Wright writes.....

[Jol Wilkinson]

A brief thought in the subject of soldering; those who profess reluctance often have not been given the chance to prove themselves. Perhaps a stand like LRM where such comments have been heard might keep a couple of kits (older test runs, perhaps) handy. Anyone saying they can’t do it should be offered (as in c’mere, I’ll show you, then you do it.) the opportunity there and then. No thinking, just have a go. Proper cleaning, fluxing and heat and ‘bingo,’. Now buy the damn kit!

Buying space to provide a "training facility" isn't an economic proposition, especially if you show someone how to build a kit and they go off elsewhere to buy a kit. An extra 3' - 4' of stand space doesn't come cheaply. Some show organisers have offered an additional free space to provide such demos, but it's fairly unusual, especially if they already have their own demonstrator area.

 

I spent  about 20% of my time at the Portsmouth show dealing with enquiries/offering advice that was never going to turn into a sale for London Road Models, usually dealing with something bought on the clubs S/H stand. One gentleman came back twice and spend some considerable time asking for advice on a motor gearbox he had bought and how he could adapt it to suit his needs. We are too polite to tell people not to waste our time, but sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't take a more robust approach. John and I dread the sight of someone who produces a box from which they extract a vintage model and ask if we can new  motor for the thirty year old one that has burnt out, one wheel to replace the one that has fallen off, etc  We discussed offering a "soldering starter pack"- scrap brass, solder, flux and a copy of the "Simple guide to building etched kits"  -  but didn't come to a positive answer.

 

Andy Hayter has it right, in his reply to glo41f's post. Kits will probably never be cheaper than RTR. It's only those that want to create something different, more prototypical or enjoy and get satisfaction from actually creating their own models that will look beyond RTR and put in the effort to create something special.

[Lecorbusier]

I have to say I build a kit for the joy and entertainment of building a kit ... just think - you get the joy of building a loco/coach, Hours of fun .... you then get the joy of painting it, again hours of fun .... and then wow you don't simply put it on a shelf/hang it on the wall with a warm glow of satisfaction ... no ... you then get a whole 'furthermore' load of hours of fun playing with it! Same with building the model. Wow!!! what a great hobby. Given the hours of fun and manifest rewards kits are surely a bargain     

Edited November 20, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Compound2632]

Which class?

 

Apologies for taking this thread off-topic - small red 0-6-0s rather than big green 4-6-2s, but to answer Tim's question:

 

A modern successor to the old Alan Gibson kit. That represented Class M, the last 345 engines built (1892 - 1902) and also the engines built for the S&DJR and M&GNJR; these differed in only minor details from the 120 engines of Classes J and J2 and the 100 engines of the Neilson Goods class (1890 - 1894). Differences such as the shape of the platform valence could be accommodated in a well-designed kit, there were three types of tender - 2,200 gal (Neilson Goods) and 2,330 gal (J) both with springs above the platform and the "classic" 3,250 gal tender (J2 and M). The rather less numerous engines built in the 1880s had slightly lower-pitched boilers. There's a table of detail dimensional differences in Vol. 4 of Essery & Jenkinson's Midland Locomotives. That's 565 engines that could be covered by one kit; kits have been produced for many less numerous prototypes!

 

Of course most of these engines were subsequently rebuilt to become Class 3F.

[Headstock]

 

 It's only those that want to create something different, more prototypical or enjoy and get satisfaction from actually creating their own models that will look beyond RTR and put in the effort to create something special.

 

I would buy that T shirt.

[Headstock]

I  came across this photo of a humble little GM wagon that I built some time ago, no grate shakes in the world of model railways but I kind of like it, It has since become available RTR, however I wouldn't trade it in for the new model, it's kind of special to me. Jol summed up my own attitude to the making of model railway things very succinctly in the sentence that I quoted above. I've built more complicated models over many years and done more elaborate paint jobs, but my little wagon is a good example of what its all about to me.

[92220]

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.

 

Dear Tony,

 

As always, some fascinating and thoughtful posts on the thread.

 

I’ve quoted the whole post above for context but particularly wanted to reply to this section:

 

 

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.

