Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

A bit of scratch building, kit building, RTR, and RTR conversions in typical railway landscape.

[wagonbasher]

More than a suggestion, if a popular manufacturer was to produce a locomotive as inaccurate as the Gresley carriages the internet would be rocked by the outcry.

 

 

 

You of course make a fair point, however, as brilliant as the scenery aspects of the hobby is, it is not unique to model railways. It can also be appreciated in other modelling genre that are still the bastions of kit building (military modelling as an example). On the other hand, rolling stock is unique to railway modelling. I have two thoughts. Despite what is often said, a realistic model railway has to involve some amount of kit building. The reason being that what is available RTR, is not representative of the real railway and probably never will be. My second thought is that with the decline of kit building, model railways are increasingly becoming clones of one another. For example, I find it difficult to justify the cost of many model railway exhibitions, when I can view the same products at my local model shop for free.

I'm struggling to understand why an aspect of modelling that is shared with other modelling genre's makes Anglicans point less relevant. Take the best rolling stock you can produce and run it around a poorly considered and modelled scene and you may as well put your track on the front room carpet.

 

The best layouts you see, the ones that grab you, have captured that relationship between the railway and the landscape it passes through, colour, texture, angles of embankments, cuttings, back scenes and retaining walls. The land came first, then the railway, then the rolling stock ( at least the rolling stock that most RMweb members are modelling).

 

It's all important

 

Edit... In fairness, as can be seen in your last post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andy

[Headstock]

I'm struggling to understand why an aspect of modelling that is shared with other modelling genre's makes Anglicans point less relevant. Take the best rolling stock you can produce and run it around a poorly considered and modelled scene and you may as well put your track on the front room carpet.

 

The best layouts you see, the ones that grab you, have captured that relationship between the railway and the landscape it passes through, colour, texture, angles of embankments, cuttings, back scenes and retaining walls. The land came first, then the railway, then the rolling stock ( at least the rolling stock that most RMweb members are modelling).

 

It's all important

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

Andy

 

I didn't say that one was more important then the other, as I hope the image above demonstrates. If anything the scenic side, is more often then not, superior to the modelling of the trains, should it be?. This is a direct result of the decline of kit building in my opinion, if the future of model railways is to be less concerned with stock, then count me out.

[Clive Mortimore]

More than a suggestion, if a popular manufacturer was to produce a locomotive as inaccurate as the Gresley carriages the internet would be rocked by the outcry.

 

 

You of course make a fair point, however, as brilliant as the scenery aspects of  the hobby is, it is not unique to model railways. It can also be appreciated in other modelling genre that are still the bastions of kit building (military modelling as an example).  On the other hand, rolling stock is unique to railway modelling. I have two thoughts. Despite what is often said, a realistic model railway has to involve some amount of kit building. The reason being that what is available RTR, is not representative of the real railway and probably never will be. My second thought is that with the decline of kit building, model railways are increasingly becoming clones of one another. For example, I find it difficult to justify the cost of many model railway exhibitions, when I can view the same products at my local model shop for free.

There are those who do not appreciate layouts where the stock is not out the box. 

 

I was exhibiting Hanging Hill at Woking, this posh bloke leans over the barrier and picks up a scratchbuilt BTH type 1 turns it over and with a plumb in his mouth says "Oh! Its not Hornby" and just plonks on the layout, not even on the tracks. He then walks off. All my mates were calling to him to come back, as I just stood there muttering " He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track.............." I was taken away for a cup of tea.

 

There are some modellers who with very little kit building and lots of RTR can make a layout look wonderful. See Alan's Wencombe and Kingsbridge.

[davidw]

What's a CSB mechanism? Honestly, I don't know. Is it compensated sprung beam? 

 

As I posted, the Right Track series has had its day. Chris and Wendy have taken a well-earned retirement and just about everything has been done. 

 

Picking up Brian's point, though, would a DVD dedicated to just chassis making be viable? Obviously, the fancy stuff would be left to others but who knows? Because the RTR chassis have improved so much, the automatic replacement is now not necessary. However, there are still those out there who might like to learn how to build successful chassis (in 4mm, or other scales?). 

 

Would you be interested in being part of it, Tony? If it were viable, who else would be good to show the more complex chassis-making methods? 

 

Anyone out there interested in buying a full-length chassis DVD?

 

I could ask manufacturers about possible sponsorship. 

