Wright writes.....

[Arthur]

I used the Hornby Compound body in my own conversion many years ago. The powered tender it originally came with was pretty awful and, as with a couple of other conversions I did, I used the tender from the Airfix 4F. That was also powered but the body much more accurate so I just used the body and fitted a Comet tender chassis.

 

The loco had an etched smoke box wrapper, new fittings, a scratch chassis with Romfords, an Anchoridge motor and turned brass cylinders, source long since forgotten.

 

Back then, even if there was a RTR model available, you still had a modelling job on your hands to get something acceptable.

 

[jrg1]

It really is heartening to realise that other modellers had the same frustrations as I did, and it wasn't my inexperience after all.

The J72 had stripped threads on the frame spacers, a wheel bearing that was solid on it's axle, and pressing the bearings into the keyhole slots seized another up.  The castings were a mismatch, and no amount of fettling would ever have made them look remotely like the real thing.

So I tried a Q Kits Metrovick.  Gave up on the bogies, and scrapped them.  Sawed out the grilles and replaced them-great fun, as metal strips were set in the body sides, and finally gave up after trying to make the cab ends something like the prototype.  It found it's way to a large layout, with a Mainline Peak bogie drastically modified, and serious work done to the roof to make it the rebuilt electric loco.  Not bad at a distance.  I still wonder what the total hours were that three of us put into it.

A K's brake van would not have weighed much more if it had been solid lead; apart from the fact that the wheel centres did not line up, and I still have various coach kit casting underpinnings that look as if they were microwaved.

[Tony Wright]

As usual, many thanks to all those who've posted recently with regard to their various escapades in the making of arcane loco kits. 

 

Here are a few shots which might be of interest..........

 

 

This is my superannuated (or should be) Nu-Cast B16/3. It had a white metal lump for a chassis, which I melted down for ballast. I scratch-built a brass substitute, driving off the centre axle (using an MW005 motor and Romford 40:1 gears) instead of the leading one as catered for by the Nu-Cast chassis. Catered for enough by omitting a great chunk out of the bottom of the boiler, which I should have filled in. The drivers are Hamblings (the only right-sized ones at the time) and I painted and weathered it. By today's (or any others'?) standards, it's pretty grim, and now sits moribund in near-retirement, its place having been taken by far-superior alternatives from PDK. 

 

 

Another Nu-Cast kit, this time an A2/1. I can't remember whether this had a white metal chassis but whatever it had was no good - not even the turned-down flanges on the Romford 24mm drivers would fit without touching each other. So, I made a new one from brass. The kit was derived from the same firm's V2 (like the prototype), which rather shows in the discrepancy between the boiler and the smokebox. All Nu-Cast did was to cut off the V2 smokebox (the boiler and firebox being the same) and provide a new, longer one. A pity it was a different diameter, which I've not entirely successfully succeeded in hiding. Ian Rathbone painted this one.

 

 

DJH were going to produce an A2/1 at one point to complement its A2/2 and A2/3 kits; until I pointed out the numerous differences, that is! Had they done so, it would have come out like this - a far superior kit to the Nu-Cast one. This was the third one built from these A2/3 kits - DJH built the first, and I built the next two - 60513 for a customer and 60516 for myself. Ian Rathbone also painted this one.

 

 

 

Jamieson kits have been mentioned, and here's my hand-cut A2/1 - the parts cut out for me by EAMES in 1976, for the princely sum of £27.00. What's that today with inflation? I was a bit miffed that only a six-wheeled tender was provided - this one is from a SE Finecast A2. I painted this. Is she good enough for today's standards, now almost 40 years old? I'd like to think so. 

 

 

Though loco kits have improved out of all proportion in more recent years, it's not a universal situation. And, just because it's in etched brass don't expect it to be automatically superior to a white metal example - remember Jidenco? This Ace O2 presented a bit of a challenge to say the least!