 

 

It’s kind of you to include one of my locos. It’s a long way from being out of the box though. The list of modifications border on the over-zealous:

 

Extra weight for improved adhesion

Loco-tender coupling distance

Loco lifting rings on front frames

Correct pattern front coupling and vacuum pipe

Remove steamheating pipe base from buffer beam

GWR pattern lamp irons

Buffer shank steps on loco and tender

Remove NEM pocket from front bogie and fabricate spring and damper

Gibson front bogie wheels

Gibson smokebox door dart

New handrails with correct pillars

Comet front steps

Cab doors (they're actually tender doors in real life....)

Tender buffer beam details

Tender coupling "goalpost"

Nameplate and commemorative plate

New injector pipework under fireman's side of cab

Driver's side under cab pipework

Water pipes from tender to injectors

Remove steam heating fitment from side of firebox (only fitted in preservation)

Detail copper pipes and chimney cap as copper not black or brass

 

and took probably 20 hours overall. Details on an old blog here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/653/entry-5222-Bachmann-9f-evening-star-upgrading/ and here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/653/entry-5234-Bachmann-9f-evening-star-upgrading-stage-2/

 

It is still waiting for lamps, crew and coal, and it’s not yet weathered. It won’t be until we move now. I didn’t quite get the injector pipework correctly aligned, and it will need adjusting.

 

In context though, and the main reason for my post is that it’s a part of my modelling education and journey to the present. I did this in about 2011, before I could build frames and make a half or even quarter-decent metal kit. I’ve also since made much more significant modifications to rtr, such as these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

and, as you well know, I’m now practically addicted to building where, 13 months ago, I would have thought my projects would be restricted to using rtr mechanisms. Every one of these projects built confidence that I could tackle the next, seemingly more challenging one.

 

To come back to your question about why build when rtr provides what it does, why indeed would anyone build these:

 

 

 

 

given what’s available? They are each way more expensive when all is added up, and they’ve needed some minor and some very significant modifications (especially to 46256) to make them acceptable to me. So why did I bother, and why have I got so many more lined up?

 

Well, fun, satisfaction, haulage, the ability to make something more accurate, making something that is different or unique, better appearance and running qualities of the chassis, would at least begin a list for me. I’d add too that there is a mix of heft and delicacy in the right places, where rtr can get it the wrong way round, with thick cab side sheets and tender sides, but a lightness around the motion and front end.

 

If I started again to make another model of my boyhood favourite loco, 92220, now, where would I start? Well oddly, it might be the only one where I’d still start with a complete rtr model. Why?

 

1. The Bachmann chassis, gear tower apart, is miles better than anything I could ever build for a few reasons. The brake gear is beyond anything I could do reliably. The Bachmann wheels are closer to the appearance of the prototype than anything on the market, so much so that John Darch’s remarkable P4 9F on Worseter has a bespoke set of wheels that started with the Bachmann items and were machined and retyred to P4. I might make a new set of valve gear and rods though - I could do so on this one.

With a few extra pieces of lead, it will pull anything you put behind it (and did so beautifully, on Little Bytham).

2. The cab area, especially the sides, are an excellent representation of a complex shape that I couldn’t see how to make from the DJH/Model Loco kit. That said, plenty do and have, but your and their skills are more elevated than mine. I’ve seen that you make a minor adjustment to the cab profiles of DJH A1 and A2 which transforms the look. While I did make a similar change to 46256, I can’t yet see how to make that happen with the 9F.

3. Less importantly, but this applies to a few models for me; the excellence of the finish means that I only need to tone down lining etc and weather subtly. Getting a great finish on a green or red BR loco probably means outsourcing, and I’m delighted that Geoff is able to do justice to Sir William for me.

 

That’s not to detract in any way from your wonderful work, and as you know, your inspiration has been instrumental in my path: just about every other model I hope to be able to add to Camden Shed in the future, will be either a kit or a heavily modified rtr body with Comet or similar replacement underpinnings.