Absolutely.... 

[Headstock]

There are those who do not appreciate layouts where the stock is not out the box. 

 

I was exhibiting Hanging Hill at Woking, this posh bloke leans over the barrier and picks up a scratchbuilt BTH type 1 turns it over and with a plumb in his mouth says "Oh! Its not Hornby" and just plonks on the layout, not even on the tracks. He then walks off. All my mates were calling to him to come back, as I just stood there muttering " He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track.............." I was taken away for a cup of tea.

 

There are some modellers who with very little kit building and lots of RTR can make a layout look wonderful. See Alan's Wencombe and Kingsbridge.

 

Exactly my point, a little bit kit building makes a big of difference. As regards your BTH type 1, I think I would have required a lawyer rather then a cup of tea.

[Clive Mortimore]

Exactly my point, a little bit kit building makes a big of difference. As regards your BTH type 1, I think I would have required a lawyer rather then a cup of tea.

Hi Andrew

 

I am not sure if any kit building is necessary, it is making the whole scene convincing that is more important. To many that is getting every detail right including the right uniform for the models of the local constabulary.

 

To others it is the operation of the layout. I spent a very enjoyable night driving trains on a chaps large N gauge layout with hardly any scenery. It had multiple stations and everything ran to a strict timetable, and this was pre DCC with up to six trains running. Its realism came from the operation.  

 

Thankfully we all have our own ideals for what we want from our model railway. I enjoy trying to reach my own goals and at the same time I love to see what others are doing.

[Headstock]

Hi Andrew

 

I am not sure if any kit building is necessary, it is making the whole scene convincing that is more important. To many that is getting every detail right including the right uniform for the models of the local constabulary.

 

To others it is the operation of the layout. I spent a very enjoyable night driving trains on a chaps large N gauge layout with hardly any scenery. It had multiple stations and everything ran to a strict timetable, and this was pre DCC with up to six trains running. Its realism came from the operation.  

 

Thankfully we all have our own ideals for what we want from our model railway. I enjoy trying to reach my own goals and at the same time I love to see what others are doing.

 

I think  the kit building makes a big difference. There is some really lovely looking stuff, that I find very convincing. Unfortunately I find it harder to suspend disbelief with RTR. I always see the manufacture rather the what it purports to be. I always think the best modelling belies it's origins, so you instantly know the loco, wagon, or carriage but can't tell it's origins beyond being a product of Doncaster, Swindon ect.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Headstock

[jrg1]

What's a CSB mechanism? Honestly, I don't know. Is it compensated sprung beam? 

 

As I posted, the Right Track series has had its day. Chris and Wendy have taken a well-earned retirement and just about everything has been done. 

 

Picking up Brian's point, though, would a DVD dedicated to just chassis making be viable? Obviously, the fancy stuff would be left to others but who knows? Because the RTR chassis have improved so much, the automatic replacement is now not necessary. However, there are still those out there who might like to learn how to build successful chassis (in 4mm, or other scales?). 

 

Would you be interested in being part of it, Tony? If it were viable, who else would be good to show the more complex chassis-making methods? 

 

Anyone out there interested in buying a full-length chassis DVD?

 

I could ask manufacturers about possible sponsorship. 

I would be very interested.  Iain Rice's Wild Swan book on chassis building and Guy William's  locomotive building book are my favourites-so an ideal would be you taking us through the processes, and the kind of explanatory drawing that Rice and William's used-perhaps CGI?  I am sure it would sell very well.

[DougN]

The problem that I have always struck with Scratch building is accessing the plans of the real thing which are accurate. Can I suggest that if people are really interested in a scratchbuild they have a look at http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3837which is a scratch build with the West of Scotland area group. this might achieve what people are asking for. 

 

This is a little more interactive for modellers. You do have to be a member of the Scalefour to post though. 

[Tony Wright]

There are those who do not appreciate layouts where the stock is not out the box. 

 

I was exhibiting Hanging Hill at Woking, this posh bloke leans over the barrier and picks up a scratchbuilt BTH type 1 turns it over and with a plumb in his mouth says "Oh! Its not Hornby" and just plonks on the layout, not even on the tracks. He then walks off. All my mates were calling to him to come back, as I just stood there muttering " He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track. He didn't even put back on the track.............." I was taken away for a cup of tea.

 

There are some modellers who with very little kit building and lots of RTR can make a layout look wonderful. See Alan's Wencombe and Kingsbridge.

