Wright writes.....

[PaulCheffus]

If you could mass produce what you have made, for example if you cut the bits out with a laser cutter or other machine, I would say that you are manufacturing components. If you cut your plastcard bits out with a knife and a scalpel, I would call it scratchbuilding. So your crucial word to me is the "hand" in hand cut.

 

Using a commercial power bogie wouldn't alter that for me any more than buying in wheels motor and gears would for other people.

Hi

 

I have just built this wagon from plasticard and the roof was embossed (though not obvious in the photo) using a Silhouette Curio which required me to design the roof panel using a CAD program. Is this still not scratchbuilding? 

 

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Michael Edge]

I will happily give credit to a top drawer kit designer.

 

Stand up Mr Edge!

 

The only kit I have ever built where I didn't have to change a single component to make it more accurate or to fit better was a Judith Edge LMS diesel shunter kit.

 

I had to slightly alter the outside crank arrangement to build it in EM, to sort out clearances on the outside gearing/crank arrangement, which basically meant longer crankpins and some spacers. Other than that, it was build up exactly as intended.

 

In a perverse way, a kit that is easy gives slightly less satisfaction to me. A highly accurate three piece 3D printed loco kit would be no fun at all to build. Taking a dreadful kit and turning it into a good model is much more challenging and the end result more satisfying than putting together an easy kit.

 

For me, kits are not just about getting the loco/carriage/wagon/building I want as easily as possible. They are about the challenge and fun of getting a set of parts and turning them into a good model. The worse the kit, the greater the challenge and the higher the satisfaction if I win!   

 

Sorry about that Tony, perhaps I could sell you test etches to give you more of a challenge......

[Michael Edge]

Can we have a few words on producing steel coupling rods, please?

I can but no photos as there's nothing on the bench at the moment.

I do quite a lot of work with steel, mostly steel shim in thicknesses varying from .010" to .025", in the case of th eMercian kit I think I used .015". The coupling rods supplied didn't match each other or the frames, in fact the two frame plates didn't match in respect of hole spacing. I managed to set up the frames with axles parallel and then used the completed frame to jig drill a piece of steel sheet (actually two pieces soldered together at the edges) with holes at the correct spacing. These were then sawn to shape (together) with a piercing saw, separated and another layer soldered on top in the areas of the bosses. These were sawn round again and filed to a smooth shape, a round needle file is used to round out the join between the boss and the flat section of the rod.

For fluted rods I cut the flutes in the sheet first, then proceed as above but another way to do it is to make the complete rod and slightly bend down the ends before cutting the flute by hand with a hacksaw. Steel does have the advantage of looking exactly like steel but most steam engine motion had a film of oil/grease on the outside which gives a yellowish look - more like nickel silver in fact. For working locos I usually paint a layer of filth on the rods anyway - and most industrials and diesel shunters had painted rods, usually red.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi

 

I have just built this wagon from plasticard and the roof was embossed (though not obvious in the photo) using a Silhouette Curio which required me to design the roof panel using a CAD program. Is this still not scratchbuilding? 

 

BelgianSlidingRoof.jpeg

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Hi Paul

 

I think a Silhouette cutter is just another tool. Now if you started to make all the parts for other people then the bits might be considered a kit.

[t-b-g]

Sorry about that Tony, perhaps I could sell you test etches to give you more of a challenge......

 

Happy to let you sort those out!

 

I wouldn't suggest for one moment that you start building faults into your kits to make them more tricky.

 

It is nice to work on a range of different quality kits and if it is a commission build for a customer an easy kit is a real bonus, so keep 'em coming.

 

Did you get my PM about the C14? It isn't like you to not reply.

[t-b-g]

Hi

 

I have just built this wagon from plasticard and the roof was embossed (though not obvious in the photo) using a Silhouette Curio which required me to design the roof panel using a CAD program. Is this still not scratchbuilding? 

 

BelgianSlidingRoof.jpeg

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

That is very nice indeed but I thought that I had already made my thoughts clear. Parts that can be produced in quantity by machine is more about the design and manufacturing skills and less about building from scratch. That is not to say that one or the other is the "greater" skill. I could get my scalpel and some plastic sheet out and make what you have there but I don't have the skills and knowledge to do what you have done. So you have skills and abilities that are beyond mine.

 

So two entirely different sets of skills would be needed for me to do one and for the way you have done them. One is in the hand cutting of parts and the other in the CAD design and operating a machine to produce a kit of parts.