 

Apologies for the long post. Jet-lag and insomnia in Shanghai. And I’m building this while I’m here:

 

 

Very best wishes,

 

Iain

[EHertsGER]

Well it was a well intentioned ‘aside’ to the thread of kits vs RTR etc, but now I am focusing my thoughts more acutely. I think the challenge of getting someone to the ‘starting gate’ of kit building is the principal issue; as with many activities, I feel, once one has started out things just get easier as one tries and builds confidence (cast your minds back to your swimming lessons, for example). So, to get them through the ‘starting gate’.

 

‘Try it and see’ packs (bits plus solder etc)? Not sure as the end result is just a mess. Hand holding on a specific course? The ‘fear factor’ let alone cost counts this one out for many - though the Missenden workshops are a boon for this sort of thing. A ‘bodgit’ stand at exhibitions - ‘brand agnostic’ - drop a fiver and have a go (duff and half abandoned kits by donation...?) so you get the feel of the real thing under tuition? Oh, the liability issues that arise there!

 

No, the only way to get there is to WANT to do so, so those who are contemplating may not be the best potential customers. Somehow we have to change contemplation to want. For me that happened the minute I started reading Guy Williams’ articles. Good grief, the abominations I conjured up amid toxic fumes and language in equal measure! But I wanted more than Hornby could produce (in those days this would be a model of a locomotive, not a locomotive model, if you get my distinction). So, to engender the want to have something that RTR cannot provide. Sadly, I cannot get inside the head of every modeller or hobbyist out there to change their minds. Or can I. I think we, as a body of modellers, can create what we do and that may inspire that want, but thats about it.

 

Coupled with the ‘now’ ethos of the modern world that may be a challenge. Don’t forget that the names we venerate built out of necessity, deprived of the brilliance with which we have to compete now as RTR products. Pendon with 1970s Hornby? I think not. Start off on the Pendon journey now and would we have needed Guy Williams?

 

All of the above is just me pondering, I suppose, but the crux of the issue that relates more broadly to our existence as a whole is getting ‘newbies’ to just try - and that raises the role of clubs, insofar as that would be the ideal ground on which to base the ‘c’mere, I’ll show you, now you have a go’ that builds that confidence to do more.

 

Me? The “bashing and swearing, singed fingers, try again, struggle to find the right bits, endless fabrication, problem solving and - well, yes, mess, then the stand back and feel smug at my efforts” experience is why I do this. And I get to ‘play trains’. All I have to do now is explain to my beloved why those ‘beautiful’ creations have to be painted (the finished bare metal seems to appeal...)

Edited November 20, 2017 by EHertsGER

[Tony Wright]

Dear Tony,

 

As always, some fascinating and thoughtful posts on the thread.

 

I’ve quoted the whole post above for context but particularly wanted to reply to this section:

 

It’s kind of you to include one of my locos. It’s a long way from being out of the box though. The list of modifications border on the over-zealous:

 

Extra weight for improved adhesion

Loco-tender coupling distance

Loco lifting rings on front frames

Correct pattern front coupling and vacuum pipe

Remove steamheating pipe base from buffer beam

GWR pattern lamp irons

Buffer shank steps on loco and tender

Remove NEM pocket from front bogie and fabricate spring and damper

Gibson front bogie wheels

Gibson smokebox door dart

New handrails with correct pillars

Comet front steps

Cab doors (they're actually tender doors in real life....)

Tender buffer beam details

Tender coupling "goalpost"

Nameplate and commemorative plate

New injector pipework under fireman's side of cab

Driver's side under cab pipework

Water pipes from tender to injectors

Remove steam heating fitment from side of firebox (only fitted in preservation)

Detail copper pipes and chimney cap as copper not black or brass

 

and took probably 20 hours overall. Details on an old blog here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/653/entry-5222-Bachmann-9f-evening-star-upgrading/ and here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/653/entry-5234-Bachmann-9f-evening-star-upgrading-stage-2/

 

It is still waiting for lamps, crew and coal, and it’s not yet weathered. It won’t be until we move now. I didn’t quite get the injector pipework correctly aligned, and it will need adjusting.

