Wright writes.....

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The 9F runs very well thanks and much better than the DJH one you had in exchange, which I acquired second hand many years ago. The main issue I have with kit-built locos, and why all except a couple have gone, is that they are usually not built to be able to handle Peco slips, which are very tight, and some cannot handle the 2' 6" inside radius of the curved points. I don't need engines to be able to pull 14 kit-built carriages as the maximum length I run is eight or nine usually. I suspect that most modellers who have long, heavy, kit-built trains also have kit-built engines for them. The mass market is different to that and also very different to the sort of layout I have.

I run 14 coach trains with some (admittedly not all) heavy kit built coaches. All my modern RTR Pacifics handle these OK on the level, although sometimes I need to add a little weight. The better kit built locos find it easier with less wheel slip on starting but it’s only a fairly marginal improvement.

 

I celebrate a well made white metal or brass kit for what it is - a beautiful piece of workmanship and something different from the norm. But I don’t think it’s justified by its pulling power.

Edited August 10, 2022 by thegreenhowards

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The 9F runs very well thanks and much better than the DJH one you had in exchange, which I acquired second hand many years ago. The main issue I have with kit-built locos, and why all except a couple have gone, is that they are usually not built to be able to handle Peco slips, which are very tight, and some cannot handle the 2' 6" inside radius of the curved points. I don't need engines to be able to pull 14 kit-built carriages as the maximum length I run is eight or nine usually. I suspect that most modellers who have long, heavy, kit-built trains also have kit-built engines for them. The mass market is different to that and also very different to the sort of layout I have.

Good morning Robert,

 

Your points are very well-made and are true. 

 

All the very 'large' (at least 30' by 10') 4mm layouts I've photographed which depict steam-age days and are able to run full-length trains, almost exclusively have kit-built locos. This is a very different situation from the 'mass market', and, as usual, it's 'horses for courses'. 

 

I think the 'mass market' is also very different from the situation it was, certainly up to the end of the last century; that ancient B17 modified by me of late proves that. Tender-drive, armoured valve gear, split chassis, crude wheelsets, limited range and dismal performance were endemic. Anyone wanting a 'decent' stud had to scratch-build, kit-build or extensively-modify what was on offer. Not now. In fact, I'd suggest that the complete opposite is true - most kit-built locos which pass through my hands are inferior to RTR equivalents. However (there's always an 'however'), as an observer, there tends to be a 'sameness' nowadays, particularly in the mainstream press. Some layout runners don't even take the tension-locks off the fronts of their big steam-outline locos. 

 

One other thing (mentioned before, I'm sure); I've seen far too many new RTR steam-outline locos which have been rendered dud because a gear, somewhere in the drive, has split or come loose on its axle/rod. I'm putting together a piece for BRM regarding 'budget' modelling, where often 'tatty' items can be resurrected by some careful planning and use of new components (that B17 might be one case). One or two guinea pigs have been Hornby's more-recent 'Black Fives', where mixing and matching has taken place. In one case, under light testing, the drive became useless because the final gear came loose/split. Have you ever tried repairing something like this? To get at it, I took off the keeper plate, whereupon all the pick-ups made bids for freedom; then the wire to the motor snapped off. On trying to reinstate the wire; it appears there are loads of them, stuck to the motor by some sort of black goo, meaning taking the body off was very difficult. I did eventually put it back together, thought I'd done the repair and sat back with a smug expression. Great, it ran - until I tried it on a train - then the gear gave way again! The chassis is now in the bin! 

 

Give me kit-builds any day. Are modern RTR locos nor designed to be dismantled? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Staffordshire]

  Something a little different, took the decision to have a pristine out the box DP1 weathered professionally.

 

   I am very pleased with the outcome ....

[5 C]

49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Robert,

 

Your points are very well-made and are true. 

 

All the very 'large' (at least 30' by 10') 4mm layouts I've photographed which depict steam-age days and are able to run full-length trains, almost exclusively have kit-built locos. This is a very different situation from the 'mass market', and, as usual, it's 'horses for courses'. 