 

 

Eric Kidd has posted (many thanks Eric), and here are two examples of his excellent kit-built work on his Long Drem layout. Eric's more independent than I am - he paints all his own locos. 

 

 

Obviously, the rise in RTR standards have lessened the need for kit-building the likes of A4s in OO. Witness Eric's splendid reworking of a current Hornby A4. That said, it could be built from a Pro-Scale kit. Even greater compliments, then.  

 

 

For obvious reasons, Eric chose MERLIN as his sign-in on this site. This is a Golden age A4 of the same name, and at over ten times the price of the Hornby equivalent I'm puzzled as to why I bought it. It's certainly not ten times better; in fact, in overall shape, it doesn't capture the subtle lines quite as well. 

 

 

I don't think this has subtle lines of any sort, but it's a current example, not of loco kit-building, but of loco modifications; the work of Richard Irven. I believe a 2-8-2 was in Riddles' thinking when the Standards were designed. So, this is what it might have looked like - altered from a 9F.

 

 

If you have a good loco kit to start with, can build with some experience and have as a friend one of the top painters, this should be towards the result you're after in OO gauge in my view. Built from a SE Finecast kit, in order to ensure the rear bogie wheel splashers could be fitted and that it would go round curves without fouling, I configured the chassis on this 'Schools' to be a sort of 0-8-0 - rigid, but with non-coupled, different-sized wheels. It's still no longer than a traditional 0-8-0 and goes round 2' 6" curves with ease. 

 

Please keep those tales of kit-building experiences coming. Perhaps you're amongst the number for whom 90% of the loco kits were/are never completed to satisfaction; the part-built efforts now residing in their dusty boxes, never to see the light of day again. Don't forget, it's not your fault. As has been highlighted, many of those kits of yore were incapable of being built successfully, especially using the mechanical parts provided. No matter, at least you've had a go, and, has been illustrated, succeeded against all the odds. Nothing - no amount of paying for the work of others or just buying RTR stuff in boxes can equal that! 

 

Edited to add to a caption..................

Edited June 8, 2015 by Tony Wright

[The Stationmaster]

Here you are then - one of my past failures, at least I finished the body (and the tender even if the undergear of the latter was a minor disaster).   A Cotswold  'Austin Seven' which utterly defeated my attempts to turn it into something which would run (like getting the motor to fit properly on the milled brass chassis).  I put it together a long, long time ago and it is 100% as per kit, complete to cast buffers and safety valves.  All soldered construction using EAMES lowmelt solder, a 12volt Oryx soldering iron and an H&M Powermaster to adjust the temperature - sounds loony but in fact the method worked beautifully.  Turned (by EAMES - yes it was that long ago) Romfords and an etched smokebox number plate while the lamp irons - such as they were - were probably from my favoured method of beating flat florists wire ) the thinner sort) which left a round stock to go into a drilled hole.  The peculiar colour scheme owes an awful lot to working entirely in artificial life (the attic) hence the 'weathering' splodged onto the Floquil grimy black is a weird purplish colour.

 

It went, 5 years ago, to another RMweb member who I suspect eventually might have given up trying to make something of it and turned to a much more modern and far better kit.  But at least I found the long lost box - after considerable searching.  My next step into kit assembly is probably ample proof of my declining metal powers as apart from a nice comfortable whitemetal body (a Wills kit - one of the better ones) stashed away many years ago the chassis to go with it is a far more contemporary, etched, thin frame (remember when they were called thin frames?) kit which will no doubt tax my vocabulary to its most - but then you're only a pensioner once.

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[jamie92208]

Before I saw the light and went into O gauge I was a 00 modeller. My first kit was a Wills King which I never got to run well though the tender ran and I thought that the body looked OK. I also did a GEM Midland Compound and a K's Kirtley 0-6-0. I also got a K's Garratt to run but not without modification. It's original K's motor, which was under the front water tank was just about capable of moving the loco alone but not a train. I then fitted an MW005 under the rotary coal bunker, after hacking away a lot of white metal. After that it would pull as many wagons as I could put behind it with the two motors working. I've still got the Garratt in the loft somewhere.