I think there's a bit more than 'very little kit building' on Alan's layout, especially with regard to the rolling stock. You're right though in saying that his layout looks wonderful. 

 

He, with his mates, is a regular visitor and they bring with them examples of their work. In Alan's case, the locos are RTR, beautifully altered/weathered/renumbered/renamed/etc, and, like his layout, are all his own work. That's more important than anything else to me - all his own work. The starting point might have been out of the box, but what's turned it into something special is a guy determined to have a go. 

 

Picking up a point made in another post, more and more as one goes to shows there is that sense of 'lots of things being the same' with regard to mainstream OO layouts. Having just acquired a Hornby J50 (why, I'm not sure), I wonder how many exhibition layouts will soon be running one (or two), even though they might not be really appropriate.

 

I've also been given a Heljan BTH Type 1 (what a superb model). Have people mistaken the ones you've scratch-built/modified for one of those?

 

Which brings me to a further point made by Headstock that the best modelling belies (nothing to do with tummies!) its origins. I have have to disagree to some extent with that. With some examples of the most brilliant modelling, you can't tell exactly how it's been made/derived; you're disbelief is entirely suspended.

 

Finally, and in defence of RTR to some extent, which is better - a well-weathered, sensitively altered/improved RTR model or a badly-built/finished kit/scratch-built equivalent?    

[Taz]

+1 for the chassis DVD please.

 

I have gained a great deal from the Right Track DVDs (thank you very much Tony). Although books can be a useful tool I have found you can't beat seeing someone actually demonstrating what you are trying to learn.

[Focalplane]

Currently following your thread, Tony, while waiting for a connection at Lyon Part-Dieu, using free wifi provided by SNCF. I arrived on an AVE originating from Barcelone a few minutes ago. Had an emergency stop in Lyon suburbs which I am sure didn't please the buffet car attendant too much.

 

Well, enough of my travels which will continue for some time yet. Your two DVDs on kit building certainly restarted my desire to take up railway modelling again. It may seem strange that one of the things I remember most is the trick of using a cocktail stick when soldering a brass nut onto a footplate. Works every time, though in Gauge 0 I have found a kebab stick to be a better option.

 

I would go one further than a chassis video and suggest one on scratch building. It is something I have not done very much of but would be a skill I would like to catch up on. And time being the essence once having taken the retirement decision, too much trial and error learning might not be the best plan.

[Headstock]

I think there's a bit more than 'very little kit building' on Alan's layout, especially with regard to the rolling stock. You're right though in saying that his layout looks wonderful. 

 

He, with his mates, is a regular visitor and they bring with them examples of their work. In Alan's case, the locos are RTR, beautifully altered/weathered/renumbered/renamed/etc, and, like his layout, are all his own work. That's more important than anything else to me - all his own work. The starting point might have been out of the box, but what's turned it into something special is a guy determined to have a go. 

 

Picking up a point made in another post, more and more as one goes to shows there is that sense of 'lots of things being the same' with regard to mainstream OO layouts. Having just acquired a Hornby J50 (why, I'm not sure), I wonder how many exhibition layouts will soon be running one (or two), even though they might not be really appropriate.

 

I've also been given a Heljan BTH Type 1 (what a superb model). Have people mistaken the ones you've scratch-built/modified for one of those?

 

Which brings me to a further point made by Headstock that the best modelling belies (nothing to do with tummies!) its origins. I have have to disagree to some extent with that. With some examples of the most brilliant modelling, you can't tell exactly how it's been made/derived; you're disbelief is entirely suspended.

 

Have a look at the scenic modelling here. This guy is a genius.

 

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/hms/Howe-350-cf/index.htm

 

Finally, and in defence of RTR to some extent, which is better - a well-weathered, sensitively altered/improved RTR model or a badly-built/finished kit/scratch-built equivalent?    

 

I don't think that anybody needs to defend RTR, nor is that a fair comparison. I may as well ask, which is better a badly weathered RTR model or a well built and finished kit/scratch- built equivalent. My point is that there is a bias in the types of stock that RTR manufactures produce. A layout that only relies on RTR is not representative of the real railway. I have given the example before of the humble general merchandise wagon, a type built in vast quantities by the big four. You will not see this type on model railways without resorting to kit building, even though it made up two thirds of the freight stock (excluding mineral wagons) on the railways for the majority of the steam era.

