Wright writes.....

[CF MRC]

Bit of a long-shot, but does anyone have the contact details for Tony Dyer, Frank Dyer’s son (Borchester etc.)?  We have had an enquiry at the MRC from someone trying to re-establish contact. 
 

Tim
 

 

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

Well, if that kit happened to have the name Martin Finney or Dave Bradwell on it and was built and painted with expertise, then I think that the rtr model’s presence would stand diminished in the shadows,  at least when it comes to the valve gear, handrails, overall finesse of detail, and especially paint (Hornby LNER pea soup green anybody?).

As we well know, all generalisations (which mine was) are false!

 

How about the Accurascale Deltic?

[richard i]

Kit vs rtr.

no one will mistake this for the accurascale new class 89. It is a silver fox one. 
it was though less than half the price and with a bit of fiddling it make into a presentable model.

one of my very limited forays into modeling post steam. 
in my defense it is ECML and would be seen at little Bytham. Just not in 1959.

richard 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

As we well know, all generalisations (which mine was) are false!

 

How about the Accurascale Deltic?

Good morning John,

 

My 'generalisation' about a kit-built loco being able to pull more than an RTR equivalent was with reference to steam-outline.

 

You mentioned the Accurascale Deltic. Not only is that far superior in appearance to any kit- or scratch-built equivalent I've ever seen, when I tried to count how many carriages it could pull on Little Bytham, I couldn't - loaded into the mid-30s, the front of the rake collapsed on the end curves due to the train's weight, though the Deltic was still pulling it with ease prior to that!

 

 

Is there a 4mm kit which could equal this, no matter who built it? 

 

And, after expert weathering by Geoff Haynes..................

 

 

 

Has anyone seen a more-realistic kit- or scratch-built equivalent Deltic? I never have. 

 

It's not the Accurascale Deltic, either...........

 

 

This is the Bachmann/NRM prototype Deltic (weathered by Geoff Haynes). 

 

Though I made a model of this decades ago (Kitmaster/modified Lima), it was rubbish in comparison.

 

OO RTR diesel-/electric-outline has no equal in my experience.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[dibateg]

Going back a long time ( 25 years + ) , to when I was in the 'Risborough club, Allen Hammet built three of those ProScale V2's in one go - boy did he moan about them! They were for Mr Lund, Roy Palmer and myself. When Roy went to O gauge I bought his V2 off him. I did some reworking and weathered them. Then Gilbert had them from me and ultimatley they are on Little Bytham. Perhaps Pete still has his...

 

I do enjoy seeing them still in service.

 

Regards

Tony

[Tony Wright]

I took a few more pictures of Ian Wilson's HO layout yesterday............

 

 

 

 

It's really rather good. 

 

 

[jjb1970]

There are so many variables, and as with any generalisation there are exceptions.

 

The fundamental difference between RTR and a kit is consistency. While you can get a faulty RTR model it can be returned and you know what you're getting whereas a kit can be a bit of a lottery and the final model depends on the skill of the builder and painter.

 

A good brass or whitemetal kit built to professional standards will have a special presence and be a thing of beauty, but few kits will be built to a standard approaching RTR. That may not matter if it's about the pleasure of building a kit and the satisfaction that goes with it but if people want a well finished, operating model then I  suspect that for most of the people most of the time RTR will provide a better model.

 

My main areas of interest are diesel and electric, not steam, but mydisel and electric RTR models have easily pulled as much as I have ever coupled up.

 

There's also the point that RTR includes factory built brass and white metal. 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

At least it runs now; with Portescap power, rather well. And, at an eBay price of £100.00, a bargain could one say now? 

 

 

If every eBay purchase came with a free service from ‘sir’ then I’m sure they’d go for a lot more! It’s the knowledge that 90% will need significant attention - probably beyond many modellers - that puts people off.

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, dibateg said:

Going back a long time ( 25 years + ) , to when I was in the 'Risborough club, Allen Hammet built three of those ProScale V2's in one go - boy did he moan about them! They were for Mr Lund, Roy Palmer and myself. When Roy went to O gauge I bought his V2 off him. I did some reworking and weathered them. Then Gilbert had them from me and ultimatley they are on Little Bytham. Perhaps Pete still has his...

 

I do enjoy seeing them still in service.