 

As to 7mm kits I better not get started as the libel laws can be costly, though I did once suggest in a letter to the Guild gazette that each kit should state what radius of curve it was designed to go round.

 

Jamie

[coachmann]

It went, 5 years ago, to another RMweb member who I suspect eventually might have given up trying to make something of it and turned to a much more modern and far better kit.  But at least I found the long lost box - after considerable searching. ...

That self same 7F after one very grateful RMweb member bought it and fitted a Bachmann S&DJR 2-8-0 chassis! One of my best runners too, but it has recently gone to a new home along with most of my LMS and LNER locos and stock. A Fowler 7F at Croes Newydd?  I do not think so....

[Barry Ten]

Two more from me, with apologies to those who've already seen these models on my various blog threads.

 

 

This is the Branchlines City of Truro kit, which is based around the old Airfix/Dapol plastic kit for the superstructure, coupled with an etched chassis.

 

This was a superbly enjoyable kit, with the basic 4-4-0 almost falling together. I think I got it running in not much more than a day or so. The real trouble begins when you start trying to carve up the very soapy plastic bits and achieve good fits between the body and the cast boiler details, as well as removing the moulded lining.

 

I also had many tribulations getting enough weight into the body to cope with a reasonable train, but got there in the end, mainly by stuffing lead between the chassis frames whereever possible, as well as into every available cranny of the body, without overbalancing it. Is it good as the Bachmann one? No, there are several inaccuracies with the Airfix body which I didn't attempt to fix, and the haulage will never be comparable. But, I had a City class before the RTR one came out (just!) and I'm still pleased with it.

 

Another kit where the chassis was a doddle is this DJH 1366 - again, it almost seemed to fall together. The only refinement I added was to fit axle bearings instead of the plain holes in the supplied frames. But, like the City, I did have more of a struggle with the body castings. Eventually it needed partial dismantling and rebuilding to get everything square - or square-ish. Again, it won't be as good as the Heljan one, but when it trundles around with a slow goods, the satisfaction quotient is huge. I think this might be one factor which helps kitbuilding endure, simply the enjoyment when it all comes good, coupled with the tactile quality of handling a heavy cast model.

 

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

 

[Arthur]

Talking of 'Austin Sevens' and Jidenco, my own;

 

 

One of three Jidenco loco kits I completed. With the 7F the only difficulty I recall was an error in the etching of the cab roof (which was one with the sides). When formed, the rear corner was in line with the edge of the cab side sheets so that when you fitted the vertical cab side handrail it ended, at the top, in clear space. I extended the cab roof beading, filled the gap with solder then ground flat, and that was that.

[New Haven Neil]

Mention of Tri-ang gears puts me in mind of a discovery many years ago when as a teenager I bought an early 3F tank (with the horrid early couplings - it was old!) at a house sale of some kind - it ran very slowly and very, very well, close inspection revealed a single start worm.  I later came across one other example of this in another early Tri-ang loco, but I can't recall what that one was.  Regardless, it appears for whatever reason Margate occasionally used single start worms, and they are superb gears that made an XO4 powered loco run to a standard that would be acceptable in todays RTR....but with perhaps more power!

 

I still have it somewhere, in the multitude of boxes in the loft unopened for many a year. Like 30.  It's in a Tri-ang West Country (ugh, one of their worst) but with a body full of plasticene it will pull anything, albeit slowly!  Note - my modelling has moved on a touch since those days.....  ...and across the Atlantic!