 

In context though, and the main reason for my post is that it’s a part of my modelling education and journey to the present. I did this in about 2011, before I could build frames and make a half or even quarter-decent metal kit. I’ve also since made much more significant modifications to rtr, such as these:

 

0C73C5B8-5DA4-4563-AEA2-F75DEC4D7345.jpeg

 

C0A18D9E-062D-41F6-AE21-63851886BD06.jpeg

 

F500C0B0-A688-4BD1-B41C-DF8FEE653AD7.jpeg

 

12B19220-D3F2-4010-BEC7-30A648A8FCBB.jpeg

 

D88B3BFD-F684-4116-B970-9D3685A09D97.jpeg

 

and, as you well know, I’m now practically addicted to building where, 13 months ago, I would have thought my projects would be restricted to using rtr mechanisms. Every one of these projects built confidence that I could tackle the next, seemingly more challenging one.

 

To come back to your question about why build when rtr provides what it does, why indeed would anyone build these:

 

826BA1D5-28A6-47CD-817F-F1C4D2576C87.jpeg

 

9266FCC2-A53E-497F-9D80-BA07FDB104CD.jpeg

 

8F50CEEC-0D03-4E38-83CD-29EA8469A7B0.jpeg

 

given what’s available? They are each way more expensive when all is added up, and they’ve needed some minor and some very significant modifications (especially to 46256) to make them acceptable to me. So why did I bother, and why have I got so many more lined up?

 

Well, fun, satisfaction, haulage, the ability to make something more accurate, making something that is different or unique, better appearance and running qualities of the chassis, would at least begin a list for me. I’d add too that there is a mix of heft and delicacy in the right places, where rtr can get it the wrong way round, with thick cab side sheets and tender sides, but a lightness around the motion and front end.

 

If I started again to make another model of my boyhood favourite loco, 92220, now, where would I start? Well oddly, it might be the only one where I’d still start with a complete rtr model. Why?

 

1. The Bachmann chassis, gear tower apart, is miles better than anything I could ever build for a few reasons. The brake gear is beyond anything I could do reliably. The Bachmann wheels are closer to the appearance of the prototype than anything on the market, so much so that John Darch’s remarkable P4 9F on Worseter has a bespoke set of wheels that started with the Bachmann items and were machined and retyred to P4. I might make a new set of valve gear and rods though - I could do so on this one.

With a few extra pieces of lead, it will pull anything you put behind it (and did so beautifully, on Little Bytham).

2. The cab area, especially the sides, are an excellent representation of a complex shape that I couldn’t see how to make from the DJH/Model Loco kit. That said, plenty do and have, but your and their skills are more elevated than mine. I’ve seen that you make a minor adjustment to the cab profiles of DJH A1 and A2 which transforms the look. While I did make a similar change to 46256, I can’t yet see how to make that happen with the 9F.

3. Less importantly, but this applies to a few models for me; the excellence of the finish means that I only need to tone down lining etc and weather subtly. Getting a great finish on a green or red BR loco probably means outsourcing, and I’m delighted that Geoff is able to do justice to Sir William for me.

 

That’s not to detract in any way from your wonderful work, and as you know, your inspiration has been instrumental in my path: just about every other model I hope to be able to add to Camden Shed in the future, will be either a kit or a heavily modified rtr body with Comet or similar replacement underpinnings.

 

Apologies for the long post. Jet-lag and insomnia in Shanghai. And I’m building this while I’m here:

 

B6A3941E-3A5B-4278-A1CF-27BCA5106A7B.jpeg

 

Very best wishes,

 

Iain

Dear Iain,

 

My most sincere apologies by suggesting (by omission) that your model of EVENING STAR was 'just-out-of-the-box'. I knew you'd done a lot to it, so it was careless of me. I wanted the 'best' picture of a Bachmann 9F I had, and it was yours, especially with regard to the finish. 

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Jol Wilkinson]

No, the only way to get there is to WANT to do so, so those who are contemplating may not be the best potential customers. Somehow we have to change contemplation to want. For me that happened the minute I started reading Guy Williams’ articles. Good grief, the abominations I conjured up amid toxic fumes and language in equal measure! But I wanted more than Hornby could produce (in those days this would be a model of a locomotive, not a locomotive model, if you get my distinction). So, to engender the want to have something that RTR cannot provide. Sadly, I cannot get inside the head of every modeller or hobbyist out there to change their minds. Or can I. I think we, as a body of modellers, can create what we do and that may inspire that want, but thats about it.