 

I think the 'mass market' is also very different from the situation it was, certainly up to the end of the last century; that ancient B17 modified by me of late proves that. Tender-drive, armoured valve gear, split chassis, crude wheelsets, limited range and dismal performance were endemic. Anyone wanting a 'decent' stud had to scratch-build, kit-build or extensively-modify what was on offer. Not now. In fact, I'd suggest that the complete opposite is true - most kit-built locos which pass through my hands are inferior to RTR equivalents. However (there's always an 'however'), as an observer, there tends to be a 'sameness' nowadays, particularly in the mainstream press. Some layout runners don't even take the tension-locks off the fronts of their big steam-outline locos. 

 

One other thing (mentioned before, I'm sure); I've seen far too many new RTR steam-outline locos which have been rendered dud because a gear, somewhere in the drive, has split or come loose on its axle/rod. I'm putting together a piece for BRM regarding 'budget' modelling, where often 'tatty' items can be resurrected by some careful planning and use of new components (that B17 might be one case). One or two guinea pigs have been Hornby's more-recent 'Black Fives', where mixing and matching has taken place. In one case, under light testing, the drive became useless because the final gear came loose/split. Have you ever tried repairing something like this? To get at it, I took off the keeper plate, whereupon all the pick-ups made bids for freedom; then the wire to the motor snapped off. On trying to reinstate the wire; it appears there are loads of them, stuck to the motor by some sort of black goo, meaning taking the body off was very difficult. I did eventually put it back together, thought I'd done the repair and sat back with a smug expression. Great, it ran - until I tried it on a train - then the gear gave way again! The chassis is now in the bin! 

 

Give me kit-builds any day. Are modern RTR locos nor designed to be dismantled? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Modern RTR locos are designed to be assembled quickly and cheaply in large quantities by nimble-fingered piece workers. Any ease of disassembly is purely luck of the draw. Some locos are easier than others and if you have a good range of tools including the correct screwdrivers/nut spinners, fine tweezers and a soldering iron, most steam outline at least can be tackled. Good eyesight and a steady hand are definitely an advantage. Whether you're successful is another matter.

 

I enjoy picking up non-runners or those with knitted valve gear and attempting to resurrect them. My focus is LMS/LMR, so I'm very familiar with RTR offerings (mainly Hornby) and their likely weak points and factor that into the purchase. The biggest challenge is spare parts. Inevitably the most common failures result in the supply of relevant spares drying up. I'll happily straighten out valve gear, cobble together replacements from my stock of salvaged parts and make or modify suitable components if needed. I know at some point there will be a chassis beyond redemption (like the Black 5 mentioned above). When that time comes, I've resolved to attempt a Comet or other replacement chassis, using as much of the original running gear where possible. If I've invested time in modifying and customising the body, it's that I wish to preserve. 

 

Yes I could bin it and buy the latest RTR offering (equally fragile with its own set of ticking time bombs), but where's the fun in that?

[Mike 84C]

I am so glad 6911has gone to a good home, I agonised for too long, shall I shan't I, hearing that siren song, the shriek of a Western whistle and youthful  memories of 84C back in the day!  🥲

[Northmoor]

8 hours ago, 5 C said:

Modern RTR locos are designed to be assembled quickly and cheaply in large quantities by nimble-fingered piece workers. Any ease of disassembly is purely luck of the draw. Some locos are easier than others and if you have a good range of tools including the correct screwdrivers/nut spinners, fine tweezers and a soldering iron, most steam outline at least can be tackled. Good eyesight and a steady hand are definitely an advantage. Whether you're successful is another matter.

 

I enjoy picking up non-runners or those with knitted valve gear and attempting to resurrect them. My focus is LMS/LMR, so I'm very familiar with RTR offerings (mainly Hornby) and their likely weak points and factor that into the purchase. The biggest challenge is spare parts. Inevitably the most common failures result in the supply of relevant spares drying up. I'll happily straighten out valve gear, cobble together replacements from my stock of salvaged parts and make or modify suitable components if needed. I know at some point there will be a chassis beyond redemption (like the Black 5 mentioned above). When that time comes, I've resolved to attempt a Comet or other replacement chassis, using as much of the original running gear where possible. If I've invested time in modifying and customising the body, it's that I wish to preserve. 

 

Yes I could bin it and buy the latest RTR offering (equally fragile with its own set of ticking time bombs), but where's the fun in that?