 

Regards

Tony

Good morning Tony,

 

I really enjoy running them - they're wonderful models! It's a privilege to own them now. 

 

I wonder how many other locos have seen regular service on so many layouts? Did those V2s run on Kirkfield? If not, it's still at least four - Stoke Summit, Charwelton, Peterborough North and now Little Bytham (if I made EM frames for them - a possibilty - they could run on Retford!). When I say 'regular' service, they were always in use on Stoke and Charwelton, so that's scores of shows!

 

The best part of their now running on Little Bytham (spoiler alert!)? My taking out the DCC decoders from their PN days!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 3 by Tony Wright
to add something

[thegreenhowards]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was thinking not only of the timber that went into p/way and architectural use but also carriages and wagons. There were perhaps somewhere around five or six million wood framed wagons built for use on Britain's railways - that's an awful lot of oak and pine. 

While this generation of timber may be in the atmosphere as CO2, one has to remember that, provided the trees were replanted, the next generation is soaking up an equivalent amount. That is one of the beauties of building from timber (speaks a forester).

 

Andy

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

provided the trees were replanted

 

A big if for East Prussia and Courland in 19th century.

 

(The principal Baltic timber ports were Memel and Libau, modern day Klaipėda and Liepāja, in Lithuania and Latvia respectively.)

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

My 'generalisation' about a kit-built loco being able to pull more than an RTR equivalent was with reference to steam-outline.

If RTR were capable of pulling the length and weight of trains that you need to run on Little Bytham, Tony, do you think you'd have a greater proportion of such locos?

 

[john new]

4 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

If RTR were capable of pulling the length and weight of trains that you need to run on Little Bytham, Tony, do you think you'd have a greater proportion of such locos?

 

I think not. I have not got anything like Sir’s metalworking skills but still appreciate an item I have done even basic work to over straight out of the box. I fully get his philosophy. Even at beginners level a Dapol wagon, or Superquick or Metcalfe building you have built has that ‘something’ over one bought rtp or rtr.

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

If RTR were capable of pulling the length and weight of trains that you need to run on Little Bytham, Tony, do you think you'd have a greater proportion of such locos?

 

Good morning Captain,

 

The answer is 'no', and that's based on history. 

 

Nearly 50 years ago, when I first started building locos with a specific time (late-'50s) and place (ECML), the only way to get the variety of big motive power was to scratch-build or kit-build. Things like Thompson Pacifics were unheard of, and the Trix Peppercorn A2 was an abomination - the Tri-ang/Hornby A3 wasn't much better, neither was the Trix one, and the various RTR A4s were poor. 

 

Thus, having been in that situation, it's natural that I've continued to build my own locos, and will continue to do so; not only because they'll haul more (steam-outline) but because I enjoy doing it. There's also the satisfaction of being able to say 'I made that' as, say, an A1 on 13+ heavy bogies races past at over 80! One cannot say that about equivalent RTR steam-outline A1, no matter how good it might look.

 

Granted, there's also the satisfaction of taking an RTR loco and 'personalising' it - detailing/renumbering/renaming/weathering/etc; there is great merit in that. It matters not if it doesn't then attain the 'highest standards'; it's work that is entirely personal. Those who, for whatever reason, don't try to do things for themselves will only have the satisfaction of a 'possession'.

 

If I were starting on my 'journey' now, would I adopt the same 'make it myself' stance? What with the 'magnificence' of current RTR? I honestly don't know - in the same way that some EM modellers with whom I've spoken aren't sure if they'd have adopted the more-accurate gauge all those years ago if what's available RTR now in OO had been available RTR then. That said, I think the answer(s) would still be 'no'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[NHY 581]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

The fundamental difference between RTR and a kit is consistency. While you can get a faulty RTR model it can be returned and you know what you're getting whereas a kit can be a bit of a lottery and the final model depends on the skill of the builder and painter.

"few kits will be built to a standard approaching RTR. That may not matter if it's about the pleasure of building a kit and the satisfaction that goes with it but if people want a well finished, operating model then I  suspect that for most of the people most of the time RTR will provide a better model.

There's also the point that RTR includes factory built brass and white metal. 

 

I've highlighted a few points here. Over the last few years I've seen quite a few locos built from kits. Some of these have been 'professionally built". Some have been outstanding, some have been excellent, others very good but a significant proprtion of all  have been diabolical runners with poorly assembled chassis etc, despite them utilising high quality components. Simply put, the contracted professional builder has contrived to produce a sow's ear out of a silk purse but still charged a premium for their highly priced low standards.  

