 2 new kits are being developed for LRM. Southeastern Finecast and Branchlines are of course currently working on the updating of the old Nucast/Keyser range, and unless I am much mistaken, the Falcon Brass range seems to be re-emerging - the etches if not the kits appear to be available again. I also hear that some new coach kits are currently being designed ... although I have to admit to being sad that Mousa Models seem to be going away from etched brass in favour of 3d printing for the new stuff they are producing - it is very good but there is far less for the buyer to actually put together.

 

I have perhaps a different take to you on all of this being from a slightly different generation. I see the position of the RTR market as being very precarious. Over the last 10 to fifteen years it has benefitted from the baby boom generation retiring with ready cash and fond memories and thus reinvented itself away from the 'toy' and towards the 'scale model' ...  this I would suggest is an anomaly reflecting a specific set of circumstances, rather than a new norm. The strong emphasis on BR steam and post war pre grouping by the RTR manufacturers reflects this .... and remember all of this coincided with the emergence of cheap manufacturing in the far east ( a phenomenon which is rapidly tapering off). I don't think the generation following the baby boom generation will have anywhere near the same numbers wanting to buy (not make) the trainset they would have loved in their youth.

 

My view is that the RTR market has passed its zenith and over the next 10 years sales figures will fall back. I suspect that (as with Hornby recently) manufacturers could well experience solvency problems. Add to this the likelihood that folk will be retiring later and  (I hazard a guess) with far less cash, and the future for RTR is not exactly rosy. So I would be surprised if the RTR manufacturers continue to invest in many more new models.

 

I also think that kit manufacture goes in cycles. I certainly want to have a bash at designing some of my own kits ... but I am not there yet. I think that as tastes broaden in the hobby relating to the periods people want to model, (reflecting the fact that demographically - with reference to Steam at least - knowledge and memory of the real thing will be limited to the heritage scene) I would not be at all surprised to see a new raft of kits emerging over the next 10 years (particularly for pre-grouping). Now whether these follow the 3d printing route or  we see a healthy mix of all the different media we will have to wait and see.

 

One other thing I would mention in passing ... it is interesting how the young are returning to things that a few years ago were deemed to be dead. The 15 to 25 year old generation are currently buying vinyl and the old portable record player has made a come back. Polaroids are very much back in fashion and people are rediscovering the joys of photography using film. Similarly I think the urge to make using actual rather than virtual materials is resurfacing.

 

Time will tell.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[dibateg]

Andrew, some further information regarding the A5/1 kit. I built one about 5 years ago and have just got round to painting,lining and numbering it(as early BR 69830) .Like many I was ignorant of the problem with the bunker width,which in my case roughly measured is between 29.5mm and 30mm. However I have another one in the build queue and on investigating that I find the bunker width on the etch and the accompanying drawing is 31.5 and a tiny bit,probably as on yours 31.58. Moreover all the etches are in nickle silver not brass perhaps suggesting that at some point the error was picked up and corrected.Both kits were purchased on eBay so it is impossible to have even an educated guess as to their year of manufacture.One clue might be that the built one with the narrower bunker came in a box with a photo of the locomotive but the other does not have a photo. Hopefully when I complete the second I will one accurate A5/1.

Tony - it might be worth sticking the callipers across the back of my A5 to check the width. It might help these chaps. I found my Skinley drawing which shows about 31.5 across the bunker, I suspect that is wrong...

 

and you had to rebuild my chassis? Hard to believe! The 7mm ones squeak as well, that's so I can tell where they are on the layout!

 

Regards

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

 

Interestingly on the kit front I think the signs are encouraging, I hear on the grapevine that at least 2 new kits are being developed for LRM. Southeastern Finecast and Branchlines are of course currently working on the updating of the old Nucast/Keyser range, and unless I am much mistaken, the Falcon Brass range seems to be re-emerging - the etches if not the kits appear to be available again. I also hear that some new coach kits are currently being designed ... although I have to admit to being sad that Mousa Models seem to be going away from etched brass in favour of 3d printing for the new stuff they are producing - it is very good but there is far less for the buyer to actually put together.

 

I have perhaps a different take to you on all of this being from a slightly different generation. I see the position of the RTR market as being very precarious. Over the last 10 to fifteen years it has benefitted from the baby boom generation retiring with ready cash and fond memories and thus reinvented itself away from the 'toy' and towards the 'scale model' ...  this I would suggest is an anomaly reflecting a specific set of circumstances, rather than a new norm. The strong emphasis on BR steam and post war pre grouping by the RTR manufacturers reflects this .... and remember all of this coincided with the emergence of cheap manufacturing in the far east ( a phenomenon which is rapidly tapering off). I don't think the generation following the baby boom generation will have anywhere near the same numbers wanting to buy (not make) the trainset they would have loved in their youth.