 

Coupled with the ‘now’ ethos of the modern world that may be a challenge. Don’t forget that the names we venerate built out of necessity, deprived of the brilliance with which we have to compete now as RTR products. Pendon with 1970s Hornby? I think not. Start off on the Pendon journey now and would we have needed Guy Williams

 

I agree with most of what you have written, except that model makers like Guy Williams are still needed today to inspire and guide those that want to create their own model. Simply because the RTR manufacturers won't ever (there's a bold statement) produce a sufficient range of locos and rolling stock for any railway company. A look at the lamentable wish lists elsewhere will illustrate that. As someone said to me at the Portsmouth show, where are the RTR period carriages to go with the RTR pre group locos, the SECR Wainwright C, LBSCR Terrier and E or LNWR Coal Tank?

 

I suggest that there are sufficient "collectors" willing to buy whatever "odd" pre- group locos the RTR manufacturers decide to make (e.g. the Stirling Single) without suitable rolling stock, for it to be profitable. If however, you choose to model a particular railway, period and/or location then you can't do it adequately with what is available from Bachmann, Hornby and co. They will always concentrate on the spectacular and unusual, because people are happy to buy those, even if they claim they want a LNER J6 0-6-0. Modern manufacturing techniques appear to revolve around scanning a prototype, so if it isn't preserved, then it isn't likely to get onto the "we may do it one day" list.

[westerner]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

[Poggy1165]

Surely there are only two reasons for building a kit:

 

1. Because you enjoy the process.

 

2. Because it is the only way of getting something that you want.

 

The later reason, in 4mm, is getting rarer; although this is only true for consensus modellers, that is those who model what most other people model. Personally I am in no position to look down on anyone. When Dapol bring out a complete range of 7mm GCR locos and stock I will be only too delighted to make use of the products. It will save me a lot of scorched fingers and frustration.

[Headstock]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

 

Not superior, just more interesting to look at and talk about.

 

Surely there are only two reasons for building a kit:

 

1. Because you enjoy the process.

 

2. Because it is the only way of getting something that you want.

 

The later reason, in 4mm, is getting rarer; although this is only true for consensus modellers, that is those who model what most other people model. Personally I am in no position to look down on anyone. When Dapol bring out a complete range of 7mm GCR locos and stock I will be only too delighted to make use of the products. It will save me a lot of scorched fingers and frustration.

 

There are more reasons than that, as has already been mentioned, because it is prototypical. If you following prototypical practice then I can guarantee that it will require a substantial amount of building in what ever format that may take. The decline in kit building is certainly mirrored by a general decline in prototypical practice on exhibition layouts.

[Jamiel]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

This thread was started by Tony Wright who is an expert on building brass/metal models, so it is not surprising that the thread has a lot of comment on that.

 

Were this an editorial thread by the administrators of RMweb, I may agree that 'it does get a bit tedious', but it is not that.

 

The forum does cover many aspects of the hobby, from starter layouts through to modellers doing exceptionally specific areas of modelling.

 

I for one have found this thread incredibly informative and inspiring, but then I am in the process of building my first brass and white metal loco kit, so perhaps this thread is exactly what I want from the forum.

 

Please don't take this as any sort of personal criticism, I think that perhaps this thread may not cover the main focus of your modelling, and model railways is a broad area that lots of people can find enjoyment in through their own focus, skills and interest.

 

Jamie

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jamiel

[Clive Mortimore]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

Despite I can solder and have a few kits that stare at me "When am I going to be made" I agree with Alan. Soldering a kit is not the B all and end all of railway modelling. Alan's Wencombe layout demonstrated a great level of realism with mainly RTR  stock, the atmosphere just oozed out of his sleepy country junction. Coupled with that the trains ran to a believable time table. If I could get a layout to the same standard and standard of operation I would be very pleased with myself. And so would most who are reading this.