[Tony Wright]

Currently following your thread, Tony, while waiting for a connection at Lyon Part-Dieu, using free wifi provided by SNCF. I arrived on an AVE originating from Barcelone a few minutes ago. Had an emergency stop in Lyon suburbs which I am sure didn't please the buffet car attendant too much.

 

Well, enough of my travels which will continue for some time yet. Your two DVDs on kit building certainly restarted my desire to take up railway modelling again. It may seem strange that one of the things I remember most is the trick of using a cocktail stick when soldering a brass nut onto a footplate. Works every time, though in Gauge 0 I have found a kebab stick to be a better option.

 

I would go one further than a chassis video and suggest one on scratch building. It is something I have not done very much of but would be a skill I would like to catch up on. And time being the essence once having taken the retirement decision, too much trial and error learning might not be the best plan.

Happy travelling, Paul.

 

Your mentioning of the cocktail stick trick brought home to me how little (or nothing) I've 'invented' in the course of my modelling career. A friend showed me that dodge, mentioning that a friend had previously shown him. Just about everything shown on those DVDs in terms of technique was plagiarized from someone else (though plagiarize is, perhaps, a bit extreme, because I've never claimed them as my own ideas). It makes one wonder who thought of those methods/techniques first; somebody must have done. 

 

I suppose what I've done is looked at the works of others and read the works of others and worked out what suited me the most. Guy Williams' book on building locos has been mentioned. I found it all but incomprehensible for my needs, though the models Guy built were exquisite. Iain Rice's books have also been cited. Again, and probably because our approaches to loco construction are totally-opposite, they bamboozled me (I doubt if Iain has learnt anything from anything I've done, either). John Ahern's approach was much more up my street. I bought David Jenkinson's book on carriage construction, where he uses 'easy' in the title (surely a misnomer!) and, it too, was way above me. My point is that not everyone can learn from everyone else, despite the 'teachers' having an impeccable pedigree. As I said, I've just picked and chosen what suited my approach to model building the best. 

 

A scratch-building DVD? Possibly. 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

I think there's a bit more than 'very little kit building' on Alan's layout, especially with regard to the rolling stock. You're right though in saying that his layout looks wonderful. 

 

He, with his mates, is a regular visitor and they bring with them examples of their work. In Alan's case, the locos are RTR, beautifully altered/weathered/renumbered/renamed/etc, and, like his layout, are all his own work. That's more important than anything else to me - all his own work. The starting point might have been out of the box, but what's turned it into something special is a guy determined to have a go. 

 

Picking up a point made in another post, more and more as one goes to shows there is that sense of 'lots of things being the same' with regard to mainstream OO layouts. Having just acquired a Hornby J50 (why, I'm not sure), I wonder how many exhibition layouts will soon be running one (or two), even though they might not be really appropriate.

 

I've also been given a Heljan BTH Type 1 (what a superb model). Have people mistaken the ones you've scratch-built/modified for one of those?

 

Which brings me to a further point made by Headstock that the best modelling belies (nothing to do with tummies!) its origins. I have have to disagree to some extent with that. With some examples of the most brilliant modelling, you can't tell exactly how it's been made/derived; you're disbelief is entirely suspended.

 

Have a look at the scenic modelling here. This guy is a genius.

 

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/hms/Howe-350-cf/index.htm

 

Finally, and in defence of RTR to some extent, which is better - a well-weathered, sensitively altered/improved RTR model or a badly-built/finished kit/scratch-built equivalent?    

 

I don't think that anybody needs to defend RTR, nor is that a fair comparison. I may as well ask, which is better a badly weathered RTR model or a well built and finished kit/scratch- built equivalent. My point is that there is a bias in the types of stock that RTR manufactures produce. A layout that only relies on RTR is not representative of the real railway. I have given the example before of the humble general merchandise wagon, a type built in vast quantities by the big four. You will not see this type on model railways without resorting to kit building, even though it made up two thirds of the freight stock (excluding mineral wagons) on the railways for the majority of the steam era.

 

Why are you finding it necessary to use bold-type, Andrew? 

 

The last thing anyone wants is a 'shouting-match' to break out. 

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, but my point about sensitively-used RTR stuff does have validity and it is a fair comparison, especially for a person who might not have your considerable kit-building skills. As for your asking which is better between a dud RTR bit of stuff and a top-job kit-built item, surely that's fatuous, if I may be so bold.