 

My view is that the RTR market has passed its zenith and over the next 10 years sales figures will fall back. I suspect that (as with Hornby recently) manufacturers could well experience solvency problems. Add to this the likelihood that folk will be retiring later and  (I hazard a guess) with far less cash, and the future for RTR is not exactly rosy. So I would be surprised if the RTR manufacturers continue to invest in many more new models.

 

I also think that kit manufacture goes in cycles. I certainly want to have a bash at designing some of my own kits ... but I am not there yet. I think that as tastes broaden in the hobby relating to the periods people want to model, (reflecting the fact that demographically - with reference to Steam at least - knowledge and memory of the real thing will be limited to the heritage scene) I would not be at all surprised to see a new raft of kits emerging over the next 10 years (particularly for pre-grouping). Now whether these follow the 3d printing route or  we see a healthy mix of all the different media we will have to wait and see.

 

One other thing I would mention in passing ... it is interesting how the young are returning to things that a few years ago were deemed to be dead. The 15 to 25 year old generation are currently buying vinyl and the old portable record player has made a come back. Polaroids are very much back in fashion and people are rediscovering the joys of photography using film. Similarly I think the urge to make using actual rather than virtual materials is resurfacing.

 

Time will tell.

Thanks Tim,

 

I'm usually wrong about most things, so your hope need not be too sincere. 

 

I think you're right with regard to the RTR market having 'peaked', for all the reasons you cite. Indeed, friends of mine in the trade have come to the same conclusions. 

 

When it does decline (at a faster pace?), it'll be the 'vicious circle' of decline in demand and ever-rising prices. Thus, and I sincerely hope so, there'll be a return to making things, personally. Let's hope it doesn't take too long. 

 

I think (on a positive note?) what better RTR/RTP products in recent years have achieved is in allowing more folk to 'make' more accurate layouts (or it should have done). That said, I still cringe at some of the things I see layout-wise. Though populated with very accurate locos and stock, and with better-looking RTP structures, it would seem that little (or no) observation of prototype practice has taken place. Things like facing points on MR depictions are common, as are leads straight off running lines into dead end sidings and goods depots. Not only that (my pet hate) non-working signals, placed in ridiculous positions and, believe it or not, a signal box sited at 45 degrees to the track because it looked 'interesting'. Other moans (I'm on my hobby horse here) include platforms far too high (the highest steam-age ones I can find are no more than just below half way up an adjacent buffer's face) and trains made up with no thought to how real ones should be marshalled. Finally, ridiculously-mixed periods (club layouts?) where a selection of time machines would be necessary to 'suspend disbelief'!

 

I do have many more 'moans', but my guests are due.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Mallard60022]

I don't think I can offer much in the way of advice, largely because I'm not entirely sure why anyone would build 'imaginary' locomotives. One does see outlines of suggested prototypes, but one would think they're not taken further because of too many problems (though the 'Super-Deltic' would really have been something). 

 

As for Garratts, it's my understanding that the boiler is always much, much bigger (because it has to provide steam for two locos) than anything which could be accommodated on a single set of frames. Look at both the LMS and LNER Garratts - their boilers are far too big to sit on top of a single set of frames. 

 

If you want to take your project further, might I suggest scratch-building a boiler for it? Anything off a single loco (even an A3) wouldn't provide enough 'steam'.

Agreed Tony. Maybe a 'Continental' type of boiler from something big built for the Empire at Vulcan or similar? 

Phil

[Lecorbusier]

Lets hope that the RTR market falls back to a sustainable position .... we certainly don't want any of the manufacturers going bust.

 

If we take pre grouping Midland ... I think the slim boilered Johnsons, the rebuilt Kirtleys and the original Kirtleys are only ever likely to be comprehensively covered by kits ... and there is certainly room for more kits than are currently available. I assume the same is true of other companies. The same is also true for the coaching stock and pre grouping wagons.

[Mallard60022]

I wonder if the RTR bods will consider easing off on loco production and get into producing more coaches to the standard of recent Hornby products? Loco's are great if they suit your layout and era and you are in that modelling 'group', however there is a reducing list of things one can not acquire either RTR or through an available kit. Production of certain coaches (those at the top of wishlists for example) could result in multiple sales, however I am not in business so can't suggest this is what will happen

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, however I think there is a good market for more top class rolling stock, despite the increasing cost of some of the latest products. 

I also wonder if a top Trader with a real interest in development, like Mr Hartshorne for example, might just consider developing just a few more coach parts/kits within the Comet Models range? I believe there could be some items in the 'old' Comet range that could be retired, perhaps making way for a few additional items? I could suggest one or two. maybe even adopt the late Mr Fozzard's clever idea of producing most of a kit to then fit around existing fittings (in his case form MJT)?

I have considered putting in cash to support the production of certain Restaurant coaches that are not available in any form and this new idea of crowd funding could be considered as communication with fellow modellers with similar needs may be far easier through social media? 