 

Jol will tell me off but railway modelling is supposed to be fun. It is not a competitive hobby but one with a wide variety aspects to it. Some of us like running trains, some like collecting boxes full of trains, some like to buy metal kits, some even like to make those kits and I even know of one twit who is making GER EMUs and doesn't have a layout to run them on or even one planned, he is just making them for fun. Please do have a butchers at them on Saturday at Warley, twit and models will be on the DEMU stand. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Tetarch60]

Morning everyone. Looks like there may have been a misunderstanding regarding RTR or kit building. From my needs in a model engine, a flywheel drive is a must, why? To give a momentum effect when running,also smooth out the running on less than clean track.Having seen how some US outline HO diesel and steam outline models run with a flywheel each end of the motor, this high standard is what I am looking for. Have only found it in one British out line steam outline model, that is the Hornby J15 0~6~0 locomotive.Most RTR diesels have this,Why not the steam locos? Now with the cost of RTR escalating, a kit built loco is soon going to become more cost effective,especially large GN mainline steam, Pacifics etc. 

[Tetarch60]

Morning everyone. Tony, that A5 pictured on your layout looks exquiste, proves the adage,if it looks right then it is right. Should an RTR manufactuer do an A5. I bet it won't have a flywheel drive in it but an obselete mashima motor that is not made anymore. A good kit is available from 52F.have a look on their website, some very good photos on there. 

[Lecorbusier]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

Being a discussion thread I suspect it tends to meander rather than following a set course or itinerary. Discussions will reflect the interests/worries/hopes of those currently contributing (until/unless Tony wishes to pull it in some other direction). I doubt anyone is meaning to be exclusive and a personal view is of course a personal view.

 

Of course tedium could always prompt a positive interjection to take the discussion off in to more conducive pastures 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Poggy1165]

Not superior, just more interesting to look at and talk about.

 

 

There are more reasons than that, as has already been mentioned, because it is prototypical. If you following prototypical practice then I can guarantee that it will require a substantial amount of building in what ever format that may take. The decline in kit building is certainly mirrored by a general decline in prototypical practice on exhibition layouts.

 

Yes, but that is covered by point 2., getting something you want that isn't available RTR. Which may include having P4 wheels, or being a prototype not covered. Even in the 1960s - perhaps especially in the 1960s - there was such a range of locos and rolling stock that manufacturers couldn't possibly produce everything RTR. But some people really aren't bothered about having an ex-LNER pigeon van or whatever, even if strict realism demands it.

 

As to operating in line with prototype practice, I keep looking at the calendar and reminding myself that there are fewer and fewer modellers - particularly active enough to put layouts in exhibitions - who remember what even transition-era operating practice looked like. OK, you can learn this stuff from books, but it's not the same as seeing it every day of your life. Even the immediate post-steam era was very, very different from what we have today. 

 

I would be the last person on God's green earth to discourage people from building kits, but nowadays you can have a pretty tolerable model railway without bothering. Speaking for myself, I have got more fussy with age. At one time I wouldn't have worried that the rails didn't have chairs, or that the rail-section was flat-bottomed. But there are all sorts of ways of enjoying this glorious hobby, and one is simply to open boxes and run stuff. Another is to build everything to the ultimate degree of realism that is possible, even if it takes 5 years to complete a coal wagon. I suspect most people lie at various points of the spectrum between these extremes.

[92220]

Dear Iain,

 

My most sincere apologies by suggesting (by omission) that your model of EVENING STAR was 'just-out-of-the-box'. I knew you'd done a lot to it, so it was careless of me. I wanted the 'best' picture of a Bachmann 9F I had, and it was yours, especially with regard to the finish. 

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony,

 

Very kind of you but not at all; no apology needed. I’m sorry if my post, written in a sleepless haze, sounded as if I was unhappy in any way. I was touched that you chose one of mine and I more wanted to point out how formative the rtr modification projects had been in my own learning to build big locos from kits and other means. Your encouragement and example have been even more helpful.

 

Very best wishes,

 

Iain

[Headstock]

 But some people really aren't bothered about having an ex-LNER pigeon van or whatever, even if strict realism demands it.