I have undertaken similar exercises to the above (and still have a rather large backlog to work through) with a RTR diesels having minor faults.  It makes for very cheap practice to try respraying and weathering a Tri-ang-Hornby Class 37; even if it turns out badly, the loco can be sold on for much the same price as a perfect one.

 

I know valve gear etc. can get "knitted" on RTR locos, but judging by the number of locos for sale on eBay (and at certain traders) with buffers, handrails and other detail missing, couplings bent or broken and even cracked bodies, there must be good proportion of RTR purchasers with the manual dexterity of a baboon wearing oven gloves.

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Robert,

 

Your points are very well-made and are true. 

 

All the very 'large' (at least 30' by 10') 4mm layouts I've photographed which depict steam-age days and are able to run full-length trains, almost exclusively have kit-built locos. This is a very different situation from the 'mass market', and, as usual, it's 'horses for courses'. 

 

I think the 'mass market' is also very different from the situation it was, certainly up to the end of the last century; that ancient B17 modified by me of late proves that. Tender-drive, armoured valve gear, split chassis, crude wheelsets, limited range and dismal performance were endemic. Anyone wanting a 'decent' stud had to scratch-build, kit-build or extensively-modify what was on offer. Not now. In fact, I'd suggest that the complete opposite is true - most kit-built locos which pass through my hands are inferior to RTR equivalents. However (there's always an 'however'), as an observer, there tends to be a 'sameness' nowadays, particularly in the mainstream press. Some layout runners don't even take the tension-locks off the fronts of their big steam-outline locos. 

 

One other thing (mentioned before, I'm sure); I've seen far too many new RTR steam-outline locos which have been rendered dud because a gear, somewhere in the drive, has split or come loose on its axle/rod. I'm putting together a piece for BRM regarding 'budget' modelling, where often 'tatty' items can be resurrected by some careful planning and use of new components (that B17 might be one case). One or two guinea pigs have been Hornby's more-recent 'Black Fives', where mixing and matching has taken place. In one case, under light testing, the drive became useless because the final gear came loose/split. Have you ever tried repairing something like this? To get at it, I took off the keeper plate, whereupon all the pick-ups made bids for freedom; then the wire to the motor snapped off. On trying to reinstate the wire; it appears there are loads of them, stuck to the motor by some sort of black goo, meaning taking the body off was very difficult. I did eventually put it back together, thought I'd done the repair and sat back with a smug expression. Great, it ran - until I tried it on a train - then the gear gave way again! The chassis is now in the bin! 

 

Give me kit-builds any day. Are modern RTR locos nor designed to be dismantled? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have not personally tried repairing a split gear although I have some spares. Brian Kirby did manage to repair a split gear on my 34003 Plymouth and it was still running fine the last time it ran, which was a while ago. Hornby went through a bad patch with the quality of their gearwheels. The other underlying problem is often Mazak rot, about which there is a thread somewhere on this forum. This can be at the root of worms and gears disengaging. Valve gear is often not very robust. On the other hand, I have a 23-year old Bachmann WD 2-8-0 which still runs fine with occasional overhauls and a good many 20 or so year old Hornby and Bachmann locos that are still very good runners, including several Black 5s. In terms of RTR quality, I think the WD was something of a watershed moment although there have been a good few below-par models since, including four attempts by Bachmann to get the 37 right, the last of which has finally got there, not that the second or third iterations were awful, unlike the first.

 

Lots of models do seem to be designed to be difficult to get apart. Hornby is usually worse than Bachmann in that respect and it may be because Hornby still has something of a throw-away-toy mentality whereby they think that purchasers will get fed up with things after a while and discard them. 

[Chamby]

10 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Lots of models do seem to be designed to be difficult to get apart. Hornby is usually worse than Bachmann in that respect and it may be because Hornby still has something of a throw-away-toy mentality whereby they think that purchasers will get fed up with things after a while and discard them. 

 

Models seem to have become more difficult to open up as they have become more detailed and intricate.  The bogie chains on the new Accurascale Deltic are a case in point.  

 

The number of ‘meddlers’ surely outnumber those among us who actually know what they are doing when lifting the bodyshell off a locomotive.  A difficult-to-remove body probably makes sense when looking at the market as a whole, to discourage the sausage-fingered from poking around where they can do more harm than good.