 

Where have I ever said that a layout which only uses RTR stock is representative of a real railway? Never! Quite the opposite - I'm always banging the drum about the need for the making of things (and a concern that the making of things is diminishing).

 

The type of modelling you're pursuing is at the top end of what can be expected at any period in OO. Your work is of the highest quality, it's accurate and you certainly don't rely on RTR - you don't need to. You certainly don't need others to do your modelling for you, which is very laudable. However, my point was (perhaps it wasn't well made) that there can be merit in exploiting what RTR has to offer, especially if the considerable skills you possess are not possessed by others. Skills such as yours are rare, believe me.   

 

Finally, I have an apology. I'd misread your statement that the best modelling belies its origins, and my response was fatuous in the extreme. The best models do belie their origins to some extent, though not through telling any lies! 

 

Edited to correct a typo.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Why are you finding it necessary to use bold-type, Andrew? 

 

The last thing anyone wants is a 'shouting-match' to break out. 

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, but my point about sensitively-used RTR stuff does have validity and it is a fair comparison, especially for a person who might not have your considerable kit-building skills. As for your asking which is better between a dud RTR bit of stuff and a top-job kit-built item, surely that's fatuous, if I may be so bold.

 

Where have I ever said that a layout which only uses RTR stock is representative of a real railway? Never! Quite the opposite - I'm always banging the drum about the need for the making of things (and a concern that the making of things is diminishing).

 

The type of modelling you're pursuing is at the top end of what can be expected at any period in OO. Your work is of the highest quality, it's accurate and you certainly don't rely on RTR - you don't need to. You certainly don't need others to do your modelling for you, which is very laudable. However, my point was (perhaps it wasn't well made) that their can be merit in exploiting what RTR has to offer, especially if the considerable skills you possess are not possessed by others. Skills such as yours are rare, believe me.   

 

Sorry about that, i used bold type because I have seen other people do that when they type in the box rather then below it. My mistake, I thought it was some kind of website convention to distinguish one set of sentences from the original.

[coachmann]

David Jenkinsons coaches were works of art and the filigree of raised panelling a delight to the eye, not to mention his sculptured raised window bolections. But having built coaches myself in the then new medium of Plastikard in the early 1960's, I do know that his form of construction made sense and was not difficult......Merely time-consuming. I simply cannot believe an enthusiastic builder such as yourself Tony would find it beyond your skills. I painted all his 7mm coaches and I would say their weakest component was the wooden roof covered in paper. It did the job alright and there was nothing else at the time but as one would expect, the wood was unstable. We discussed roofs right at the start, as I was not keen on filling and stopping roofs knowing full well my cellulose would simply soak into the wood. One of us (I forget which) suggested covering it in paper to represent canvass. It worked but only after receiving umpteen coats of primer.

[bgman]

Having followed like many others and found there to be a certain divide regarding scratch building i would like to add my little take on some of the above postings if I may.

 

Like many young 'uns I started with the good old Tri-ang on a chipboard base. My first scenery was produced with flour/water paste and newspaper a la Blue Peter. During the night I heard the family cat come into my bedroom and start to eat the hills I'd made earlier !

Ah! Well at least she didn't find my cardboard wind deflectors I'd stuck to my locomotive !

 

Moving forward and moved to Oxfordshire I met with a certain Mr. Keyser in Banbury and purchased my first K's kit, an Abadare, which was of its time and I managed to get it to work. Visits to Howes in Broad St. Oxford revealed a new world of Mallard etched kits to me and yes I bought and built some coaches.

 

Next move, sunny Devon and wanted to get a chassis running better. Someone suggested calling some bloke by the name of Rice in Chagford ( not too far from where I live). I did so and rather than be encouraging in a way I wanted he suggested joining his class for model making at Okehampton college. I wasn't too keen at the time due to a young family and all that goes with it.

This made me even more determined to go it alone as with all the above ramblings and having achieved my goal eventually joined a local group. Guess who was involved ? Yep, Iain ! We've been friends for about 20 years now prior to which I'd no idea who he was.

 

My point of all the ramblings is that it has been a journey from early childhood to date and I've taken the bull by the horns and done this alone. Reading many articles, watching DVD's and generally getting on with it in my own way. Yes, there have been lots of errors/problems and far too many expletives to mention but do you know what ? It hasn't put me off one bit and with or without help ( not that I'm advocating you shouldn't seek help ) I think it's made the hobby more enjoyable.