[46256]

I was at a Warley show pre NEC some years ago and was watching an ..I think em gauge layout...striving..or its predecessor...by a wonderful modeller chris Mathewson ...sorry if his name misspelt o wrongly remembered ...a ks Garrett crept around this layout with an impressive load... I had recently built a similar model, mine having the benefit of two porterscap motors...the indulgence..no wonder I now live in poverty...anyway this has a d11 motor and single stage gearbox.....and was so silky smooth ...wonderful model engineering

[micknich2003]

Triang did do a single start worm, I remember buying them in the mid '60's and retro fitting them to standard X04 motors, from memory about a shilling a piece. All is not lost, a suitable single start worm can still be made today from a piece of 1/4 Whitworth stud. I make my own from 1/4 round bar and a die.

[St Enodoc]

Mention of Jidenco and MTK reminds me of an anecdote. My MTK 2-BIL was on static display at a Leeds MRS exhibition in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Graham Beaumont and Colin Massingham were having a look and the conversation went something like this:

 

CM: That's a nice looking 2-BIL.

 

GB: Well, it can't be one of yours then.

[Mallard60022]

I should probably start a new thread for this, but does anyone happen to know who might supply a Fowler tender kit? I have a Hornby Midland Compound that I'd like to convert to motor in the tender similar to the Black Five conversion I did above. The Hornby tender looks all wrong.

The Comet one is good. I managed to build one so it must be straightforward.

P

[glo41f]

That schools looks the business! I find that they are difficult locos to get to look right, largely as the frames are always seemingly made very small between the drivers and the cylinders to get the bogies around the unrealistic curves that we impose on our models. This one has the right "heft" between the frames and looks as if it has the power to do what Mr.Maunsell intended.

 

One of the early problems with white metal kits was the fact that they had to be stuck together. (No low melt solder then!). One of the recommeded glues was Pafra which used to come unstuck regularly. In fact most of the glues at that time were unreliable and exhibited similar properties. Then along came salvation (or so we thought) with the Cyano types. These stuck the kits and pretty much everything else! In my progrees in the hobby things worked a lot better when I had the courages to solder them. (It also has the advantage that you can drop any mistakes into a bowl of boiling water and reduce said kit to its component parts!

 

Reflecting back, the kits of the day were not cheap and were often inaccurate. There was not the culture of the "forthright" review in the model press and I sincerely doubt whether the reveiwers actually made any of the kits as the published pictures all seemed to show an artful layout of the component parts.

 

It was the sad state of the RTR models and the appalling kits then available which made me turn to 7mm where at least one had a fighting chance to get in the details given the size of the models. One of the first I did was a CCW 14xx tank which was a whitemetal kit. It went together well with solder but was a bit lacking in detail which was painfully applied separately. I still have it and it riuns well but why do I keep a GW loco? Heaven only knows! I also made the CCW J50 which was a whole lot better than the 4mm one which was supposed to fit onto a Hornby Dublo R1 tank chassis and featured two jolly loco crew looking out on each side of the cab. It seemed to be the custom then to paint these in fully lined LNER green but did J50s ever wear that livery? I have not seen a picture of one.

 

I still am frustrated at the quality of some offerings and some are frankly unbuildable by any save the real experts. The best are by far are the top of the range ones which in 7mm cost £500 plus wheels etc which is way beyond my means and I guess many others in the hobby.

 

I guess we are all sado masochists at heart else we would not continually walk this frustrating path!

 

Martin Long

[Barry Ten]

The Comet one is good. I managed to build one so it must be straightforward.

P

 

Yep, me too!

[Focalplane]

One of the first I did was a CCW 14xx tank which was a whitemetal kit. It went together well with solder but was a bit lacking in detail which was painfully applied separately. I still have it and it riuns well but why do I keep a GW loco? Heaven only knows!

 

I still am frustrated at the quality of some offerings and some are frankly unbuildable by any save the real experts. The best are by far are the top of the range ones which in 7mm cost £500 plus wheels etc which is way beyond my means and I guess many others in the hobby.

 

Martin Long

As a regular traveller on the Gobowen Rattler behind a 14XX I think I know the answer - they remain one of the nicest looking tank engines ever designed.