 

But there is a downside to all this super-fine detailing: there is a sweet spot for RTR models between intricacy and robustness.  We seem to have passed that sweet spot now: the number of fine detail parts look great in the display cabinet but are very prone to coming adrift and getting lost when the model is actually run on a layout (let alone ‘played with’).  Perhaps this indicates where the manufacturers see their market focus now, collectors who will appreciate the little details that add perceived value to justify the increasing prices.  RTR models are definitely moving beyond practical and robust ‘layout loco’s’ these days.

 

Regarding split gears, I was very impressed today by one of my local club members who brought in an older Bachmann model where he had 3D printed replacements for split plastic gears.  It ran surprisingly smoothly, if a bit growly:  there is clearly an opportunity there for repairing older loco’s.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments of late regarding RTR,etc.

 

A very old friend, his wife and eldest grandson visited today. Our wives, who are also good friends, which is rather nice, chatted, then latterly went for afternoon tea at the local garden centre, while the three blokes ran LB. Jack, the grandson, aged almost 15, brought some RTR models he'd modified/weathered; very well. They also ran well - A Bachmann 9F, 'Peak' a BR Standard 2-6-4T and an Ivatt 'Mickey Mouse' 2MT tank. I should have taken some pictures, so, Dave, if you're reading this, would you mind posting some you took, please? 

 

How refreshing to have an intelligent, articulate younger modeller operate LB (far better than I did!). A younger modeller who's keen to develop his skills far beyond just buying things; self-reliant as well.

 

The trainset performed well (I wish I did) and the only problems were two minor derailments. Interestingly, both were modified/detailed/weathered RTR locos, one of which Jack wanted to see run. Their tenders came off! They're probably a bit light.   

[jrg1]

Regarding RTR. it seems to me that the manufacturers are just interested in making and flogging product.  Unlike some time ago, spares are difficult to source.  For finescale modellers, loco and diesel bodies are increasingly difficult to obtain.  

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, jrg1 said:

manufacturers are just interested in making and flogging product

Makes sense to me.

[polybear]

6 hours ago, jrg1 said:

Regarding RTR. it seems to me that the manufacturers are just interested in making and flogging product.  Unlike some time ago, spares are difficult to source.  For finescale modellers, loco and diesel bodies are increasingly difficult to obtain.  

 

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Makes sense to me.

 

If only they'd go that extra step and make & flog reliable products.  RTR has experienced such large price increases in recent years (understandably) that I don't think it's too much to ask for.

[jollysmart]

13 hours ago, Northmoor said:

 

 

I know valve gear etc. can get "knitted" on RTR locos, but judging by the number of locos for sale on eBay (and at certain traders) with buffers, handrails and other detail missing, couplings bent or broken and even cracked bodies, there must be good proportion of RTR purchasers with the manual dexterity of a baboon wearing oven gloves.

 

But the boxes are in good condition, which seems to be the standard test.

[johndon]

3d printing has been mentioned often on this thread and it is clearly here to stay.  It is become especially prevalent in my other modelling interest, 1/200 warships where, as well as speed, allows for an unprecedented level of detail even over and above what can be done with photo etch detail sets.

 

Here's an example I've just  received this afternoon, a 1/200 scale 20mm cannon for a battleship I'm currently building, this is as received with only the print support removed but no further clean up.

 

 

I do have a photo etch detail set for the ship which allows these guns to be made up but each gun needs about 20 parts and the ship in question has over 50 of these guns fitted to it.

 

I would defy anyone, even someone with the skills of a watchmaker to put together, from a kit of 20 parts, 50+ of these that look as good.

 

The time saving these allow is immense and this is certainly somewhere that, for me, 3d printing is a no brainer...

 

John

 

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

3d printing has been mentioned often on this thread and it is clearly here to stay.  It is become especially prevalent in my other modelling interest, 1/200 warships where, as well as speed, allows for an unprecedented level of detail even over and above what can be done with photo etch detail sets.

 

Here's an example I've just  received this afternoon, a 1/200 scale 20mm cannon for a battleship I'm currently building, this is as received with only the print support removed but no further clean up.