 

RTR these days is now arguably surpassing the abilities of all but the "best " of these professionals at considerably less cost than that which they charge to produce an ultimately poorly running model.

 

So what's the point ? 

 

Yes, there will still be prototypes for which there are no RTR models and if it's a must have model then, if you lack the ability to do it yourself ( as I do ) then you have no alternative but trust these individuals. But it's not without risk. 

 

I'm happy with my lot and derive my modelling satisfaction from building a background to suit, using careful weathering etc to personalise rtr stock and rtp buildings to produce what I want to see. None of this means I don't appreciate a model of whatever built from a kit or that I think my way is the be all and end all. It's simply me taking advantage of what is now available and using it to the best of my abilities to allow me to model my chosen prototype. 

 

Rob

 

[maico]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Captain,

 

The answer is 'no', and that's based on history. 

 

Nearly 50 years ago, when I first started building locos with a specific time (late-'50s) and place (ECML), the only way to get the variety of big motive power was to scratch-build or kit-build. Things like Thompson Pacifics were unheard of, and the Trix Peppercorn A2 was an abomination - the Tri-ang/Hornby A3 wasn't much better, neither was the Trix one, and the various RTR A4s were poor. 

 

Thus, having been in that situation, it's natural that I've continued to build my own locos, and will continue to do so; not only because they'll haul more (steam-outline) but because I enjoy doing it. There's also the satisfaction of being able to say 'I made that' as, say, an A1 on 13+ heavy bogies races past at over 80! One cannot say that about equivalent RTR steam-outline A1, no matter how good it might look.

 

Granted, there's also the satisfaction of taking an RTR loco and 'personalising' it - detailing/renumbering/renaming/weathering/etc; there is great merit in that. It matters not if it doesn't then attain the 'highest standards'; it's work that is entirely personal. Those who, for whatever reason, don't try to do things for themselves will only have the satisfaction of a 'possession'.

 

If I were starting on my 'journey' now, would I adopt the same 'make it myself' stance? What with the 'magnificence' of current RTR? I honestly don't know - in the same way that some EM modellers with whom I've spoken aren't sure if they'd have adopted the more-accurate gauge all those years ago if what's available RTR now in OO had been available RTR then. That said, I think the answer(s) would still be 'no'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

People modelling German,Swiss and French have it easier! Fulgurex for example, have been making brass RTR for 71 years in Switzerland and Japan.

I had one of these older used BR65 HO through my hands a while back for £200 or so.

 

The one bellow made in 1983 just sold on German Ebay for £250

 

Larger passenger express fetch quite a bit more in good condition. This SNCF 231 made in 1994 fetched £460 at Vectis

 

 

 

r

 

Edited May 3 by maico

[John Tomlinson]

16 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I think given the right paint (an old Humbrol authentic colour or a good mix of the standard range from back then) even a amateur with any old brush could suffice, But I do understand the expenditure barrier that prevents many from getting a miniature spray gun or airbrush, which would allow a good application of a paint from Precision's range (or really anything with pigment in it, like those annoying acrylics that some people like for some reason).

 

I'm quite sure that with some effort and time, a poor kit can be brought to more than equal an rtr equivalent.  Either way, for LNER green and Garter blue locos (though this still applies for many other liveries), the rtr shade would need to go anyway, so perhaps the best compromise is to pick up a slightly battered rtr loco for a decent discount, repaint and fix annoying valve gear inaccuracies, and then just keep adding detail piece by piece. 

 

In some time, the cost will be spread out and the result can still look better than the new rtr offering.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I'm totally confident that my brush painting would come nowhere near the quality of finish on modern RTR.  Spraying is a different matter, but even then one has also to acquire skills with a lining pen to match a pro finish completely.

 

Each to their own, now in my seventh decade I think I've established a fairly clear idea of where my limits are.

 

John.

[Captain Kernow]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The answer is 'no', and that's based on history. 

 

Nearly 50 years ago, when I first started building locos with a specific time (late-'50s) and place (ECML), the only way to get the variety of big motive power was to scratch-build or kit-build. Things like Thompson Pacifics were unheard of, and the Trix Peppercorn A2 was an abomination - the Tri-ang/Hornby A3 wasn't much better, neither was the Trix one, and the various RTR A4s were poor. 