 

But as I say, lots of grey areas and I am not arrogant enough to think that I have to be right about this or anything else!

[Clive Mortimore]

That is very nice indeed but I thought that I had already made my thoughts clear. Parts that can be produced in quantity by machine is more about the design and manufacturing skills and less about building from scratch. That is not to say that one or the other is the "greater" skill. I could get my scalpel and some plastic sheet out and make what you have there but I don't have the skills and knowledge to do what you have done. So you have skills and abilities that are beyond mine.

 

So two entirely different sets of skills would be needed for me to do one and for the way you have done them. One is in the hand cutting of parts and the other in the CAD design and operating a machine to produce a kit of parts.

 

But as I say, lots of grey areas and I am not arrogant enough to think that I have to be right about this or anything else!

The most important thing is has been made/modelled, not picked up off the floor after struggling with the packaging within the box.

[Tony Wright]

The most important thing is has been made/modelled, not picked up off the floor after struggling with the packaging within the box.

I think the 'agree' button needs to be bigger in this case, Clive.

 

Above all else, this is a thread followed/contributed to by modellers. Just like yourself! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Prototypical modelling adds I think to all of this. Unless you are drawing and designing the etches yourself, it seem to me that you are extremely unlikely to find a kit that is perfect for your purposes straight from the the box. Most steam loco classes had multiple iterations with a myriad of minor differences. Added to this is the fact that locos were often very long lived with many more adjustments and alterations over time. All this means that it will be a very specific loco that will have run on your chosen line and will have been in a very specific condition during your chosen time period. Given all this, even the best kit offering will be a starting point rather than end product ... and of course with the choice of gauge/suspension followed by the need to paint, line and weather there is so much scope for creativity and personal expression. 

Tim,

 

that isn't always the case. LNWR locos remained very much as built throughout their lives, with the exception of the 0-8-0s which needed a book to themselves. So a Coal Engine, Watford Tank, .5'6" 2-4-2T etc. might only have had later buffers fitted, one rather than two whistles, the steam heat safety valve removed and lamp sockets replaced by lamp irons. Such variations are easily dealt with at design stage, with the exception of buffers which can be handled when ordering/packing a kit.

 

I have the feeling that other simple pre-group designs may have been much the same.

 

Jol

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

 

that isn't always the case. LNWR locos remained very much as built throughout their lives, with the exception of the 0-8-0s which needed a book to themselves. So a Coal Engine, Watford Tank, .5'6" 2-4-2T etc. might only have had later buffers fitted, one rather than two whistles, the steam heat safety valve removed and lamp sockets replaced by lamp irons. Such variations are easily dealt with at design stage, with the exception of buffers which can be handled when ordering/packing a kit.

 

I have the feeling that other simple pre-group designs may have been much the same.

 

Jol

I must just be unlucky then Jol ... the Midland locos changed radically over time ... different boilers/chimneys/smoke box doors/condensing gear etc etc ... there were also a myriad of variations within the same basic class relating to wheel size, boiler size, variations on the tenders, open cab, closed cab, round fire box, belpaire, different coal rail configs, lamp iron positions, numbering, livery, etc etc. A regular mine field really.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I must just be unlucky then Jol ... the Midland locos changed radically over time ... different boilers/chimneys/smoke box doors/condensing gear etc etc ... there were also a myriad of variations within the same basic class relating to wheel size, boiler size, variations on the tenders, open cab, closed cab, round fire box, belpaire, different coal rail configs, lamp iron positions, numbering, livery, etc etc. A regular mine field really.

Well, you pick your Railway and live with the consequences.

 

I have a friend who is a MR modeller, but he is slowly getting better.

[Tony Wright]

Well, you pick your Railway and live with the consequences.

 

I have a friend who is a MR modeller, but he is slowly getting better.

Is that why you chose the L&NWR, Jol?

 

I can only conclude that the 'Premier Line' locos, in terms of alterations over time, were rather different from other types. 

 

Having just finished (yet another) DJH Thompson A2/2, considering that there were only six, I cannot find a year when any two examples were the same. Having built the prototype for this kit, the first four production ones, and umpteen more, all those differences had to be catered for in the parts. The result is that the DJH kit will only make (without need for too much in the way of mods) 60505 and 60506, and there are quite a few differences between those two. With a fair bit of work, 60501 and 60502 can be made (alterations to cab and tender), but not (without major alterations) 60503 and 60504. Even then, 60501 and 60502 have differences, as do 60503 and 60504. 