 

 

I do have a photo etch detail set for the ship which allows these guns to be made up but each gun needs about 20 parts and the ship in question has over 50 of these guns fitted to it.

 

I would defy anyone, even someone with the skills of a watchmaker to put together, from a kit of 20 parts, 50+ of these that look as good.

 

The time saving these allow is immense and this is certainly somewhere that, for me, 3d printing is a no brainer...

 

John

 

Hi John,

I’d be interested for your opinion on how robust these particular 3D printed items are? Will they survive a knock or are they very brittle as has been reported regarding some model railway items?

Thanks

Frank

[johndon]

42 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi John,

I’d be interested for your opinion on how robust these particular 3D printed items are? Will they survive a knock or are they very brittle as has been reported regarding some model railway items?

Thanks

Frank

 

The material they are made of is quite soft and certainly not brittle, at no point while I was removing the printing supports was I concerned about the part shattering.  The end of the gun barrel, which is less than .5mm in diameter, can deflect at least 1mm in all directions and return to it's original shape.

 

John

[Chamby]

4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi John,

I’d be interested for your opinion on how robust these particular 3D printed items are? Will they survive a knock or are they very brittle as has been reported regarding some model railway items?

Thanks

Frank

 

I’m not an expert in printing, but have received some 3D printed items that have still been a bit bendy, and other prints of the same subject that have been more rigid and in some cases quite brittle.  It is my understanding that the resin 3D printing technique requires a final ‘cure’ under UV light and it is the duration of exposure that determines the rigidity (and brittleness) of the finished product.

 

There would seem to be a bit of a learning curve for each item to achieve the optimum duration of cure.

[Chuffer Davies]

3 hours ago, johndon said:

 

The material they are made of is quite soft and certainly not brittle, at no point while I was removing the printing supports was I concerned about the part shattering.  The end of the gun barrel, which is less than .5mm in diameter, can deflect at least 1mm in all directions and return to it's original shape.

 

John

Hi John,

thanks for taking the time to describe the properties of the material used for these guns.  This 3D printing malarkey is all very confusing.  Some plastics/resins are obviously quite pliable such as that used for these guns and the sleeper bases for the Finetrax trackwork system.  Others are very brittle as Tony W has documented previously, especially that used for the V2 printed bodies that seemed to disintegrate as soon as you (Tony) tried to work on them.  There surely must be a happy middle ground but as yet I have not seen anyone document the perfect plastic/resin on any of the media sites that I subscribe to.

 

One day I'm sure I will take the plunge and try creating some 3D printed components to augment my etched models but that day has not yet arrived.

 

Frank  

[Bucoops]

With regard to durability of 3D prints, @billbedford kinfdly sent some test prints for me to examine and poke about.

 

I can't fault them really. This is an underframe detail.

 

 

 

I did manage to break it bit it took a surprising amount of force. 

 

 

I'm impressed.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, johndon said:

3d printing has been mentioned often on this thread and it is clearly here to stay.  It is become especially prevalent in my other modelling interest, 1/200 warships where, as well as speed, allows for an unprecedented level of detail even over and above what can be done with photo etch detail sets.

 

Here's an example I've just  received this afternoon, a 1/200 scale 20mm cannon for a battleship I'm currently building, this is as received with only the print support removed but no further clean up.

 

 

I do have a photo etch detail set for the ship which allows these guns to be made up but each gun needs about 20 parts and the ship in question has over 50 of these guns fitted to it.

 

I would defy anyone, even someone with the skills of a watchmaker to put together, from a kit of 20 parts, 50+ of these that look as good.

 

The time saving these allow is immense and this is certainly somewhere that, for me, 3d printing is a no brainer...

 

John

 

 

3 hours ago, Bucoops said:

With regard to durability of 3D prints, @billbedford kinfdly sent some test prints for me to examine and poke about.

 

I can't fault them really. This is an underframe detail.

 

 

 

I did manage to break it bit it took a surprising amount of force. 

 

 

I'm impressed.

What glue(s) would be best for those sorts of items?

[johndon]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

What glue(s) would be best for those sorts of items?