 

Thus, having been in that situation, it's natural that I've continued to build my own locos, and will continue to do so; not only because they'll haul more (steam-outline) but because I enjoy doing it. There's also the satisfaction of being able to say 'I made that' as, say, an A1 on 13+ heavy bogies races past at over 80! One cannot say that about equivalent RTR steam-outline A1, no matter how good it might look.

 

Granted, there's also the satisfaction of taking an RTR loco and 'personalising' it - detailing/renumbering/renaming/weathering/etc; there is great merit in that. It matters not if it doesn't then attain the 'highest standards'; it's work that is entirely personal. Those who, for whatever reason, don't try to do things for themselves will only have the satisfaction of a 'possession'.

 

If I were starting on my 'journey' now, would I adopt the same 'make it myself' stance? What with the 'magnificence' of current RTR? I honestly don't know - in the same way that some EM modellers with whom I've spoken aren't sure if they'd have adopted the more-accurate gauge all those years ago if what's available RTR now in OO had been available RTR then. That said, I think the answer(s) would still be 'no'.

Hello Tony,

 

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. There is much in there that I not only agree with completely, but which also mirrors my own experience and views.

 

Although I have a number of RTR locos in my own collection, none are allowed out onto the layouts, unless they have been weathered and (if necessary) additional detail added. 

 

I was thinking about the question of RTR verses kit built locos the other day and I realised that I derive far, far more satisfaction from running something that I have made. After that, good quality kit built locos that I have acquired come second. 

 

Like many of us, I'm very fussy about good running and where I find an RTR loco that I'm not happy with (and which won't improve with running in), I often give them an etched chassis.

 

That way if the loco still has problems, then it's no-one's fault but my own, but if it then runs nice and smoothly, then it's elevated into the category of a well made kit in my eyes and I derive the same level of satisfaction, because I've had a hand in the finished article.

 

 

 

Edited May 3 by Captain Kernow
Correcting results of clumsy fingers.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

On 03/05/2024 at 03:51, Tony Wright said:

Good morning John,

 

My 'generalisation' about a kit-built loco being able to pull more than an RTR equivalent was with reference to steam-outline.

 

You mentioned the Accurascale Deltic. Not only is that far superior in appearance to any kit- or scratch-built equivalent I've ever seen, when I tried to count how many carriages it could pull on Little Bytham, I couldn't - loaded into the mid-30s, the front of the rake collapsed on the end curves due to the train's weight, though the Deltic was still pulling it with ease prior to that!

 

 

Is there a 4mm kit which could equal this, no matter who built it? 

 

And, after expert weathering by Geoff Haynes..................

 

 

 

Has anyone seen a more-realistic kit- or scratch-built equivalent Deltic? I never have. 

 

It's not the Accurascale Deltic, either...........

 

 

This is the Bachmann/NRM prototype Deltic (weathered by Geoff Haynes). 

 

Though I made a model of this decades ago (Kitmaster/modified Lima), it was rubbish in comparison.

 

OO RTR diesel-/electric-outline has no equal in my experience.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I have some doubt that I could find much in 4mm to best the Deltic's performance, however in 3.5mm, I have an ace up my sleeve.  

 

Hobbytown of Boston once made full EMD F and E-units, with monstrous Pittman DC-91 motors, massive flywheels (which were sometimes clutches as well), and heavy cast bodies, frames, and extra weights.   If desired for whatever reason, you needed yet more weight on the 8/12 wheels, you could buy a less accurate, but solid lead body from Cary, which makes the the loco unstoppable.  As these units in real life were chained together, they also offered a multi-drive version, which would use the one motor to drive 16/24, and if you really wanted to, you could motorise a whole A-B-B-A set.   

 

Considering that just one F-unit would out class the 
Deltic, an A-B-B-A lash-up would pull the layout itself!  Also, as the design uses crossed helical gears instead of worms, the weight of the train will push the lot for quite the length.

 

A brass, or diecast American locomotive would would probably also pull the Deltic away (having DCC tug-of-wars are oddly popular in America).  Scaletrains and Broadway Limited (and old Varney Super H0 locomotive of course!),  make many strong locomotives.