 

Here's my second scratch built loco now about 15 years old

 

 

Not the best but I'm happy with it. And the mock BG track base is mine too cast from my own rubber mould.

So, my point is, if you're determined enough to do something and set a goal which is within your capabilities, as mr. Nike says...... Just Do It !

 

Cheers

Grahame

Edited January 28, 2016 by bgman

[Tony Wright]

Sorry about that, i used bold type because I have seen other people do that when they type in the box rather then below it. My mistake, I thought it was some kind of website convention to distinguish one set of sentences from the original.

It might not be your mistake. It's just that I was told that on websites bold type (especially in capital letters) was tantamount to shouting. Thus, since no one is more ignorant of website conventions than I am, who knows? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[jwealleans]

Typing in block capitals is considered shouting.  Use of bold as Andrew did is more commonly to make text stand out or to differentiate comments (colour is also used for this).  Context is always crucial, of course and no rule is completely applicable.

 

I'm going to throw the word 'Netiquette' in here, Tony, just so I can imagine the look of disgust on your face as you read it.  The Academie Francaise would never allow such monstrosities in their language.

[Focalplane]

I am sorry to report that the Acadamie Française has lost a lot of its clout. Vis à vis, Le Weekend.

 

Continuing my journey, the double decker TGV from Lyon to Lille had to be replaced by a single level Reseau. So I had the choice of sitting on the roof or clawing my way inside. I did the latter. To be fair I did receive an email from SNCF which advised me of the potential problem. So I was ready for the fray and obtained a seat.

 

I know Tony says he doesn't read kit instructions but to pass the time I have been going through the detailed (on line and downloadable) instructions for my next locomotive build. Good reading at 300kph until the gentle rocking lulled me to sleep.

[glo41f]

I am glad that I am not the only one to find that following David Jenkinson's techniques for building coaches rather difficult. I found it so hard to get all the windows cut in the same plane and in 7mm the sides came out very large (more than a standard sheet of plasticard)  As to cutting the "doily" for the panelling well, this was the way to the asylum. The process could be made so much easier now by using laser cutting and there is an outfit called AMD who are doing just that. Makes it so easy.I do find though that there is as much time in making a coach as there is a loco so prefer to use RTR coaches where they are available.

 

En passant, you chaps are putting some cracking pictures on this thread. There are some mighty talented folk hereabouts.

 

Martin Long

Stationmaster Happisburgh

[Barry Ten]

Speaking of David Jenkinson, and carriage building.... was anyone else of the right age to be strongly influenced by this book?

 

 

Apart from the fact that there's an explanation of DJ's plastic coach construction technique in one of the chapters, so much else was useful and inspirational, from the basics of loco kit building, to articles on Denny's Buckingham and the early P4 layout Heckmondwike, among others. On the inside pages, there's a fine close-up of Guy Williams' King on the viaduct at Pendon's Dartmoor scence, and comparing that beautiful King with my Lima effort was one of the first nudges I had in the direction of trying to make an existing RTR model better, by adding plastic brake gear (which fell off five minutes later, but never mind). I must have been 15 at the time but it was a real eye-opener, and in a way set me on the path to all the modelling I've done since.

 

This book must have been popular at the time as I got given it twice - I think I gave the spare copy away to a friend.

[corneliuslundie]

"Anyone out there interested in buying a full-length chassis-making DVD?"

 

Yes, please if it is as relevant to EM as to OO. In fact such a product might encourage more modellers to move to the more accurate gauges.

 

I am quite happy producing scratch built buildings and goods stock, even the odd (in more ways than one) passenger vehicle, as well as most genres of rolling stock kit, but loco kit building gives me the shivers because of the much greater amount of money involved in each project.

 

That said, if an RTR vehicle exists (rare with the periods and prototypes I favour) I will use it but not as it came out of the box. It will almost certainly get a coat of paint and new transfers, as well as some detailing as appropriate. And kits for scenery items are fair game, but if and only if they are appropriate.

 

En passant, one of the reasons I don't use the quote function is that I am never sure of the etiquette. I just copy and paste as above.

 

BTW, how may of you 'purists' (in quotes because i can't think of a better word but it is not the right one, and not meant to sound snobbish) carve their own figures from solid metal?

 

Jonathan