 

In my case, as they are being glued to wood, brass or plastic depending on where they are on the ship, I'll be using CA glue.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi John,

thanks for taking the time to describe the properties of the material used for these guns.  This 3D printing malarkey is all very confusing.  Some plastics/resins are obviously quite pliable such as that used for these guns and the sleeper bases for the Finetrax trackwork system.  Others are very brittle as Tony W has documented previously, especially that used for the V2 printed bodies that seemed to disintegrate as soon as you (Tony) tried to work on them.  There surely must be a happy middle ground but as yet I have not seen anyone document the perfect plastic/resin on any of the media sites that I subscribe to.

 

One day I'm sure I will take the plunge and try creating some 3D printed components to augment my etched models but that day has not yet arrived.

 

Frank  

Good morning Frank,

 

I think the (personal) problem with the 3D-printed V2 bodies was that I approached the medium as if it were either etched brass, cast white-metal or polystyrene plastic. All have different properties, of course, but none is as brittle as (some) 3D-printed resins. For instance, I'll happily lop off bits from etched components with tinsnips, take off lumps of white-metal with Xurons or assault polystyrene plastics with a Stanley knife. These materials adapt to my inherent clumsiness - not, in my experience, 3D-printed resin None 'shatters' under such 'assaults' the way 3D-printed resin does. Yet, as others have shown of late, some resins seem to be very pliable, even 'elastic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi John,

thanks for taking the time to describe the properties of the material used for these guns.  This 3D printing malarkey is all very confusing.  Some plastics/resins are obviously quite pliable such as that used for these guns and the sleeper bases for the Finetrax trackwork system.  Others are very brittle as Tony W has documented previously, especially that used for the V2 printed bodies that seemed to disintegrate as soon as you (Tony) tried to work on them.  There surely must be a happy middle ground but as yet I have not seen anyone document the perfect plastic/resin on any of the media sites that I subscribe to.

 

One day I'm sure I will take the plunge and try creating some 3D printed components to augment my etched models but that day has not yet arrived.

 

Frank  

Good morning Frank,

 

I think the (personal) problem with the 3D-printed V2 bodies was that I approached the medium as if it were either etched brass, cast white-metal or polystyrene plastic. All have different properties, of course, but none is as brittle as (some) 3D-printed resins. For instance, I'll happily lop off bits from etched components with tinsnips, take off lumps of white-metal with Xurons or assault polystyrene plastics with a Stanley knife. These materials adapt to my inherent clumsiness - not, in my experience, 3D-printed resin None 'shatters' under such 'assaults' the way 3D-printed resin does. Yet, as others have shown of late, some resins seem to be very pliable, even 'elastic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Tony Wright
duplicate post

[Tony Wright]

One thing I'm doing for BRM right now is a series on 'budget modelling'; obtaining items, often second-hand, at greatly-reduced prices which require a bit of 'personal' modelling to 'bring them back to life'. 

 

It's not all RTR-based, of course. Take this as an example, for instance................

 

 

I bought this last year, for a very low price. It's a Pro-Scale A4 which the builder had started, then (it would seem in disgust) dismantled what he'd made. Fortunately, no damage was done, all the parts are present and I've started to reassemble it. 

 

I'm building it on top of a set of Comet frames (from stock - I've ordered a replacement A4 chassis from Comet), using Markits wheels all round and a DJH motor/gearbox, ready-assembled combo (the Pro-Scale chassis is way beyond my abilities, though the etched body is a work of the etcher's art). 

 

Obviously, the wheels and the drive are hardly 'budget modelling' - £80.00 odd quid for the drive, and driving wheels at around seven quid each! Neither is a Comet chassis. That said, I'll still end up with a 'relatively' low-cost A4 (what's a current Hornby RTR one cost?).

 

And........

 

There's no doubt they can turn into fine models, especially with an Ian Rathbone paint job (which doesn't qualify as 'budget', either).

 

Part-built loco kits, as long as they're complete and have no building 'damage', can be obtained for very low prices, and are worth investigation. 

 

 

 

 

[Barclay]

A 'resurrection' is one of my favourite ways to build a model. I am currently working on this old K's Coal Tank that had been stripped and partly dismantled, and came with a new etched chassis. A fair number of new bits and it will go back together nicely, I hope. As you say, the replacement bits are not always cheap, but it will keep me occupied for some considerable time, so the value of the investment is, to me, far greater than spending money on R-T-R, which requires no input from me.