 

having taken delivery on three of these diesels early today (4/5/2024), for only 40 quid at that, the lead A unit is quite impressive. Even though I haven’t added any weight yet (the weight is only of the body, chassis, and mechanism) and being mostly empty space, it weighs in at about 890 grams.  

It also has a motor that is mightily difficult to stop by grabbing the motor shaft (completely impossible with any oils or muck on my hands), and so far runs wonderfully at all speeds, though quite noisy (I don’t have any grease at the moment, which it needs).
 

 All in all, that was money really well spent.  when I’m done making it into a Santa Fe E1, I’ll probably post some photos.

Edited May 5 by 1471SirFrederickBanbury
Bought a Hobbytown E-unit just a bit ago, 3 for £40!

[MJI]

I could imagine the Napier sound to those Deltic pictures.

 

Come to real size, who would get against 19 in whoops condition.

 

Most powerful Diesel loco in UK. Possibly a 4 at the front of its power output.

[MJI]

20 MXV 3 MCV

 

Need to check my MCV prints may have enough.

 

 

Thanks to ironmink.

[Bernard Lamb]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

A big if for East Prussia and Courland in 19th century.

 

(The principal Baltic timber ports were Memel and Libau, modern day Klaipėda and Liepāja, in Lithuania and Latvia respectively.)

How did they compare in volume with Kaliningrad?

That was at one time the port for a large volume of wood pulp for paper making, rather than in the form of timber. I am out of touch with recent and current workings.

Bernard

[Willie Whizz]

5 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

I've highlighted a few points here. Over the last few years I've seen quite a few locos built from kits. Some of these have been 'professionally built". Some have been outstanding, some have been excellent, others very good but a significant proprtion of all  have been diabolical runners with poorly assembled chassis etc, despite them utilising high quality components. Simply put, the contracted professional builder has contrived to produce a sow's ear out of a silk purse but still charged a premium for their highly priced low standards.  

 

RTR these days is now arguably surpassing the abilities of all but the "best " of these professionals at considerably less cost than that which they charge to produce an ultimately poorly running model.

 

So what's the point ? 

 

Yes, there will still be prototypes for which there are no RTR models and if it's a must have model then, if you lack the ability to do it yourself ( as I do ) then you have no alternative but trust these individuals. But it's not without risk. 

 

I'm happy with my lot and derive my modelling satisfaction from building a background to suit, using careful weathering etc to personalise rtr stock and rtp buildings to produce what I want to see. None of this means I don't appreciate a model of whatever built from a kit or that I think my way is the be all and end all. It's simply me taking advantage of what is now available and using it to the best of my abilities to allow me to model my chosen prototype. 

 

Rob

 

There’s also the point that, whilst I fully understand and appreciate Tony’s own preference for sheer haulage power, how many of us have a layout large enough for that to be an issue, let alone a serious issue?
 

I strongly suspect it’s a minority; but how small a minority is very hard to say. Unless I’ve missed it, I don’t think there’s any significant publicly available “market research” on the size and characteristics of people’s layouts, as opposed to their preferences for new models. 

Edited May 3 by Willie Whizz

[robertcwp]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

OO RTR diesel-/electric-outline has no equal in my experience.

 

Diesel era modellers have benefitted greatly from the high quality of RTR over the past 20 or so years, not only in terms of accuracy but also power, ever since centrally mounted motors driving both bogies became standard. However, there have been a few Turkeys. Bachmann has had four goes at the 37 and only the most recent one is really right, although attempts 2 and 3 are acceptable to me with some modification such that I have felt no need to upgrade to either the newest Bachmann model or the Accurascale one. Attempt one was woeful. We have recently had new 47s from both Bachmann and Heljan. Given they are meant to represent the same thing, compare these two ends:

 

IMG_0590am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

There have been several goes at Westerns but none is perfect. Dapol came closest but was let down by the headcodes. 

 

There are other examples too. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

How did they compare in volume with Kaliningrad?

That was at one time the port for a large volume of wood pulp for paper making, rather than in the form of timber. I am out of touch with recent and current workings.

 

In the 19th century, Königsberg was less important as a timber-exporting port than Memel. As far as I can work out, it was more important as a grain-exporting port - I suppose that this may have simply been a reflection of the hinterland of the two ports. 

 

Libau, to the north of both these, was the most northerly port on the eastern Baltic coast to be ice-free throughout the year.