 

 

Afternoon Poggy,

 

is that not the point? I have no particular want of an LNER 'thingy' van but if one is prototypically required I shall have one. On the other side of the coin, I selfishly want a 'Sir William A Stannier FRS', however, it is certainly not required as part of my modelling, thus it will remain a want rather than a prototypical requirement. I'm not a great fan of the whole rule one thing in my own modelling. Is it not just 'I want, I want' and a great deal of wish listing?

[Jol Wilkinson]

Despite I can solder and have a few kits that stare at me "When am I going to be made" I agree with Alan. Soldering a kit is not the B all and end all of railway modelling. Alan's Wencombe layout demonstrated a great level of realism with mainly RTR  stock, the atmosphere just oozed out of his sleepy country junction. Coupled with that the trains ran to a believable time table. If I could get a layout to the same standard and standard of operation I would be very pleased with myself. And so would most who are reading this.

 

Jol will tell me off but railway modelling is supposed to be fun. It is not a competitive hobby but one with a wide variety aspects to it. Some of us like running trains, some like collecting boxes full of trains, some like to buy metal kits, some even like to make those kits and I even know of one twit who is making GER EMUs and doesn't have a layout to run them on or even one planned, he is just making them for fun. Please do have a butchers at them on Saturday at Warley, twit and models will be on the DEMU stand. 

Clive and I disagree over the use of the word "fun".

 

I consider model railways are interesting, rewarding, satisfying and challenging (although some may not like the last point) but for me fun implies amusement or light-hearted pleasure. Perhaps I am too serious about what I do and what I want.

 

Clive is right that soldering a kit is not the be all and end all of modelling. Yet unless you are willing to make stuff, how do you create a model? Making baseboards (usually), buildings (from kits) and making scenery from basic materials is pretty much accepted as fundamental. After that there seems to be a desire to be able to buy everything else ready to use with the minimum of bother.

 

As is often said "it takes all sorts". I think that some of us that make their own models still believe those that don't are missing out on a rewarding aspect of this very varied hobby. Why do we go on about it? Simply that we want to share that sense of our enjoyment with others.

 

 This LNWR carriage is unique, isn't perfect, was challenging to build and paint, but was, for me, a very satisfying model to build. I wouldn't get that from buying a rake of the latest and often superb RTR carriages. Not that there is anything for the LNWR anyway.

 

[Poggy1165]

That is an incredibly handsome coach and a beautiful model.

 

I suppose my feeling on this debate is that there are a million and one ways of enjoying the hobby that we call "railway modelling" and who am I to tell someone that their way is "wrong"? I think it would be a sad world indeed if it was reduced to purely collecting commercial models, but if someone is happy doing that, fair dos. They may change their mind at some point. 

 

Only the other day I was thinking what fun it would be to have an 00 layout on an 8 x 4 board and just play trains. Had I space for a second layout, which I don't, it would be a choice between that and an S7 model of New Radnor. Some would consider the latter more worthy - and I might even be one of them - but would it actually be any more fun? I suggest both would give me satisfaction, but in quite different ways. 

[micklner]

Despite I can solder and have a few kits that stare at me "When am I going to be made" I agree with Alan. Soldering a kit is not the B all and end all of railway modelling. Alan's Wencombe layout demonstrated a great level of realism with mainly RTR  stock, the atmosphere just oozed out of his sleepy country junction. Coupled with that the trains ran to a believable time table. If I could get a layout to the same standard and standard of operation I would be very pleased with myself. And so would most who are reading this.

 

Jol will tell me off but railway modelling is supposed to be fun. It is not a competitive hobby but one with a wide variety aspects to it. Some of us like running trains, some like collecting boxes full of trains, some like to buy metal kits, some even like to make those kits and I even know of one twit who is making GER EMUs and doesn't have a layout to run them on or even one planned, he is just making them for fun. Please do have a butchers at them on Saturday at Warley, twit and models will be on the DEMU stand. 

 

Further to above.

 

I have modelled Trains in Whitemetal, Brass ,Nickel Silver Plasic and Resin.

 

I also model Car ,Planes and Ships  etc in various mediums including Resin, Plastic and Wood since I was about ten years old. Soldering doesn't apply to any of them unless any Kind of electrical connection is required.