 

I too am appalled by the apparent difficulty that some kits have (or had) when there was no knowing the fact beforehand in the dark days before the internet and RMweb.  Now we do have the opportunity to share opinions about the "bad" ones.

 

My early attempts included the two I still definitely have, and both are Wills Finecast.  The K's I built have simply disappeared from memory - I wonder where I threw them?  I also still have (I think) a Gem Deeley 4P (the 4-4-0 built to compare with the Compounds) but as to its whereabouts. . . .  It was a nice kit to put together.

[jrg1]

I remember the magazine reviews of WM kits in the sixties and seventies-they fired me up to try one (see above).  I never saw an adverse review-the nearest one came to criticism was in the RM when a K's GWR (44xx?) 2-6-2T build mentioned some difficulty encountered with getting the coupled wheels to run smoothly.  Bet that covered a lot!

I have also obtained various bits and pieces from the kit suppliers-the latest being SE Finecast for K3 castings.  Amusingly and recently, one WM kit manufacturer took exception to me wanting to order various castings to complete a model, and was quite forthright in his email.  I failed to mention that I was planning to also purchase a couple of complete kits as well, and the order went elsewhere.

As well as lousy kits, they seemed to go hand-in-hand with lousy business sense-we could, I am sure rack up a top twenty list of outfits who should have been drummed out of the hobby.  I used to think I was still in the hobby due to a personality kink, or a blind refusal to give up!

[Focalplane]

Tony, your thread seems to be going in an interesting direction concerning the pro and cons of different, usually ancient, kit manufacturers.  Keysers, for example, has come for a good deal of criticism, while others have come off relatively lightly (and, interestingly, it is those kit manufacturers that seem to have survived the rigors of time).

 

Before I retired, I accumulated a number of kits that have been set aside for the future.  Now, several years later, I have realized that some might have been a mistake as I have read that they are either difficult to build or the design was not well thought out.  Quality control on white metal castings seems to be a major factor.

 

My "stash" of kits include ones by Comet, DJH, Brassmasters and SE Finecast.  Of these, the SE Finecast Castle definitely belongs to the old school though with updated frames, etc.  As it is very similar to the ancient King I am rebuilding I know will enjoy that one!  The Comet Caprotti has been started and set aside - I seem to have made an error in that the steam pipes don't align correctly between smokebox and valve chest.  But Comet supplies good instructions and good support for replacing missing or damaged parts, etc.

 

I have looked into the box of the Brassmasters 4F kit and realize that in OO gauge the inside motion is going to be a bit tricky in what will be a very narrow space.  But the instructions that come with this kit are incredibly detailed which is a tremendous plus in my opinion.

 

Because of deteriorating nimbleness of fingers and eye sight I have been considering O Gauge and stumbled across this short but interesting thread:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99032-loco-kit-advice/

 

The recommendations for an O Gauge starter kit invariably seem to verge toward Jim McGeown's Connoisseur Models and this may well reflect his generosity in publishing detailed instructions on his website, not unlike Brassmasters and Comet.  As well as his candor - ref. the proposition on his home page "Who is Jim McGeown and is Connoisseur Models the sort of company I want to do business with?"  I have yet to contact the man and have no hidden interest in promoting his company.  Why is his attitude relatively uncommon in the kit building business?

 

I haven't mentioned DJH yet.  I know from Tony's videos that he likes the product and I have yet to form an opinion of my box of parts that will eventually become 46235 City of Birmingham in late 1950s garb.  But I don't think much of the message their website conveys - a kind of "take it or leave it " attitude with the prices always "Only £--- plus motor, gearbox and wheels".  And DJH supplies absolutely no instructions available until after you have parted with a good deal of money.

 

Am I missing something in making these observations?