I enjoy building coaches from a number of kit manufacturers, however some RTR versions of really popular examples would save me time and effort (yes I know one should make some effort). I could then use that saved effort to construct one or two things that would probably never get in the Hornby, Bachman and say (Dapol or Oxford) catalogue. 

Phil

[Headstock]

Tony,

 

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

 

Interestingly on the kit front I think the signs are encouraging, I hear on the grapevine that at least 2 new kits are being developed for LRM. Southeastern Finecast and Branchlines are of course currently working on the updating of the old Nucast/Keyser range, and unless I am much mistaken, the Falcon Brass range seems to be re-emerging - the etches if not the kits appear to be available again. I also hear that some new coach kits are currently being designed ... although I have to admit to being sad that Mousa Models seem to be going away from etched brass in favour of 3d printing for the new stuff they are producing - it is very good but there is far less for the buyer to actually put together.

 

I have perhaps a different take to you on all of this being from a slightly different generation. I see the position of the RTR market as being very precarious. Over the last 10 to fifteen years it has benefitted from the baby boom generation retiring with ready cash and fond memories and thus reinvented itself away from the 'toy' and towards the 'scale model' ...  this I would suggest is an anomaly reflecting a specific set of circumstances, rather than a new norm. The strong emphasis on BR steam and post war pre grouping by the RTR manufacturers reflects this .... and remember all of this coincided with the emergence of cheap manufacturing in the far east ( a phenomenon which is rapidly tapering off). I don't think the generation following the baby boom generation will have anywhere near the same numbers wanting to buy (not make) the trainset they would have loved in their youth.

 

My view is that the RTR market has passed its zenith and over the next 10 years sales figures will fall back. I suspect that (as with Hornby recently) manufacturers could well experience solvency problems. Add to this the likelihood that folk will be retiring later and  (I hazard a guess) with far less cash, and the future for RTR is not exactly rosy. So I would be surprised if the RTR manufacturers continue to invest in many more new models.

 

I also think that kit manufacture goes in cycles. I certainly want to have a bash at designing some of my own kits ... but I am not there yet. I think that as tastes broaden in the hobby relating to the periods people want to model, (reflecting the fact that demographically - with reference to Steam at least - knowledge and memory of the real thing will be limited to the heritage scene) I would not be at all surprised to see a new raft of kits emerging over the next 10 years (particularly for pre-grouping). Now whether these follow the 3d printing route or  we see a healthy mix of all the different media we will have to wait and see.

 

One other thing I would mention in passing ... it is interesting how the young are returning to things that a few years ago were deemed to be dead. The 15 to 25 year old generation are currently buying vinyl and the old portable record player has made a come back. Polaroids are very much back in fashion and people are rediscovering the joys of photography using film. Similarly I think the urge to make using actual rather than virtual materials is resurfacing.

 

Time will tell.

 

A very wise and thoughtful post.

 

It occurs to me, that despite the vast resources available through RTR products (I would agree that some sort of peak has been past). Using RTR product alone, to create a layout of a real location such as LB would fall short of what Tony has achieved, I suspect that there will always be plenty of room for kit building if you really want to model the East coast mainline in the steam era.

[jwealleans]

Can I throw Arthur Kimber's North Eastern kits into the list of positive developments in recent years?  Well thought out, well designed and a pleasure to build. 

[RThompson]

There is also 3 main manufacturers of both mainline and industrial locomotive kits which at least 1 new loco a year minimum has been brought out by each.

 

These being High level who also gives us another choice of gearbox to use with a vast selection of designs to suit our locos and gear ratios, Judith edge and myself, RT Models.

[Tony Wright]

A very wise and thoughtful post.

 

It occurs to me, that despite the vast resources available through RTR products (I would agree that some sort of peak has been past). Using RTR product alone, to create a layout of a real location such as LB would fall short of what Tony has achieved, I suspect that there will always be plenty of room for kit building if you really want to model the East coast mainline in the steam era.

Andrew,

 

I agree about Tim's post. 

 

However, I'm not sure about the singular implication of my 'achievement'. Any achievement has been down to group work. 

 

An illustration of which was seen today. 

 

 

 

 

This afternoon, Geoff Haynes brought over two locos of my construction which he's painted for me - beautifully. Though there is a cost involved, most of this has been offset by my taking pictures for his forthcoming painting, lining, lettering and weathering book to be published by Crowood next year. Thus, I'll have my work in his book and he's got his work on LB. 

 

One could discuss forever why the likes of me choose to build kits and the likes of Geoff choose to paint them; it comes down to a personal thing. Certainly, there is a very good RTR A1 and very good RTR A4s, though I'd venture to state that none is painted as 'naturally' as these, especially with regard to the lining. These, as I insist upon, will pull far more than their RTR equivalents and they're 'mine' in a way impossible by the acquisition of an RTR loco. That said, as posters on this thread have shown, there is merit in personalising RTR items.