 

Pity the poor kit designers/kit manufacturers. 

 

And, I'm not entirely sure the L&NWR locos were 'quite as easy as you make out'. Having built four Claughtons, I found a myriad of differences among them. 

[jamie92208]

Well, you pick your Railway and live with the consequences.

 

I have a friend who is a MR modeller, but he is slowly getting better.

 

I'm another MR modeller and just keep taking the tablets.   Though joking aside I do enjoy the research when I buy a kit to work out which loco it is going to become and then finding one that a) was shedded in the right area and b) can actually built from the kit.   However with my previous layout I decided that I wanted a Claughton from the batch that was modified to work over the S & C.  That entailed getting different boiler fittings, a re shaped cab and a totally different tender (GC ex ROD rather than LNWR) and then discovered that Crewe had fitted their own style of brake gear to the ex LNWR tenders.   One day I will actually finish it even though the layout it was bought for is no longer in use.   However I did make the turntable of Green Ayre big enough to take the Claughton.   The excise for running it is Rule 1 and the presence of traffic from the Claughton Manor brick works just up the line that is actually still producing bricks.

 

I have, however, to acknowledge with much gratitude the very helpful attitude of David Andrews who sent me some spare trial etches that will help me make the thing look right.   I now have to try and make the valve gear work.  Perhaps I need to talk to Sir.

 

Jamie

Edited December 5, 2018 by jamie92208

[Jol Wilkinson]

Is that why you chose the L&NWR, Jol?

 

I can only conclude that the 'Premier Line' locos, in terms of alterations over time, were rather different from other types. 

 

Having just finished (yet another) DJH Thompson A2/2, considering that there were only six, I cannot find a year when any two examples were the same. Having built the prototype for this kit, the first four production ones, and umpteen more, all those differences had to be catered for in the parts. The result is that the DJH kit will only make (without need for too much in the way of mods) 60505 and 60506, and there are quite a few differences between those two. With a fair bit of work, 60501 and 60502 can be made (alterations to cab and tender), but not (without major alterations) 60503 and 60504. Even then, 60501 and 60502 have differences, as do 60503 and 60504. 

 

Pity the poor kit designers/kit manufacturers. 

 

And, I'm not entirely sure the L&NWR locos were 'quite as easy as you make out'. Having built four Claughtons, I found a myriad of differences among them. 

I chose the LNWR because I was brought up in Rugby and did my "train spotting" there while the railway infrastructure was still very much LNWR.  I think the locos have a simple elegance, the carriage livery is delightful and gives great satisfaction when you achieve a reasonable result. I started off modelling the LMS and got increasingly interested in the early years, which lead me to the LNWR as I learned more. I didn't find the MR locos and stock so appealing, preferring LNWR liveries and designs.

 

I'm another MR modeller and just keep taking the tablets.   Though joking aside I do enjoy the research when I buy a kit to work out which loco it is going to become and then finding one that a) was shedded in the right area and b) can actually built from the kit.   However with my previous layout I decided that I wanted a Claughton from the batch that was modified to work over the S & C.  That entailed getting different boiler fittings, a re shaped cab and a totally different tender (GC ex ROD rather than LNWR) and then discovered that Crewe had fitted their own style of brake gear to the ex LNWR tenders.   One day I will actually finish it even though the layout it was bought for is no longer in use.   However I did make the turntable of Green Ayre big enough to take the Claughton.   The excise for running it is Rule 1 and the presence of traffic from the Claughton Manor brick works just up the line that is actually still producing bricks.

 

I have, however, to acknowledge with much gratitude the very helpful attitude of David Andrews who sent me some spare trial etches that will help me make the thing look right.   I now have to try and make the valve gear work.  Perhaps I need to talk to Sir.

 

Jamie

 

All the LNWR locos I have built  have been from the Webb or Whale period, so before the Claughtons were built. Likewise, my library covers the LNWR period, so without too much information on later years. Many locos didn't survive beyond the mid 1930's. The only major modification to any of the Webb engines as built were, AFAIK, Belpaire fireboxes fitted to the Cauliflowers. Some locos received Ross safety valves in later years, replacing the Ramsbottom type. So producing a kit that readily covers all the options isn't too difficult, nor does the builder have to undertake to much research to produce a model to suit a location or period. Getting the livery correct might be the hardest part.