[jrg1]

K's have taken some stick-I am currently rebuilding and detailing a plastic Syphon kit-possibly the first specialist plastic kit on the market.  A very pleasant diversion, with bogies replaced with Dart Castings, new inner false roof to strengthen up the body, and now fitting various gubbins under the soleplate.  Not a bad model at all, in my opinion, and K's should have been commended for their offering.

[Arthur]

 

Ks produced a wide range of fine kits, their castings were generally good and they were easy to assemble. Their brass strip frames, devoid of brake gear, were typical of the day and no worse than many other kit makers supplied. Their valve gear frets were crisp and accurate, I've still got some bought in anticipation of future projects.

 

The weaknesses were the plastic centred driving wheels and their motors, some having plastic frames, which were of variable durability. I think it's those two things which are being 'knocked', not the brand in its entirety.

[coachmann]

K's have taken some stick-I am currently rebuilding and detailing a plastic Syphon kit-possibly the first specialist plastic kit on the market.  A very pleasant diversion, with bogies replaced with Dart Castings, new inner false roof to strengthen up the body, and now fitting various gubbins under the soleplate.  Not a bad model at all, in my opinion, and K's should have been commended for their offering.

Non-driven rolling stock is in a different league to motorised locomotives, rallcars etc. K's loco chassis parts didn't get a poor reputation amongst builders for nothing. Modellers didn't have to prove their locos actually ran in model magazines and i well remember a beautifully detailed K's GWR Dean Goods winning a trophy or model of the year award in the very early 1960's. Boy, I'll bet we all wanted one and it was articles like this that sent people like lambs to the slaughter to buy a K's loco kit!  How many poeple were put off for life is anyones guess.My LNWR Coal Tank ended up a ball of whitemetal through sheer frustration and I went on to build loco bodies and coaches from Plastikard on Triang or Hornby chassis instead. I did not return to white metal kits until 1968.

Edited June 10, 2015 by coachmann

[jrg1]

I do agree Coachman-one-sided reviews must have been responsible for modellers leaving the hobby in droves.  Lambs to the slaughter indeed!  Reviews that I read then should cop the attention of the appropriate standards body today.  I enjoyed re-building the Syphon, whilst remembering the K's engine that never went together, let alone ran. 

[edcayton]

My first non-Airfix/Kitmaster kit was a Bec J17 whitemetal body kit to fit on the chassis of my Tri-ang diesel shunter which even my young eyes could see was totally unrealistic. I assembled it with Araldite and thought it looked OK except for the handrails which I never got right. I'm fairly sure I've still got it, I remember it could pull anything I put behind it.

 

Ed

[edcayton]

ISTR a K's(?) whitemetal GWR 6-wheel van with slatted sides (is that a Syphon) that had no floor. That never ran right and I remember throwing that at the floor.

#

Ed

[Tony Wright]

Ks produced a wide range of fine kits, their castings were generally good and they were easy to assemble. Their brass strip frames, devoid of brake gear, were typical of the day and no worse than many other kit makers supplied. Their valve gear frets were crisp and accurate, I've still got some bought in anticipation of future projects.

 

The weaknesses were the plastic centred driving wheels and their motors, some having plastic frames, which were of variable durability. I think it's those two things which are being 'knocked', not the brand in its entirety.

I think that's a fair assessment, Arthur. 

 

What's not been mentioned about K's is the plastic 8BA nuts and bolts supplied in later years (yes, white plastic!), and also plastic handrail knobs (DJH went down that ghastly route with regard to the latter for a time). I suppose because they offered a 'complete' kit (and advertised as such), it seemed a good idea at the time. 

 

No one has mentioned the later 'flat-pack' presentations, either. The box was certainly useless for putting the completed loco in afterwards (assuming it were completed), and the cling-film fixing to the flat cardboard was a beggar to remove. In one case, getting a valve gear fret out from it (with the cling film filling every slot and hole), I just set it on fire, reasoning I'd do less damage than trying to extricate it with a scalpel. 

 

Edited to change a hideous typo!

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tony Wright