 

Locos, Coaches and Wagons  you only need to solder the chassis(s) and main sections of bodies where strength is required, normally using Brass and Nickel silver parts, White metal bodies stick together very well with glue  . 

On bodies you do not have to solder everything, Araldite and or superglue can be more than adequate depending on the final use of the model. It its going to sit in a glass case or a shelf,you could probably get away with Araldite. I personally never solder chimneys ,domes and other similar size detail items, the reason being ? . I use thick superglue , you can then adjust the parts before the glue goes off. Other small parts unless exposed to handling are just as good glued as well.

 

On seeing the melted Whitemetal Cab rear on the N5  from a earlier photo, a lesson to be learned by many. Any detail parts inside a cab or similar areas  only need to be glued , once the roof is on they arent going anywhere !!

 

Soldering is quite simple , use the correct temperature iron, keep the tip clean, place the minimum of solder on the tip ,always tin both items, good quality flux after cleaning all the parts and ensure there past are held together until the solder cools/sets.

 

As said before thousands of times practice on scrap items first.

[glo41f]

" The “bashing and swearing, singed fingers, try again, struggle to find the right bits, endless fabrication, problem solving and - well, yes, mess, then the stand back and feel smug at my efforts” experience is why I do this."

 

A true encapsulation of my own experiences. I am pleased that I have not trod this path alone!  Sometimes you feel like giving up and then inspiration strikes and the problems move somewhere else. I guess it is a frame of mind. Well done to all who have got through this process and emerged the other side with new confidence.

 

Martin Long

Edited November 20, 2017 by glo41f

[Tony Wright]

As an occasional contributor to this thread who does not build soldered kits I do wonder why this topic comes up so frequently, it does get a bit tedious. especially when those of us who don't build soldered loco kits are classified as modelling in inverted commas as if we are not modellers at all. Strangely one of the other forums I belong to, which judging by their threads, has many more loco builders than "modellers" ie those of us who don't build locos, the subject of RTR v kit building is never raised. What might be better rather than keeping on about the superiority of kit building, is allowing the rest of to see the whole construction as is done on the other forum I frequent. I suspect the vast majority of members of this forum (over 30,000) do not solder or have any desire to solder kits. To those of you who do that may seem sad but that's they way of the world.

Alan,

 

Your contributions to this thread are always most welcome. 

 

I hope you don't consider me as one who classifies what you do as 'non-modelling'. Quite the contrary (I hope), and I've always admired what you've done and brought round with regard to improving RTR items. 

 

Though I don't claim this thread as 'mine', my main interest (as you know) is building metal loco/rolling stock kits. Unless they're made of aluminium, then I solder them together (or bolt parts on if appropriate - cylinders and so on). If I'm the principal contributor to this thread (am I?), then what I do (and show) is what I can contribute. If you started a thread (have you?), then, I would imagine, it would concentrate on how you did your adaptations. If soldering is not necessary, then good, but it doesn't make you any less of a modeller. 

 

I think why the subject keeps on coming up is because, when I'm demonstrating, at least three quarters of the questions relate to soldering. Nobody asks to try their hand at gluing, or how to cut plastic and so on. Granted, that's not what I'm demonstrating, but it would seem folk are much more happy to work in plastic and use glue (the latter, even with metal kits) rather than indulge in the 'black art' of soldering. 

 

I do get especially cross when folk who should know better recommend the gluing together of etched brass components, particularly working parts. 

 

Finally, as an example of the need to solder, I visited Gilbert Barnatt today (Peterborough North). One of the switch rails one one of his points had come adrift (it would appear that glue had been used, at least in part, as a bonding agent, the tie bar being made of plastic). I tried gluing it back at first; to begin with superglue - useless!. Then epoxy - again, useless! I then drilled a small hole in the tie-bar, fixed a piece of nickel silver wire into it, bent the end of the wire at right angles and soldered it to the bottom of the web of the switch rail. The result - it worked! It could be that I'll have to do the mod on both sides (no doubt Gilbert will let me know if it fails).

 

The point about all this is, if it can be soldered, then solder it. Hence the 'tedium' of this thread?