 

However, compared to other railways, most LNWR locos do seem to have been mainly unchanged through their lives. Whether the MR influence within the LMS created a policy of not bothering to update/upgrade them, I don't know.

[Arun Sharma]

Prototypical modelling adds I think to all of this. Unless you are drawing and designing the etches yourself, it seem to me that you are extremely unlikely to find a kit that is perfect for your purposes straight from the the box. Most steam loco classes had multiple iterations with a myriad of minor differences. Added to this is the fact that locos were often very long lived with many more adjustments and alterations over time. All this means that it will be a very specific loco that will have run on your chosen line and will have been in a very specific condition during your chosen time period. Given all this, even the best kit offering will be a starting point rather than end product ... and of course with the choice of gauge/suspension followed by the need to paint, line and weather there is so much scope for creativity and personal expression. 

I think Martin Finney's [and Finney7] kits pretty much allow you to produce most if not all variants of a prototype from the parts supplied. It does mean that there are often a lot of parts left over and I seem to recall an MRJ article some years ago when a builder collected all the bits left over from a ?Dean Goods build, added a turned boiler [and not very much else] and produced another model variant of the Dean Goods. However, I concede that this level of kit design is unusual and of course it relies on the builder doing a fair amount of research prior to building. Dare I say, the research element  is IMO one of the many delights of kit design and kit building.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Arun Sharma

[Mallard60022]

Well, you pick your Railway and live with the consequences.

 

I have a friend who is a MR modeller, but he is slowly getting better.

 

It is difficult being a MR modeller as you always need two loco kits..............  

[Lecorbusier]

...... I didn't find the MR locos and stock so appealing, preferring LNWR liveries and designs.

 

Whilst I will admit that the LNWR liveries and designs are on the pleasant side, Samuel Johnson was a jewel amongst locomotive designers as far as aesthetics are concerned 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[chris p bacon]

Whilst I will admit that the LNWR liveries and designs are on the pleasant side, Samuel Johnson was a jewel amongst locomotive designers as far as aesthetics are concerned 

4-4-0_Midland_Beatrice_1757.jpg

 

Is there a second one pushing it....

[Jol Wilkinson]

Whilst I will admit that the LNWR liveries and designs are on the pleasant side, Samuel Johnson was a jewel amongst locomotive designers as far as aesthetics are concerned 

Hi Tim,

 

while some of Johnson's locos were very good looking, others were less so. Dave (CPB) has picked upon one of his very best in his link above.  There were some some horrors like Deeley's Flatiron. I once built a Wills kit of one in 00 and also a 4F. I had a MPD kit for (I think) a 3F, but never completed it before I gave up the LMS and 00, going over to the LNWR and P4.

 

My mentor in the early days was John Redrup, then running the "finescale dungeon"at Puffers in Kenton. He is a dyed in the wool LNWR modeller, his father having been a driver in BR days at Watford shed.

 

Jol

[Lecorbusier]

Is there a second one pushing it....

light and often ...light and often .... at least during Johnson's stint.

 

Then again given their incredible lines ... why not two for the price of one 

[Lecorbusier]

Hi Tim,

 

while some of Johnson's locos were very good looking, others were less so. Dave (CPB) has picked upon one of his very best in his link above.  There were some some horrors like Deeley's Flatiron. I once built a Wills kit of one in 00 and also a 4F. I had a MPD kit for (I think) a 3F, but never completed it before I gave up the LMS and 00, going over to the LNWR and P4.

 

My mentor in the early days was John Redrup, then running the "finescale dungeon"at Puffers in Kenton. He is a dyed in the wool LNWR modeller, his father having been a driver in BR days at Watford shed.

 

Jol

not a fan of Deeley and Fowler was worse .... strictly a Kirtley and Johnson man - hence Monsaldale circa 1902 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Compound2632]

LNWR enthusiasts really shouldn't be making derogatory remarks about double-heading...

 

[Tony Wright]

One train, one loco.

 

Guess which railway adopted this yardstick? 

[Mallard60022]

One train, one loco.

 

Guess which railway adopted this yardstick? 

 

Lynton and Barnstable?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Mallard60022

[grahame]

One train, no loco - SR with multiple units. A far more sensible and satisfactory solution. 

 

G.